mistaken is sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry Whence he infers that if Catholics can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excus'd from Idolatry at least by those Protestants who excuse the Lutherans and so he proceeds to shew his Rational Grounds I think it an easy undertaking to shew a vast disparity between the Papists and Lutherans in this point but not very pertinent at this time For neither of those parties is concern'd in the question as 't is now stated by our Author 'T is with him and with his Catholics we have to do with them that prescind from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence and not with the Lutherans or Papists who both stick to a Corporal Presence are not so ill advis'd as to quit their hold to run the hazard of this man's idle suppositions· But here 's the juggle I expected here 's the Main Point lost in a mist We that have been drill'd on through one whole Discourse and twenty and six long pages of another and all in hopes to have seen it prov'd that supposing no Corporal but precisely a Real Presence to adore the Elements is no Idolatry are now to be put of with five stale grounds for beliefe of Transubstantiation I say of Transubstantiation though he only names a Corporal presence For he calls himself the Catholic Defender and the grounds he alleges are the Popish arguments for Transubstantiation and he disclaims being a Lutheran and we know of no party besides these two that now holds a Corporal Presence CHAP. X. A Reply to the six next Grounds of the second Discourse begining at sect 24. SInce my present undertaking obliges me no farther then to answer the Defender's arguments upon the question as he has stated it I might very well pass over his grounds for beliefe of Transubstantiation which were before offer'd in the Guide and in other Authors before that Guide could go alone and may be easily trac'd from Author to Author up to Archbishop Cranmer who has reported and answer'd every one of them in his Book of the Eucharist Our Author delivers in his list of them like a bill that begins with Item Disc 2. pag. 27. sect 24. For he says his first ground for a Corporal presence after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants is Divine Revelation viz. the words hoc est corpus meum so often iterated in the Gospel and again by S. Paul without any variation change or explication as also the discourse of our blessed Saviour in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel Now to this second and foremost argument the * I choose to refer here to the Archbishop's book that the Reader may the better see these Arguments are stale and have been baffl'd above a hundred years since Arch-Bishop has punctually reply'd viz. to the words of the institution p. 8.23.253 and elsewhere and the answers are now so well known that they need not be repeated and whereas the Pamphlet insists upon S. Paul's repeating them without any variation or explication the Archbishop plainly shew's p. 254. * Pag. 254. S. Paul is not afraid for our better understanding of Christ's words somewhat to alter the same least we might stand stifly in Letters and Syllables and err in mistaking the sense and meaning For whereas our Saviour Christ broke the Bread and sayd This is my Body S. Paul say'th that the Bread which we break is the Communion of Christ's Body Christ said his Body and S. Paul said the Communion of his Body meaning nevertheless both one thing that they which eat the Bread Worthily do eat Spiritually Christs very Body that S. Paul both varies and explains them as will be evident to any man that consults 1 Cor. X. 16 so likewise to the Popish explication of our Saviours discourse Joh. 6. the Archbishop answers in divers places * Pag 20. The Spiritual eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood by Faith by digesting his Death in our minds as our only price ransome and redemtion from eternal Damnation is the cause wherefore Christ say'd that if we eat not his Flesh and drink not his Blood we have not Life in us and if we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood we have everlasting Life And if Christ had never ordain'd the Sacrament yet should we have eaten his Flesh and drunken his Blood and have had thereby everlasting Life as all the Faithful did before the Sacrament was ordain'd and dayly do when they receive not the Sacrament See more Ibid and again p. 112. These words what if you see c. Joh. VI. 62.63 our Saviour Christ spake to lift up their minds from Earth to Heaven and from Carnal to Spiritual eating that they should not Fantasy that they should with their teeth eat him present here on earth for his Flesh so eaten saith he should profit them nothing and yet so they should not eat him for he would take his Body away from them and ascend with it into Heaven and there by Faith and not with Teeth they should Spiritually eat him sitting at the right hand of his Father and therefore saith he the words which I do speake be Spirit and Life that is to say are not to be understood that we shall eat Christ with our teeth grossly and carnally but that we shall Spiritually and Ghostly with our Faith eat him being carnally absent from us in Heaven p. 18.31.37.111.217.329 in all things speaking consonant to the sense of the primitive Fathers according to whose notions the true and plain meaning of that Chapter has been so fully express'd in a late Paraphrase that no more need be sayd of that matter And whereas this Author farther says that no argument from our senses is valid against plain revelation though the case was something otherwise in the fourteenth page of the first Discourse to this likewise the Arch-Bishop answers p. 263. * Pag. 263. Let us now consider how the same Transubstantiation is against natural reason and natural operation which although they prevail not against God's word yet when they be joyn'd with God's word they be of great moment to confirm any truth not that they add any authority to God's word but that they help our infirmity p. 266. where giving divers instances out of Scripture of Faith confirm'd by sense he concludes Which sensible proofs were so far from derogation of Faith that they were a sure establishment thereof Again p. 270 concerning arguments drawn from the Schoolmen I make saith he no foundation at all upon them but my very foundation is only upon God's word and mine arguments in this place I bring in only to this end to shew how far your imagin'd Transubstantiation is not only from Gods word but also from the order of nature in the very same manner that we do to this day and have allready answer'd in
misconstruction for which the * Pandectae Canonum c. publish'd at Oxford by Dr. Beverege Council in Trullo Can. 81. condemn'd the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that hymn 4. The omission of these words in these holy mysteries might be purely accidental and pass undiscover'd because as they signifie no more then in this celebration of the Eucharist they have no material influence upon the sense But if we understand as perhaps a perverse man may that these mysteries signifie the same with these elements that is cause enough to omit them because they would assert an opinion which is contrary to sound Doctrine and the declar'd judgment of the Church Disc I. §. 3. n. 1. pag 3. What is farther observable in the two first Sections is repeated and back'd in the third and might be safely pass'd over as containing nothing material but what we again meet with there For concerning the Form prescrib'd in delivering the consecrated Elements he tell 's us that in K. Edwards first book the Form was The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. in his second Take and eat this in remembrance c. in Qu. Elizabeths both these put together as they still continue in the English Liturgy But withal he tells us the first of these Forms descends to us from Antiquity and he finds no fault with the second which is entirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution So that we are yet to seek where the harme lies of using either Form single or both of them together and yet farther to seek to what purpose this observation is made since 't is manifest that neither Form single nor both of them together either owns a Corporal or denyes a Real Presence He addds that the Scotch Rubrick keeping the first Form requires the Communicant to answer to it Amen which without a Rubrick ever was and is still the Practice of the Church of England for what more natural then to answer Amen to a prayer and so were divers other things as for instance standing up at the Gospel and saying Glory be to thee O Lord which the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy having good reason to approve thought fit to injoyn by a Rubrick that the Puritans might have no pretence for Nonconformity But to return to the Communicants answering Amen the Pamphlet truly observes it to be according to custome of Antiquity but I doubt the proofs it quotes are not very judiciously chosen The place in Eusebius belongs plainly to another thing The words are Hist VII 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Which evidently shews that That Amen was answer'd to the Doxology before the distribution of the Elements as not only Justin Martyr could have taught him but even Valesius himself in his Notes upon that passage of Eusebius I leave the examen of the other two Quotations to them that have leisure and the Books by them 't is probable they may prove as pertinent as this For I find it a common practice in this man 's other Works to quote those passages at length which he thinks will bear the stress of an Argument and barely refer to such places as contain only a hint which perhaps an unwary Reader may go near to swallow This Amen was spoken says the Pamphlet as the Communicants confession that what he receiv'd was Corpus Domini But I shall rather learn the meaning of it from Justin Martyr * Just Mart. Edit Steph Apol. 2. pag. 162. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who observes that Amen in Hebrew signifies so be it wherefore according to His notion the Communicant answering Amen only joyns with the Priest in praying that the Body and Blood of Christ may preserve his Body and Soul to everlasting life The Pamphlet farther observes that in K. Edwards first book there was this passage in the prayer of Consecration And with thy holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify 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 which was afterwards left out of the English Liturgy and restor'd in the Scotch This omission by the way is something injudiciously observ'd because it shews us that the Clergy of Q. Elizabeth had no such thoughts of the Real Presence as the Pamphlet would suggest they had But I refer him for answer to his own quotation out of Laudensium Autocatacrisis From these words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation wherefore the English Reformers scrap'd them out of their Books tho' his Gloss upon Restoring them in the Scocth Liturgie is a manifest cavil for no man of sence can interpret them as they lie there in favor of Transubstantiation see Arch-Bishop Cranmers answer to Gardiner p. 70. p. 289. * The Archbishop the most competent Judge in this case thus interprets this passage p 79. of his answer to Gardiner And therefore in the Book of the Holy Communion we do not pray absolutely that the Bread and Wine may be made the Body and Blood of Christ but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthily receive the same that we may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood and that therewith in Spirit and Truth we may be Spiritually nourished And again p. 289. We do not pray c but that they may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ that is to say that we may so eat them and drink them that we may be partakers of his Body Crucified and his Blood shed for our redemption Wherefore this was the sense of our Reformers that compil'd the Communion-office and thus they understood it that restored it in the Scotch Liturgy and so must any man understand it that is not too partially addicted to Popery I must beg the Readers pardon if out of a desire to leave nothing unreply'd to I have particularly spoken to these inconsiderable observations which the Author himself does but skirmish with But we are now come to the Rubrick before which he intends to sit down viz. that for explaining why we Kneel at the Sacrament This he tells us in K. Edward's book deny'd a Real and Essential but now denyes only a Corporal Presence To which I answer that K. Edward's Rubrick by Real and Essential means as the Papists then us'd to do a Real and Bodily Presence as is plain by the Articles set forth about the same time and quoted by the Pamphlet it self pag. 2. He observes farther that both this Rubrick and the explanatory Paragraph in the 28 th Article were expung'd in the first of Q. Elizabeth To which we have already answer'd that this at the utmost implyes but a change in the terms of our Communion and if he think fit to challenge the Church upon that score we are ready to
Spiritual and Virtual Presence and explain the term we make use of to that effect Thus the Protestants in K. Henry the Eighth's time that sufferd upon the six Articles deny'd the Real Presence i. e. the Popish sense of it but meant the same thing with us who think we may lawfully use that term On the other side that excellent Person and glorious Martyr Mr. Bradford * Acts and Monuments p. 1608. I do believe says he that Christ is Corporally present at and in the due Administration of the Sacrament But he adds this explication By this word Corporally I mean that Christ is present Corporally unto Faith It is likewise evident that when we say Christ is Present or Adorable in the Sacrament we do not mean in the Elements but in the Celebration We affirm his naturall Body to be Locally in Heaven and not here and that we who are here and not in Heaven ought to Worship it as Locally present in Heaven while we celebrate the Holy Sacrament upon Earth Lastly it is evident that this Doctrine is sufficiently remov'd from what the Pamphlet calls Zuinglianism how truly I will not now inquire For we do not hold that we barely receive the Effects and Benefits of Christ's Body but we hold it Really Present in as much as it is Really receiv'd and we actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us So that while we Spiritually eat Christ's Flesh and drink his Blood we through Faith in a mysterious and ineffable manner dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us and by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet Real participation we receive the Benefits consequent to it even the remission of our Sins and all other benefits of Christs Passion This in short is our meaning and to this effect all true Church-of-England-men declare it Whether we express our selves in proper and accurate terms is another question wherein if the Editor think fit to ingage we are ready to answer him In the mean time we desire him and the rest of his Communion not to catch up our words and bait them in their own sense which is too like the dealing of the Old Romans with the Primitive Christians It remains that we say a word or two concerning Mr. Thorndike's Testimony and so dismiss this Chapter The reader may please to take notice that the whole design of this Pamphlet is to furbish and rig out a notion of Mr. Thorndike's in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England The notion is neither the Church of Englands nor as I believe any other Churches nor does he so much as pretend that any other man much less any Church ever taught it He only thinks it is * consistent with the analogy of Faith not trenching as he says upon any ground of Christianity and seems to propose it as a peaceable expedient for complying outwardly with the Popish adoration of the Euchâ—â—â—â—â— a practice which when he wrote his 〈…〉 thought adviseable if it could be warranted for he was then upon a project of Uniting all Christians in one Communion and wrote his Epilogue on purpose to serve that design not pretending to give the true sense of any party but so to blanch the opinions of them all that the difference of their Judgment might not hinder their Uniting Wherefore he professes to expect * Preface to the Epilogue p. 45 c. the Lot of Reconcilers to be contradicted by all parties and owns that he sayes those things which he should have dissembled had the Church of England continu'd But it seemes he thought as some others did when the King was Murther'd that the Church of England was utterly and irrecoverably dissolv'd and that it was necessary to hold Communion with some Church and if it were honestly practicable with the Church of Rome rather then another 'T is probable the Editor was of the same mind for I remember to have heard this very plea made in his defence by a friend of his about some Eighteen years since But whatever Mr. Thorndike's opinion was when he wrote his Epilogue 't is certain when the King return'd he was a member of that Convocation that revis'd the Liturgy that he constantly attended there and had a hand more then ordinary in the Edition of sixty one That he declar'd his unfeign'd assent and consent to all things in the Liturgy as it was then alter'd that he conform'd to it all the rest of his Life and at last dy'd in Communion with the Church that impos'd the use of it So then we have here quoted out of the Epilogue a private opinion of a private man and what 's that to the Church especially since for ought then appear'd he was singular in it while he held it when occasion offer'd he forsook it professing his unfeign'd assent to that Rubrick which the Pamphlet would confront with his Authority CHAP. IV. A Reply to the third Chapter of the first Discourse Disc 1. §. 19 p. 13. The Author's purpose in the third Chapter is to combat this assertion in the Rubric that it is against the truth of a natural body to be i. e. as he explains it that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once Here is a kind of inauspicious stumble at the very entrance For 't is one thing to say as the Rubric does that a true natural body cannot be and another as he does that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once For should we suppose as he would have us that God should make one of our bodys be in two places at once when God had done this it would truly be in those places but before he did it he must change the nature of the body and make it cease to be a true natural body This is but a slip but in the next Paragraph 't is neck or nothing Ibid §. 20. n. 1. He finds there that Protestants confess Christs presence in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery they own indeed our Vnion and Communion with him to be so but supposing that the Reall Presence is easily explain'd But admit the Reall Presence be ineffable what then Ibid. He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradictory to reason Now any Protestant Child could have told him tho' perhaps he will take it more kindly from the Catholic * Part 2. Cap. 6. pag. 41. Representer that the mysteryes of Faith are above reason not contrary to it A little farther nihil magis incredibile says Calvin therefore says the Author not this more incredible that Idem Corpus c. Away you Wagg what thrice in one Paragraph § 20. n. 3. Dr. Disc 1. § 20. n. 3 p â—4 Taylor is Quoted saying that if Transubstantiation were plainly reveal'd he would burn all his arguments against it and believe it without more adoe And so say I too
give him satisfaction In the fourth Section he falls on in earnest upon the declaration about adoration as he calls it 〈◊〉 I. §. IV. pag. 4. and from it as it now lyes draws three Observables which are either very dishonestly or else very ignorantly worded They need no other answer then a bare amendment of the expressions which if they were intended to give the sense of the Church of England should have been to this effect 1. Observable That the Clergy do profess and teach that the natural body and blood of Christ are not corporally i. e. locally present in the Eucharist 2. Observable That they have diverse reasons for this assertion one especially wherein Scripture Philosophy and common sense are agreed viz. that a true humane body cannot locally be in two places at once 3. Observable That in consequence hereof they declare that the Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is indeed reall but spirituall and therefore the Elements are not to be ador'd because adoration ought not to be directed to the natural body of Christ but where it is locally present Had our Author had the ingenuity to express himself after this manner he had been no less kind to himself then just to the Church of England for he might have avoided divers errors he commits in the three next Chapters by avoyding the grand impertinence of having written them at all CHAP. III. A Reply to the second chapter of the first Discourse Disc I. §. VII pag. 5. THe design of the second Chapter is to prove by abundance of quotations that Learned Protestants heretofore have held that the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is present as in Heaven so here in the Holy Sacrament either to the worthy receiver or the Symbols By learned Protestants I presume he means those of the Church of England for so he should mean since he draws his Observables from a Rubric in their Liturgie Now he would have told us some news had he mentioned but one of these learned Protestants who pretending to give the sense of the Church of England does not hold that the same numerical body which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is locally present in Heaven and virtually present in the Eucharist not to the Symbols but the Faith of the worthy receiver or if by those words as in heaven so here he means locally in both as indeed he must mean if his next Chapter be at all pertinent he would have told us no less news had he brought but one quotation that could be honestly taken in that sense But if he have any third meaning it would have been a favour to explain himself for we pretend not to any talent in divination Now supposing he designs to combat the Church of England I would gladly know to what purpose he alleges Calvin and Beza Disc I. §. VIII IX for let their doctrine be what it will to quote it to us who are not to be concluded by their authority is very trifling and impertinent When the sense of the Church of England was the question one would have expected to heare what the Church-Catechism says What the Homilies What Nowells Catechism Books allow'd and publish'd by the Churches authority and authentick witnesses of her judgment or if private Doctors were the game what Archbishop Cranmer's book of the Sacraments what Bradford Philpot and the rest of Q. Mary's Martyrs what Bishop Jewell in his Apology and the Defence of it what Bishop Vsher in his Sermon before the House of Commons But instead of these we have only the testimonies of some other eminent but private men all miserably mangled and disjoynted some of them Conciliators too whose very design obliges them to a looser kind of expression then a true and adequate standard of the Churches judgment will allow Now should any of our private writers either in heat of disputation or out of zeal to peace or desire to explain a great mystery a little deviate in their expressions we can easily forgive an error that proceeds from so allowable a cause but still the Church is not bound to justify that error But the quotations in the Pamphlet will not put us upon this Apology Not an author he quotes except only Mr. Thorndike of whom we shall say more by and by but speaks the sense of the Church and industriously drives at a point quite contrary to the Pamphlets design which discovers a great flaw either in the Authors judgment or honesty I grant the authors as he has mangled 'em looke as unlike those worthy champions of our Church as the shape that appear'd to Aenaeas did to the true and whole person of Hector But I desire the Reader neither to trust the Pamphlet nor me but his own eys to consult the quotations as they lye intire in the authors themselves and consider 'em with their several contexts For my own part having taken that pains I profess to find such dealing as I do not care to report because I cannot expect to be believ'd 'T is somewhat unaccountable that a man of sense having read the book of Bishop Taylor 's which the Pamphlet quotes should split upon the very Fallacy which that Bishop spends allmost the whole first Chapter in detecting He makes it his business there to shew that Protestants in explaining the Real Presence may lawfully use the same terms that Papists doe But they neither can nor doe use them in the Papists sense and he that will urge the Protestants with those words must take the Protestants meaning along with him This seems to be a very equitable proposal How far the Pamphlet complyes with it I dare leave to the meanest Reader when he has perus'd this short and plain account of our Churches doctrine in this point The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a twofold consideration in the Eucharist 1. As a body dead under which notion we are said to eat it in the Sacrament and to drink the blood as shed as appears by the words of the Institution Take and eat this is my body which is given or broken for you Drink ye all of this for this is my blood which is shed for you in which words * Acts and Monuments pag. 1611. as Mr. Bradford long agoe observ'd what God has joyn'd we are not to put asunder 2. As a glorify'd body in which condition it now sits at the right hand of God and shall there continue till the restitution of all things imparting Grace Influence and all the benefits purchased by the Sacrifice of the dead body to those that in the holy Eucharist most especially are through Faith and by the marvellous operation of the holy Ghost incorporated into Christ and so united to him that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them they are one with Christ and Christ with them they are made members of his body of his flesh and
of his bones and by partaking of the Spirit of him their head receive all the graces and benefits purchased for them by his bitter death and passion Wherefore it is evident that since the body broken and the blood shed neither do nor can now really exist they neither can be really present nor literally eaten or drank nor can we really receive them but only the benefits purchased by them But the body which now exists whereof we partake and to which we are united is the glorify'd body which is therefore verily and indeed received as we shall see anon and by consequence said to be Really present notwithstanding its Local Absence because a real participation and union must needs imply a Real presence though they do not necessarily require a Local one For 't is easy to conceive how a thing that is Locally Absent may yet be Really Receiv'd as he that receives a Disciple is said to receive Christ as the Disciples themselves receiv'd the Holy Ghost as the King in the Gospel receiv'd a Kingdom or as we commonly say a man receives an Estate or Inheritance when he receives the Deeds or Conveiances of it In all which cases the reception is confessedly real tho' the thing it self is not locally or circumscriptively present or literally grasp'd in the arms of the receiver This by the way may serve to shew the vanity as well as falshood of Transubstantiation which was first devis'd to solve the literall eating of the glorify'd body of our Saviour whereas though the body that is glorify'd be numerically the same that was broken yet the body which is eaten as dead and the body which is present as glorify'd are two as different things as can well be imagin'd This may likewise serve to shew that there is no great disagreement among those Protestants whom the Papists too hastily charge with it For they all agree that we spiritually eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood that we neither eat nor drink nor receive the dead body nor the blood shed but only the benefits purchased by them that these benefits are deriv'd to us by virtue of our Union and Communion with the glorify'd body and that our partaking of it and union with it is effected by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the holy Spirit The only difference is that one part from the premisses infer that Christ may be truly said to be Really Present in the Eucharist whereas the other scruple at the use of that expression because the local absence of his body is confessed on both sides notwithstanding they agree in all the points which the other party think requisite to defend it Now tho' it be easy as I said before to conceive how a natural substance may be said to be Really Receiv'd though not Locally Present it is not so easy to conceive it Really Present when at the same time it is Locally Absent Therefore the Church of England has wisely forborn to use the term of Reall Presence in all the Books that are set forth by her authority We neither find it recommended in the Litugy nor the Articles nor the Homilyes nor the Churches nor Nowell's Catechism For although it be once in the Liturgy and once more in the Articles it is mention'd in both places as a phrase of the Papists and rejected for their abuse of it So that if any Church of England-man use it he does more then the Church directs him if any reject it he has the Churches example to warrant him and it would very much contribute to the peace of Christendom if all men would write after so good a Copy Yet it must not be deny'd but the term may be safely us'd amongst Scholars and seems to be grounded upon the language of Scripture it self For when our Saviour promises to be in the midst of them that call upon him and to be with his Church always to the end of the World no doubt he promises to be really present with them though he does not mean that his Naturall Body shall be locally present amongst them So S t. Paul speaks of his own being absent in Body but present in Spirit 1. Cor. V. 3 The Romans us'd to call their Gods Praesentes Deos not as locally present but always ready to assist them and whatever is in readiness when we want it to answer our occasions may be properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be at hand to be present A man does truly repraesentare pecuniam when he gives a good bill for it though he does not pay it down in specie The Holy Ghost is said to abide and dwell in us which words imply a continual presence no doubt Reall though not Physicall and Locall but only by his grace and influence In short whatever we enjoy use and reap the benefit of as truly as if it were prae sensibus is as Really present as if it were Physically so nay no doubt when virtue went out of our Saviour's body to heal the woman in the Gospel though the Jews throng'd him and she did but touch his garment yet his body was more really present to her whom the virtue of it heal'd then to them whom the substance of it touch'd So much for the use of the word which when we of the Church of England use we mean thus A thing may be said to be really receiv'd which is so consign'd to us that we can readily imploy it to all those purposes for which it is usefull in itself and we have occasion to use it And a thing thus really receiv'd may be said to be really present two ways viz. either Physically or Morally to which we reduce Sacramentally A Physicall presence now we speak of a natural Body is locall antecedent to the reception and independent upon it the thing is first really present and then really receiv'd and though it were not receiv'd would be still really present A morall presence is only virtuall consequent to the reception and dependent upon it the thing is first really receiv'd and by consequence said to be really present but it is not at all present to them that do not really receive it Thus in the holy Eucharist the Sacrament is Physically the res Sacramenti Morally present the elements Antecedently and Locally the very body Consequentially Virtually but both Really present From hence it is evident that if we rightly understand the Presence it is not material with what adverbs we affirm it We may say it is Really Essentially nay Corporally present that is it is present in as much as it is Really receiv'd to all intents and purposes for which the Res ipsa the Essence the Substance the very Body would be useful to us if it were Physically and Locally present And the difference between us and the Papists is plain They however they express themselves understand a Local presence which we deny and therefore reject their expression We whatever term we use mean only a