thrown out again and so the Common-Prayer Books ever since have been cleared of it till the alterations therein made after the King's return in A. D. 1661. at which time it was reinserted The same Q. Elizabeth's Divines in their Review of these Articles also as they cast the Declaration out of the Liturgy so did they expunge this passage likewise being of the same temper as the Declaration out of the Article which hath been omitted ever since § 2 Again whereas King Edward's former Common-Prayer Book useth these words as they have descended from Antiquity in delivering the Eucharist The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life the Composers of the second in the fifth year of that King's Reign suitable to their Declaration which denies any Real or Essential Presence of this Body in the Eucharist thought fit to remove this Form and put instead thereof only these words Take and eat this left without any substantive in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving leaving out these words also of the former Consecration-Prayer And with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ They omit also the Priest's touching or handling the Patin or Chalice in the Prayer of Consecration required in the former Book done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols of which also Bucer saith * Censura p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quidquam his elementis adesse Christi extrausum praebitionis receptionis For the same reason it seems to be that the Glory be to God on high c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum corda the one is transferred till after the Communion and the other omitted differently from King Edward's first Form likewise whereas it is said in the former Liturgy in the Prayer of Humble access Grant us so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Blood in these holy mysteries the 2d omits these words in these holy mysteries But the Divines of Qu. Elizabeth in their Review §. 3. n. 1. as they nulled the Declaration in the Common-Prayer Book and purged the 28th Article of the forementioned explication so they thought fit to restore the former ejected Form in the administring of the Sacrament The Body of our Lord c. preserve thy body and soul putting after it the later Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving But then the new Liturgy prepared for Scotland and published A. D. 1637. rectifies and reduces many of the former things again to the first mode first restores those words in the Consecration with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless c. that They may be unto us the Body c. ordering again the Presbyter that officiates to take the Patin and Chalice in his hands and then takes quite away the words added in King Edward's second Form in the delivering of the Mysteries Take and eat this c. and instead thereof adds after the former words The Body of our Lord c. the People's Response Amen according to the custom of Antiquity See Dionys Alexandr apud Euseb Hist 7. l. 8. c. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7 mi mensis Augustin ad Orosium quaest 49. spoken as a Confession of their Faith that they acknowledged that which they received to be Corpus Domini Of all which Laudensium Autocatacrisis heavily complains observing That in the Consecration-Prayer are restored the words of the Mass whereby God is besought by his Omnipotent Spirit so to Sanctifie the oblation of Bread and Wine that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood From which words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation Wherefore the English Reformers i. e. the latter in King Edward's days scraped them out of their Books but our Men put them fairly in And good reason have they so to do For long ago they professed that about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists except only about the formality and mode of Presence here quoting Montague's Appeal p. 289. Lastly when the late Clergy A. D. 1661. being upon I know not what inducements §. 3. n. 2. solicited to receive the foremention'd Declaration rejeded in Q. Elizabeth's days came to examine it they judged meet not to publish it entire as it ran before but these words It is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood they cancelled and instead of them inserted these It is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural fâ—â—sh and Blood as we find them in the present Rubrick § 4 Having exhibited this general view of the Mutations which have been made in this Church in several times according as different Judgments had the power somewhat waveringly it see as in the things relating to so great an Article of Faith I think fit now more particularly to resume the consideration of the Declaration about Adoration In which are contained these three Observables 1. That here the present Clergy do profess expresly 1. Observ that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist § 5 2. That they urge for this Non-presence there this reason or ground out of Natural Philosophy 2. Observ That it is against the truth of a Natural body to be in more places than one at one time here seeming to found their Faith in this matter on the truth of this position in Nature § 6 3. In consequence of these they declare that kneeling in receiving the Eucharist so much excepted against by the Presbyterian is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers 3. Observ and for the avoiding of such prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but that hereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood where they either leave this undetermined whether there be not another presence of Christ's flesh and blood as real and true as is the corporal to which an adoration is at this time due or else do determine as seems concludable from their former Proposition viz. That the natural Body of Christ is not there that there is not any such real
in pluribus locis implitat expresse contradictionem quia illud quod est circumscriptive in distantibus locis oporter quod sit distinctum distinctione locorum quia quicquid est circumscriptive in loco aliquo totum continetur ab ipso it a quod nihil contenti est circumscriptive extra continentem Propter quod illa quae sunt in distinctis locis circumscriptive necessario distincla sunt quia est contra rationem unius quod sit distinctum ideo si unum corpus esset in pluribus locis circumscriptive esset unum non unum seu indistinctum quod implicat contradictionem 2. That they put a third way of presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist real and true and tho' not per modum quantitatis dimensive §. 24. n. 3. yet per modum substantiae * Aqui. n. 3.76 q. 3. art which they say is a mode proper to this Sacrament and such as hinders not the same body at the same time to be alibi elsewhere and yet to remain tho' it be elsewhere indivisum in se which the other Presences in their acception of them do hinder Of which thing thus Durand contends * In 4 sent 11. d. q. 1. That Christ's Body is present in the Sacrament ratione solius praesentiae ad locum not ratione continentiae either circumscriptive or definitive and that Quod est praesens loco hoc modo potest esse simul praesens in pluribus locis sicut Angelus saith he est praesens omnibus corporibus quae potest movere §. 24. n. 4. Mean-while other Schoolmen and Controvertists take liberty to dissent from these See Scotus in 4. sent dist 10. q. 2. and Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 3. c. and it seems not without reason For why should this their Substantial or Sacramental way as real and true as any of the other of Christ's Body being at the same time in Heaven and in the Eucharist consist with this Body's remaining indivisum in se more than the circumscriptive or definitive way rightly understood and freed of their limitations or why impose they such a notion on these two ways that they must imply an exact adequation of the place and the placed or exclude it from being at all any where else any more than the other Substantial or Sacramental way which they maintain doth Thus far I have stept aside to shew that the Doctor receive◠〈◊〉 advantage here for the denying the Essential or Substantial pâ—â—sence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist from the difference in the Schools concerning the Mode thereof whilst all of them agree both in such Substantial presence and also in Transubstantiation § 25 Consequently to what hath been said I gather also First That if we do not take praesentia corporalis or praesentia naturalis in such a sense as they imply the presence of some corporal or natural accidents or properties by divine power separable as some are the essence still preserved and who knows exactly how many in which respect Christ's Body is denied as by the English so by the Roman and Lutheran Churches to be in the Eucharist modo corporeo or naturali but take them as they imply the corporal or natural presence of the essence or substance of this Body thus will Real or Essential Presence be the same with corporal and natural And therefore these words Real and essential presence seem as truly denied to be in the Eucharist by the first composers of the foresaid Declaration in the latter end of K. Edward's days as the words Corporal and Natural presence are in this 2d Edition thereof in A. D. 1661. I say the one the essential or substantial denied to be there as much as the other the natural whenever this reason in both is added for it viz. because Idem corpus non potest esse simul in diversis locis For this reason seems necessarily to exclude the one as well as the other the real and essential presence as well as corporal and natural § 26 Indeed the present Rubrick hath only these words That no adoration ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood whereas that in King Edward's time hath these That no adoration ought to be done unto any real and essential presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood the words Real and essential then being now changed into Corporal and this seems to be done with some caution for the present Church her maintaining still a real and essential presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist whereas those in the later time of King Edward seem to have denied it For as the first days of this Prince seem to have been more addicted to Lutheranism so the latter days to Zuinglianism as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley see his last examination in Fox p. 1598. and his stating the first Question disputed at Oxford about the Real Presence and of Peter Martyr * See Disput Oxon. 1549. fol. 18 67 88. When also this Question An Corpus Christi realiter vel substantialiter adsit in Eucharistia in Oxford was held negatively and when all those alterations were made in the Form of the Service of our Lord's Supper mentioned before in the beginning of this Discourse that might seem to favour any presence of Christ's Body in relation to the Symbols But here I say if the words of the former Rubrick real and essential were by the late Clergy changed into corporal on any such design that so the real and essential presence might be still by them maintained then I ask here how can the same reason be still retained in their opinion thus altered For this reason that the same body cannot be at one in several places as I have said combats as well a real and essential presence which they now would seem to allow as a corporal which they reject § 27 2. I infer that let them express this essential or substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist still defended by them how they please by calling in Mystica Spiritualis Symbolica Sacramentalis or the like yet if the presence of the Essence or Substance be still retained they are eased no more thus from maintaining that Idem corpus potest esse in duobus locis or ubi simul than any other party which hold any grosser presence there And therefore suppose if you will a body cloath'd with all its usual accidents of quantity and dimensions and of quality except you will number also this amongst them to possess but one place and except you will annex to circumscriptive or definitive the restrictions mentioned before § 24. n. 2. and it may no less when such is the divine pleasure be thus at the same time in many places than when stript of them for the same seeming absurdities and contradictions follow from an Angel's or Soul's being at the same time in two distinct definitive ubi's without any continuation if I
Christ's Body to be there really and essentially yet not to be there quoad naturam or essentiam suam or Christ's Body to be there not quoad corpus this is by a distinction to destroy the thesis § 35 Again if they say really and essentially there present but not locally so say the Lutheran and Roman Doctors i. e. circumscriptive or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have in their natural condition but if they will extend locally so far as that they understand Christ's Body to be there by no manner of ubi at all not so much as ubi definitive or so that they may truly say 't is hic so as not ubique or not alibi where no Communion is celebrated what is this but to affirm 't is there so as that it is not at all there § 36 If they say really and essentially present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on Earth as members to it in Heaven besides that thus Christ's Body is no more present in the Eucharist that in any other Ordinance or Sacrament wherein the Spirit is conferred such presence is properly of the Spirit not of the Body and advanceth us not beyond Zuinglianism § 37 But if at last they plainly interpret real and essential presence by Christ's being present in corporal absence to the worthy Receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof Thus also they slide back into Zuinglianism Concerning which opinion the Remonstrants well discerning the difficulties into which the affirming of a Real presence doth cast other Protestant parties in the Apol. pro Confessione sua p. 256. said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima ad idololatriam omnem evitandam in hac materia in primis necessaria quae a Calvino illius sequacibus dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. And upon the same terms the Socinians reject Calvin's Doctrine See Volkelius 4. l. 22. c. p. 316. Tertius error eorum est qui Christi corpus sanguinemque re-vera quidem in sacra coena a nobis comedi bibique existimant verum non corporali sed spirituali ratione hoc a nobis fieri affirmant Cujus quidem opinionis falsitas vel hoc uno convincitur quod non solum Christi verbis nequaquam continetur sed etiam cum sanae mentis ratione pugnat quae dictat fieri non posse ut Christi corpus tanto intervallo a nobis disjunctum in coena re-vera comedamus Idcirco ille ipse Calvinus qui sententiae istius author est fatetur se hoc mysterium nec mente percipere nec lingua explicare posse § 38 I find also a late Writer replying on this manner to his Adversary W. H. urging Roman Tradition examined p. 12. That some of the Learned'st of the English Clergy confess the Holly Eucharist after Consecration to be really and truly our Saviour's Body and therefore adore it and for this cause disown the New Rubrick which saith Our Lord's Body is in Heaven and not on the Altar telling us that they acknowledge the Thing only dare not be so bold as the Romanists to determine the Manner a thing said by Bishop Andrews and others in the former Testimonies I find him I say returning this answer 1. To the Rubrick That this new Rubrick is but the old one restored where he might have done well to have considered by whom in was also ejected before its late restorement in A. D. 1661. viz. by the English Clergy and that within a year or two after it first appeared a New Additional in King Edward's second Common-Prayer Book 2. To the Persons If saith he you speak true of them what regard should we have of the judgment of such Clergy-men as declare their assent and consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common-Brayer Prayer and Articles of Religion and yet disown the Rubrick and believe Transubstantiation and adore the Eucharist as Christ's Body Why do not you call such the Roman Clergy rather than the English if they differ from you but only in a want of boldness to determine the Manner whilst they acknowledge the Thing What if a Bishop Bramhall will have the Pope to be Principium Unitatis and take Grotius to be of the mind of the Church of England who would have Rome to be the Mistress-Church and the Pope to be the Vniversal Governor according to the Canons of Councils even the Council of Trent must we therefore stoop to such mens judgments Or might you not as well tell us That Cassander or Militier yea or Bellarmine were of your mind Thus he But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary in the Eucharist and with the Symbols tho' the manner not prescribed doth Romanize this Clergy Bishop Cousins is one of those number * See the former Discourse concerning the Eucharist § 5. n. 2. c. And it is much that this person having read his Book who also which I much wonder at makes this his own opinion of an Essential presence that of all Protestants did not discern this but hath in his Postscript recommended for the satisfaction of others one so much differing from his own Judgment who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop in this manner p. 14. That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified which he denies to be flesh and blood but such as was truly flesh and blood which he once offered the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in and by the Eucharist And p. 15. That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood i. e. in the words Hoc est Corpus meum when his real Body was not broken nor slain nor his bloodshed till after And I can scarce believe saith he that man that saith he believeth that they the Apostles believed that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood * p. 57. to St. Cyril's words Do not look on it as bare bread and bare wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ For tho' thy sense suggects this to thee yet let Faith confirm thee he answers The Bread and Wine are not bare or meer Bread and Wine but Christ's Body and Blood as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood and of his Sacrifice on the Cross really given to us in the Eucharist but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins CHAP. IV. Considerations on the third Observation No Adoration intended or due to any Corporal presence THis from § 19. I had to present