33. I proceed to confirm it And this 1. Their firming change of elements to Christ body First from that usual prayer in the consecration of these elements in all Liturgies and Missals of the antiquity of which anon ut Deus Spiritu suo dona sanctificet faciatque ea corpus sanguinem Filii sui Blondel p. 469 confesseth this phrase not only in the modern forms but in all the other ancient Liturgies c. 21. yet is this phrase laid aside in the forms of the Reformation Instead of which our English hath these words Hear us O Merciful Father and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine according to thy Son our Saviour's holy Institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood c. but no prayer that those elements may be made his body and blood And from those ordinary expressions in the Fathers whereby is signified not only the real body and blood of Christ to be received in the action or communication of the Sacrament but the bread and wine to be to be made to be changed into of them to be made Christ's body and blood not by the virtue of worthy receiving but by the virtue of the consecration preceding the receiving quae fit Dominicis verbis therefore these in no Liturgy omitted invocatione Divini nominis See many of these expressions in Blondel 4. c. 4 5 6 7 propos and Cassand consult art 10. The Fathers calling the Eucharist Christ's body when in altari when in manibus Sacerdotis hoc ipsum corpus Magi habuerunt in praesepi nos in altari illi in ulnis Mulieris nos in manibus Sacerdotis c. Chrysost which shews that what presence they held of Christ's body in the Sacrament they held it ante usum with the consecrated elements and not only with the worthy receiver These two expressions to be reverenced for antiquity I find in S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch An. Dom. 71. his Epistles I mean those Epistles free from the paraphrase allowed by Archbishop Usher and Dr. Hammond one in Ep. ad Philadelphicos Si quis schisma facientem sequitur regnum Dei non haereditat Stude igitur una Eucharistia uti una enim curo Domini nostri Jesu Christi unus calix in unionem sanguinis ipsius unum altare unus Episcopus cum Presbyteris c. the other in Ep. ad Smyrnaeos Quid enim juvat me quis si me laudat Dominum antem meum blasphemat non confitens ipsum carniferum who said also secundum videri ipsum passum esse before this afterward it follows ab Eucharistia oratione recedunt Theodoret dial 3. quotes it oblatione recedunt propter non confiteri Eucharistiam carnem esse Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi pro peccatis nostris passam quam benignitate Pater resuscitavit Contradicentes ergo huic dono Dei perscrutantes moriuntur conferens autem esset ipsis diligere ut resurgant Secondly From their affirming such a change of the elements as was miraculous miraculous in such a manner as that after the words of Consecration with made of or instead of the substance of the Bread c. is the substance of the Body of Christ that Body which was born of the B. Virgin Some of them at least affirming it such a change as that the substance or nature of Bread ceaseth to be and saying that our senses for this matter were not to be trusted in whom are found also some of the modern phrases of the Catholicks and Schoolmen I will set you down some of them Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum c. non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit Quare cum omni certitudine corpus sanguinem Christi sumamus Nam sub specie panis datur ibi corpus sub specie vini datur sanguis Cyril Hieros Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur natura i.e. of the Bread and Wine sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest is quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas Ambr. Sermo Christi immutat quando vult instituta naturae applied to the Eucharist as if something in Nature is there chang'd Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. Haec tribuit virtute benedictionis in corpus suum rerum quae videntur i.e. panis vini naturam mutans Greg. Nyss Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis verbo suo secreta potestate immutat Ante quam invocatione sui nominis consecretur substantia illic est panis vini post verbum autem Christi corpus sanguis est Christi Quid mirum autem si ea quae verbo creare potuit possit creata convertere c. Caesarius Arelat quoted by Blondel p. 69. Ne ergo consideres tanquam nudum panem nudum vinum est enim corpus sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gustu rem judices Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur a nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi c. Cyr. Hier. Carech 4. Mystag Here observe that the presence of Christ's Body is applied not only to the Receiver but to the Elements else why should the Fathers press the mistakes and errors of sense about the Elements For what Protestant warns his Scholars of a fallacy of their senses in the Eucharist Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 83. Credamus ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit quoniam ergo ille dixit Hoc est corpus meum c. Num vides panem num vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit ne cogites quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Chrys Hom. de Euch. in Encoeniis Forte dicas aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam quantis probamus exemplis c. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Ambr. Besides these methinks two passages in Dr. Taylors Book tho not urg'd by him to such a purpose one p. 320. of the Eutychians using this principle or argument now all proof proceeds a notiori ad minus notum that in the Sacrament the Bread was changed into Christ's Body to prove that so the Human Nature might be into the Divine And another p. 343. of Averroes his saying That the Christians Eat their God Do shew that a
symbols of his Body § 2 The Second Opinion goes beyond this or at least seems so for I must confess I do not well understand it 2. Real Presence aliquo modo and we shall look more into it anon and affirms a real Presence of Christs Body not only in its vertue but in its very substance but in this not after a natural or carnal but spiritual manner not to all 1 but only to the worthy Receivers To them i.e. to their Souls and Spirits by the susception of Faith and not to their Mouth or their Body Again to them but not to the symbols at all or if in some sense to these as Mr. Hooker l. 5. s 67. saith they really exhibit but not contain in them that which with or by them God bestoweth yet not ante usum or before the act of Receiving Neque enim mortis tantum resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit saith Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.24 and these following quotations are found in his Instit l. 4. c. 17. But how these high expressions where he opposes the Zuinglians agree with those diminutive where he opposes the Lutheran and Romanist I know not Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos Spiritus modo participes faciunt praeterita carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dicta forent carnem ejus vere esse cibum c. non habere vitam nisi qui carnem illam manducaverit c. Quoe omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin totus Christus Spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat Then quoting Eph. 5.30 he saith Apostolus sermonem exclamatione finit magnum inquit istud arcanum ver 32. Extremae ergo dementiae fuerit nullam communionem agnoscere cum carne sanguine Domini quam tantam esse declarat Apostolus ut eam admirari quam explicare malit nullum locum relinquo huic cavillo quasi dum fide percipi Christum dico intelligentia duntaxat velim concipi Manducatio non est fides sed ex fide consequitur panem quem frangimus communio est c. neque est quod objiciat quisque figuratam esse locutionem Hoc est Corpus Meum rem significatam vere exhibet Facti participes substantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione And of the Lutherans he saith Si ita sensum suum explicarent dum panis porrigitur annexam esse exhibitionem corporis quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas non valde pugnarem § 24. In answer to those who objected Se rationi humanae ita addictum esse ut nihilo plus tribuat Dei potentiae in the matter of the Eucharist quam naturae ordo patitur dictat communis sensus he saith Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior vel naturae legibus subjicio Humanae rationi nihilo magis placebit that which he affirms penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit alimentum-In his paucis verbis i. e. of the Doctrine of the Eucharist as he states it qui non sentit multa subesse miracula plusquam stupidus est quando nihil magis incredibile quod res toto coeli terrae spatio dissitas ac rimotas in tanta locorum distantia non tantum conjungi sed uniri ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi See the place in him Porro de modo si quis me interroget fateri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat I cannot but ask here tho I digress seeing this great Doctor of the Reformation in such a good mood what if any should say Christs Body presently after Consecration is with the Symbols after the same inexplicative and miraculous manner as he makes it with the Soul and so together with them is receiv'd from the Priest See what he himself saith favourable to this in that place quoted before Si ita sensum suum c. quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas And § 33. Atque haec est Sacramenti integritas quam violare totus mundus non potest carnem sanguinem Christi non minus vere dar◠indignis quam electis Dei fidelibus simul tamen verum est non secus atque pluvia super duram rupem decidens effluit c. And before Aliud est offerri aliud recipi I ask Are the Bread and Christ's Body offer'd apart Why not together And if they be together when Offer'd why not together before What can he reply from any argument of Sense or Reason against it Will he plead a possibility of Christ's Body being really present to one definite substance in such a place namely the Soul and an impossibility of its presence to another substance the Bread or Wine Or himself thus granting it in general present after an inexplicative or inconceivable manner if any other should name some particular way unexplicative i. e. fully how can he possibly disprove it by any way of Reason since he grants this matter above it now 't is granted by him above it because implying in it something which to Reason seems but which is not contradictory but only by God's Word and plain Revelation As for example If he can shew the Scriptures somewhere to say That Christ's Body is there present but not join'd with the Signs 2 I might add to these of Calvin 2 the Confession of Beza and others when they were desirous to accord the matter with the Lutherans which you will find quoted by Bishop Forbes Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 13. related by Hospin Hist. Sacram. parte altera p. 251. Fatemur in Caena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii Hominis substantiam ipsam inquit veram carnem c. verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo representari exhiberi applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i.e. verum corpus verus sanguis Domini cum symbolis copulatur dicimus esse symbolicum sive sacramentalem sacramentalem autem modum vocamus non qui sit sigurativus duntaxat sed qui vere certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet offert nempe quod paulo ante diximus verum corpus sanguinem Christi ut appareat nos ipsius corporis sanguinis Christi praesentiam
particular thing that can be named to us is for any thing we know without revelation to the contrary to God possible Methinks some such thing appears from Dr. Tailor's concession p. 240. Let it appear that God hath affirm'd Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it and make publick amends See Disc conc Rubric of the Eng. Lit. § 20. Where the Doctor prefers Revelation to all arguments against it 3. Lastly for the seeming contradictions which are objected by Dr. Taylor p. 207. I see not but that a many of them may be as well urged to disprove the world made of nothing the resurrection to every one of the same body when one is fed on or feeds on another the Trinity or the Incarnation for note that if such are to be accounted no true contradictions in respect of the Trinity because this is clearly revealed neither are they in respect of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation tho it be not revealed nay to disprove the ordinary Philosophical axiom anima est tota in toto tota in qualibet parte which soul if tota in capite tota in pede is consequently tota in two places at once the same may be said of Angels and must much more of the simple essence of God of whom also is believed that the self same nature is totally in three real distinct persons yet without any division or multiplication of it self miratur hoc mens humana et quia non capit fortasse non credit saith St. Augustin Epistola 3. ad Volus but our Saviour also who never departs from heaven on the right hand of the Father till his second coming to judgment Act. 3.21 yet hath often appeared here on earth to many several times to St. Paul. A many of them to disprove a Camel's passing thro a needles eye or our Saviour's body passing thro a door unopened for many bodies to be in one place is as well absurd as one to be in many but especially the multiplying of the five loaves to feed so many thousands which doubtles might as well have bin multiplied to feed all the world at any distance and this without applying an attribute of God Ubiquity to them See how the Doctor hath prosecuted this business of Ubiquity p. 214. 217. c. 231. A many of them to disprove the substantial presence of Christ's body and not only by the effects influence or vertue thereof to the soul of the faithful receiver in so many several places which thing seems to be affirm'd by the second opinion and the Socinians Remonstrants Zuinglians all that hold only the first opinion charge such contradictions and absurdities upon the second opinion as well as those do upon the third and fourth Now any one contradiction found in the second opinion is as irreconcileable to truth as many and if there were no seeming contradiction in it why fly they also to modus ineffabilis plenus miraculis see before p. 3. And indeed what can be more contradictious than for a finite body to be present not only in its effects but substance to another body and yet not be present there after any manner of presence neither of a Body nor of a Spirit neither definitively nor circumscriptively nor repletively See what the Doctor saith to that effect p. 218. But if you say t is there modo ineffabili and think this objection answered by it then why may not others excuse their seeming contradictory expressions by modus ineffabilis Methinks setting aside divine revelation for matter of reasoning those who grant se nescire modum quomodo est praesens should likewise confess se nescire modum quomodo non est praesens for if by their reason they comprehend not the manner how Christ's body is there neither can they by their reason discover but that that particular manner which they oppose may be the manner of his being there § X 6ly Note that the third opinion denies not the possibility or feisibility of the 4th but only disputes the fact Obs 6 acknowledgeth God's power to do it 1. but saith there is no divine revelation that shews that t is his pleasure so to do therefore the chief blame that is laid by them upon the abettors of the fourth opinion is that it in so much doubt and uncertainty of the manner of Christ's Presence should be obtruded on the world prejudicially to the tenents more probable as an article of faith See Harmon Confession Judicium Theol. Wirtemb quoted by Bishop Forbes Credimus omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse ut possit in Eucharistia substantiam panis vini vel annihilare vel in corpus sanguinem Christi mutare sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam potentiam in Eucharistia exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum See Chemnit exam Conc. Trid. de Transub Sed dicat quis Quare ita contendamus an substantia panis in Eucharistia vel remaneat vel non remaneat cum thesaurus Eucharistiae sit non panis naturalis c. sed vera substantialis praesentia exhibitio sumptio corporis sanguinis Christi c Respondeo Nullo modo pari momento censemus panem corpus Christi Et Lutherus semper dixit se in tota hac disputatione magis spectare praesentiam corporis Christi in coena quam praesentiam panis Sed quia Transubstantiatio pro articulo fidei sub poena anathematis proponitur necessario contradicendum est c. See Bell. Euchar. 3. l. c. 11. In hoc valde distinguuntur Lutherani a Calvinistis Calvinistae enim Transubstantiationem sceleratam esse haeresin rem prorsus impossibilem Lutherani dicunt esse possibilem non pugnare aperte cum fide unde magis reprehendunt Catholicos quod Transubstantiationem faciunt articulum fidei quam quod eam defendant 2. Yet some there are of the second opinion who dispute not the supernatural possibility of it see Calvin de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione joyned to Rivet's animadv on Grot. 11. c. Quasi vero hic de Christi potentia disputetur Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse a Christo nos quoque fatemur Quaerendo quianam possit Christus frustra se fatigant cum haec una cognitio sensus omnes nostros in se continere debeat quidnam velit and who grant a possibility of many of those particulars maintained by the 4th opinion as that the same body may be in many places accidents persist without a subject c. which things some others again make to involve a contradiction See many testimonies to this purpose numbred up by Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. Lastly Some of the Second Opinion there are that hold the Fourth Opinion more agreeable to our Saviour's words than the Third See Bishop Forb l. 1. c. 4. s 5. Longius consubstantiatorum quam Transubstantiatorum
sententiam a Christi verbis recedere i. e. I conceive as they take the Third Opinion to affirm ipsum panem esse corpus Domini for this seems much more unreasonable than Hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus Domini sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospin hist Sacr. parte altera p. 7. c. Calviniani communiter See Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 20. where speaking of some of the Lutherans affirming proprie loquendo panem esse corpus Christi he argues that consequently they must say panem esse Christum because totus Christus offertur in coena and then concludes intolerabilis autem Blasphemia est sine figura Praedicari de elemento corruptibili quod sit corpus Again s 30. inveighing against Lutherans Ubiquity he saith Papistarum tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est doctrina And see Judicious Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. s 67. how indifferently he behaves himself between the two Tenents of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation censuring them both only as Opinions unnecessary and superfluous and p. 361. saying of the later the Transubstantialists that they justly shun some Labyrinths of the former the Consubstantialists but yet that the way which they take to the same Inn is somewhat more short but no whit more certain See likewise Spalat Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. n. 6. Fateor neque Transubstantiationem neque Ubiquitatem haeresin ullam directe continere c. § XI 7. Yet even those Reformed who cry out of the Fourth Opinion as Heretical Obs 7 Diabolical Blasphemous c. for such also there are Seventhly Observe That for the most part those of the Second Opinion hold the Third notwithstanding the near alliance it appears to have with the Fourth no ways Heretical or tho erroneous destructive of any fundamental or prinpal Article of Faith unless by some Consequences renounced by those who hold the Third Opinion and therefore giving no just cause of any separation of Communion from any such Credere quod caro Christi ubique est quod in pane est oraliter manducetur idque etiam ab impiis stipula palea est Par. in 1 Cor. 3. See many quotations in Bishop Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. See likewise Daille's Charity in the place quoted before in the end of the Fourth Observation p. 16. notwithstanding those dangerous Consequences of the Third Opinion of destroying Christ's Humanity by Ubiquity and of Adoration by presence with the Elements See Bishop Hall's Davenant's Morton's Discourses De Pace Ecclesiastica How far can men bend when they have a good mind to it See particularly Bish Hall p. 73. Res apud utrosque eadem c. At last he brings in the Decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are receiv'd to their Communion as agreeing with them in omnibus verae Religionis principiis Articulisque fundamentalibus See Disc conc Rub. of Eng. §. 12. How well therefore the same men can refuse Communion with those of the Fourth Opinion supposing the falsity thereof or asperse it with the name of Heresie c. I see not and perhaps the more moderate do not refuse nor quarrel with it for this But the thing they blame is Adoration or the imposing their Transubstantiation on others as an Article of Faith of which anon to which purpose Daille in his Answer to the Remarks made by Chaumont on his Apology p. 20. hath these words after vindicating Beza and Calvin from holding any real Presence of Christ's Body in the Signs Mais bienque nous ne croyons pas c. Altho we believe no such Presence in the Signs yet we esteem not that Belief so criminal as that it obligeth us to break off Communion with those who hold it as it appears by our tolerating it in the Lutherans So that had the Church of Rome no other Error than this we voluntarily accord her to have given us no sufficient cause of Separation from her What is that Faith of Rome then which I alledg'd as a sufficient cause of Separation then he names this l' Adoration de l'Ostie Thus he § XII Having thus made a Cursory over the Four Opinions about the Eucharist give me leave now to reflect a little upon and search more strictly into the Second Opinion which I think is the Tenent of many of the Church of England Concerning which I do not well understand How it must not either fall into many of the difficulties and seeming contradictions of the Third and Fourth Opinions or slide back into the sense of the First the most intelligible and perspicuous indeed but thought by the rest too much diminutive of this tremendum Mysterium this ineffable Mystery § XIII Concerning the Second Opinion Now let us consider this Second Opinion first concerning its affirming or denying the real or substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Celebration of the Eucharist Next concerning its affirming or denying such Presence in or with the Signs As to the former the phrase of real Presence if we mean by it only presence in something real may be used by those who deny substantial presence For if Christ be present to us in the Eucharist in the benefits of his Passion in his Grace in his Spirit he is present to us in something real tho not in the reality of his Person But they going beyond all these even the last of them also the presence by his Spirit see before p. 2. neque enim mortis tantum c neque enim mihi satisfaciunt c. affirm a real and substantial presence for indeed what can real presence of a substance such as body and blood is be but substantial presence even of that body which suffered upon the Cross for us which presence they clearly contradistinguish to presence by effect influence virtue grace or an uniting of our bodies with Christ's body by the same Spirit abiding in both by which way things furthest distant if we call this presence may be said to be present to one another as long as there is any thing between them that immediately toucheth or informeth both so the head may be said to be present to the foot the Saints in heaven to those on earth the West to the East-Indies so the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood may be affirmed as well as here when ever there is any communication of his Spirit as in Baptism and as properly as the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless here so the Water that is then poured on us may be said to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ these manners of Presence therefore they count not enough to satisfy the Scripures and Tradition Therefore they speak of Eucharistical-presence as a great mystery Eph. 5. wrought by God's omnipotence after a manner ineffable or incomprehensible to man's reason Lastly as far in substantial
Fathers that whatsoever they speak of the Eucharist they affirm also the same of the other Sacrament Baptism c. quoting out of St. Austin that we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made Members of Christ c. therefore whatever may be answer'd to the Fathers of which more anon yet his opinion is that Christ's Body is no more really present in the Lord's Supper than in Baptism c. 2. I find B. Forbes tho holding neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation yet much censuring out of Spalat and others these two diminutive comparisons of the Lord's Supper de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 26 27. Falso etiam asseritur haud aliter nos Corpus Christi in Eucharistia comedere quam Patres veteris Testamenti c. and s 27. Perperam etiam asseritur res easdem esse Christum in Baptismo induere ipsius carnem ac sanguinem in Caena sumere c. 3. I will add to these of Dr. Taylors an expression of Dr. Hammond's Pract. Cat. where he speaks of the Eucharist God bestows the Body and Blood of Christ upon us not by sending it down locally for our Bodies to feed on but really for our Souls to be strengthened by it As when the Sun is communicated to us the whole Bulk and Body of the Sun is not removed out of its Sphere but the Rays and Beams of it and with them the Light and Instuences are really and verily bestow'd and darted out upon us Thus he As therefore not the Body of the Sun but only the Beams thereof can be said to be really and locally here below so I conceive the Doctor means that not the very Body of Christ but the vertue and efficacy thereof only are really here present to the worthy receiver If so you may see how Mr. Hooker differs from him in the same simile in the quotation set down above p. 50. where he saith not only by effect and operation as the influence of the heavens is in plants beasts men c which they quicken c. 4. Lastly I do not see how this their opinion of substantial Presence consists with many of those objections made by them against the third and fourth opinion as that in particular of the impossibility of the same body to be in many places at once which objection opposeth not the modus but any presence substantial whatsoever But if on the other side in good earnest a real substantial Presence be affirmed by them tho in wisely not expressing any particular manner as others do they both avoid the arguments which perhaps might be made against it and have advantage to make some against others yet I see not but that from their affirming in general such a Presence they must incur many of the same difficulties with the third and fourth opinion If they say substantially present but they mean not to the elements but to the receiver and that to his soul not to his body yet if they affirm it as much or as far present to the soul as the other doth to the signs as Mr. Hooker saith they differ only about the subject not the presence do not the same objections absurdities c concerning Christ's Body being both substantially in Heaven and in the place where the Communion is celebrated with which they afflict the others for making it present with the signs return upon themselves for making it present with the receivers For if it be possible that the body of Christ now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven can notwithstanding this be present in our soul or in our heart so may it under or with the bread unless we say that we affirm not that real presence to the soul which they do to the bread But then our writers must not say that we differ only about the manner or the subject of his Presence but the Presence it self also 5. If they say substantially present but they mean spiritually not naturally or not corporally so saith the Romanist i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities always accompanying where no supernatural effect the nature or essence of a Body but if they will extend spiritually so far as that it shall imply Christ's body to be there substantially or really yet not quoad naturam or essentiam suam or not quoad corpus this is by a distinction to destroy their thesis 6. Again if they say substantially there present but not locally so saith the Lutheran and Romanist i. e. circumscriptive or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have but if they will extend locally so far as that they understand Christ's body to be there by no manner of ubi at all see Dr. Tailor p. 218. not so much as ubi definitive so that we may truly say t is hic so as not ubique or alibi where no communion what is this but to affirm t is there so as that it is not there 7. If they say substantially present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven besides that thus Christ's body is no more present in the Eucharist than in any other ordinance or sacrament wherein the Spirit is conferr'd such presence is properly of the Spirit not of the body unless that which being finite is only in heaven as they affirm may not rightly be said to be really and substantially absent from what is on earth Now if these seeming-impossibilities and contradictions we acknowledge and fly to the incomprehensibility and inexplicableness of the mystery all that I reply is that we must indulge the same priviledge to others allowing that a thousand contradictions of theirs may be as soon true as only one of ours 8. But if at last we plainly interpret our real and substantial presence by Christ's being present in corporal absence to the worthy receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof we slide back into the first opinion differing only from them in expression and then what need we speak any more of omnipotency for such presence or make any thing miraculous in the Sacrament what incomprehensibleness in this when as Bellarmin expresseth it all that we say is That per fidem apprehendentem Christum in coelo manducantem sacramentum or signum corporis sui participamus omnia bona Christi What mean then those gradations of reception not only of bare signs nor of the signs and the benefits applied by faith but also of the very body and blood of Christ In tanta locorum distantia penetrat ad nos Christi caro saith Calvin ut nobis sit in cibum Instit 4. l. 17. c. 10. s. § XV Therefore the Remonstrants discerning the difficulties as are above named into which the affirming of real Presence cast some of the Reformed Apol. pro confessione sua p. 256. said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima ad idololatriam omnemevitandam in hac materia inprimis
Prayer of the Missal which follows the Consecration the beginning of which Prayer is left out by our later Liturgies and the rest transported to after the Sacrament receiv'd beginning thus O Lord our Heavenly Father We thy humble Servants c. perhaps on purpose lest it might bear any shew of the former solemn offerings of the Eucharist before communicating it to God as a Sacrifice in those words which are not found in the common Liturgies in the beginning of the Prayer We thy humble Servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy Gifts the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make having in remembrance his blessed Passion mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension c. And we entirely desire thy Fatherly Goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of Praise c. Beseeching c. that we and all thy whole Church may obtain Remission of our Sins and all other benefits of his Passion The Rom. Miss hath it Unde memores Domine nos servi tui ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tum beatae Passionis nec non ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelos gloriosae ascensionis offerimus praeclarae majestati tuâ—e de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam c. See if you please these prudent reformations or perfectings of the former English Liturgy i.e. that prepar'd for Scotland and many more which I omit noted in a Scotch Book call'd Laudensium autocatacrisis from p. 100 to 114 and censur'd for their agreement with Popery i. e. Indeed for their conformity with the former practice of the Church Catholick § XXVII And here I cannot but with grief complain That the Oblation of this Christian Sacrifice is confess'd to have always been part of the publick Service of the Church contain'd in the Second Service thereof The Onassion of the Daily Oblation in the Reformed Churches and to have been daily or at least at all times of solemn Prayers and on the days of God's publick Worship every-where made and celebrated tho there were few or no Communicants except him who Officiated for those many beneficial ends above-mention'd which the Church conceiv'd non-communicants also to receive from this precious Offering See the proofs in Medes Diatrib upon Mal. 1.11 p. 484 493. That the publick Prayers of the Church were always join'd with the mystical Commemoration of Christ in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood And that this was no after-invention of the Fathers but took its original from the Apostles times and the very beginning of Christianity See the like Testimonies in Mr. Thorndyke of Christian Assemblies See Calvin's expression to the same purpose Instit lib. 4. c. 17. s 44. Quae de Sacramento hoc hactenus disseruimus abunde ostendunt non institutum ideo fuisse ut semel quotannis acciperetur idque persunctorie ut nune communiter moris est verum quo fiequenti in usu Christianis omnibus esset ut frequenti memoria passionem Christi repeterent c. Talem fuisse Ecclesiae Apostolicae usum Lucas in Actis commemorat quum fideles ait perseverantes fuisse in doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractione panis orationibus sic agendum omnino erat ut nullus Ecclesiae conventus fieret sine verbo orationibus participatione coenae eleemosynis Hunc apud Corinthios fuisse institutum ordinem satis ex Paulo conspicere licet multis postea saeculis in usu fuisse constat c. This he speaks indeed with reference to the peoples daily or frequent communicating but if this will not be had what excuse is there in the meanwhile of the Priests omitting the daily or frequent oblation thereof useful for so many purposes besides that of the communion used in all former times even where the people were negligent to receive See S. Chrysostom's saying p. 78. Quid vero nos non quotidie offerimus and Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio cum nemo sit qui simul participet Frustra i.e. comparatively non tam fructuose Hieronym in Tit. 1. c. saith Sacerdotes quotidie pro peccatis populi ac suis sacrificare August contra adversar leg 1. l. 20. c. Ecclesia immolat in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis ex quo Deus Deorum locutus vocavit terram a Solis ortu usque ad occasum Ep. 86. Sacrificium laudis meaning the Eucharist ab Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa diebus omnibus immolatur Ep. 23. Christus semel in cruce immolatus omni die in Sacramento populis immolatur See the quotation p. Quotidianum esse voluit sacrificium Ep. ad Januar. quoted by Calvin ib. alibi Nullus dies intermittitur quo non offeratur alibi Sabbato tantum Dominico where it appears this oblation at least tho people more seldom communicated it was made once a week every Lord's day used still to this day by all other modern Churches Eastern and Western How cometh it to pass then I say it with grief that such a sacrifice for such precious ends is ceased only to be continually offered in the Churches Reformed If they agree also in the same notion of sacrifice with antiquity why have not their publick prayers and intercessions after the confess'd manner of all the ancient and modern Churches of God the efficacious assistance of this sacrifice I desire it may be seriously considered whether this be not a defect in their publick Service much to be laid to heart in the daily loss of such an allowed-most-effectual means of Address to God Almighty by all the followers of the Reformation You will pardon me this digression § XXVIII 4. The Fathers held That in this Sacrifice the representation of that of the Cross The Fathers say that it is an oblation of the same body which was crucified and beneficial to us only by its vertue is an oblation made of the very same Body and Blood of Christ which our High Priest also himself now offers in Heaven which is prevalent with his Father also in reference to his former sufferings neither that oblation in heaven nor this upon the Altar paying the price of our Redemption but used for an application of the price payed for several sinners for the actual remission of sins daily committed Again the same body now offered that was offered upon the Cross tho not in the same manner i.e. by mactation and therefore being in such respect more properly Sacrificium as one expresseth it passive sumptum pro sacrificato noviter nobis applicato quia in illo continetur Corpus Christi quod fuit vere sacrificatum in unico illo sacrificio crucis yet with a representation also of that sacrificing of it in the blood being here severed and offered apart from the body So that I may say a little altering Cassander's words Consult de sacrificio corp p. 196. Veteres in
humility to receive the exposition of ambiguous Scripture and to make therefrom a causless division If the Church may enjoyn men nothing that is against their conscience and nor in these exact obedience all heresy must be tolerated and the Nicene Creed is a tyranny But if you say they may use their Anathema's in greater matters but in these smaller niceties may not thus domineer over mens consciences a thing Daille accuseth the Tridentine Council of 7. c. 40. p. I answer Who shall judge what is small what is great but those who decide also the matters both small and great But let him search Antiquity and see if small matters have not also undergone their Anathema's He confesseth they have and therefore is liberal to blame both 7. c. 38. p. § LIII But I find this objection advanced yet higher That men may not obey such a decree not only when it is against conscience Objection of non-certainty considered but when they have thereof so much as a doubting conscience especially in a matter of such high consequence as Adoration is which follows upon holding a corporal presence which to give to any object without certainty that it is adorable they say is utterly inexcusable Ce n' est pas assez d'en auoir quelque opinion Il ' en fault estre certain Daille 11. c. 94. p. Upon these premises no man can chuse but doubt quod dubitas ne feceris Tail. p. 340. 1. In answer to this also see what I have said at large in those notes Indeed the rule is good where doubt of sinning is only on one side not on both only on the side of doing but not on the side of omttting also and when we are certain in omitting the thing we sin not But the case is otherwise where-ever our Mother the Church enjoyns us the doing of a thing for here is no security of not sinning if we do it not Again if Christ be there corporally present as she saith He is Daille saith 'T is our duty to adore him and as to give adoration to an object not adorable so to deny it to one adorable is both sin I may retort then with more reason quod dubitas if you doubt only and are not certain of the contrary ne omittas where the Church and your lawful Superiors enjoin you to do it For as reasonable as this proposition is quod dubitas ne faciendo pecces ne feceris so reasonable is the other quod dubitas ne omittendo pecces ne omittas 2. Again Mr. Hooker's reason methinks hath as little force as any of these to encourage any in a non-submission to the Church's judgment who in his 5. l. 67. sect 363. p. discourseth thus That there being three several opinions in the matter of the Eucharist he joyning the Two first in this Paper in one we may safeliest cleave unto that which hath nothing in it but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true But you may find the Archbishop Laud sect 35. p. 286. in his refutation of a like argument brought by the Romanist namely that it is better to be of that Church in which all Churches agree salvation may be had mentioning this very argument about the Eucharist and rejecting it as insufficient And indeed were it any way valid it would follow when of divers opinions some affirm less some more a prudent man ought always to side with the least because this is affirmed by all which I think is a dangerous assertion especially in Religion To believe and do still with the least § LIV 3. Lastly neither do I think that a sufficient lett to keep any from assenting to a corporal presence Obj. of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal presence consider'd or substantial conversion because such Presence if it be is pretended to be utterly unbeneficial and fruitless and since Nature doth nothing in vain much less doth the Author of it See Mr. Blondel in his 10. c. and Dr. Tailor sect 3. p. 28 c. and p. 46. much pressing this upon these three reasons 1. Because any pretended effects of the Eucharist must be granted to be attainable without it by a spiritual reception of Christ c. See their writings 2. Because the unworthy receiver must be granted to be partaker of it the substance of Christ's Body as well as the worthy and this without enjoying the least benefit thereof 3. Because our Saviour hath decided this point John 6.63 declaring to the Capernaites mistaking his sayings as if he meant to feed them with his flesh by virtue of which once eaten by them they should afterward live for ever That his flesh if they should eat a piece thereof would profit them nothing for any such purpose 1. First note concerning this Objection in respect of the former reason that it presseth as much the second as the third and fourth opinion who affirm the worthy receiver to partake not only virtually as the first saith but really also Christ's Body but to what end this since the other i. e. Christ received by faith supplieth all the effect desired or pretended according to John 6.40 47. and St. Austin's saying crede manducasti 2. Now for an Answer to it in reference to both the reasons I might transcribe you Bellarmin's in Eucharist 3. l. 9. c. which to me seems very satisfactory Read it at your leisure The effects of the Eucharist such as are alledged by Blondel out of Peron Namely a more strict and entire union and conjunction of us to God the increase of grace and charity in us the sowing in us the seed of immortality and a resurrection of our decaying bodies c. are not affirm'd to be wrought in us by the corporal presence of our Saviour as after a physical or irresistible manner but as by a proper instrument appointed by God for such effects upon such a disposition of the receiver Therefore neither are these effects necessary to corporal presence i. e. that corporal presence cannot be without them for so it is in the unworthy communicant neither again is corporal presence absolutely necessary to such effects i. e. that they cannot be at all without corporal presence for so they are in the faithful before communicating at least in some imperfecter degree 3 But these concessions we have now made if this be all they contend will never argue the substantial or corporal presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist to be a thing superfluous or void of effect 1. Because in God's appointing several instruments for conveying the like benefits to us the arguing that one doth will never prove the other doth not the like 2. In the like effect being wrought by several means the one may produce it in a far more advanc'd degree than the other So Aquinas p. 3. q. 80. art 1. saith Plenius inducit effectum sacramenti ipsa sacramenti susceptio quam solum desiderium Yet sometimes the desiderium
Natural Philosophers treat of it such are dimensions figure weight impenetrability circumscription by place motion sensibility and the like But the same body quit of those conditions and now spiritualized is under far different proprieties even those which belong to Angels and Spirits to whom they become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pares or aequales as becoming one Church and oeconomy with them Those we may best conceive by the histories in the Scripture of the apparitions of Angels or if you please by our own Souls which tho penetrating every atome of the Body and communicating to it all its powers yet is but one in the whole and yet in every part is it wholly whether the body be bigger or lesser mutilated or entire neither parted diminished or doubled nor yet many but the same soul wholly in every part For it is not in the body as in a place except we as this Replier seems bring in Cartesianism and confine the soul to the glandula pinealis or if as is most consonant to his principles to some one atome of it contrary to the doctrine of all Christian Philosophers and the virtue and efficacy of it only communicated to the other parts of the body So a Spiritual body however this be hard to conceive by imagination in this state accustomed to sensation and materiality hath no certain dimensions figure weight sensibility or alteration nor circumscription by place but as it self pleaseth to discover it self So besides the examples of the Angels our Lord appeared and disappeared continued and vanished passed thro gross bodies and the like as himself pleased Now from circumscription by place or an ambient body ariseth naturally an impossibility to be in several places at once Naturally I say because by the power of God even this quality as well as the rest may be separated from the natural body as it was by his all-powerful wisdom freely given unto it It seems to me little less than blasphemy to say That the Allmighty power which at first created a natural body with such properties cannot also suspend the actions of those Properties or conserve the subject without them it being the same as saying that He cannot work a Miracle all Miracles being a superseding his own rules which he established against all other Natural but not against his own Divine Power And why not suspend locality a relative property belonging to the Body as a Member of the Universe as well as weight or motion which seem more absolute and intrinsecal to the nature of the body Why cannot he contravene to one Rule as well as to another especially when there is no contradiction As there is none in this case of our Lord's presence in the Eucharist as both our Author and all Catholicks affirm notwithstanding the Repliers shuffling to fasten such an Opinion upon him To be here and not here may be a contradiction but to be here and there is none But what more contradiction is it than that five Loaves carried by a little Boy should feed five thousand men and much more remain than was at first a Miracle preparatory to this of the Blessed Sacrament And without penetration of Bodies which granted introduceth the possibility of a Body's being in several places how can a Camel pass thro the Eye of a Needle which yet is possible with God as is what our Lord saith of himself when upon Earth that he was also in Heaven Jo. 1.18.3.13.7.34 But as a Spirit is not at all confin'd to place so nothing hinders why it may not coexist with Bodies in distinct places by which alone we know its being in several locations tho indeed it is in no location at all in proper speaking contrary to what our Replier affixeth to Catholicks as Elisha's Spirit went along with his Servant and St. Paul's joy'd in beholding the orderly carriage of the Colossians and the Evil Spirits also a whole Legion possessing one one Spirit inhabiting almost every atom of his Body and the blessed tutelar Angels continually behold the face of God in Heaven as well as attend their charge upon Earth Whereby it seems exempt from the conditions of Bodies So then Catholicks say That the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not now under the properties of a natural body nor is it necessary that it should be locally any-where nor heavy nor subject to motion passibility or the like And when Catholicks say that our Lord 's natural body or that he is corporally present they mean That his body even that natural body receiv'd of the B. Virgin for he hath no other is really truly and indeâ—d present and given to us in the Eucharist but not so corporally i. e. with those properties of or as a natural body for corporally and locally are not the same as our Replier everywhere stumbles but as spiritual and being now glorified yet therefore not as dead an irreverent expression to say no worse of the Replier but yet as given and having suffer'd for us even in the same manner as himself our blessed High-Priest continually Offereth it up to the Father for us Again Note That the bestowing and receiving of the benefits of our Lord's Passion is giving somewhat real but that real is not his body and blood nor in proper speaking are those the benefits of his body and blood for then they could not be receiv'd without the body and blood whereas now they are according to our Replier accidents without a subject and effects without a cause but of his passion and sufferings And therefore our Saviour declares the use and benefit of his body and blood by eating and drinking which are not compatible to the benefits of his passion by any metaphor or similitude whatsoever And therefore the Second Edition of the English Common-Prayer-Book leaves out these words The body and blood c. and only says Take and eat this Bit of Bread and Sup of Wine in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thanksgiving And the first Edition of the Catechism saith Fidem esse os animae quo cibum hunc plane divinum salutis juxta immortalitatis plenum Spiritus Sancti gratia communicatum recipimus Faith is improperly said to receive except in the sense of those Protestants who take it for application of Christ's personal righteousness to us but what resembles eating and drinking in or by Faith or what actions of Faith correspond to them I cannot imagine But our Saviour represents his body unto us under the notion of meat and its effects particularly the Manna whereunto he compares it Such are 1. To conserve nourish advance restore in us what by worldly conversation and the like is decay'd and weak'ned and to strengthen us in our Spiritual life and estate as the Food it self was Spiritual 2. By uniting us to the Food Flesh of his Flesh Bone of his Bone contrary to the Manna and natural meat which receive life from