in the same design to worship God as the Paschal Lamb of one Family was not the Lamb of another although both the one and the other were to accomplish the same Mystery Thus for instance on Corpus Christi-day the Sacrament of S. Germain d' Auxerrois where the perpetual Vicar consecrates the Host and Monsieur the Dean the first Curé carrys it the Procession under a rich Canopy crown'd with Flowers this Host is not the same with that of S. Paul's which is carried after another manner viz. the Image of that Apostle made of Silver gilt falling from his Horse at his Conversion under the Sacrament of Jesus Christ hung up in rays of Gold and carried under the covering of another stately Canopy and so of all the other Churches As for the stories of several Hosts that have been stabb'd with Penknives and have bled they serve only to bring in some superstition contrary to the word of God which never pretended that there was material Blood in the consecrated Bread because it is the Body of Jesus Christ in a mystery of Faith. For what is said of an Infant that was seen in the stead of the Host and of the figure of Christ sitting upon a Sepulshre instead of the same Host are meer Fables suggested by the Father of Lies It is further reported of certain Robbers that carrying away the Vessel in which the Host is kept they have thrown the Host it self upon the ground and trampled it under foot sometimes have cast it into nasty places without any fear that it should avenge it self This is a most horrible thought and of which we ought not to open our mouths but only to detest so dreadful a profanation The same must be said of those Hosts which have been cast up as soon as received whether by sick persons or sometimes by debauched Priests disordered with the last nights intemperance both which have sometimes happened not to say any thing of those other terrible inconveniences remark'd in the Cautions concerning the Mass All which shew that Men have carry'd things too far without any warrant from the Word of God. It is not therefore so easie as some imagine to maintain the Doctrine of the Real Presence out of the Use against the Opinions of any Opposer In the mean time the Truth is terribly obscured and few give themselves the trouble to clear it On the contrary it seems that among the many Writers of the Age there are some who make it their whole business to hide it and to keep themselves from finding it out as if they desired never to be wiser than they are The vanity of lying flatters them but too much in all the Humane passions which sway them There are nevertheless some faithful Disciples and Apostolick Souls who are exempted to obey God by his Grace and to give glory to his Name It was not long before his departure that David said Every man is a lyar Psal 115.2 and S. Paul to the Romans 3.4 to show that God only is true adds immediately after from Psalm * Li. 4. 50.6 Thou mightest be justified when thou speakest and be clear when thou judgest Such was the Opinion of Monsieur de Marolles as to this point I should too much trespass upon the Reader 's patience to insist thus particularly upon others of lesser note The Author of the late Historical Treatise of Transubstantiation has fully shewn not only his own Opinion but the Tradition of all the Ages of the Church against it And though I dare not say the same of whoever he was that set forth the ‡ Il nous suffit que J.C. qui est la Verité meme nous ait assuré que ce Sacrament est veritablement fon Corps qu'il ait ordonne de manger sa chair boire son sang car il faut absolument qu'il y soit puis q'il il nous ordonne de l'y manger sans s'embarasser l'Esprit de quelle maniere comment cela se fait 2. Part p. 102. Moyens surs Honnestes c. that he did not believe Transubstantiation himself yet this is clear That he did not desire any one should be forced to believe it or indeed be encouraged to search too nicely into the manner how Christ is Present and Eaten in the Holy Sacrament Whether Monsieur de Meaux believes this Doctrine or not his authority is become of so little importance that I do not think it worth the while to examine Yet the first French * Advertissement n. 14. p. 22. Mr. B. Speaking of that Edition Il n'y avoit en aucun lieu de l'Article ni le terme de Transubstantiation ni cette proposition que le pain le vin sont changez au corps au sang de J.C. dans la derniere Edition apres ces mots le propre Corps le propâ—e â—ing de J.C. il a ajoute ausquelles le pain le vin sont changez cest ce qu'on appelle Transubstantiation Answer to his Exposition observes that in the suppress'd Edition of it he had not at all mentioned that the Bread and Wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ those words in the close of that Paragraph which we now read viz. that the Bread and the Wine are changed into the proper Body and proper Blood of Jesus Christ and that this is that which is called Transubstantiation being put in ‡ Monsieur de Meaux Letter of his alterations Vind. p. 13. 117. pour l'ordre pour une plus grande netteté du discours du style for the greater neatness of the Discourse and Stile since But now for his Vindicator 't is evident if he understands his own meaning that he is not very well instructed about it * Vindication of the Bishop of Condom's Expos Pag. 83. It is manifest says he that our dispute with Protestants is not about the manner How Jesus Christ is Present but only about the Thing it self whether the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ be truly really and substantially present after the words of Consecration under the species or Appearance of Bread and Wine the substance of Bread and Wine being not so present In which words if his meaning be to exclude totally the manner How Jesus Christ becomes present in the Eucharist as his expression is from being a matter of Faith it might well have been ranged amongst the rest of their new Popery 1686. But if he designs not to exclude the manner of Christ's Presence but only the mode of the Conversion as he seems by some other of his words to insinuate viz. whether it be by Adduction c. from being a matter of Faith he ought not then to have deny'd the manner of Christ's Presence in the Eucharist which their Church has absolutely defined to be by that wonderful and singular Conversion so aptly called Transubstantiation but more precisely to have explain'd his School-nicety and
He as the Master of the Feast took the Loaf Blessed and brake it and gave it to them and Bid them in like manner henceforward Do this in Remembrance of Him He certainly designed that by this Ceremony which hitherto they had used in memory of their deliverance out of Egypt they should now continue the memory of their Blessed Lord and of that deliverance which he was about to work for them That as by calling the Lamb in that Feast The Body of the Passover they understood that it was the remembrance of God's mercy in commanding the destroying Angel to pass over their Houses when he slew their Enemies the memorial of the Lamb which was killed for this purpose in Egypt so Christ calling the Bread his Body nay his Body broken for them could certainly mean nothing else but that it was the Type the Memorial of his Body which as yet was not but was now just ready to be given for their redemption This is so natural a reflection and in one Part at least of this Holy Sacrament so necessary too that 't is impossible to explain it otherwise This Cup says our Saviour is the New Testament in my Blood That is as * See Exod. xxiv 8. Heb. ix â—0 And this Allusion is applied by S. Peter 1 Ep. i 2. Vid. Hammond Annot. in loc lit a. Moses had before said of the Old Testament in the very same Phrase the seal the ratification of it Now if those words be taken literally then 1st 'T is the Cup that is Transubstantiated not the Wine 2ly It is changed not into Christ's Blood as they pretend but into the New Testament in his Blood which being confessedly absurd and impossible it must in all reason follow That the Apostles understood our Saviour alike in both His Expressions and that by consequence we ought to interpret those words This is my Body which is broken for you of the Bread's being the Type or Figure of his Body as we must that of the Cup That it was the New Testament in his Blood i. e. the sign or seal of the New Testament So naturally do all these Notions direct us to a figurative interpretation of his Words the whole design of this Institution and all the Parts and Ceremonies of it being plainly Typical in Remembrance as Christ himself has told us of Him. But now if we go on more particularly to inquire into the Expression its self This is my Body which is broken for you That will yet more clearly confirm this interpretation It has before been observed That these words of our Saviour in this Holy Sacrament were used by him instead of that other Expression of the Master in the Paschal Feast when in the very same manner he took the very same Bread into his Hands and blessed it and brake it and gave it to those who were at the Table with Him saying This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt And can any thing in the world be more plain than that as never any Jew yet imagined that the Bread which they thus took every year was by that saying of the Master of their Feast changed into the very substance of that Bread which their forefathers had so many Ages before consumed in Egypt in the night of their deliverance but being thus broken and given to them became a Type a Figure a Memorial of it So neither could those to whom our Saviour Christ now spake and who as being Jews had so long been used to this Phrase ever imagine that the pieces of that Loaf which He brake and gave them saying This is my Body which is broken for you Do this in Remembrance of me became thereupon the very Body of that Saviour from whose Hands they received it and who did not sure with one member of his Body give away his whole Body from himself to them but only designed that by this Ceremony they should remember Him and his Body broken for them as by the same they had hitherto remembred the Bread of affliction which their Fathers ate in Egypt I ought not to omit it because it very much confirms the force of this Argument That what I have here said of this Analogy of the Holy Eucharist to the Jewish Passover was not the original remark of any Protestant or indeed of any other Christians differing from the Church of Rome in this point But was objected to them long before the Reformation by the * Vid. apud Author Fortalitii Fidei Lib. 4. Consid 6. Impos 10. Those who have not this Book may find the Quotation at large in the late Edition of Joan. Parisiensis in Praefat. pag. 73 74. Jews themselves to shew that in their literal Interpretation of these Words they had manifestly departed from the intention of our Blessed Saviour and advanced a notion in which 't was impossible for his Apostles or any other acquainted as they were with the Paschal forms ever to have understood him And if †Epistol xxiii ad Bonifac Vol. 2. pag. 29. Oper. Ed. Lugd. 1664. St. Augustine who I suppose will not be thought a Heretick by either party may be allow'd to speak for the Christians he tells us we are to look upon the Phrase This is my Body Just says He as when in ordinary conversation we are wont to say This is Christmas or Good-Friday or Easter-day Not that this is the very day on which Christ was born or suffer'd or rose from the dead but the return or remembrance of that day on which Christ was born or suffer'd or rose again It is wonderful to consider with what confidence our new Missionaries produce these words on all occasions and thereby shew us how fond they would be of the Holy Scripture and how willingly they would make it their Guide in Controversie did it but ever so little favour their Cause Can any thing say they be more express This is my Body Is it possible for words to be spoken more clear and positive And indeed were all the Expressions of Holy Scripture to be taken in their literal meaning I will not deny but that those words might as evidently prove Bread to be Christs Body as those other in St. John I am the Bread that came down from Heaven argue a contrary Transubstantiation of Christ's Body into Bread John vi 48 51. or those more usual instances I am the true Vine I am the door of the sheep That Rock was Christ prove a great many Transubstantiations more viz. of our Saviour into a Vine a Door and a Rock But now if for all this plainness and positiveness in these expressions they themselves tell us That it would be ridiculous to conclude from hence that Christ was indeed turned into all these and many other the like things they may please to give us leave to say the same of this before us it being neither less impossible nor less unreasonable to suppose Bread to be changed
all Metaphor only just two or three words for their purpose Literal But that which raises our wonder to the highest pitch is that the very fifty first Verse its self on which they found their Argument is two thirds of it Figure and only otherwise in one Clause to serve their Hypothesis I am says our Saviour the living Bread which came down from Heaven This is Figurative If any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever That is they say by a Spiritual Eating by Faith And the Bread which I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World. This only must be understood of a proper manducation of a real eating of his Flesh in this Holy Sacrament It must be confessed that this is an Arbitrary way of explaining indeed and becomes the Character of a Church whose dictates are to be received not examined and may therefore pass well enough amongst those with whom the supposed Infallibility of their Guides is thought a sufficient dispensation for their own private Consideration But for us who can see no reason for this sudden change of our Saviours Discourse nay think that the connexion of that last Clause with the foregoing is an evident sign that they all keep the same Character and are therefore not a little scandalized at so Capernaitical a Comment as indeed Who can bear it V. 60. They will please to excuse us if we take our Saviours Interpretation to be at least of as good an Authority as 't is much more reasonable than theirs V. 62. Do's this says he Offend you Do's my saying that ye must eat my flesh and drink my Blood scandalize you Mistake not my design I mean not any carnal eating of me that indeed might justly move your Horrour It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life He that desires a fuller account of this Chapter may please to recur to the late excellent †A Paraphrase with Notes and a Preface upon the Sixth Chapter of Saint John Lond. 1686. Paraphrase set out on purpose to explain it and which will be abundantly sufficient to shew the reasonableness of that Interpretation which we give of it I shall only add to close all that one Remark which * De Doctrin Christian Lib. 3. Cap. 16. Saint Augustine has left us concerning it and so much the rather in that it is one of the rules which he lays down for the right Interpreting of Holy Scripture and illustrates with this particular Example If says he the saying be Preceptive either forbidding a wicked action or commanding to do that which is good it is no Figurative saying But if it seems to command any Villany or Wickedness or forbid what is profitable and good it is Figurative This saying Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood you have no Life in you seems to command a Villanous or Wicked Thing It is therefore a FIGVRE enjoining us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord and to lay it up in dear and profitable Remembrance that his Flesh was crucifi'd and wounded for our sakes And now having thus clearly I perswade my self shewn the Weakness of those Grounds on which this Doctrine of the substantial Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ in this Holy Sacrament is establish'd I shall but very little insist on any other Arguments against it Only in a Word to demonstrate that all manner of Proofs fail them in this great Error I will in the close here subjoin two or three short Considerations more to shew this Doctrine opposite not only to Holy Scripture as we have seen but also 1. To the best and purest Tradition of the Church 2. To the Right Reason and 3. To the Common Senses of all Mankind I. That this Doctrine is opposite to the best and purest Tradition of the Church Now to shew this I shall not heap together a multitude of Quotations out of those Fathers through whose hands this Tradition must have past He that desires such an Account may find it fully done by one of the Roman Communion in a little * A Treatise of Transubstantiation by one of the Church of Rome c. Printed for Rich. Chiswell 1687. Treatise just now publish'd in our own Language I will rather take a method that seems to me less liable to any just Exception and that is to lay down some general Remarks of undoubted Truth and whose consequence will be as evident as their certainty is undeniable And I. For the Expressions of the Holy Fathers It is not deny'd Such are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but never 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Note there is hardly any of these Words which they have applied to the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist but they have attributed the same to the Water in Baptism but that in their popular Discourses they have spared no words except that of Transubstantiation which not one of them ever used to set off so great a Mystery And I believe that were the Sermons and Devotional Treatises of our own Divines alone since the Reformation searcht into one might find Expressions among them as much over-strain'd * See Treatise first of the Adoration c Printed lately at Oxford Which would make the World believe that we hold I know not what imaginary Real Presence on this account just as truly as the Fathers did Transubstantiation And doubtless these would be as strong an Argument to prove Transubstantiation now the Doctrine of the Church of England as those to argue it to have been the Opinion of those Primitive Ages But now let us consult these men in their more exact composures when they come to teach not to declaim and we shall find they will then tell us That these Elements are for their * It is not necessary to transcribe the Particulars here that have been so often and fully alledged Most of these Expressions may be found in the Treatise of Transubstantiation lately published The rest may be seen in Blondel Eclaircissements Familiers de la Controverse de l' Eucharistie Cap. iv vii viii Claude Rep. au 2. Traittè de la Perpetuitè i. Part. Cap. iv v. Forbesius Instructiones Historico-Theolog lib. xi cap. ix x xi xii xiii xv Larrogue Histoire de l' Eucharistie liv 2. cap. ii substance what they were before Bread and Wine That they retain the true properties of their nature to nourish and feed the Body that they are things inanimate and void of sense That with reference to the Holy Sacrament they are Images Figures Signes Symbols Memorials Types and Antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ That in their Vse and Benefit they are indeed the very Body and Blood of Christ to every saithful Receiver but in a Spiritual and Heavenly manner as we confess That in
propriety of speech the Wicked receive not in this Holy Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ although they do outwardly press with their teeth the Holy Elements but rather eat and drink the Sacrament of His Body and Blood to their damnation II. Secondly For our Saviours words which are supposed to work this great Change 't is evident from the Liturgies of the Eastern Church that the Greek Fathers did not believe them to be words of Consecration This Arcudius himself is forced to confess of some of the latter Greeks viz. That they take these Words only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Historically See his Book de Concord Lib. 3. Cap. 27. And indeed all the ancient Liturgies of that Church plainly speak it However both He and Goar endeavour to shift it off in which the Prayer of Consecration is after the words of Institution and distinct from it So in Liturg. S. Chrysostom Edition Goar pag. 76. n. 130. 132. are pronounced the Words of Institution Then pag. 77. numb 139. the Deacon bids the Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who thereupon thus consecrates it He first signs it three times with the sign of the Cross and then thus prays 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And so the Cup afterwards but to be the same in this Holy Eucharist that the Haggadah or History of the Passover was in that ancient Feast That is were read only as an account of the Occasion and design of the Institution of this Blessed Sacrament not to work any Miracles in the Consecration And for the * The same seems to have been the custom of the African Church whose Prayers now used see in Ludolph Histor l. 3. cap. 5. Where is also the Expression mentioned n. 56. Hic Panis est Corpus meum c. African Churches they at this day expound them in this very Sacrament after such a manner as themselves confess to be inconsistent with Transubstantiation viz. This Bread is the Body of Christ III. Let it be considered Thirdly That it was a great debate in the Primitive Church for above a thousand Years Whether Christs Glorified Body had any Blood in it or no Now how those Men could possibly have questioned whether Christ's Glorified Body had any Blood at all in it See this whole matter deduced through the first Ages to St. Augustine whom Consentius consulted about this very matter in a particular Treatise written by Monsieur Allix de Sanguine Christi 8vo Paris 1680. had they then believed the Cup of Eucharist to have been truly and really changed into the Blood of his Glorified Body as is now asserted is what will hardly I believe be ever told us IV. We will add to this Fourthly their manner of opposing the Heathenism of the World. With what confidence could they have rallied them as they did for worshipping gods which their own Hands had made So Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Tertul. Apolog. cap. 12. Arnobius lib. 1. Minutius Felix p. 26. Octav. Julius Firmicus pag. 37. Edit Lugdunens 4to 1652. Hieron lib. 12. in Esai St. Augustinus in Psal 80. in Psal 113. Lactantius Instit lib. 2. cap. 4. Chrysostom Homil 57. in Genes c. That had neither Voice nor Life nor Motion Exposed to Age to Corruption to Dust to Worms to Fire and other Accidents That they adored gods which their Enemies could spoil them of Thieves and Robbers take from them which having no power to defend themselves were forced to be kept under Locks and Bolts to secure them For is not the Eucharistical Bread and Wine in a higher degree than any of their Idols were exposed to the same raillery Had their Wafer if such then was their Host any voice or life or motion Did not their own Hands form its substance and their Mouths speak it into a God Could it defend its self I do not say from publick Enemies or private Robbers but even from the very Vermine the creeping things of the Earth Or should we suppose the Christians to have been so impudent as notwithstanding all this to expose others for the same follies of which themselves were more notoriously guilty yet were there no * And yet that none did the Learned Rigaltius confesses Not. ad Tertul. l. 2. ad Vxor c. 5. Heathens that had wit enough to recriminate The other †See Tertul. Apol. c. 21. Et de carne Christi c. 4.5 Justin Martyr Apol. 2. Arnob l. 2. Orig. contr Cels l. 1. Articles of our Faith they sufficiently traduced That we should worship a Man and He too a Malefactor crucified by Pilate How would they have triumph'd could they have added That they worshipped a bit of Bread too which Coster himself thought a more ridiculous Idolatry than any the Heathens were guilty of Since this Doctrine has been started we have heard of the Reproaches of all sorts of Men Jews Heathens Mahometans against us on this account ‖ See du Perron de l' Euchar l. 3. c. 29. p. 973. Were there no Apostates that could tell them of this secret before Not any Julian that had malice enough to publish their Confusion Certainly had the Ancients been the Men they are now endeavour'd to be represented we had long ere this seen the whole World filled with the Writings that had proclaimed their shame in one of the greatest instances of Impudence and Inconsideration to attacque their Enemies for that very Crime of which themselves were more notoriously guilty V. Nor does their manner of Disputing against the Heretical Christians any less speak their Opinion in this Point See this fully handled in a late treatise called The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared c. 1687. than their way of Opposing the Idolatry of the Heathens It was a great argument amongst them to expose the frenzy of Eutyches who imagined some such kind of Transubstantiation of the humane nature of Christ into the Divine to produce the Example of the Eucharist That as there the Bread and the Wine says P. Gelasius Being perfected by the Holy Spirit pass into the Divine Substance yet so as still to remain in the property of their own Nature or substance of Bread and Wine This Argument is managed by St. Chrysostome Epist ad Caesarium Monachum By Theodoret Dial. 2. pag. 85 Ed G. L. Paris 1642. Tom. 4. Gelasius in Opere contra Eutychen Nestorium He thus states the Eutychian Hereâ—â—e ' Dicunt unam esse naturam i.e. Divinam Against this he thus disputes Certe Sacramenta quae sumimus corporis sanguinis Christs divina res est Et tamen non definit substantia vel Natura Panis Vini Satis ergo nobis Evidentur Ostenditur hoc nobis de ipso Christo Domino sentiendum quod in ejus imagine profitemur Vt sicut in hanc sc in divinam transeant S. Spiritu perficiente substantiam permanentes tamen in suae proprietate naturae sic c. So here the
consecrated 1. With reference to the Holy Elements to be consecrated If the Bread be not all or at least the greater part of Wheat-flower See all this in the beginning of the Missal de defectibus circa Missam if it be not mix'd with pure Water if the Bread be corrupted or the Wine sour if the Grapes of which the Wine was made were not ripe if any thing be mingled with the Wine but Water or if there be so much Water mix'd with it that that becomes the prevailing Ingredient in all these Cases and many others which I omit there is no Consecration And of all this he who adores either the Bread or Wine can have no security But 2. Be the Elements right yet if the Priest being either ignorant or in haste or unmindful of what he is about should by mistake or otherwise err in pronouncing of the words of Consecration whether by Addition or by Diminution or by any other Alteration there is no Consecration The Bread and Wine continue what they were and of this too he that worships them can never be certain 3. Let the words be never so rightly pronounced yet if the Priest had no intention to consecrate if he be a secret Atheist or Jew or Moor If he be a careless negligent Man it may be do's not believe he has any Power to make such a Change as I have shewn that several of their greatest Men in this very Age have doubted of it If he consecrate a number of Wafers for a Communion and in his telling Mistakes intending to consecrate but twenty and there are one and twenty before him in all these Cases for want of a due intention in the Priest there it no Consecration but that which is adored is only a little Bread and Wine 4. Let the Priest have a good Intention See above in the Preface yet if he be no Priest if he were not rightly Baptized or Ordained if he were a Simoniac or Irregular or a Bastard c. Or if there were no defect in his Ordination yet if there was any in his who ordained him or in the Bishops that ordained that Bishop that ordained him and so back to the very Time of the Apostles if in the whole Succession of Priests to this day there has been but any one Invalidity whether by Error or Wilfulness or for want of a due Intention or by Ignorance or by any other means then he that consecrates is no true Priest and by consequence has no Power to consecrate and so all is spoiled and whosoever worships in any of his Masses adores only a piece of Bread instead of our Saviour's Body When therefore so many Defects may interpose upon their own Principles to hinder this Conversion that 't is exceeding probable nay 't is really great odds that not one Host in twenty is consecrated it must certainly be very hazardous to worship that for God which upon their own Principles they can never be sure is so nay which 't is twenty to one is not God but a meer inanimate Creature of Bread and Wine 'T is this has forced their most Learned Men to confess * See Bellarm. de Justif c. 8. that they can never be sure of a Consecration Pag. 23. and our Author himself to declare That they do not worship the Substance that is under the Accidents of Bread and Wine WHATEVER IT BE but VPON SVPPOSITION that it is CHRIST'S BODY Adr. VI. quodlibet Sect. 10. Suppos 2. Which is what Pope Adrian 6th following herein the Authority of the Council of Constance prescribed that they ought always to adore the Host with such a reserve See Gerson Tract de Exam doctr consid 6. The Council of Constance says he excuses those who in their simplicity adore an unconsecrated Host because this condition is tacitly implied if it be rightly consecrated And therefore he advises let them so adore the Host I ADORE THEE IF THOV ART CHRIST But now if as the Apostle tells us in another case Whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin and He that doubts is damned if he eats I shall leave it to any sober Christian to say what security there can be in such a Worship which is neither advised encouraged or commanded in Holy Scripture and which they themselves confess they can never be certain is addressed to a right Object and therefore are forced to such Shifts and Reserves as were they once admitted might make any other Creature in the World as warrantably adorable as their Host How much better were it for them to adore their Blessed Saviour in Heaven where his glorified Body most certainly is Where there can therefore be no danger to lift up our Hearts unto him Were his Sacred Body indeed substantially present in this Blessed Sacrament yet still it would be in a manner to us imperceptible in the state of his Death and by consequence of his Humiliation and we might therefore have some cause to doubt whether since we have received no Command concerning it it were our Saviour's Pleasure that his Body should be adored by us in that State So that there could be no Sin in the not doing of it But now amidst so many Doubts not only upon Ours but even upon their own Principles that they dare not themselves worship at a venture that which yet they do worship tho I shall leave them to their own Master to stand or fall at the Great Day yet I must needs profess I think there is very much hazard in it A great Sincerity and great Ignorance may excuse a poor untaught and therefore blindly obedient Multitude but for their Guides who lead them into Error for those to whom God has given Capacities and Opportunities as to those now among us he has done of being better informed I can only say Lord lay not this Sin to their Charge And this may suffice to have been said to the third Thing proposed of their Rational Grounds for this Worship Pag. 37. §. xxxiii For what our Author finally adds That to adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord but Bread would be unlawful to be done by any so long as the Person continues so perswaded But then if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord neither will the same Person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his Conscience and in his not adoring I Answer It will then be time enough to consider this when either the Church to which we owe an Obedience shall require it of us or they be able to prove that in such a Case the Church would not sin in Commanding and not we in refusing to obey her But blessed be God there is no great danger of either of these Our Church is too well perswaded of the unlawfulness of such a Worship ever to require it of us And for that Church which has so uncharitably
otherwise I shall not trouble the Reader with any more of our Divines who lived in the beginning of this Queen's Reign Mr. HOOKER and subscribed the Article before-recited but pass on directly to him whom our Author first mentions Tr. I. cap. 2. §. 10. Pag. 6. the Venerable Mr. Hooker and whose Judgment having been so deservedly esteemed by all sorts of men ought not to be lightly accounted of by us And here I must observe that this Learned Person is drawn in only by a Consequence and that no very clear one neither to favour his Opinion Difference between the Protestant and Socinian Methods in answer to the Protestants Plea for a Socinian pag. 54. The truth is he has dealt with Mr. Hooker just as himself or one of his Friends has been observed to have done on the like occasion with the incomparable Chillingworth has pick'd up a Passage or two that seemed for his purpose but dissembled whole Pages in the same place that were evidently against him For thus Mr. Hooker in the Chapter cited by him interprets the words of Institution If we doubt says he what those admirable words may import let him be our Teacher for the meaning of Christ to whom Christ was himself a School-master Let our Lord's Apostle be his Interpreter content we our selves with his Explication My Body the Communion of my Body My Blood the Communion of my Blood. Is there any thing more expedite clear and easie than that as Christ is termed our Life because through him we obtain Life So the parts of this Sacrament are his Body and Blood because they are Causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth The Real Presence of Christ's most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament And again p. 310. he thus interprets the same words This Hallow'd Food through the concurrence of Divine Power is in verity and truth unto faithful Receivers instrumentally a Cause of that mystical participation whereby as I make my self wholly theirs so I give them in hand an actual possession of all such saving Grace as my sacrificed Body can yeild and as their Souls do presently need This is to them and in them my Body And this may suffice in Vindication of Mr. Hooker Those who desire a fuller Account may find several Pages to the same purpose in the Chapter which I have quoted Bishop ANDREWS 1 Tract pag. 7. §. xi n. 1. The next our Author mentions is the Learned Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage as he calls it in the Answer to Bellarmine And indeed we need desire no other Passage to judge of his Opinion in this matter in which 1st He utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the manner of Christs Presence in the Eucharist 2. He professes that a Presence we believe and that no less a True one than the Papists 3. He plainly insinuates that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was much the same as in Baptism the very allusion which the Holy †Habemus Christum praesentem ad Baptismatis Sacramentum habemus eum praesentem ad Altaris Cibum Potum Augustin Stola quae est Ecclesia Christi lavatur in ipsius sanguine vivo i. e. in lavacro regenerationis Origen Statim baptizatus in sanguine agni Vir meruit appellari Hieron Christi sanguine lavaris quando in ejus mortem Baptizaris Leo. P. c. Fathers were wont to make to express his Presence by in this Holy Sacrament which since our Adversaries can neither deny nor yet say is so real as to be Essential or Corporeal they must of necessity allow that there may be a true Presence which is all the Bishop affirms without such a Substantial one as this Author here contends for But to shew that whatever this Bishop understood by the Real presence it could not be that Christs glorified Body is now actually present in this Sacred Mystery will appear demonstratively from this that he declares it is not this Body which we either Represent or partake of there insomuch that he doubts not to say that could there be a Transubstantiation such as the Church of Rome supposes it would not serve our turn nor answer the design of this Sacrament 'T is in his Sermon on 1 Cor. See Sermon vii on the Resurect pag. 454. Serm. Lâ—nd 1641. v. 7 8. We will mark saith he something more That Epulemur doth here refer to Immolatus To Christ not every way consider'd but As when he was Offer'd Christs Body that now is true But not Christs Body as now it is but as then it was when it was offer'd rent and slain and sacrificed for us Not as now he is glorified for so he is not he cannot be Immolatus For as he is he is immortal and impassible But as then he was when he suffer'd death that is passible and mortal Then in his passible State he did institute this of outs to be a memorial of his Passible and Passion both And we are in this Action not only carry'd up to Christ sursum Corda so that Christ it seems is not brought down to us but we are also carry'd back to Christ as he was at the very instant and in the very Act of his offering So and no otherwise doth this Text teach So and no otherwise do we Represent him By the incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit not He alone but He as at the very act of his offering is made present to us and we incorporate into his death and invested in the Benefits of it If an Host could be turned into him now glorified as he is it would not serve Christ offer'd is it Thither must we look to the Serpent lift up thither we must repair even ad Cadaver We must Hoc facere do that is then done So and no otherwise is this Epulare to be conceived And so I think none will say they do or can turn him Whatsoever Real presence then this Bishop believed it must be of his crucified Body and as in the State of his death and that I think cannot be otherwise present than in one of those two ways mentioned above by Arch-Bishop Cranmer and both of which we willingly acknowledge either Figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive them And from this Account of Bishop Andrews Opinion we may conclude what it was that Casaubon and King James understood by the Real Presence ASAVBON KING JAMES A. Bishop of Spalato who insist upon that Bishops words to express their own Notion and meaning of it Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch Bishop of Spalato See the 1. Tra. who in the next § xi note 2. pag. 7. * Vol. 3. de Rep. Eccles. lib. 7. cap. 11. pag. 200. 201. to that cited by our Adversary is
very earnest against those who receive unworthily this Holy Sacrament and by consequence ties not Christs natural Body to the Bread and declares it to be after a Spiritual imperceptible and miraculous manner As for the term Corporaliter which he there uses and which Melancthon and some others had used before him that may be well enough understood in the same Sence Celess ii 9 17. as verè or realiter and is often so used both in Scripture and in the Holy Fathers As when St. Paul says of Christ that in Him dwelleth the fulness of the Godhead Bodily that is really in opposition to the Shechinah or Presence of God in the Tabernacle And again The Body of Christ that is the substance See Hammend in Coloss 1. Annot. d. the reality opposed to the types and sigures of the Law. And so in the Hebrew Exposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used for Essence as well as Body Arch-Bishop LAWD and applied to Spiritual as well as Corporal things Nor can I see any more reason to understand Arch-Bishop Lawd in any other Sence He asserts the true and real Presence of Christ in this Sacred Feast 1 Tract §. xiv pag. 8. but he do's not say that Christ's natural Body which is now in Heaven is also in this Holy Sacrament or in the worthy receiver nor have we any reason to believe that he understood it so to be * MONTâ—GVE Origeres Eccles. Tom. prior par postor p. 247 249 250. c. Panis in Sanaxi fit corpus Christi Sed et Corpus Christi CREDENIES nunt Ad eundem utrumque moduin mensuram sed non Naturaliter Itaque nee Panis ITA est Corpus Christi Mystice tantum non Pâ—â—sice vid. plur And the same must be said of †Bishop HALL Bishop Hall Bishop Montague and Bishop Bilson MONTAGVE BILSON in whose expressions as they are quoted by our Author I find nothing that proves the Sence he would impose upon them and whose works had I now by me I might possibly be able to give some better account of them Though after all should one of these in his violence against his Adversaries or the others in their pacifick design of reconciling all Parties as to this Point have said more than they ought to do I do not see but that it ought to have been imputed to the circumstances they were in and the designs they pursued rather than be set up for the measure either of their own or our Churches Opinion And now I am mentioning these things Bishop FORBES I ought not pass over one other eminent instance of such a charitable undertaking and which has given occasion to our Author of a Quotation he might otherwise have wanted in that excellent Bishop of St. Andrews Bishop Forbes concerning whose Authority in this matter I shall offer only the censure of one than whom none could have given a more worthy Character of a person who so well deserved it as that good Bishop did I do not deny Author of the Life of Bishop BEDEL in the Preface but his earnest desire of a general Peace and Vnion among all Christians has made him too favourable to many of the Corruptions in the Church of Rome But though a Charity that is not well ballanced may carry one to very in iscreet things yet the principle from whence thdy flow'd in him was so truly good that the Errors to which it carry'd him ought to be either excused or at lest to be very gently censured There remain now but two of all the Divines he has produced to prove his new fancy which he would set up for the Dâ—ctrine of the Church of England and those as little for his purpose as any he has hitherto mentioned Bishop TAYLOR Bishop Taylor and Mr. Thorndyke For Bishop Taylor I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication since it is evident that he has so plainly opposed his Notion and that in the very Book he quotes and which he wrote on purpose to shew our meaning of the Real Presence Polemical discourses p. 182. London 1674. that he could not but have known that he mis-represented him I shall set down the state of the Question as it is in the beginning of that Treatise The Doctrine of the Church of England and generally of the Protestants in this Article is That after the Minister of the Holy Mysteries hath rightly pray'd and blessed or consecrated the Bread and the Wine the Symbols become changed into the Body and Blood of Christ after a Sacramental i.e. in a Spiritual Real manner So that all that worthily communicate do by Faith receive Christ Really Effectually to all the purposes of his Passion It is Bread and it is Christs Body It is Bread in in Substance Christ in the Sacrament and Christ is as really given to all that are truly dispos'd as the Symbols are p. 183. It is here as in the other Sacrament for as there natural Water becomes the laver of Regeneration so here Bread and Wine become the Body and Blood of Christ but there and here too the first Substance is changed by Grace but remains the same in nature We say that Christs Body is in the Sacrament really but Spiritually They the Papists say it is there really but Spiritually For so Bellarmin is bold to say that the word may be allowed in this Question Where now is the difference Here By Spiritually they mean present after the manner of a Spirit by Spiritually we mean present to our Spirits only that is so as Christ is not present to any other Sence but that of faith or spiritual susception They say that Christs Body is truly present there as it was upon the Cross but not after the manner of all or any Body But we by the real Spiritual Presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the Hearts of the faithful by Blessing and Grace and this is ALL we mean besides the tropical and figurative presence Such is the Account which that Excellent Bishop here gives not only of his own but as he expresly terms it of the Church of England's and the Generality of the Protestants Belief in this Matter Our Author's dissimulation of it is so much the more inexcusable Treatise 1st p. 20th by how much the more zealous an Advocate he makes him of his Cause when all this that I have transcribed was in the very same Section and almost in the same Page with what he has cited For his little Remark upon the Title of the Bishops Book where he calls it of the Real Presence and Spiritual whence he would infer a difference between the two Terms and find something Real that is not Spiritual in this Sacrament it is evident that the Design of that Distinction was this There be several sorts of Real Presences the Papists the Lutherans the Church of England all
allow a Real Presence in the Sacrament but after different Manners it was therefore necessary to add somewhat more to shew what kind of Real Presence he undertook to maintain and he knew no word more proper to express it by than Spiritual which does not therefore imply a Distinction from but Limitation of the other Term Real And thus he explains it N. 6. and 7. of that Section Pag. 183. where he shews that the Spiritual is also a Real Presence and indeed more properly so than any other In short thus he concludes the State of the Question Pag 186. in the same Section between us and the Church of Rome so that now says he The Question is not Whether the Symbols be changed into Christ's Body and Blood or no For it is granted on all sides But whether this Conversion be Sacramental and Figurative Or whether it be Natural and Bodily Nor is it whether Christ be taken Really but whether he be taken in a Spiritual or in a Natural Manner We say the Conversion is Figurative Mysterious and Sacramental they say it is Proper Natural and Corporal We affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real Effects of his Passion this is an Explication a little different from our Authors They say he is taken by the Mouth and that the Spiritual and the Virtual taking him in Virtue or Effect is not sufficient tho' done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus hic Saltus If this does not yet satisfie him that he has injur'd this Learned Man in the Representation of his Opinion directly contrary to his Sense I will offer him yet one Passage more taken from another part of his Works and which I hope will throughly convince him It is in the 5th Letter to a Gentleman that was tempted to the Communion of the Church of Rome He had proposed to the Bishop this Question Whether without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host according to his Humane Nature in that Host The Question is certainly every way pertinent to our present Purpose let us see what the Answer is that he makes to it See Pâ—lâ—mi◠〈…〉 â—ag 6â— 70 We may not render Divine Worship to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry Well Treat 1st Pag. 10. but still it may be the Bishop does not intend to exclude the Corpus Domini but only the Corporal or Natural Manner of that Body Let us therefore hear how he goes on For Idolum nihil est in mundo Saith St. Paul and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Nonâ—ens For it is not true there is no suchthing What not as Christ there no way as to his Humane nature No he is saith the Bishop present there by his Divine power and his Divine Blessing and the Fruits of his Body the real effective Consequents of his Passion but for any other Presence it is Idolum it is nothing in the World. Adore Christ in Heaven for the Heaven must contain him till the time of restitution of all things This then is Bishop Taylor 's Notion of the Real Presence and now I am confident our Author himself will remit him to the Company of those Old Zuinglian Bishops Cranmer Ridley and the rest who lived before that Q. Elizabeth had propugned the Real Presence of his new Model into the Heads of the Governours of the Church of England And now I am afraid his Cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndyke can support it Mr. THORNDYKE And how unlikely he is to do it he might have learnt from what has been answered to T. G. on the same Occasion ⸪ T. G. Vialogue 1st Pag. 21. T. G. Had in his first Dialogue quoted the same place which our Author has done since to prove his belief of the Real Presence His * Answer to T. G's Dial. Pag. 92. Adversary confesses this but produces another that explains his meaning †THORNDYKE Laws of the Church Ch. 4. Pag. 30. if it can any way be shew'd says he that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them then I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church only prays that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the Body and Blood of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit then is it not the Sence of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may nevertheless come to be the instruments of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are dispos'd to receive it no otherwise than his Flesh and Blood convey'd the Efficacy thereof upon Earth And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thus Mr. Thorndyke expresses himself as to the Real Presence But yet after all I will not deny but that this Learned Person seems to have had a particular Notion in this matter and which is far enough from what our Author would six upon him He thought that the Elements by Consecration were united to the Godhead of Christ much after the same manner as his Natural Body was by Incarnation and that so the very Elements became after a sort his Body See his Just Weights and Measures 4 to Lond. 1662. Pag. 94. The Church from the beginning did not pretend to consecrate by these bare words This is my Body this is my Blood as operatory inchanging the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ but by that Word of God whereby he hath declared the Institution of this Sacrament and commanded the use of it and by the Execution of this Command Now it is executed and hath always been executed by the Act of the Church upon God's Word of Institution praying that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may make them the Body and Blood of Christ Not by changing them into the Nature of Flesh and Blood as the Bread and Wine that nourished our Lord Christ on Earth became the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God by becoming the Flesh and Blood of his Manhood Hypostatically united to his Godhead saith Gregory Nyssene But immediately and ipso facto by being united to the Spirit of Christ i. e. his Godhead For the Flesh and Blood of Christ by Incarnation the Elements by Consecration being united
to the Spirit i. e. the Godhead of Christ become both one Sacramentally by being both one with the Spirit or Godhead of Christ to the conveying of God's Spirit to a Christian And thus have I consider'd the several Divines produced for this new Conceit concerning the Real Presence and shewn the greatest part of his Authors to be evidently against it some not to have spoken so clearly that we can determine any thing concerning them but not one that favours what they were alledged for viz. to shew that they believed Christ's Natural Body to be both in Heaven and in the Sacrament only after another manner than the Papists It were an easie matter to shew how constant our Church has been to the Doctrine of the true real spiritual Presence which it still asserts and which it derived from its first Reformers whose words have been before set down by a cloud of other Witnesses as may be seen by the short Specimen I have put together in the * Reformatio legum Eccles ex Authorit Henr. 8. Edw. 6. Lond. 1641. Tit. de Sacram. cap. 4. pag. 29. Morton de Euch. part 2. Class 4. cap. 1. §. 2. pag. 224. Lat. 1640. 4 to Fr. White against Fisher pag. 407. Lond. 1624. Fol. A. B Vster's Answer to a Challenge c of the Real Presence p. 44 45. Lond. 1625. Id. Serm before the House of Commons pag 16 1â— c Dr. Hownand Pract. Catech. part ult Answer to this Question the Importance of these wâ—â—â—◠〈◊〉 the Bâ—dâ— and 〈◊〉 of Christ are verily and indeed taken and receivâ—â— p. 132. 〈◊〉 Lond Fol. 1634. Dr. Jachson's Works Tom. 3. pag. 300 302. Lond. 1673 Dr. Jo. Wâ—â—â—â—â—'s Way to the True Church Lond. 1624. §. 51. N. 1â— pag. 2â—9 Cosens Hist Transubst p. 3 4 12 c. Edit London 1675 8vo Margent But I have insisted too long already on this matter and shall therefore pass on to the Third thing I proposed to consider viz. Thirdly That the Alterations which have been made in our Rubrick were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions as is vainly and fasly suggested To give a rational Account of this Affair we must carefully consider the Circumstances of the Times the Tempers and Dispositions of the Persons that lived in them and what the Designs of the Governing Parties were with reference to them and then we shall presently see both a great deal of Wisdom and Piety in the making of these Alterations allowing the Opinions of those who did it to have continued as we have seen in all of them the same When first this Rubrick was put into King Edward's Liturgy the Church of England was but just rising up out of the Errors and Superstitions with which it had been over-run by the prevalency of Popery upon it It had the happiness to be reformed not as most others were by private persons and in many places contrary to the desires of the Civil Power but by a Unanimous Concurrence of the Highest Authority both Civil and Ecclesiastical of Church and State. Hence it came to pass that Convocations being assembled Deliberations had of the greatest and wisest Persons for the proceeding in it nothing was done out of a Spirit of Peevisnness or Opposition the Holy Scriptures and Antiquity were carefully consulted and all things examined according to the exactest measures that could be taken from them and a diligent distinction made of what was Popery and what true and Catholick Christianity that so the One only might be rejected the other duly retained Now by this means it was that the Ancient Government of the Church became preserved amongst us a just and wise Liturgy collected out of the Publick Rituals Whatever Ceremonies were requisite for Order or Decency were retain'd and among the rest that of receiving the Communion kneeling for One which has accordingly ever since been the manner establish'd amongst us But that no Occasion of Scandal might hereby be given whether to our Neighbour-Churches abroad or to any particular Members of our own at home That those who were yet weak in the Faith might not either continue or fall back into Error and by our retaining the same Ceremony in the Communion that they had been used to in the Mass fancy that they were to adore the Bread as they did before For all these great Ends this Caution was inserted that the true Intent of this Ceremony was only for Decency and Order not that any Adoration was thereby intended or ought to be done unto any Real or Essential Presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood which were not there but in Heaven it being against the Truth of Christ's Natural Body to be at One time in more places than One. And this is sufficiently intimated in the words of the Rubrick to have been the first Cause and Design of it Thus it continued the remainder of King Edward's time But now Queen Elizabeth being come to the Crown there were other Circumstances to be consider'd Those of the Reformed Religion abroad were sufficiently satisfied both by this publick Declaration which had stood so many years in the Liturgy of our Church and by the Conversation and Acquaintance of our Divines forced by the dispersion in the foregoing Reign to seek forrefuge among their Brethren in other Countries of our Orthodox Faith as to this Point Our own Members at home had heard too much of this matter in the publick Writings and Disputations and in the constant Sufferings of their Martyrs not to know that the Popish Real Presence was a meer Figment an Idolum as Bishop Taylor justly stiles it and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored There was then no longer need of this Rubrick upon any of those Accounts for which it was first establish'd and there was a very just reason now to lay it aside That great Queen desired if possible to compose the Minds of her Subjects and make up those Divisions which the differences of Religion and the late unhappy Consequences of them had occasion'd For this she made it her business to render the publick Acts of the Church of England as agreeable to all Parties as Truth would permit The Clause of the Real Presence inserted in the Articles of her first Convocation and subscribed by all the Members of it to shew that their belief was still the same it had ever been as to this matter was nevertheless as we have seen struck out for this end their next Session The Title of Head of the Church which her Father had first taken her Brother continued and was from both derived to her so qualified and explained as might prevent any Occasion of quarrelling at it by the most captious persons That Petition in the Litany inserted by King Henry viii From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable Enormities Good Lord c. struck out And in conformity to what was done in the Articles as to this Point this Rubrick