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
that Debate stopp'd or at least he should have added some new strength to it But to send it again into the World in the same forlorn State it was before to take no notice either from whose Store-house he borrow'd it or what had been returned to it This is in effect to confess that they have no more to say for themselves And 't is a sad Cause indeed that has nothing to keep it up but what they know very well we can answer and that they themselves are unable to defend But to return to the Points proposed to be consider'd And First To state the Notion of the Real Presence as acknowledged by the Church of England I must observe 1st That our Church utterly denies our Saviour's Body to be so Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament as either to leave Heaven or to exist in several places at the same time We confess with this Author 1. Tract p. 19. §. 27. that it would be no less a Contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by any other Mode whatsoever than by that which the Church of Rome has stated the repugnancy being in the thing its self and not in the manner of it 2dly That we deny that in the Sacred Elements which we receive there is any other Substance than that of Bread and Wine distributed to the Communicants which alone they take into their Mouths and press with their Teeth Answer to T. G's Dialogues Lond. 1679. pag. 66. In short All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real Effects to the Souls of Men. As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the Church is the Body of Christ because of his Spirit quickening and enlivening the Souls of Believers so the Bread and Wine after Consecration are the Real but the Spiritual and Mystical Body of Christ Thus has that learned Man to whom T. G. first made this Objection stated the Notion of the Real Presence profess'd by us and that this is indeed the true Doctrine of the Church of England in this matter is evident not only from the plain words of our xxviii Article and of our Church Catechism but also from the whole Tenour of that Office which we use in the celebration of it In our Exhortation to it this Blessed Eucharist is expresly called The Communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ We are told that if with a true Penitent Heart and lively Faith we receive this Holy Sacrament then we Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink his Blood. When the Priest delivers the consecrated Bread he bids the Communicant Take and eat this in Remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy Heart by Faith with Thanksgiving In our Prayer after the Receiving We thank God for that he doâ—â— vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received these Holy Mysteries with the Spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of his Son our Saviour Jesus Christ and doth assure us thereby of his favour and goodness towards us and that we are very Members incorporate in the Mystical Body of his Son. All which and many other the like Expressions clearly shew that the Real Presence which we confess in this Holy Eucharist is no other than in St. Pauls Phrase a Real Communion of Christ's Body and Blood or as our Church expresses it Article xxviii That to such as rightly and worthily and with Faith receive the same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ Hence it was that in the Prayer of Consecration in King Edward vi time the Church of England after the Example of the ancient Liturgies of the Greek Church used that Form which our Author observes to have been since left out Tract I. 2. And with thy Holy Spirit 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 i. e. as the Sense plainly implies may Communicate to our Souls all the Blessings and Graces which Christ's Body and Blood has purchased for us which is in Effect the very same we now pray for in the same Address Hear us O Merciful Father we most humbly beseech thee and grant that we receiving these thy Creatures of Bread and Wine according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christs Holy Institution in remembrance of his Death and Passion may be partakers of his most Blessed Body and Blood. Between which two Petitions there is so near an Affinity that had not 〈◊〉 Author been very desirous to find out Mysteries where there are indeed none He would hardly have suffer'd his Puritan Friend to have lead him to make so heavy a complaint Pag. 3. about so small a Variation I will not deny but that some Men may possibly have advanced their private Notions beyond what is here said But this is I am sure all that our Church warrants or that we are therefore concern'd to defend And if there be indeed any who as our Author here expresses it do believe Christs natural Body to be as in Heaven so in the Holy Sacrament they may please to consider how this can be reconciled with the Rubrick of our Church That the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one In the mean time I pass on to the next thing I proposs'd Secondly To shew in Opposition to the Pretences of our Adversary that this has been the Notion of the Real Presence constantly maintain'd by our most Learned and Orthodox Divines And here because our Author has thought fit to appeal not only to our own but to the forreign Divines for this new Faith which he is pleas'd to impose upon us viz. Tract 1. §. 7. That the very Substance of Christs Body that his natural Body that that very Body that was born of the Blessed Virgin and crucified on the Cross c. is present as in Heaven so Here in this Holy Sacrament i. e. in both at the same time I must be content to follow his Steps and enquire into the Doctrine first of Mr. Calvin and his followers next of our own Country-men in this Particular And first for Mr. Calvin and his followers I cannot but observe what different charges are brought against them in this matter On the one hand we are told by Becanus the Jesuit that * Calvinistae negant corpus sanguinem Christi vere realiter substantialiter praesentem
so understood as if the Bread did not contain the whole Substance of his Blood as well as of his Body and so the Wine the whole Substance of his Body as well as of his Blood (⸪) Ibid. n. xxxv Sect. Christus totus in qualibet particula n. xlii c. seeing Christ is intire in each part of the Sacrament nay in every the least Crumb or Drop of either part II. The * Ibid. n. xxv Sect. Secundum second thing to be consider'd for the understanding of this Mystery is That not any part of the Substance of the Bread and Wine remains tho nothing may seem more contrary to the Senses than this in which they are certainly in the right III. †Ibid. n. xxv Sect. Tertium n. xliv Sect. Accid sine subjecto const in Euch. That the Accidents of the Bread and Wine which either our Eyes see as the Colour Form c. or our other Senses perceive as the Tast Touch Smell all these are in no Subject but exist by themselves after a wonderful manner and which cannot be explain'd For the rest the Conversion its self ‖ Ibid. n. xxxvii Sect. Primo natione It is very difficult to be comprehended How Christs Body which before Consecration was not in the Sacrament should now come to be there since 't is certain that it changes not its place but is still all the while in Heaven Nor is it made present there by Creation * Ibid. n. xxxix Sect. Conversio quae sit in Euch. c. nor by any other Change For it is neither increased nor diminish'd but remains whole in its Substance as before †Ibid. n. xliii Quonam modo Christus existat in Euchar. Christ is not in the Sacrament Locally for he has no Quantity there is neither Great nor Little. (**) Ibid. n. xli Sect. De Transubstant curiosius non inquirendum In a word Men ought not to inquire too curiously how this Change can be made for it is not to be comprehended seeing neither in any natural Changes nor indeed in the whole Creation is there any Example of any thing like it Such is the Account which themselves give of this Mystery From all which we may in short conclude the State of the Question before us to be this That we do not dispute at all about Christ's Real Presence which after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner we acknowledg in this Holy Eucharist as we shall hereafter shew nor by consequence of the Truth of Christs Words which we undoubtedly believe But only about this Manner of his Presence viz. Whether the Bread and the Wine be changed into the very natural Body and Blood of Christ so that the Bread and Wine themselves do no longer remain But that under the Appearance of them is contain'd that same Body of Christ which was Born of the Blessed Virgin with his Soul and Divinity which same Body of Christ tho extended in all its parts in Heaven is at the same time in the Sacrament without any Extension neither Great nor Small comes thither neither by Generation nor by Creation nor by any local Motion forasmuch as it continues still at the right Hand of God in Heaven at the very same instant that it exists whole and intire in every consecrated Host or Chalice nay more is whole and intire not only in the whole Host or the whole Chalice but in every the least Crumb of the Host and every the least Drop of the Chalice here upon Earth And here it might well be thought a very needless indeed an extravagant undertaking to prove that those Elements which so many of our Senses tell us continue after their Consecration the very same as to what concerns their natural Substance that they were before are in reality the very same That what all the World Sees and Feels and Smells and Tasts to be Bread and Wine is not changed into the very natural Flesh and Blood of a Body actually before existent had it not entred into the Minds of so great a part of the Christian Church to joyn in the maintaining of a Paradox which has nothing to defend it but that fond Presumption they have certainly done well to take up That they cannot possibly be in the wrong and without which it would be very difficult for them to perswade any sober man that they are here in the right To shew that those words which they tell us work all this Miracle and are the only reason that engages them to maintain so many absurdities as are confessedly the unavoidable Consequences of this Doctrine have no such force nor interpretation as they pretend I must desire it may be remembred what I before remark'd That this Holy Sacrament was establish'd by our Saviour in the room of the Jewish Passever and upon the very Words and Ceremonies of it So that if in that all things were Typical the Feast the Customs the Expressions merely allusive to something that had been done before and of which this sacred Ceremony was the memorial we ought in all reason to conclude that both our Saviour must have designed and his Apostles understood this Holy Sacrament to have been the same too Now as to the Nature of the Passover we have already seen that it was appointed by God as a Remembrance of his delivery of the Jews out of the Land of Egypt when he slew all the first-born of the Egyptians Exod. xii The Lamb which they ate every year in this Feast was an Eucharistical Sacrifice and Type of that first Lamb which was slain in the night of their deliverance and whose Blood sprinkled upon the Posts of their Doors had preserved their Fore-fathers from the destroying Angel that he should not do them any mischief The Bread of Affliction which they broke and of which they said perhaps in the very * Vid. Cameron Annot. in Matt. xxvi 26. in illa verba 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inter critic pag. 780. l. 24. same manner that Christ did of the very same Loaf Take eat this is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt they esteem'd a Type and Figure of that unleaven'd Bread which their Forefathers so many Ages before had eaten there and upon that account called it * Allix Serm. pag. 503. The Memorial of their delivery out of Egypt †Hammond Pract. Catechism lib vi pag. Ed. fol. The Cup of Blessing which they blessed and of which they ALL drank in this Feast they did it at once in memory both of the Blood of the Children of Israel slain by Pharaoh and of the Blood of the Lamb which being sprinkled upon their doors preserved their own from being shed with that of the Egyptians Now all these Idea's with which the Apostles had so long been acquainted could not but presently suggest to them the same design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament That when
Presence as they phrase it of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist I shall therefore produce only a Witness or two of this King's Reign and so pass on to those that follow And 1st A. B. A.B. CRANMER Cranmer in his Answer to Gardiner Bishop of Winchester objecting to him That he deny'd the Presence of Christ in this Holy Eucharist replies That it was a thing he never said nor thought My book in divers places saith clean contrary Answer to Gardiâ—er Bishop of Winchester Fol. London 1551. That Christ is with us spiritually present is eaten and drunken of us and dwelleth within us although Corporally he be departed out of this World and gone into Heaven pag. 5. Pag. 5. As he giveth Bread to be eaten with our Mouths so giveth he his very Body to be eaten with our Faith. And therefore I say that Christ giveth himself truly to be eaten chawed and digested but all is spiritually with Faith not with Mouth pag. 9. Pag. 9. As the washing outwardly in Water is not a vain Token but teacheth such a washing as God worketh inwardly in them that duly receive the same so likewise is not the Bread a vain Token but sheweth and preacheth to the godly Receiver what God worketh in him by his Almighty Power secretly and invisibly And therefore as the Bread is outwardly eaten indeed in the Lord's Supper so is the very Body of Christ inwardly by Faith eaten indeed of all them that come thereto in such sort as they ought to do which eating nourisheth them unto Everlasting Life And in his Treatise of the Holy Sacrament Assertio verae Catholicae Doctrinae de Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis J. â—hristi Servaâ—â—ris nostri Liâ—â—ae 8 vo 1601. Lib. 3. where he sets himself particularly to state this very Question How Christ is present in this Holy Sacrament He declares Cap. 2. That whereas the Papists suppose Christ to be under the Species of Bread and Wine we believe him to be in those who worthily receive these Holy Elements They think him to be received by the Mouth and to enter with the Bread and Wine We assert that he is received only by the Soul and enters there by Faith. That Christ is present only sacramentally and spiritually in this sacred Mystery p. 116. That since his Ascension into Heaven he is there and not on Earth p. 118. and that he cannot be in both together 128. In short he gives us this Rule for interpreting the Expressions of the Fathers where it is said That we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ That we receive in the Holy Sacrament the very body that hung on the Cross c. cap. 14. p. 180. These says he and other Expressions of the like kind which speak Christ to be upon Earth and to be received of Christians by eating or drinking are either to be understood of his Divine Nature which is every where or else must be taken figuratively or spiritually For he is figuratively only in the Bread and Wine and spiritually in those that receive this Bread and Wine worthily But truly and as to his Body and Flesh he is in Heaven only from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead Thus did this Learned and Holy Martyr understand our Doctrine of the Real Presence Bp. RIDLEY and the same was the Idea which his Companion both in Doctrine and Suffering Bishop Ridley has left us of it In his Discourse of the Lord's Supper pag. 33. he tells us Ridlei de Caenâ Dominicâ Assertio Genevae apud Jo. Crispinum 1556. That the Substance of the Bread continues as the Matter of this Sacrament but so that by reason of its change as to Vse Office and Dignity it is turned Sacramentally into the Body of Christ as in Baptism the Water is turned into the Laver of Regeneration That the Humane Nature of Christ is in Heaven and cannot in any manner lye hid under the form of Bread p. 34. Then he enquires whether therefore we take away the Presence of Christ's Body from the Sacrament p. 35. And utterly denies that this is either said or thought by him The Substance of the true Body and Blood of Christ says he is always in Heaven nor shall it depart thence before the end of the World. Now this Substance of his Body and Blood being conjoyned to his Divine Nature has not only Life in it self but can and is wont to bestow it upon all those who partake of it and believe in his Name Nor is it any hindrance to this that Christ still remains in Heaven and that we are upon Earth For by Grace that is Life as S. John interprets it c. 6 and the Properties of it as far as may be profitable to us in this our Pilgrimage here below he is with us to the end of the World. As the Sun who though he never leaves his Orb yet by his Life Heat and Influence is present to us pag. 36 37. Hitherto then there can be no doubt but that both the Church and the Divines knew no other Real Presence than what has been before acknowledged to be still our Doctrine We must now go on to the times of tryal the days of Q. Elizabeth and her Successors I. Tract §. IV. pag. 4. when our Author supposes that Men of different Judgments had the Power Now for proof of this besides the Expressions of particular Men which we shall presently consider we have Two General Presumptions offer'd to us One That Dr. Heyliâ—â— and others have observed he says of this Queen that she was a zealous propugner of the Real Presence which may be very true and yet but little to the purpose if she propugned it in the same sense that her Brother King Edward the 6th and the Church of England had done before and not in the new Notion imposed upon her by this Author but without any manner of proof to warrant his suggestion The other That upon the Re-view made by her Divines of the Common-Prayer and Articles I. Treatise pag. 2. §. I. and again p. 22. §. XXXI they struck out of the One the Rubrick against the Adoration of the Sacrament and the Passage before mention'd being of the same temper as the Declaration in the Liturgy out of the xxixth Article and which has accordingly been omitted ever since And here I cannot but again take notice of the disingenuousness of this Author in dissembling the true Account that has so largely been given by our late accurate Compiler of the History of our Reformation of this whole matter only for the advancing so pitiful an Insinuation of what I dare appeal to his own Conscience whether he did not know to be otherwise I will beg leave to transcribe the whole Passage and shall then leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether a man so well acquainted with Books and so interested in this
matter could have lived so long in the world without hearing of so eminent a matter in our Church-History as this The Author is treating about the difference between the Article establish'd in King Edward the six's time Dr. Burnet's Hist of the Refomation Vol 2. Pag. 405. Ann. 1559. Edit 2. 1683. and those in Q. Elizabeth's In the Article of the Lord's Supper there is a great deal left out For instead of that large Refutation of the Corporal Presence from the Impossibility of a Bodies being in more places at once from whence it follows That since Christ's Body is in Heaven the Faithful ought not to believe or profess a Real or Corporal Presence of it in the Sacrament In the new Article it is said That the Body of Christ is given and received after a spiritual manner M S S. C. Cor. Christ Cant. and the means by which it is received is Faith. But in the Original Copy of these Articles which I have seen subscribed by the Hands of All that sate in either House of Convocation there is a further Addition made The Articles were subscribed with that precaution which was requisite in a matter of such consequence For before the Subscriptions there is set down the Number of the Pages and of the Lines in every Page of the Book to which they set their Hands In that Article of the Eucharist these words are added An Explanation of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament Christ when he ascended into Heaven made his Body Immortal but took not from it the Nature of a Body For still it retains according to the Scriptures the Verity of a Humane Body which must be always in One definite place and cannot be spread into many or all places at Once Since then Christ being carry'd up to Heaven is to remain there to the end of the World and is to come from thence and from no place else as says S. Austin to judge the Quick and the Dead None of the Faithful ought to believe or profess the Real or as they call it the Corporal Presence of his Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist But this in the Original is dash't over with minium yet so that it is still legible The Secret of it was this The Queen and her Council studied as hath been already shewn to unite all into the Communion of the Church And it was alledged that such an express Definition against a Real Presence might drive from the Church many who were still of that Perswasion and therefore it was thought to be enough to condemn Transubstantiation and to say that Christ was present after a spiritual manner and received by Faith. To say more as it was judged superflous so it might occasion division Upon this these words were by common consent left out And in the next Convocation the Articles were subscribed without them of which I have also seen the Original This shews that the Doctrine of the Church subscribed by the whole Convocation was at that time contrary to the belief of a Real or Corporal Presence in the Sacrament only it was not thought necessary or expedient to publish it Though from this silence which flowed not from their Opinion but the Wisdom of that time in leaving a Liberty for different Speculations as to the manner of the Presence SOME have since inferr'd that the chief Pastors of this Church did then disapprove of the definition made in King Edwards time and that they were for a Real Presence Thus that Learned Historian And here let our Adversary consider what he thinks of this Account and whether after so evident a Confutation from plain matter of Fact of his Objection before it appear'd we may not reasonably complain both of his Weakness and In-sincerity neither to take any notice of such a plain History of this whole Transaction or to imagine that so vain a Surmise of Q. Elizabeth's being a great propugner of the Real Presence would be sufficient to obviate so clear and particular an Account of this matter But though this might suffice to shew the continuance of the same Doctrine of the Real Presence in this Queen's that was before profess'd in her Brother's Reign yet it may not be amiss to discover a little further the truth of this matter and how falsly this Author has alledged those great Names he has produced I will therefore beg leave to continue my Proof with an Induction of the most Eminent of our Divines that I have at this time the Opportunity to consult to our own days And first for Bishop Jewel Bp. JEWEL though the part he had in the Convocation before mention'd may sufficiently assure us of his Opinion yet it may not be improper to repeat the very words of a Person of his Learning and Eminence in our Church In his Reply to Harding thus he expresses the Doctrine of the Church of England as to the Real Presence Vth Article of the Real Presence against Harding pag. 237. Lond. 1611. See also his Defence of the Apology of the Church of England pag. 219 c. Whereas Mr. Harding thus unjustly reporteth of us that we maintain a naked Figure and a bare Sign or Token only and nothing else He knoweth well we feed not the People of God with bare Signs and Figures but teach them that the Sacraments of Christ be Holy Mysteries and that in the Ministration thereof Christ is set before us even as he was crucified upon the Cross We teach the People not that a naked Sign or Token but that Christ's Body and Blood indeed and verily is given unto us that we verily eat it that we verily drink it that we verily be relieved and live by it that we are Bones of his Bones and Flesh of his Flesh that Christ dwelleth in us and we in him Yet we say not either that the Substance of the Bread and Wine is done away or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven or made Really or Fleshly present in the Sacrament We are taught according to the Doctrine of the Old Fathers to lift up our Hearts to Heaven and there to feed upon the Lamb of God Thus spiritually and with the Mouth of our Faith we eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood even as verily as his Body was verily broken and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross Indeed the Bread that we receive with our Bodily Mouths is an earthly thing and therefore a Figure as the Water in Baptism is likewise also a Figure But the Body of Christ that thereby is represented and there is offer'd unto our Faith is the thing it self and not Figure To conclude Three things herein we must consider 1st That we put a difference between the Sign and the thing it self that is signified 2. That we seek Christ above in Heaven and imagine not him to be present Bodily upon the Earth 3. That the Body of Christ is to be eaten by Faith only and none
Church of England as to this point is Pag. 86 Our Authors exceptions against it Answered Pag. 87 II. What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and whether what this Author has said in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their Practice as to this matter Pag. 91 Their Doctrine stated ib. The Defence of it unsufficient shewn in Answer 1. To his Protestant-Concessions Pag. 93 2. To his Catholick Assertions First Pag. 96 Second Pag. 99 Third ib. Fourth Pag. 100 Fifth Pag. 102 Sixth Pag. 103 Seventh Pag. 104 Eighth ib. 3. To the Grounds he offers of their Belief Pag. 105 The Lutherans Practice no Apology for theirs Pag. 106 Ground First Answer'd Pag. 108 Ground Second Answer'd Pag. 109 Ground Third Answer'd Pag. 113 Ground Fourth Answer'd Pag. 114 Ground Fifth Answer'd Pag. 115 Some Arguments proposed upon their own Principles against this Adoration Pag. 117 Conclusion Pag. 125 ERRATA PAG. xvii l. 10. fourth r. sixth p. xviii l. 10. in r. on p. xxii l. 33. r. they are p. xxiv l. 5. r. That thou p. 13. marg Hammond l. 6. p. 129. p. 64. marg Casaubon ib. l. 19. Body is of Christ p. 76. l. 24. dele which p. 80. l. 15. then that p. 91. l. 27. r. this Holy. p. 98. l. 16. for then r. the. p. 112. l. 18. Catholicâ l. 20. asks A few lesser Faults there are which the Reader may please to correct A DISCOURSE OF THE Holy Eucharist With particular Reference To the two GREAT POINTS OF THE REAL PRESENCE AND The Adoration of the HOST INTRODUCTION Of the Nature of this HOLY SACRAMENT in the General TO understand the true design of our Blessed Saviour in the Institution of this Holy Sacrament we cannot I suppose take any better course than to consider first of all what Account the Sacred Writers have left us of the Time and Manner of the doing of it Now for this St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 11.23 That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betray'd having first eaten the Passover according to the Law Exod. 12. Matt. xxvi 20. took Bread and when he had given thanks he brake it * Matt. xxvi and gave it to the Disciples and said Take Eat This is my Body which is broken for you This do in Remembrance of Me. After the same manner also he took the Cup when he had supp'd saying This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood This do ye as oft as ye Drink it in Remembrance of me Such is the Account which St. Paul gives us of the Original of this Holy Sacrament Nor do the Evangelists dissent from it only that St. Matthew with reference to the Cup adds Drink ye ALL of it Matt. xxvi 27. to which St. Mark subjoins a particular Observation and which ought not here to be pass'd by That they ALL drank of it Mark xiv 23. It is not to be doubted but that the design of our Blessed Saviour in instituting this Holy Sacrament was to Abolish the Jewish Passover and to establish the Memory of another and a much greater Deliverance than that of the first-born now to be wrought for the whole World in his Death The Bread which he brake and the Wine which he poured out being such clear Types of his Body to be broken his Blood to be shed for the Redemption of Mankind that it is impossible for us to doubt of the Application And as God Almighty under the Law designed that other Memorial of the Paschal Lamb now changed into a so much better and more excellent Remembrance to continue as long as the Law its self stood in force So this Blessed Eucharist establish'd by Christ in the room of it must no doubt have been intended by Him to be continued in his Church as long as the Covenant seal'd with that Blood which it exhibits stands And therefore that since that shall never be abolish'd 't is evident that this also will remain our Duty and be our perpetual Obligation to the end of the World. This is the import of our Saviours Addition Do this in Remembrance of Me and is by St. Paul more fully expressed in those Words which he immediately subjoyns to the History of the Institution before recited 1 Cor. xi 26. For as often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew i.e. in the Jewish Phrase set forth Commemorate the Lords Death till his coming And that this Holy Sacrament now establish'd in the place of the Jewish Passover might be both the better understood and the easier received by them it is a thing much to be remarked for the right explaining of it how exactly he accommodated all the Notions and Ideas of that Ancient Ceremony to this new Institution I. In that Paschal Supper the Master of the House took Bread and presenting it before them instead of the usual Benediction of the Bread He brake it and gave it to them saying ‖ See Dr. Hammond on Mat. xxvi lit E. Casaubon in Mat. xxvi 26. c. This is the Bread of Affliction which our Fathers ate in Egypt In this Sacred Feast our Saviour in like manner takes Bread the very Loaf which the Jews were wont to take for the Ceremony before mentioned breaks it and gives it to his Disciples saying This is my Body which is broken for you alluding thereby not only to their Ceremony in his Action but even to their very manner of Speech in his Expression to the Passover before them which in their Language they constantly called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vid. Buxtorf Vindic. contr Capel P. 14. Hammond in Mat. xxvi l. e. c. the Body of the Paschal Lamb. II. In that Ancient Feast the Master of the House in like manner after Supper took the Cup and having given thanks gave it to them saying †Allix preparat a la Sainte Cene. cap. 2. pag. 16. This is the Fruit of the Vine and the Blood of the Grape In this Holy Sacrament our Blessed Lord in the very same manner takes the Cup he Blesses it and gives it to his Disciples saying This Cup is the New-Testament in my Blood his Action being again the very same with theirs and for his Expression it is that which Moses used when he ratified the Ancient Covenant between God and the Jews Exod. xxiv 8. compared with Hebr. ix 20. saying This is the Blood of the Testament III. In that Ancient Feast after all this was finish'd they were wont to sing a * Dr. Lightfoots Heb Talmud Observation Mat. xxvi ver 26 27. T. 2. p. 258 260. Hymn the Psalms yet extant from the cxiii to the cxix thence called by them the Great Hallelujah In this Holy Supper our Saviour and his Disciples are expresly recorded to have done the like and very probably in the self-same words See Matt. xxvi 30. Mark xiv 26. In a word Lastly IV. That ancient Passover the Jews were commanded to keep
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
599. Ibid. We do not say that in the Eucharist there is only a commemoration of the death of our Lord Jesus Christ nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the fruits of his death and passion but we joyn the ground with the fruits affirming with St. Paul that the Bread which by Gods appointment we break is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us the Cup which we drink the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin and which he carry'd up with him into the Heavens Then descending to the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation It overthrows says he the truth of Christs Humane nature and of his Ascension So little did he suppose that Christs natural Body could be at the same time both in Heaven and in the Sacrament Hereupon he explains himself yet farther But now if any one should ask of us whether we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper We answer By no means But yet if we respect the distance of place as when we speak of his Corporal presence and of his Humanity we must we affirm says he that Christs Body is as far distant from the Bread and Wine as Heaven is from Earth If any one shall from thence conclude that we make Christ absent from the Holy Supper he will conclude amiss For this Honour we allow to God that though the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere and we on Earth and not elsewhere yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner and by the means of Faith. Thus do's Beza in like manner expound their Doctrine of the Real Presence by a real communion of Christs Body and Blood and flatly condemns our Authors invention PETER MARTYR of his natural Bodie 's being either in the Symbols or any where else upon Earth The same is the account which †Respondâ—o pro meâ parte Corpus Christi non else Verè et substantialiter alibi quà m in Calo. Non tamen inficior Christi corpus verum sanguinem illius Verum quae pro salute humana cradita sunt in Cruce fide spiritualiter percipi in Sacrâ Coenâ Histoire Eccles. de Beze liv 4. p. 606. Anno 1561. Peter Martyr in the same conference gave of it and of whom * Vid. Hist de Beze ib. p. 599. Comment de stat rel p. 140. ad Ann 1561. Hospin pag. 518. Espensius one of the Popish delegates confess'd That no Divine of that time had spoken so clearly and distinctly concerning this Sacrament as he did And however ⸫ See Hospin of this whole matter pag. 520. Genebrard fasely pretends that the other Protestants dissented from him yet 't is certain they were so far from it that they all Subscribed the very same Paper out of which he read his Declaration But I will close this with the same words with which these Protestants did their final resolution in the Colloquy as to this matter Affirmamus nullam locorum distantiam impedire posse communicationem quam habemus cum Christi corpore sanguine quoniam Coena Domini est res coelestis et quamvis in terrâ recipiamus ore panem vinum vera scil Corporis sanguinis signa tamen fide spiritûs sancti operatione mentes nostrae quarum hic est praecipuè cibus in caelum elatae perfruuntur corpore sanguine praesente Et hoc respectu dicimus Corpus verè se pani conjungere sanguinem vino non aliter tamen quam sacramentali ratione neque locali neque naturali mode sed quoniam Efficaciter significant Deum illa dare fideliter communicantibus illósque side verè certo percipere Hospin l c. Comm. ibid. p. 142. Vbi sublicitur Haec est perspicua de Corporis sanguinis J C. Praesentia in Sacramento Caenae Ecclesiarum Beformatarum sentenria Beze Hist Eccles. pag. 615. where he adds that they reject not only Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation but also toute maniere de presence par laquelle le corps de Christ n'est colloquè maintenant reellemâ—nt ailleurs qu'au ciel And then adds why they thus use the word substance in this matter and what they mean by it See pag. 615. ad Ann 1561. We affirm that no distance of place can hinder the Communion which we have with Christs Body and Blood because the Supper of the Lord is a Heavenly thing and though upon Earth we receive with our mouths Bread and Wine viz. the true Symbols of his Body and Blood yet by Faith and through the Operation of the Holy Spirit our Souls of which this is the chief food being carry'd up into Heaven enjoy the Body and Blood present And in this respect we say that the Body do's truly joyn its self to the Bread and the Blood to the Wine but yet no otherwise than Sacramentally neither after a local or natural manner But because they do effectually signifie that God gives them to the Faithful Communicants and that they do by Faith truly and certainly receive them And thus far I have consider'd the forreign Divines produced by our Author and in which we find the very same Explication which our Church gives of the Real presence For our own Authors I shall insist the rather upon them both to take off any impression which the scraps here put together by those whose business it is to represent their own Sence not their Authors might otherwise be apt to make upon some Men and also to shew the exact concord there has been ever since the Reformation amongst us as to this matter Now for what concerns our Divines in King Edward vi ths time we have our Authors own confession that towards the latter end of the Reign of that excellent Prince they seem to have deny'd any such Real and Essential presence as he would fasten upon those of Queen Elizabeth's after For as the first days of this Prince 1 Treatise §. xxvi pag 19. says he seem to have been more addicted to Lutheranism so the latter days to Zwinglianism as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley and Peter Martyr And indeed the Articles agreed upon in the Convocation at London 1562. plainly shew it in the xxixth of which we find this express Clause Since the very being of humane Nature doth require that the Body of one and the same man cannot be at one and the same time in many places but of necessity must be in some certain and determinate place Therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present in many different places at the same time And since as the Holy Scriptures testifie Christ hath been taken up into Heaven and there is to abide till the end of the World it becometh not any of the faithful to believe or profess that there is a Real or Corporal
also was omitted lest it should give Offence to those who were still zealous for their mistaken Principles and Worship This was the Wise and Christian Design of that Excellent Princess and how happy an Effect this Moderation might have had if the Bishop of Rome had not by his Artifice and Authority with some of her Subjects prevented it the first Years of her Reign sufficiently shew Thus was the Occasion and Reason of its omission in Q. Elizabeth's time as great as the necessity of its first Insertion in King Edward's And in this state it continued all the Reign of that Queen and of her two Successors King James and King Charles 1st I shall not need to say by what means it was that new Occasion was given for the reviving of it We have all of us heard and many of us seen too much of it How Order became Superstitious and Decency termed Idolatry The Church of England traduced as but another Name for Popery and this Custom of kneeling at the Communion one of the strongest Arguments offer'd for the Proof of it And now when Panick Fears had found such prevalence over the Minds of Men as to destroy a King and embroil a Kingdom into a Civil War of almost Twenty Years continuance and tho by the good hand of God our King and our Peace were again restored yet the minds of the People were still unsetled and in danger of being again blown up upon the least Occasion what could be more advisable to justifie our selves from all suspicion of Popery in this matter and induce them to a Conformity with us in a Ceremony they had entertain'd such a dread of than to revive that ancient Rubrick and so quiet the Minds of the People now by the same means by which they had been setled and secured before This I am perswaded is so rational an Account as will both justifie the proceedings of our Governours in these Changes and shew the dis-ingenuity of those who not only knowing but having been told these things will still rather impute it to an imaginary wavering or uncertainty of Opinion than to a necessary and Christian Accommodation to the Times For the change in the Prayer of Consecration I have already said that 't is in the Words not the Sense And if our Governours thought the present Expressions 〈◊〉 liable to exception than the former they had certainly reason for the Alteration For the other Exceptions there is very little in them whether the Minister lay his Hand on the Sacred Elements when he repeats the words of Institution as at this time or only consecrates them by the Prayers of the Church and the Words of Christ without any other Ceremony as heretofore Whether with the Church of Rome we use only the words of Christ in the distribution or with most of the Reformed Churches the other Expression Take and eat this c. or as we chuse rather joyn them both together Whether we sing the Gloria in Excelsis Deo before or after the receiving but because the chiefest Mystery he thinks lies in this That whereas in King Edward's days the Rubrick called it an Essential Presence which we have now turned into Corporeal I must confess I will not undertake to say what the Occasion of it was if they thought this latter manner more free from giving Offence than the other would have been I think they did well to prefer it Let every one entertain what Notion he pleases of these things this I have shewn is the Doctrine of the Church which we all subscribe That the Natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in the Sacrament and if there can be any other Real Presence than such as I have shewn to have been the constant belief of our Divines consistent with this Rubrick I shall no more desire to debar any one the belief of it than I shall be willing to be obliged to believe it with him And now after so clear an Account as I have here given of the several changes that have been made in our Rubrick were I minded to recriminate and tell the World what Alterations have been made in their Mass those in Points infinitely more material than any thing that can be alledged against us I much question whether they would be able to give us so good an account of it And so mething of this I may perhaps offer as a Specimen of the wisdom of this Author in the choice of his Accusation before we part In the mean time I go on to the last thing proposed to be here consider'd 4thly that the Reason mention'd in our Rubrick concerning the Impossibility of Christs natural Body's existing in several places at the same time is no way invalidated by any of this Authors exceptions against it Now these being most of them founded upon the former mistaken Notion of the Real presence falsely imputed to us will admit of a very short and plain consideration 1 st He observes That Protestants Treatise 1st §. xx n. 1. pag. 13. but especially our English Divines generally confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist to be an ineffable Mystery Well be it so what will he hence infer Why this he conceives is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by Humane Reason But supposing they should not think it so from being Opposite and Contradictory to but because the manner how Christ herein communicates himself to us is hid from and above our Humane Reason might not this be sufficient to make it still be called an ineffable and incomprehensible Mystery Whereas the other would make it rather plain and comprehensible Nonsence 'T is a strange Affection that some Men have got of late for Contradictions they are so in love with them that they have almost brought it to be the definition of a Mystery to be the Revelation of something to be believ'd in Opposition to Sense and Reason And what by their Notions and Parallels have advanced no very commendable Character of Christianity as if it were a Religion full of Absurdities Bishop TAYLOVRS Polem Disco of the Real prefence Sect. ii pag. 231. and as Fisher the Jesuit once told King James 1 st with reference to this very Subject the rather to be believed because it is contrary to Reason But if this be indeed our Authors Notion of Mysteries and the truth is Transubstantiation can be no other Mystery we desire he will be pleased to confine it to his own Church and not send it abroad into the World as ours too We are perswaded not only that our Worship must be a reasonable Service but our Faith a Reasonable Assent He who opposes the Authority of Holy Scriptures Ibid. says Bishop Taylor against manifest and certain Reason do's neither understand himself nor them Reason is the voice of God as well as Revelation
Communion That no Adoration is intended or ought to be done either to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received or to any Corporal Presence of Christ's Body and Blood For that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all Faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at One time in more places than One. This then being sufficiently cleared let us see what this Author has to observe against it 1. He supposes that we will grant Treatise 1. Ch. 4. §. 39. p. 27. that if there were a Corporal Presence of Christ's Natural Body in this Holy Sacrament then Kneeling and Adoration would be here also due upon such an Account He means that were Christ himself here in his Body actually present He ought to be adored and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant 2. Tho the Corporeal Presence of Christ's Body Ib. §. xl i.e. of its being there ad modum Corporis or clothed with the ordinary Properties of a Body be deny'd as it is not only by the English Divines but by the Lutheran and Roman Yet let there be any other manner of Presence known from Divine Revelation of the very same Body and Blood and this as Real and Essential as if Corporeal and then I do not see but that Adoration will be no less due to it thus than so Present Now to this I shall at present only say That the Supposition being absurd do's not admit of a rational Consideration Those who deny a bodily Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist and ask whether Adoration may not be paid to his Body which is confess'd not to be bodily present there supposing it to be there some other way ought to have no other satisfaction than this that they suppose an Impossibility a thing which cannot be and therefore concerning which no reasonable Answer can be given Some I know have been more free and allowing for the unreasonableness of the Supposal have resolved contrary to our Author But I think it very needless to dispute of the Affections of a Chimera and wrangle about Notions that have neither Use nor Existence 3. Treatise 1. p. 28. §. xli He observes lastly That the Church of England hath believed and affirmed such a Presence he means of Christ's Body in the Eucharist to which they thought Adoration due I presume it was then in the Times of Popery for since the Reformation I have shewn before that she has always held the contrary But our Author will prove it and that since the Reformation Ibid. For he says he has in his time met with no less than five of our Writers and those of no mean Account neither that have been of this Opinion This indeed is a very notable way of proving the Doctrine of our Church But what now if I should bring him fifteen Others that have deny'd it then I hope the Doctrine of the Church of England may be as fair for the contrary But we will examine his Evidence First Treatise 1. §. xlii p. 28. Bishop Andrews he says declares that tho we adore not the Sacrament yet we adore Christ in and with the Sacrament besides and without the Sacrament and assures the World that K. James looked upon Christ to be truly present and truly to be adored in it How this Bishop thought Christ truly present in the Sacrament we have seen before and may from thence easily conclude how he supposed he might be adored there viz. As in all other Holy Offices in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us but especially in this Sacred Mystery And thus we all adore him both in and with and without the Sacrament we confess him to be truly present and therefore truly to be adored by us But now for Christ's Natural Body of which and not of Christ himself our Dispute is if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before shew'd let it be remembred that according to this Bishop it must not be his Glorified Body See above his Body as it now is but his Body Crucified his Body as offer'd for us and in the State of his Death so He expresly affirms and this I believe our Author himself will confess in his sense to be impossible His next Witness is Bishop Taylor We worship Treatise 1. §. xliii p. 28. He means says this Author the Body or the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist But is he sure the Bishop meant so If he be I am sure the Bishop thought we all of us committed Idolatry in so doing For being consulted as we have seen above whether without all danger of Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host See Polemical Discourses 5. Letter at the end p. according to his Humane Nature in that Host He expresly declares 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 Idotry And indeed this our Author knew very well was his Opinion who himself in his next Treatise cites the xiiith Section of his Real Presence Treatise 2. p .9 §. vi n. 2. which was written on purpose to prove the unlawfulness of worshipping Christ's Body in this Sacrament But dissimulation of other Mens Opinions in matter of Religion is perhaps as lawful on some Occasions as if it were their own And why may not an Author prevaricate the Doctrine of his Adversary in defence of the Catholick Faith since I have read of a * The Story was publish'd in the Memoirs of Monsieur D'eageant printed with permission at Grenoble 1668. pag. 246 I will set it down in his own words Il'y avoit deja quelque tems que D'eageant avoit gagné l'un des Ministres de la Province de Languedoc qui etoit des plus employez aux Affaires meneés de ceux de la R. P. R. en l'Estime particuliere de Monsieur de Lesdiguiers Il avoit meme secrettement moyenne sa Conversion obtenu un Bref de Rome portant qu' en core qu' il eut etè receu au giron de l'Eglise il luy etoit permis de continuer son Ministere durant 3 Ans pourveu qu'en ses preches il ne dit rien de contraire à la creance de la vraye Eglise qu' il ne celebrât ponit la cene Le Bref fût obtenu afinque le Ministre pût estre continué dans les Emplois qu'il avoit decouvrir les