born of the Virgin by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ viz. of his flesh and of his Church and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his doctrine that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the Saxon Homilies which deny the Sacrament to be a meer commemoration according to the opinion of Joh. Erigena but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and mystical manner and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of England embraced upon the Reformation as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ being in more places than one even that Body of Christ which is in heaven yet in the Articles it declares that the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecrated and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism it is said that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ as the Church is really but mystically the Body of Christ because of his Spirit dwelling in them So the Apology of our Church saith that in the Lords Supper there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ because that is the proper food of our souls as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church but that it is the true and genuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church And thus I hope I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing viz. to explain this Rubrick so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England nor to leave nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it R. P. I was afraid of a Paradox and it appears not without Reason for I never met with any one yet who explained the doctrine of Bertram and the Church of England after this manner and all that attempted it talked so in the clouds that transubstantiation it self did not seem more hard to understand but I remember Pet. de Marca hath proved that the Book of Bertram was the same which was written by Joh. Scotus and therefore your hypothesis is utterly overthrown P. D. I have read and considered that faint attempt of that Great Man which seemed to be designed for no other end but to make us believe that Bertrams Book was burned for heretical at the Synod of Vercelles but if any one will impartially consider the Book of Bertram and compare it with the account given of the opinion of Joh. Scotus by the Writers against Berengarius they will find De Marca's opinion without the least colour of probability R. P. But Card. Perron Mauguin Cellotius and Arnaud all say that Bertram in the First part disputes against the Stercoranists who were a sort of Hereticks who held that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was passible corruptible and digestible and in all things just as the bread appeared to our senses and asserted that all the accidents of the Bread were founded hypostatically in the Body of Christ and not to have any proper subsistence of their own P. D. These were a notable sort of Hereticks if they could be found but it appears by the enemies of Berengarius that this opprobrious name was fixed by them on all those who asserted the substance of the Bread to remain after consecration and it would be very strange if Bertram should confute that which himself asserts for he saith the Sacramental Elements do pass into the nourishment of our Bodies But if any were lyable to this accusation it must be Paschasius if Pet. de Marca's observation of him be true that he held both substance and quantity of the Bread and Wine to be turned into the Body of Christ from whence it follows that must be the subject of all those accidents which were in the Bread before which is the very sink of Stercoranism Nay I am very much deceived if Pope Nicholas 2. in the recantation prescribed to Berengarius did not fall into the filth of it far more than Rabanus or Heribaldus for he asserts therein that the Body of Christ is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the hands of Priests and ground by the teeth of Believers But what place could be fitter for this Heresie than the Sedes Stercoraria And Guitmundus striving to help Pope Nicholas and his Council out falls into the same Heresie himself for he shews that Christs Body may be handled and chewed in the Sacrament if so it must be the subject of the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Which according to Perron and his followers is plain Stercorâ—nism R. P. But do not you fall into another Heresie viz. of Impanation P. D. A man had need look to his words when Heresies are so common and buz so about a mans ears And some think they confute a man with a vengeance if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten upon him But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ and by that to the Divinity which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread not meerly by divine efficacy and power but by an Hypostatical Vnion which is the opinion not without ground attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis and is lyable to this great absurdity that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ which Bellarmine saith it is blasphemy to imagine And then it might be said that the bread is God that the Word is made Bread and that God is both bread and wine But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs 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 quickning and enlivening the Souls of Believers so the bread and wine after consecration are the real but the spiritual and Mystical body of Christ. If any one yet thinks that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this let them know it is the Doctrine of our Church I am to defend and not of every particular Divine in it and if any do seem to speak of the presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven I desire them in the first place to reconcile that doctrine with this dogmatical assertion at the end of this Rubrick that it is against the Truth of Christs natural Body not against the corporal presence of it to be at one time in more places than one Let men imagine what kind of presence they please of the same body I only desire to know whether to be in Heaven and to be in the Sacrament be to be in the same or distinct places If the places be distinct as no doubt Heaven and Earth are then our Church declares that it is contrary to the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be in more places than one at one time R. P. But cannot God annihilate that Cylinder of air between the Body of Christ in Heaven and the Sacrament on the Altar and so make them both to be in one place P. D. This is a very idle and extravagant question because if it be granted it only proves that there is nothing between Christs Body in Heaven and the Host but it doth not prove the Host to be that Body of Christ and withal since so many thousand Hosts are consecrated in a Day you must suppose so much air annihilated as lies between Christs Body and all those Hosts but can any man imagine God should annihilate so much air every time a Priest Consecrates and I remember a good saying of Cajetan Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur we must not dispute of Gods absolute power about the matter of Sacraments because these are so often celebrated that we are to suppose no more than an ordinary power to be imployed about them And suppose we should grant a thing possible by Gods absolute power he saith it is folly to assert all that to be in the Sacrament which God can do However this doth not reach this Rubrick which supposes distinct places and saith it is contrary to the truth of Christs natural Body to be in more places than one at one time R. P. But may not all this be understood as T. G. suggests of the natural manner of a bodies being present in more places than one viz. that it is repugnant to the Truth of Christs natural Body to be naturally present or in a corporeal manner in more places than one but it may be naturally present but in one place i. e. by way of extension or quantity but it may be present in more places after another manner P. D. I think you have strained for this and it is your last effort to which I answer 1. It yields no advantage to T. G. for supposing that some of our Divines did hold it possible that the same body might be present in several places after a different manner yet how doth it hence follow that the Rubrick doth not charge them who worship the substance of Bread and Wine with Idolatry 2. Supposing the Church did fix this charge upon those who worship the Body of Christ as present I desire to know whether another kind of presence would excuse from Idolatry i. e. supposing that to worship Christs Body as corporeally present be Idolatry it would not be Idolatry to worship the very same Body as present after another manner Which is all one as to ask whether if it be Idolatry to worship a man with his cloaths on it be likewise Idolatry to worship him with his cloaths off If it be the very same body let the manner of its being present be the same or different it doth not alter the nature or reason of worship Only of the two it seems more unreasonable to worship an invisible Body than a visible one for in a visible body he that worships is sure of something that he sees but when he fancies an invisible Body present he fancies something which if it were must be seen and yet though he cannot see it he resolves to worship it 3. It is altogether as unreasonable to believe that a Body may be present in several places after a different manner as after the same manner For whereever a Body is really present let it be with extension or without it is so in that place as not to be in another i. e. the Body of Christ being in the Host on the Altar is so there as not to be on the floor or any other place about it for otherwise it could not be said to be only under the accidents I then ask on what account the same body cannot be present in two places at once after the same manner and yet may be after a different manner Aquinas saith it doth imply a contradiction for the same Body to be in several places at once after the same manner i. e. by way of extension or quantity because it is necessary for the same thing to be undivided from it self but that which is in several places must be divided from it self But as Conink well observes this argument proves it as impossible for the same body to be in several places after a different manner for it is never the less divided from it self by being in one place after another manner than in the other yea it will be more divided because it will be after two several wayes repugnant to each other And it is much more easie to conceive that a Body should be in two several places after a natural manner than to be so in one place and in another after such a spiritual manner as is very hard to be understood It is much more repugnant saith Maeratius for the same Body to be extended and not extended than to have a double extension If it be repugnant to the finite nature of a body to be in more places than one because then it might be present in all places this saith Lugo will hold against a Sacramental Presence for that comes nearer to a Divine immensity for a Body to be in more places without quantity than with it Suarez and Gamachaeus say this comes nearer to ubiquity because a Sacramental presence supposes the Body to be whole in every part which a natural doth not And they grant that all the contradictions which follow upon being present in several places after a natural manner will hold if the one be natural and the other not i. e. that the same Body may be above it self and below it self within it self and without it self and may move with two contrary motions
in Euclid is plainer than this R. P. But I tell you we do not worship the creature but the body of Christ. P. D. I tell you again if there be a creature you do worship it for you give adoration to what is before you be it what it will if it be a creature you adore it R. P. But we say it is not a creature we worship P. D. Do not you give adoration to that which is consecrated whether it remains a creature or not after consecration At the elevation of the Host at the carrying it about at the exposing of it on the Altar you worship that which was consecrated do you not R. P. We worship that which was bread before consecration but after is no longer so but the body of Christ. P. D. But if it should remain bread after consecration what do ye adore then is it not the substance of the bread R. P. Yes but we believe it is not the bread P. D. That is not the question what you believe for they that believed God to be the soul of the world worshipped the parts of it upon a supposition which if it had been true would have justified their worship every jot as well as yours can do you and yet they were gross Idolaters for all that Nay I will say more to you there never were Idolaters in the world that did not proceed upon a false supposition and it may be not so unreasonable as yours This cannot therefore excuse you if your supposition proves false as no doubt it is that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration But I now ask you what your adoration is in the opinion of those persons who do firmly believe the Sacramental Elements to remain in their natural substances Is it not the giving divine worship to a creature And is not the giving divine worship to a creature Idolatry so that according to the sense of our Church the Worship of the Host must be Idolatry R. P. But what have you got by all this for we confess our selves that if the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration we are as great Idolaters as they that worship a red cloath P. D. Upon my word you had need then to be well assured that the substance of Bread and Wine do not remain and yet I must tell you we can be certain of nothing in the world if we are not certain that the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration For if we are certain of nothing by our senses but of the outward accidents which is all your best men do say in this case we cannot be certain of any visible substance in the world for no bodily substance can be discerned but by our senses and so all foundation of certainty by sense is destroyed Nay farther it takes away all certainty by reason for it confounds the clearest maxims of it by overthrowing all Mathematical proportions of great and small whole and parts by destroying all notions of distance and place by jumbling the notions of body and Spirit And lastly it takes away all certainty by Revelation which can never come to us but upon the supposition of the certainty of Sense and Reason R. P. O Sir I see what you would be at you would fain draw me into a dispute about transubstantiation upon principles of Reason I beg your pardon Sir This is a matter of faith and must be stoutly believed or else we are gone No more of this Sir to your business of Idolatry I pray P. D. I was only giving you some caution by the by how much you are concerned to look about you but since you are resolved to shut your eyes I return to the sense of our Church about the Idolatry of the Mass and it follows necessarily from our former discourse that since our Church believes the substance of the Elements do remain and that your worship doth really fix upon that substance whatever your intentions be it is really Idolatry R. P. However this only proves it to be material Idolatry and not formal P. D. I have often heard of this distinction but I could never be satisfied with it For what is material and formal Idolatry R. P. Material Idolatry I take to be mistaken worship i. e. I do give divine worship to a false object but I do not intend to give it to a false object of Worship but to a true one P. D. Then Formal Idolatry must be giving divine worship to a false object of Worship knowing it to be a false object And where are there any such Idolaters to be found in the world Did not the Heathens believe that to be God which they worshipped And is not God a true object of worship only they mistook that to be God which was not and so were only material Idolaters Even those that worshipped their Images for Gods were only mistaken for they had a good intention only to worship God but they unhappily took their Images for Gods And I must needs say they who took the Sun Moon and Stars for Gods and worshipped them as such were very excusable in comparison of those who take a piece of bread for God or that which appears like it R. P. You are very severe methinks but do you think there is no difference among Idolaters P. D. Yes I tell you there is but not much to your comfort The grosser mens erour is the more means to convince men of it the more wilful their blindness and continuance in it the more culpable they are in their Idolatry and consequently the less excusable R. P. But may not a man innocently mistake as if in the dark a Child should ask blessing of one that is not his Father would his Father have reason to be angry with him P. D. Not for once or if it were in the dark but if he should see him every day go very formally to a joyn'd Stool in the Hall or to a Brown Loaf in the Buttery and there very solemnly down upon his knees to them and beg their blessing tell me what you think the Father would say to such a mistake Would he excuse him saying Alas poor Child he intended all this to me only he mistook the Brown Loaf or a joyn'd stool for me R. P. Forbear such comparisons for we have divine Revelation This is my Body and we believe his word against all you can say in this matter P. D. But what will you say if by the confession of many of the best and most learned of your own Divines You have not Divine Revelation for it and that those words cannot prove that the substance of Bread doth not remain after consecration which is the thing we now enquire after and if it were not to go off from our present business I would undertake to prove this evidently to you R. P. However we have the Authority of our Church for it P. D. You had as good say you are
upwards and downwards forwards and backwards it may be hot in one place and cold in another it may be alive in one place and dead in another and which is the highest contradiction one would think by force of this principle a man may be damned in one place and saved in another And no less a man than Ysambertus hath defended the possibility of this upon this principle for saith he a man as in one place may be killed in a mortal sin and so be damned whereas in another place he may have contrition and absolution and so be saved But Vasquez asks an untoward Question suppose such a man be reduced to one place whether shall he be saved or damned for he cannot then be both and there is no more reason he should be put out of the state of Grace by the state of sin than out of the state of sin by the state of Grace Such horrible contradictions do men run into rather than let go an absurd hypothesis and Suarez confesseth that a Sacramental Presence is liable to the same contradictions because that supposeth a capacity for Acts of the Mind under it 4. I say that asserting a Body to be present naturally in one place and spiritually and indivisibly in more doth involve more contradictions in it than to be present in several places after a natural manner For the very manner of a bodies being present indivisibly carries contradictions along with it peculiar to it self For whereever there is a body there must be quantity and whereever there is quantity there must be divisibility how then can a divisible body be indivisibly present If they say it is after the manner of a Spirit that doth by no means salve the contradiction for how can a body be after the manner of a Spirit and if it can how can the notion of Body and Spirit be differenced from each other If actual extension may be separated from a Body why not quantity it self why may not divisibility be separated from a line and two and two not make actually four supposing that they retain their intrinsick aptitude to do it What becomes of the differences of greater and less since that which is greater may be contained under the less and so the very same thing will be greater or less greater and not greater than it self What notion can we have of distance since here a Body is supposed to have all its organical parts head breast legs and feet and yet no local distance between Head and Feet R. P. I see it is a dangerous thing to give you but a hint about transubstantiation if you but once take the scent you run on so fast that it is a very hard matter to take you off I did not think this Rubrick could have held us thus long but I see you were resolved to have two or three throws at transubstantiation in passing though I warned you before about it P. D. No Sir It was T. G.'s fixing such an absurd sense upon our Church as though she made it Idolatry to Worship Christs Body as present after a corporeal manner and not after another which made me insist so long upon this R. P. What saith my Fanatick Acquaintance to all this What! sleeping F. C. Only a Nod or two I hearkened a while but I found you were about hard and unsavoury notions truly it was to me no awakening discourse R. P. Come come we will keep you waking we are now come to the Puritan Cause F. C. Ay Ay there is some life in that R. P. What think you was Robert Abbot Bishop of Salisbury a Puritan or not F. C. What! a Bishop a Puritan a good one I warrant you a Puritan in Lawn sleeves a Puritan with Cross and Surplice You know well what belongs to a Puritan do you not I tell you there never was a true Puritan but abhorred these things with all his heart What do you tell me of a Bishop of Salisbury for a Puritan I say again if he had been so he would have taken his Lawn sleeves and thrown them into the Fire P. D. But I pray Sir how comes in this discourse about Bishop Abbot R. P. I will tell you Among other Divines produced by Dr. St. to prove the charge of Idolatry maintained against the Church of Rome in K. James his time one was Bishop Abbot in his answer to Bishop T. G. takes this to be Archbishop Abbot and excepts against him as an abettor of the Puritan party and tells from Dr. Heylin that on that account it was thought necessary to suspend him from his Metropolitical Visitation Dr. St. makes sport with his Suspending a Bishop of Salisbury from Metropolitical jurisdiction and tells what strange things those of the Church of Rome can do with five words and upbraids T. G. with Ignorance of our Church and in truth is too Tragical upon such a slight occasion Now T. G. proves that it was only a mistake of the person and not of his quality although Dr. St. saith that he was never till now suspected for a Puritan P. D. Are you sure of that R. P. Yes T. G. saith so more than once P. D. However it is good to be sure These are Dr. St.'s words The two first he excepts against are the two Archbishops Whitgift and Abbot as Puritanically inclined but as it unhappily falls out one of them was never mentioned by me and the other never till now suspected for a Puritan I pray advise T. G. to read a little more carefully before he confutes Is it not plain that he means Archbishop Abbot was never mentioned by him and Archbishop Whitgift was never till now suspected for a Puritan It could be no want of understanding in T. G. to make him thus misconstrue his words R. P. But he proves he was Puritanically inclined and takes off his Testimony P. D. How doth he prove that R. P. From Dr. Heylin whose Histories serve us to many a good purpose for he saith he was a Calvinian though a moderate one that he was an enemy to Bishop Laud in the Vniversity that he commends Mr. Perkins and wrote his last Book of Grace and Perseverance of the Saints P. D. Very wonderful proofs As though many of the stiffest Defenders of our Church against the Puritan party had not been inclining to Calvinism as it is called in the point of Predestination especially in that moderate way wherein R. Abbot asserted it As though it were not possible for men to be zealous for our Liturgie and Ceremonies if they held the doctrine of Election and Perseverance But we do not want those of the Highest Order of our Church at this day who are eminent for Learning and Piety and Zeal for the Church who would take it very ill from T. G. upon the account of those opinions to be thought enemies to the Church of England as no doubt the Puritans were But T. G. runs on with this perpetual mistake when
Christian trust his soul with that Church which teaches that which must needs be Idolatry in all that understand not the Figure 13. There is neither Scripture nor Tradition for worshipping the Cross the Images and Reliques of Saints Therefore it evidences the same carnal hope that God will abate of his Gospel for such bribes Which is the Will-worship of Masses Pilgrimages and Indulgences to that purpose 14. Neither Scripture nor Tradition is there for the removing any soul out of Purgatory unto the Beatifical Vision before the day of Judgement Therefore the same carnal hope is seen in the Will-worship of Masses Indulgences Pilgrimages and the like for that purpose and that destructive to the salvation of all that believe that the guilt of their sins is taken away by submitting to the Keys before they be contrite and the temporal penalty remaining in Purgatory paid by these Will-worships 15. Both Scripture and Tradition condemn the deposing of Princes and acquitting their subjects of their Allegiance and enjoyning them to take Arms for them whom the Pope substitutes And this doctrine is not only false but in my opinion properly Heresie yet practised by so many Popes The Church may be divided that salvation may be had on both sides Instances The Schisms of the Popes The Schism of Acacius The Schism between the Greeks and the Latins I hold the Schism for the Reformation to be of this kind But I do not allow Salvation to any that shall change having these reasons before him though I allow the Reformation not to be perfect in some points of less moment as prayer for the dead and others Remember alwayes that the Popish Church of England can never be Canonically governed being immediately under the Pope 16. There is both Scripture and Tradition for the Scriptures and Service in a known Tongue and for the Eucharist in both Kinds How then can any Christian trust his soul with that Church which hath the Conscience to bar him of such helps provided by God These are all his own words without addition or alteration And what think you now of Mr. Thorndike was this man a secret Friend to the Church of Rome do you think who saith so plainly that a man cannot embrace the Communion of that Church without hazard of his salvation R. P. I did little think by the Use T. G. on all occasions makes of him that he had been a man of such principles But I think T. G. had as good have let him alone as have given occasion for producing such Testimonies of the thoughts which a man of his Learning and Fame had concerning the Church of Rome However you see he holds the presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist and can you reconcile this to what you asserted to be the Doctrine of the Church of England P. D. Yes very well If you compare what he saith here with what he declares more at large in his Book wherein you may read these remarkable words to this purpose If it can any way be shewed 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 pray 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 sense 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 instrument of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it no otherwise than his flesh and blood conveyed 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 And in two or three places more he speaks to the same purpose R. P. Hold Sir I beseech you you have said enough you will fall back again to transubstantiation in spite of my heart P. D. What when I only answer a Question you asked me R. P. Enough of Mr. Thorndike unless he were more our Friend than I find he was I pray what say you to Archbishop Whitgift P. D. Hath T. G. perswaded you that he is turned Puritan above seventy years after his death who never was suspected for it while he was living nor since till the transforming dayes of T. G. R. P. You may jeer as you please but T. G. tells a notable story of the Lambeth Articles and how Q. Elizabeths black Husband was like to have been divorced from her upon them and how K. James would not receive them into the Articles of the Church And all this as well as many other good things he hath out of one Pet. Heylin Is the man alive I pray that we may give him our due thanks for the service he hath done us upon many occasions For we have written whole Books against the Reformation out of his History of it and I find T. G. relyes as much upon him as other good Catholicks do on Cochlaeus and Surius or as he doth at other times on the Patronus bonae Fidei P. D. Dr. Heylin was a man of very good parts and Learning and who did write History pleasantly enough but in some things he was too much a party to be an Historian and being deeply concerned in some quarrels himself all his Historical writings about our Church do plainly discover which side he espoused which to me doth not seem to agree with the impartiality of an Historian And if he could but throw dirt on that which he accounted the Puritan party from the Beginning of the Reformation he mattered not though the whole Reformation suffered by it But for all this he was far from being a Friend either to the Church or Court of Rome and next to Puritanism I believe he hated Popery most so that if he had been alive and you had gone to thank him for the service he had done you in all probability you had provoked him to have written as sharply against you as ever he wrote against the Puritans But what is all this to Archbishop Whitgifts being suspected for a Puritan Dares Pet. Heylin suggest any such thing no he knew him too well and saith that by his contrivance the Puritan Faction was so muzled that they were not able to bark in a long time after Had he then any suspicion of his being Puritanically inclined And as to the Lambeth Articles they only prove that he held those opinions contained in them and recommended them to the Vniversity to suppress the disputes which had been there raised concerning them And what then doth this render him