4.14 and 7.38 39. where the Spirit signified in both places by water is declar'd to be the fountain of life eternal And now it is high time to leave of to tire you with a Discourse the more tedious because entangling it self with the Writings of so many others Now to conclude I pray the good Lord To preserve you or any other that reads it from being moved or perswaded by any thing erroneous therein And may he make the shame of any thing that is said amiss here by me tho he knows unwittingly yet I may not say innocently to fall upon me and open your Understanding to see all my Defects that so if this my Endeavour in this History of the Eucharist intended chiefly to make men tho of another perswasion yet more charitable at least to the Doctrine of our Forefathers which they have left can do no good it may do no hurt but that Truth may ever prosper prevail triumph Blessed be his holy Name for ever Amen FINIS Appendix I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the substantial Presence and Adoration of Our B. Saviour in the Eucharist asserted With a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject Publish'd at Oxford from the Exceptions of a Sacramentary Answer Printed at London I. THE former Part of the Answer Combating Transubstantiation is foreign to the Oxford Discourses treating of the Real Presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist Therefore tho liable to material exceptions such are false and perverted quotations long since detected and expos'd Romantick Stories impertinent if true fallacious Arguings and wretched Calumnies industriously contriv'd to deceive and incense the Populace yet It shall be neglected and our Animadversions commence at Part 2. c. 2. where the Minister's Reflections are professedly applied to the Treatises II. Pag. 44. l. 14. All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's invisible Power and Grace c. A Presence of Grace and Power only i. e a real absence of our Lord's body and blood from both the Eucharist and worthy Communicant was indeed profest by the Puritan Party which exclaimed against Archbishop Laud Bishop Mountague and others for maintaining a substantial Presence From whose Clamour and Impeachment these Learned Prelates vindicated themselves not by that easie and complete way of disowning the Doctrine and interpreting their Expressions and Sentiments to intend a presence of Grace and Power only which obvious Reply would have silenc'd if not appeased the Faction but by justifying their Tenet to be what the Church of England held and prescrib'd A presence of Grace only can import no more than a bestowing of Grace or benefits without the thing beneficial or gracious But that the Church of England by her Heads or eminentest Members from Q. Elizabeth's time to the Return of Char. II. own'd this Zuinglianism for her Faith is from no authentick act that I have perus'd yet evident 1. Not evident from the XXVIII Article tho the Answerer affirms so much For that Article neither does nor was intended to contain any thing inconsistent with a substantial Presence tho it condemns Transubstantiation To ratifie this I need alledge against this Minister a Witness no better qualified then Dr. Burnet because produc'd as very credible in this case by this Man in p. 58. who says it was thought to be enough to condemn in this Article Transubstantiation c. 2. Not evident from the Communion-Office as the same Historian relates Hist Ref. Part 2. p. 390. It was proposed to have the Communion-Book so contriv'd that it might not exclude the Belief of the Corporal Presence For the chief Design of the Queen's Council was to Unite the Nation in One Faith and the greater part of the Nation continued to believe such a Presence thereupon the Rubrick is left out And indeed had we not this uncontrolable testimony out of that very Author who would fain have been set up in Churches as the Old Fox's Monuments yet as much might be collected from the Office it self that no-where excludes the substance or limits the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ to Grace and Power which it must do before it can countenance the Answerer's tenet Surely any Person not extreamly prepossest will sooner interpret these Passages The Communion of the Body c. We Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ c. When the Minister delivers the Communion The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. omitted in the Answer Take eat c. We thank God that he doth vouchsafe to feed us with the Food of the most precious Body c. The Bread that we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. I say an unprejudic'd Man will sooner understand these expressions as including a substantial presence than a signifying only the power and grace of Christ's Body and Blood. How could they then take them otherwise who believ'd a corporal presence and till the last years of Edw. VI. scarce ever heard that the words were capable of any other sense 3. Not evident from the Catechism In which the Church of England is so far from teaching her Children a Presence of Grace only that she plainly instructs them to believe a substantial Presence Does she not as it were dissect the Eucharist into its parts acquainting them that it consists of an Outward part or sign Bread and Wine of an Inward part or thing signified the Body and Blood of Christ c. and then demands What are the Benefits or effects of these Parts whereof we are partakers thereby i. e. by the Body and Blood of Christ Now if she design by body and blood of Christ the benefits only of them then her Question runs thus What are the Benefits whereof we are partakers by the Benefits which are the inward Part of the Lord's Supper A Question too ridiculous to be proposed by any person of sobriety much less fit for a Church to put in her institution of Christians If then the Catechism may be explicated literally as one would imagin a Catechism ought the Church of England both believes and teaches a substantial Presence Agreeable hereto is Bishop Ken's Exposition licensed 1685 by Jo. Battely Chaplin to the Archbishop of Canterbury O God incarnate says the Bishop how thou canst give us thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink how thy flesh is meat indeed c. How thou who art in Heaven art present on the Altar I can by no means explain but I firmly believe it all because thou hast said it and I firmly rely on thy love and on thy Omnipotence to make good thy word tho the manner of doing it I cannot comprehend Here in expressions very fervent and becoming a Christian Pastor he instructs the people of his Diocese to believe that God incarnate gives them his flesh to eat c. Next that tho in Heaven yet the same God incarnate is present on the Altar 3ly
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
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
which are made by Men and these vel aliquantulum mansura sicut potuit Serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in Eremo vel peracto ministerio transitura sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur Then adds he sed quia haec omnibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt as the brazen Serpent and the Bread used in the Sacrament are things made by Man honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt he goes on itaque illa quae per Angelos fiunt quo ignotiora eo mirabiliora sunt nobis c. All he saith then is That the Bread or brazen Serpent have no wonder in the substance or matter of them for men make them both Now who affirms any miracle in any thing that is visible in the Eucharist The miracle is in that which is invisible the presence of Christ's Body with the signs But could any justly argue from hence That the Cure of the Man by looking on the Serpentine figure of Brass was not miraculous because St. Austin says the Brass or Figure shapen by Man had nothing miraculous in it but was known and ordinary Having clear'd this passage of Mr. Blondels now to go on I say for those miraculous instances they endeavour to qualifie the matter in saying â— That some of them are only accidental mutations not substantial as the bringing Water out of the Rock by Moses Fire from Heaven by Elijah Iron made to Swim on the Water by Elisha c. See Mr. Blondel p. 165. Ï Or becoming new creatures and members of Christ by Regeneration a comparison in the Fathers which the Reformed make much use of see Blond p. 100. But if you still press upon them the miraculousness of these mutations tho accidental they answer σ That some of those instances argue another or greater change than any party will allow of in the Eucharist and what proves too much proves nothing See Taylor p. 347. 274. 278. Ï„ That the effect produced by the instrumency or upon the receipt of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist is miraculous and no way proportioned to the natural qualities of them as also the efficacy of the water of Baptism and the real mutation which it causeth in the soul is supernatural ν And lastly that some of the same miraculous mutations are applied to Baptism for which chiefly a passage in Ambrose de Sacram. 2. l. 3. c. is quoted and other sacramentals or rituals of the Church which Sacramentals the Fathers also illustrate by the change made in the Eucharist and affirm such change to be in the one as in the other See for this Blond p. 165. 316. 101. c. Tail. p. 276. See Calvin Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 14. s Patres hic quoque i.e. in Baptism mirificam conversionem statuunt cum dicunt ex corruptibili elemento fieri spirituale animae lavacrum See Daille's first Reply to Chaumont p. 30. c. Ï Add to these that it may be said that the second Opinion in affirming the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body to every worthy receiver affirms a most miraculous effect in the Eucharist tho this not having any reference to the signs and therefore seems to concur with these testimonies of the Fathers as professing in the Eucharist a work of God's Omnipotency χ. As to the third that of the Fathers using and offering the Eucharist before communicating as a Sacrifice c. § XXIII I do not remember that Dr. Tailor takes much notice of it Concerning a Sacrifice but Mr. Blondel saith 4. c. 9. prop. that they celebrated or offered it only as a memorial image representation antitype of the Sacrifice upon the Cross and then heaps up many testimonies where the Fathers call it by these and the like names § XXIV To the 4th Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and that before communicating Concerning Adoration which seems to pinch closer than any of the rest I find them to say little or nothing with any close application to the testimonies brought out of the ancients 1. In general they say Christ may be worshipped when we receive the Eucharist or Symbols of his Body for which practice Daille in the Reply to Chaumont quotes and allows of the Church of England but Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven not as in his body there present See Calvin de Christianae pacificationis ratione p. 50. Fateor certe Christum ubicunque simus esse adorandum in coena vero cum se nobis fruendum offerat rite aliter recipi nequit quam si adoretur Sed hoc quaeritur sursumne an deorsum respiciat nostra adoratio Quum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa ab ipso discedit And Instit 4. l. 17. c. 37. s. In coena adoratio ea est legitima quae non in signo residet sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur To the same purpose writes Dr. Taylor p. 343. and quotes St. Austin as speaking of such Adoration So Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry 67. s. Our Church adores Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in which certainly Christ is not Christ's body locally present under the shape of the Elements Thus he But this worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in the end of the Section is explained to be only this That we in that time and place when and where he is eminently represented by the Priest and offered to God for us i.e. rerepresentatively do worship him i. e. as being according to his humane nature only in heaven See 66. s. But I find some expressions in some of them when shaping answers to the Fathers tho I do not well understand them therefore I shall set you down their own words as if they did allow of something more namely of adoring Christ as someway there present present both to the worthy receiver and to the Mysteries or Symbols Of which Dr. Taylor thus-in answer to that saying of Ambrose Adorate scabellum c. Per Scabellum terra intelligitur per terram caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt We worship c. saith the Doctor for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our soul the flesh and blood of Christ So that we worship it he means the body or the flesh of Christ in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his Body but we give no divine honour to the signs And thus Daille 2d Reply to Chaumont p. 29. in answer to the places of the Fathers I l ' y a une enorme difference entre adorer le Sacrament adorer Jesus Christ au Sacrament ou es mysteres Le second signifie ou Adorer Jesus Christ en communiant a son Sacrement ce
Junius thinks it is an interrogation rather referring to Infanticidium Apol. c. 7. And that de Idol c. 7. Semel Judaei Christo manus intulerunt isti quotidie corpus ejus lacessunt speaking of the Eucharist And that adv Marcion l. 1. c. 14. At ille quidem i. e. Christus nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris c. nec panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat i. e. praesentem reddit if we may interpret it by the same sense of the word in l. 4. c. 22. Itaque jam repraesentans eum i. e. Deus Christum Hic est Filius meus utique subauditur quem repromisi repraesentans i. e. praesentans To γ How the same in some sense may be said to be like or unlike it self see before But there being two things in the Sacrament and something remaining after Consecration which is not the Body of Christ but the Symbol thereof c. None say that Christ's Body in the Eucharist is the Image or sign figure or similitude of it self as in the Eucharist But either that the Symbols are signs figures c. of the Body or the Body as in the Eucharist a figure c. of the same Body as Crucified To δ that S. Austin held a real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist those of the second opinion I think will not deny That he held this its presence in the Eucharist to be with the symbols also before communicating I think is clear from his other sayings quoted p. 38 c. The words immediately before those here quoted are Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur nec ubique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim Sacramenta c. From this it seems plain that St. Austin speaks of the Eucharist as signifying Christ's immolation on the Cross and so t is rightly said not properly but secundum quendam modum or quodammodo the Body of Christ as the Body was in that manner existent And thus Paschasius answered this place above 800 years ago But it is capable also of another answer and so some other places like it That by Sacramentum S. Austin there means the symbols That corpus Christi may be predicated quodammodo of the sign thereof whether it be the substance or only the species of the bread namely after such a manner as the Consubstantialists say Hic panis est corpus meum And thus Algerus answered this place against Berengarius before any Council had decreed Transubstantiation Lastly S. Austin instanceth in Baptism that the Apostle saith in it consepulti sumus because Baptismus sepulturam significabat but none may lawfully conclude from hence that S. Austin held Baptism only to signifie grace and not to confer it neither therefore may he that the Sacrament of the Eucharist only signified Christ's Body To ζ 1. The place in Psalm 98. Since S. Austin speaks here of eating it all those who hold the worthy receiver to partake and eat that very substantial body which suffered for them upon the cross can make no use of this place Now for this I must remember you again of Calvin's expression Neque enim mortis suae tantum beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est And see what Dr. Tailor saith p. 20. 2. Note that S. Austin elsewhere as in Psalm 33. upon those words Accedite ad eum illuminemmi and contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. saith as plainly the seeming-contrary to this Judaei de crucifixo tenebrati sunt nos manducando bibendo crucifixum illuminamur Et nunc bibimus quod de Christi latere manavit 3. In the very same 98. Psal are those words quoted before Nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit which shews either Christ's very flesh in the Eucharist or adoration of another creature for the flesh of Christ 4. I see no reason why that old answer may not pass given long since against Berengarius quoting this place Non idem corpus i.e. in propria sua specie accompanied with the natural qualities of flesh and blood Non in specie mortali visibili ut aderat tunc praesens discipulis suis sed alio modo impassibiliter invisibiliter se habens Neither doth Daille's Reply in his 2d answer to Chaumont p. 45. move me that when corn is first sown and cared and threshed and so ground and moulded into bread we may with the same reason maintain that the eater of this bread eats not the same corn that was threshed c because it s now changed in its qualities because this alteration about our Saviour's body as it is invisible impassible c in the Eucharist is much more strange than that he instanceth in But that all such expressions as we make this to be are not improper see the Apostles 1 Cor. 15.37 Thou sowest not that body that shall be i. e. with such and such qualities and ornaments as it shall come up tho it shall be idem numero corpus in the resurrection and so flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven tho flesh otherwise qualified shall inherit it for our Saviour's glorified body had flesh and bone Luk-24 39 And see St. Austin's discourse upon these places Ep. 146. where to reconcile caro possidebit and caro non possidebit c he saith caro secundum substantiam possidebit caro autem cum secundum corruptionem intelligitur non possidebit And so for the wheat sown Non quod triticum saith he non erit ex tritico sed quod nemo seminat herbam stipulam c cum quibus ista semina exurgunt 5. Lastly the same phrases are found in other Fathers whose opinion perhaps is more clear than S. Austins that the same body that was crucified is in the Sacrament received as in S. Ambrose comment in Luc. l. 8. urged by Daille 2d Rep. to Chaum p. 331. and in S. Hierom. in Ephes 1. cap. where he thus on 7. verse Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi caro intelligitur Spiritualis illa atque divina de qua ipse dixit Caro mea vere est cibus sanguis meus vere est potus nisi manducaveritis carnem meam sanguinem biberitis non babebitis vitam aeternam vel caro sanguis quae crucifixa est qui militis effusus est lancea Juxta hanc divisionem in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis carnis accipitur ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei alia caro sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere But here he means alia in quality only as is shewed before This distinction of Christ's flesh in S. Hierom Dr. Tailor qualifies thus p. 10. That Body which was crucified is not that Body which is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of
than that in the Waters of Baptism To υ. tho both some way miraculous seems plain in that tho in Baptism Grace and the Spirit is bestow'd and then we are also incorporated into Christ c. yet say they not of the Water of Baptism from this effect thereof that it is the Spirit or is turn'd into the Spirit neither saith the Apostle that in unworthy receiving it we are guilty of the Spirit as in the other he saith guilty of the Body Neither was there ever such a veneration or reservation of it such a care that none should be spilt or fall to the ground as of the consecrated Elements which shews that tho they imagine some miracle in both yet a much different and transcendent one in the second § XXIX The same Answer may serve to φ where To φ. Reply to their Answ to the 3d Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Sacrifice since the real presence of Christ's Body that now is in Heaven with the worthy Receiver is as great a Miracle as that other with the Symbols 't is strange why those allowing the one so strongly oppose the other unless perhaps this be to avoid Adoration Concerning the Reply which may be made to their Answer to the third Argument out of the Fathers see before the Reply to λ § XXX Lastly Concerning the fourth Argument out of the Fathers Adoration Reply to their Answ to the 4th Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Adoration The heads of what they say see before as well as I can understand them are these α That the Symbols are to be used with a due reverence and respect as things consecrated to a sacred use β That Christ may be worshipped also in receiving of the Eucharist as he is now in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God. γ But not as present in the Eucharist because no Divine command for any such thing and because he is there ut manducetur non ut adoretur he saying there Take eat not take worship α. Or yet further That he may be worshipped as present or who is present by Faith in the hearts of the Communicants β. or also really present γ. as others say to the worthy Receiver and who is present also in the Symbols after that manner as the thing signified or represented may be said to be present in that thing which signifies it δ. δ That the Fathers in the places quoted out of them speak either of a reverence due to the consecrated Symbols of our Saviour's Body or also of Adoration of our Saviour or of his Body in some of the foresaid manners or intentions but not as really present with the Symbols ζ That these may not be worshipped for Christ's Body ζ c. That if they be 't is flat Idolatry η η. That those of the fourth Opinion do worship them for Christ or for his Body Of these α and β are granted To γ First Reply to α. β. To γ. I suppose a Precept in general to worship Christ and the whole Christ to be there wherever his Body is it being never sever'd not when it lay in the Grave from the Divinity And therefore as Daille grants out of St. Austin's Apology c. 10. l'humanite de Jesus Christ est vrayement proprement adorable I find Calvin indeed somewhat boggle at it Inst l. 4. c. 17. s 35. where bringing in this arguing Si corpus est anima divinitas sint una cum corpore quae jam divelli non possunt igitur illic adorandus Christus he saith Primum si sua illa quam obtendunt concomitantia ipsis negetur quid facient Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat But there is no Body that saith that Christ's Body is Christ but that it being no more since his Passion for Christ dyeth no more Rom. 6. a dead Body but having the Soul join'd with it as likewise ever since the Incarnation having its Hypostasie or subsistence from the Deity joined with it therefore where the Body is there is totus Christus But yet suppose Christ's true Body in the Sacrament apart I hope Calvin will allow a superior worship to be given to it properly due to no other Creature Let then such be the worship we here speak off 2. Next Affirmative precepts such as this is of worshipping Christ do not oblige to every time and place but if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place Nor is there need of any partiticular command in respect of these i. e. places or times without which we may not obey them See Discourse concerning Adoration c. p. 1. 3. But then again This is seriously to be consider'd concerning affirmative precepts That they do oblige for some time and places positis debitis circumstantiis else they would not oblige at all Now Suppose Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist and that with the Symbols as the Lutheran believes what fitter time to Adore than when we receive from him the greatest Love and Mercy that can be shew'd to Mankind the Communion of his own Flesh and Blood to us And what fitter place than in a Church wherein usually we receive it and when and where no impediant circumstances can be alledged Let therefore the omission of such worship be lawful with Daille's qualifications Reply to Chaumont p. 66. Purveuque cette omission ne procede ni de haine ni de mespris ni de non chalance ni d'aucune autre mau-vaise disposition de esprit Yet how the Lutheran considering his perswasion is acquitted from some of these in his omission at such time of Adoration I see not And Daille himself in his Apology c. 9. p. 66. seems to maintain the necessity in such time of this Duty supposing a real presence Si le Sacrament est en sa substance le corps de Christ c. il est evident qu' on le peut qu' on le doit adorer attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable Now if the Body of Christ be a subject adorable to the Romanists so it is to the Lutherans And see St. Austin's saying to this purpose before Non solum non peccamus adorando sed non adorando peccamus And what man is excus'd from blame who appearing in the presence of his Prince to receive from him the Donation of his Lise or Liberty c doth not at such time give unto him his due Honour tho by no Law oblig'd at all times to do it To δ First its plain from the places quoted That by the Fathers in the Eucharist not only an inferior reverence was given to the Symbols but also a divine worship to Christ Else St. Austin if speaking of an inferior reverence would not have ask'd the question To δ. Quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra since the Creature is
serves the turn 3. Because from a thing prov'd useless sometimes or to some persons from some incapability of the subject c. it follows not that it is so altogether and to others As it follows not that such a Diet not nourishing or also hurting a languishing stomach therefore doth not profit to a sound To illustrate it a little in our present subject By Baptism or also by Faith and Repentance before Baptism or the fervent desire of Baptism when it cannot be had we are regenerated and united to Christ and made members of his body yet will any therefore say that in Baptism we enjoy as much a communion of the body and blood of Christ as in the Eucharist Or that the Eucharist is inutile Therefore hath Christ given us also the symbols of his body in vain Therefore do we possess no more of his grace and goodness by believing and receiving also the Sacrament of his body and blood than only by believing on him But the if receiving him spiritualiter by Faith and sacramentaliter be better than spiritualiter only why may not sacramentaliter and coporaliter be also better than sacramentaliter only Who can demonstrate it That the faithful receive no more benefit from the Divine good pleasure by faith and the body of our Lord substantially present than he should by faith and the body only typically present since all depends on God's good pleasure Why may it not be his will to confer the complement of our union with him and the perfection of grace and charity in us and the last seal of our immortality and incorruptibility in us not by the receipt of the symbols of his body but by his very body united and join'd to our souls and bodies and yet not these to all that receive it neither because it acts not physically or irresistibly but to the worthy Calvin as he is very inconstant in his expressions concerning this Sacrament seems to hint something to this purpose Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 9. s 11. Quae omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin Christus totus spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat that we may be membra corporis ejus ex ossibus ejus carne ejus magnum istud arcanum Eph. 5. and s 11. Quo i. e. exhibitione sanguinis corporis ejus primum in unum corpus cum ipso coalescimus deinde participes substantiae ejus facti in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentimus See B. Forbes l. 1. c. 1 s 26 27. much to this purpose Prisci fideles ante Christi incarnationem carnem Christi spiritualiter edebant in manna rebus aliis figuratam sufficienter pro statu Oeconomiae illius ad salutem 1 Cor. 10. Sed nihilominus per communicationem carnis Christi in Eucharistia multo altius solidius nos Christianos incorporari Christo quam priscos fideles qui spiritualiter tantum seu per solam fidem carnem Christi manducabant credidit semper Ecclesia Catholica nos cum edimus eundem Christum fide quidem utili sed fide rei praesentis quae actu ipso non sola spe nobis cum pane exhibetur modo tamen ineffabili c. câ—rtum est per manducationem mysticam corporis Domini nos multo efficacius plenius sublimius augustius strictius arctius corpori sanguini Christi uniri quam perilla i. e. verbum fidem baptismum c. Quam ob causam Hoc sacramentum dicitur per excellentiam communio quia scil hunc modum per manducationem mysticam Christus instituit longe efficacissimum perficiendae unionis conjunctionis quam arctissimae inter sese membra sua c. I conclude therefore that very transcendent may the effect of this corporal presence of our Saviour be beyond a spiritual and symbolical only as the effect of a spiritual and also symbolical in the. Sacrament is granted to be more than of a spiritual only tho the virtue thereof by God's good pleasure be obstructed and denyed to the unworthy even as his blood shed on the Cross and given for all yet is not effectual or beneficial to many To the 6th Chapter of St. John's Gospel Supposing for the present § LV what Dr. Taylor and others contend for That our Saviour speaks only of a spiritual feeding on him by faith and not of the sacramental at all Yet as the Doctor will grant that this Chapter contains in it nothing prejudicial to our attaining some benefit by receiving the sacrament and the symbols of Christ's body therein tho it is most true of these symbols that they of themselves profit nothing as to confer on us an eternal life without the participation also of the spirit of Christ communicated only to believers So I return that it contains nothing in it prejudicial to our obtaining some benefit from the sacramental receiving of our Saviour's very flesh Tho it is most true also of this very flesh that receiv'd alone without the spirit as it is by all the unworthy communicants it doth help nothing at all to make a man live for ever The whole passage in Joh. 6. seems to be thus When our Saviour had told the Capernaites upon occasion of their boasting how Moses gave them Manna to eat that much beyond those Manna-eaters that were dead he whosoever should eat the flesh of the Son of man should live for ever they conceiv'd his meaning to be that whoso could get a piece of his flesh and eat it should by virtue thereof for ever be preserv'd in life And this seem'd to them so unreasonable and so barbarous a thing either that he should any way feed them with his flesh or that they that fed with it should by the strength and force thereof live for ever that they forsook him and his doctrine Upon which he instructs them further in this mystery as it seems to me to this effect 1. That they should not eat his flesh at all in such a manner as they imagin'd i. e. in its natural condition but that he should ascend up to Heaven where he was before and so that his flesh with him see ver 62. upon which ascent the Spirit should come upon all true believers which Spirit should give them this life see Joh. 7.38 39. 2. That his flesh if eaten then or whenever it should be eaten in such manner as he should communicate it to them could give them no life alone or by its own virtue but only by his Spirit which is the fountain of life eternal join'd with and accompanying his flesh and that not to all receiving his flesh but to the believer of his words which words therefore in the close of ver 63 when believ'd in he calls spirit and life i. e. conferring the Spirit from which is receiv'd that life See ver 63. wherein that you may the better understand the usual expression of this Evangelist see Joh.
That the manner of this Presence whether in or with the elements is inexplicable Lastly that the love and omnipotence of the same God are relied on to make good that Presence whereof the manner is incomprehensible Now if God incarnate were present on the Altar at the same time he is in Heaven by grace and influence only his flesh would be neither present on the Altar nor given us to eat No more mystery nor incomprehensibilitty could be discerned in his Eucharistical than in his Baptismal presence neither would there be such need of extraordinary love and omnipotence to perform his promised presence in this more than in any other Religious ceremony wherein all grant his presence to be only gracious Nay the whole paragraph were no better than a devout and solemn delusion Nor am I prevailed-on to alter my thoughts concerning this Bishop's present faith would he do himself his Order and Christianity that right as to profess it frankly and clearly by any retractation or correction published in the Edition of his Book 1â—86 That amounting to no more than a denyal of Transubstantiation not of a substantial Presence whereby I am perfectly confirmed that by inexplicable incomprehensible manner was intended the manner of the Flesh's being present not whether it were present or no and that it was this he could neither explain nor comprehend To proceed further in evincing affirmatively that the sense of the aforesaid Article Office and Catechism was a substantial presence the supremest and most authentic Interpreters that have appeared since the creation of the present Church of England may be produced 1. We begin with Queen Elizabeth the Parent of modern Prelatick Protestancy This Lady profess'd the Catholick Religion in her Sister's Reign and when she obtein'd the Crown was with difficulty perswaded to alterations in Religion as was long ago told the world from other intelligence and lately from Jewel's c Letters perused by Dr. Burnet in his Ramble In particular She own'd the Real presence to the Count of Feria and others and commended a Preacher for asserting it on Goodfriday 1565. A Real presence I say She patronized and such a one as was own'd by the ancient Fathers and had bin believed in the Church of England since the conversion of that Nation believed without either check or interruption till towards the setting of Edward the 6. when Zuinglianism seems to have bin introduced Now if She profess'd a substantial presence and if She that authorized the Liturgy and Articles did not do it till after she had fluxt them of whatever was malignant to a substantial presence to accommodate them to the majority of the Nation that with her self were so perswaded sure She intended they should be interpreted as her Self and the Most both thought and profess'd Can the genuine sense of the words be both a Substantial presence and a presence of Grace only Could a Nation in a moment believe by the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ spoke at the delivery of the Sacrament to them was meant on the one day that his Body was verily and indeed and in substance if this be more given to them and the next day understand by the same words that the Body of our Lord was not verily and indeed nor in substance but only in figure and benefit exhibited especially when they heard the imposer of such passages declare for the former sense saw her delete what opposed it and retain the self same language the Catholick Church their true Mother used in all times to convey her faith to their Minds Whereupon considering these things together with the miniated copy of Articles c seen by Dr. Burnet considering I say that the chief Pastoress had authority according to the Doctrine of Lay-Supremacy to impose and according to Dr. Burnet's deleted copy did impose her Judgment to be assented to and subscribed by the whole Clergy c. we may truly conclude not only as some have done that the chief Pastors of the Church but that the whole Church Head and Body Queen Clergy and People did then disapprove of or dissemble about the Definition made in King Edward's time and that they were for Real presence 2. Her Successor King James I. either understood the Article and Liturgy in the same sense according to the attestations of Bishop Andrews and Casaubon or where has the Church of England publish'd that she holds a substantial presence as those Learned Persons say she often has either no where if not here or with contradiction to what is here if elsewhere because the proper sense of the Article and Liturgy can't be both a substantial and but only a gracious presence But that Part of the Catechism which concerns the Sacraments and which was composed by Dr. Overal in this King's Reign determins the dispute as to this Prince's faith for tho the Catechism as almost any sentence may be wrested yet it cannot be rendred without absurdity and passing for a meer cheat in favour of any other than a substantial presence And Bishop Cosin's doctrine is some argument that Dr. Overal his Patron and Master did mean no other 3. As to King Charles the First if we may gather his judgment from either Books published by his command or Sermons preach'd before him He adhered to that Faith in this point which all his Christian Ancestors had profess'd Out of such Books and Sermons we present the Reader with two Instances so full to our design that if they can be eluded so may a Demonstration The former is in Archbishop Lawd's Conference with Father Fisher a Book highly esteemed by that Excellent tho calamitous King. And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Blood no Blood but unless Grace be a Body and Benefit be Blood Dr. St. and the Answerer can make a Body no Body c. c. The other is in Dr. Laurence's Sermon before the King Charles I. p. 17 18. As I like not those that say He is bodily there so I like not those that say His Body is not there because Christ saith it is there and St. Paul saith t is there and the Church of England saith t is there and the Church of God ever said t is there and that truly and substantially and essentially c. For the Opinion of the Sons and Successors to this Prince concerning a substantial presence c t is out of question I presume What then we add is That either all these Heads and the Church of England believed the same or she has a miserable Faith wherein no Head since Queen Elizabeth produced Her durst either live or die It were a diffidence in this Proof or an affront to an intelligent Reader to offer him a Protestant nubes Testium as a further confirmation in this matter for then we must recount to