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
so understood as if the Bread did not contain the whole Substance of his Blood as well as of his Body and so the Wine the whole Substance of his Body as well as of his Blood (⸪) Ibid. n. xxxv Sect. Christus totus in qualibet particula n. xlii c. seeing Christ is intire in each part of the Sacrament nay in every the least Crumb or Drop of either part II. The * Ibid. n. xxv Sect. Secundum second thing to be consider'd for the understanding of this Mystery is That not any part of the Substance of the Bread and Wine remains tho nothing may seem more contrary to the Senses than this in which they are certainly in the right III. †Ibid. n. xxv Sect. Tertium n. xliv Sect. Accid sine subjecto const in Euch. That the Accidents of the Bread and Wine which either our Eyes see as the Colour Form c. or our other Senses perceive as the Tast Touch Smell all these are in no Subject but exist by themselves after a wonderful manner and which cannot be explain'd For the rest the Conversion its self ‖ Ibid. n. xxxvii Sect. Primo natione It is very difficult to be comprehended How Christs Body which before Consecration was not in the Sacrament should now come to be there since 't is certain that it changes not its place but is still all the while in Heaven Nor is it made present there by Creation * Ibid. n. xxxix Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euch. c. nor by any other Change For it is neither increased nor diminish'd but remains whole in its Substance as before †Ibid. n. xliii Quonam modo Christus existat in Euchar. Christ is not in the Sacrament Locally for he has no Quantity there is neither Great nor Little. (**) Ibid. n. xli Sect. De Transubstant curiosius non inquirendum In a word Men ought not to inquire too curiously how this Change can be made for it is not to be comprehended seeing neither in any natural Changes nor indeed in the whole Creation is there any Example of any thing like it Such is the Account which themselves give of this Mystery From all which we may in short conclude the State of the Question before us to be this That we do not dispute at all about Christ's Real Presence which after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner we acknowledg in this Holy Eucharist as we shall hereafter shew nor by consequence of the Truth of Christs Words which we undoubtedly believe But only about this Manner of his Presence viz. Whether the Bread and the Wine be changed into the very natural Body and Blood of Christ so that the Bread and Wine themselves do no longer remain But that under the Appearance of them is contain'd that same Body of Christ which was Born of the Blessed Virgin with his Soul and Divinity which same Body of Christ tho extended in all its parts in Heaven is at the same time in the Sacrament without any Extension neither Great nor Small comes thither neither by Generation nor by Creation nor by any local Motion forasmuch as it continues still at the right Hand of God in Heaven at the very same instant that it exists whole and intire in every consecrated Host or Chalice nay more is whole and intire not only in the whole Host or the whole Chalice but in every the least Crumb of the Host and every the least Drop of the Chalice here upon Earth And here it might well be thought a very needless indeed an extravagant undertaking to prove that those Elements which so many of our Senses tell us continue after their Consecration the very same as to what concerns their natural Substance that they were before are in reality the very same That what all the World Sees and Feels and Smells and Tasts to be Bread and Wine is not changed into the very natural Flesh and Blood of a Body actually before existent had it not entred into the Minds of so great a part of the Christian Church to joyn in the maintaining of a Paradox which has nothing to defend it but that fond Presumption they have certainly done well to take up That they cannot possibly be in the wrong and without which it would be very difficult for them to perswade any sober man that they are here in the right To shew that those words which they tell us work all this Miracle and are the only reason that engages them to maintain so many absurdities as are confessedly the unavoidable Consequences of this Doctrine have no such force nor interpretation as they pretend I must desire it may be remembred what I before remark'd That this Holy Sacrament was establish'd by our Saviour in the room of the Jewish Passever and upon the very Words and Ceremonies of it So that if in that all things were Typical the Feast the Customs the Expressions merely allusive to something that had been done before and of which this sacred Ceremony was the memorial we ought in all reason to conclude that both our Saviour must have designed and his Apostles understood this Holy Sacrament to have been the same too Now as to the Nature of the Passover we have already seen that it was appointed by God as a Remembrance of his delivery of the Jews out of the Land of Egypt when he slew all the first-born of the Egyptians Exod. xii The Lamb which they ate every year in this Feast was an Eucharistical Sacrifice and Type of that first Lamb which was slain in the night of their deliverance and whose Blood sprinkled upon the Posts of their Doors had preserved their Fore-fathers from the destroying Angel that he should not do them any mischief The Bread of Affliction which they broke and of which they said perhaps in the very * Vid. Cameron Annot. in Matt. xxvi 26. in illa verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter critic pag. 780. l. 24. same manner that Christ did of the very same Loaf Take eat this is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt they esteem'd a Type and Figure of that unleaven'd Bread which their Forefathers so many Ages before had eaten there and upon that account called it * Allix Serm. pag. 503. The Memorial of their delivery out of Egypt †Hammond Pract. Catechism lib vi pag. Ed. fol. The Cup of Blessing which they blessed and of which they ALL drank in this Feast they did it at once in memory both of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh and of the Blood of the Lamb which being sprinkled upon their doors preserved their own from being shed with that of the Egyptians Now all these Idea's with which the Apostles had so long been acquainted could not but presently suggest to them the same design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament That when
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
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
599. Ibid. We do not say that in the Eucharist there is only a commemoration of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the fruits of his death and passion but we joyn the ground with the fruits affirming with St. Paul that the Bread which by Gods appointment we break is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us the Cup which we drink the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin and which he carry'd up with him into the Heavens Then descending to the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation It overthrows says he the truth of Christs Humane nature and of his Ascension So little did he suppose that Christs natural Body could be at the same time both in Heaven and in the Sacrament Hereupon he explains himself yet farther But now if any one should ask of us whether we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper We answer By no means But yet if we respect the distance of place as when we speak of his Corporal presence and of his Humanity we must we affirm says he that Christs Body is as far distant from the Bread and Wine as Heaven is from Earth If any one shall from thence conclude that we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper he will conclude amiss For this Honour we allow to God that though the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere and we on Earth and not elsewhere yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner and by the means of Faith. Thus do's Beza in like manner expound their Doctrine of the Real Presence by a real communion of Christs Body and Blood and flatly condemns our Authors invention PETER MARTYR of his natural Bodie 's being either in the Symbols or any where else upon Earth The same is the account which †Respondâ—o pro meâ parte Corpus Christi non else Verè et substantialiter alibi quà m in Calo. Non tamen inficior Christi corpus verum sanguinem illius Verum quae pro salute humana cradita sunt in Cruce fide spiritualiter percipi in Sacrâ Coenâ Histoire Eccles. de Beze liv 4. p. 606. Anno 1561. Peter Martyr in the same conference gave of it and of whom * Vid. Hist de Beze ib. p. 599. Comment de stat rel p. 140. ad Ann 1561. Hospin pag. 518. Espensius one of the Popish delegates confess'd That no Divine of that time had spoken so clearly and distinctly concerning this Sacrament as he did And however ⸫ See Hospin of this whole matter pag. 520. Genebrard fasely pretends that the other Protestants dissented from him yet 't is certain they were so far from it that they all Subscribed the very same Paper out of which he read his Declaration But I will close this with the same words with which these Protestants did their final resolution in the Colloquy as to this matter Affirmamus nullam locorum distantiam impedire posse communicationem quam habemus cum Christi corpore sanguine quoniam Coena Domini est res coelestis et quamvis in terrâ recipiamus ore panem vinum vera scil Corporis sanguinis signa tamen fide spiritûs sancti operatione mentes nostrae quarum hic est praecipuè cibus in caelum elatae perfruuntur corpore sanguine praesente Et hoc respectu dicimus Corpus verè se pani conjungere sanguinem vino non aliter tamen quam sacramentali ratione neque locali neque naturali mode sed quoniam Efficaciter significant Deum illa dare fideliter communicantibus illósque side verè certo percipere Hospin l c. Comm. ibid. p. 142. Vbi sublicitur Haec est perspicua de Corporis sanguinis J C. Praesentia in Sacramento Caenae Ecclesiarum Beformatarum sentenria Beze Hist Eccles. pag. 615. where he adds that they reject not only Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation but also toute maniere de presence par laquelle le corps de Christ n'est colloquè maintenant reellemâ—nt ailleurs qu'au ciel And then adds why they thus use the word substance in this matter and what they mean by it See pag. 615. ad Ann 1561. We affirm that no distance of place can hinder the Communion which we have with Christs Body and Blood because the Supper of the Lord is a Heavenly thing and though upon Earth we receive with our mouths Bread and Wine viz. the true Symbols of his Body and Blood yet by Faith and through the Operation of the Holy Spirit our Souls of which this is the chief food being carry'd up into Heaven enjoy the Body and Blood present And in this respect we say that the Body do's truly joyn its self to the Bread and the Blood to the Wine but yet no otherwise than Sacramentally neither after a local or natural manner But because they do effectually signifie that God gives them to the Faithful Communicants and that they do by Faith truly and certainly receive them And thus far I have consider'd the forreign Divines produced by our Author and in which we find the very same Explication which our Church gives of the Real presence For our own Authors I shall insist the rather upon them both to take off any impression which the scraps here put together by those whose business it is to represent their own Sence not their Authors might otherwise be apt to make upon some Men and also to shew the exact concord there has been ever since the Reformation amongst us as to this matter Now for what concerns our Divines in King Edward vi ths time we have our Authors own confession that towards the latter end of the Reign of that excellent Prince they seem to have deny'd any such Real and Essential presence as he would fasten upon those of Queen Elizabeth's after For as the first days of this Prince 1 Treatise §. xxvi pag 19. says he seem to have been more addicted to Lutheranism so the latter days to Zwinglianism as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley and Peter Martyr And indeed the Articles agreed upon in the Convocation at London 1562. plainly shew it in the xxixth of which we find this express Clause Since the very being of humane Nature doth require that the Body of one and the same man cannot be at one and the same time in many places but of necessity must be in some certain and determinate place Therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present in many different places at the same time And since as the Holy Scriptures testifie Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the World it becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal
signification ought to be regarded with a very just Honour by us And whilst we Worship Him whose Death we herein Commemorate and of whose Grace we expect to be made partakers by it we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the Types and Figures by which he has chosen to represent the one and convey to us the other Thus therefore we think we shall best divide our Piety if we Adore our Redeemer in Heaven yet omit nothing that may testifie our just esteem of his Holy Sacrament on Earth Nor suffer the most Zealous Votary for this new Opinion to exceed us in our Care and Reverence of Approaching to his Holy Table We acknowledg him to be no less Really Present tho after another manner than they nor do we less expect to Communicate of his Body and Blood with our Souls than they who think they take Him carnally into their Mouths Let our Office of Communion be examined let the Reverence and Devotion with which we Celebrate this Sacred Feast be consider'd all these will shew how far the Church of England is from a light esteem of this great Mystery indeed that it is impossible for any to set a higher Value and Reverence upon it I shall close this with the Declaration of One who after many Years spent in great Reputation in their Communion was so happy as to finish his Days in our Church upon his first receiving the Blessed Communion among us * Andr. Sallii Votum pro pace c. 23. p. 90. Ed. Oxon. 1678. Tantam magnorum Praesulum demissionem tam eximiam Principum Populi Reverentiam in Sacra Eucharistia administranda recipienda nusquam ego vidi apud Romanenses qui tamen se unos Sacramenti istius cultores jactant That He never saw in the Church of Rome so great a Reverence both in Administring and Receiving this Holy Eucharist as he found among us insomuch that he supposed it would hardly be believed among them what from his own Experience he recounted concerning it Porro haec quae narravi trita nimis ac vulgo nota Videbuntur fratribus nostris Reformatae Ecclesiae Vid. ibid. pag. 90. cap. xxiv n. 7. Nova omnino fortè incredebilia Apparebunt Romanae Congregationis Alumnis quorum scilicet auribus perpetuò suggeritur per suos Instructores nullam apud Protestantes existere fidem praesentiae Christi realis in Eucharistiae Sacramento nullam Devotionem aut Reverentiam in eo Sumendo And this may suffice for the first thing proposed Of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or of the Real Presence professed and established in the Church of Rome Our next Business will be to inquire II. What that Real Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist is which is acknowledged by the Church of England CHAP. II. Of the Real Presence acknowledged by the Church of England IT may sufficiently appear from what has been said in the foregoing Chapter what just reason we have to reject that kind of Presence which the Church of Rome supposes of Christ in this Holy Eucharist But now in Answer to our Reflections upon them on this Occasion Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Eucharist Oxford 1687. a late Author has thought fit to make the World believe that we our selves in our Opinion of the Real Presence are altogether as absurd as they are and that the same Exceptions lie against our own Church which we urge against theirs All which if it were true would but little mend the matter unless it may be thought sufficient for a man to prove that he is not mad himself because most of his Neighbours are in the same condition Indeed herein he must be allowed to have reason on his side that if the Case be so as he affirms we of all men living ought not to press them with such Contradictions Tract I. pag. 15 16. as our own Opinion stands equally involved in 'T is true he confesses for what concerns the Church of England as it stood in the latter * Tract I. §. 26. end of King Edward the 6th's time and as it may perhaps be thought to stand now since the †Ibid. §. 4. reviving of the Old Rubrick against the Adoration of the Sacrament at the end of our Communion-Office it seems not to lye open to such a Recrimination But taking our Opinion of the Real Presence from the Expressions of our own Divines and of those abroad such as Calvin c. whose Doctrine amongst all the rest the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with especially since the beginning of the Reformation by Q. Elizabeth it plainly implies That the very Substance of Christ's Body That his Natural Body that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin and crucified on the Cross is present as in Heaven so here in this Holy Sacrament either to the worthy Receiver or to the Symbols which not only contradicts the present Declaration of our Church viz. That the Natural Body of Christ is not in in this blessed Sacrament but will also lay a necessity upon us to quit our Reason too that we give for it viz. That it is against the Truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than One at One time and on which we seem to found our Faith in this matter This is I think the design of the former of those Discourses lately Printed at Oxford as to what concerns the Real Presence and in Answer to which that I may proceed as distinctly as possible I shall reduce my Reflections to these Four Generals 1. What is the true Notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England 2. That this has been the Notion constantly maintain'd by the Generality of our Divines 3. That the Alteration of the Rubrick as to this matter was not upon any such difference in their Opinions as this Author seems to surmise 4. That the Reason alledged by it concerning the Impossibility of Christ's Natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of his Exceptions against it But before I enter on these Reflections I cannot but observe the unreasonableness of our Adversaries in repeating continually the same Arguments against us without either adding of any the least new force to them or even taking notice of those Replies that have more than once been made against them The Publisher of this Treatise has not been so indiligent an Observer of what has past under his Eyes with reference to these kind of Controversies as not to know that this very Objection which is the Foundation of his First Discourse was made by his Old Friend T. G. above Nine Years since and fully answer'd by his Reverend and Learned Adversary not long after And therefore that he certainly ought either quietly to have let alone this Argument already baffled and not have put the World in Mind where
otherwise I shall not trouble the Reader with any more of our Divines who lived in the beginning of this Queen's Reign Mr. HOOKER and subscribed the Article before-recited but pass on directly to him whom our Author first mentions Tr. I. cap. 2. §. 10. Pag. 6. the Venerable Mr. Hooker and whose Judgment having been so deservedly esteemed by all sorts of men ought not to be lightly accounted of by us And here I must observe that this Learned Person is drawn in only by a Consequence and that no very clear one neither to favour his Opinion Difference between the Protestant and Socinian Methods in answer to the Protestants Plea for a Socinian pag. 54. The truth is he has dealt with Mr. Hooker just as himself or one of his Friends has been observed to have done on the like occasion with the incomparable Chillingworth has pick'd up a Passage or two that seemed for his purpose but dissembled whole Pages in the same place that were evidently against him For thus Mr. Hooker in the Chapter cited by him interprets the words of Institution If we doubt says he what those admirable words may import let him be our Teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a School-master Let our Lord's Apostle be his Interpreter content we our selves with his Explication My Body the Communion of my Body My Blood the Communion of my Blood. Is there any thing more expedite clear and easie than that as Christ is termed our Life because through him we obtain Life So the parts of this Sacrament are his Body and Blood because they are Causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament And again p. 310. he thus interprets the same words This Hallow'd Food through the concurrence of Divine Power is in verity and truth unto faithful Receivers instrumentally a Cause of that mystical participation whereby as I make my self wholly theirs so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving Grace as my sacrificed Body can yeild and as their Souls do presently need This is to them and in them my Body And this may suffice in Vindication of Mr. Hooker Those who desire a fuller Account may find several Pages to the same purpose in the Chapter which I have quoted Bishop ANDREWS 1 Tract pag. 7. §. xi n. 1. The next our Author mentions is the Learned Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage as he calls it in the Answer to Bellarmine And indeed we need desire no other Passage to judge of his Opinion in this matter in which 1st He utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist 2. He professes that a Presence we believe and that no less a True one than the Papists 3. He plainly insinuates that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was much the same as in Baptism the very allusion which the Holy †Habemus Christum praesentem ad Baptismatis Sacramentum habemus eum praesentem ad Altaris Cibum Potum Augustin Stola quae est Ecclesia Christi lavatur in ipsius sanguine vivo i. e. in lavacro regenerationis Origen Statim baptizatus in sanguine agni Vir meruit appellari Hieron Christi sanguine lavaris quando in ejus mortem Baptizaris Leo. P. c. Fathers were wont to make to express his Presence by in this Holy Sacrament which since our Adversaries can neither deny nor yet say is so real as to be Essential or Corporeal they must of necessity allow that there may be a true Presence which is all the Bishop affirms without such a Substantial one as this Author here contends for But to shew that whatever this Bishop understood by the Real presence it could not be that Christs glorified Body is now actually present in this Sacred Mystery will appear demonstratively from this that he declares it is not this Body which we either Represent or partake of there insomuch that he doubts not to say that could there be a Transubstantiation such as the Church of Rome supposes it would not serve our turn nor answer the design of this Sacrament 'T is in his Sermon on 1 Cor. See Sermon vii on the Resurect pag. 454. Serm. Lâ—nd 1641. v. 7 8. We will mark saith he something more That Epulemur doth here refer to Immolatus To Christ not every way consider'd but As when he was Offer'd Christs Body that now is true But not Christs Body as now it is but as then it was when it was offer'd rent and slain and sacrificed for us Not as now he is glorified for so he is not he cannot be Immolatus For as he is he is immortal and impassible But as then he was when he suffer'd death that is passible and mortal Then in his passible State he did institute this of outs to be a memorial of his Passible and Passion both And we are in this Action not only carry'd up to Christ sursum Corda so that Christ it seems is not brought down to us but we are also carry'd back to Christ as he was at the very instant and in the very Act of his offering So and no otherwise doth this Text teach So and no otherwise do we Represent him By the incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit not He alone but He as at the very act of his offering is made present to us and we incorporate into his death and invested in the Benefits of it If an Host could be turned into him now glorified as he is it would not serve Christ offer'd is it Thither must we look to the Serpent lift up thither we must repair even ad Cadaver We must Hoc facere do that is then done So and no otherwise is this Epulare to be conceived And so I think none will say they do or can turn him Whatsoever Real presence then this Bishop believed it must be of his crucified Body and as in the State of his death and that I think cannot be otherwise present than in one of those two ways mentioned above by Arch-Bishop Cranmer and both of which we willingly acknowledge either Figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive them And from this Account of Bishop Andrews Opinion we may conclude what it was that Casaubon and King James understood by the Real Presence ASAVBON KING JAMES A. Bishop of Spalato who insist upon that Bishops words to express their own Notion and meaning of it Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch Bishop of Spalato See the 1. Tra. who in the next § xi note 2. pag. 7. * Vol. 3. de Rep. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 11. pag. 200. 201. to that cited by our Adversary is
places at once till the Papists can demonstrate the possibility thereof by Testimony of Holy Scripture or the ancient Tradition of the Primitive Church or by apparent Reason We need not suppose that they said this doubting whether it implied a Contradiction but because the certainty of the Contradiction secured them against the possibility of any such Proof * This is evident in B. Taylor who thought that God could not do this because it implied a Contradiction Real Presence §. xi n. 1. p. 230. and Ibid. n. 27. He saith 't is utterly impossible So also Dr. White professes that according to the Order which God has fixed by his Word and Will this cannot be done Confer pag. 446 447. and before pag. 181. to this Objection That tho in Nature it be impossible for one and the same Body to be in many places at once yet because God is Omnipotent he is able to effect it We answer says he It implieth a Contradiction that God should destroy the nature of a thing the nature of the same thing remaining safe See 〈◊〉 p. 180 181. White 's Works Lond. 1624. And now I know but one Objection more that is or can be offered against what I have said and which having answered I shall close this Point For if this be all the Church of England understands when it speakes of a Real Presence viz. A Real Sacramental Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Holy Signs and a real Spiritual Presence in the inward Communion of them to the Soul of every worthy Receiver will not this precipitate us into downright ‖ See 1. Treatise pag. 23. §. xxxii p. 24. §. xxxii p. 25. §. xxxvi xxxvii c. Zuinglianism and render us after all our pretences as very Sacramentaries as they Indeed I am not able directly to say whether it will or no because I find the Opinion of Zuinglius very variously represented as to this matter But yet First If by Zuinglianism he means that which is more properly * Smalcius de Coen Dom. p. 347. Id Disp 9. de Hypocr p. 289. Volkelius lib. iv cap. 12. p. 304 319 c. Socinus in Paraenesi c. iv Sclichtingius disp de Coeu Dom. p. 701. Socinianism viz. a meer Commemoration of Christ's Death and a Thanksgiving to God for it 't is evident it does not forasmuch as we positively confess that in this Holy Sacrament there is a Real and Spiritual Grace communicated to us even all the benefits of that Death and Passion which we there set forth And this or somewhat very like it I find sometimes to have been maintained by †Zuingl See de Provid Dei cap. 6 c. Zuinglius But now Secondly If by Zuinglianism he understands such a Real Prefence as denies only the Coexistence of Christ's Natural Body now in Heaven at the same time in this Holy Sacrament but denies nothing of that Real and Spiritual * And this our Author seems to insinuate See the places above cited And indeed others have alledged this as the true Opinion of Zuinglius See Calvin Tract de Coen Dom. Defens Sacram. Admonit ad Westphal Passim alibi Vid. insuper libr. de Orthod Consens c. 7 And especially Hospin p. 42 55 177 c. Hist Sacr. paâ—â— 2. Communion of it we have be fore mentioned this is indeed our Doctrine nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill Names he is able to put upon it But yet I wonder why he should call this Zuinglianism since if the common name of Catholick or Christian Doctrine be not sufficient he might have found out a more ancient Abettor of this Real Presence than Zuinglius and the truth is one of the most dangerous Opposers both of their Head and their Faith that ever was I mean St. Paul who has not only clearly express'd himself against them as to this Point of the Eucharist 1 Cor. x. 16. but in most of their other Errors left such pernicious Sayings to the World as all their Authority and Infallibility let me add nor all their Anathema's neither will not be able to overcome I shall close up this Discourse of the Real Presence acknowledged by us in this Holy Sacrament with a plain familiar Example and which may serve at once both to illustrate and confirm the Propriety of it A Father makes his last Will and by it bequeaths his Estate and all the Profits of it to his Child Vid. Cosens Hist Transubstantionis cap. v. §. 5. p. 57. He delivers it into the Hands of his Son and bids him take there his House and Lands which by this his last Will he delivers to him The Son in this case receives nothing but a Roll of Parchment with a Seal tied to it from his Father but yet by virtue of this Parchment he is intituled to his Estate performing the Conditions of his Will and to all the Benefits and Advantages of it And in that Deed he truly and effectually received the very House and Lands that were thereby conveyed to him Our Saviour Christ in like manner being now about to leave the World gives this Holy Sacrament as his final Bequest to us in it he conveys to us a right to his Body and Blood and to all the Spiritual Blessings and Graces that proceed from them So that as often as we receive this Holy Eucharist as we ought to do we receive indeed nothing but a little Bread and Wine into our Hands but by the Blessing and Promise of Christ we by that Bread and Wine as really and truly become Partakers of Christ's Body and Blood as the Son by the Will of his Father was made Inheritor of his Estate Nor is it any more necessary for this that Christ's Body should come down from Heaven or the outward Elements which we receive be substantially turned into it than it is necessary in that other case that the very Houses and Lands should be given into the Hands of the Son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them or the Will of the Father be truly and properly changed into the very Nature and Substance of them PART II. CHAPTER III. Of the Adoration of the Host as prescribed and practised in the Church of Rome WE are now arrived at the last Part of this Discourse in which I must thus far change the Method I pursued in the Other Subject as to consider First What the Doctrine of the Church of England as to this Point is and what our Adversaries Exceptions against it are Secondly What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and whether what this Author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this Matter For the former of these The Doctrine of the Church of England we shall need go no farther than the Rubrick we have before-mention'd wherein it is expresly declared with reference to this Holy Sacrament Rubr. at the end of the