yet I would not believe that a contradiction could be verifyed but rather that they were deceiv'd who thought that doctrine to imply a contradiction for if it were plainly reveal'd it would be certainly true and if it were true it would not imply a contradiction For a true proposition has a true meaning but a contradiction has no meaning at all 't is an empty sound of words without any res substrata whatever one part of it means the other unmeans again and so the whole means nothing Besides of two contradictories one is always fals so that to assert a contradiction is to affirm a falshood for a truth and this we are sure God cannot do because he has told us he cannot lye To conclude the Author himself seems to own that God cannot verify a contradiction and he gives a very wise and perspicuous reason for it which I leave to the Reader to consider Again Dr. Taylor is Quoted saying Ibid. that the doctrine of the Trinity does as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation And so say I too yet I profess I can easier conceive it then I can Transubstantiation For this supposes that a natural body being unum numero is at the same time fifteen hundred bodies all numerically distinct whereas the Doctrine of the Trinity says the three persons are one God but it does not say they are one person so that here 's no ad Idem as there is in the other case which implyes a manifest contradiction while the Doctrine of the Trinity implyes none at all The Doctrine of the Trinity transcends natural reason Transubstantiation contradicts it in its own sphere both of them do equal i e. both of them do alike so far offer violence to natural reason that it cannot frame an adequate notion of either Yet still it can conceive what obstructs the credibility of both and that more things do so in one case then another it can easily discern that what transcends it may for all that be true but what contradicts it in its own sphere must needs be false And this it can do without Scripture but by Scripture it can further discover that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true and Transubstantiation utterly false These things are so plain and common that it is nauseous to be forced by an unthinking writer to inculcate them Whoever knows any thing of the reason of his Religion knows all this and how to apply it to Dr. Taylor 's words without my telling him and yet if I had trusted to that these Quotations might perhaps have gone for unanswerable In the next Section we come to a point For since all contradictions are equally possible and credible why says he may not this contradiction that Idem corpus potest esse c. Disc 1. §. 21. p. 14. bid as fair for our belief as another No doubt it may and that for this reason that all contradictions are equally i. e. all of them absolutely impossible and incredible we may as well believe this as another because we can beleive none at all Why then says he I cannot apprehend how you believe a real presence If he cannot apprehend it Ibid. §. 22. p. 15. we cannot help it we do all that a reasonable man need desire to make him apprehend it we speak in plain and intelligible terms We tell him that we think it implyes no contradiction to believe God can do things far above our comprehension and therefore when God tells us that the bread which we break is the Communication of Christ 's body tho' we cannot explain this mystery we can believe it without believing a contradiction and granting this communication the Real Presence may be easily understood and explain'd at least it is no contradiction to say that a body thus mystically communicated may be really present when 't is locally absent as was shew'd before But the Author who has a peculiar way of thinking Ibid. and §. 23 24. can think but of two expedients to evade a contradiction in affirming a real and substantial contra distinct to a Zuinglian Real presence one of which is by holding a Zuinglian Real Presence compare § 22. with § 24. n. 1. and so let that pass The other is by an incomprehensible continuation of Christs body Bishop Vsher would have told him a third and other learned Protestants a fourth but the major part of them will * So for instance Bp. Andrews quoted in the Pamphlet pag 7. §. II. n. 1. De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus addo nec anxie inquirimus c. Inter mysteria ducimus quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi i. e. ut eleganter imprimis Patres fide adorari non ratione discuti tell him 't is needless to enquire after any For the Union of Christ's body to the Soul of a worthy communicant being an inexplicable mystery yet plainly affirm'd in Scripture they with the fathers conclude we have all the reason in the world to believe it but none to attemt explaining it and we can certainly believe it without believing a contradiction tho' he that attemts to explain it may chance to run himself into an inconvenience Notwithstanding some Protestants hold that Christ's Body may be present by an ineffable continuation Disc I. § 23. p. 16. and what has he to say to them Why He thinks he may as probably suppose it Present by an ineffable discontinuation Perhaps not for their Opinion may be an Error but his I doubt is a Bull at least if I rightly understand that abstruse notion of Presence by discontinuation which looks so like a contâ—adiction in terms that to me it is almost inconceivable not for the mystery of it but the non-sense Perhaps the example he gives may a little clear this difficulty The Soul he tells us is totally in the head and foot and if a Spirit may be in two Ubies who can tell but a Body may be in two Places Ibid. That 's a Consequence which I leave to shift for it's self among the Freshmen But I would fain know what the Souls Ubiety makes here for if it serve to any purpose in this question 't is to illustrate a Zuinglian Real Presence as he calls it for as the substance of the Soul not being coextended to the dimensions of the Body is lodg'd but in some one part but the virtue informs them all as effectually as if it's proper Vbi were in each of them and in this sense the Soul is said to be tota in toto tota in qualibet parte so to make a just parallel the natural Body of Christ which is Locally only in Heaven does as effectually impart its virtue to every worthy Communicant as if it were Locally present to each of them upon earth and is therefore sayd to be Really Present in the Eucharist But to proceed If this be a true
account of the Souls Ubiety I see no occasion of conceiving it to manage the Body with one foot in the water and the other out like a broken Oblicer Ibid. for the placing of the Body alters nothing in the Presence of the Soul Oh but what if the Legs be cut of Ibid. and the same Soul suppos'd still to inform them as before per potentiam divinam why I think they might as well have staid on for the Soul will be Present as before the Substance where it was before and the Virtue in the Legs as it was before Well but let him suppose what he can't explain that God by his Omnipotence may make a Soul be in too Vbies what will he get by it Not that the Soul is or may be so for a thing is never the truer or more possible for his supposing it but only that if a man suppose God can make a soul be in two Vbies then he must suppose that a soul may be in two Vbies which is a great truth and no less a secret Now dos he say any thing to induce a man to this strange supposal Not a Syllable that I can find to shew the equity or decency of it not a Syllable to take of the impossibility But here is the Divine Omnipotence unaccountably summon'd to vouch an impertinent Bull which if it be granted we are never the nearer So perfect a tally is this Authors understanding to his Judgment I have already spoke of what is most material in the next Section if any thing be farther observable Ibid §. 24. n. 1. p. 17. it is this question viz. If Dr. Taylors exposition of the real presence be Orthodox what becomes of praesentiam non minus quam illi veram quoted out of Bishop Andrews If a man would take advantage of this Quoter's blundering he might translate those words We believe a real presence as well as they But we take the Bishop's words * Bishop Andrews answ to Bellarm. n. II. praesentiam credimus nec minus quam vos veram and his meaning that the Spiritual presence which we hold is as Real as the Corporal which the Papists hold and I hope we need not stay to prove a thing so manifest and so universally agreed on Disc 1. §. 24. n. 2 3 4. as that what is Spirituall is as Real as what is Corporal From this Passage to the twenty fifth Section he reports the disagreement of the School-men Ibid. §. 25 26. in whose quarrels we are no way concern'd After this digression he spends two Sections to shew that the Real and Essential presence in the old Rubric must mean the same with the Corporal presence in the new To which we have already answerd that K. Edwards Reformers not only thought but said so In the twenty seventh Section he is at it again Disc I. pag 20. that the absurdity of Idem Corpus c. presses us as much as the Papists and again in the twenty eighth that all he has been saying from the twenty second is to shew that to his apprehension we must either hold this contradiction or another equivalent or cease to hold a Real Presence contradistinct to that of the Zuinglians To this we have likewise answer'd that if he will apprehend things aukwardly we cannot help it We have told him very plainly how we hold a Real Presence and shewn it to be far enough from what he calls a Zuinglian presence and all this without holding any contradiction or so much as medling with that question whether two Contradictories may be both true But the Papists and he if he were one of them neither do nor can explain their Presence without holding a contradiction which is one of the very many arguments we urge against that prodigious doctrine Disc I. §. 29 30. The two next Sections are quotations out of Protestant writers to this effect That we care not to dispute the Extent of God's Absolute Power that it is not pertinent to this question that some men are too bold in setting bounds to the Almighty and others too forward in pronouncing what implyes a contradiction and therefore the safest way is to wave these points and stick to what is reveal'd All this is most undoubtedly true and constantly maintain'd by our best writers We grant that no Judicious or Pious man would discours of Gods absolute power more then he has reveal'd or press the Papists with Idem Corpus c. were it only a Philosophical argument much less would a Judicious man speak to either of the points when they were not pertinent to his purpose But when God has declar'd he cannot verify a contradiction * For example we read in Scripture that Christ was made in all things like unto us Sin only excepted and that the Heaven of Heavens must contain him i e his Naturall Body till the restitution o◠all things and that God who says both those things cannot Lye from whence it is evident that the Natural Body of Christ is an Organical Body such a one as ours which as all men agree can never be said to be Locally Present in two places at once without affirming such a contradiction as God declares he cannot verify Wherefore when the Scripture says that Christ's Naturall Body is and must continue to be Locally in Heaven we have Gods own warrant to affirm that even the Divine Omnipotence cannot make it to be Locally Present at the same time upon Earth This the Angel in effect affirms when he says to the Women that sought Christ's Body he is risen he is not here for such an answer would but ill become the mouth of an Angel if it were possible for his Body to be risen and yet be there at the same time and the maxim of Idem Corpus c. is apply'd in Scripture to our Saviours natural body when we wave this where it is not necessary to wit in explaining our own doctrine and imploy it only against those that do and must maintain the contrary we presume that neither the Judgment nor Piety of our Writers will be question'd by any man that has but a grain of either Though it would not be altogether impertinent even while we confine our selves to revelation if finding that Idem Corpus c. is a truth allow'd in Scripture we inferr that the contradiction of it must be false and therefore cannot be reveal'd And certainly did a man that consider'd what he said apply himself to answer this argument he would endeavour to take off the contradiction and shew it was not real but apparent only and not as this unthinking Author does maintain that contradictions may be verify'd which position were it once granted 't were in vain to dispute or but assert any thing and impossible to give a firm assent to any conclusion either in Reason or Religion Wherefore it is ridiculous and impious in this man Bellarmin and the rest
of them to invoke the Divine Omnipotence when they run their heads against a contradiction But they that pretend to make God when they please may by the same reason make him do what they please This I hope is a sufficient guard against the untoward application of any Protestant writings wherewith the Pamphlet either does or can abuse the common Reader in this matter Disc I. pag. 22. Ibid. §. 19. p. 13. In the end of the thirtieth Section he palms upon us a passage out of S. Austin which is very surprizing He professes to forbear quoting the Fathers because the Protestants have done it for him though we may take leave to suppose another Reason but here when he thought he could delude the Reader with S. Austin's authority he is willing to make his best of him It seems that excellent Father in his * Tom. 6. p. 515. Seqq. Edit nov Paris Cura pro mortuis having prov'd that Martyrs cannot interesse rebus viventium without a Miracle immediately adds that Quemadmodum the modus whereby this Miracle is wrought is beyond his capacity too sublime too abstruse for him he had rather inquire of them that know Vtrum ipsi per seipsos adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis or whether they reliev'd their votaries by the Ministry of Angels or whether it be both these wayes Which shews as the Pamphlet tells us this Father believ'd no impossibility of a Martyrs being uno tempore in diversis locis Would not any man imagin now who knows what point the Author drives at that he would have S. Austin say a a Martyr's Body might be in two places at once and would he not wonder that S. Austin should be quoted for this purpose who is * Epist 57. ad Dardanum carnis forma atque substantia cui profecto immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit Cavendum enim est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis ut veritatem corporis auferamus Una enim pâ—rsona Deus Homo est Utrumque est unus Christus Jesus Ubique per id quod Deus est in Coelo autem per id quod Homo Idem Tract 31. in Joan. Homo enim secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non erit Et Tract 30 in Joan. Corpus enim Domini in uno loco esse oportet so Ivo Gratiam Lombard Aquinas quote it not potest as 't is Printed veritas ubique diffusa est elsewhere so express and peremptory that the Naturall Body of Christ himself cannot be in two places at once But the Author is wary for he knew very well that by ipsi per seipsos S. Austin meant as he explains himself ipsorum animae in figura corporis sui But did not S. Austin then believe that a Spirit might be in two places at once Perhaps not but was therefore at a loss because he knew not how to believe it and this put him upon search of other solutions I will not now inquire whether a Spirit may be sayd to be in two places at once as the Souls of the Martyrs were by some perhaps suppos'd to have been though the affirmative may be explain'd without holding a contradiction but rather observe how S. Austin concludes this point viz. If the man whom he consulted should tell him out of Scripture This thing is above your reach and therefore forbear your enquiry he would thankfully receive this answer and and acquiesce So upon the whole matter S. Austin delivers himself like a true Church-of-England-man Here 's a point started which is past my understanding the difficulties and wayes of solution are these I cannot determine and therefore do not care to dispute I submit to Scripture and content my self with the Certainty of the thing without inquiring into the modus I wish other Writers would follow this example and then perhaps we might keep our Religion without parting with our common sense The thirty first Section containing only old matter has been spoken to before Disc I. pag. 23. I only add that if the Author allow Dr Heylin's reason why does he give a different one of his own if not why does he quote it In the thirty second Section he repeats the old blunder about Real and Corporal Ibid. and adds two or three to keep it company He cannot discern he says why it should not be a contradiction for a Body to be Locally in one place and Really Receiv'd in another He should read Mr. Walker's Logic which will tell him that two contradictories have the same Subject and Predicate He says it is insidious in the Rubrick not to say that the Body Locally Absent is Really Receiv'd and may tempt a man to doubt whether the Church thinks it to be so Now I fancy not because the Catechism is very express He is troubled we refuse other mens contradictions and expect our own should pass currently But we have told him that we neither hold nor meddle that we know of with any contradiction in explaining our own Doctrine and he has not yet vouchsafed to make it appear we doe From hence to the end of the Chapter he is as busy as if he were playing with * Book of Education part 1. chap. 11. pag. 145. printed 1677. Thesauro's Bees Five wayes he has found out of explaining Really and Essentially and no man Living that I know of either sayes or meanes any one of them as they are there deliver'd Disc I. §. 33. He sayes he does this to express his disquisition more fully The three first explications are three such unaccountable Whimsyes as need no other disquisition but whether the words are capable of a rational meaning For example Ibid. If by Really and Essentially be meant such a Presence of Christs body to our souls as the Papists hold there is to the Elements i. e. by abolishing the substance of the Soul and substituting Christ's body in the room of it c. and so for the two next The fourth speaks imperfectly §. 36. pag. 25. Ibid. but seems to say something of truth viz. that the body becomes Really present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven To this he objects that then Christ would be no more present in the Eucharist then in any other Sacrament wherein the Spirit is confer'd In which I see no inconvenience nor do I believe the Fathers did when they said Christ is present in the Eucharist as he is in Baptism He objects farther that such presence is properly of the Spirit Ibid. which I hope for his credit is onely a mistake of the Press and that the written copy had it by the Spirit The fifth explication is likewise imperfect if he apply it to the Church of England which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits but
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
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
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
a Real participation of the body by consequence of the effects and benefits But the great and killing objection against all explications he dislikes is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism Whether the opinion which he brands by that name be truly ascribed to Zuinglius and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend I need not now stay to inquire 't is sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our observation It seemeth saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308. much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective Discourses are made all running upon two points that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament For no man having read their Books and Writings which are thus traduced can be ignorant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true they do not so interpret the words of Christ as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signifie his Blood They grant that these Holy mysteries Receiv'd in a due manner do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in True and Reall though Mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and intire as hath been shew'd These words may receive farther light from Bishop Cosins's History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17 18. Now they that acknowledge thus much hold a Real Participation and Vnion which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be us'd but perhaps be better let alone The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius was as Bucer reports the tenent of the Anabaptists and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puritans in the beginning of the late Rebellion And by them 't is most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours who at that time was observ'd to be their great associate and favourer Disc I. §. 37 p. 25. What the Remonstrants and Socinians say does no way concern us much good may they do the Author they who set up for so great masters of reason will but ill resent it that a man of his head should pretend to them Ibid. §. 38. Who W.H. is and who his Answerer I know not having never seen either of their Books And being so well acquainted with this Author's sincerity I cannot depend upon his Credit I meet with nothing quoted but what 't is easy to give an account of but to do it as it should be one ought to have the Books by him for I vehemently suspect this Answerer has far'd no better then his Brethren CHAP. V. A Reply to the Fourth Chapter of the first Discourse TO the third Observable lay'd down in the first Chapter which now comes to be consider'd the Author has three things to say 1. That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist Disc I p. 27. §. 39. it ought to be then ador'd which we grant him and had he design'd to dispute for the Papists he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present 2. Ibid §. 40. That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be reveal'd which is as Real and Essential as if it were Corporal adoration will be no less due to it thus then so Present That is if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent yet as Truly and Really Present as if it were Locally Present she is as much bound to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence which she owns as she would be if she likewise own'd that Corporal and Local Presence which she deny's I say to adore the Elements for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body abstracting from the hypostatical Union be more then a creature which is not adorable with Divine worship For all understanding men are agreed it is not Or whether Christs person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or howsoever present is to be ador'd both in and out of the Sacrament viz. in the performance of all religious offices still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present for this is allow'd by all true Christians whatsoever This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it in the mean time we deny it 3 He undertakes to shew that the Church of England i. e. five writers of her Communion Disc I. pag. 28. §. 41 42 43 44 45. whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue have heretofore believ'd and affirm'd such a Presence to which they thought adoration due To adore a presence is an odd kind of expression for 't is to adore an extrinsic denomination To adore Christ present in the mysteries is a phrase we better understand though that too be lyable to misconstruction If the author dare to speak plain the point that pinches and the true thing to be prov'd is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshiped upon that account And if this be so as I think I have plainly shewn I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose who expressly in the very quotation declares himself against him saying Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus or Bishop Taylor saying likewise We give no divine honour to the Signs or Bishop Forbes saying Haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni debetur or the Arch-Bishop of Spalato since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Arch-Bishop I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion Disc I. pag 29. §. 47. Having given us this taste of his other good qualities he concludes with a spice of his Logic and infers 1. That notwithstanding what he has said the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist contrary to the forecited Doctrine and K. James's and Bishop Andrews's Religion I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions but tell him that the King 's the Bishop's and the Churches meaning is very plain viz. that since Christs Natural Body is not to be ador'd but where it is Corporally Locally Present it is not so
Present in the Eucharist that therefore in the Sacrament i. e. in the celebration the worthy Communicant to whose Soul that Body is really present is to adore the person of Christ in heaven where alone his Body is Locally Present This I doubt the Author very well knew and saw it was no way contrary to the Declaration Wherefore he seems to lay no great stress upon this first inference but goes on Or at least 2 ly And here hee would have it bee infidious in the Church to deny that Adoration is due to a Corporal presence Ibid. and not declare though she believes that there is another adorable presence Now I cannot imagin that even this Author has the confidence to say the Church of England has not sufficiently taught that Christ in Heaven is adorable or the ignorance to think that any good Christian is not sufficiently assur'd of that point But as for adoring Christs Body any otherwise then by directing adoration to his person where his body is suppos'd to be Locally present neither the Church of England nor any other Church ever dreamt of it CHAP. VI. A Reply to the fifth Chapter of the first Discourse THe fifth is the kindest Chapter in all this Discourse for the six first Sections require no manner of answer and the last seemes at first sight to shew some little ingenuity which with this Author is a thing so extraordinary that had he not retracted I think we must have given him publick thanks for it He tells us that perhaps some other passages may be collected out of the Authors he has quoted Disc I. pag. 32. §. 55. that may seem to qualify those he has set down and better suit with the expressions of the Declaration For it seems his Conscience flew in his Face because he very well knew that if the Reader consulted the Authors themselves not only the passages he omitted but those he mangled would be found intirely agreeable to the Declaration The only way left to escape discovery was to prevent if he could the search as unnecessary Wherefore he says tnat if the unquoted passages come over to the quoted we are then but where we were and the quoted accommodated to the unquoted will appear to abett but bare Zuinglianism To this I have answered as much as is necessary already and therefore shall not repeat or add to it Disc I. pag. 30 31 32. The former part of the Chapter is spent in creating and annihilating such objections as are worthy the Author's sagacity Three such he has devis'd as no man else could have thought on and is pleas'd to answer them himself for no other man was worthy I will not interrupt his triumph or provoke him to renew the combat by telling him there yet seems to be life in those objections but rather advise him to consider and spare himself and not batter his own notions in this cruel and hostile manner he has another more gentle and easy method he knows how to contradict them by his way of proving them But if he be so bent upon Controversy that he cannot be contented to live in Peace I would rather then quarrel with himself he would look down upon this Reply Not that I pretend in my own strength to cope with so puissant an Adversary but asserting the Doctrine of the Church of England I may safely defy all Opponents CHAP. VII A Reply to the eight first Sections of the Second Discourse THE Title of this second Discourse does but ill agree with the design of it For all the world knows that Papists who should be the Catholics this Author means by a Real and Substantial understand a Corporal Presence and ground their Adoration upon it Whereas the scope of this Discourse is to shew that the Papists in Adoring either do or may prescind from Transubstantiation and ground their Adoration precisely upon the Reality of the Presence and by consequence that Protestants especially of the Church of England who hold Christ Truly Present and Adorable in the Eucharist ought upon their own Principles to joyn in the Popish adoration or at least absolve them that do so from the guilt of Idolatry What the Writers of the Church of England mean when they hold a Real Presence and in what sense they teach us to Adore Christ's Body in the Sacrament I hope I have already explain'd so fully that I need make no repetition so that the first six leaves of this Defence will afford us little new matter being chiefly taken up in repeating some quotations in the first Discourse and aiming at no more then a specimen of Protestant concessions which by what we have said are sufficiently guarded against the Sophistry of his interpretations Wherefore waving for the present a distinct examen of all his Protestant quotations as a thing tedious and no way necessary serving chiefly to divert and amuse the Reader and thereby puzzle the cause I shall make it the business of this Chapter to speak briefly to those other passages that are most observable in the eight first Sections of this Defence Disc II. pag. 1. §. 1 2 3. His two first Suppositions we grant him being convinc'd of the truth of them by much better reasons then he assigns Nor should we have demurr'd to the third if we were not now acquainted with his insidious and shufâ—ing way of talking But if we may explain our selves we grant him that Wherever the Body of our Lord is Locally Present it is supremely Adorable We likewise grant him that the Omnipresent God may be ador'd before or in the Presence of any Creature we on earth cannot worship him but in the presence of some Creature provided allways we direct our Adoration immediately and solely to him not considering the Creatures present nor addressing the outward act much less the inward worship of the Heart to any Creature upon the score of Gods presence For taking Adoration for divine Worship it is certainly Idolatry not only to adore a Creature but even to make it as I may so say the vehicle of that adoration which wee direct to God and terminate upon him alone 'T is true Christs natural Body abstractedly consider'd is a creature but then it is for ever hypostatically united to the Deity so that the whole person of Christ is that very Lord our God whom wee must worship and whom alone wee must serve But no other creature is so united by virtue of God's presence to or in or with that creature and even that body is not so i. e. hypostatically united but as it exists like other human bodies within some determinate local circumscription wherefore no other creature may bee ador'd nor even Christ's Body but as it exists and is united and thereby becomes adorable where it is Locally present I pass by the place in the Corinthians which the Pamphlet most impertinently refers to Disc II. pag 2. § 3. having already taken notice of the