theirs seem not so suitable to such a meaning and may easily cause a mistake in the unwary reader and why they use them I cannot tell unless it be to imitate the phrase of the words of Institution and also of the Fathers See Dr. Tailor p. 7. After the Minister hath consecrated the bread and the wine the Symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ in a Spiritual real manner May we then say that the Baptismal water after prayers c is changed into the Spirit in a spiritual real manner because that is an instrument upon using of which the Holy Spirit is conferred So p. 21. The question is not whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood or no for it is granted but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or natural and bodily c. So p. 265.266 Before consecration it is meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh and truly his blood Yet if we enquire how he means that the bread is so surely he means only this that upon receiving or at the same time that we receive the bread suffering only an accidental mutation as he calls it of condition of sanctification and usage at the same time Christ's real body is received but not in or joyned with the bread at all by the faithful The expression is strangely differing methinks from the meaning thereof But especially see such full expressions in his Great Exemplar 3d. part disc 18. p. 109. in the former Edition sect 3. where amongst other things he saith It is hard to do so much violence to our sense as not to think it bread but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be Christ's body Again He that believes it to be bread and yet verily to be Christ's body is only tied also by implication to believe God's omnipotence that he who affirmed it can also verify it And if we profess we understand not the manner of this Mystery we say no more but that it is a mystery c. See the place Strange expressions when the thing required to be believed is this That Christ's body is no way present to the bread neither by the bread being any way changed into it nor joyned with it but only it given and present to the faithful upon the receit of this sanctified bread Now would any discourse of the waters of Baptism by which the Spirit is received on this manner It is hard to do so much violence to the sense as not to think it water but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be the Spirit c. Would not he rather explain himself that the one is not the other but the one received by God's free gift upon the receiving of the other § XVII After the real or substantial presence of Christ's body thus granted if I well understand them by the second opinion to the worthy receiver but denied to the symbols or signs Whether Antiquity affirmed Corporeal Presence and whether this to the worthy Receiver only or also to the Symbols upon consecration let our next Quaere be what may be the opinion of Antiquity which is of great moment with all obedient Sons of the Church in this matter Where supposing it granted by all that the Fathers also held the real presence as much as those of the second opinion do it remains only to be examined whether they held this real presence not only to the worthy receiver but also to the Symbols and that ante usum which if they did if their judgment is not to be submitted to at least their followers are to be excused § XVIII 1. And note here first before I proceed further That the aâ—guments usually urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Tâ—ansubstaâ—tiation disprove not theâ—â— hoâ—ding of a Corporal Presence at least after some other manner with the Symbols that I enquire here only after the tenent of the Ancients concerning a real or substantial Presence of Christ's body with the outward signs but whether they maintain it cum pane remanente or transeunte whether by Con or Tran-substantiation or whether some of them affirmed the one some the other for t is not necessary that either in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation they must all go one way or some also a several way from both I meddle not And indeed I am apt to believe in so high and difficult a mystery before such particular manners so punctually discussed and before the determination of any Council concerning them a likelihood of some variance in their opinions 2. And therefore when as some of their Testimonies affirm the nature of the Bread after Consecration to be chang'd Ambr. de Myst init c. 9. speaking of this Sacrament Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur i. e. miraculously Others the nature of the Bread after Consecration to remain still I can neither altogether embrace the Answer for making Antiquity unanimous of some Protestants to the first That by the change of Nature c. is meant only an accidental change of its now sanctified condition and usage for so we say urges Dr. Taylor p. 271. a man of a good nature i. e. disposition and that it is against our nature i. e. our custom and affection c. See the like concerning the word substance in Blondel in answer to a Latin Father p. 179. notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 324. nor the answers of some Romanists to the second that by the nature of Bread remaining is meant only the remaining of the natural accidents or the properties of Nature or species or natura exterior not interior substantia tho 't is always to be remember'd that the fourth Opinion in holding not only the outward appearance colour and figure of the Bread to remain but all other properties and sensibles thereof and besides these all the operations whatsoever which agree to the substance as corporally nourishing c. by miracle to remain to these accidents and that without any communication unto or dependance upon the Body of Christ but existent by themselves do indeed tantum non hold also the substance it self to remain see Obs 3. p. 24. and methinks differ too little from the third Opinion to make such an abhorrence as some Protestants entertain of the one in comparison of the other Neither will I justifie that Apology made by Bellarmin for such a forc'd interpretation see de Euch. l. 3. c. 24. concerning St. Austin and c. 27. concerning Theodoret namely because otherwise such a Father will be made repugnare apertissime Cyrillo Ambrosio Nysseno Epiphanio Chrysostomo c. his Cotemporaries or also his Masters For why may not some of them differ in something concerning the manner of so high a Mystery of which some of the acutest of the Roman Writers confess there was no manifest
them or he doth not know it and then why will he undertake to confute them whose Doctrine he doth not understand The same absurd error of local presence of our Lord he every where goes about to confute which the Catholicks disdain as well as the Zuinglians How impertinent to urge out of the Rubricks c. What new kind of answering is this so frequent in the Replier It is very unreasonable yet proper to and frequent with this Replier that he should teach his Adversary what to say It is an easy matter to answer what himself suggests but not so usual to propose what he would confute But to say somewhat to this also the Homilies are not quoted because they are of no authority having bin set on soot even as some of their own Bishops disputing against the Puritans have owned only pro tempore and to serve a turn And what say the Articles of them but that they contain wholsom and pious doctrine necessary for those times But do not they also contain some not pious wholsom or orthodox The authorized Catechism is clear enough for the Catholick Doctrine as is proved Appendix I. but he means Nowel's Puritanical Catechism as also Bradford and Hooper of whom we know nothing but what Fox a man of no authority reports from themselves He also is angry that Cranmer is not consulted a man whose character is truly set out in App. I. as may be shewed in due time For the present let it suffice that we think him of no authority as neither is Burnet But is not the Replier in difficulties when he can find no Patrons but such as these The Church of England hath always held a Real presence so far as a real participation implies one But if there be no real participation of his Body at all as this Replier afterwards every where confesseth but onely of the Benefits of his Sufferings then by his own confession there is no Real presence But this being the main point of the difference upon which this Replier insists let us search a little deeper I say then 1. That in the beginning of the pretended Reformation under Edw. VI. the Doctrine of the Church of England was That our Lord's Body and Blood were really by really I mean essentially substantially present in the Eucharist This is plain by the words of Consecration and delivery of the Sacrament where the very form of the Catholick Church was kept only with the addition of such words as more effectually concluded it The Catholick form is Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam The English was The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life When the Common prayer-book was sent into Scotland this Form was re-introduced and the other addition refused which kindled a mighty flame in Scotland they apprehending it to be Popery as appears by Baily's Ladensium autocatacrisis Now it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass and yet intend to give them a quite different signification without giving any notice of it to the people That the people who had bin brought up to understand the real body of our Lord by corpus Domini custodiat animam tuam the next day should hearing the same words in English understand only the real benefits of Christ's passion and not understand at all how these benefits could be eaten or given by the Priest or how they were given for rather than to the people as neither how they should preserve the Receiver's body Truly our Author and the Catholicks have too great a kindness for the Church of England than to impose upon her such an abominable prevarication sufficient to drive away all men from her communion But if the words were so to be understood and no alteration intended why should they in the next edition within so few years alter them after another manner and quite different intention But of this by and by 2ly I say that before the death of King Edw. VI. they altered their doctrine from a Real presence of our Lord's body to real effects or benefits of his Passion or somewhat like it if yet they acknowledged any benefits at all for in the first it was preserve thy body and soul c which was a real benefit but in the second is none but Do this in remembrance of Christ's sufferings and feed on him c but what benefit or benediction is received is not expressed for they altered all things in the Liturgy which might any way countenance the benefits of real presence They kept indeed the words of Consecration but gave over the handling the Chalice Patin c so that they left the words without application to any matter that every man might understand them as he pleased Which was also the reason why they omitted the words of delivery substituting Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving This what individuum vagum or perhaps nothing if nothing consecrated as it seems or perhaps something but they know not what as not being resolved of that point but only that it was not the real body of our Saviour This appears also by the Rubrick by the Articles and Declaration all which are set down plainly by our Author ch 1. The 3d Alteration was made by Q. Elizabeth at her coming to the Crown For she being as is noted zealous for the Doctrine of the Real presence and divers of the Clergy then Genevized against it they made another change leaving out many things as the second had done out of the first and some things established in the second particularly the Rubric and the Declaration in the Article but in the words of delivery joyning both forms together So that it was dressed for all palates whether according to the simplicity and sincerity of the Gospel I judge not But those of the Church of England who were less infected with Geneva considering these things broached a new opinion That the Body of our Lord was indeed really in the Eucharist but not with the Symbols but to the Receiver only and hereby indeed they salved the words of the form but whether effectively and according to truth I refer you to the first of these Appendixes In King James's time there seems not to be any considerable alteration save that there was added in the Catechism a few questions concerning the Eucharist entirely conformable to this Doctrine of the Church of England which distinguishing the benefits from the thing received they say that the Body of our Lord is there truly and indeed and translate it vere revera How realiter and revera differ I know not as neither why the Replier should applaud the Church of England for not using the word really which rather seems a confession of her guilt of Schism inasmuch as in those
Blondel p. 70. reckon'd amongst the Authors that hold the Elements to be chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ in his sixth Proposition This therefore at the least will amount to Consubstantiation like Theodoret's 3. Concerning that noted place of St. Ambrose De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. quoted by Dr. Taylor p. 306. the words are these Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut ea incipiant esse quae non erant he refers to Ipse dixit facta sunt quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Here the true natural meaning seems to be as Bellarmin observes ut quae erant sint answering to the former quae non erant incipiant esse i. e. ut quae erant maneant quamvis mutata As in another Treatise De Myster init c. 9. he saith non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas And in the same Chapter out of which the former Testimony is taken are also these words Panis iste panis est ante verba consecrationis ubi accesserit consecratio de pane sit caro Christi But suppose him to hold no change here of the substance of the Bread yet must he mean some real change effected by God's Omnipotence beyond the Bread's being chang'd from common to a sacred use and this such as puts the substantial presence of Christ's Body at least with the Bread since he supposeth a miraculous operation some-way upon Nature But this shall be clear'd more anon 4 That Saying of St. Austin's Sermon to the New-Baptiz'd recited by Fulgentius Baptism Aethiop lat cap. and Bede in 1 Cor. 10. Quod vidistis panis est calix quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi calix est sanguis In this later clause that at least the Body of Christ is affirm'd substantially present with the Bread see what I have said Observ 2. And consider also his moving the doubt in the same place since Christ was now ascended in Body into Heaven quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus where he answers ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in illis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem By which aliud intelligitur if he meant only the benefits of Christ's Body and Blood shed upon the Cross which are receiv'd in the Sacrament surely he would have said est fructus spiritualis and not habet fructum c. but this word intelligitur non videtur is frequently used by him concerning Christ's Body tho present with the Sacrament because the symbols only and not It are present there to the sight or senses Tho we are to understand It to be there also as appears out of many other places of St. Austin quoted before 5 Let there be added to these those many quotations in Blondel c. 4. prop. 1 2 3. out of the Fathers and c. 21. out of the ancient Lyturgies and Missals of the Eucharist after Consecration call'd Bread and of something said of the signs or symbols not agreeable to Christ's Body As for this later since the Transubstantialists as well as the rest affirm symbols after Consecration distinct from the Body see Obs 2. I see not how it makes against any Opinion As for the former as long as it can be shew'd that the Fathers with that they call'd Bread hold a substantial presence some way or other of our Saviour's Body if the Answer of the Transubstantialists set down before misinterpret their meaning yet at the most such a term will but prove Consubstantiation which opposeth not our Position 6 As for that Proposition so usual in the Fathers that the Bread is Christs Body press'd by some Protestants as inconsistent not only with Trans but Con-substantiation and the words of Bellarmin quoted in this behalf by them Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Si Dominus ait hic panis est corpus meum necessario sequitur ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia si nimirum proprte panis materialis dicatur esse corpus Domini quod aperte implicat contradictionem aut panis sit corpus non proprie sed figurate quod volunt Calvinistae aut denique panis non manens panis sed benedictione mutatus sit corpus Domini quae est sententia Ecclesiae Catholicae Whereby it seems to follow That if the Fathers accord not in the sense of it with the Transubstantialist they must with the Calvinist and the Schoolmen also brought in to oppose it see Blondel p. 155. I answer this Proposition Hic panis est corpus meum as it is diversly explain'd seems proper enough to be used by any of the Three Opinions First by those who hold a substantial conversion for indeed at least some of those Fathers who use this phrase yet seem clearly to hold a substantial conversion as I shall shew anon and the same Fathers who say that the Bread is the Body of Christ say the Bread is so by a change for it may be interpreted thus Hic panis consecratus i. e. mutatus per consecrationem est Corpus Domini Panis denoting the former matter or the terminus a quo Such a Speech is not unordinary upon a sudden change see Exod. 7.12 where Aaron's Rod is said to devour the Magicians Rods Aaron's Rod i. e. turn'd into a Serpent devour'd c. See somewhat like this ver 19 20 21. where the Water already turn'd into Blood ver 20. notwithstanding is call'd Water afterward ver 21. And they could not drink of the Water of the River the Water i. e. now turn'd into Blood. See the like Joh. 2.9 And when the Ruler of the Feast-had tasted the Water that was made Wine i. e. had tasted the Wine made of the Water But more especially here may such a denomination be made than after other changes because there remains even in the Transubstantialists opinion still something namely all that which is any way sensible of the former substance But 2ly the same proposition may as well be used by those who hold a Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread still remaining not taken in such a sense whereof Bellarmin and the Schoolmen say that it plainly contradicts but in the more qualified and moderate sense set down § 3. As pointing at vessels filled with several liquors we ordinarily say This vessel is wine that beer c. or hic purpuratus est Rex So the proposition Sub hoc pane est corpus Christi into which the Lutheran resolves it is as remote from contradiction as the proposition sub specie hujus panis est c the resolution of the Transubstantialist 3ly The same proposition may bear only a figurative sense like that I am the vine or I am the door and
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
conc tho speaking somewhat more diminutively of the Eucharist than the other yet seems to say more than any Protestant will allow as is shewed before 2ly That it was an Assembly of Bishops called together by that Emperour that caused the Patriarch of Constantinople to be scourged assented to by no Patriarch which thing is objected against it by the Conc. Nice Act. 6. tom 1. in these words Quomodo autem magna universalis in quam neque omnes consenserunt reliquarum Ecclesiarum praefecti non admiserunt sed anathemate eam devoverunt Non habuit cooperarium ut haec quae nunc celebratur Romanum Papam neque illius Sacerdotes neque per Vicarios neque per provinciales literas quemadmodum fieri in Synodis debet Quinetiam neque concordantes habuit Orientis Patriarchas Alexandrinum inquam Antiochenum urbis sanctae suminos Pontifices neque cum illis etiam inystas sacerdotes Thus Conc. Nice But the same things are affirmed by the historians of those times as also that this Copronymus was opposed for demolishing images in Churches by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch whom he shamefully abused and his Father Leo Isaurus excommunicated for the same cause by Gregory the 3d Bishop of Rome Besides this to lessen the esteem which may be had of it by the reformed I might name the 15. and 17. Canons thereof Whereof the 15th runs thus Si quis non confitetur sanctam semper Virginem Mariam quavis visibili invisibili creatura superiorem cum sincera fide ejus intercessiones tanquam quae libertatem apud eum qui ex se genitus est Deum habeat non postulaverit Anathema And the 17th Canon not unlike Si quis sanctorum c. intercessiones non petierit utpote qui libertatem apud Deum habeant secundum Ecclesiasticam Traditionem pro mundo intervenire Anathema Which Canon tho 't is noted by the Second Nicene Council Act. 6. Tom. 6. post hanc editionem suam c. to have been left out in some later Copies of the Acts of this Council those times growing on after this Synod from opposing of Images to destroying of Reliques and denying of Saints Intercessions a thing not disallow'd by the Reform'd and of calling them also by the name of Saints See the Authors quoted by Mr. Mede Apostasie of later times p. 131 135 c. tho the Council is clear'd from any such Decrees both by Mr. Mede p. 137 and by the whole Body of their Acts examined by the Second Nicene Council their severe Antagonists Yet it is clear that it was one of the ultimate Definitions of that Council since it is found not in the first framing only as Mr. Mede would have it p. 135. but in that first Edition of their Acts which was subscribed by all the Council as appears in the Conclusion of Act. 6. Tom. 6. of the Second Conc. Nic. and which accordingly the Nicene Council undertook to refute as not the first Draughts but the Ratified Acts of that Synod 3. That the Council which revers'd its Doctrine of the Eucharist was General and Confirm'd by all the Patriarchs 4. And lastly That the Council of Francfort also tho it might in something mistake the meaning of the Council of Constantinople for which I will not contend with Mr. Blondel for so perhaps did they of Nice too misunderstand it yet perusing the Doctrine of Nice Censures not it at all a far greater if an error but almost in the same phrase with it Blameth the other of Constantinople saying The mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord was not now to be call'd Imago but Veritas not Umbra but Corpus Which word and other expressions that they imported not less than those of Nice may be shrewdly presum'd from Mr Blondel's Concession c. 18. p. 415. That within a few years after this Council follow'd a Change in the Eucharist-Doctrine in the West a change i. e. to this Tenent of Corporal presence Now all those things well weigh'd let any one judg between the Constantinopolitan Council and those two that follow'd who are more likely to be the Innovators or whose Determination a good Subject of the Church not so able in such high Mysteries to guide himself ought rather to adhere and submit to § XL Now to go on This opinion of Damascen and the Council of Nice The state of the Greek Church since these Councils hath been owned and embraced ever since even to this day by the Greek Church without any opposition to it and that not only as being theirs but the Tenent also of all the Greek Fathers before this Councll which also are frequently by them quoted for it See this confess'd by Mr. Blondel c. 16. p. 399 400. Le Concile de Nice 2. a imposê une tacite loy aux Grecs posterieurs Their adherence ever since to the Doctrine of Nic. Conc. 2 qui ont jusques a nos jours reverê ses decrets de parler a sa mode de renoucer so he is pleased to say but they pretend the contrary en imitant ses fautes au style de la plus venerable antiquité And then he reckons up their Writers since both ancienter and more modern concurring in this opinion naming amongst the ancienter Theophylact and Euthymius See Sandys West Relig. p. 233 234. who confesseth the Greeks to agree with the Romanists in Transubstantiation Sacrifice and the whole Body of the Mass See Dr. Potter Char. Mist sect 7. p. 225. where he saith In the opinion of Transubstantiation the later Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists and justifieth what he saith by many quotations in the Margent See Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s 2. who himself opposing Transubstantiation yet after many Authorities given concludes that Section Certum est recentiores Graecos a Transubstantiationis opinione non fuisse neque etiamnum esse omnino alienos hosce autem omnes Christianae pietatis cultores haereseos aut erroris exitialis damnare magnae profecto audaciae temeritatis esset So l. 2. c. 2. s 14. Graeci Venetiis viventes reliqui omnes Graeci etiam adorant Christum in Eucharistia quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere damnare To give you some of the Graecian expressions since this Council See Theophylact who liv'd in the Ninth Age in Mat. 26. Non enim dixit Hoc est Figura sed hoc est Corpus ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur panis And in 1 Cor. 11. expounding those words non dijudicans Corpus Domini he saith Si certiores essemus quisnam quantus sit ille qui nobis in conspectu adjacet i. e. in Altari nulla ferme rei alterius ope indigeremus c. So speaks Oecumenius on the same place Euthymius in Mat. 26. Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit si ita loqui liceat ita haec ineffabiliter transmutat
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
necessaria quae a Calvino illius â—â—quacibuâ— dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. _____ The same say the Socinians See Volkelius And I think Riveâ— in his controversies with Grotius is of the same opinion with the Remonstrants at least much differing from Dr. Tailor's for that saying of the Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest allowed in some sense by the Doctor he maintains to contradict Quia quod sacramentaliter praesens est saith he non est substantia sua praesens nec contra Animad p. 85. And again Examen p. 45. Si corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitative i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est corpus Indeed I have often wondred seeing that something more than they willingly grant seems necessarily to follow upon it why so many of the reformed writers remain not content with a virtual presence which is maintained by them to be sufficient for salvation but concur so much in asserting a real and substantial I guess not only the punctual and fixed expressions of the Scriptures as the words of Institution in so many relations thereof not only in the Gospels but in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians being so unvariably observed besides the expressions 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and the authority of the Fathers who so often call it tremendum mysterium and the stream of Tradition to have as it were necessitated them to it but also the authority of Calvin not a little to have moved them who was a great Leader to our reforming Fore-fathers Again him I suppose to be induced to it as from the former reasons so from a desire to reconcile several parties of the then early begun Reformation and to moderate and temper the former Lutheran and Zuinglian quarrel Of whom therefore Bishop Forbes observes Quod sua doctrina super hac re as it seems here also of the doctrine of others of this second opinion erat maxime incerta dubia atque lubrica Et dum nunc his nunc illis gratificari studuit haud pauca male sibi cohaerentia scripsit de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 6. sect § XVI Now to come to the second thing it s affirming or denying the real or substantial presence of Christ's body with the signs and that ante usum And this I think to be generally denied by the 2d opinion tho I see not with what reason they can deny a possibility thereof since they grant such a presence with the worthy receiver See Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. s. p. 359 The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament The Bread and the Cup are his Body and Blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and blood ensueth For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly or improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth This he speaks in behalf of the Scripture-expression saying of the elements This is my body and my blood because we receive by these instruments that which they are termed See Dr. Tailor p. 14. By spiritual we mean present to our Spirits only that is saith he so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or Spiritual susception Where to digress a little I wonder why he and some others so Dr. Hammond saith for our souls to be strengthened c quoted before do not say that Christ's body is substantially present to the bodies of worthy receivers as well as to the souls yet perhaps they deny it not for tho the body of Christ be only spiritually there yet may a spirit be present to a body for our souls spirits are so And we say in the Liturgy The Body of Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life And Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed thro his most precious blood c. And the Fathers therefore called the consecrated elements from their vivifical influence on the body according to Jo. 6. symbola resurrectionis See Grot. Annot. ad Cassand p. 21. Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia sed spem resurrectionis habentia Irenaeus Neither see I any reason for Rivet's expression Corpus Christi affiâ—it corpus per animam Nor for that of Dr. Tailor p. 131. if he means that the Soul receives Christ's body more immediately than the Body doth For tho without faith which is an act of the soul Christ's body is not received at least received profiteth not yet where faith is Christ's body is received as well and as immediately by our body as by our soul and nourisheth and vivifieth equally but spiritually both See what Bishop Forbes saith Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 27. s. Verum Christi corpus non tantum animae sed etiam corpori nostrâ— spiritualiter tamen hoc est non corporaliter exhibetur sane alâ—o ac diverso nobis propinquiori modo licet occulto quam per solam fidem Fides qua proprie Christi caro in Eucharistia spiritualiter hoc est incorporaliter manducatur non est ea sola qua Christus creditur mortuus pro peccatis nostris c ea enim fides praesupponitur c. sed ea fides est qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis Hoc est corpus meum Credere enim Christum ibi esse praesentem etiam carne vivificatrice desiderare eam sumere nimirum hoc est spiritualiter recte eam manducare in Eucharistia Sect. 25. Proinde male docetur a multis Protestantibus hanc praesentiam communicationem per fidem effici Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere apprehendere quam praestare Verbum Dei promissio cui fides nostra nititur praesentia reddit quae promittit non nostra fides T is not faith that confers Christ's body tho by the faithful it is only worthily or as they say only received but received equally and immediately both by the soul and body whether this body of Christ be disjoined from as they think or conjoined with the elements yet whilst this second opinion seems to hold no presence at all to or with the signs but to the receiver they only making the signs to be as well as I can understand them after consecration sanctified instruments upon receit of which by those who believe God gives the other the body and blood of his Son as also in Baptism upon receiving the water God gives the Spirit yet I say some other expressions of
indeed our Replier's Opinion seems to dislike the word this and thinks it should rather be these Benefits which neither can be eaten nor consecrated nor require any symbols But he saith these Ceremonies were practis'd by divers but he instanceth only in Bishop Jewel Mr. Rastal's testimony he groundlesly denies For we know that in the late times till it was re-commanded by the Rubric few practis'd it or indeed regarded it as a thing of Consequence Which doubtless was the reason of that Command in the Margin it was recall'd into use because disused and the Replier's Reason insufficient P. 6. Gloria in Excelsis Deo and Benedictus qui venit are two Hymns the first plac'd in this part of the Mass as is commonly said by St. Telesphorus the Ninth Bishop of Rome from St. Peter and was the Congratulation of the Angels for the Lord 's coming into the world as the Benedictus was for his Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem both most properly applied to the beginning of this Office as rejoicing for his coming to be present upon the Altar Such universal ancient solemn parts of God's Service were not omitted by chance nor would they have been so had they not contain'd an Argument against the new-devised Absence of the Lord from his people The Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus was not anciently call'd the Trisagium but Hymnus Angelicus Victorialis The Trisagium was Sanctus Deus Sanctus fortis Sanctus immortalis not so much used in the Western as in the Eastern Church which was sung when the Priest approached the Quire v. Menardum To which some add after fortis some after immortalis Qui Crucifixus es pro nobis And they as most of the Asiaticks who apply'd the Hymn to our Saviour meant no harm but they who attributed it to the Trinity as the Constantinopolitans and the West generally condemned it But this only obiter as also that concerning the Receiver's answering Amen which as our Author proves by irrefragable testimonies were it worth the pains to vindicate them not to have been an answer to a Prayer but an acknowledgment of our Lord's Presence there We will add notwithstanding what we find in St. Ambrose's Works l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis Non otiose cum accipis dicis Amen Jam in Spiritu confiteris quod accipias corpus Christi Dicit Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis Amen i. e. verum est Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The omission of these words these Holy Mysteries might be purely accidental And might not be so For they have a signification contrary to the Opinion of the Reformers and all other deniers of the real presence of our Lord nor can they find any mystery in taking eating a Morsel of Bread and a Sup of Wine and remembring our Lord's death and sufferings and then by faith feeding upon him not receiv'd This perhaps is a mystery for I do not understand it P. 7. No fault with the second Form Faulty enough certainly because contrary to the former Book which to prove was the Author's chief intention and consequently from that of the Church of Christ 2. Because either non-sense or to most unintelligible either what is meant by this or by feeding on our Saviour's benefits by Faith. P. 8. These words that these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine may be to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son in the Reformation of the Liturgy were left out because manifestly owning a real change and were not restor'd in Qu. Elizabeth's Liturgy For She probably could not examine all the Alterations by her own self and her Bishops being inclin'd to Zuinglianism did not willingly restore any thing against their own Opinion Afterward Archbishop Laud restor'd it in the Scottish Liturgy For which he was severely censur'd by Baily's Laudensium Autocatacrisis This being as he saith a notable Argument for Transubstantiation at least for the real presence to the Receiver it was Tho it is most certain the Archbishop did not incline to defend Transubstantiation but only the real presence to the Receiver according to the Doctrine of the Church of England mis-understood by that Puritan Pag. 10. Dishonestly or ignorantly worded False They are natural Deductions or rather Propositions almost verbatim taken out of the Declaration whereas those the Replier after his new way of answering would rather have them modell'd into are Nonsense Pag. 11. Calvin and Beza are mentioned because by them were the English Reformers much directed tho our Author doth not ty himself up to speak only of the Church of England-men The Author makes use of Conciliators as being less biassed and therefore better disposed to understand the truth and obliged by their design to a more accurate examination of the Doctrines of both parties and a more strict declaration of them as being assur'd to be opposed by both parties Mr. Thorndike he saith had in this matter opinions of his own agreeable neither to the Catholick nor Church of England The like he saith of our Author p. 1. I am afraid the fault is not in the object but the organ his endeavour to blast so learned a person shews him to have bin rightly quoted by our Author But why should I spend more pains to vindicate the opinions of the Doctors of the English Church which is sufficiently performed in the discourse in the History of the English Reformation from § 148 and by the Discourse here newly printed and the first Appendix to it Pag. 12. The quotations out of Dr. Taylor are most true but if that Doctor was not constant to himself or his own opinion or if by forget fulness he speaks one thing in one place and otherwise â—n another or if he did not throughly understand the difference and therefore vented many undigested and incoherent notions as he seems to most men to have done what is that to us May not we make use of the good wheat because tares are mingled with it Yet I do not remember that he any where sustains as our Replier doth that the Protestants may use the same terms as the Catholicks and yet in a quite different sense But are we come in this great question to may use the terms of the Church in a quite different notion than Antiquity and the Church hath and doth still use them but let them use them as they please only they should give notice of their meaning and tell the world that their words are like Jacob's but their intention like Esau and so plainly confess their heresy and not seek to coyer it with such sorry fig-leaves Pag. 13. Of those to say no worse irreverent expressions of our receiving the dead body and dead blood of our Lord let the Replier and his Capernaits enjoy the honour we content our selves to believe and know that our Lord in this Sacrament is become to us a quickning Spirit How our Lord's body now glorified is received by us as representing his death and sufferings