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.
symbols of his Body § 2 The Second Opinion goes beyond this or at least seems so for I must confess I do not well understand it 2. Real Presence aliquo modo and we shall look more into it anon and affirms a real Presence of Christs Body not only in its vertue but in its very substance but in this not after a natural or carnal but spiritual manner not to all 1 but only to the worthy Receivers To them i.e. to their Souls and Spirits by the susception of Faith and not to their Mouth or their Body Again to them but not to the symbols at all or if in some sense to these as Mr. Hooker l. 5. s 67. saith they really exhibit but not contain in them that which with or by them God bestoweth yet not ante usum or before the act of Receiving Neque enim mortis tantum resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit saith Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.24 and these following quotations are found in his Instit l. 4. c. 17. But how these high expressions where he opposes the Zuinglians agree with those diminutive where he opposes the Lutheran and Romanist I know not Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos Spiritus modo participes faciunt praeterita carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dicta forent carnem ejus vere esse cibum c. non habere vitam nisi qui carnem illam manducaverit c. Quoe omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin totus Christus Spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat Then quoting Eph. 5.30 he saith Apostolus sermonem exclamatione finit magnum inquit istud arcanum ver 32. Extremae ergo dementiae fuerit nullam communionem agnoscere cum carne sanguine Domini quam tantam esse declarat Apostolus ut eam admirari quam explicare malit nullum locum relinquo huic cavillo quasi dum fide percipi Christum dico intelligentia duntaxat velim concipi Manducatio non est fides sed ex fide consequitur panem quem frangimus communio est c. neque est quod objiciat quisque figuratam esse locutionem Hoc est Corpus Meum rem significatam vere exhibet Facti participes substantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione And of the Lutherans he saith Si ita sensum suum explicarent dum panis porrigitur annexam esse exhibitionem corporis quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas non valde pugnarem § 24. In answer to those who objected Se rationi humanae ita addictum esse ut nihilo plus tribuat Dei potentiae in the matter of the Eucharist quam naturae ordo patitur dictat communis sensus he saith Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior vel naturae legibus subjicio Humanae rationi nihilo magis placebit that which he affirms penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit alimentum-In his paucis verbis i. e. of the Doctrine of the Eucharist as he states it qui non sentit multa subesse miracula plusquam stupidus est quando nihil magis incredibile quod res toto coeli terrae spatio dissitas ac rimotas in tanta locorum distantia non tantum conjungi sed uniri ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi See the place in him Porro de modo si quis me interroget fateri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat I cannot but ask here tho I digress seeing this great Doctor of the Reformation in such a good mood what if any should say Christs Body presently after Consecration is with the Symbols after the same inexplicative and miraculous manner as he makes it with the Soul and so together with them is receiv'd from the Priest See what he himself saith favourable to this in that place quoted before Si ita sensum suum c. quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas And § 33. Atque haec est Sacramenti integritas quam violare totus mundus non potest carnem sanguinem Christi non minus vere dar◠indignis quam electis Dei fidelibus simul tamen verum est non secus atque pluvia super duram rupem decidens effluit c. And before Aliud est offerri aliud recipi I ask Are the Bread and Christ's Body offer'd apart Why not together And if they be together when Offer'd why not together before What can he reply from any argument of Sense or Reason against it Will he plead a possibility of Christ's Body being really present to one definite substance in such a place namely the Soul and an impossibility of its presence to another substance the Bread or Wine Or himself thus granting it in general present after an inexplicative or inconceivable manner if any other should name some particular way unexplicative i. e. fully how can he possibly disprove it by any way of Reason since he grants this matter above it now 't is granted by him above it because implying in it something which to Reason seems but which is not contradictory but only by God's Word and plain Revelation As for example If he can shew the Scriptures somewhere to say That Christ's Body is there present but not join'd with the Signs 2 I might add to these of Calvin 2 the Confession of Beza and others when they were desirous to accord the matter with the Lutherans which you will find quoted by Bishop Forbes Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 13. related by Hospin Hist. Sacram. parte altera p. 251. Fatemur in Caena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii Hominis substantiam ipsam inquit veram carnem c. verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo representari exhiberi applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i.e. verum corpus verus sanguis Domini cum symbolis copulatur dicimus esse symbolicum sive sacramentalem sacramentalem autem modum vocamus non qui sit sigurativus duntaxat sed qui vere certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet offert nempe quod paulo ante diximus verum corpus sanguinem Christi ut appareat nos ipsius corporis sanguinis Christi praesentiam
4th saith Hic panis per conversionem est or fit corpus meum or hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus meum the one holding the substance of the bread to be transient the other permanent § V But first here note 1. That both this third and fourth opinion hold an oral reception Observations touching These opinions by all communicants even the unworthy according to 1 Cor. 11.27 29. of the very body and blood of Christ tho by the last not at all to their benefit but greater condemnation Which I note here to shew that no complaint upon this account can be raised against the fourth opinion Obs 1 which may not be as justly against the third § VI 2. Note 2ly concerning the 4th opinion that tho it makes the whole compositum ex materia forma to be changed Obs 2 yet not so the whole aggregatum ex subjecto accidente 1 and tho it makes the thing signified really present yet it as well as the other opinions allows a sign not only of the inward grace and spiritual nourishment of the soul obtained thereby but also of Christ's body remaining after consecration distinct from the thing signified namely all that of the bread and wine which is perceived by sense But so that under this sign is contained the thing signified it being figura non nuda sed veritati suae substantiae conjuncta signum rei praesentis sed rei invisibilis lest any should think the sign needless Hence the Church-hymn allow'd and recommended by Dr. Taylor p. 331. Sub duabus speciebus signis tantum non rebus latent res eximiae Conc. Trid. 13. sess 3. c. saith Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis ut sit symbolum rei sacrae visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae by which forma visibilis as Bell. expounds it 4. l. 6. c. is meant the species of the elements not the body of Christ So Bell. Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species panis vini sunt signa corporis sanguinis Christi ibi revera existentium and 3. l. 22. c. Accidentia remanent quia si etiam accidentia abessent nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile proinde nullum esset Sacramentum So Estius Eucharistia constat ex pane tanquam materia quadam partim transeunte partim remanente transeunte quidem secundum substantiam remanente vero secundum accidentia in quibus tota substantiae vis operatio nihilominus perseverat Hence they allow of that expression of Irenaeus where he saith Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus terrena coelesti compositam esse and S. Gregory's In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari terrena coelestibus jungi unum ex visibilibus invisibilibus fieri 2 Nay further they allow that these appurtenances of bread may have in some sense in reference to former matter contained under them and in as much as still substantiae ipsius omnem operationem retinent and have often had the name of the substance granting them to be called so after consecration by the Fathers hence they reject not that expression of St. Austin Panem consumi comedendo by the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.26 27 nay by our Saviour Mat. 26.29 Mar. 14.25 Of these signs they predicate many things which they allow by no means to be said of Christ's body and ordinarily the same things of these accidents of bread which the 3d. opinion saith of the substance See Blondel acknowledging this p. 215. so sapere digeri nutrire comfortare corporaliter c they apply to these accidents affirming singulari miraculo tam operationes panis c quam proprietates subsistere conservari absque natura And to Theodoret and some other Fathers that say after consecration the nature of Bread remains they grant thus far naturales vires proprietates remanere and think this sufficiently clears the Fathers meaning Now what is this but tantum non to affirm consubstantiation and close in with the 3d. opinion which methinks much reflects upon those who very charitable to the one maintain so great a feud against the other So frangi dentibus digeri comburi rodi a brutis animalibus and whatever other things may be nam'd excepting only those attributes which indicate the presence of Christ's Body to or with the species whilst integrae all or at least the more modest of them no Council having decided any thing in this matter apply only to the accidents not to Christ's Body Bellarmin who bolder than some others useth some expressions of Christ's Body being capable of such things per accidens improprie in specie aliena saith Christus vere in Sacramento existit sed nullo modo laedi potest non cadit in terram non teritur non roditur non putrescit non crematur illa enim in speciebus istis recipiuntur sed Christum non afficiunt licet species ipsae sint conjunctae cum Christo Euch. l. 3. c. 10. and the conclusion of that Chapter is in propria specie Christus haec pati non potest And good reason to say this because these accidents are held ad suppositum Christi non pertinere neque in illo inhaerere see Estius Sent. 4. Dist. 9. Sect. 3. Ob. 4. and Bishop Forbes de Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s 9. Now in affirming of Christ's Presence to them in some abuses of these Signs tho since his Body is voluntarily present sine ulla sui laesione desinit esse sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat whether it may not in such cases be withdrawn I think none can say and the Roman Doctors are divided about it See Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s 9. Blon p. 212. yet I see no great cause of offence since as the Cardinal well saith in the same Chapter ipsa divinitas nonne ubique est praesens tamen non sordescit in sordibus non crematur in flammis nec putrescit in putrescentibus rebus 3 Again 3 as these species are acknowledged by them Signs of the Body in one sense present so of the Body in another acception or mode not present namely a Memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ as it was broken and shed upon the Cross Signa corporis Christi ut sacramentaliter praesentis signa Corporis Christi ut in cruce immolati Thus they are called a Memorial or a Representation of the Passion in the Scripture-phrase see 1 Cor. 11.25 26. and therefore may be also in the Church's In which respect also the Fourth Opinion allows the name of type antitype similitude figure c. not only before but after Consecration proper to them Veteres quando hoc sacramentum dicunt signum esse figuram non negant ibi esse verum Christi corpus sed intelligunt non ibi esse in propria specie sc ut conversans in mundo patiens in cruce Nay yet farther they
say ipsum corpus sanguis Domini ut sunt sub illis speciebus signa sunt ejusdem corporis sanguinis ut fuerunt in cruce For Eucharistiam take it for the signum signatum which signatum is invisible in the Eucharist both together they hold to be signum symbolum representationem memoriale typum c. mortis seu passionis Christi seu carnis sanguinis ut illa suffixa ille effusus est visibiliter in cruce For Corpus Christi ut sub speciebus panis being idem quoad substantiam but not idem quoad qualitatem nor eo modo in Eucharistia quo fuit in cruce non est vere sed representative corpus in cruce And this it is also by reason of the visible species since it self not perceivable cannot be representative 4 And this which they say here methinks seems not unreasonable by which also they accord many sayings of the Fathers which else would contradict what the same Fathers say in other places which Dr. Taylor p. 311. passeth over with saying 't is their fault or forgetfulness notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor hath said against it p. 317 c. where he first urgeth that idem non est simile Resp. but tho these are suppos'd idem in substance yet in all the qualities and modifications thereof as Dr. Taylor himself grants p. 20. the same Body to be crucified and eaten in several manners of being And what more ordinary than for a Body or Man at one time to be said to be like or unlike what he was at some other time Secondly If I well understand him he urges the absurdity of making an invisible and glorified Body the sign of a visible and humbled Resp But they making the Body as in the Eucharist a sign or representment of it as upon the Cross do not divide or abstract it from the species of Bread as he doth for indeed how can a thing invisible be a sign in respect of Men who discern all by their Senses and indeed none can know when such a sign is or is not but say Corpus as Sacramentally present sub illis speciebus is a sign or symbol of it as it was once upon the Cross Secondly Tho they say the Body in the Sacrament is the same with that glorified yet is it not in the Sacrament but only in Heaven as glorified see Dr. Taylor p. 20. Now I say why not as well the manner several from what it is in Heaven as from what it was on the Cross But however this be concerning the Body of Christ being a type figure or symbol of it self I think the fourth Opinion is no more necessitated in answer to the Fathers to affirm any such thing than the second or the third since these expressions of the Fathers are in shew arguments and are so used by the first Opinion against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament see Dr. Taylor p. 319. The Sacramental Body is a figure and type of the Real which Real Presence both the 2d and 3d. Opinions maintain And if here you say they are good arguments against real Presence with the Signs but not with the Receiver This seems to me to be said gratis and without reason since the real Body is no less invisible if with the Signs than if with the Receiver only and we usually say that something we see is a Sign of the Presence of another thing we see not tho they be both together as Breathing is a Sign of Life Smoke of Fire present tho not seen the same may be said of Similitude as a Vizard resembling a Face may be truly said a Similitude when the Face is under it 5. But if the 2 d. and third Opinions notwithstanding that both of them hold Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist ordinarily say of the Bread and Wine that they are Signs and Figures both of the Body as then present and also of it as it was formerly on the Cross and thus satisfy the Fathers tho the first Opinion denies they satisfie them the same thing saith the fourth Opinion of the species of the Bread and Wine remaining that they are symbols figures c. which species they affirm singulari miraculo to have as all the operations and proprieties so much more all the significations of the Bread and Wine And because Dr. Taylor instanceth in some sayings of St. Austin of the Sacrament being signum Corporis c. to which he disalloweth their answers and saith p. 310. That it is so evident that that Father was a Protestant in this Article that it were a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no man's mind in the world can be known Yet things I believe out of that Father will not be so clear for his side as is pretended if first he will grant that St. Austin held as much as himself doth or at least as others of the second Opinion Real Presence and secondly if such expressions as these which follow in St. Austin will prove that he held this real Presence of Christ's Body with the elements or signs namely that saying Conf. l. 9. c. 13. Tantum memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit unde ex quo altari sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis qua triumphatus est hostis c. and that saying Conf. 9. l. 12. c. where he saith of the consecrated elements or Eucharist cum offeretur pro ea posito cadavere juxta sepulchrum sacrificium pretii nostri which he saith of the Eucharist before communicating but surely would not say but of Christ's body not of bare bread And that saying contra adversarium Legis Prophet 2. l. 9. c. where writing against an Heretick that denied and urged many absurdities in the Old Testament he saith Eat plane iste retro cum suis similibus sociis qui dixerunt Durus est hic sermo c. Jo. 6. Nos autem audiamus intelligamus duo Testamenta in duobus filiis Abrahae c. Sicut Mediatorem Dei hominum hominem Christum Jesum dantem carnem suam nobis manducandam sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus quamvis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere And elsewhere Adhuc in Sacramento spes est quo in hoc tempore i.e. till the day of judgment consociatur Ecclesia quamdiu bibitur quod de Christi latere manavit Contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. See the places quoted p. concerning Christ's body received also by the wicked Lastly that saying in comment Psal 98. with the Reformed 99. upon those words 5. ver Adorate scabellum ejus which we translate Worship at his footstool where alluding to terra scabellum pedum meorum Isa 66. he goes on Invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra scabellum pedum ejus suscepit enim
hold the Principle and utterly deny and renounce such a Consequent of their error he saith none ought to impose or impute such a Consequence unto them or for it separate from their Communion Neither may one then impose upon the Fourth Opinion the Consequential Contradictons or Absurdities thereof or for these Desert their Communion But of this Rule of Daille's more anon when we come to Adoration § IX 5. Note in the fifth place for the Third and Fourth Opinion That Obs 5 since they affirm from pretended sense of Scriptures such as Mat. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 11.27 29. Eph. 5.30 32 1 c. whether that which is oppos'd to qualifie these Texts 1 Cor. 11.27 28. be taken only for all the sensibilia of Bread as the Fourth or also for the substance of Bread remaining together with Christ's Body as the Third Opinion will have it the Mystery of the Sacrament to be Miraculous and Supernatural and Incomprehensible which also the Second Opinion pretends to hold no Arguments drawn from Sense or natural Reason or also from any Rules of Contradiction can be of any force to confute them 2 For first for the matter of Sense they affirm it not to be deceiv'd at all but truly to discern its proper object every thing sensible in the Eucharist remaining after Consecration as before it and the Presence of Christ's Body whatever it is there being invisible intangible c. As for that Argument ordinarily made against the Fourth Opinion from the position of the Accidents which are discern'd by sense to the position of the Substance which in the ordinary course of Nature they accompany as It hath the usual colour taste c. of Bread therefore it is Bread 't is granted good where intervenes no supernatural or miraculous effect reveal'd unto us by the Scriptures Good therefore was that Argument of our Saviours Lu. 24.39 Handle one and see c. And that of the Apostle 1 Jo. 1.1 That which we have heard which we have seen c. Good that of the Fathers from these and such-like places against the Marcionites to prove Christ had no phantastical but a true Body and Good still tho the Marcionites had pretended a Miracle because such pretended Miracle was not provable from Scripture but the plain contrary as appears in the forequoted Texts But such Argument were not good if one should argue from the outward appearance touch c. that the Angels that came and talk'd and eat and drank with Abraham and also led Lot out of Sodom were Men because the Scripture hath told us they were Angels In which cases it consists well notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 169. with the Justice and Goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our Senses or our Reason whenever he makes known to us such Mysteries contrary to the ordinary experience of Nature 3 But then you will say the Scripture hath reveal'd unto us no miraculous or supernatural effect in the Eucharist and therefore an Argument from our Senses here stands good The Third and Fourth Opinion contend mainly that it hath You see then till this is decided of which anon no Argument from Senses is to be heard and after this is clear'd it needs not be urg'd The same which is said of Arguments from Sense may be said of Arguments from seeming Contradiction For tho this Proposition be willingly granted That whatever truly contradicts cannot be effected Potentia Divina not naturally nor supernaturally so that there is no place of pleading to make two contradictories good by urging Miracle Yet this general Rule is utterly useless to us in any particular Controversie unless we know first what things truly contradict Now a contradiction is only when the same thing is denied of or removed from it self as this a Man is not a Man or this a Man is white and not white where the formal contradiction being resolv'd is whiteness is not whiteness Now such plain apparent contradictions none having the use of Reason will make or maintain it being one of the primest principles of Reason Impossible est idem esse non esse Therefore where we find Contradictions in terminis a thing not unusual with Orators to make the acuter expression these terms are taken in several senses by those who propose them one term not signifying the formal essence of the thing So those Contradictions in terminis observ'd by Dr. Taylor p. 14 15. to the Roman party as corpus incorporeum cruor incruentus if the terms be took in several acceptations will be no formal Contradictions as if cruor be taken for the substance of Blood incruentus for the colour and other accidents usually accompanying but as the Proponents suppose possibly separable from the substance So if corpus be taken for the substance of a Body and incorporeum for extension in a place c. which the Proponents conceive not essential but accidental to a Body else if corpus incorporeum taken in any sense be a Contradiction so will the Apostle's corpus spirituale be for in the predicament of substance incorporeum and spirituale are made the same 4 But tho not plain and formal Contradictions yet virtual I grant many may and do make whilst they take those things to be diverse which are the same as if quantum or extensum be the same with corpus or rather extensio with corporeitas as Rivet affirms it is but the Romanist denies then corpus non-extensum will be a Contradiction To know then what truly contradicts and so is Potentia Divina unfaisible or unseparable we must know exactly what things are the same what different 1. First we must perfectly discern all the accidents of any thing from the essence of it not only what accidents are ordinarily separated for this will have no place where a supernatural effect is urged but what are potentia divina separable For that all things separable are actually in the course of nature separated or that every thing not essential is sometimes locally disjoyned from the essence or that nothing can be done by miracle which nature never worketh who can justify Now by what means any can know this I much wonder 2. Secondly since the Essence also of all creatures is composit not simple we must discern all the parts of its essence one from another and then know in which of those essentials or constitutives the essence of the thing more chiefly consists so that this removed the name of the thing can be no longer retained For note that a thing may be said to be the same still even tho some part of the essence thereof be changed or removed if that wherein it more formally consists still abides as a man or a ship is still the same tho much of the matter of both of them be altered Now if these things no man can exactly know then to say all things are possible to God except what contradicts is as much as to say Every
theirs seem not so suitable to such a meaning and may easily cause a mistake in the unwary reader and why they use them I cannot tell unless it be to imitate the phrase of the words of Institution and also of the Fathers See Dr. Tailor p. 7. After the Minister hath consecrated the bread and the wine the Symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ in a Spiritual real manner May we then say that the Baptismal water after prayers c is changed into the Spirit in a spiritual real manner because that is an instrument upon using of which the Holy Spirit is conferred So p. 21. The question is not whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood or no for it is granted but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or natural and bodily c. So p. 265.266 Before consecration it is meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh and truly his blood Yet if we enquire how he means that the bread is so surely he means only this that upon receiving or at the same time that we receive the bread suffering only an accidental mutation as he calls it of condition of sanctification and usage at the same time Christ's real body is received but not in or joyned with the bread at all by the faithful The expression is strangely differing methinks from the meaning thereof But especially see such full expressions in his Great Exemplar 3d. part disc 18. p. 109. in the former Edition sect 3. where amongst other things he saith It is hard to do so much violence to our sense as not to think it bread but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be Christ's body Again He that believes it to be bread and yet verily to be Christ's body is only tied also by implication to believe God's omnipotence that he who affirmed it can also verify it And if we profess we understand not the manner of this Mystery we say no more but that it is a mystery c. See the place Strange expressions when the thing required to be believed is this That Christ's body is no way present to the bread neither by the bread being any way changed into it nor joyned with it but only it given and present to the faithful upon the receit of this sanctified bread Now would any discourse of the waters of Baptism by which the Spirit is received on this manner It is hard to do so much violence to the sense as not to think it water but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be the Spirit c. Would not he rather explain himself that the one is not the other but the one received by God's free gift upon the receiving of the other § XVII After the real or substantial presence of Christ's body thus granted if I well understand them by the second opinion to the worthy receiver but denied to the symbols or signs Whether Antiquity affirmed Corporeal Presence and whether this to the worthy Receiver only or also to the Symbols upon consecration let our next Quaere be what may be the opinion of Antiquity which is of great moment with all obedient Sons of the Church in this matter Where supposing it granted by all that the Fathers also held the real presence as much as those of the second opinion do it remains only to be examined whether they held this real presence not only to the worthy receiver but also to the Symbols and that ante usum which if they did if their judgment is not to be submitted to at least their followers are to be excused § XVIII 1. And note here first before I proceed further That the aâ—guments usually urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Tâ—ansubstaâ—tiation disprove not theâ—â— hoâ—ding of a Corporal Presence at least after some other manner with the Symbols that I enquire here only after the tenent of the Ancients concerning a real or substantial Presence of Christ's body with the outward signs but whether they maintain it cum pane remanente or transeunte whether by Con or Tran-substantiation or whether some of them affirmed the one some the other for t is not necessary that either in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation they must all go one way or some also a several way from both I meddle not And indeed I am apt to believe in so high and difficult a mystery before such particular manners so punctually discussed and before the determination of any Council concerning them a likelihood of some variance in their opinions 2. And therefore when as some of their Testimonies affirm the nature of the Bread after Consecration to be chang'd Ambr. de Myst init c. 9. speaking of this Sacrament Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur i. e. miraculously Others the nature of the Bread after Consecration to remain still I can neither altogether embrace the Answer for making Antiquity unanimous of some Protestants to the first That by the change of Nature c. is meant only an accidental change of its now sanctified condition and usage for so we say urges Dr. Taylor p. 271. a man of a good nature i. e. disposition and that it is against our nature i. e. our custom and affection c. See the like concerning the word substance in Blondel in answer to a Latin Father p. 179. notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 324. nor the answers of some Romanists to the second that by the nature of Bread remaining is meant only the remaining of the natural accidents or the properties of Nature or species or natura exterior not interior substantia tho 't is always to be remember'd that the fourth Opinion in holding not only the outward appearance colour and figure of the Bread to remain but all other properties and sensibles thereof and besides these all the operations whatsoever which agree to the substance as corporally nourishing c. by miracle to remain to these accidents and that without any communication unto or dependance upon the Body of Christ but existent by themselves do indeed tantum non hold also the substance it self to remain see Obs 3. p. 24. and methinks differ too little from the third Opinion to make such an abhorrence as some Protestants entertain of the one in comparison of the other Neither will I justifie that Apology made by Bellarmin for such a forc'd interpretation see de Euch. l. 3. c. 24. concerning St. Austin and c. 27. concerning Theodoret namely because otherwise such a Father will be made repugnare apertissime Cyrillo Ambrosio Nysseno Epiphanio Chrysostomo c. his Cotemporaries or also his Masters For why may not some of them differ in something concerning the manner of so high a Mystery of which some of the acutest of the Roman Writers confess there was no manifest
Blondel p. 70. reckon'd amongst the Authors that hold the Elements to be chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ in his sixth Proposition This therefore at the least will amount to Consubstantiation like Theodoret's 3. Concerning that noted place of St. Ambrose De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. quoted by Dr. Taylor p. 306. the words are these Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut ea incipiant esse quae non erant he refers to Ipse dixit facta sunt quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Here the true natural meaning seems to be as Bellarmin observes ut quae erant sint answering to the former quae non erant incipiant esse i. e. ut quae erant maneant quamvis mutata As in another Treatise De Myster init c. 9. he saith non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas And in the same Chapter out of which the former Testimony is taken are also these words Panis iste panis est ante verba consecrationis ubi accesserit consecratio de pane sit caro Christi But suppose him to hold no change here of the substance of the Bread yet must he mean some real change effected by God's Omnipotence beyond the Bread's being chang'd from common to a sacred use and this such as puts the substantial presence of Christ's Body at least with the Bread since he supposeth a miraculous operation some-way upon Nature But this shall be clear'd more anon 4 That Saying of St. Austin's Sermon to the New-Baptiz'd recited by Fulgentius Baptism Aethiop lat cap. and Bede in 1 Cor. 10. Quod vidistis panis est calix quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi calix est sanguis In this later clause that at least the Body of Christ is affirm'd substantially present with the Bread see what I have said Observ 2. And consider also his moving the doubt in the same place since Christ was now ascended in Body into Heaven quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus where he answers ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in illis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem By which aliud intelligitur if he meant only the benefits of Christ's Body and Blood shed upon the Cross which are receiv'd in the Sacrament surely he would have said est fructus spiritualis and not habet fructum c. but this word intelligitur non videtur is frequently used by him concerning Christ's Body tho present with the Sacrament because the symbols only and not It are present there to the sight or senses Tho we are to understand It to be there also as appears out of many other places of St. Austin quoted before 5 Let there be added to these those many quotations in Blondel c. 4. prop. 1 2 3. out of the Fathers and c. 21. out of the ancient Lyturgies and Missals of the Eucharist after Consecration call'd Bread and of something said of the signs or symbols not agreeable to Christ's Body As for this later since the Transubstantialists as well as the rest affirm symbols after Consecration distinct from the Body see Obs 2. I see not how it makes against any Opinion As for the former as long as it can be shew'd that the Fathers with that they call'd Bread hold a substantial presence some way or other of our Saviour's Body if the Answer of the Transubstantialists set down before misinterpret their meaning yet at the most such a term will but prove Consubstantiation which opposeth not our Position 6 As for that Proposition so usual in the Fathers that the Bread is Christs Body press'd by some Protestants as inconsistent not only with Trans but Con-substantiation and the words of Bellarmin quoted in this behalf by them Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Si Dominus ait hic panis est corpus meum necessario sequitur ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia si nimirum proprte panis materialis dicatur esse corpus Domini quod aperte implicat contradictionem aut panis sit corpus non proprie sed figurate quod volunt Calvinistae aut denique panis non manens panis sed benedictione mutatus sit corpus Domini quae est sententia Ecclesiae Catholicae Whereby it seems to follow That if the Fathers accord not in the sense of it with the Transubstantialist they must with the Calvinist and the Schoolmen also brought in to oppose it see Blondel p. 155. I answer this Proposition Hic panis est corpus meum as it is diversly explain'd seems proper enough to be used by any of the Three Opinions First by those who hold a substantial conversion for indeed at least some of those Fathers who use this phrase yet seem clearly to hold a substantial conversion as I shall shew anon and the same Fathers who say that the Bread is the Body of Christ say the Bread is so by a change for it may be interpreted thus Hic panis consecratus i. e. mutatus per consecrationem est Corpus Domini Panis denoting the former matter or the terminus a quo Such a Speech is not unordinary upon a sudden change see Exod. 7.12 where Aaron's Rod is said to devour the Magicians Rods Aaron's Rod i. e. turn'd into a Serpent devour'd c. See somewhat like this ver 19 20 21. where the Water already turn'd into Blood ver 20. notwithstanding is call'd Water afterward ver 21. And they could not drink of the Water of the River the Water i. e. now turn'd into Blood. See the like Joh. 2.9 And when the Ruler of the Feast-had tasted the Water that was made Wine i. e. had tasted the Wine made of the Water But more especially here may such a denomination be made than after other changes because there remains even in the Transubstantialists opinion still something namely all that which is any way sensible of the former substance But 2ly the same proposition may as well be used by those who hold a Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread still remaining not taken in such a sense whereof Bellarmin and the Schoolmen say that it plainly contradicts but in the more qualified and moderate sense set down § 3. As pointing at vessels filled with several liquors we ordinarily say This vessel is wine that beer c. or hic purpuratus est Rex So the proposition Sub hoc pane est corpus Christi into which the Lutheran resolves it is as remote from contradiction as the proposition sub specie hujus panis est c the resolution of the Transubstantialist 3ly The same proposition may bear only a figurative sense like that I am the vine or I am the door and
33. I proceed to confirm it And this 1. Their firming change of elements to Christ body First from that usual prayer in the consecration of these elements in all Liturgies and Missals of the antiquity of which anon ut Deus Spiritu suo dona sanctificet faciatque ea corpus sanguinem Filii sui Blondel p. 469 confesseth this phrase not only in the modern forms but in all the other ancient Liturgies c. 21. yet is this phrase laid aside in the forms of the Reformation Instead of which our English hath these words Hear us O Merciful Father and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine according to thy Son our Saviour's holy Institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood c. but no prayer that those elements may be made his body and blood And from those ordinary expressions in the Fathers whereby is signified not only the real body and blood of Christ to be received in the action or communication of the Sacrament but the bread and wine to be to be made to be changed into of them to be made Christ's body and blood not by the virtue of worthy receiving but by the virtue of the consecration preceding the receiving quae fit Dominicis verbis therefore these in no Liturgy omitted invocatione Divini nominis See many of these expressions in Blondel 4. c. 4 5 6 7 propos and Cassand consult art 10. The Fathers calling the Eucharist Christ's body when in altari when in manibus Sacerdotis hoc ipsum corpus Magi habuerunt in praesepi nos in altari illi in ulnis Mulieris nos in manibus Sacerdotis c. Chrysost which shews that what presence they held of Christ's body in the Sacrament they held it ante usum with the consecrated elements and not only with the worthy receiver These two expressions to be reverenced for antiquity I find in S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch An. Dom. 71. his Epistles I mean those Epistles free from the paraphrase allowed by Archbishop Usher and Dr. Hammond one in Ep. ad Philadelphicos Si quis schisma facientem sequitur regnum Dei non haereditat Stude igitur una Eucharistia uti una enim curo Domini nostri Jesu Christi unus calix in unionem sanguinis ipsius unum altare unus Episcopus cum Presbyteris c. the other in Ep. ad Smyrnaeos Quid enim juvat me quis si me laudat Dominum antem meum blasphemat non confitens ipsum carniferum who said also secundum videri ipsum passum esse before this afterward it follows ab Eucharistia oratione recedunt Theodoret dial 3. quotes it oblatione recedunt propter non confiteri Eucharistiam carnem esse Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi pro peccatis nostris passam quam benignitate Pater resuscitavit Contradicentes ergo huic dono Dei perscrutantes moriuntur conferens autem esset ipsis diligere ut resurgant Secondly From their affirming such a change of the elements as was miraculous miraculous in such a manner as that after the words of Consecration with made of or instead of the substance of the Bread c. is the substance of the Body of Christ that Body which was born of the B. Virgin Some of them at least affirming it such a change as that the substance or nature of Bread ceaseth to be and saying that our senses for this matter were not to be trusted in whom are found also some of the modern phrases of the Catholicks and Schoolmen I will set you down some of them Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum c. non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit Quare cum omni certitudine corpus sanguinem Christi sumamus Nam sub specie panis datur ibi corpus sub specie vini datur sanguis Cyril Hieros Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur natura i.e. of the Bread and Wine sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest is quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas Ambr. Sermo Christi immutat quando vult instituta naturae applied to the Eucharist as if something in Nature is there chang'd Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. Haec tribuit virtute benedictionis in corpus suum rerum quae videntur i.e. panis vini naturam mutans Greg. Nyss Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis verbo suo secreta potestate immutat Ante quam invocatione sui nominis consecretur substantia illic est panis vini post verbum autem Christi corpus sanguis est Christi Quid mirum autem si ea quae verbo creare potuit possit creata convertere c. Caesarius Arelat quoted by Blondel p. 69. Ne ergo consideres tanquam nudum panem nudum vinum est enim corpus sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gustu rem judices Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur a nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi c. Cyr. Hier. Carech 4. Mystag Here observe that the presence of Christ's Body is applied not only to the Receiver but to the Elements else why should the Fathers press the mistakes and errors of sense about the Elements For what Protestant warns his Scholars of a fallacy of their senses in the Eucharist Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 83. Credamus ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit quoniam ergo ille dixit Hoc est corpus meum c. Num vides panem num vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit ne cogites quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Chrys Hom. de Euch. in Encoeniis Forte dicas aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam quantis probamus exemplis c. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Ambr. Besides these methinks two passages in Dr. Taylors Book tho not urg'd by him to such a purpose one p. 320. of the Eutychians using this principle or argument now all proof proceeds a notiori ad minus notum that in the Sacrament the Bread was changed into Christ's Body to prove that so the Human Nature might be into the Divine And another p. 343. of Averroes his saying That the Christians Eat their God Do shew that a
hoc was exclusive to the qualities then accompanying it not to the substance Daille in his second Reply to Chaumont p. 45. saith c'est nous tenir pour des Enfans que de nous vouloir payer de telles desfaits But especially such interpretations seem more unreasonable from any of the second Opinion who hold the substantial Body of our Saviour not altogether absent in the Eucharist but most certainly present tho by a miraculous and ineffable manner to the worthy Receiver and therefore hold also a possibility of its being present with the Symbols and yet will force these plain expressions of the Fathers that de facto it is so to another sense But of whatever constructions these Speeches may be thought capable I think the miraculousness of the change of the Elements alledg'd by them and the Adoration of Christ as being with the Signs before Communicating practis'd of which more by and by will put the meaning of those phrases of the Ancients out of doubt In Answer to what is said from β meaning of those phrases of the Ancients to δ as a necessary reason of such interpretations I must intreat you to read over again what I have written in the second Observation p. 6 7 8 c. Where I have shew'd what little reason those of the second Opinion who hold a real presence have to move such an Objection p. 8. But secondly I think there it is sufficiently clear'd also that the expressions of the Symbols being a sign image type figure c. of the Body as then present with them or of the Symbols or Body it self then Sacramentally present being a type figure c. of the Body as it once suffer'd on the Cross do well consist with the substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament with the Symbols and with the miraculous and supernatural mutation which is affirm'd by the Fathers of those Symbols in part into that very Body In part I say for a total change of all that is visible or sensible of the Elements into the Body of Christ none affirm but that after Consecration still a sign remains distinct from the thing signified For this is willingly yeilded that what is chang'd into the Body can be said no longer a sign or symbol of it But yet supposing a total change two other Propositions may still be true 1. That those symbols after Consecration or that change are figures c. of Christ's Body 2. That after Consecration that body into which they are chang'd in that manner in which it is there existent is a figure c. of it self as after another manner once existent upon the Cross Hence take any of those Fathers who use the highest expressions concerning this mutation as Ambrose Chrysostom Greg. Nyssen c. yet do they as familiarly use the words also of sign sacrament figure c. in some of those senses above as any other Now since both these That of the Elements being chang'd into Christ's Body and that of their remaining signs as properly understood are no way incompatible The excuse of using some violence upon the one phrase namely that of mutation which Mr. Blondel confesseth p. 155 in appearance plus favorable a l'opinion de Rome to accord it with the other namely that of type and figure c. is taken away For to be figure or sign in respect of what remains unchang'd whether it be the substance of the Elements or only their properties or species well consists with a true change of the rest into Christ's Body if the species only remain or with a miraculous change of Christ's Body to be join'd with or contain'd in the Elements if the substance of them still remain But such a miraculous change into Christ's Body no way consists with the Elements being only a Sacrament or sign thereof without any real presence with them of that Body into which they are said by Omnipotency to be chang'd For now where is there any such miracle shew'd about the Symbols Where any mistake or mis-information of the sense beholding them And if any contend that they are call'd figures c. in some Texts of the Fathers with exclusion to the presence of Christ's Body Resp 'T is with exclusion not to any real presence of this Body as the second Opinion will grant who affirm it really present to the worthy Receiver nor to any real presence with the symbols but only to some manner of the presence thereof namely as It was when Crucified That this Answer may seem the more warrantable I refer you to Dr. Taylor p. 20. who there us'd it in another matter This of the Father's Language But the next Ages after the Fathers the Seventh and Eighth Age proceeded contrary to the Reformed in their judgment of the sence of Antiquity rejecting the words of Figure and Image as oppos'd to a real presence and abetting the miraculous change See Anastasius Damascen the Second Nicene Council in the East that of Francfort in the West following the former expressions of Nice as quoted in Blondel p. 365. Tho I suppose they deny'd not Figure and Image and real Presence taken in several respects well to consist together And indeed supposing that the Fathers were all of one mind in this obscure mystery and that they held all what the third or fourth Opinion pretends they did yet so many several things consider'd in the Sacrament Christ's Passion or his Body as on the Cross commemorated Christ's Body as present with the Signs offer'd as a Socrifice to the Father and then sed upon by the Communicants The Symbols mean-while only visible and nothing besides used in this sacred action as Signs Figures and Similitudes not only of Christ's Body as present in one manner but of It not present in another namely as it convers'd in the World and suffer'd for us these Symbols Offer'd likewise and Eaten as well as the Body must needs produce diversity of Expressions now looking one way now another according to the thing to which they relate the like variety to which I know not whether any other subject in the world is capable of In that place of Tertullian Figura corporis according to what is said before and in Obs 2. argues not that Tertullian held not verum corpus to be together with panis the Figure Which seems to be his opinion by his saying before fecit panem corpus suum which panis was in the Old Testament tho this much oppos'd by Marcion who deny'd the Old Testament and all the types and relations thereof to the New also as Tertullian shews presently after this a Figure of Christ's Body and by that phrase after non capit figuram and by his expressions elsewhere concerning it That ad uxorem l. 2. c. 5. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto i. e. the Eucharist ante omnem cibum gustes si sciverit panem non illum credit esse qui dicitur If this be an assertion and not as
many Councils called about it yet they differed not in their judgments but exactly agreed one with another and still condemned the same side without its finding a party tho smaller in any of them to patronize it § XLIV 2. Observe that there is granted a substantial presence of Christ's body with the symbols which as I have often said is the main business to be agreed upon by all these Authors and Councils All Councils since the 2d of Nice unanimously deciding corporal presence with the symbols before the Lateran Council so that tho some contest there may be between the Lutheran and Catholick about the perswasions of these times concerning Impanation and the remaining of bread in part at least after consecration yet none can there be between the Calvinist and Catholick concerning those times holding corporal presence with the symbols and consequently concerning Adoration for this the Calvinist must grant to be the judgment of these Writers and Councils above-named beginning at Nice until the Lateran 3. Observe that whereas Mr. Blondel in c. 16 19 20. p. 397 431 441 affirms both Damascen and Paschasius And that not by way of Impanation as Blon affirms of the former part of those times and the other Authors that held corporal presence till the beginning of the 12th Age and Councils till the Lateran not to have held Transubstantiation or substantial conversion of the elements but only a certain union or identity between them remaining still in their former substance and the natural body of Christ by the inhabitation of the Deity in or its assumption of them which he calls impanation There are many things which to this may be replied 1. If it were as he saith yet since it warrants the main business of corporal presence with the Symbols and Adoration what relief can Mr. Blondel's or the Protestant-cause receive thereby Again since such impanation differs very much from the Lutheran Consubstantiation see what Blondel confesseth to this purpose p. 436 and 400. And it is clear enough also from Paschasius his assertions set down by Blondel p. 423 which no Lutheran will subscribe to and it is a tenent if well consider'd much more absurd than that of substantial conversion or Transubstantiation which he saith succeeded it in these later times as it making Christ to have two bodies by union hypostatical one Carneum in his assuming humanity and another Panaceum in the Sacrament And these two bodies again identified by the same Person of the Deity present to both c. see it examin'd by Bellarmine as one Rupertus his opinion in the 12th Age and the absurdities thereof display'd in l. 3. de Euch. c. 11 15. I say that to prove such to have been the opinion of Antiquity which makes as much against Protestants as the present doth and is more incommodious than the present doth not only no way patronize their cause but also help to excuse their Adversary 2. Algerus one of Berengarius his Opposites in his first Book de Sacr. c. 6. calling it novam haeresin suo tempore exortam absurdissimam and there confessing it This argues it very unlikely to have been the common opinion until his Age as is affirm'd unless we will make him mistake the opinion of those Writers and Councils immediately before him 3. Tho Mr. Blondel doth not yet Dr. Taylor acknowledgeth concerning Paschasius in particular that he held and writ for a substantial change see p. 328. And comparing Mr. Blondel's quotations out of Paschasius p. 423 with those p. 432 I see not any thing brought to prove the contrary Bishop Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s 1. saith Bertram in his Preface clearly affirms that some in his time held that which is since call'd Transubstantiation Who could this be but Paschasius and others whom he opposed 4. Again The expressions of these Authors who are said to hold no substantial conversion of the bread c. are ordinarily such as these Damascen Panis vinumque per invocationem adventum Spiritus sancti supernaturaliter transmutantur in corpus sanguinem Christi non sunt duo sed unum idem Pasch Licet figura panis vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt see many more gather'd by Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. which it will be tedious here to set down Now these expressions shew them to have held a conversion or transmutation beyond Consubstantiation wherein the element becomes not locally join'd but the same with Christ's body and if perhaps they or some of them by such expressions should not have intended such a conversion of the bread as that nothing thereof should afterwards remain but a conversion into Christ's body only in Rupertus his sense quia per hypostaticam unionem fit corpus Christi as Bellarmin interprets him in his Recognitions yet it seems plain that they held beyond the tenent of the Lutherans such a physical change in the substance and nature thereof as that it could not afterward be truly call'd bread tho some diversity of phrase there might be in what no Council had yet so punctually decided 5. And this is more confirm'd by the Opinion of the Greek Church who if Damascen and the Nicene Council whom they follow held no conversion of the Bread in its nature or substance how come they to hold it and about Transubstantiation to nourish no difference at all with the Latins See the quotations before Surely in that Answer they gave to the Cardinal of Guise quoted in Blondel p. 400. where they say neither substance nor accidents of Bread to remain but all to be transelemented into the substance Divine some change they would intimate much divers from the Lutheran with whom they could not agree in this point and not much abhoring from the Roman Opinion excepting only that the Roman is the more moderate § XLVI As for comparison of Christ's presence in the Eucharist with that of the Incarnation and of the Divinity in such manner infusing it self into the Bread as once into our Nature found in these Authors as likewise in the Fathers either they meant only that the Bread in this infusion was turn'd by the Divine Omnipotence into the Lord's Body as the Catholick's say or something more gross if they held the Deity thus to contract a new hypostatical union with the Bread whereby it properly becomes his Body So that the crime that their posterity in this is accused of will be only that they are less absurd than their Ancestors Thus much for those Authors before the 12th Age. § XLVII Now that the Councils which were before the Lateran wherein Berengarius was Condemn'd understood a substantial conversion of the Bread in the Eucharist notwithstanding what Blondel saith c. 29. p. 439 c. I think is also plain enough In the Roman Council Assembled an 1078. wherein Berengarius last recanted the words are
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-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
in coena retinere defendere si quid nobis cum vere pits doctis fratribus controversiae est non de re ipsa sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat qui soli Deo cognitus est a nobis creditur disceptare c. Hold they not here the presence of Christ's body cum symbolis Lastly Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. sect affirms even of the Sacramentaries and the first opinion that those who read their books shall find that they grant the holy mysteries instrumentally both to make us partakers of that grace of that body and blood which was given for the life of the world and besides also to impart unto us in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Thus much now of the second opinion to which I shall return by and by § III The 3d. opinion goes yet farther than the second and moved by the expressions partly of Scriptures 3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation 't is said that Luther Epist ad Argentinenses acknowledges se valde propensum fuisse in eam sententiam quae in Eucharistia nihil praeter panem agnoscit conatum totis viribus hoc asserere sed non potuisse satisfacere Scripturis quae contra objiciebantur comparing Matt. 26.26 and 1 Cor. 11.24 c with 1 Cor. 11.26 27. eateth this bread partly also of the Fathers who many times also call it bread after consecration affirms a real presence of Christ's body with or under the signs meaning by them the substances of the bread and wine still remaining after consecration Making if we take the moderatest stating thereof for see what Cassander consult art 10 p. 81. quotes Melancthon and some others at some time before the reformed opinion to have held Asserimus cum Christo Domino corpus Christi non modo esse in cum sub pane sed quod panis sit corpus Christi ipsum itaque unum cum ipso praedicatione identica the meaning of hoc est corpus meum to be not hic panis manens adhuc panis ipse etiam est corpus meum but hoc quod continetur sub pane consecrato est corpus meum making the article hoc supponere confuse to use Bellarmin's termes pro eo quod continetur sub pane as the 4th opinion makes it supponere confuse pro eo quod continetur sub speciebus and to shew the understanding of those words Hoc est corpus meum after this manner to be very proper they exemplify in some like ordinary phrases So de dolio vini recte dicimus hoc est vinum speaking only of the thing contained so de marsupio pleno pecuniis recte dicitur hae sunt pecuniae so demonstrando vestes sub quibus est Petrus we say hoc or hic est Petrus Nam abstrahentium non est mendacium Now some hold this conjunction of Christ's body with the elements ante usum in mensa presently after consecration others perhaps the better to avoid pretences of adoration or of reservation of the Sacrament only in the use and act of receiving in ore fidelium Again some to make this presence seem more certain and more conceivable holding an ubiquity of Christ's body not only a presence then and there but always every where by reason of its hypostatical union to the ubiquitary Deity only lest we may say we receive it as well then in all other bread stating that tho it is ubique yet non posse ubique capi sed solum in ea re quam Christus ad hoc instituit § IV The fourth opinion yet transcends this except in the point of ubiquity and affirms the real presence of Christ's body with 4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation or under the signs meaning by them only the accidents or properties or all that is any way to be perceived by sight or any other sense of the bread and the wine which accidents they affirm still to remain but holding from the most proper sense as to them seems of the solemn words of the Institution Hoc est corpus meum c a Conversion of the substance of them into the body and blood of our Saviour conversio totius substantiae Conc. Trid. sess 13.4 c. Which seems to be so punctually expressed because of those who all held Christ's corporal presence some there were that held the substantial form of bread changed but not the matter others the matter but not the form others again that held no total substantial conversion of the bread at all but an impanation or hypostatical union of Christ with the bread whereby it became his body corpus Christi non carneum but panaceum such as there was with the humane nature in his incarnation saying panem a Christo fieri corpus suum non mutando vel destruendo panem sed assumendo ad personam suam Now this conversion of the substance was thought fit in latter times to be expressed by the word Transubstantiation as a diminutive to conversion For whereas conversion of the bread might be understood either of it with all its properties and accidents or only of the substance thereof and not of the rest therefore to express this distinctively the word Transubstantiation was used Primi authores hujus sententiae finxerunt conversionem physicam simplicem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi quam posteriores Romani Scholastici defendere ut possint manentibus accidentibus panis vini commenti sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Transubstantiationem Casp Peucerus hist pag. 527. Compare with Transubstantiation that expression of the Greeks in their answer to Claudius Cardinal of Guise Credimus panem in Christi corpus c ita mutari ut neque panis neque substantiae ipsius accidentia maneant sed in divinam substantiam transelemententur and Transubstantiation saith the least of the two But here note that tho Councils have defined a conversion of the whole substance yet since such a conversion there may be many several ways see those reckon'd up in Field Append. to 3. lib. 17. cap. the particular manner they have no way determined and the Roman Doctors remain in their opinions divided Fatemur saith Dr. Holden de resol fid 2. l. 4 c. hujusmodi supernaturalis conversionis substantialis modum nos penitus latere c. and Bellar. in his recognit lib. Euchar. after his discoursing of conversion adductive and productive c concludes Quicquid sit de modis loquendi illud tenendum est conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Domini esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem c. Whilst the third opinion therefore interprets our Saviour's words of the Institution thus Hic panis continet sub se corpus meum or hoc quod continetur sub pane est corpus meum the
Christus de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae accepit carnem quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit ipsam carnem jam manducandam nobis ad salutem dedit nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit inventum est quem-admodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domim ut non solum non peccemus adorando sed non adorando peccemus Which matter some think he borrowed from S. Ambrose upon the same Psalm and text de Spiritu Sancto 3. l. 12. c. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur per terram autem caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt Like to this are many other sayings of S. Austin Psal 48.33 21. And Ep. 120. ad Honorat 27. c. expounding that in 21. Psal 29. v. Manducaverunt adoraverunt omnes divites terrae he saith ipsi divites per divites terrae saith he before hoc loco superbi intelligendi sunt adducti sunt ad mensam Domini accipiunt de corpore sanguine ejus sed adorant tantum non etiam saturantur alluding to 26. v. edent pauperes i. e. humiles saith he saturabuntur quia non imitantur Here he saith the wicked do adorare that which they receive de mensa Domini but t is certain they may not adore any thing else however consecrated or sanctified or whatever it represent but only the real body and blood of Christ But of Aderation more fully afterward In which sayings of his we find the real body of Christ in mensa in altari in ore manducantium not only in corde in the oblation which was before communicating adored before manducation and therefore I think t is plain as S. Austin held with the second opinion the real presence of Christ so with the 3d and 4th opinion the real presence in mensa or Altari with the elements or the signs Now I say if these two things be granted once I do not see what thing that Father can say in any place of the bread and wine being symbols figures c of Christ's passion or of Christ's body that was crucified c which thing the 4th opinion may not say of the species of the bread or wine being so Thus much of the 2d note that the 4th opinion as well as the other after consecration makes a sign remaining and distinct from the thing signified of which signs many things are predicated which cannot be so of Christ's body § VII 3. Note 3ly in comparng the two last opinions together That some at least of the defenders of the 4th opinion reject the third as contrary to the Scripture and reason Obs 3 1. by supposing a sense in it which the third I mean the moderater party thereof doth not own whereas their sense well understood their difference seems not so great For thus Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 19. c. argues against it Hic panis triticeus non est corpus Domini but who is there saith it is fieri enim non potest ut una res non mutetur tamen fiat alia esset enim ipsa non esset ipsa but at last when he takes into consideration the instance whereby the third opinion explains it self that as of a barrel of wine we say Hoc est vinum so we say not of the bread but that contained under it Hoc est corpus Domini even as the fourth opinion saith Hoc est corpus Domini of that which is contained under the species of bread He hath little to say against their tenent in respect of the expression of Scripture or evidence of reason his arguments from which 3. l. 22. c. seem of little moment but see the end of 19. c. flies to this ward licet in verbis Domini esset aliqua ambiguitas tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Ecclesiae consensum Patrum And so do many of the Schoolmen see the quotations in Blondel de Euchar. 12. cap. and cocerning this proposition Potuisse Deum efficere ut in Sacramento vere adesset corpus Christi cum pane si hoc fecisset mysterium futurum fuisse facilius minus miraculorum in se continens Bellarmin saith Aliqui negant alii concedunt res ad fidem non pertinet i. e. of the possibility of this neque de eo est nobis cum haereticis controversia de Euchar. 3. l. 23. c. 2. Indeed the difference is not much when as one saith hoc est corpus meum quod continetur sub accidentibus panis the other hoc quod continetur sub substantia panis of which the former men grant a possibility and when as the fourth opinion denies panis to remain after consecration not because corpus Domini cannot possibly be sub pane which the third opinion affirms but because panis cannot be corpus Domini in which the third opinion agrees with them yet corpus Domini sub pane the fourth opinion admits not the better to accord with Antiquity who affirm the bread consecrated to be to be made to be changed into Christ's body which mutation of it into another they think cannot consist with its being the same as it was before but the bread remaining as formerly only Christ's body now with or under it tho it may be thought to suit well with the words of Institution yet they canceive agrees not so well with those expressions of the Fathers this interpretation arguing a change indeed about the bread but not a change indeed of the bread and perhaps I may say to follow the closer the words of Institution of which tho the Lutheran sense be not improper as is shewed in the former instances yet the sense that the fourth opinion gives of them tho perhaps encountring more difficulties seems more proper whilst in it the article Hoc no way includes or involves any other substance besides corpus meum As we may say it would also be yet more proper if the article Hoc no way involved any foreign accidents as in the sense of the fourth opinion it doth but those belonging to our Saviour's body So to say hoc est vinum is more proper when t is covered with no other substance or accidents but its own than when t is said so of it hid within a barrel or other vessel 3. Thus much of the distance between the third and fourth opinion As for some incommodious explications and expressions used by some of the third opinion as that of the ubiquity of the Manhood by reason of its union with the Deity with which the Lutheran opinion hath no need to defend its self against the Transubstantialist who grants a possibility of Christ's bodily presence and that of the bread's being properly called Christ's body in the words of Institution from the bread's being united with it because the
necessaria quae a Calvino illius â—â—quacibuâ— dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. _____ The same say the Socinians See Volkelius And I think Riveâ— in his controversies with Grotius is of the same opinion with the Remonstrants at least much differing from Dr. Tailor's for that saying of the Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest allowed in some sense by the Doctor he maintains to contradict Quia quod sacramentaliter praesens est saith he non est substantia sua praesens nec contra Animad p. 85. And again Examen p. 45. Si corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitative i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est corpus Indeed I have often wondred seeing that something more than they willingly grant seems necessarily to follow upon it why so many of the reformed writers remain not content with a virtual presence which is maintained by them to be sufficient for salvation but concur so much in asserting a real and substantial I guess not only the punctual and fixed expressions of the Scriptures as the words of Institution in so many relations thereof not only in the Gospels but in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians being so unvariably observed besides the expressions 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and the authority of the Fathers who so often call it tremendum mysterium and the stream of Tradition to have as it were necessitated them to it but also the authority of Calvin not a little to have moved them who was a great Leader to our reforming Fore-fathers Again him I suppose to be induced to it as from the former reasons so from a desire to reconcile several parties of the then early begun Reformation and to moderate and temper the former Lutheran and Zuinglian quarrel Of whom therefore Bishop Forbes observes Quod sua doctrina super hac re as it seems here also of the doctrine of others of this second opinion erat maxime incerta dubia atque lubrica Et dum nunc his nunc illis gratificari studuit haud pauca male sibi cohaerentia scripsit de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 6. sect § XVI Now to come to the second thing it s affirming or denying the real or substantial presence of Christ's body with the signs and that ante usum And this I think to be generally denied by the 2d opinion tho I see not with what reason they can deny a possibility thereof since they grant such a presence with the worthy receiver See Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. s. p. 359 The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament The Bread and the Cup are his Body and Blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and blood ensueth For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly or improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth This he speaks in behalf of the Scripture-expression saying of the elements This is my body and my blood because we receive by these instruments that which they are termed See Dr. Tailor p. 14. By spiritual we mean present to our Spirits only that is saith he so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or Spiritual susception Where to digress a little I wonder why he and some others so Dr. Hammond saith for our souls to be strengthened c quoted before do not say that Christ's body is substantially present to the bodies of worthy receivers as well as to the souls yet perhaps they deny it not for tho the body of Christ be only spiritually there yet may a spirit be present to a body for our souls spirits are so And we say in the Liturgy The Body of Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life And Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed thro his most precious blood c. And the Fathers therefore called the consecrated elements from their vivifical influence on the body according to Jo. 6. symbola resurrectionis See Grot. Annot. ad Cassand p. 21. Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia sed spem resurrectionis habentia Irenaeus Neither see I any reason for Rivet's expression Corpus Christi affiâ—it corpus per animam Nor for that of Dr. Tailor p. 131. if he means that the Soul receives Christ's body more immediately than the Body doth For tho without faith which is an act of the soul Christ's body is not received at least received profiteth not yet where faith is Christ's body is received as well and as immediately by our body as by our soul and nourisheth and vivifieth equally but spiritually both See what Bishop Forbes saith Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 27. s. Verum Christi corpus non tantum animae sed etiam corpori nostrâ— spiritualiter tamen hoc est non corporaliter exhibetur sane alâ—o ac diverso nobis propinquiori modo licet occulto quam per solam fidem Fides qua proprie Christi caro in Eucharistia spiritualiter hoc est incorporaliter manducatur non est ea sola qua Christus creditur mortuus pro peccatis nostris c ea enim fides praesupponitur c. sed ea fides est qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis Hoc est corpus meum Credere enim Christum ibi esse praesentem etiam carne vivificatrice desiderare eam sumere nimirum hoc est spiritualiter recte eam manducare in Eucharistia Sect. 25. Proinde male docetur a multis Protestantibus hanc praesentiam communicationem per fidem effici Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere apprehendere quam praestare Verbum Dei promissio cui fides nostra nititur praesentia reddit quae promittit non nostra fides T is not faith that confers Christ's body tho by the faithful it is only worthily or as they say only received but received equally and immediately both by the soul and body whether this body of Christ be disjoined from as they think or conjoined with the elements yet whilst this second opinion seems to hold no presence at all to or with the signs but to the receiver they only making the signs to be as well as I can understand them after consecration sanctified instruments upon receit of which by those who believe God gives the other the body and blood of his Son as also in Baptism upon receiving the water God gives the Spirit yet I say some other expressions of
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
partake more the virtue thereof than the only Spiritual receivers but of this more anon as also the wicked incur more judgment by their unworthy reception of it than were it only of the bare representative thereof they thus being in a higher manner rei corporis Christi in the Apostle's expression 1 Cor. 9. Now S. Austin means non manducant corpus Domini Spiritualiter But if it seem still to some S. Austin's opinion that the wicked do no way at all receive the very body but only the sacrament thereof as understood only as representing it Yet I see not with submission to better judgments that it must necessarily infer that he held not Christ's true body's being before present with the symbols and offered to the wicked but only it by ceasing to be there for his body is only voluntarily present and perhaps only in such cases as this may desinere ibi esse sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat not to be received at all by the wicked as many hold it not to be devoured together with the consecrated elements by beasts c neither in specie propria nor aliena See before And Estius gives it the place of an argument 4. sent 9. distinct 3. sect Peccator magis est Deo abominabilis quam animal brutum multo minus igitur peccator sumit Christi corpus To answer which he holds the opinion contrary to the others namely that a brutis animalibus etiam sumitur non secundum propriam speciem sed secundum species Sacramentales And see Dr. Field Append. to the 3d. book 17 18. c. quoting out of Waldensis Tom. 2. de Euchar. 19. c. That many who affirmed the bread to be changed into Christ's body yet held when unworthy men came to communicate the body and blood of Christ to cease to be present and when a wicked man is to receive it the substances of bread and wine to return c why might not S. Austin's conceit be the same To ϑ besides that two Councils not long after one in the East another in the West opposed that of Constantinople in this matter of the Sacrament see hereafter I can say only this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be taken in such a sense as that upon consecration the elements are not made divinum corpus or adoration not due to it For these two things that Council affirms as well as image and corpus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for this the Council of Nice that followed said of those Fathers of Constantinople that huc illucque se jactantes inconstantia minime firma omnia sua dogmata asserunt But why may not Image here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be opposed not to the verity of Christ's body in the Eucharist after some manner but only to its being there as formerly on earth that is after a natural manner for it is not in the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Eucharist so by other Fathers is called only an Image of it And why might not the Council of Nice mistake the sense of this Council in one point as well as Mr. Blond p. 411 grants that of Franckfort did misunderstand it in another To μ see what is said to γ To λ which seems more material than the rest with which I shall consider also χ their Reply to the 3d Consideration about Sacrifice First I say if there be found so much not only in the ancient Missals but those now used Concerning the Sacrifice of the Eucharist that makes against any substantial conversion of the elements into Christ's body and if the offering the Eucharist therein as a Sacrifice is only commemorative of that upon the Cross in which sense the Reformed also allow a Sacrifice without involving any special presence of Christ's body with the elements how comes it to pass that only the fourth opinion retains still the same forms for the things which are here objected that were used in St. Ambrose's days or if only used in the time of Gregory the Great yet then they grant there was yet no corruption in the doctrine concerning the Sacrament against whose modern tenents these formes make so much and that all the other three opinions have made new formes to themselves and rejected the old which they plead are so favourable unto them In doing which things Luther is said in the beginning of his book de abroganda Missa to object to himself Magnum est certe tot saeculorum consuetudini tantae multitudinis sensui tantorumque Authoritati reluctari Tu solus sapis totne errant universi tanta saecula erraverunt Again how can we more justifie their reverence to Antiquity than in this thing that they have not taken the boldness to correct or change or note in the daily and Publick Service what makes so much against their present opinions Now to come closer to the matter and to speak a little more fully 1. in answer to χ in what sense the Eucharist is now or was anciently used as a Sacrifice that that which follows may be more cleared by it and that you may see whether there may be so just cause for that clamor that is made against it as injurious and derogating from the Sacrifice upon the Cross § XXVI 1 First 'T is confess'd as by the Fathers The opinion of the Fathers concerning it so by those of the fourth Opinion That the Sacrifice made on the Cross is the only Sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away Sins and that there is no need of any more Sacrifice for Sin i. e. for making full satisfaction and paying the due debt for Sin that therefore the Sacrifice cannot nor need not to be iterated in this respect for then must Christ often have suffer'd c. see Heb. 9.25 26 28. see Heb. 10.10 12 14 18. That therefore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is no new or divers Sacrifice from that of the Cross no suplement or completement of it but only representative or commemorative of it applying see the manner more explain'd hereafter unto particular men the remission purchas'd thereby as also all other fruits and benefits thereof Which application as it is said to be obtain'd by Christ's present intercession now in Heaven by Faith by Prayer by the Sacraments c. in a several way without any suspition of a diminution or injury done thereby to the merits of the Passion so may it as safely be attributed to this continual Sacrifice of Christians the Eucharist For this see Conc. Trid. s. 22. c. 1. Dominum nostrum in coena novissima Dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibili sicut hominum natura exigit reliquisse sacrificium quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur ejusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret atque illius i. e. of the Sacrifice of the Cross salutaris virtus in remissionem
Ver. 44 45 46. p. 493 494. Yet more plainly from 1 Cor. 10.21 You cannot be partakers c. where these two Tables imply contrary Covenants now here the Table of Devils is so call'd because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to Devils see ver 20. whereby those that Eat thereof Eat of the Devil's Meat Therefore the Table of the Lord is likewise call'd his Table not because the Lord ordain'd it but because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to him in the same manner as the other of those Offer'd to the Devil p. 519. And therefore that he knows not why St. Paul Heb. 13.15 and St. Peter 1 Epist. 2.5 in the Sacrifices mention'd there may not be understood to speak of the solemn and publick Service of Christians wherein the Passion of Christ was Commemorated p. 487. 4. Lastly He allows all the benefits and effects whether propitiatory or impetratory by the Ancients attributed to this Sacrifice granting the Prayers of the Church to have been Offer'd to the Divine Majesty through Christ Commemorated in the Symbols of Bread and Wine as by a medium whereby to find acceptance and the representation of the Body of Christ in this Christian Service to have been rightly us'd as a Rite whereby to find Grace and Favour with God. Only the presence of Christ's real Body with the symbols in it he acknowledges not See p. 499 500 501. 5 The Fathers also affirm'd it to be and Offer'd it as a Saâ—rifice not only Eucharistical or Latrentical but also Expiatory or Propitiatory in the sense abovesaid for the Remission of Sins and Impetratory of all sorts of Benefits not only Spiritual but Temporal and both these for all persons according to their several capacities not only for those present receiving the Sacrament but for all those for whom this Oblation is made tho absent tho deceas'd In Euchristia sacramenti susceptio soli sumenti prodest ut autem est sacrificii consummatio prodest illis omnibus pro quibus oblatum est sacrificium For wherever they held Prayers beneficial they held this Oblation or Presentation to the Father of the Body and Blood and this solemn commemoration and repetition as it were of the precious Death of his dear Son for such persons much more as being the most effectual and moving kind of Petition that can be made to him And therefore remembrance of the absent or deceas'd at the Altar namely when this Sacrifice was Offer'd was more especially desir'd than in other ordinary Devotions Non ista mandavit nobis saith St. Austin of his Mother sed tantunmodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit Confess l. 9. c. 13. For this see if you please the Collections of Places in the Fathers in the Controvertists See Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 2 3. See the quotations set down before See all the Liturgies unanimously according in this Form Offerimus tibi pro peccatis pro omnibus Fidelibus vivis atque defunctis pro Ecclesia Catholica c. pro pace pro copia fructuum c. See Bishop Forb de Euch. l. 3. c. 2. s 12. Sacrificium autem hoc coenae non solum propitiatorium esse pro peccatorum quae nobis quotidie committuntur remissione c. sed etiam impetratorium omnis generis beneficiorum c. licet scripturae diserte expresse non dicant Patres tamen unanimi consensu scripturas sic intellexerunt c. Liturgiae omnes veteres c. s 15. Nos inre certa clara diutius immorari nolumus 6 Lastly See Dr. Taylor in his Great Exemplar p. 3. dise 18. on the Sacrament sect 7. There he says The Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament in both capacities the benefit next to infinite Whatsoever Christ did at the Institution the same he commanded the Church to do c. and Himself also doth the same things in Heaven for us c. There he sits an High-Priest continually and Offers still the same One perfect Sacrifice i. e. still represents it as having been once finish'd and consummate in order to perpetual and never-failing events And this also his Ministers do on Earth as all the effects of Grace were purchas'd for us on the Cross but are apply'd to us by Christ's intercession in Heaven so also they are promoted by acts of Duty c. that we by representing that Sacrifice may send up together with our Prayers an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation As Christ is a Priest in Heaven for ever and yet doth not Sacrifice himself afresh nor yet without a Sacrifice could he be a Priest but by a daily ministration and intercession represents his Sacrifice to God and offers himself as Sacrificed so he doth upon Earth by the Ministery of his Servants He is Offer'd to God i. e. he is by Prayers and the Sacrament represented or offer'd up to God as Sacrificed which in effect is applying of his Death to the present and future necessities of the Church c. It follows then that the Celebration of this Sacrifice be in its proportion an Instrument of applying of the proper Sacrifice to all the purposes which it first design'd It is ministerially and by application an instrument propitiatory it is Eucharistical it is an act of Homage and Adoration it is impetratory obtaining for the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice which is now apply'd c. And its profit is enlarg'd not only to the persons Celebrating but to all to whom they design it according to the nature of Sacrifices and Prayers and all such solemn Actions of Religion Thus much Dr. Taylor conformably to the judgment of the Church in all Ages and practice in her publick Liturgies See the same in Medes Diatrib upon Mal. 1.11 And 't is worth your labour to see the Alterations concerning this matter which have been lately made I suppose by some of the most prudent and learned Fathers of the English Church in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland tending much to the vindication of the use of the Eucharist by way of Sacrifice In the Prayer for the whole State of Christ's Church are put in these words We commend especially unto thy merciful Goodness the Congregation which is here Assembled in thy Name to Celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious Death and Sacrifice of thy Son c. Where and Sacrifice is added de novo But the rest of the words are found in the former Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. Again in the Prayer of Consecration whereas 't is said in all the former Liturgies to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious Death until his coming again 't is added here Death and Sacrifice until c. But chiefly after the Prayer of Consecration and before the administring of the Sacrament to the Communicants you may find interpos'd after the manner of the first Books of Edw. VI. a Prayer as it is there call'd of Oblation in which
very like him for him would not be so See Daille's reason for it in his fifth Concess Why then is the Transubstantialist an Idolater in his Account See c. 11. of his Apol. because l'erreur de ceux c. vient tout entiere de leur passion non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux Here therefore lies all the trial of their Idolatry Let this be disputed this judged of by indifferent persons For this let what is said before in this Paper be well consider'd and what shall be said by and by § XXXIII 1. For First Suppose they ground Adoration on real presence whatever becomes of Transubstantiation the mistake of this ground i. e. of real presence will be excusable in them for in the Lutherans it is so But suppose the ground of their Adoration be the Tenent of Transubstantiation yet after a granted possibility thereof the Tradition of Antiquity in Exposition of the Scriptures concerning the Eucharist so much favouring some way or other a substantial conversion and in after times when this point grew to a debate the Decision of Councils the first of which was before A.D. 800. Conc. Nic. 2. for such a conversion if in some of them not the same Transubstantiation yet as strange the reception of such Decisions by the succeeding Ages of the Church Universal Eastern Western till Luther's time and since his time the affirming still in general of a Corporal presence with the Symbols by a considerable Party of the Reformed I mean the Lutheran of the reasonable obligation of private Judgments to which Determinations and Practices of the Church in matters divine I have discoursed elsewhere These motives I say however Daille passeth over them in that 11. cap. with a light foot reducing all to a laseule authoritê du Pape de son Concile and Dr. Tailor the like p. 346. will sufficiently shew that their mistake is not un erreur qui vient tout entiere de leur passion non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux Surely no practice can be idolatry where is no malignant or heretical opinion of God or our Saviour but such corporal presence is not in Daille's nor Transubstantiation in many other Protestants opinion See before 2. Compare we this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialist with those mistakes mentioned in Daille's 5th concession which tho worshiping of the meer creature for Christ yet are excused by him from idolatry and we may find it no less excusable than they For tho this hath not the same reason drawn from sense i. e. a corporal similitude yet it hath another supposed strong enough to ground such practice upon i.e. divine revelation as interpreted by Ecclesiastical authority Tho indeed the mistake of the Transubstantialist is not so much as ones mistaking of a thing like Christ for Christ because he worships nothing visible at all nor any thing invisible wherein those accidents which he seeth do inhere but only supposeth Christ's body present where his sense can no way sufficiently inform him since salvis phaenomenis this presence is possible when it is absent 3. Lastly compare we this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialists with that of the Consubstantialists and I think we shall find no reason to accuse the one of flat idolatry whilst the other of inutility or vanity only or to charge the one with a bad consequent which they renounce of their erroneous tenent as that consequent is that they adore a piece of bread from that tenent of theirs that the bread is annihilated and Christ's Body instead thereof notwithstanding they hold the principle that no meer creature may be worshiped whilst we absolve the other from them as long as they cease to own them and hold the principle they oppose See Daille's 6th concession § XXXIV Thus far these two parties the Transubstantialist and Lutheran agree 1. That Christ is corporally present 2. That he may be worshiped 3. That no other object there but He may be worshiped not bread nor any other meer creature 4. That nothing visible in the Sacrament is He or his Body which is present only invisibly without any thing visible inhering or appertaining to it as the subject thereof They differ only about the manner of the presence of this invisible substance The one saith it is there together with the bread the other saith there instead of the bread and the bread away a thing also possible for any thing we know The one saith he is there under both the substance and accidents of the Bread the other there under the accidents only of the Bread. Now whilst both worship the same object in the same place and veiled with the same sensible accidents yet the one adoring him as being under the substance of Bread he not being there are freed from any Idolatry in such worship the other adoring him as being under the accidents of Bread he not being there are made idolaters Why so since they say and profess that if his Body be not there under those appearances but the same substance still under them which was formerly they confess it a creature and renounce all adoration of it Whereas therefore it is objected that the substance of bread only being in that place where they suppose Christ's Body and not any bread to be therefore in worshiping the thing in that place they worship bread this were a right charge if they affirmed that they worshiped the substance that is in that place under such accidents whatever it be but this none say but that they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christs Body and not bread and that for this supposition they have rational grounds Now saying that they worship it because it is so is saying if it be not so they intend no worship to it And this worship is like theirs which Bishop Andrews saith was rendred by some formerly out of fear of a some-way defective consecration Si es Christus te adoro Resp ad Apol. Bell. 1. c. Again whereas it is objected that a good intention excuseth not idolatry for so the Sun-worshippers suppose they held a Transubstantiation and thought Christ to be instead of the Sun and should say Si es Christus te adoro would be no idolaters this would be true were their good intention founded upon an excusable and unaffected ignorance But notwithstanding their intention and supposition it remains idolatry still not because whilst thinking to worship Christ there they de facto worship only what is the Sun but because they have no reasonable motive to imagin such a thing as that Christ is there and by consequence so to act upon it which the Transubstantialist pleads he hath This clearly appears in that should Christ be worshiped by them not as being instead of the substance but as being under the substance of the Sun idolaters still they would be yet none argue thence that the Lutheran in adoring Christ under the substance of the bread
4.14 and 7.38 39. where the Spirit signified in both places by water is declar'd to be the fountain of life eternal And now it is high time to leave of to tire you with a Discourse the more tedious because entangling it self with the Writings of so many others Now to conclude I pray the good Lord To preserve you or any other that reads it from being moved or perswaded by any thing erroneous therein And may he make the shame of any thing that is said amiss here by me tho he knows unwittingly yet I may not say innocently to fall upon me and open your Understanding to see all my Defects that so if this my Endeavour in this History of the Eucharist intended chiefly to make men tho of another perswasion yet more charitable at least to the Doctrine of our Forefathers which they have left can do no good it may do no hurt but that Truth may ever prosper prevail triumph Blessed be his holy Name for ever Amen FINIS Appendix I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the substantial Presence and Adoration of Our B. Saviour in the Eucharist asserted With a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject Publish'd at Oxford from the Exceptions of a Sacramentary Answer Printed at London I. THE former Part of the Answer Combating Transubstantiation is foreign to the Oxford Discourses treating of the Real Presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist Therefore tho liable to material exceptions such are false and perverted quotations long since detected and expos'd Romantick Stories impertinent if true fallacious Arguings and wretched Calumnies industriously contriv'd to deceive and incense the Populace yet It shall be neglected and our Animadversions commence at Part 2. c. 2. where the Minister's Reflections are professedly applied to the Treatises II. Pag. 44. l. 14. All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's invisible Power and Grace c. A Presence of Grace and Power only i. e a real absence of our Lord's body and blood from both the Eucharist and worthy Communicant was indeed profest by the Puritan Party which exclaimed against Archbishop Laud Bishop Mountague and others for maintaining a substantial Presence From whose Clamour and Impeachment these Learned Prelates vindicated themselves not by that easie and complete way of disowning the Doctrine and interpreting their Expressions and Sentiments to intend a presence of Grace and Power only which obvious Reply would have silenc'd if not appeased the Faction but by justifying their Tenet to be what the Church of England held and prescrib'd A presence of Grace only can import no more than a bestowing of Grace or benefits without the thing beneficial or gracious But that the Church of England by her Heads or eminentest Members from Q. Elizabeth's time to the Return of Char. II. own'd this Zuinglianism for her Faith is from no authentick act that I have perus'd yet evident 1. Not evident from the XXVIII Article tho the Answerer affirms so much For that Article neither does nor was intended to contain any thing inconsistent with a substantial Presence tho it condemns Transubstantiation To ratifie this I need alledge against this Minister a Witness no better qualified then Dr. Burnet because produc'd as very credible in this case by this Man in p. 58. who says it was thought to be enough to condemn in this Article Transubstantiation c. 2. Not evident from the Communion-Office as the same Historian relates Hist Ref. Part 2. p. 390. It was proposed to have the Communion-Book so contriv'd that it might not exclude the Belief of the Corporal Presence For the chief Design of the Queen's Council was to Unite the Nation in One Faith and the greater part of the Nation continued to believe such a Presence thereupon the Rubrick is left out And indeed had we not this uncontrolable testimony out of that very Author who would fain have been set up in Churches as the Old Fox's Monuments yet as much might be collected from the Office it self that no-where excludes the substance or limits the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ to Grace and Power which it must do before it can countenance the Answerer's tenet Surely any Person not extreamly prepossest will sooner interpret these Passages The Communion of the Body c. We Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ c. When the Minister delivers the Communion The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. omitted in the Answer Take eat c. We thank God that he doth vouchsafe to feed us with the Food of the most precious Body c. The Bread that we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. I say an unprejudic'd Man will sooner understand these expressions as including a substantial presence than a signifying only the power and grace of Christ's Body and Blood. How could they then take them otherwise who believ'd a corporal presence and till the last years of Edw. VI. scarce ever heard that the words were capable of any other sense 3. Not evident from the Catechism In which the Church of England is so far from teaching her Children a Presence of Grace only that she plainly instructs them to believe a substantial Presence Does she not as it were dissect the Eucharist into its parts acquainting them that it consists of an Outward part or sign Bread and Wine of an Inward part or thing signified the Body and Blood of Christ c. and then demands What are the Benefits or effects of these Parts whereof we are partakers thereby i. e. by the Body and Blood of Christ Now if she design by body and blood of Christ the benefits only of them then her Question runs thus What are the Benefits whereof we are partakers by the Benefits which are the inward Part of the Lord's Supper A Question too ridiculous to be proposed by any person of sobriety much less fit for a Church to put in her institution of Christians If then the Catechism may be explicated literally as one would imagin a Catechism ought the Church of England both believes and teaches a substantial Presence Agreeable hereto is Bishop Ken's Exposition licensed 1685 by Jo. Battely Chaplin to the Archbishop of Canterbury O God incarnate says the Bishop how thou canst give us thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink how thy flesh is meat indeed c. How thou who art in Heaven art present on the Altar I can by no means explain but I firmly believe it all because thou hast said it and I firmly rely on thy love and on thy Omnipotence to make good thy word tho the manner of doing it I cannot comprehend Here in expressions very fervent and becoming a Christian Pastor he instructs the people of his Diocese to believe that God incarnate gives them his flesh to eat c. Next that tho in Heaven yet the same God incarnate is present on the Altar 3ly
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
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
and also animates us to persist in it since those who have quitted our communion and relinquished our faith in other matters discern so strong Motives to retain this that tho very willing they cannot without violence to their consciences renounce it Pag. 117. l. 20. It is confessed by the greatest men of their Church c. A forgery Our great men make the contrary confession and if any of them seems to speak towards what this Minister feigns it is with respect to Transubstantiation not a corporal presence particularly Scotus misquoted Praef. p. 6. That most subtle Doctor as has bin often answered to this most impudent objection lays it down That the Points discuss'd by him in his 4ti Dist 11. q. 3. do all intend to maintain That the Body of Christ is truly in the Eucharist because to deny that is plainly against Faith for it was expresly from the beginning of the Institution of the truth of Faith that the Body of Christ is contain'd there truly and really And afterwards in his Reply to Objections fixing on Transubstantiation as the manner of the substantial presence he adds And if you demand why the Church chose this so difficult a sense i. e. of Transubstantiation being the manner of this Article when the words of Scripture may be rendred in a sense easy and as to appearance truer concerning this Article To this Objection he returns I say that the Scriptures are expounded by the direction of that Spirit by which they were composed And so it is to be supposed that the Catholick Church hath interpreted by the same Spirit by which the Faith was delivered to us viz. taught by the Spirit of truth and therefore she chose this sense because it is true For it is not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true but of God the Institutor but the Church directed herein as t is believed by the Spirit of truth hath explicated the sense delivered to Her by God. Now t is evident that the Schoolman is here speaking of Transubstantiation not of the corporal presence next that he says not the facility or appearance of a sense to be that designed in Scripture is to be regarded in Faith but the declaration of the Church in whose custody the traditive sense of Scripture i.e. what God intended not what we surmise is deposited and by whose mouth the Holy Spirit speaks Lastly that the Declaration of the Church is for Transubstantiation therefore this must be concluded to be the proper sense of Scripture tho that Scripture sound never so plausibly for some other sense Our Adversaries persevering in an imposture with so much pertinacy and immodesty extorts this tedious Repetition All we shall further remark upon it is that it yeilds this Minister a very wholsom Instruction how to interpret Scripture not by Jewish customs nor Rabbinical Deliriums not by the superficial notices of sense or vain Maxims and cheating suggestions of Science falsly so called but by the Guidance of the Church assisted with the Holy Spirit for of these two Directors in expounding Scripture this Mâ—nister seldom has regard whilst Catholicks enquire of the Church what sense the Holy Spirit chiefly design'd and without hesitancy adhere to that she gives whether it be literal or mystical because our Lord's promise of assisting the Church and leading her into all truth is so absolute that we think we may as justly distrust his being the Messiah as be jealous of his Fidelity or Providence in acquitting himself of this engagement Should we not be suspicious if without apprehension nay with perfect firmness and security we did not acquiesce in her expositions And how many of those who have leap'd from this Rock and committed themselves to the conduct of a Private spirit are now carried away by the wind of Socinianism Judaism Mahomatism or irreligion whilst we that stand on it have not only the same Faith still but cannot possibly fail by misbelief Pag. 118. l. 7. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of those words of Institution destroys the certainty of sense c. If he mean our interpretation of a corporal presence then he contradicts what he thrice told us that the Lutherans do no violence to sense but if he mean the Interpretation of Transubstantiation his observation is wide of the point contested But in both meanings t is false for we derogate from sense not in the least and if we did in one-case in obedience to Faith whereto we think sense may as justly be captivated as the understanding that will not infer we may in another destitute of such a revelation till a particular premise can support an universal conclusion The Fallacy and Ignorance of this importunate Argument so often brought and so often bafled and exposed must certainly be used by these men merely to deceive the People As to the Paradox of Miracles being discoverable by sense only we refer this Minister to Calvin Bishop Forbes and many other Classic Reformers for correction who esteem them stupid that disclaim the Eucharistical Miracles and truly by sense we discern none there How then by your favour came they to discern Miracles in the Eucharist But what Was there no miracle in the conception of our Lord What sense acquaints men with it That he was a Man we might know by sense but that he was miraculously conceived only Revelation not Experience assures all besides his Mother To pass this how comes it to be collected that if one of the evidences of the truth of Christianity cannot be had strait our certainty of the truth of Christianity is destroy'd Tell me I pray were Miracles its sole evidence Were accomplishments of Old Testament-prophecies none or uncertain Had all Believer's miracles before they assented Did none believe with certainty but such as had Miracles to attest what was tendred to them What 's become of the Beatitude Blessed are those that have not seen a miracle Christ risen and yet have believed on the credible relation of others and because it was foretold he should rise c. If the performance of something in Nature otherwise than any created Power uses or can do I say the performance of it by Power Divine be a Miracle and that such a performance may be effected in spiritual as well as sensible affairs the knowledg of which may and must be attain'd if it be had by an information not sensible then the confining of Miracles to be objects of Sense is exploded Having thus overturn'd two of his Observations his Arguings from them vanish as do all other Bubbles Pag. 119. l. 4. No Papist can have any Reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of holy Scripture c. A Papist has the same Reason to believe Transubstantiation tho he cannot read at all as the first Christians had before the Gospels were written or a blind man has now The mistake of Dr. Stillingfleet Tillotson Tenison this
the nourished it makes us partakers of his Life which being immortal and glorious renders ours such also And 3. Other Food being either inanimate or having a Life inferior unto and differing from ours this Body of his is become superior more Divine than ours and is a quickning Spirit And therefore we should receive his Body and Blood after the manner of natural bodies which the Capernaites and our sensual Doctors can apprehend it would profit us nothing as to the great effects promised by our Receiving in the Eucharist And these effects are true and real not notional or imaginary or by Faith only apprehended yea much more than the Manna Faith being an assent in the understanding is quite different from enjoyment in the will and affections And Faith i. e. a believing either that our Lord was the true Messias or Messenger from the Father for else he could not be the true Bread which came down from Heaven or that this which is given us is the real Body of our Saviour for else it would be only common Bread precedes the Receiving yet is not any part of it much less the enjoyment of any of the effects of it Again If eating by Faith whatever it signifies be all that is meant in the Eucharist how comes it to be preferr'd before the Manna which was a continual Miracle and daily exercise of their Faith And why would our Lord suffer so many of his Followers to go away from him when he might in so few words have inform'd them of the Truth without a Metaphor Why should he use such sublime and spiritual expressions repeating it to be his body and blood that it came down from Heaven that he would give it for the life of the world c. and not once explain the meaning of those to them obscure phrases And if the Church Catholick and even the Church of England till the last of King Edward VI. had not conceiv'd some great Mystery why would she keep the words so obscure and really as they suppose improper of the Institution so precisely even till the Church of England made the breach and by the Expressions different from the whole Church profess'd her self not to be a Member of it But of this sufficient is said before and in the Reformation of the Church of England from § 148. Wherefore the Catholicks speaking of the real presence of our Lord mean◠the very essence substance the very thing it self is there present taken and eaten by us and not only the benefits of his Passion believ'd by us And in the Church's sense we use in this Discourse the words really really present c. and yet not naturally locally or any other manner of its being according to the qualities of a natural body § 2 And note secondly That these Writers and others pretending to be of the Church of England by their spiritual by Faith mystical eating which they sometimes also call Sacramental intend a sense contrary and opposite to eating the natural body of our Lord spiritualiz'd and that is all the eating they acknowledg The Catholick Church also useth the same word spiritual in opposition to real or sacramental meaning thereby the reception of some spiritual grace or encrease of it As the Fathers in the Wilderness did eat the same meat Manna and the Rock-water spiritually in as much as these were Types of spiritual things under the Gospel by receiving whereof they also obtain'd the graces of Gods Spirit And this spiritual reception of Grace is not only in the Eucharist but in all the other Sacraments in all actions of Devotion and Piety and all manner of well-using Grace once given But this is not all the Sacramental receiving tho contain'd in it So that there are two manners of receiving Grace and our Saviour 1. Spiritual only which our Replier says is all 2. Spiritual and real or Sacramental because proper to the Eucharist The real without the spiritual profiteth nothing yea it is also damnable For except a man come to the Eucharist well prepar'd i. e. by Mortifications Devotions Acts of Religion i. e. in a state of Grace he eats and drinks condemnation to himself The spiritual receiving without the real profiteth indeed but neither so much nor in such manner as when they are join'd both together For spiritual receiving is of more Grace upon well-using the former is only in general and in the inner man therefore difficultly discern'd and more subject are we to be deceiv'd in it But real receiving as all other Sacraments is instituted to help the weakness and imperfect discernment of our spiritual and internal condition by the visible signs of invisible Grace therein bestow'd The spiritual eating gives us a right and title to Grace but the other is the very instrument of conveying it Also in that Grace is given according to the measure of the Receiver's disposition and that Grace also which is of the same nature with those dispositions But in the Sacraments are given new and peculiar Graces as in Baptism the forgiveness of all sins already committed and admission into the Church of Christ and all the rights and benefits thereof So in the holy Eucharist there is conferr'd also forgiveness of sins and a nearer incorporating us into our Lord himself more intimately and consequently a more certain hope and confidence of eternal life by receiving himself into us who is now become a quickning Spirit unto us working by his body receiv'd the seed of immortality all things necessary or useful to our happy progress thither Be pleased therefore to consider Whether they who acknowledg no other than a spiritual receiving do not either quite evacuate the power and efficacy or at least diminish much and weaken the force of this divine Sacrament And also that whoever they are who endeavour to subject or reduce Religion to the Rule of Reason do not in effect deny and despise the wisdom of God declar'd in the mystery of our holy Religion § 3 Note Thirdly That Catholicks trouble not themselves to reconcile Religion to Philosophy Their endeavour is to understand the true sense of what God hath revealed and to this purpose they make use of all the helps which others do but principally depend upon what the Church Catholick and her Doctors from time to time have receiv'd and declar'd i. e. how they to whom our Lord committed his Mysteries have from the beginning believ'd and deliver'd that charge deliver'd unto them how the practice hath interpreted the Law and how the Holy Spirit by his Instruments the Clergy of the Catholick Church hath continued it down to their time Nor do they regard what either private interpretation or what Philosophy or Principles fram'd by men's understandings out of their experience or frame of Languages suggest They leave these to them who affect to diminish the unfathomable knowledg communicated to us by God in his Revelations to Arians Socinians Latitudinarians and other Doctors of Sensuality But
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
Replier would falsly translate or interpret The real presence which we hold is as real as the corporal which the Papists hold Which Proposition is both false in it self and falsly father'd upon Bishop Andrews For they who believe only a figurative presence believe not so much as they who believe a real also For it is to say That he who believes a real absence believes a real presence Pag. 27. Marg. Christ was made in all things like to us In his Incarnation that we might be made like to him in his glorification In his Incarnation a natural body with the like imperfections sufferings c. in his Glorification a spiritual body The Heavens must contain him The word is not contain but receive him That his body which is not now endowed with natural properties but spiritual is in Heaven no Catholick denies for that would be against the Creed But they say that he is both in Heaven and in the Eucharist or else what needs all this discourse about his being in several places at once Pag. 28. Would he not wonder that St. Austin Our Author's quotation out of St. Austin de cura pro mortuis is true and pertinent Our Replier himself p 29. seems not to dare affirm that a Spirit cannot be in several places or ubi's but if it be a contradiction S. Austin needs not enquire if not a coutradiction neither is it for a spiritual body to be so So that it matters not whether the Martyrs bodies are spoken of by St. Austin Nor doth the quotations brought by our Replier out of St. Austin Ep. 57. ad Dardanum nor that of Tract 31. in Johan in the least contradict the doctrine of the Church But that in Tract 30. in Joh. is perfectly against the Replier For after that S. Austin had said that our Lord was in divers places in heaven and earth in his life time by the omnipotence of Almighty God he saith that homo indeed secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est He speaks here of men in this natural state which is most true if no miracle interposed but concerning our Saviour he had said before that he was whilst upon earth in heaven also by the power of God. Pag. 29. A contradiction for a body to be locally in one place and really received in another What the Author saith is most true what the Replier substitutes is neither the Author's nor common sense But it is most certain that to say the real substantial body of our Lord is only in heaven and the same body to be really received upon earth is as much a contradiction as to say the natural essential body of our Lord is really in several places which is none at all Thus have I with very great taedium justified our Author against the Replier what remains is either repetition of what is said before or concerns the subject of Adoration concerning which if it please God to continue our strength we shall not be long in his debt Corrigenda Addenda Pag. line  11. 20. p. 54. 72. 18. 28. to body 28. 2. dele in the quotation set down above p. 50. 34. 35. Obs 3. p. 13. 51. 28. p. 49. 50. the places 52. 14. before p. 35. 54. 4. dele p. 123. 54. 23. opinion p. 69. 64. 13. Christus non jubet 71. 6. c. See p. 60. 71. 19. observation p. 19.  21. cross p. 75. 80. 17. taken passively 87. 23. quotation p. 48. 108. 19. of Suarez p. 105. 110. 24. above p. 102. 129. 33. there confuting it 133. 1. comes more peace 148. 13. Bishop Poinet