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
and yet not move That there should be no Certainty in our Senses and yet that we should know something Certainly and yet know nothing but by our Senses That that which Is and Was long ago should now begin to be That that is now to be made of Nothing which is not Nothing but Something That the same thing should be Before and After its self These and many other of the like nature are the unavoidable and most of them the avow'd Consequences of Transubstantiation and I need not say all of them Contradictions to Right Reason But I shall insist rather upon such Instances as the Primitive Fathers have judged to be absurd and impossible and which will at once shew both the Falseness and Novelty of this monstrous Doctrine and such are these * See Examples of every one of these collected by Blondel Eclaircissements familiers de la controverse de l' Eucharistie cap. 8. p. 253. That a thing already existing should be produced anew That a finite thing should be in many places at the same time That a Body should be in a place and yet take up no room in it That a Body should penetrate the dimensions of another Body That a Body should exist after the manner of a Spirit That a real body should be invisible and impassible That the same thing should be its self and the figure of its self That the same thing should be contained in and participate of its self †Monsieur Claude Rep. au 2. Traitte de la Perpetuite part 1. c. 4. n. 11. p. 73. Ed. 4to Paris 1668. That an Accident should exist by its self without a Subject after the manner of a Substance All these things the primitive Fathers have declared to be in their Opinions gross Absurdities and Contradictions without making any exception of the Divine Power for the sake of the Eucharist as some do now And indeed it were well if the impossibilities stopp'd here but alas the Repugnancies extend to the very Creed its self and destroy the chiefest Articles of our Faith the Fundamentals of Christianity How can that man profess that he believes our Saviour Christ to have been born xvi Ages since of the Virgin Mary whose very Body he sees the Priest about to make now before his Eyes That he believes him to have Ascended into Heaven and behold he is yet with us upon Earth There to Sit at the right hand of God the Father Almighty till in the end of the World He shall come again with Glory to judg both the Quick and the Dead And behold he is here carried through the Streets lock'd up in a Box Adored first and then Eaten by his own Creatures carried up and down in several manners and to several places and sometimes Lost out of a Priests Pocket These are no far-fetch'd Considerations they are the obvious Consequences of this Belief and if these things are impossible as doubtless if there be any such thing as Reason in the World they are I suppose it may be very much the concern of every one that professes this Faith to reflect a little upon them and think what account must one day be given of their persisting obstinately in a point so evidently erroneous that the least degree of an impartial judgment would presently have shewn them the falseness of it But God has not left himself without farther witness in this matter but has given us Thirdly III. The Conviction of our Senses against it An Argument this which since it cannot be Answered they seem resolved to run it down as the Stoick in Lucian who began to call names when he had nothing else to say for himself But if the Senses are such ill Informers that they may not be trusted in matters of this moment would these Disputers please to tell us What Authority they have for the truth of the Christian Religion Was not Christianity first founded upon the Miracles of our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles Or were not the Senses judges of those Miracles Are not the Incarnation Death Resurrection and Ascension of our Lord the most Fundamental Articles of our Faith Have we any other Argument to warrant our belief of these but what comes to us by the ministry of our Senses * John xx 27 29. Did not Christ himself appeal to them for the proof of his own Rising The Romanist himself believes Transubstantiation because he reads in the Scripture or rather to speak more agreeably to the method of their Church because he has been told there are such Words there as Hee est Corpus Meum Now not to enquire how far those words will serve to warrant this Doctrine is it not evident that he cannot be sure there are any such words there if he may not trust his Senses And if he may is it not as plain That he must seek for some other meaning than what they give of them Let us suppose the change they speak of to be Supernatural Be it as much a Miracle as they desire The very Character of a Miracle is to be known by the Senses Nor God nor Christ nor any Prophet or Apostle ever pretended to any other And I shall leave it to any one to judge what progress Christianity would have made in the World if it had had no other Miracles but such as Transubstanation to confirm it i. e. Great Wonders confidently asserted but such as every ones sense and reason would tell him were both falsely asserted and impossible to be performed But now whil'st we thus oppose the Errors of some by asserting the continuance of the Natural Substance of the Elements of Bread and Wine in this Holy Eucharist let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a meer Rite and Ceremony a bare Commemoration only of Christ's Death and Passion Our Church indeed teaches us to believe That the Bread and Wine continue still in their True and Natural Substance but it teaches us also that 't is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechism and Article Twenty eighth The Communion-Office c. which every faithful Soul receives in that Holy Supper Spiritually indeed and after a Heavenly manner but yet most truly and really too The Primitive Fathers of whom we have before spoken sufficiently assure us that they were strangers to that Corporeal change that is now pretended but for this Divine and Mystical they have openly enough declared for it Nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change and that a very great one too made in this Holy Sacrament The Bread and the Wine which we here Consecrate ought not to be given or received by any one in this Mystery as common ordinary food Those Holy Elements which the Prayers of the Church have sanctified and the Divine Words of our Blessed Saviour applied to them though not Transubstantiated yet certainly separated to a Holy use and
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
and what is opposite to the one can no more be agreeable to the other than God can be contrary to himself And though if the Revelation be clear and evident we submit to it because we are then sure it cannot be contrary to Reason whatever it may appear to us yet when the contradiction is manifest as that a natural Body should be in more places than one at the same time we are sure that interpretation of Holy Scripture can never be the right which would infer this but especially when there is another and much more reasonable that do's not And in this we are after all justified by one whose Authority I hope our Author will not question even his own self If says he Treatise 1st §. 29. pag. 21. we are certain there is a contradiction then we are certain there neither is nor can be a contrary Revelation and when any Revelation tho' never so plain is brought we are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility And let him that sticks to this rule interpret Christs words for Transubstantiation if he can But do not our own Authors sometimes say that notwithstanding all the difficulties brought against Transubstantiation yet if it can be shewn that God has revealed it they are ready to believe it Perhaps some may have said this because for that very Reason that there are so many contradictions in it they are sure it cannot be shewn that God has revealed it But if he means as he seems to insinuate that notwithstanding such plain contradictions as they charge it with they thought it possible nevertheless that God might have revealed it and upon that supposition they were ready to believe it I answer from his own words that their supposal then was Absurd and impossible since he himself assure us Treatise 1st §. xx n. 3. pag. 14. that None can believe a thing true upon what motive soever which he first knows to be certainly false or which is all one certainly to contradict For these we say are not verifyable by a divine Power and Ergo here I may say should a divine power declare a truth it would transcend its self Which last words if they signifie any thing and do not transcend Sense must suppose it impossible for such a thing as implies a certain Contradiction to be revealed II. Observation But our Author goes on I conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a Perfect Contradiction can no more be effected by divine Power than another or than many others the like may Seeing then we admit that some seeming Contradictions to Reason may be verified by the Divine power in this Sacrament there is no reason to deny but that this may be also as well as any other Now not to contend with him about words whoever told our Author that we allow'd that there was any thing in this Sacrament as received by us that seemed to us to include a Perfect Contradiction Perfect Contradictions we confess are all of them equally verifyable by a divine Power that is are all of them impossible And for this we have his own word before Now if there be any such things as perfect contradictions to be known by us that which seems to us to be a perfect contradiction must really be a perfect contradiction unless contradictions are to be discover'd some other way than by seeming to our Reason to be so And such it not only seems but undoubtedly is for the same One natural finite Body to be in more places than one at the same time if to be and not to be be still the measure of Contradictions He that says of such a Body that it is in Heaven and on Earth at London and Rome at the same time says in Effect that 't is one and not one finite and not finite in one place and not in one place c. All which are such seemingly perfect contradictions that I fear 't will be a hard matter to find out any Power by which they can be verify'd III. Observation Treatise 1st §. xxii p. 15. He observes Thirdly That those who affirm a Real and Substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant contradistinct to any such other Real presence of Christs Body as implies only a presence or it in Virtue and Spiritual Effects c. must hold this particular seeming Contradiction to be True or some other equivalent to it If by the Real Presence of the very Body of Christ he means as he before explains it That Christ's Natural Body that very Body which is now in Heaven should be also at the same time here upon Earth it is I think necessary for those who will affirm this to hold some such kind of Contradiction as he says And 't is for that very Reason I am perswaded he will find but few such Persons in the Church of England which so expresly declares that Christ's Natural Body is in Heaven and not here upon this very account That it is contrary to the truth of a Natural Body to be in more places than one at the same time However if any such there be as they herein depart from the Doctrine of their Church so it is not our concern to answer for their Contradictions IV. He observes lastly It seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them the Divines he means of the Church of England have not laid so great a weight on this Philosophical Position Tract 1. §. xxviii p. 20. as wholly to support and regulate their Faith in this matter by it as it stands in opposition not only to Nature's but the Divine Power because they pretend not any such certainty thereof but that if any Divine Revelation of the contrary can be shewed they profess a readiness to believe it I shall not now trouble my self with what some of our Divines may seem to him to have done in this matter 't is evident our Church has laid stress enough upon this Contradiction Indeed where so many gross Repugnancies both to Sense and Reason are crowded together as we have seen before there are in this Point it ought not to be wondered if our Divines have not supported and regulated their Faith wholly upon this one alone We do not any of Us think it either safe or pious to be too nice in determining what God can or cannot do we leave that to the bold Inquisitiveness of their Schools But this we think we may say that if there are any unalterable Laws of Nature by which we are to judg of these things then God can no more make one Body to exist in ten thousand places at the same time than he can make one continuing one to be ten thousand than he can divide the same thing from its self and yet continue it still undivided And if any of our Divines have said that they cannot admit that one Body can be in several
meneés qui se faisoient dans le Royaume Protestant Minister who in the Troubles of France being brought over to the King's Interest was secretly reconciled to the Church of Rome and permitted so far to dissemble his own Opinion as not only to continue in the outward profession of the Protestant Religion but even to exercise the Functions of his Ministry as before and that by the express leave of his Holiness for three whole Years the better to carry on the Catholick Cause in betraying the Secrets and managing the Debates of his Brethren As for Bishop Forbes and the Arch-bishop of Spalatto it is not to be wondred if Men that had entertained the Design of reconciling all Parties were forced to strain sometimes a little farther than was fit for the doing of it And for Mr. Thorndyke we have seen that his Notion of the Real Presence was particular and widely different both from theirs and ours and therefore that we are not to answer for the Consequences of it But however to quit these just Exceptions against them Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine or not of the Church of Rome which I shall bring him three of their Authors to affirm or deny If he will then Transubstantiation is not their Doctrine for I have already quoted above twice three of their most Learned Men against it To adore an Vnconsecrated Host by mistake is Idolatry for so S. Thomas Paludanus Catharine and others assure us To worship the Host supposing their Doctrine of Transubstantiation false a worser Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty of so several of their Writers confess But now if our Author will not allow this to be good arguing against them with what reason do's he go about to urge it against us Secondly We must in the next place consider what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to this Point is and whether what this Author has advanced in favour of it may be sufficient to warrant their practice of this Adoration For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I find it thus clearly set down by the Council of Trent Concil Trid. Sess xiii cap. 5. p. 57. Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholicâ Ecclefiâ semper recepto Latriae cultum qui Vero deo Debetur huic Sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant Neque enim ideò minùs est Adorandum quòd fuerit à Christo D. ut sumatur institutum Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem IN EO adessâ— Credimus quem Pater aternus introducens in Orbem Terrarum dicit Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dâ—i Hebr. I. There can be no doubt but that all the Faithful of Christ after the manner that has ever been received in the Catholick Church ought to give that Supreme Worship which is due to the true God to his Holy Sacrament For it is nevertheless to be adored because it was instituted by our Lord Christ that it might be received Forasmuch as we believe the same God to be present in it of whom the Eternal Father when he brought him into the World said And let all the Angels of God worship him That therefore according to this Council is to be worshipped which Christ instituted to be received and in which they believe Christ to be present But 't is no other than the Holy Sacrament as these Trent-Fathers here expresly and properly stile it which we all confess Christ instituted to be received and in which they suppose Christ to be present And therefore 't is the Sacrament which is to be adored Card. Pallavicino Istoria del Concilio di Trento parte seconda l. 12. c. 7. pag. 298. Ora è notissimo che accióche un Tutto s'adori con adorazione di Latria basta che una parte di quel rutto meriti questo culto Come dunque non douremo parimente adorare questo Sacramento il quale è un Tutto che contiene come parte principale il Corpo di Christo Which reasoning I find Card. Pallavicini thus improving in his History of this Council It is well known says he that to make a Whole Adorable with the Supreme Adoration it is sufficient that One part of that Whole merits such a Worship This he illustrates in the Example of Christs Humanity and thence concludes How then ought we not in like manner to adore this Sacrament which is a Whole that contains as its principal part the Body of Christ It is therefore as I conceive the undoubted Doctrine of the Church of Rome that the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist for the Reason here given is to be adored with that Supreme Adoration that is due to the true God. Now to warrant their Practice in this Matter our Authour thus proceeds in proof of it I. He premises some Propositions which he calls Answer to his second Discourse Protestant Concessions II. Some others which he stiles Catholick Assertions And then III. Goes on to shew what warrant they have for that Belief on which this Adoration is founded I shall distinctly follow him in every one of these In his first Part which he calls I. Part Protestant Concessions Protestant Concessions I will go on with him thus far 1st * §. I. pag. 1. That Supreme and Divine Adoration is due to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ 2dly †Ibid. §. II. That where-ever the Body of our Lord now is there must also his whole Person be And therefore 3dly ‖ Ibid. §. III. That where-ever Christ's Body is truly and really present there his Divine Person is supremely adorable But now for his next Assertion * §. V. n. 1. p. 2. That it is affirmed by many Protestants especially those of the Church of England that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present not only in Virtue but in Substance in the Encharist †See Treatise 1. p. 5. §. 7. If he means as in his former Treatise he explain'd himself that the very natural Body of Christ that Body that was born of the Virgin and crucified on the Cross and is now in Heaven is also as to its Substance truly and really present on Earth in the Holy Eucharist or to the worthy Receiver I have in the foregoing Chapter fully shewn this new Fancy to be neither the Doctrine of the Church of England nor the Opinion of those very Writers whom he produces for proof of it And as to the ‖ Disc 2. p. 8. §. vi n. 1. adoration of it upon any such account I have just now declared his Mistake of them in that Point too And I shall not follow our Author 's ill Example in repeating it all over again For his * §. vii p. 10. fifth Remark That the Lutherans affirm that Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicants but to the Consecrated Symbols and
esse in Eucharistiâ Becani manuale l. 3. c. 9. p. 501. Ed. Luxembergi 1625. The Calvinists says he deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly really and substantially present in the Eucharist On the other Here is one will prove that they believe his very Body his natural Body now in Heaven to be nevertheless at the same time in the Holy Sacrament It were to be wish'd that they would let us once know what 't is they will stick to and not by such contradictory charges shew to all the World that both their Accusations may be false but that it is utterly impossible they should both be true And indeed in this very instance they are both false CALVIN The Calvinists hold neither the one or other of these Extreams In the Edition of his Institutions printed at Basil 1536. Mr. Calvin thus delivers his Opinion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Eucharist We say Dicimus verè Efficaciter exhiberi non autem naturaliter Quo scil significamus non substantiam ipsam corporis seu verum naturale Christi corpus illic dari sed omnia quae in suo corpore noâ—is Beneficia Christus praestitit EA est corporis PRAESENTIA quam Sacramenti ratio postulat Edit Basil 8o. 1536. that they are truly and Efficaciously exhibited to us but not naturally By which we signifie not that the very Substance of his Body or that the true and natural Body of Christ are given there but all the Benefits which Christ did for us in his Body THIS is that PRESENCE of his Body which the nature of the Sacrament requires But because I do not find these words in the Editions of that Book since least any one should thereupon conclude that he had also changed his Opinion we may observe the very same delivered by him in * Dilucida explicacio c. Contra Westphalvir Edit Anno 1561. another of his Books and which will be so much the more considerable in that it was written purposely for the clearing of this matter Now in this he affirms †Christi corpus non modò semel fuisse datum in salutem nostram dum ad explanda peccata immolatum in cruce fuit sed quotidiè nobis in alimentum porrigi ut dum ipse habitat in nobis bonorum etiam eius omnium societate fruamur Apud Hospin Hist Sacram. Part 2da Ann. 1561. p. 477. That Christs Body was not only once given for our Salvation but is also every day reached out to us for our Sustenance that so whilst he dwells in us we may also enjoy the Fellowship of all his goods Then he explains How Christ is our food viz. †Rursum alimentum à nobis vocatur hoc sensu quia incomprehensibili spiritûs Virtute nobis vitam suam inspirat ut fit nobis communis non secus atque à radice arboris vitalis succus in ramos se diffundit vel à capite in singula membra manat Vigor Ibid. Imprimis obstaculum de corporis immensitate submovere necesse est Nisi enim conster finitum esse caelóque comprehendi nulla erit dissidii conciliandi Ratio p. 478. Christus sicuti in gloriam coelestem semel est receptus ita lecorum intervallo quoad carnem est à nobis dissitus Divinâ autem Essentiâ—â— virtute gratiâ etiam spirituali caelum terram implere Idem ergo Corpus quod semel filius Dei Patri in sacrificium obtulit quotidie nobis in Coena offert ut sit in Spirituale Alimentum Tantùm de modo tenendum est non opus esse descendere carnis Essentiam è coelo ut eâ pascamur sed ad penetranda impedimenta superandam locorum distantiam sufficere Spiritùs virtutem Commenta procul facessant qualia sunt de Corporis ubiquitate vel de occultâ sub panis symbolo inclusiâ—ne vel de substantiali ejus in terris praesentiâ Hâ—spin p. 478. Haec omnia refert ex illo Calvini loco because by the incomprehensible Vertue of the Holy Spirit he inspires his Life into us that he may communicate it to us no less than the vital juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree or than Vigour flows from the Head into all the members He declares Christs Body to be finite and enclosed in Heaven and therefore as to his Flesh to be distant in place from us That it is not necessary that the Essence of his Flesh should descend from Heaven that we may be fed with it but that to remove all such impediments and overcome the distance of places the Virtue of the Spirit is sufficient In short that all inventions contrary to this are to be rejected such as The Vbiquity of Christs Body the inclosing of it under the Symbol of Bread and his Substantial presence upon Earth BEZA By all which it sufficiently appears that Mr. Calvin was no friend to our Authors Fancy but evidently explained the Real Presence after that Spiritual manner we have before laid down For Beza and the rest as he calls them of the same Sect we cannot better learn their Opinion than from the Acts of the Colloquy of Poissy and which chiefly lay upon this Point At this conference the most eminent Men of the Calvinian Party were assembled the first of them which spoke was Beza In that part of his Discourse which referr'd to the Holy Eucharist his words were much like those which our Author has quoted out of him And by his own Exposition of them we shall be better able to judg of his meaning than by his Adversaries Gloss * See Hospin Hist Sacram. Part. 2. ad Ann. 1561. p. 515. Edit Genev. 1681. Comment de statu Relig. reipub in Galliâ ad Ann. 1561. p. 112. Et postea pag. 138. ita se exprimit in eundem planè sensum affirmamus J. C. adesse in usu Coenae in quâ nobis offert dat verè exhibet Corpus suum sanguinem suum operatione Spiritus Sti. nos verò recipimus edimus bibimus spiritualiter per fidem illud ipsum corpus quod pro nobis mortuum est eùmque illum sanguinem pro nobis effusum Edit Ann. 15â—7 8o. Beze Hist Eccles. pag. 595 596. For all this see Beza's own History ad Ann. 1561. p. 524. And when in the Conference D' Espense pressed them with departing from Calvin Beza declared that they were not at all contrary to him That for the word Substance which he sometimes used in expressing Christs Real Presence it was only to signifie that they did not seign any irraginary Body of Christ or fantastick reception or communion of His Body in this Holy Supper But that for the rest they all believed that no one could participate of him otherwise than Spiritually and by Faith not in taking Him into the Mouth or earing him with the Teeth See pag.
allow a Real Presence in the Sacrament but after different Manners it was therefore necessary to add somewhat more to shew what kind of Real Presence he undertook to maintain and he knew no word more proper to express it by than Spiritual which does not therefore imply a Distinction from but Limitation of the other Term Real And thus he explains it N. 6. and 7. of that Section Pag. 183. where he shews that the Spiritual is also a Real Presence and indeed more properly so than any other In short thus he concludes the State of the Question Pag 186. in the same Section between us and the Church of Rome so that now says he The Question is not Whether the Symbols be changed into Christ's Body and Blood or no For it is granted on all sides But whether this Conversion be Sacramental and Figurative Or whether it be Natural and Bodily Nor is it whether Christ be taken Really but whether he be taken in a Spiritual or in a Natural Manner We say the Conversion is Figurative Mysterious and Sacramental they say it is Proper Natural and Corporal We affirm that Christ is really taken by Faith by the Spirit to all real Effects of his Passion this is an Explication a little different from our Authors They say he is taken by the Mouth and that the Spiritual and the Virtual taking him in Virtue or Effect is not sufficient tho' done also in the Sacrament Hic Rhodus hic Saltus If this does not yet satisfie him that he has injur'd this Learned Man in the Representation of his Opinion directly contrary to his Sense I will offer him yet one Passage more taken from another part of his Works and which I hope will throughly convince him It is in the 5th Letter to a Gentleman that was tempted to the Communion of the Church of Rome He had proposed to the Bishop this Question Whether without all danger of Superstition or Idolatry we may not render Divine Worship to our Blessed Saviour as present in the Blessed Sacrament or Host according to his Humane Nature in that Host The Question is certainly every way pertinent to our present Purpose let us see what the Answer is that he makes to it See Pâ—lâ—mi◠〈…〉 â—ag 6â— 70 We may not render Divine Worship to him as present in the Blessed Sacrament according to his Humane Nature without danger of Idolatry because he is not there according to his Humane Nature and therefore you give Divine Worship to a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry Well Treat 1st Pag. 10. but still it may be the Bishop does not intend to exclude the Corpus Domini but only the Corporal or Natural Manner of that Body Let us therefore hear how he goes on For Idolum nihil est in mundo Saith St. Paul and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Nonâ—ens For it is not true there is no suchthing What not as Christ there no way as to his Humane nature No he is saith the Bishop present there by his Divine power and his Divine Blessing and the Fruits of his Body the real effective Consequents of his Passion but for any other Presence it is Idolum it is nothing in the World. Adore Christ in Heaven for the Heaven must contain him till the time of restitution of all things This then is Bishop Taylor 's Notion of the Real Presence and now I am confident our Author himself will remit him to the Company of those Old Zuinglian Bishops Cranmer Ridley and the rest who lived before that Q. Elizabeth had propugned the Real Presence of his new Model into the Heads of the Governours of the Church of England And now I am afraid his Cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndyke can support it Mr. THORNDYKE And how unlikely he is to do it he might have learnt from what has been answered to T. G. on the same Occasion ⸪ T. G. Vialogue 1st Pag. 21. T. G. Had in his first Dialogue quoted the same place which our Author has done since to prove his belief of the Real Presence His * Answer to T. G's Dial. Pag. 92. Adversary confesses this but produces another that explains his meaning †THORNDYKE Laws of the Church Ch. 4. Pag. 30. if it can any way be shew'd says he that the Church did ever pray that the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them then I am content that this be accounted henceforth the Sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist But if the Church only prays that the Spirit of God coming down upon the Elements may make them the Body and Blood of Christ so that they which receive them may be filled with the Grace of his Spirit then is it not the Sence of the Catholick Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the Elements in their bodily substance because supposing that they remain they may nevertheless come to be the instruments of Gods Spirit to convey the operation thereof to them that are dispos'd to receive it no otherwise than his Flesh and Blood convey'd the Efficacy thereof upon Earth And that I suppose is reason enough to call it the Body and Blood of Christ Sacramentally that is to say as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thus Mr. Thorndyke expresses himself as to the Real Presence But yet after all I will not deny but that this Learned Person seems to have had a particular Notion in this matter and which is far enough from what our Author would six upon him He thought that the Elements by Consecration were united to the Godhead of Christ much after the same manner as his Natural Body was by Incarnation and that so the very Elements became after a sort his Body See his Just Weights and Measures 4 to Lond. 1662. Pag. 94. The Church from the beginning did not pretend to consecrate by these bare words This is my Body this is my Blood as operatory inchanging the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ but by that Word of God whereby he hath declared the Institution of this Sacrament and commanded the use of it and by the Execution of this Command Now it is executed and hath always been executed by the Act of the Church upon God's Word of Institution praying that the Holy Ghost coming down upon the present Elements may make them the Body and Blood of Christ Not by changing them into the Nature of Flesh and Blood as the Bread and Wine that nourished our Lord Christ on Earth became the Flesh and Blood of the Son of God by becoming the Flesh and Blood of his Manhood Hypostatically united to his Godhead saith Gregory Nyssene But immediately and ipso facto by being united to the Spirit of Christ i. e. his Godhead For the Flesh and Blood of Christ by Incarnation the Elements by Consecration being united
Charity P. 33. §. xxx than any necessity of Argument if our Writers do sometimes either not at all or but faintly charge them with Idolatry And the Testimonies he produces argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them even such as to hope almost against Hope for their sakes than give any security to them in their Errors And because I would willingly if possible convince them of it I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two 2dly Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration as may be sufficient to excuse them For 1st It is granted by this Author P. 26. §. xxii That a meerly good Intention grounded upon a culpable Ignorance cannot excuse them from Idolatry So that if their ignorance then be really culpable their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded is their mistaken interpretation of those words This is my Body and whether that be a rational or culpable Mistake we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations 1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation And this must be allow'd unless we shall say that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense whatever the Consequence be of so doing 2. Our Author himself confesses that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction then it cannot be right but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to avoid a certain Contradiction 3. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion which was confirmed by Miracles known only by the evidence of Sense and by Consequence of this particular Point that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God or can be rely'd upon as coming from him Now from these Principles I thus argue If that sense of these words This is my Body upon which they ground their Adoration do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them But that it do's so and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it I thus shew He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation must believe the same natural Body at the same time to be in ten-thousand several places upon Earth and yet still to be but one Body and that all the while in Heaven He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts and yet continuing still the same Body without any change to be unextended and have no distinct Parts nor be capable of being divided into any He must believe the same Body at the same time to move and to lie still to be the Object of our Senses and yet not to be perceptible by any With infinite others of the like kind * See above Ch. 2. of Transubstantiation Pag. 32 33. as I have more fully shewn before But now all these are gross Contradictions contrary to the Nature of a Body and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind and no Man can without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so And therefore notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those words This is my Body they cannot by our Author 's own Rule without culpable Ignorance not know that they are mistaken in this Matter Again No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture This is my Body That these words are in Scripture he can know only by his Senses If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture If they are to be trusted he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false Since then it is confess'd that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Principles of Reason and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind it is necessary to take them in some other meaning it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words and that such Ignorance will not excuse them our Author himself has freely confess'd But 2dly let us quit this Reflection and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation Yet still it is confess'd by them 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened and by consequence that what they suppose to be Christ's Body is indeed any more than a meer Wafer From whence I argue He that without any Command or Warrant of God pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry But whosoever worships the Host worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry Now concerning the former of these how dangerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature be it considered what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases How therefore he that will come to him must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it ought not to worship with a doubting Mind because he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault but the doing of which may for ought he knows be a very great Sin. And for the second Whether every Roman Catholick who adores the Host has not even upon his own Principles very great cause to doubt whether he adores Christ's Body or only a bit of Bread will appear from those infinite Defects which they themselves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration and which make it great odds were their Doctrine otherwise never so true whether yet one Host in twenty it may be in five hundred be