for their Adoration whereby they become Absolved by other Protestants from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there I see not why the Grounds of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs In Answer to which the Reader may please to remember that I have before said that we do not excuse those Lutherans who do this so much upon this Principle that they have a more plausible Ground or Motive for their Adoration but for this rather that confessing the Substance of the Bread to remain they do not mistake their Object but pay their Adoration indeed to Christ only supposing him to be there where in Truth he is not But 2dly this Author is very much mistaken if he thinks the Lutherans have no better a Foundation for their Real Presence than the Papists See Ibid. Indeed were the difference no greater than between a Con and a Trans it would I confess be hardly worth the while to contend about it But when we come to the Point it self we may observe these four Advantages among many others of the Lutherans side 1. They confess for the outward Elements that they are really what they appear to be Bread and Wine and so they do no Violence to their Senses which as I have said is a great aggravation against the Papists 2. By this means they are at no defiance with all those Texts of Scripture where they are so often called Bread and Wine after Consecration All which the Papist contradicts but the Lutheran does not 3. From the words of Christ This is my Body we all of us confess may be inferr'd that Christ's Body is in this Holy Sacrament But whence do's the Papist infer the destruction of the Substance of the Bread so that what is taken and blessed and given is not Bread but Christ's Body under the appearance of Bread This is an Error which I am sure the Text gives no manner of colour to and therefore our Author cannot with any reason pretend as he do's whether we consult the Text of Holy Scripture or our own Senses that they have as good grounds for their Real Presence as the Lutherans have for theirs To all which let me add 4thly that by Transubstantiation they destroy the very Nature of a Sacrament by leaving no true external Sign or Symbol and which is another unanswerable Argument against them whilst the Lutherans acknowledging the Substance of the Bread to remain do not destroy at all the Nature of this Sacrament but retain the same Sign which our Blessed Lord established and so have no Objection on this side neither to convict them But yet notwithstanding all this Pag. 26 27. Do not some of our Writers confess that the Papists Interpretation is more rational than the Lutherans I Answer What certain Protestants may have said in Zeal for their own Opinions and in particular Hospinian upon the account of his Master Zuinglius I cannot tell But sure I am we are not bound to answer for all that any Protestant Author has said And if these Reasons I have here given for the contrary are valid they ought to be more regarded than the ungrounded Assertions of a Sacramentary Historian Well Pag. 27. but still the Papist do's not ground his Adoration upon Transubstantiation but on Corporal Presence and so they must both be excused or neither This is a fetch to very little purpose For let me ask this Author He confesses he founds his Adoration upon the Corporal Presence Do's he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation exclusive to all others or no If he do's then 't is evident that the Corporal Presence and Transubstantiation must with him stand or fall together and so if he adores on the account of the Corporal Presence he do's it upon the account of Transubstantiation If he do's not believe this 't is plain he is no Papist nor submits to the Authority of the Church of Rome which has defined the Corporal Presence to be after this particular manner exclusive to all Others and Anathematized all that dare to deny it Laying aside therefore this Comparison and which in truth will do them but very little kindness Pag. 27. §. xxiv Let us view more particularly what rational Grounds they have to exhibit for this their belief of their Corporal Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and of the Adoration of him upon that account I. Ibid. Ground And the first is Divine Revelation For which our Author offers the two usual Instances of the words of Institution and the 6th Chapter of S. John both which therefore I have at large discoursed on above and I believe sufficiently shewn how false a Foundation these are of this belief But yet since our Author reminds us * Pag. 27 28. That against these no Argument taken from our Senses or Reason is valid I will beg leave to remind him of his own Assertion too * See Treatise 1. p. 14. That none can believe a thing true upon what Motive soever that he knows certainly to be false or which is all one certainly to contradict So that if our Reason then makes us certain of such a contradiction P. 21. Treat 1. we may be certain that there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation and when any Revelation tho NEVER SO PLAIN is brought we are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility From which Principle it seems to me to follow that were Hoc est Corpus meum as evident a proof of Transubstantiation as their own Authors confess it is not yet if our Sense and Reason tell us that there are certain Contradictions against the common Principles of Nature and the universal Sentiments of all Mankind no otherwise to be avoided but by taking those words in the sense in which we do we are then BOVND to interpret them so as to avoid these Impossibilities And this I am confident I have at large shewn above to be the Case and thither I refer the Reader II. Ground P. 28. §. xxv Their second Ground is founded upon the Authority of those Councils that have determined this Matter The Declaration as he calls it of the most Supreme and Vniversal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former Times for the decision of this Controversy long before the birth of Protestantism These are great Words indeed but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable * These are his Synods at Rome Vercelles Tours Rome again An. 1059. and again An. 1078. Synods of particular Prelats such as are all those to which he refers us assembled against Berengarius were the most supream and universal Church-Authority For his little Reflection that they were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism I must tell him I doubt he is mistaken The Religion of Protestants like that of Papists is composs'd of two great parts Catholick Christianity common in some
all Metaphor only just two or three words for their purpose Literal But that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch is that the very fifty first Verse its self on which they found their Argument is two thirds of it Figure and only otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hypothesis I am says our Saviour the living Bread which came down from Heaven This is Figurative If any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever That is they say by a Spiritual Eating by Faith And the Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World. This only must be understood of a proper manducation of a real eating of his Flesh in this Holy Sacrament It must be confessed that this is an Arbitrary way of explaining indeed and becomes the Character of a Church whose dictates are to be received not examined and may therefore pass well enough amongst those with whom the supposed Infallibility of their Guides is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private Consideration But for us who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviours Discourse nay think that the connexion of that last Clause with the foregoing is an evident sign that they all keep the same Character and are therefore not a little scandalized at so Capernaitical a Comment as indeed Who can bear it V. 60. They will please to excuse us if we take our Saviours Interpretation to be at least of as good an Authority as 't is much more reasonable than theirs V. 62. Do's this says he Offend you Do's my saying that ye must eat my flesh and drink my Blood scandalize you Mistake not my design I mean not any carnal eating of me that indeed might justly move your Horrour It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life He that desires a fuller account of this Chapter may please to recur to the late excellent †A Paraphrase with Notes and a Preface upon the Sixth Chapter of Saint John Lond. 1686. Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it and which will be abundantly sufficient to shew the reasonableness of that Interpretation which we give of it I shall only add to close all that one Remark which * De Doctrin Christian Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Saint Augustine has left us concerning it and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right Interpreting of Holy Scripture and illustrates with this particular Example If says he the saying be Preceptive either forbidding a wicked action or commanding to do that which is good it is no Figurative saying But if it seems to command any Villany or Wickedness or forbid what is profitable and good it is Figurative This saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you seems to command a Villanous or Wicked Thing It is therefore a FIGVRE enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay it up in dear and profitable Remembrance that his Flesh was crucifi'd and wounded for our sakes And now having thus clearly I perswade my self shewn the Weakness of those Grounds on which this Doctrine of the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament is establish'd I shall but very little insist on any other Arguments against it Only in a Word to demonstrate that all manner of Proofs fail them in this great Error I will in the close here subjoin two or three short Considerations more to shew this Doctrine opposite not only to Holy Scripture as we have seen but also 1. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church 2. To the Right Reason and 3. To the Common Senses of all Mankind I. That this Doctrine is opposite to the best and purest Tradition of the Church Now to shew this I shall not heap together a multitude of Quotations out of those Fathers through whose hands this Tradition must have past He that desires such an Account may find it fully done by one of the Roman Communion in a little * A Treatise of Transubstantiation by one of the Church of Rome c. Printed for Rich. Chiswell 1687. Treatise just now publish'd in our own Language I will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just Exception and that is to lay down some general Remarks of undoubted Truth and whose consequence will be as evident as their certainty is undeniable And I. For the Expressions of the Holy Fathers It is not deny'd Such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Note there is hardly any of these Words which they have applied to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist but they have attributed the same to the Water in Baptism but that in their popular Discourses they have spared no words except that of Transubstantiation which not one of them ever used to set off so great a Mystery And I believe that were the Sermons and Devotional Treatises of our own Divines alone since the Reformation searcht into one might find Expressions among them as much over-strain'd * See Treatise first of the Adoration c Printed lately at Oxford Which would make the World believe that we hold I know not what imaginary Real Presence on this account just as truly as the Fathers did Transubstantiation And doubtless these would be as strong an Argument to prove Transubstantiation now the Doctrine of the Church of England as those to argue it to have been the Opinion of those Primitive Ages But now let us consult these men in their more exact composures when they come to teach not to declaim and we shall find they will then tell us That these Elements are for their * It is not necessary to transcribe the Particulars here that have been so often and fully alledged Most of these Expressions may be found in the Treatise of Transubstantiation lately published The rest may be seen in Blondel Eclaircissements Familiers de la Controverse de l' Eucharistie Cap. iv vii viii Claude Rep. au 2. Traittè de la Perpetuitè i. Part. Cap. iv v. Forbesius Instructiones Historico-Theolog lib. xi cap. ix x xi xii xiii xv Larrogue Histoire de l' Eucharistie liv 2. cap. ii substance what they were before Bread and Wine That they retain the true properties of their nature to nourish and feed the Body that they are things inanimate and void of sense That with reference to the Holy Sacrament they are Images Figures Signes Symbols Memorials Types and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ That in their Vse and Benefit they are indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ to every saithful Receiver but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner as we confess That in
that Debate stopp'd or at least he should have added some new strength to it But to send it again into the World in the same forlorn State it was before to take no notice either from whose Store-house he borrow'd it or what had been returned to it This is in effect to confess that they have no more to say for themselves And 't is a sad Cause indeed that has nothing to keep it up but what they know very well we can answer and that they themselves are unable to defend But to return to the Points proposed to be consider'd And First To state the Notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England I must observe 1st That our Church utterly denies our Saviour's Body to be so Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament as either to leave Heaven or to exist in several places at the same time We confess with this Author 1. Tract p. 19. §. 27. that it would be no less a Contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by any other Mode whatsoever than by that which the Church of Rome has stated the repugnancy being in the thing its self and not in the manner of it 2dly That we deny that in the Sacred Elements which we receive there is any other Substance than that of Bread and Wine distributed to the Communicants which alone they take into their Mouths and press with their Teeth Answer to T. G's Dialogues Lond. 1679. pag. 66. In short All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real Effects to the Souls of Men. As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the Church is the Body of Christ because of his Spirit quickening and enlivening the Souls of Believers so the Bread and Wine after Consecration are the Real but the Spiritual and Mystical Body of Christ Thus has that learned Man to whom T. G. first made this Objection stated the Notion of the Real Presence profess'd by us and that this is indeed the true Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter is evident not only from the plain words of our xxviii Article and of our Church Catechism but also from the whole Tenour of that Office which we use in the celebration of it In our Exhortation to it this Blessed Eucharist is expresly called The Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ We are told that if with a true Penitent Heart and lively Faith we receive this Holy Sacrament then we Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood. When the Priest delivers the consecrated Bread he bids the Communicant Take and eat this in Remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith with Thanksgiving In our Prayer after the Receiving We thank God for that he doâ—â— vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries with the Spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ and doth assure us thereby of his favour and goodness towards us and that we are very Members incorporate in the Mystical Body of his Son. All which and many other the like Expressions clearly shew that the Real Presence which we confess in this Holy Eucharist is no other than in St. Pauls Phrase a Real Communion of Christ's Body and Blood or as our Church expresses it Article xxviii That to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ Hence it was that in the Prayer of Consecration in King Edward vi time the Church of England after the Example of the ancient Liturgies of the Greek Church used that Form which our Author observes to have been since left out Tract I. 2. And with thy Holy Spirit vouchsafe to Bless and Sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ i. e. as the Sense plainly implies may Communicate to our Souls all the Blessings and Graces which Christ's Body and Blood has purchased for us which is in Effect the very same we now pray for in the same Address Hear us O Merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs Holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most Blessed Body and Blood. Between which two Petitions there is so near an Affinity that had not 〈◊〉 Author been very desirous to find out Mysteries where there are indeed none He would hardly have suffer'd his Puritan Friend to have lead him to make so heavy a complaint Pag. 3. about so small a Variation I will not deny but that some Men may possibly have advanced their private Notions beyond what is here said But this is I am sure all that our Church warrants or that we are therefore concern'd to defend And if there be indeed any who as our Author here expresses it do believe Christs natural Body to be as in Heaven so in the Holy Sacrament they may please to consider how this can be reconciled with the Rubrick of our Church That the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one In the mean time I pass on to the next thing I proposs'd Secondly To shew in Opposition to the Pretences of our Adversary that this has been the Notion of the Real Presence constantly maintain'd by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines And here because our Author has thought fit to appeal not only to our own but to the forreign Divines for this new Faith which he is pleas'd to impose upon us viz. Tract 1. §. 7. That the very Substance of Christs Body that his natural Body that that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin and crucified on the Cross c. is present as in Heaven so Here in this Holy Sacrament i. e. in both at the same time I must be content to follow his Steps and enquire into the Doctrine first of Mr. Calvin and his followers next of our own Country-men in this Particular And first for Mr. Calvin and his followers I cannot but observe what different charges are brought against them in this matter On the one hand we are told by Becanus the Jesuit that * Calvinistae negant corpus sanguinem Christi vere realiter substantialiter praesentem
very earnest against those who receive unworthily this Holy Sacrament and by consequence ties not Christs natural Body to the Bread and declares it to be after a Spiritual imperceptible and miraculous manner As for the term Corporaliter which he there uses and which Melancthon and some others had used before him that may be well enough understood in the same Sence Celess ii 9 17. as verè or realiter and is often so used both in Scripture and in the Holy Fathers As when St. Paul says of Christ that in Him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead Bodily that is really in opposition to the Shechinah or Presence of God in the Tabernacle And again The Body of Christ that is the substance See Hammend in Coloss 1. Annot. d. the reality opposed to the types and sigures of the Law. And so in the Hebrew Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for Essence as well as Body Arch-Bishop LAWD and applied to Spiritual as well as Corporal things Nor can I see any more reason to understand Arch-Bishop Lawd in any other Sence He asserts the true and real Presence of Christ in this Sacred Feast 1 Tract §. xiv pag. 8. but he do's not say that Christ's natural Body which is now in Heaven is also in this Holy Sacrament or in the worthy receiver nor have we any reason to believe that he understood it so to be * MONTâ—GVE Origeres Eccles. Tom. prior par postor p. 247 249 250. c. Panis in Sanaxi fit corpus Christi Sed et Corpus Christi CREDENIES nunt Ad eundem utrumque moduin mensuram sed non Naturaliter Itaque nee Panis ITA est Corpus Christi Mystice tantum non Pâ—â—sice vid. plur And the same must be said of †Bishop HALL Bishop Hall Bishop Montague and Bishop Bilson MONTAGVE BILSON in whose expressions as they are quoted by our Author I find nothing that proves the Sence he would impose upon them and whose works had I now by me I might possibly be able to give some better account of them Though after all should one of these in his violence against his Adversaries or the others in their pacifick design of reconciling all Parties as to this Point have said more than they ought to do I do not see but that it ought to have been imputed to the circumstances they were in and the designs they pursued rather than be set up for the measure either of their own or our Churches Opinion And now I am mentioning these things Bishop FORBES I ought not pass over one other eminent instance of such a charitable undertaking and which has given occasion to our Author of a Quotation he might otherwise have wanted in that excellent Bishop of St. Andrews Bishop Forbes concerning whose Authority in this matter I shall offer only the censure of one than whom none could have given a more worthy Character of a person who so well deserved it as that good Bishop did I do not deny Author of the Life of Bishop BEDEL in the Preface but his earnest desire of a general Peace and Vnion among all Christians has made him too favourable to many of the Corruptions in the Church of Rome But though a Charity that is not well ballanced may carry one to very in iscreet things yet the principle from whence thdy flow'd in him was so truly good that the Errors to which it carry'd him ought to be either excused or at lest to be very gently censured There remain now but two of all the Divines he has produced to prove his new fancy which he would set up for the Dâ—ctrine of the Church of England and those as little for his purpose as any he has hitherto mentioned Bishop TAYLOR Bishop Taylor and Mr. Thorndyke For Bishop Taylor I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication since it is evident that he has so plainly opposed his Notion and that in the very Book he quotes and which he wrote on purpose to shew our meaning of the Real Presence Polemical discourses p. 182. London 1674. that he could not but have known that he mis-represented him I shall set down the state of the Question as it is in the beginning of that Treatise The Doctrine of the Church of England and generally of the Protestants in this Article is That after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries hath rightly pray'd and blessed or consecrated the Bread and the Wine the Symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ after a Sacramental i.e. in a Spiritual Real manner So that all that worthily communicate do by Faith receive Christ Really Effectually to all the purposes of his Passion It is Bread and it is Christs Body It is Bread in in Substance Christ in the Sacrament and Christ is as really given to all that are truly dispos'd as the Symbols are p. 183. It is here as in the other Sacrament for as there natural Water becomes the laver of Regeneration so here Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ but there and here too the first Substance is changed by Grace but remains the same in nature We say that Christs Body is in the Sacrament really but Spiritually They the Papists say it is there really but Spiritually For so Bellarmin is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this Question Where now is the difference Here By Spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by Spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other Sence but that of faith or spiritual susception They say that Christs Body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any Body But we by the real Spiritual Presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the Hearts of the faithful by Blessing and Grace and this is ALL we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence Such is the Account which that Excellent Bishop here gives not only of his own but as he expresly terms it of the Church of England's and the Generality of the Protestants Belief in this Matter Our Author's dissimulation of it is so much the more inexcusable Treatise 1st p. 20th by how much the more zealous an Advocate he makes him of his Cause when all this that I have transcribed was in the very same Section and almost in the same Page with what he has cited For his little Remark upon the Title of the Bishops Book where he calls it of the Real Presence and Spiritual whence he would infer a difference between the two Terms and find something Real that is not Spiritual in this Sacrament it is evident that the Design of that Distinction was this There be several sorts of Real Presences the Papists the Lutherans the Church of England all
particular Sacrament had been a whole composed of the External Species whatever they are as the Sign and the Body and Blood of Christ as the inward part or thing signified Thus I am sure the Catechism of the Council of Trent instructs us First for the name it tells us Catech. ad Parach part 2. de Sacram. n. iii. v. p. 92. that The Latin Doctors have thought that certain Signs subjected to the Senses which declare and as it were set before the Eyes the Grace which they effect may fitly be called Sacraments And for the nature of them thus it defines a Sacrament from S. Austin It is the sign of a holy thing or more fully as I before said a visible sign of an invisible Grace instituted for our Justification So that neither then Symbols alone nor the invisible part or Grace alone can with any manner of propriety be called a Sacrament but the Sign referr'd to the Grace and as it is the Symbol instituted by Christ for the conferring of it This therefore can with no good reason be called a Catholick Assertion being neither general nor true But however since he seems content to allow it to be an impropriety of Speech and that I confess the * Catec Conc. Trid. part 2. de Euch. §. viii nota p. 144. Catechism of the Council of Trent does lead him into it let us see what use he can make of it †Pag. 15. §. xi And as Protestants much press so Catholicks Roman Catholicks willingly acknowledg a great difference between these two The worshipping of the Sacrament as this word is taken for the Symbols and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament There is no doubt a great difference between these two but then they who tell us the Sacrament is to be Adored if they will speak rationally must mean neither the one nor other of these but the Host that is as Card. Pallavicini expounds it The whole of which Christ's Body is a part in the language of the Council of Trent the Sacrament IN WHICH they believe Christ to be present and for that Cause adore it as the Cardinal again argues * See above pag. 91 92. that To make a Whole Adorable it is sufficient that one part be so and therefore since the Body of Christ is adorable the Sacrament for its sake is to be worshipped It is therefore a meer shift to tell us that the Sacrament is to be adored i. e. Christ's Body in the Sacrament Nor will the remark of our Author help us out that tho the Chapter indeed calls it the Sacrament IN WHICH is Christ's Body Pag. 16 §. xiii yet the Canon speaks more precisely and calls it Christ in the Sacrament unless he supposes the Council to have been infallible in the Canons only and not in the Chapters as some have thought that they may be out in their Proofs but cannot be in their Conclusions But however since he so much desires it for my part I shall be content to allow them this too for I should be glad by any means to see them sensible of their Errors But yet so as that it be esteem'd only a private Opinion this not a Catholick Assertion Thirdly Catholicks he means the Papists still P. 21. §. xvii ground their Adoration not upon Transubstantiation as if Transubstantiation defeated Adoration is so too but on a Real Presence with the Symbols which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans together with them By which Assertion if he means only to make this Discovery That Christ's Real Presence together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration as if he were there only with the Species of the Bread the Substance being changed into his Body I have no more to say to it But if he would hereby make us believe that 't is all one whether Christ be adored as supposed here by the Lutherans in this Holy Eucharist and as imagined there by the Papists I must then deny his Assertion and desire him to keep home to his own manner of Real Presence and which I shall presently convince him will leave them in a much worse condition than their Neighbours whom he would draw into the same Snare with them And therefore whereas he concludes Fourthly P. 22. §. xviii That supposing Transubstantiation to be an Error yet if the Tenent of Corporal or Real Presence as held by the Lutherans or others be true Catholicks he would say Papists plead their Adoration is no way frustrated but still warrantable I must tell him that the Adoration of those among the Lutherans who worship Christ in this Sacrament upon the account of his Real Presence in or with the Bread tho it be an Error yet is infinitely more excusable than theirs who suppose the Bread to be turned into Christ's Body and because it may not be thought that I speak this out of any prejudice against them I will here offer my Reasons for it 1st They that adore Christ as really present together with the Bread do no violence to their Senses They confess that what they see and taste and feel and smell is really Bread and Wine Whilst the Papist in denying the Bread and Wine to remain or that what he sees and feels and smells and tastes is what all the World perceives and knows it is contradicts his Senses and in them the Law of Nature that Means which God has given us to direct and lead us into the search of Truth and by Consequence errs against infinitely greater Means of Conviction and so is more inexcusable than the Other 2dly They who worship Christ as supposing Him to be together with the Bread in this Holy Eucharist are erroneous indeed in this that they take Christ's Body to be where really it is not but yet their Object is undoubtedly right and in that they are not mistaken But now for the Papist he adores 't is confess'd what he thinks to be Christ's Body and would not otherwise adore it But yet still 't is the Host that he adores the Substance that is under those Species which he sees and which if it be not Christ but meer Substance of Bread the Case is vastly alter'd between the Lutheran and Him. The former adores Christ only as in a place where he is not the latter not only do's this but moreover adores a Substance for Christ which is not his Body and Blood but a meer Creature of Bread and Wine Monsieur Daille therefore might rightly enough say of a Lutheran that his Adoration is mistaken P. 23. §. xix not in this that it addresseth it self to an Object not adorable but only that by Error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not and so becomes only vain and unprofitable And yet our Author has no manner of Reason from thence to pretend that a Papist who terminates his Adoration
upon a Substance which really is not Christ's Body but only mistaken by him to be so shall be in the same Condition there being an apparently vast difference between worshipping Christ in a place where he is not and worshipping that for Christ which really is not Christ but only a created Substance And this in truth our Author seems to have been sensible of and therefore thinks to evade it by saying That they do not worship the Substance that is in that place Ibid p. 23. under such Accidents whatever it be which if Bread should happen to be there he confesses would make them Bread-worshippers but they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body and not Bread. Well be this so But what now if they are mistaken in their Supposition They worship he confesses the Substance that is under those Accidents supposing it to be Christ's Body but still mistaken or not that Substance which is under those Species whatever it be they do worship And if they have as he thinks a rational ground for this Supposition which we shall see by and by yet this will only excuse them from being formal Idolaters but will not hinder but that their Worship is still directed to an undue Object if that which is under the Species be indeed but Bread and not Christ's Body as they imagine And this then may serve to argue the falseness of what he lays down as his Fifth P. 22. §. xix Catholick Assertion That supposing both the Lutherans and Papists mistaken in their Opinion yet there can be no pretence why the One should not be as excusable as the others Since as I have said 1st They err more grosly in abandoning the conviction of their Senses which the Lutherans do not 2dly They worship a Substance for Christ which really is not To which if this be not enough I will add yet two other Reasons 3dly That they make the Consecration without which Christ is not present upon their own Principles to depend on such uncertainties as I shall more fully shew anon that they can never be sure that Christ is there which the Lutherans are free from And lastly They Anathematize those who dissent from them as to this Point and so make a Schism in dividing the Vnity of the Church which the Lutherans are so far from doing that they neither establish any Doctrine of Adoration at all nay many of them do not believe it and upon occasion freely communicate with those who dissent from them in their belief both of their way of the Real Presence and of the Adoration And for the same reason I cannot totally assent to his Sixth Assertion P. 25. §. xxi That supposing there be no such Real Presence as either of them believes yet that their adoration of Christ who is a true Object of Supreme Adoration and only by them mistaken to be in some place where He is not cannot be termed any such Idolatry as is the worshipping of an Object not at all adorable This as to what concerns those of the Lutherans who adore Christ in the Sacrament is true But for the Papist it is not He intends I allow it to worship Christ but he mistakes an Object for Christ which is only a piece of Bread. He worships his Host supposing it to be our Saviour's Body but his Error is gross and he not only mistakes Christ to be in a place where he is not but he mistakes that to be Christ which indeed is not but only a simple Wafer His Worship therefore is not like the Manichees worshipping of Christ in the Sun but rather as if the Manichee should from some mistaken grounds have fancy'd the Sun it self to be turned into Christ's Body and then in defiance of all Scripture Sense and Reason should have fallen down before it but with a good Intention not to adore the Sun but the Body of our Blessed Lord under the Species or Accidents of the Sun. This is the true Parallel only that herein still the Manichee would have been the more excusable of the two by how much the Sun is a more likely Object to be mistaken for Christ's glorified Body than a Morsel of Bread and less capable of being discovered by our Senses and Examination not to be so It remains then that these Lutherans only adore Christ where he is not the Papists not only do this but more-over they adore that for Christ which really is not but a meer created Substance Both the One and the Other are Erroneous but the Papist's Mistake renders him at the least guilty of material Idolatry whereas the Lutherans is only an undue Application of his Worship as to the Place but right as to the Person Let us see Seventhly How far their Mistake will excuse them P. 26. §. xxii in answer to his seventh Assertion That however a Manichaean may be guilty of Idolatry for worshipping Christ in the Sun and an Israelite for worshipping God as specially resident in the Calves of Dan and Bethel because it is adoring a Fancy of their own without any rational Ground or Pretence thereof and however meerly a good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry or any other Fault yet if Catholicks i.e. the pretended Roman Catholicks can produce a rational Ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry Which Proposal is so just that I am very willing to allow it and shall be heartily glad that the Grounds of their Mistake may in the End prove to have been so reasonable as to excuse them But then it must be remembred too that he confesses if these Grounds be not reasonable but as he says of the Manichees their adoring of the Host be indeed an adoring a Fancy of their own without any rational Ground So that their ignorance in this Matter is culpable then by their own allowance they are Idolaters This therefore brings me to the last Thing to be enquired into III. What Grounds they have for this Adoration and whether they be such as should they be mistaken in it will be sufficient to excuse them And thus after a great deal of Preamble but very little to the purpose we are at last come to the main Question I have already so largely shewn our Reasons against Transubstantiation or that Real Presence on which this Adoration is built that I shall not need to insist here Yet because the stress of this Controversy depends principally on this last Part I will 1st Examine the strength of those Grounds which this Author has offer'd to warrant their Adoration 2dly I will propose an Argument or two upon their own allowed Principles against it But before we proceed to these Points we must yet have one touch more upon the old String Pag. 26. §. xxiii For the Lutherans he says being allow'd to have such a plausible Ground or Motive
Charity P. 33. §. xxx than any necessity of Argument if our Writers do sometimes either not at all or but faintly charge them with Idolatry And the Testimonies he produces argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them even such as to hope almost against Hope for their sakes than give any security to them in their Errors And because I would willingly if possible convince them of it I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two 2dly Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration as may be sufficient to excuse them For 1st It is granted by this Author P. 26. §. xxii That a meerly good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance cannot excuse them from Idolatry So that if their ignorance then be really culpable their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded is their mistaken interpretation of those words This is my Body and whether that be a rational or culpable Mistake we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations 1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation And this must be allow'd unless we shall say that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense whatever the Consequence be of so doing 2. Our Author himself confesses that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction then it cannot be right but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to avoid a certain Contradiction 3. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion which was confirmed by Miracles known only by the evidence of Sense and by Consequence of this particular Point that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God or can be rely'd upon as coming from him Now from these Principles I thus argue If that sense of these words This is my Body upon which they ground their Adoration do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them But that it do's so and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it I thus shew He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation must believe the same natural Body at the same time to be in ten-thousand several places upon Earth and yet still to be but one Body and that all the while in Heaven He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts and yet continuing still the same Body without any change to be unextended and have no distinct Parts nor be capable of being divided into any He must believe the same Body at the same time to move and to lie still to be the Object of our Senses and yet not to be perceptible by any With infinite others of the like kind * See above Ch. 2. of Transubstantiation Pag. 32 33. as I have more fully shewn before But now all these are gross Contradictions contrary to the Nature of a Body and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind and no Man can without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so And therefore notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those words This is my Body they cannot by our Author 's own Rule without culpable Ignorance not know that they are mistaken in this Matter Again No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture This is my Body That these words are in Scripture he can know only by his Senses If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture If they are to be trusted he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false Since then it is confess'd that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Principles of Reason and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind it is necessary to take them in some other meaning it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words and that such Ignorance will not excuse them our Author himself has freely confess'd But 2dly let us quit this Reflection and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation Yet still it is confess'd by them 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened and by consequence that what they suppose to be Christ's Body is indeed any more than a meer Wafer From whence I argue He that without any Command or Warrant of God pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry But whosoever worships the Host worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry Now concerning the former of these how dangerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature be it considered what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases How therefore he that will come to him must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it ought not to worship with a doubting Mind because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault but the doing of which may for ought he knows be a very great Sin. And for the second Whether every Roman Catholick who adores the Host has not even upon his own Principles very great cause to doubt whether he adores Christ's Body or only a bit of Bread will appear from those infinite Defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration and which make it great odds were their Doctrine otherwise never so true whether yet one Host in twenty it may be in five hundred be
A DISCOURSE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN THE TWO GREAT POINTS OF THE Real Presence AND THE Adoration of the Host IN ANSWER to the Two DISCOURSES lately Printed at OXFORD on This SUBJECT To which is prefixed A Large HISTORICAL PREFACE relating to the same ARGUMENT LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVII THE PREFACE THE nature of the Holy Eucharist is a subject that hath been both so frequently insisted upon and so fully explain'd in our own and other Languages that it may well be thought a very needless undertaking for any one to trouble the World with any farther Reflections upon it For not to mention now those Eminent Men who have heretofore labour'd in this work nor to run beyond the points that are here designed to be examined What can be said more evidently to shew the impossibility of the pretended substantial change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament than has been done in the late excellent Discourse against Transubstantiation It is but a very little time since the Adoration of the Host has been shewn not only to be a novel invention contrary to the practice of all Antiquity but the danger of it evidently demonstrated notwithstanding whatever pretences can be made of a good intention to excuse them from the charge and danger of Idolatry who continue the practice of it And both these not only still remain unanswer'd but if we may be allow'd to judge either by their own strength or by our Adversaries silence are truly and indeed unanswerable It is not therefore out of any the least Opinion that any thing more need be said to confirm our cause much less that I esteem my self able to undertake it with the same success that those other Champions of our Faith have done it that I venture these Discourses to a publick view But since our Adversaries still continue without taking notice of any of these things to cry up their Great Diana no less than if she had never at all been shewn to be but an Idol I thought it might not be amiss to revive our Instances against it And that we ought not to appear less sollicitous by a frequent repetition of our Reasons to keep men in the Truth than others are by a continual insisting upon their so often baffled Sophistry to lead them into Error 'T was an ingenious Apology that Seneca once made for his often repeating the same things That he did but inculcate over and over the same Counsels to those that over and over committed the same faults And I remember an antient Father has left it as his Opinion that it was useful for the same truths to be vindicated by many because that one Man's Writings might possibly chance to come where the others did not and what was less fully or clearly explain'd by one might be supplied and enlarged by the other And a greater than either of these S. Paul has at once left us both an example and a warrant for this sollicitude Phil. 3.1 To write the same things to you to me says he is not grievous but for you it is safe Indeed I think if there be any need of an excuse for this undertaking it ought to be rather to Apologize for a far greater absurdity which we all commit in writing at all against those Men who in these Disputes concerning the Holy Sacrament have most evidently shewn that to be true of Christians which was once said of the antient Philosophers That there can be nothing so absurd which some Men will not adventure to maintain In most of our other Controversies with those of the Church of Rome we shew them to be Erroneous in this they are Extravagant And as an eminent Pen has very justly express'd it Discourse against Transubstantiation Pag. 2. The business of Transubstantiation is not a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the sense and reason of mankind The truth is as the same Person goes on Ibid. It is a most self-evident falshood and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true than Transubstantiation is evidently false And if such things as these must be disputed and this Evidence That what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a Man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Blood may not pass for sufficient without any farther Proof I cannot discern why any Man that hath but confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm it to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being further confuted But yet since it has pleased God so far to give over some Men to a spirit of delusion as not only seriously to believe this themselves but also rashly to damn all those that cannot believe it with them we ought as well for the security of those who have not yet abandoned their own sense and reason in compliance only with others who in this matter profess to have laid aside theirs as in charity to such deluded Persons as are unhappily led away with these Errors to shew them their unreasonableness To convince them that Christianity is a wise and rational Religion that 't is a mistaken Piety to suppose that Men ought to believe Contradictions or that their Faith is ever the more perfect because the Object of it is impossible That our Senses ought to be trusted in judging aright of their proper Object that to deny this is to overthrow the greatest external Evidence we have for our Religion which is founded upon their judgment or if that will be more considerable is to take away all the grounds that even themselves can pretend to wherefore they should disbelieve them in favour of Transubstantiation And this I perswade my self I have in the following Discourse sufficiently shewn and I shall not need to repeat it again here For the words themselves which are the grounds of this great Error I have taken that Method which seemed to me the most proper to find out the true meaning of them and as far as the nature of the Enquiry would permit have endeavour'd to render it plain and intelligible even to the meanest Capacity And I have some cause to hope that the most learned will not be dissatisfied with the design what ever they may be with the performance it being from such that I have taken the greatest part of my Reflections and in which I pretend to little of my own besides the care of putting together here what I had observed scattered up and down in parts elsewhere It was so much the more fit at this time to insist upon this manner of arguing in that a late
dans la Vie d'avoir les Originaux escrits de la main de l'Auteur nous ne scaurions empescher que feu Monsigneur ne passe dans l'Esprit de beaucoup de Gens pour HERETIQUE au sujet de l' Eucharistie Monsieur Baluze's Animadversion easily have concluded That if this be indeed the work of Monsieur de Marca 't will be impossible to hinder him from passing with many Persons for a HERETICK as to the point of the Eucharist But before I quit this Instance I cannot but observe with reference to this Treatise what care the Romanists take to hinder the sentiments of learned Men in this Point from coming to a publick knowledge And which might give us some cause to suspect that their great concern is not so much whether they do indeed believe Transubstantiation themselves as not to let the World know that they do not This has been heretofore shewn in another Treatise with reference to S. Chrysostom whose * Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Engl. Appendix p. 127. n. v. Epistle to Caesarius some of the Sorbonne Doctors caused most shamefully to be cut out of Monsieur Bigot 's Edition of Palladius because it too plainly spoke the Doctrine of the Protestants as to this point And the same has almost happened to this Treatise of Monsieur de Marca here mentioned †See the Preface to the Reader before the Edition of the same Treatises 12º Anno 1669. and Monsieur Baluze's Letter to the Bishop of Tulle on this occasion p. 5. Before it came to a publick sight the passages that seemed most visibly to oppose their Doctrine were either changed or suppress'd * The Oiginal leaves cut out by them having fallen into my Hands may be seen by those that desire it in S. Martin's Library of which the passage before cited is one as appears by the Paris Edition now extant of them But †See Monsieur Baluze 2. Lettre pag. 15. the Providence of God that brought to light the other has discover'd this cheat too For before the alarm was given and that the Chancellor (a) Mais enfin le refus que Mrs. de Sorbonne luy ont fait de luy donner leur approbation luy ont fait ouvrir les yeux s'estant laissé entendre quoyqu'un peu tard qu'il a fait une Sottise ibid. the Sorbonne Doctors but especially Monsieur Baluze by his Letters to the President de Marca the Archbishop 's Son upon this occasion had awakened the Abbé Faget to consider more nearly what he had done (b) Et p. 16. Je dis un peu tard parce qu'il avoit de ja fait des presentes de son livre que le libraire en avoit aussi debite quelques uns several Presents had been made of the intire work as it was in the Authors MS. and if we may credit their own relations the Printer who was a Protestant and the same that printed (c) Baluze Lettre à Monsieur l'Evesque de Tulle p. 5. Monsieur Claude's Books against the Perpetuité had obliged that learned Person with a Copy by which means both the genuine sentiments of Monsieur de Marca in opposition to Transubstantiation are preserved and their fraudulent endeavours to suppress his opinion discovered To this eminent Person I will beg leave to subjoyn a fifth and he too no less known to the World both for his Learning and Reputation nor less a Heretick in this point however not hitherto so openly discovered as the other and that is Father Sirmond the Jesuit In his life of Paschasius Radbertus he tells us Sirmond Vit. Pasch Radbert That this Monk was the first who explained the genuine sense of the Catholick Church in this mystery and indeed if what * Eclaircissement de l'Euch c. 19. p. 431 c. Blondel and some others have observed concerning him be true that it was for Impanation not Transubstantiation the Jesuit perhaps spoke his real judgment of him though not in that sense that he is usually understood to have done it But however that be certain it is that this learned Father so little believed the Doctrine of the present Roman Church as to this point that he freely confess'd he thought it had herein departed from the antient Faith and at the desire of one of his Friends wrote a short Treatise to confirm his Assertion This though it be not yet made publick is neverthess in the hands of several Persons of undoubted integrity I will mention only one whose learning and worth are sufficiently known to the World viz. Monsieur Bigot who discoursing with Father Raynauld at Lyons about this matter the Jesuit confess'd to him that it was true that he had himself a copy of his Treatise which he would communicate to him and that it was Father Sirmond whom upon this account he reflected upon in his Book Ingenia praeclara in rebus difficilibus aliquid semper de suo comminisountur Nam praeclara ingenia multa novant circa scientias Theoph. Raynaudi S. J. Erotemata de malis ac bonis libris Lugduni 1653. p. 251. de bonis malis Libris where he observes That Men of great parts love to innovate and invent always somewhat of their own in difficult matters When Monsieur Bigot return'd to claim the performance of his promise the Jesuit excused himself to him that he could not light upon it which when he afterwards told to Father Chiflet another Jesuit of Dijonois he again confirmed to him the truth of the relation and voluntarily offer'd him a Copy of the Treatise which he told him was transcribed from Father Sirmonds Original This Monsieur Bigot has not only acknowledged to some of his Friends of my acquaintance but promised to communicate to them the very Treatise and I dare appeal to the candor of that worthy Person for the truth of what I have here related and whose name I should not have mentioned but only to remove all reasonable cause of suspicion in a matter of such importance And what I have now said of Father Sirmond I might as truly affirm of a fourth Person of as great a name a Doctor of the Sorbonne whose Treatise against Transubstantiation has been seen by several persons and is still read in the MS. But because I am not at liberty to make use of their names I shall not any further insist upon this example My next instance will be more undeniable and it is of the ingenious Monsieur de Marolles Abbot of Ville-loyn well known in France for his excellent Writings and great Abilities A little before his death which happen'd about the beginning of the Year 1681. being desirous to free his Conscience as to the point of the Holy Eucharist in which he supposed their Church to have many ways departed from the right Faith he caused a Paper to be Printed in which he declares his thoughts
and yet not move That there should be no Certainty in our Senses and yet that we should know something Certainly and yet know nothing but by our Senses That that which Is and Was long ago should now begin to be That that is now to be made of Nothing which is not Nothing but Something That the same thing should be Before and After its self These and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable and most of them the avow'd Consequences of Transubstantiation and I need not say all of them Contradictions to Right Reason But I shall insist rather upon such Instances as the Primitive Fathers have judged to be absurd and impossible and which will at once shew both the Falseness and Novelty of this monstrous Doctrine and such are these * See Examples of every one of these collected by Blondel Eclaircissements familiers de la controverse de l' Eucharistie cap. 8. p. 253. That a thing already existing should be produced anew That a finite thing should be in many places at the same time That a Body should be in a place and yet take up no room in it That a Body should penetrate the dimensions of another Body That a Body should exist after the manner of a Spirit That a real body should be invisible and impassible That the same thing should be its self and the figure of its self That the same thing should be contained in and participate of its self †Monsieur Claude Rep. au 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite part 1. c. 4. n. 11. p. 73. Ed. 4to Paris 1668. That an Accident should exist by its self without a Subject after the manner of a Substance All these things the primitive Fathers have declared to be in their Opinions gross Absurdities and Contradictions without making any exception of the Divine Power for the sake of the Eucharist as some do now And indeed it were well if the impossibilities stopp'd here but alas the Repugnancies extend to the very Creed its self and destroy the chiefest Articles of our Faith the Fundamentals of Christianity How can that man profess that he believes our Saviour Christ to have been born xvi Ages since of the Virgin Mary whose very Body he sees the Priest about to make now before his Eyes That he believes him to have Ascended into Heaven and behold he is yet with us upon Earth There to Sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty till in the end of the World He shall come again with Glory to judg both the Quick and the Dead And behold he is here carried through the Streets lock'd up in a Box Adored first and then Eaten by his own Creatures carried up and down in several manners and to several places and sometimes Lost out of a Priests Pocket These are no far-fetch'd Considerations they are the obvious Consequences of this Belief and if these things are impossible as doubtless if there be any such thing as Reason in the World they are I suppose it may be very much the concern of every one that professes this Faith to reflect a little upon them and think what account must one day be given of their persisting obstinately in a point so evidently erroneous that the least degree of an impartial judgment would presently have shewn them the falseness of it But God has not left himself without farther witness in this matter but has given us Thirdly III. The Conviction of our Senses against it An Argument this which since it cannot be Answered they seem resolved to run it down as the Stoick in Lucian who began to call names when he had nothing else to say for himself But if the Senses are such ill Informers that they may not be trusted in matters of this moment would these Disputers please to tell us What Authority they have for the truth of the Christian Religion Was not Christianity first founded upon the Miracles of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles Or were not the Senses judges of those Miracles Are not the Incarnation Death Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord the most Fundamental Articles of our Faith Have we any other Argument to warrant our belief of these but what comes to us by the ministry of our Senses * John xx 27 29. Did not Christ himself appeal to them for the proof of his own Rising The Romanist himself believes Transubstantiation because he reads in the Scripture or rather to speak more agreeably to the method of their Church because he has been told there are such Words there as Hee est Corpus Meum Now not to enquire how far those words will serve to warrant this Doctrine is it not evident that he cannot be sure there are any such words there if he may not trust his Senses And if he may is it not as plain That he must seek for some other meaning than what they give of them Let us suppose the change they speak of to be Supernatural Be it as much a Miracle as they desire The very Character of a Miracle is to be known by the Senses Nor God nor Christ nor any Prophet or Apostle ever pretended to any other And I shall leave it to any one to judge what progress Christianity would have made in the World if it had had no other Miracles but such as Transubstanation to confirm it i. e. Great Wonders confidently asserted but such as every ones sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted and impossible to be performed But now whil'st we thus oppose the Errors of some by asserting the continuance of the Natural Substance of the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Holy Eucharist let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a meer Rite and Ceremony a bare Commemoration only of Christ's Death and Passion Our Church indeed teaches us to believe That the Bread and Wine continue still in their True and Natural Substance but it teaches us also that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechism and Article Twenty eighth The Communion-Office c. which every faithful Soul receives in that Holy Supper Spiritually indeed and after a Heavenly manner but yet most truly and really too The Primitive Fathers of whom we have before spoken sufficiently assure us that they were strangers to that Corporeal change that is now pretended but for this Divine and Mystical they have openly enough declared for it Nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change and that a very great one too made in this Holy Sacrament The Bread and the Wine which we here Consecrate ought not to be given or received by any one in this Mystery as common ordinary food Those Holy Elements which the Prayers of the Church have sanctified and the Divine Words of our Blessed Saviour applied to them though not Transubstantiated yet certainly separated to a Holy use and
allow a Real Presence in the Sacrament but after different Manners it was therefore necessary to add somewhat more to shew what kind of Real Presence he undertook to maintain and he knew no word more proper to express it by than Spiritual which does not therefore imply a Distinction from but Limitation of the other Term Real And thus he explains it N. 6. and 7. of that Section Pag. 183. where he shews that the Spiritual is also a Real Presence and indeed more properly so than any other In short thus he concludes the State of the Question Pag 186. in the same Section between us and the Church of Rome so that now says he The Question is not Whether the Symbols be changed into Christ's Body and Blood or no For it is granted on all sides But whether this Conversion be Sacramental and Figurative Or whether it be Natural and Bodily Nor is it whether Christ be taken Really but whether he be taken in a Spiritual or in a Natural Manner We say the Conversion is Figurative Mysterious and Sacramental they say it is Proper Natural and Corporal We affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real Effects of his Passion this is an Explication a little different from our Authors They say he is taken by the Mouth and that the Spiritual and the Virtual taking him in Virtue or Effect is not sufficient tho' done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus hic Saltus If this does not yet satisfie him that he has injur'd this Learned Man in the Representation of his Opinion directly contrary to his Sense I will offer him yet one Passage more taken from another part of his Works and which I hope will throughly convince him It is in the 5th Letter to a Gentleman that was tempted to the Communion of the Church of Rome He had proposed to the Bishop this Question Whether without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host according to his Humane Nature in that Host The Question is certainly every way pertinent to our present Purpose let us see what the Answer is that he makes to it See Pâ—lâ—mi◠〈…〉 â—ag 6â— 70 We may not render Divine Worship to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry Well Treat 1st Pag. 10. but still it may be the Bishop does not intend to exclude the Corpus Domini but only the Corporal or Natural Manner of that Body Let us therefore hear how he goes on For Idolum nihil est in mundo Saith St. Paul and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Nonâ—ens For it is not true there is no suchthing What not as Christ there no way as to his Humane nature No he is saith the Bishop present there by his Divine power and his Divine Blessing and the Fruits of his Body the real effective Consequents of his Passion but for any other Presence it is Idolum it is nothing in the World. Adore Christ in Heaven for the Heaven must contain him till the time of restitution of all things This then is Bishop Taylor 's Notion of the Real Presence and now I am confident our Author himself will remit him to the Company of those Old Zuinglian Bishops Cranmer Ridley and the rest who lived before that Q. Elizabeth had propugned the Real Presence of his new Model into the Heads of the Governours of the Church of England And now I am afraid his Cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndyke can support it Mr. THORNDYKE And how unlikely he is to do it he might have learnt from what has been answered to T. G. on the same Occasion ⸪ T. G. Vialogue 1st Pag. 21. T. G. Had in his first Dialogue quoted the same place which our Author has done since to prove his belief of the Real Presence His * Answer to T. G's Dial. Pag. 92. Adversary confesses this but produces another that explains his meaning †THORNDYKE Laws of the Church Ch. 4. Pag. 30. if it can any way be shew'd says he that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them then I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church only prays that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the Body and Blood of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit then is it not the Sence of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may nevertheless come to be the instruments of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are dispos'd to receive it no otherwise than his Flesh and Blood convey'd the Efficacy thereof upon Earth And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thus Mr. Thorndyke expresses himself as to the Real Presence But yet after all I will not deny but that this Learned Person seems to have had a particular Notion in this matter and which is far enough from what our Author would six upon him He thought that the Elements by Consecration were united to the Godhead of Christ much after the same manner as his Natural Body was by Incarnation and that so the very Elements became after a sort his Body See his Just Weights and Measures 4 to Lond. 1662. Pag. 94. The Church from the beginning did not pretend to consecrate by these bare words This is my Body this is my Blood as operatory inchanging the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ but by that Word of God whereby he hath declared the Institution of this Sacrament and commanded the use of it and by the Execution of this Command Now it is executed and hath always been executed by the Act of the Church upon God's Word of Institution praying that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may make them the Body and Blood of Christ Not by changing them into the Nature of Flesh and Blood as the Bread and Wine that nourished our Lord Christ on Earth became the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God by becoming the Flesh and Blood of his Manhood Hypostatically united to his Godhead saith Gregory Nyssene But immediately and ipso facto by being united to the Spirit of Christ i. e. his Godhead For the Flesh and Blood of Christ by Incarnation the Elements by Consecration being united
Communion That no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or to any Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood For that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all Faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at One time in more places than One. This then being sufficiently cleared let us see what this Author has to observe against it 1. He supposes that we will grant Treatise 1. Ch. 4. §. 39. p. 27. that if there were a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Body in this Holy Sacrament then Kneeling and Adoration would be here also due upon such an Account He means that were Christ himself here in his Body actually present He ought to be adored and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant 2. Tho the Corporeal Presence of Christ's Body Ib. §. xl i.e. of its being there ad modum Corporis or clothed with the ordinary Properties of a Body be deny'd as it is not only by the English Divines but by the Lutheran and Roman Yet let there be any other manner of Presence known from Divine Revelation of the very same Body and Blood and this as Real and Essential as if Corporeal and then I do not see but that Adoration will be no less due to it thus than so Present Now to this I shall at present only say That the Supposition being absurd do's not admit of a rational Consideration Those who deny a bodily Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and ask whether Adoration may not be paid to his Body which is confess'd not to be bodily present there supposing it to be there some other way ought to have no other satisfaction than this that they suppose an Impossibility a thing which cannot be and therefore concerning which no reasonable Answer can be given Some I know have been more free and allowing for the unreasonableness of the Supposal have resolved contrary to our Author But I think it very needless to dispute of the Affections of a Chimera and wrangle about Notions that have neither Use nor Existence 3. Treatise 1. p. 28. §. xli He observes lastly That the Church of England hath believed and affirmed such a Presence he means of Christ's Body in the Eucharist to which they thought Adoration due I presume it was then in the Times of Popery for since the Reformation I have shewn before that she has always held the contrary But our Author will prove it and that since the Reformation Ibid. For he says he has in his time met with no less than five of our Writers and those of no mean Account neither that have been of this Opinion This indeed is a very notable way of proving the Doctrine of our Church But what now if I should bring him fifteen Others that have deny'd it then I hope the Doctrine of the Church of England may be as fair for the contrary But we will examine his Evidence First Treatise 1. §. xlii p. 28. Bishop Andrews he says declares that tho we adore not the Sacrament yet we adore Christ in and with the Sacrament besides and without the Sacrament and assures the World that K. James looked upon Christ to be truly present and truly to be adored in it How this Bishop thought Christ truly present in the Sacrament we have seen before and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there viz. As in all other Holy Offices in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us but especially in this Sacred Mystery And thus we all adore him both in and with and without the Sacrament we confess him to be truly present and therefore truly to be adored by us But now for Christ's Natural Body of which and not of Christ himself our Dispute is if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before shew'd let it be remembred that according to this Bishop it must not be his Glorified Body See above his Body as it now is but his Body Crucified his Body as offer'd for us and in the State of his Death so He expresly affirms and this I believe our Author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible His next Witness is Bishop Taylor We worship Treatise 1. §. xliii p. 28. He means says this Author the Body or the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist But is he sure the Bishop meant so If he be I am sure the Bishop thought we all of us committed Idolatry in so doing For being consulted as we have seen above whether without all danger of Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host See Polemical Discourses 5. Letter at the end p. according to his Humane Nature in that Host He expresly declares We may not render Divine Worship to Him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idotry And indeed this our Author knew very well was his Opinion who himself in his next Treatise cites the xiiith Section of his Real Presence Treatise 2. p .9 §. vi n. 2. which was written on purpose to prove the unlawfulness of worshipping Christ's Body in this Sacrament But dissimulation of other Mens Opinions in matter of Religion is perhaps as lawful on some Occasions as if it were their own And why may not an Author prevaricate the Doctrine of his Adversary in defence of the Catholick Faith since I have read of a * The Story was publish'd in the Memoirs of Monsieur D'eageant printed with permission at Grenoble 1668. pag. 246 I will set it down in his own words Il'y avoit deja quelque tems que D'eageant avoit gagné l'un des Ministres de la Province de Languedoc qui etoit des plus employez aux Affaires meneés de ceux de la R. P. R. en l'Estime particuliere de Monsieur de Lesdiguiers Il avoit meme secrettement moyenne sa Conversion obtenu un Bref de Rome portant qu' en core qu' il eut etè receu au giron de l'Eglise il luy etoit permis de continuer son Ministere durant 3 Ans pourveu qu'en ses preches il ne dit rien de contraire à la creance de la vraye Eglise qu' il ne celebrât ponit la cene Le Bref fût obtenu afinque le Ministre pût estre continué dans les Emplois qu'il avoit decouvrir les
whilst so present which is during the Action of the Lord's Supper i. e. says he as I conceive them from the Consecration till the end of the Communion are to be Adored I answer First As to the former part it is confess'd that the Lutherans do indeed suppose Christ to be present not only to the worthy Communicants but also to the Consecrated Symbols But now secondly for the other part that during the Action of the Lord's Supper He is to be Adored there this is not so certain For 1. I do not find any thing establish'd amongst them as to this matter neither in the Confession of Auxpourg nor in any other publick Acts of their Church 2. I find several of their Divines utterly denying that Christ's Body is to be Adored in the Holy Sacrament and our * See below Disc 2. p. 16. Author himself confesses it Tho now 3. †Conrad Schlusselburgius Catal. Haeret l. 3. arg 45. p. 205. Item Arg. 103. p. 280. It. arg 174. p. 327. Francof 1605. And Hospinian quotes it of Luther himself that it was his Opinion Concord discor p. 358. n. 16. Genev. 1678. I will not deny but that some others of them do allow if not that Christ's Body yet that Christ himself is to be Adored after a peculiar manner in the Action of the Lord's Supper and as far as I conceive do by the Action mean as our Author here represents it from the Consecration to the end of the Communion So that then with this Limitation his Proposition I presume may be admitted That the Lutherans do acknowledg that Christ is present during the Action of the Lord's Supper and therefore it is by several of them supposed that he ought to be adored in it As to the sixth and last Concession §. vi p. 10 11. which he draws from Monsieur Daille's Apologiâ—â— That tho we do not our selves belive the Real Presence of Christ ' s Body in the Signs yet neither do we esteem the belief of it so criminal as to oblige us to break off Communion with all those that hold it and therefore that had the Roman Church no other Error but this that it would not have given us any sufficient cause of separation from it we are ready to admit it always supposing that the belief of it had not been press'd upon us neither as a necessary Article of Communion nor any Anathema pronounced against us for not receiving it And for the other part of it which he subjoyns Ibid. pag. 11. That a Disciple giving Divine Honour upon mistake to another Person much resembling our Saviour Christ would have been no Idolater from whence he would infer That therefore allowing a Consecrated Host to be truly Adorable a Person that should by mistake adore an unconsecrated One would not be guilty of Idolatry We are content to allow it tho what use he can make of it in this Controversy unless against his own Brethren S. Thomas Paludanus and others I do not understand since he knows we utterly deny any Host consecrated or not to be fit to be worshipped And this may serve for his first Foundation of Protestant Concessions which were they every one as certain as his first is that Christ is to be adored I cannot see what his Cause would gain by it and he has not by any Application of them in this Treatise given us the least reason to think that they are of any moment in it But some Men have a peculiar faculty of amusing the World with nothing and I remember I once heard a judicious and modest Man give this Character of an Author much resembling ours with reference to his Guide in Controversy that for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning it had the least in it of any he ever met with But I go on II. 2. Part. Catholick Assertions To his Catholick Assertions And first Catholicks as he calls them affirm in the Eucharist after the Consecration Pag. 13. §. ix a Sign or Symbol to remain still distinct and having a divers Existence from that of the thing signified or from Christ's Body contained in or under it This 't is true the Papists or if you please the Catholicks do affirm because that otherwise they could not call it a Sacrament But now if we enquire what that which they call a Sign or a Symbol in this Holy Sacrament is we shall find it to be neither such as our Blessed Saviour establish'd nor indeed any thing that can in propriety of Speech be so termed For our Saviour Christ 't is evident that the Symbols instituted by him were Bread and Wine They were these that he took and blessed and gave to his Disciples and commanded them also in like manner to take and bless and give to others in remembrance of him and as the Symbols of his Body and Blood in this Holy Eucharist But now for the Papists they destroy the Bread and the Wine they leave only a few aiery empty Species that is appearances of something but which are really nothing have no substance to support them The Symbols establish'd by Christ were Festival Symbols a matter apt for our Corporal Nourishment so signify to us that as by them viz. by Bread and Wine our Bodies are nourished to a Corporal Life so by the Body and Blood of Christ which they both represent and communicate to us our Souls are fed to Life Everlasting But for that which hath no Substance i. e. nothing which can be converted into our Bodily Nourishment how that can be a Symbol of this Spiritual Food I do not very well understand Indeed our Author tells us Pag. 14. §. x. That tho after Consecration the Substance of the Bread and Wine is deny'd to remain yet is Substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor the softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread nor nothing visible or tangible or otherwise perceptible by any Sense is involved in it That is to say that the Symbol or external Sign then in this Eucharist is according to them a hard soft frangible gustible odoriferous nutritive visible tangible perceptible nothing Verily a fit external Species indeed to contain a one manifold visible invisible extended unextended local illocal absent present natural supernatural corporal spiritual Body Secondly Concerning the Adoration of the Sacrament he tells us That this word Sacrament Pag. 14. §. xi is not to be taken always in the same sense but sometimes to be used to signify only the external Sign or Symbols sometimes only the Res Sacramenti or the thing contain'd under them which is the more principal part thereof This indeed is a sort of new Divinity I always thought hitherto that when we talked of a Sacrament properly so called we had meant an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace and that this