Fathers that whatsoever they speak of the Eucharist they affirm also the same of the other Sacrament Baptism c. quoting out of St. Austin that we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ when in Baptism we are made Members of Christ c. therefore whatever may be answer'd to the Fathers of which more anon yet his opinion is that Christ's Body is no more really present in the Lord's Supper than in Baptism c. 2. I find B. Forbes tho holding neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation yet much censuring out of Spalat and others these two diminutive comparisons of the Lord's Supper de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 26 27. Falso etiam asseritur haud aliter nos Corpus Christi in Eucharistia comedere quam Patres veteris Testamenti c. and s 27. Perperam etiam asseritur res easdem esse Christum in Baptismo induere ipsius carnem ac sanguinem in Caena sumere c. 3. I will add to these of Dr. Taylors an expression of Dr. Hammond's Pract. Cat. where he speaks of the Eucharist God bestows the Body and Blood of Christ upon us not by sending it down locally for our Bodies to feed on but really for our Souls to be strengthened by it As when the Sun is communicated to us the whole Bulk and Body of the Sun is not removed out of its Sphere but the Rays and Beams of it and with them the Light and Instuences are really and verily bestow'd and darted out upon us Thus he As therefore not the Body of the Sun but only the Beams thereof can be said to be really and locally here below so I conceive the Doctor means that not the very Body of Christ but the vertue and efficacy thereof only are really here present to the worthy receiver If so you may see how Mr. Hooker differs from him in the same simile in the quotation set down above p. 50. where he saith not only by effect and operation as the influence of the heavens is in plants beasts men c which they quicken c. 4. Lastly I do not see how this their opinion of substantial Presence consists with many of those objections made by them against the third and fourth opinion as that in particular of the impossibility of the same body to be in many places at once which objection opposeth not the modus but any presence substantial whatsoever But if on the other side in good earnest a real substantial Presence be affirmed by them tho in wisely not expressing any particular manner as others do they both avoid the arguments which perhaps might be made against it and have advantage to make some against others yet I see not but that from their affirming in general such a Presence they must incur many of the same difficulties with the third and fourth opinion If they say substantially present but they mean not to the elements but to the receiver and that to his soul not to his body yet if they affirm it as much or as far present to the soul as the other doth to the signs as Mr. Hooker saith they differ only about the subject not the presence do not the same objections absurdities c concerning Christ's Body being both substantially in Heaven and in the place where the Communion is celebrated with which they afflict the others for making it present with the signs return upon themselves for making it present with the receivers For if it be possible that the body of Christ now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven can notwithstanding this be present in our soul or in our heart so may it under or with the bread unless we say that we affirm not that real presence to the soul which they do to the bread But then our writers must not say that we differ only about the manner or the subject of his Presence but the Presence it self also 5. If they say substantially present but they mean spiritually not naturally or not corporally so saith the Romanist i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities always accompanying where no supernatural effect the nature or essence of a Body but if they will extend spiritually so far as that it shall imply Christ's body to be there substantially or really yet not quoad naturam or essentiam suam or not quoad corpus this is by a distinction to destroy their thesis 6. Again if they say substantially there present but not locally so saith the Lutheran and Romanist i. e. circumscriptive or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have but if they will extend locally so far as that they understand Christ's body to be there by no manner of ubi at all see Dr. Tailor p. 218. not so much as ubi definitive so that we may truly say t is hic so as not ubique or alibi where no communion what is this but to affirm t is there so as that it is not there 7. If they say substantially present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven besides that thus Christ's body is no more present in the Eucharist than in any other ordinance or sacrament wherein the Spirit is conferr'd such presence is properly of the Spirit not of the body unless that which being finite is only in heaven as they affirm may not rightly be said to be really and substantially absent from what is on earth Now if these seeming-impossibilities and contradictions we acknowledge and fly to the incomprehensibility and inexplicableness of the mystery all that I reply is that we must indulge the same priviledge to others allowing that a thousand contradictions of theirs may be as soon true as only one of ours 8. But if at last we plainly interpret our real and substantial presence by Christ's being present in corporal absence to the worthy receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof we slide back into the first opinion differing only from them in expression and then what need we speak any more of omnipotency for such presence or make any thing miraculous in the Sacrament what incomprehensibleness in this when as Bellarmin expresseth it all that we say is That per fidem apprehendentem Christum in coelo manducantem sacramentum or signum corporis sui participamus omnia bona Christi What mean then those gradations of reception not only of bare signs nor of the signs and the benefits applied by faith but also of the very body and blood of Christ In tanta locorum distantia penetrat ad nos Christi caro saith Calvin ut nobis sit in cibum Instit 4. l. 17. c. 10. s. § XV Therefore the Remonstrants discerning the difficulties as are above named into which the affirming of real Presence cast some of the Reformed Apol. pro confessione sua p. 256. said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima ad idololatriam omnemevitandam in hac materia inprimis
say ipsum corpus sanguis Domini ut sunt sub illis speciebus signa sunt ejusdem corporis sanguinis ut fuerunt in cruce For Eucharistiam take it for the signum signatum which signatum is invisible in the Eucharist both together they hold to be signum symbolum representationem memoriale typum c. mortis seu passionis Christi seu carnis sanguinis ut illa suffixa ille effusus est visibiliter in cruce For Corpus Christi ut sub speciebus panis being idem quoad substantiam but not idem quoad qualitatem nor eo modo in Eucharistia quo fuit in cruce non est vere sed representative corpus in cruce And this it is also by reason of the visible species since it self not perceivable cannot be representative 4 And this which they say here methinks seems not unreasonable by which also they accord many sayings of the Fathers which else would contradict what the same Fathers say in other places which Dr. Taylor p. 311. passeth over with saying 't is their fault or forgetfulness notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor hath said against it p. 317 c. where he first urgeth that idem non est simile Resp. but tho these are suppos'd idem in substance yet in all the qualities and modifications thereof as Dr. Taylor himself grants p. 20. the same Body to be crucified and eaten in several manners of being And what more ordinary than for a Body or Man at one time to be said to be like or unlike what he was at some other time Secondly If I well understand him he urges the absurdity of making an invisible and glorified Body the sign of a visible and humbled Resp But they making the Body as in the Eucharist a sign or representment of it as upon the Cross do not divide or abstract it from the species of Bread as he doth for indeed how can a thing invisible be a sign in respect of Men who discern all by their Senses and indeed none can know when such a sign is or is not but say Corpus as Sacramentally present sub illis speciebus is a sign or symbol of it as it was once upon the Cross Secondly Tho they say the Body in the Sacrament is the same with that glorified yet is it not in the Sacrament but only in Heaven as glorified see Dr. Taylor p. 20. Now I say why not as well the manner several from what it is in Heaven as from what it was on the Cross But however this be concerning the Body of Christ being a type figure or symbol of it self I think the fourth Opinion is no more necessitated in answer to the Fathers to affirm any such thing than the second or the third since these expressions of the Fathers are in shew arguments and are so used by the first Opinion against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament see Dr. Taylor p. 319. The Sacramental Body is a figure and type of the Real which Real Presence both the 2d and 3d. Opinions maintain And if here you say they are good arguments against real Presence with the Signs but not with the Receiver This seems to me to be said gratis and without reason since the real Body is no less invisible if with the Signs than if with the Receiver only and we usually say that something we see is a Sign of the Presence of another thing we see not tho they be both together as Breathing is a Sign of Life Smoke of Fire present tho not seen the same may be said of Similitude as a Vizard resembling a Face may be truly said a Similitude when the Face is under it 5. But if the 2 d. and third Opinions notwithstanding that both of them hold Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist ordinarily say of the Bread and Wine that they are Signs and Figures both of the Body as then present and also of it as it was formerly on the Cross and thus satisfy the Fathers tho the first Opinion denies they satisfie them the same thing saith the fourth Opinion of the species of the Bread and Wine remaining that they are symbols figures c. which species they affirm singulari miraculo to have as all the operations and proprieties so much more all the significations of the Bread and Wine And because Dr. Taylor instanceth in some sayings of St. Austin of the Sacrament being signum Corporis c. to which he disalloweth their answers and saith p. 310. That it is so evident that that Father was a Protestant in this Article that it were a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no man's mind in the world can be known Yet things I believe out of that Father will not be so clear for his side as is pretended if first he will grant that St. Austin held as much as himself doth or at least as others of the second Opinion Real Presence and secondly if such expressions as these which follow in St. Austin will prove that he held this real Presence of Christ's Body with the elements or signs namely that saying Conf. l. 9. c. 13. Tantum memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit unde ex quo altari sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis qua triumphatus est hostis c. and that saying Conf. 9. l. 12. c. where he saith of the consecrated elements or Eucharist cum offeretur pro ea posito cadavere juxta sepulchrum sacrificium pretii nostri which he saith of the Eucharist before communicating but surely would not say but of Christ's body not of bare bread And that saying contra adversarium Legis Prophet 2. l. 9. c. where writing against an Heretick that denied and urged many absurdities in the Old Testament he saith Eat plane iste retro cum suis similibus sociis qui dixerunt Durus est hic sermo c. Jo. 6. Nos autem audiamus intelligamus duo Testamenta in duobus filiis Abrahae c. Sicut Mediatorem Dei hominum hominem Christum Jesum dantem carnem suam nobis manducandam sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus quamvis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere And elsewhere Adhuc in Sacramento spes est quo in hoc tempore i.e. till the day of judgment consociatur Ecclesia quamdiu bibitur quod de Christi latere manavit Contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. See the places quoted p. concerning Christ's body received also by the wicked Lastly that saying in comment Psal 98. with the Reformed 99. upon those words 5. ver Adorate scabellum ejus which we translate Worship at his footstool where alluding to terra scabellum pedum meorum Isa 66. he goes on Invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra scabellum pedum ejus suscepit enim
Blondel p. 70. reckon'd amongst the Authors that hold the Elements to be chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ in his sixth Proposition This therefore at the least will amount to Consubstantiation like Theodoret's 3. Concerning that noted place of St. Ambrose De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. quoted by Dr. Taylor p. 306. the words are these Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut ea incipiant esse quae non erant he refers to Ipse dixit facta sunt quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Here the true natural meaning seems to be as Bellarmin observes ut quae erant sint answering to the former quae non erant incipiant esse i. e. ut quae erant maneant quamvis mutata As in another Treatise De Myster init c. 9. he saith non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas And in the same Chapter out of which the former Testimony is taken are also these words Panis iste panis est ante verba consecrationis ubi accesserit consecratio de pane sit caro Christi But suppose him to hold no change here of the substance of the Bread yet must he mean some real change effected by God's Omnipotence beyond the Bread's being chang'd from common to a sacred use and this such as puts the substantial presence of Christ's Body at least with the Bread since he supposeth a miraculous operation some-way upon Nature But this shall be clear'd more anon 4 That Saying of St. Austin's Sermon to the New-Baptiz'd recited by Fulgentius Baptism Aethiop lat cap. and Bede in 1 Cor. 10. Quod vidistis panis est calix quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi calix est sanguis In this later clause that at least the Body of Christ is affirm'd substantially present with the Bread see what I have said Observ 2. And consider also his moving the doubt in the same place since Christ was now ascended in Body into Heaven quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus where he answers ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in illis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem By which aliud intelligitur if he meant only the benefits of Christ's Body and Blood shed upon the Cross which are receiv'd in the Sacrament surely he would have said est fructus spiritualis and not habet fructum c. but this word intelligitur non videtur is frequently used by him concerning Christ's Body tho present with the Sacrament because the symbols only and not It are present there to the sight or senses Tho we are to understand It to be there also as appears out of many other places of St. Austin quoted before 5 Let there be added to these those many quotations in Blondel c. 4. prop. 1 2 3. out of the Fathers and c. 21. out of the ancient Lyturgies and Missals of the Eucharist after Consecration call'd Bread and of something said of the signs or symbols not agreeable to Christ's Body As for this later since the Transubstantialists as well as the rest affirm symbols after Consecration distinct from the Body see Obs 2. I see not how it makes against any Opinion As for the former as long as it can be shew'd that the Fathers with that they call'd Bread hold a substantial presence some way or other of our Saviour's Body if the Answer of the Transubstantialists set down before misinterpret their meaning yet at the most such a term will but prove Consubstantiation which opposeth not our Position 6 As for that Proposition so usual in the Fathers that the Bread is Christs Body press'd by some Protestants as inconsistent not only with Trans but Con-substantiation and the words of Bellarmin quoted in this behalf by them Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Si Dominus ait hic panis est corpus meum necessario sequitur ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia si nimirum proprte panis materialis dicatur esse corpus Domini quod aperte implicat contradictionem aut panis sit corpus non proprie sed figurate quod volunt Calvinistae aut denique panis non manens panis sed benedictione mutatus sit corpus Domini quae est sententia Ecclesiae Catholicae Whereby it seems to follow That if the Fathers accord not in the sense of it with the Transubstantialist they must with the Calvinist and the Schoolmen also brought in to oppose it see Blondel p. 155. I answer this Proposition Hic panis est corpus meum as it is diversly explain'd seems proper enough to be used by any of the Three Opinions First by those who hold a substantial conversion for indeed at least some of those Fathers who use this phrase yet seem clearly to hold a substantial conversion as I shall shew anon and the same Fathers who say that the Bread is the Body of Christ say the Bread is so by a change for it may be interpreted thus Hic panis consecratus i. e. mutatus per consecrationem est Corpus Domini Panis denoting the former matter or the terminus a quo Such a Speech is not unordinary upon a sudden change see Exod. 7.12 where Aaron's Rod is said to devour the Magicians Rods Aaron's Rod i. e. turn'd into a Serpent devour'd c. See somewhat like this ver 19 20 21. where the Water already turn'd into Blood ver 20. notwithstanding is call'd Water afterward ver 21. And they could not drink of the Water of the River the Water i. e. now turn'd into Blood. See the like Joh. 2.9 And when the Ruler of the Feast-had tasted the Water that was made Wine i. e. had tasted the Wine made of the Water But more especially here may such a denomination be made than after other changes because there remains even in the Transubstantialists opinion still something namely all that which is any way sensible of the former substance But 2ly the same proposition may as well be used by those who hold a Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread still remaining not taken in such a sense whereof Bellarmin and the Schoolmen say that it plainly contradicts but in the more qualified and moderate sense set down § 3. As pointing at vessels filled with several liquors we ordinarily say This vessel is wine that beer c. or hic purpuratus est Rex So the proposition Sub hoc pane est corpus Christi into which the Lutheran resolves it is as remote from contradiction as the proposition sub specie hujus panis est c the resolution of the Transubstantialist 3ly The same proposition may bear only a figurative sense like that I am the vine or I am the door and
or real presence they seem to go as any either the third or fourth opinion in that they question not the matter of that presence the which the other affirm but the manner which whilst the others guess some after this some after that manner they will guess nothing at all of it by which they are free from any objections and well modestly prudently this only if such would not so peremptorily condemn the conjectures of others as perhaps some of them do not See for what I have now said besides the quotations before p. 2. in the relation of this second opinion many places in Dr. Tailor the very Title of his book wherein Spiritual must be took in such a sense as not to deny real and of Christ must be understood of the Body and Blood of Christ For this he saith often in the Book namely p. 7. see p. 20. where in answering some hard sayings of the Fathers c. as if the same Body that was crucified was not eaten in the Sacrament he saith That Proposition is true if we speak of the eating of Christ's Body in the same manner of being for it had one manner of being on the Cross and another in the Sacrament But that Body which was crucified the same Body we do eat if we speak of the same thing in a several manner of being c Christ's Body therefore is in the Sacrament not only in its operation but being tho after another manner of being than it was on the Cross And what Dr. Taylor saith methinks answers several arguments brought afterward by himself out of the Fathers against real presence under or with the symbols see p. 311. Non hoc quod videtis c. see p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence to be particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner c. See Arch B. Laud See Disc concerning the Rub. of the En. Lyt §. 14 15. p. 286. where he saith The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ c. And Arch B. Cranmer as the Arch B. quotes out of Fox p. 1703. confesseth That tho he was indeed of another opinion and inclining to that of Zuinglius yet B. Ridly convinc'd his judgment and settled him in the point 2. Add to these Bishop Hall quoted before Res apud utrosque eadem rei tamen ratio diversa c. utrosque he means Lutheran but the Consequence is as good for the Romanist See the same opinion of A. Spalat and Bishop Forbes quoted hereafter Lastly in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland in the Administring the Sacrament the former words or comment Feed on him in thy heart by Faith are left out according to the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. and also the Form in the Missals perhaps as being a Diminutive of this great Mystery in which is maintain'd another a more real eating and participation of Christ's Body than that by Faith alone As likewise there are added in the Prayer of Consecration these words agreeable to the first Book of Edw. VI. and the Forms of all Antiquity only those run not ut nobis sint but ut nobis fiant corpus c. So bless and sanctifie with thy Word and Holy Spirit these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son which seem to tend to the same purpose and upon Bucer's exceptions at them in his Censura in ordine Eccl. c. 9. were by the Second Reformers of the Common-Prayer-Book cast out Now in these passages above recited if I well understand them the Presence of Christ's Body is as fully and properly affirm'd by these as by the Lutheran or Romanist only all the difference is not about the Presence whether carnally or spiritually substantially or locally after the manner of other Bodies or not locally or substantially but about the subject only to which present as Mr. Hooker well observes whether to the worthy Receiver only or also to the elements or signs or if present to the signs whether not some other way present to them than either Cousubor Transubstantially Whereas therefore the Lutheran and Romanist dispute the manner whether our Saviour's Body be Consubstantially or Transubstantially with the signs the other Reform'd and these dispute the manner whether with the signs or only with the Receiver or also whether with the signs not by the forenam'd but some other unknown way but in its presence with the worthy Receiver all agree and one affirm it as much as another 3. But now if one should affirm Christ personlly or substantially present to the Receiver another only virtually present in his Grace Spirit c. 't is plain that here a difference between them is not in the manner of the presence but in the presence it self So the first Opinion tho affirming a virtual presence is said to deny the real presence or any mystery in the Sacrament § XIV Thus much of their affirming the substantial or personal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as to the third and fourth Opinion But now I confess I do not see how this doth consist with many other things which they say See Dr. Taylor p. 15. But we by the spiritual real presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful by blessing and grace p. 107. by saith and blessing and this is all which we mean beside the Tropical and Figurative presence p. 21. They the Romanists say that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in vertue or effect is not sufficient tho this is done also in the Sacrament See p. 218. where after shewing that Christ's Body is in the Eucharist neither circumscriptive definitive nor repletive the only three ways that are conceivable of being in a place he saith his Body is there figuratively tropically representatively in Being might not he say or in reallity now representatively only in respect of reallity is the same with not really and really in effect and blessing but this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person I suppose he means but Christ's Body in Heaven having a relation to a Communicant on Earth in some effect and blessing Add to these what he saith p. 120 121 That we under the Sacrament of Bread and Wine receive Christ's Body no more really than the Israelites did in the Manna Rock Cloud c. both in a divers Sacrament saith he but in all the same reallity whatsoever we the same they did eat Surely this then argues only a virtual presence thereof not a substantial because Christ's Body or Flesh was not then as yet assum'd See likewise p. 276 277. See p. 7. where he quotes the
the same expression offrent pour le salut du corps de l'ame la vray image de Christ. And the Conc. Franckfort p 407. Qu'elle est faite invisiblement par l'esprit de Dieu consacree par le Prestre invoquant dieu portee par les mains Angeliques sule haut Autel de dieu the words in the Mass que par elle les peches sont remis qu' elle ne peut ni accroistre ni diminuer as Images are c. For these things Calvin Instit 4. l. 17. c. 11. s. after he had as much as might be mitigated the sence of Antiquity confesseth veteres quoque illos alio hanc memoriam detorsisse quam institutioni Domini conveniebat quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae immolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferebat excusari non posse quin aliquid in actionis modo peccaverint Imitati sunt enim propius Judaticum Sacrificandi morem quam aut ordinaverat Christus aut Evangelii ratio ferebat And indeed it is somewhat strange that the Fathers are made in the matter still not to differ from the Reformed but in their language in their ceremonies confessed to concur with the Catholicks This using by the Ancients of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice before communicating I find not Dr. Tailor to take any notice of which yet methinks makes much for their conceiving a real presence with the signs concerning which is our present discourse 4. From their Adoration and also Invocation of the body of Christ on the Altar 4. Using adoration before communicating or with the Symbols I say not adoration of Christ's body or Christ as in Heaven in the act of communicating which is all owned by those of the first and second opinions tho I think only practised by the Church of England but adoration of Christ's body as present with the Symbols before communicating And such to have bin the practice of Antiquity I think will appear from many passages in the Fathers See Clem. Apost Const l. 2. c. 61. Diaconi absoluta oratione alli oblationi Eucharistiae sint intenti ministrantes corpori Domini cum timore alii c. And afterwards accipiant Dominicum corpus preciosum sanguinem gradatim cum pudore ac timore tanquam ad Regis Corpus accedentes Nazianz. Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae speaking of his sick Sister in the Night-time going to Church and praying before the Altar to be cured he saith Ad Altare cum fide procumbit eumque qui super illud colitur magno cum clamore obtestans c. After these I pray you read over again those quotations about Adoration of St. Austin and St. Ambrose Obs 2. Chrys Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Hoc corpus etiam jacens in praesepi reveriti sunt Magi cum multo metu ac tremore adorarunt Imitemar ergo vel barbaros nos coelorum cives c. Tu autem non in praesepi vides sed in Altari non foeminam eum tenentem sed sacerdotem vides astantem spiritum cum magna copia perabunde proposita supervolantem c. greater excitations of Reverence nos ergo ipsos excitemus formidemus longe majorem quam illi barbari ostendamus reverentiam c. Non enim Angelos nec Archang elos neque Coelos sed ipsum eorum ostendo Dominum Vidisti quemadmodum quod est omnium praestantissimum maxime honorandum vides interra neque solum vides sed etiam tangis sed etiam commedis c. Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antiochen Si pura sunt vestimenta adora communica In Ephes Hom. 3. he calls it sacrificium quod illi stupent venerantur Angeli So Hom. 83. in Mat. Angeli videntes horrescunt neque libere audent intueri propter emicantem inde splendorem Se the former Quotation p. 98. The places are frequent in Chrysostom where he speaks of the presence and adoration and trembling of Angels at these Sacred Mysteries This for Adoration but see him also for Invocation Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. Non sunt enim haec temere excogitata he speaks of Praying and Offering the Eucharist for the Dead neque frustra corum qui decesserunt in divinis mysteriis meminimus Et pro ipsis accedimus rogantes agnum propositum qui mundi peccatum tulit sed ut inde eis aliqua sit consolatio c. And see Hom. 21. in Acta Apostol where he makes this special presence of our Lord a time of more acceptable audience Domino praesenti dum mors illa pâ—rsâ—â—itur horrendum Sacrificium Et ineffabilia Sacramenta Nam quasi sedente Roge quicunque voluerit perficit ut autem surrexit quicunque dicit frustra dicit Ita nunc quamdiu proposita fuerint mysteria c. See the place and afterward sicut quando Regum trophaea statuuntur dimittuntur qui sunt in vinculis per illud tempus ubi autem transierit hoc tempus qui nihil assequutus est nihil obtinet ita sane hic A place I think much worth the noting why at the time chiefly of the celebration of the Mysteries all manner of Invocations were made See a kind of Invocation Dionys Areop or the Author Eccl. Hierarch c. 3. par 3 O divinissimum sacrosanctum Sacramentum dignanter aperis obducta tibi operimenta significantium signorum perspicue nobis fac appareas c. And see for Adoration what Mr. Blondel quotes of the same Chapter for his calling them symbols Blond p. 88. le president de choses sacrees sétient debout devant les tressaintes symboles tout le Clerge se leve devant les tressaints symboles comme devant Christ See Theodoret in the place quoted before p. 74. You may find it likewise in Blondel p. 59. Signa mystica intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt i. e. by Consecration creduntur adorantur ut quae illa sint quae creduntur See that place of St. Hierom. in his Preface to Theophilus Alexand. upon the Translation of his Epistle quoted Blond p. 56. where speaking of the Utensils of the Altar the Chalices c. he saith que ne peuvent estre dits n' avoir point de sainteté mais que par la societe du corps du sang du Seigneur ils doivent estre venerez de mesme necessite que le corps le sang Lastly See that Constantinopolitan Council under Constantine Copronymus quoted by Blondel for Orthodox in the matter of the Eucharist yet held they Worship due to the Eucharist which they call'd the only true Image of Christ because this by Divine Consecration is Deificatum and made Divinum Corpus tho they affirm'd any Worship given to any Artificial Image of our Saviour or to any Human Form to be Idolatry I will set you down the words somewhat higher than where Blondel begins them In talem igitur blasphemiam impietatem cadentes
manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proculdubio nâ—c manducat Spiritualiter in my book carnem ejus nec bibit ejus sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat And tract 59. where he saith of the Apostles and Judas Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum I find likewise urged by some two places out of Chrysostom One out of 20. Hom. in 2. Corinth that he there prefers the poor as being reipsa or ipsummet corpus Christi before the Sacrament or corpus Christi in Altari but searching the place I find and so may any that please to peruse it the comparison not to be at all between the poor and corpus Christi in altari but between the poor and altare quia capit corpus Christi Another out of 11. Hom. in Matth. of the opus imperfectum where it is said vasa sanctificata c in quibus non verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur Words plain enough but none of S. Chrysostom's See Bell de Euch. 2. l. 22. c. and Erasmus his Preface to that work To which Dr. Tailor's reply p. 308. no way satisfies me it not following that because they happen to be inserted among S. Chrysostom's works therefore he must be esteemed a good Catholick that writ them which rule should it generally pass the Protestants would have much the worse by it There are urged also by them two places out of the same book of S. Ambrose which here we have made much use of against their tenent The one place de Sacr. 4. l. 4. c. Vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi coelestis i.e. by the words Hoc est corpus meum pronounced by the Priest Sed forte dices Speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti i. e. in not seeing any crucifixion of him in the Sacrament ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis ut nullus horror cruoris sit pretium tamen operetur redemptionis The other places 6. l. 1. c. where the Father makes a recapitulation of things formerly said Sicut verus est Dei Filius ita vera caro quam accepimus Forte dicas quomodo vera qui similitudinem video non video sanguinis veritatem Primo dixi tibi de sermone Christi i. e. the words of Consecration Hoc est c. qui operatur ut possit mutare convertere generalia instituta naturae Deinde ubi non tulerunt sermonem Christi discipuli ejus Jo. 6.52 How can this man give us his flesh to eat ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis Sacramenta sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris Ï‘. These things they strengthen with the Conc. Constant under Constant. Copronymus calling the Eucharist the Image of Christ's Body and Christ's Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Tail. p. 313. Blond p. 378. c. and with the inference of the 2. Conc. Nice in their refuting the Constant Conc. where they say Demittentes quidem mendacium quadantenus veritatem contingunt confessi divinum fieri corpus panem â— At si imago corporis est non potest sane fieri divinum Corpus urged by Mr. Blondel p. 385. therefore The Fathers likewise making it imago figura c. by this deny it to be Corpus Divinum λ Again with the Form of the Canon of the Mass which they say plainly makes for them against substantial Conversion μ For in it both before the words of Consecration there is an Oblation made of the Elements and that pro Ecclesia Catholica pro peccatis c. See that Prayer Suscipe sacrosancte Pater and Te igitur clementissime Pater both before the Consecration not to be denied saith Bellarmine veteres Patres passim idem tradunt saith he i. e. that the Creatures of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are offer'd to God see him de Missa l. 1. c. 27. and there they are call'd dona sancta sacrificia illibata c. â— And likewise some of those Expressions and Forms of Oblation which are made after Consecration in the Roman Canon are put before it in some other Liturgies ξ Again after the Consecration many expressions are found in the Roman Canon no way suting to the presence of Christs real Body As the praying that God would accept these Offerings i. e. accept of his Son say the Romanists as if he were at any time not acceptable accept them as he did that of Abel's Abraham's Melchisedech's Sacrifices saith Blond on bruts on inanimez a fit comparison to Christ his Son That God would command them perferri per manus St. Angeli tui in sublime Altare suum in conspectu c. i. e. the Body of our Saviour to Heaven where it is continually And in other Liturgies as that of St. James they being call'd Bread and Wine and the Fruits of the Earth after Consecration and particularly in that Form set down in the Apost Const l. 8. c. 17. where after the words of Institution rehears'd by which words they are suppos'd to be Consecrated it follows Rogamusque Te ut benigne respicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo complaceas tibi in ipsis in honorem Christi tui Et mittas S. Spiritum super hoc sacrificium testem passionis Domini Jesu ut ostendat hunc Panem Corpus Christi Tui hunc Calicem Sanguinem Christi Tui ut qui eum percipiunt c. See much more to this purpose in Blondel from p. 454 to 467. § XXII Secondly For the miraculous instances by which the Fathers use to illustrate the change of the Bread into the Body of Christ Mr. Blondel p. 315 Concerning the miraculousness of changes seems to deny the Fathers to have acknowledg'd any miracle at all in the Eucharist saying ou est le Pere qui dit que les symboles soyent changes miraculeusement which I am astonisht at and the rather when presently after he saith that Chrysostom and others on t considerê l' Eucharistie comme un object plein des merveilles and then he urgeth Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10. as if that he denied all miracle in the Eucharist I look'd diligently upon the place and I found nothing at all there advantageous for Mr. Blondel to this purpose St. Austin falls into a discourse there that there are several things de materia corporali quae tamen ad aliquid divinitus annuntiandum nostris sensibus admoventur And these either natural where amongst others he instances in Jacob's Stone which he Consecrated Or
which are made by Men and these vel aliquantulum mansura sicut potuit Serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in Eremo vel peracto ministerio transitura sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur Then adds he sed quia haec omnibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt as the brazen Serpent and the Bread used in the Sacrament are things made by Man honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt he goes on itaque illa quae per Angelos fiunt quo ignotiora eo mirabiliora sunt nobis c. All he saith then is That the Bread or brazen Serpent have no wonder in the substance or matter of them for men make them both Now who affirms any miracle in any thing that is visible in the Eucharist The miracle is in that which is invisible the presence of Christ's Body with the signs But could any justly argue from hence That the Cure of the Man by looking on the Serpentine figure of Brass was not miraculous because St. Austin says the Brass or Figure shapen by Man had nothing miraculous in it but was known and ordinary Having clear'd this passage of Mr. Blondels now to go on I say for those miraculous instances they endeavour to qualifie the matter in saying â— That some of them are only accidental mutations not substantial as the bringing Water out of the Rock by Moses Fire from Heaven by Elijah Iron made to Swim on the Water by Elisha c. See Mr. Blondel p. 165. Ï Or becoming new creatures and members of Christ by Regeneration a comparison in the Fathers which the Reformed make much use of see Blond p. 100. But if you still press upon them the miraculousness of these mutations tho accidental they answer σ That some of those instances argue another or greater change than any party will allow of in the Eucharist and what proves too much proves nothing See Taylor p. 347. 274. 278. Ï„ That the effect produced by the instrumency or upon the receipt of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist is miraculous and no way proportioned to the natural qualities of them as also the efficacy of the water of Baptism and the real mutation which it causeth in the soul is supernatural ν And lastly that some of the same miraculous mutations are applied to Baptism for which chiefly a passage in Ambrose de Sacram. 2. l. 3. c. is quoted and other sacramentals or rituals of the Church which Sacramentals the Fathers also illustrate by the change made in the Eucharist and affirm such change to be in the one as in the other See for this Blond p. 165. 316. 101. c. Tail. p. 276. See Calvin Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 14. s Patres hic quoque i.e. in Baptism mirificam conversionem statuunt cum dicunt ex corruptibili elemento fieri spirituale animae lavacrum See Daille's first Reply to Chaumont p. 30. c. Ï Add to these that it may be said that the second Opinion in affirming the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body to every worthy receiver affirms a most miraculous effect in the Eucharist tho this not having any reference to the signs and therefore seems to concur with these testimonies of the Fathers as professing in the Eucharist a work of God's Omnipotency χ. As to the third that of the Fathers using and offering the Eucharist before communicating as a Sacrifice c. § XXIII I do not remember that Dr. Tailor takes much notice of it Concerning a Sacrifice but Mr. Blondel saith 4. c. 9. prop. that they celebrated or offered it only as a memorial image representation antitype of the Sacrifice upon the Cross and then heaps up many testimonies where the Fathers call it by these and the like names § XXIV To the 4th Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and that before communicating Concerning Adoration which seems to pinch closer than any of the rest I find them to say little or nothing with any close application to the testimonies brought out of the ancients 1. In general they say Christ may be worshipped when we receive the Eucharist or Symbols of his Body for which practice Daille in the Reply to Chaumont quotes and allows of the Church of England but Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven not as in his body there present See Calvin de Christianae pacificationis ratione p. 50. Fateor certe Christum ubicunque simus esse adorandum in coena vero cum se nobis fruendum offerat rite aliter recipi nequit quam si adoretur Sed hoc quaeritur sursumne an deorsum respiciat nostra adoratio Quum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa ab ipso discedit And Instit 4. l. 17. c. 37. s. In coena adoratio ea est legitima quae non in signo residet sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur To the same purpose writes Dr. Taylor p. 343. and quotes St. Austin as speaking of such Adoration So Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry 67. s. Our Church adores Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in which certainly Christ is not Christ's body locally present under the shape of the Elements Thus he But this worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in the end of the Section is explained to be only this That we in that time and place when and where he is eminently represented by the Priest and offered to God for us i.e. rerepresentatively do worship him i. e. as being according to his humane nature only in heaven See 66. s. But I find some expressions in some of them when shaping answers to the Fathers tho I do not well understand them therefore I shall set you down their own words as if they did allow of something more namely of adoring Christ as someway there present present both to the worthy receiver and to the Mysteries or Symbols Of which Dr. Taylor thus-in answer to that saying of Ambrose Adorate scabellum c. Per Scabellum terra intelligitur per terram caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt We worship c. saith the Doctor for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our soul the flesh and blood of Christ So that we worship it he means the body or the flesh of Christ in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his Body but we give no divine honour to the signs And thus Daille 2d Reply to Chaumont p. 29. in answer to the places of the Fathers I l ' y a une enorme difference entre adorer le Sacrament adorer Jesus Christ au Sacrament ou es mysteres Le second signifie ou Adorer Jesus Christ en communiant a son Sacrement ce
Junius thinks it is an interrogation rather referring to Infanticidium Apol. c. 7. And that de Idol c. 7. Semel Judaei Christo manus intulerunt isti quotidie corpus ejus lacessunt speaking of the Eucharist And that adv Marcion l. 1. c. 14. At ille quidem i. e. Christus nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris c. nec panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat i. e. praesentem reddit if we may interpret it by the same sense of the word in l. 4. c. 22. Itaque jam repraesentans eum i. e. Deus Christum Hic est Filius meus utique subauditur quem repromisi repraesentans i. e. praesentans To γ How the same in some sense may be said to be like or unlike it self see before But there being two things in the Sacrament and something remaining after Consecration which is not the Body of Christ but the Symbol thereof c. None say that Christ's Body in the Eucharist is the Image or sign figure or similitude of it self as in the Eucharist But either that the Symbols are signs figures c. of the Body or the Body as in the Eucharist a figure c. of the same Body as Crucified To δ that S. Austin held a real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist those of the second opinion I think will not deny That he held this its presence in the Eucharist to be with the symbols also before communicating I think is clear from his other sayings quoted p. 38 c. The words immediately before those here quoted are Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur nec ubique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim Sacramenta c. From this it seems plain that St. Austin speaks of the Eucharist as signifying Christ's immolation on the Cross and so t is rightly said not properly but secundum quendam modum or quodammodo the Body of Christ as the Body was in that manner existent And thus Paschasius answered this place above 800 years ago But it is capable also of another answer and so some other places like it That by Sacramentum S. Austin there means the symbols That corpus Christi may be predicated quodammodo of the sign thereof whether it be the substance or only the species of the bread namely after such a manner as the Consubstantialists say Hic panis est corpus meum And thus Algerus answered this place against Berengarius before any Council had decreed Transubstantiation Lastly S. Austin instanceth in Baptism that the Apostle saith in it consepulti sumus because Baptismus sepulturam significabat but none may lawfully conclude from hence that S. Austin held Baptism only to signifie grace and not to confer it neither therefore may he that the Sacrament of the Eucharist only signified Christ's Body To ζ 1. The place in Psalm 98. Since S. Austin speaks here of eating it all those who hold the worthy receiver to partake and eat that very substantial body which suffered for them upon the cross can make no use of this place Now for this I must remember you again of Calvin's expression Neque enim mortis suae tantum beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est And see what Dr. Tailor saith p. 20. 2. Note that S. Austin elsewhere as in Psalm 33. upon those words Accedite ad eum illuminemmi and contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. saith as plainly the seeming-contrary to this Judaei de crucifixo tenebrati sunt nos manducando bibendo crucifixum illuminamur Et nunc bibimus quod de Christi latere manavit 3. In the very same 98. Psal are those words quoted before Nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit which shews either Christ's very flesh in the Eucharist or adoration of another creature for the flesh of Christ 4. I see no reason why that old answer may not pass given long since against Berengarius quoting this place Non idem corpus i.e. in propria sua specie accompanied with the natural qualities of flesh and blood Non in specie mortali visibili ut aderat tunc praesens discipulis suis sed alio modo impassibiliter invisibiliter se habens Neither doth Daille's Reply in his 2d answer to Chaumont p. 45. move me that when corn is first sown and cared and threshed and so ground and moulded into bread we may with the same reason maintain that the eater of this bread eats not the same corn that was threshed c because it s now changed in its qualities because this alteration about our Saviour's body as it is invisible impassible c in the Eucharist is much more strange than that he instanceth in But that all such expressions as we make this to be are not improper see the Apostles 1 Cor. 15.37 Thou sowest not that body that shall be i. e. with such and such qualities and ornaments as it shall come up tho it shall be idem numero corpus in the resurrection and so flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven tho flesh otherwise qualified shall inherit it for our Saviour's glorified body had flesh and bone Luk-24 39 And see St. Austin's discourse upon these places Ep. 146. where to reconcile caro possidebit and caro non possidebit c he saith caro secundum substantiam possidebit caro autem cum secundum corruptionem intelligitur non possidebit And so for the wheat sown Non quod triticum saith he non erit ex tritico sed quod nemo seminat herbam stipulam c cum quibus ista semina exurgunt 5. Lastly the same phrases are found in other Fathers whose opinion perhaps is more clear than S. Austins that the same body that was crucified is in the Sacrament received as in S. Ambrose comment in Luc. l. 8. urged by Daille 2d Rep. to Chaum p. 331. and in S. Hierom. in Ephes 1. cap. where he thus on 7. verse Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi caro intelligitur Spiritualis illa atque divina de qua ipse dixit Caro mea vere est cibus sanguis meus vere est potus nisi manducaveritis carnem meam sanguinem biberitis non babebitis vitam aeternam vel caro sanguis quae crucifixa est qui militis effusus est lancea Juxta hanc divisionem in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis carnis accipitur ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei alia caro sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere But here he means alia in quality only as is shewed before This distinction of Christ's flesh in S. Hierom Dr. Tailor qualifies thus p. 10. That Body which was crucified is not that Body which is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of
eorum quae a nobis quotidie committuntur peccatorum applicaretur And so ch 2. Cujus oblationis cruentae fructus per hanc uberrime percipiuntur See Estius sent 4. d. 12. s. 12 13. Dum patres sacrificium crucis unicum singulare sacrificium Christianorune esse dicunt intelligunt quod propria virtute Deum placat quale non est sacrificium missae utpote habens vim suam omnem ex sacrificio in cruce peracto Nam incruenta seu mystica oblatione corporis sanguinis Christi ex doctrina Ecclesiae non hoc agitur ut per eam paretur precium quo redimantur peccata sed ut applicetur pretium unico illo crucis sacrificio comparatum nobis ad remissionem peccatorum ad caetera salutaria dona consequenda Quare sicut unicum illud sacrificium crucis non tollit vim baptismi altorum sacramentorum quibus renovamur sanctificamur a peccatis purgamur imo siâ—ut non derogat efficaciae illius oblationis orationis qua adhuc Christus in coeâ—is continuo semetipsum pro nobis sistit offert patri continuo pro nobis interpellat ita nec tollit incruentam oblationem sacrificii missae aut quicquid derogat ejus virtuti See the like said in Bellarm de Missa l. primo c. 25. Fatemur sacrificium crucis vim sempiternam habere ad sanctificandum c. atque inde non esse opus alio sacrificio crucis aut ejusdem sacrificii crucis repetitione Negamus autem inde sequi non posse sine crucis Christi injuria multiplicari sacrificia repraesentantia sacrificium crucis ejus fructum nobis applicantia Nam si ita esset Efficeremus omnia sacrificia testamenti veteris fuisse peracta in injuriam crucis Christi In hoc est totus error adversariorum quod sibi falso persuaserint nos tribuere missae vim remittendi peccata sine ullo ordine ad sacrificium crucis Or quod Missa vim habeat expiandi peccata sine crucis sacrificio sed sacrificium missae applicat fructum sacrificii crucis See Dr. Holden de Resol Fid. l. 2. c. 4. Propitiatorium quidem est hoc sacrificium sed non eo modo quo sacrificium crucis puta in redemptionem generis humani sacrificium enim crucis adeo sufficiens est abundans ut nec altero nec hujus iteratione nobis ullatenus opus sit in ratione redemptionis Quapropter vi solius missae sacrifien nihil meretur nobis Christus sed per illud nobis applicantur sicut per sacramenta fructus meritorum Christi per immolationem suam sanguineam acquisiti Haud igitur docet nos divina catholica fides sanctum hoc sacrificium missae ut distinctum si tamen absolute distinctum a sacrificio cru is de se peccata remittere gratiam augere justificationem afferre c. An autem sit hoc sacrificium absolutum an relativum solummodo nempe commemorativum representativum significativum est Theologicarum litigationum materia See Cassand Consult de Sac. Corp. Sang. Chr. de iteratione per totum Some places of which you may find quoted by Bishop Forb l. 3. c. 1. s 21. and many of the like out of other Authors set down in that Chapter to which I refer you for them Non igitur hic novum est sacrificium nam eadem hic est hostia quae in cruce oblata fuit i. e. the Body and Blood of Christ commemoratio in mysterio sacrificii illius in cruce peracti continuati in coelis sacerdotii sacrificii Christi in imagine representatio quo sacrificio non efficitur nova propitiatio remissio peccatorum sed ea quae semel sufficienter in cruce facta est nobis quoque efficax esse postulatur Christ making such an Offering unto the same purposes of his Body here on the Altar by his Substitutes as is by Himself now in Heaven made of the same Body It being victima perennis perpetua quae semel oblata consumi non potest So de iterat in sacra hac actione pro vivis mortuis c. offerri dicitur quando non solum pro iis oblata commemoratur verum etiam solenni prece pro iis omnibus efficax salutaris esse postulatur And after sacrificium non modo Eucharisticum sed etiam propitiatorium dici posset non quidem ut efficiens propitiationem quod sacrificio crucis proprium est sed ut eam jam factam impetrans quomodo Oratio propitiatoria dici potest See Fr. a Sanctae Clara on the XXXI Article of the Church of England sacrificium Missae non est propitiatorium primo quia hoc competit sacrificio in cruce licet bene per se quasi secundo per applicationem sacrificii cruenti per commemorationem ejus adeo ut ratio propitiationis originaliter sacrificio in cruce competat illinc seu illius virtute huic Ut etiam recte notavit Canus in locis l. 12. c. 12. ubi dicit Satis esse ut vere proprie sit sacrificium quod mors ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur ac si Christus nunc moreretur ubi rationem propitiationis applicationi mortis Christi tribuit Et ad eundem sensum citat Gregorium in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur mors igitur incruenta in altari virtutem suam derivat a morte cruâ—nta in cruce in hoc sensu hoe sacrificium est imago exemplar alterius in cruce unde omnis salus radicaliter emanavit Nulla prorsus hic erit difficultas cum doctioribus Protestantibus c. Thus he where also he saith that in the later words of the Article sufficiently vehement sâ—sobrie intelligantur nihil agitur contra sacrificia missae in se sed contra vulgarem vel vulgatam opinionem de ipsis scilicet quod sacerdotes in sacrificiis offerient Christum pro vivis defunctis in remissionem paenae culpae adeo i. e. in such a manner ut virtute hujus sacrificii ab iis oblati independenter a crucis sacrificio mererentur populo remissionem c. But this vulgata opinio as no Church maintains so neither can it without a high breach of Christian charity on any Church be charg'd See Champney de Vocat Minist against Mason cap. 17. pag. 704 c. of whom only delivering the common Doctrine of the Roman Church Dr. Fern acknowledgeth That he makes wide difference between the Sacrifice of the Eucharist and that of the Cross and indeed comes to that which we allow in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament see his Exam. of Champney p. 324. but yet p. 346. he grants the Fathers to have Offer'd the Sacrifice of the Altar as they call'd it which was the representation of Christ's Sacrifice for the Dead for an Impetration of all that Mercy Redemption and Glory for them
Prayer of the Missal which follows the Consecration the beginning of which Prayer is left out by our later Liturgies and the rest transported to after the Sacrament receiv'd beginning thus O Lord our Heavenly Father We thy humble Servants c. perhaps on purpose lest it might bear any shew of the former solemn offerings of the Eucharist before communicating it to God as a Sacrifice in those words which are not found in the common Liturgies in the beginning of the Prayer We thy humble Servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty with these thy holy Gifts the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make having in remembrance his blessed Passion mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension c. And we entirely desire thy Fatherly Goodness mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of Praise c. Beseeching c. that we and all thy whole Church may obtain Remission of our Sins and all other benefits of his Passion The Rom. Miss hath it Unde memores Domine nos servi tui ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tum beatae Passionis nec non ab inferis resurrectionis sed in coelos gloriosae ascensionis offerimus praeclarae majestati tuâ—e de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam immaculatam c. See if you please these prudent reformations or perfectings of the former English Liturgy i.e. that prepar'd for Scotland and many more which I omit noted in a Scotch Book call'd Laudensium autocatacrisis from p. 100 to 114 and censur'd for their agreement with Popery i. e. Indeed for their conformity with the former practice of the Church Catholick § XXVII And here I cannot but with grief complain That the Oblation of this Christian Sacrifice is confess'd to have always been part of the publick Service of the Church contain'd in the Second Service thereof The Onassion of the Daily Oblation in the Reformed Churches and to have been daily or at least at all times of solemn Prayers and on the days of God's publick Worship every-where made and celebrated tho there were few or no Communicants except him who Officiated for those many beneficial ends above-mention'd which the Church conceiv'd non-communicants also to receive from this precious Offering See the proofs in Medes Diatrib upon Mal. 1.11 p. 484 493. That the publick Prayers of the Church were always join'd with the mystical Commemoration of Christ in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood And that this was no after-invention of the Fathers but took its original from the Apostles times and the very beginning of Christianity See the like Testimonies in Mr. Thorndyke of Christian Assemblies See Calvin's expression to the same purpose Instit lib. 4. c. 17. s 44. Quae de Sacramento hoc hactenus disseruimus abunde ostendunt non institutum ideo fuisse ut semel quotannis acciperetur idque persunctorie ut nune communiter moris est verum quo fiequenti in usu Christianis omnibus esset ut frequenti memoria passionem Christi repeterent c. Talem fuisse Ecclesiae Apostolicae usum Lucas in Actis commemorat quum fideles ait perseverantes fuisse in doctrina Apostolorum communicatione fractione panis orationibus sic agendum omnino erat ut nullus Ecclesiae conventus fieret sine verbo orationibus participatione coenae eleemosynis Hunc apud Corinthios fuisse institutum ordinem satis ex Paulo conspicere licet multis postea saeculis in usu fuisse constat c. This he speaks indeed with reference to the peoples daily or frequent communicating but if this will not be had what excuse is there in the meanwhile of the Priests omitting the daily or frequent oblation thereof useful for so many purposes besides that of the communion used in all former times even where the people were negligent to receive See S. Chrysostom's saying p. 78. Quid vero nos non quotidie offerimus and Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio cum nemo sit qui simul participet Frustra i.e. comparatively non tam fructuose Hieronym in Tit. 1. c. saith Sacerdotes quotidie pro peccatis populi ac suis sacrificare August contra adversar leg 1. l. 20. c. Ecclesia immolat in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis ex quo Deus Deorum locutus vocavit terram a Solis ortu usque ad occasum Ep. 86. Sacrificium laudis meaning the Eucharist ab Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa diebus omnibus immolatur Ep. 23. Christus semel in cruce immolatus omni die in Sacramento populis immolatur See the quotation p. Quotidianum esse voluit sacrificium Ep. ad Januar. quoted by Calvin ib. alibi Nullus dies intermittitur quo non offeratur alibi Sabbato tantum Dominico where it appears this oblation at least tho people more seldom communicated it was made once a week every Lord's day used still to this day by all other modern Churches Eastern and Western How cometh it to pass then I say it with grief that such a sacrifice for such precious ends is ceased only to be continually offered in the Churches Reformed If they agree also in the same notion of sacrifice with antiquity why have not their publick prayers and intercessions after the confess'd manner of all the ancient and modern Churches of God the efficacious assistance of this sacrifice I desire it may be seriously considered whether this be not a defect in their publick Service much to be laid to heart in the daily loss of such an allowed-most-effectual means of Address to God Almighty by all the followers of the Reformation You will pardon me this digression § XXVIII 4. The Fathers held That in this Sacrifice the representation of that of the Cross The Fathers say that it is an oblation of the same body which was crucified and beneficial to us only by its vertue is an oblation made of the very same Body and Blood of Christ which our High Priest also himself now offers in Heaven which is prevalent with his Father also in reference to his former sufferings neither that oblation in heaven nor this upon the Altar paying the price of our Redemption but used for an application of the price payed for several sinners for the actual remission of sins daily committed Again the same body now offered that was offered upon the Cross tho not in the same manner i.e. by mactation and therefore being in such respect more properly Sacrificium as one expresseth it passive sumptum pro sacrificato noviter nobis applicato quia in illo continetur Corpus Christi quod fuit vere sacrificatum in unico illo sacrificio crucis yet with a representation also of that sacrificing of it in the blood being here severed and offered apart from the body So that I may say a little altering Cassander's words Consult de sacrificio corp p. 196. Veteres in
than that in the Waters of Baptism To υ. tho both some way miraculous seems plain in that tho in Baptism Grace and the Spirit is bestow'd and then we are also incorporated into Christ c. yet say they not of the Water of Baptism from this effect thereof that it is the Spirit or is turn'd into the Spirit neither saith the Apostle that in unworthy receiving it we are guilty of the Spirit as in the other he saith guilty of the Body Neither was there ever such a veneration or reservation of it such a care that none should be spilt or fall to the ground as of the consecrated Elements which shews that tho they imagine some miracle in both yet a much different and transcendent one in the second § XXIX The same Answer may serve to φ where To φ. Reply to their Answ to the 3d Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Sacrifice since the real presence of Christ's Body that now is in Heaven with the worthy Receiver is as great a Miracle as that other with the Symbols 't is strange why those allowing the one so strongly oppose the other unless perhaps this be to avoid Adoration Concerning the Reply which may be made to their Answer to the third Argument out of the Fathers see before the Reply to λ § XXX Lastly Concerning the fourth Argument out of the Fathers Adoration Reply to their Answ to the 4th Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Adoration The heads of what they say see before as well as I can understand them are these α That the Symbols are to be used with a due reverence and respect as things consecrated to a sacred use β That Christ may be worshipped also in receiving of the Eucharist as he is now in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God. γ But not as present in the Eucharist because no Divine command for any such thing and because he is there ut manducetur non ut adoretur he saying there Take eat not take worship α. Or yet further That he may be worshipped as present or who is present by Faith in the hearts of the Communicants β. or also really present γ. as others say to the worthy Receiver and who is present also in the Symbols after that manner as the thing signified or represented may be said to be present in that thing which signifies it δ. δ That the Fathers in the places quoted out of them speak either of a reverence due to the consecrated Symbols of our Saviour's Body or also of Adoration of our Saviour or of his Body in some of the foresaid manners or intentions but not as really present with the Symbols ζ That these may not be worshipped for Christ's Body ζ c. That if they be 't is flat Idolatry η η. That those of the fourth Opinion do worship them for Christ or for his Body Of these α and β are granted To γ First Reply to α. β. To γ. I suppose a Precept in general to worship Christ and the whole Christ to be there wherever his Body is it being never sever'd not when it lay in the Grave from the Divinity And therefore as Daille grants out of St. Austin's Apology c. 10. l'humanite de Jesus Christ est vrayement proprement adorable I find Calvin indeed somewhat boggle at it Inst l. 4. c. 17. s 35. where bringing in this arguing Si corpus est anima divinitas sint una cum corpore quae jam divelli non possunt igitur illic adorandus Christus he saith Primum si sua illa quam obtendunt concomitantia ipsis negetur quid facient Quis sanus sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat But there is no Body that saith that Christ's Body is Christ but that it being no more since his Passion for Christ dyeth no more Rom. 6. a dead Body but having the Soul join'd with it as likewise ever since the Incarnation having its Hypostasie or subsistence from the Deity joined with it therefore where the Body is there is totus Christus But yet suppose Christ's true Body in the Sacrament apart I hope Calvin will allow a superior worship to be given to it properly due to no other Creature Let then such be the worship we here speak off 2. Next Affirmative precepts such as this is of worshipping Christ do not oblige to every time and place but if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place Nor is there need of any partiticular command in respect of these i. e. places or times without which we may not obey them See Discourse concerning Adoration c. p. 1. 3. But then again This is seriously to be consider'd concerning affirmative precepts That they do oblige for some time and places positis debitis circumstantiis else they would not oblige at all Now Suppose Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist and that with the Symbols as the Lutheran believes what fitter time to Adore than when we receive from him the greatest Love and Mercy that can be shew'd to Mankind the Communion of his own Flesh and Blood to us And what fitter place than in a Church wherein usually we receive it and when and where no impediant circumstances can be alledged Let therefore the omission of such worship be lawful with Daille's qualifications Reply to Chaumont p. 66. Purveuque cette omission ne procede ni de haine ni de mespris ni de non chalance ni d'aucune autre mau-vaise disposition de esprit Yet how the Lutheran considering his perswasion is acquitted from some of these in his omission at such time of Adoration I see not And Daille himself in his Apology c. 9. p. 66. seems to maintain the necessity in such time of this Duty supposing a real presence Si le Sacrament est en sa substance le corps de Christ c. il est evident qu' on le peut qu' on le doit adorer attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable Now if the Body of Christ be a subject adorable to the Romanists so it is to the Lutherans And see St. Austin's saying to this purpose before Non solum non peccamus adorando sed non adorando peccamus And what man is excus'd from blame who appearing in the presence of his Prince to receive from him the Donation of his Lise or Liberty c doth not at such time give unto him his due Honour tho by no Law oblig'd at all times to do it To δ First its plain from the places quoted That by the Fathers in the Eucharist not only an inferior reverence was given to the Symbols but also a divine worship to Christ Else St. Austin if speaking of an inferior reverence would not have ask'd the question To δ. Quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra since the Creature is
him almost all their Fathers from their Primitive times throughout a Century at least that this Religion has endured even the celebrated names of Bishop Pomel Bishop Bilson Bishop Andrews Bishop Overal Archbishop Lawd Bishop Buckeridge Bishop Hall Bishop Forbes Bishop Field Bishop Montague Archbishop Bramhal Bishop Cosins Bishop Gunning c. Dr. Cowel Dr. Pocklinton Dr. Heylin Mr. Sutton c. omitting many now alive or dead since 1660. several of which have bin already alledged in the Treatises we defend and have received either no answers or such as be insufficient as the following Examination of them will manifest Pag. 61. l. 1. Here I must observe that this Learned Person Mr. Hooker is drawn in only by a consequence and that no very clear one c. Mr. Hooker says that besides partaking of the grace of that Body and Blood c the holy mysteries impart unto us even in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord whole perfect and entire His Body and Blood are in that very subject whereunto they give life not only by effect or operation even as the influence of the Heavens is in plants c but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union c. Now the Inference the Oxford Discourses make is That Mr. Hooker believed by Real Presence more than a presence of Grace only even a substantial presence for a presence of Christ's person whole perfect and entire with either the worthy receiver or the elements too cannot possibly be resolved into grace only because where the Person of Christ is there his Natures are substantially present they since the incarnation being inseparable from it Is it not easy then to deduce what the Discourser did from the passage cited Can any other be drawn from that judicious Man's words This Answerer says the real Presence imports no more than a real presence of Power and Grace Mr. Hooker says the contrary and tells us what that more is which it imports the Person of Christ and that all the question is Whether the subject wherein Christ resides be the Receiver only or the consecrated Elements also To reconcile Mr. Hooker and the Answerer it will be necessary then for us to understand by Mr. Hooker's more than Grace Grace only and by the Person of Christ a Person without any Nature or Substance Humane or Divine But how does our Answerer scape this pinch truly with due respect to Mr. Hooker and some tolerable satisfaction to the Objection for he prudently collects other passages whereof some say as much as the quotation and none of them are contradictory thereto nor affirm the Real presence to signify no more than a presence of Grace Nothing but this will clear the difficulty and so much as this demonstrates the most judicious Protestant so weak as to contradict himself Pag. 62. l. 8. He Bishop Andrews utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the Manner of Christ's Presence c. Bishop Andrews does not decline defining that our Lord's Body is substantially present but the manner how this substance is present he waves defining Again unless that Bishop believ'd a substantial presence he believ'd one by so much less true than ours as the substance or person of a thing is nearer to it or a more proper predicate of it than its qualities and effects are Thirdly unless this Prelate makes the Eucharistical Presence no more real than the Baptismal which neither he nor any Father ever did the Allusion to Baptism is short of the Minister's purpose Lastly The Bishop's saying Christ's Body as Glorified is not present in the Eucharist does not in the least oppose a substantial presence Who that believes a substantial Presence thinks Christ to be in the Eucharist as in his glory This however they all say That the very same substance which is Glorified which was Born and Crucified is present in that Sacrament and that its Eucharistical manner of existence is different from what it either had or hath elsewhere If then Bishop Andrews testimony stand good for a substantial presence Casaubon's and King James's I. and consequently the Church of England's are assur'd on the same side and we may renew and augment that King's wonder That not only a Stranger to but a Minister of the same Church should be so inadvertant as not to remember or so presumptuous if he do as to deny what his Own Church of England has so often and so evidently asserted Pag. 64. l. 4. Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch-Bishop of Spalato c. The Answer to Spalato's testimony is grosly extravagant If this Bishop be earnest against unworthy Receivers of the Sacrament Is then our Lord substantially absent according to him One would think that has perus'd St. Paul's words 1 Cor. 11.29 and heard of Mr. Thorndyke's Comment on them that from the Bishop's earnestness against unworthy receiving he should rather believe a substantial presence reprehending the impiety the more zealously because he discerned our Lord's Body to be where it is not where it is not If this Bishop own a spiritual imperceptible and miraculous presence does he thereby disown a substantial presence Sir These stupid Consequences will not pass now adays at least not amongst Adversaries whatever they do with your Party Ibid. l. 26. But he does not say that Christ's natural Body c. Here Archbishop Laud's testimony is rejected by a flat denial of what that great Man hath if not in terminis in effect said for to quote with approbation is as much as to say Does he not cite Calvin that Christ does not offer us only the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the Body it self in which he suffered and rose Is not Bishop Ridly also produc'd by him saying That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits at the right hand of God the Father c. Ibid. l. 30. The same must be said of Bishop Hall c. The quotations out of Bishop Hall Bishop Mountague and Bishop Bilson are plain for a substantial presence and if undiscern'd by the Answerer to be so surely not his faculties but prejudices and the Post he has undertaken to defend are blamable If any such matter as a substantial presence were observable in Bishop Andrews's words Why not in these Authors Why not in Bishop Hall's and Bishop Mountague's expressions whereof the one uses the same and the other terms equivalent Res apud utrosque cadem with Calvinists and Lutherans The thing is yeilded-to on either side On the Catholick and Church of England side But the Lutheran and Catholick side yeilds to no other thing than a substantial Presence The thing the object is not the same with them and us if Calvinists and the Church of England by the Body of Christ mean Grace only Pag. 65. l. 13. I ought not
the same reason compel them to affirm Adoration follows their own Doctrine and therefore ours which forced Bishop Morton to say it followed the Lutheran 4ly Their deference to the certainty of sense must be adjusted with ours and Miracles must not be confined to its sphere 5ly Such language as this Minister uses must be forborn and his blasphemous Ironies receive the same detestation with them as they have with as For instance Pref. p. 6. l. penult That the Council of Lateran gave the Priests power of making their God for Church of England Priests if true Priests have the same power with the Catholick But neither pretend by Sacerdotal consecration to make the substance of Christ's Body but only to invoke the Holy Ghost to effect by its Almighty power that the substance of our Lord 's glorified body which now exists gloriously in Heaven may also exist Sacramentally on the Altar Is this making their God The Lateran Definition de Fide Catholica and the Council of Trent informed this Minister what part by Christ's institution not their gift as this man imposes the Priest has in the consecration if he had not bin willing to forget or mistake it for vile purposes Again p. 75. l. 8. That the Popish Real Presence is a meer figment and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored Such putrid falshoods and conceited nonsense will be very indecent in a genuine Church of England man's mouth not only because of his Defender but of his Faith too For such a one to tell us of adoring the Mass and that He abhors it and accounts our Real presence a figment is both absurd and impious But this is the result of a Gallican vagary and of learning the Doctrine of the Church of England from Hugonotal conversation Tales and Fathers Pag. 72. l. 1. That the alterations which have bin made in our Rubric were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions c. Tho it signify little whether the Alterations in the Article and Liturgy and the Disgrace of the Rubric were or were not from a change of opinions so long as the Doctrine of the Church was changed tho this I grant may well be and the other not according to the gloss of subscribing not with assent but for peace and tho too t is a strange casualty for Divines remarkable for resolution and famous for immutability to flit their sentiments as ordinarily as the Moon does her appearances yet the Proof brought that those Divines did not imitate Cranmer in compliance and submission of judgment to the present Possessor of White-Hall is no more than an heap of this Minister's conjectures stampt with the superscription of a Rational account when-as Dr. Heylin equal to Dr. Burnet in abilities and industry and incomparably more honest than that perfidious Fugitive reports that the changes were made lest in excluding a carnal Presence they the Divines sure might be thought to reject such a Real presence as was defended in the writings of the Ancient Fathers Nor is the design of reconciling Parties inconsistent with a change of opinions A comprehension-affair may be pursued by Real Presence-men as well as Zuinglians As to the Copy of Articles perused by Dr. Burnet and out of him mentioned pag. 58. we say again that it ought to be concluded from that rased Monument rather that the Divines did than did not change their Opinions for he that reverses a subscription voluntarily is likelier to have altered his resolution than to have retain'd it especially when induced to expunge what had bin agreed on by an Authority whereto by the Principle of Lay-Supremacy lately assumed by the Prince and submitted to by themselves their judgments were to conform and whose sentiments in Religion they were to believe and profess For Queen Elizabeth had by a dreadful example just then told the world as after she had like to have done in the Lambeth-Articles-Affair that She would not hear the Church but tho a woman be heard by it in matters of Faith and would neither consult with nor follow but controll and prescribe-to Convocations in causes of meer Religion Had She not refused to hear the voice of the whole Clergy in her first and the last Canonical Convocation In a Convocation acting agreeably not only to the institution of Christianity and rules of the Catholick Church but of all other Convocations that ever were in the Nation unless a few in Hen. 8. and Edw. 6. time in a Convocation acting according to all Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil then in force in this Kingdom and representing the Church of England by Law established How then could its Declaration be illegal as the Reflecter on the Historical Part of the Fifth part of Church-Government p. 82. will needs esteem it What could the Queen under a penalty justly prohibit them the use of that Authority both Christ and the Laws of the Land had setled on them alone If this were not tyranny where shall instances of it be found But that Reverend and Catholick Assembly understood both its own power and duty better than so and despising the temporal terrors that only a Tyrant in that case would threaten and a Persecutor execute discharged it self with constancy as became men entrusted with the souls of the Nation tho deprivation were the reward of their Confession Her new and parasitical Ministers understood then what they must do and that for that very end She had raised them up even to think and act at her appointment In return to the conjectures wherewith the Answerer strives to blanch o're a soul defection from the Catholick faith we will relate how we apprehend Religious affairs were managed At Edward the Sixths coming to the Crown the Doctrine of the Church of England was a substantial Presence the manner of that Presence was Transubstantiation but thro the Ambition and Avarice of Governing Parties some quickly began to contest and forsake this Faith vet by degrees rejecting first the manner and afterwards the Presence being assisted in this Apostasy by a few and opposed by most of the Clergy and Laity hence tho there were Assemblies and deliberations had yet no Canonical determinations pass'd or are extant unless such approbations may be deemed Synodical that were obtained by terrors and deprivations of many the most eminent Bishops and dignified Ecclesiasticks for relucting at what derogated from Christian Truth and Church Authority All was done by the conduct and influence of the evil Spirit and neither Scripture nor Antiquity rightly consulted or observed only herein the diligence and craft of those destroying Reformers must to their eternal infamy be own'd that they distinguished points immediately obstructing their gain and licentiousness from others more indifferent rejecting chiefly such as debarred them from spoiling the Church and gratifying their sensual appetites Thus as superstitious or idolatrous prayer for the Faithful deceased that Chanteries the Mass that the furniture of Altars c might be alienated
the present Church of England in compliance with the black Rubrick this Minister's only publick evidence such as it is against both a Substantial presence and Adoration must be concluded to deny Adoration from its beginning it did not so and in 1660 it could not be said the Church of England by Law establish'd condemns Adoration no Test no Rubrick was then extant no Penal Laws whereto the establishment as well as original of their Church is to be ascribed constraining any man to subscribe with or without consent a villanous slander upon the whole Church of God upon the Lutherans and themselves too till the Return of King Charles II. and since the contrary hath bin both said printed and practised by the genuine Sons of the Church of England who regarded the Rubric no more than the rest of that communion do the Fasts and other ceremonies injoyn'd them by the same Liturgy Pag. 87 l. 27. Now to this I shall at present only say That the Supposition being absurd does not admit of a rational consideration c. Here he asserts it impossible for Christ's body to exist or to be present except in the circumstances and cloathed with all the ordinary properties of a Body and consequently must disbelieve not only that the bodies of Saints at the Resurrection shall neither marry nor be given in marriage not need nourishment c but be as the Angels impassible c. and so either deny a Heaven or admit a Mahometan Paradise but also question our Lord's resurrection the stone unrolled from the mouth of the Sepulcher and his entrance into the room the door being shut and besides censure St. Paul's Spiritual body as absurd Could our Lord's body rise from the Grave thro a Stone and enter a close Room ad modum corporis If not then this Answerer must either retract this passage as an affront to Faith or Socinian-like reject the Scripture testifying this because absurd to his low and impure conceptions but if it could and did then where are our Minister and his vain Philosophy If he has known some admitting the Supposition That our Lord's Body may be present and not after the ordinary sensible manner of Corporal presence and yet resolving against adoration of it such oppose what this man concedes in the first Supposition unless he grant adoration due to the corporeal manner of Christ's presence and not to Christ himself Pag. 88 l. 13. I presume it was then in the times of Popery for since the Reformation I have shewn before that she always held the contrary viz. That our Lord's presence in the Eucharist is not adorable In the most flourishing Protestant times an adorable presence was believed and profest by Bishop Andrews deputed by the Head of the English Church to declare her sentiment in this matter He is not therefore to be considered as a private Doctor or Bishop but as the mouth of the Church and presumed to know and neither to falsify nor oppose her Doctrine or practice How came this Man to more skill and authority in expounding the Doctrine of the Church of England than that very learned Bishop Did King James II. depute you to expound it What reason do you assign why I must discredit Bishop Andrews and acquiesce in your exposition I cannot foresee how you can prove your self more honest more able more authentick than that extraordinary Bishop was But what does that accurate Plenipotentiary publish Does he fence and seek subterfuges as dreading or blushing to tell his thoughts No his expressions are with assurance and perspicuity He proclaims to the world that the King James I. believed and adored our Lord truly present in the Eucharist and we Church of England-men with Ambrose adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries and with Austin we do not eat the flesh without first adoring it Did Bishop Andrews speak true or did he not If he did then the Answerer speaks what 's false if he did not why may we not reject a Protestant Minister's testimony when such a Bishop's is so tardy What adoration Protestants render to the Divine Majesty in their other Religious offices we are not at leisure to enquire but that in this of the Eucharist the Bishop and King and consequently their Church adored the Flesh of Christ is to any one of modesty and candor undeniable They adored as St. Ambrose and St. Austin adored which was just in the same manner and in the self same degree as the Catholick Church adores at this day Those Fathers gave sovereign worship to the Flesh to the natural flesh of Christ substantially present in the Eucharist and Hypostatically united to his Soul and Divinity Our Dispute then with this Minister is about the adoration of Christ himself if about the adoration of his Flesh unless his Natures and Person be separable Pag. 89. l. 17. But is he sure the Bishop meant so i. e. that Bishop Taylor meant we worship the Body or Flesh of Christ Yes He is sure that Author meant the Flesh of Christ 1. Because the same Bishop Real Pres p. 144. says We worship the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our souls 2. Because the Action it self is not adorable the words then must either intend the flesh of Christ or What do they signify What is it the Bishop worships in the venerable usages of the signs Not the signs yet Divine Honor is given given then either to nothing or to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries 3. Because the Bishop is considering St. Ambrose's testimony for adoring the flesh of Christ in the mysteries and waving the usual refuges of the testimony being spurious or a Rhetorical flight c. he acknowledges that his party worships as St. Ambrose did Certainly then they have the same object pay the same service and at the like solemn occasions i. e. sovereign adoration to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries for this St. Ambrose undoubtedly perform'd And what if this Bishop according to his native constancy in another book recede from this was it therefore none of his thought when this was written Can his dictating contrary elsewhere alter the sence of what was said long before Pag. 90. l. 6. Since I have read of a Protestant Minister c. Very faithfully translated The Minister was permitted says the Answerer to exercise the functions of his Ministry as before 'T is false says the Margent He was not to preach any thing against the belief of the true Church nor to celebrate the Supper Thus the Man's Margent confutes his Text and his Translation quarrels with the Original Ibid. l. 17. As for Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato it is not to be wondred if men that had entertain'd the design of reconciling all Parties were forced to strain sometimes a little further than was fit c. An Answer very solid and very charitable For first is not this a concession that these Protestant Bishops allowed adoration
the pillar stript and in the common Hall arrayed in 's Mock Regalia without an actual distinction of his garments from himself had the same object of his piety Ibid. l. 18. I must tell him that the adoration of those among the Lutherans is infinitely more excusable than theirs the Catholicks And this Good Man he is forced to assert not out of prejudice but by the cogency of some reasons The Reader will admire his assurance if he weighs his arguments As first because we Catholicks violate sense which the Lutherans preserve entire Now to wave both the impertinence and falshood of this leading Reason as intimating that we violate sense and that either the nature or heinousness of Idolatry depends thereon t is enough to quash it to affirm that the Lutherans violate sense as much as we Do they not believe the Body of our Lord present with the Bread Do not our senses tell us as experimentally there is no flesh present as they do that Bread is there He that says there are ten men in a Room where sense informs there are but five must needs treat sense with as much violence as he that says there are but five when ten are seen The violence done to sense therefore if any be done and so the inexcusableness is equal on the Lutheran to that on our side We descend to his next Reason the former part of it viz. that the Lutherans are right in their Object himself has overthrown in 's 89th pag. if he approve what he cites out of Dr. Taylor For the Lutheran object is a non Ens if Jesus Christ be not substantially present and if He be not in ours how can He be in their Eucharist since our Priesthood whereon all grant his being there in some sort depends is more undoubted valid and canonical than theirs they deriving Sacerdotal Orders from a Presbyter's Ordination which all Antiquity and Prelatick Protestants in their seuds with Presbytery and by their present practice in ordaining such Ministers anew damn not only as spurious but as null we from Episcopal legitimately communicated If then the Lutherans be right in their object much more are we Have we not more assurance that our Lord is there and He only is there We run therefore a less risque of missing him than they The other part of his 2d Reason seems to be an Ignoratio Elenchi the common Fallacy imploy'd by Protestants and this Minister especially in this dispute to amuse and deceive his Reader for if I comprehend him he proceeds on this ground that we hold the substance of the Bread to be the material of which the Body of Christ is made whenas we believe nothing like it Our Doctrine is that by Sacerdotal consecration the substance of our Lord's Body which now resides in Heaven and shall enjoy that glorious condition till his second Advent becomes however existent also under the species of Bread and Wine in a Spiritual manner and that the substance of Bread and Wine wholly ceases to he under those species as before consecration it was but further notice our faith takes not of the Breaden substance whether it be annihilated or how it ceases If the Breaden substance be absent then we do not adore that substance for Christ's body which is not his and if it be present we do not adore it unless we can be supposed to adore what we think not of or what we think to be nothing or to believe and adore two substances of one Body and be said to direct our devotion another way at the same time we with the strictest abstraction aim at the substance assumed by the eternal Word in the Virgin 's womb and now and ever personally united to it If we should worship the Eucharist whether there be a Substantial presence or no then we might well pass for Bread-worshippers if our Lord were not substantially present but worshiping not so loosly at random nor without a solid supposition of a substantial presence demonstrates we do direct our piety to our Saviour only never reflecting on what either ceases or remains of the elements so as to make them partners or rivals with him in our Duty The truth of the 5th Catholick Assertion is then evinced our worship is as excusable as the Lutherans and the new auxiliary Reasons drawn up p. 102. l. ult to oppose it afresh are indeed nothing to the purpose and moreover the former of them is false too We can be sufficiently sure of due consecration and anathematizing Dissenters does not alter the excusableness of our worship If our worship be of the same nature with the Lutheran and have as good grounds the imposing of it adds not one jot of guilt to it whatever it do to the imposers The Answerer then ought to have totally assented to the 6th Catholick Assertion for the same sound reason which moved him to grant it true of the Lutherans that their Object is right ours being certainly as true or the same with theirs and if we mistake the substance of Bread they worship nothing for Christ We worship no Host i.e. neither any substance that ever was or is a breaden substance nor yet the symbols but only Christ sacramentally existing who never was nor can be a Wafer nor made of either the substance or accidents of Bread. How then can we possibly mistake what is not Christ for Him unless the Christ born of the ever-blessed Virgin be not Christ Perverse therefore is the parallel of our worship to that of a Manichee's fancying Christ to be made of the Sun's substance this in that Heretick was both groundless and impossible whenas ours is quite another sentiment and founded on motives clear and infallible so far different in the thing as the substance born of our Lady is from that of the Bread or the Sun so far unlike in the ground as the fiction of a single Persian impostor is less credible than express Revelation and the constant Tradition of the Catholick Church Much-what the same Chaff is served up p. 106. to shew more difference between Us and the Lutherans than a Trans and Con amount to So zealous is this Polemic Divine to reduce Christians to an amicable temper that he exceeds the bounds of discretion and reverence not only to his own Party and the Noblest Nations of Christendom but also to his Prince For whilst He and others labour for Peace this man like seditious Love represents them irreconcilable His first reason here is already exposed There is either no or an equal violence done to Sense by Us and the Lutherans His second Reason is as faulty as his first if we are at defiance with any Texts that call the Eucharist Bread are not the Lutherans at as much defiance with those that call it Flesh and our Lord's Body for both it cannot be substantially Flesh and substantially Bread. To his third Reason viz. That the words of Institution afford occasion of inferring a Presence of
Natural Philosophers treat of it such are dimensions figure weight impenetrability circumscription by place motion sensibility and the like But the same body quit of those conditions and now spiritualized is under far different proprieties even those which belong to Angels and Spirits to whom they become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pares or aequales as becoming one Church and oeconomy with them Those we may best conceive by the histories in the Scripture of the apparitions of Angels or if you please by our own Souls which tho penetrating every atome of the Body and communicating to it all its powers yet is but one in the whole and yet in every part is it wholly whether the body be bigger or lesser mutilated or entire neither parted diminished or doubled nor yet many but the same soul wholly in every part For it is not in the body as in a place except we as this Replier seems bring in Cartesianism and confine the soul to the glandula pinealis or if as is most consonant to his principles to some one atome of it contrary to the doctrine of all Christian Philosophers and the virtue and efficacy of it only communicated to the other parts of the body So a Spiritual body however this be hard to conceive by imagination in this state accustomed to sensation and materiality hath no certain dimensions figure weight sensibility or alteration nor circumscription by place but as it self pleaseth to discover it self So besides the examples of the Angels our Lord appeared and disappeared continued and vanished passed thro gross bodies and the like as himself pleased Now from circumscription by place or an ambient body ariseth naturally an impossibility to be in several places at once Naturally I say because by the power of God even this quality as well as the rest may be separated from the natural body as it was by his all-powerful wisdom freely given unto it It seems to me little less than blasphemy to say That the Allmighty power which at first created a natural body with such properties cannot also suspend the actions of those Properties or conserve the subject without them it being the same as saying that He cannot work a Miracle all Miracles being a superseding his own rules which he established against all other Natural but not against his own Divine Power And why not suspend locality a relative property belonging to the Body as a Member of the Universe as well as weight or motion which seem more absolute and intrinsecal to the nature of the body Why cannot he contravene to one Rule as well as to another especially when there is no contradiction As there is none in this case of our Lord's presence in the Eucharist as both our Author and all Catholicks affirm notwithstanding the Repliers shuffling to fasten such an Opinion upon him To be here and not here may be a contradiction but to be here and there is none But what more contradiction is it than that five Loaves carried by a little Boy should feed five thousand men and much more remain than was at first a Miracle preparatory to this of the Blessed Sacrament And without penetration of Bodies which granted introduceth the possibility of a Body's being in several places how can a Camel pass thro the Eye of a Needle which yet is possible with God as is what our Lord saith of himself when upon Earth that he was also in Heaven Jo. 1.18.3.13.7.34 But as a Spirit is not at all confin'd to place so nothing hinders why it may not coexist with Bodies in distinct places by which alone we know its being in several locations tho indeed it is in no location at all in proper speaking contrary to what our Replier affixeth to Catholicks as Elisha's Spirit went along with his Servant and St. Paul's joy'd in beholding the orderly carriage of the Colossians and the Evil Spirits also a whole Legion possessing one one Spirit inhabiting almost every atom of his Body and the blessed tutelar Angels continually behold the face of God in Heaven as well as attend their charge upon Earth Whereby it seems exempt from the conditions of Bodies So then Catholicks say That the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not now under the properties of a natural body nor is it necessary that it should be locally any-where nor heavy nor subject to motion passibility or the like And when Catholicks say that our Lord 's natural body or that he is corporally present they mean That his body even that natural body receiv'd of the B. Virgin for he hath no other is really truly and indeâ—d present and given to us in the Eucharist but not so corporally i. e. with those properties of or as a natural body for corporally and locally are not the same as our Replier everywhere stumbles but as spiritual and being now glorified yet therefore not as dead an irreverent expression to say no worse of the Replier but yet as given and having suffer'd for us even in the same manner as himself our blessed High-Priest continually Offereth it up to the Father for us Again Note That the bestowing and receiving of the benefits of our Lord's Passion is giving somewhat real but that real is not his body and blood nor in proper speaking are those the benefits of his body and blood for then they could not be receiv'd without the body and blood whereas now they are according to our Replier accidents without a subject and effects without a cause but of his passion and sufferings And therefore our Saviour declares the use and benefit of his body and blood by eating and drinking which are not compatible to the benefits of his passion by any metaphor or similitude whatsoever And therefore the Second Edition of the English Common-Prayer-Book leaves out these words The body and blood c. and only says Take and eat this Bit of Bread and Sup of Wine in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thanksgiving And the first Edition of the Catechism saith Fidem esse os animae quo cibum hunc plane divinum salutis juxta immortalitatis plenum Spiritus Sancti gratia communicatum recipimus Faith is improperly said to receive except in the sense of those Protestants who take it for application of Christ's personal righteousness to us but what resembles eating and drinking in or by Faith or what actions of Faith correspond to them I cannot imagine But our Saviour represents his body unto us under the notion of meat and its effects particularly the Manna whereunto he compares it Such are 1. To conserve nourish advance restore in us what by worldly conversation and the like is decay'd and weak'ned and to strengthen us in our Spiritual life and estate as the Food it self was Spiritual 2. By uniting us to the Food Flesh of his Flesh Bone of his Bone contrary to the Manna and natural meat which receive life from
the nourished it makes us partakers of his Life which being immortal and glorious renders ours such also And 3. Other Food being either inanimate or having a Life inferior unto and differing from ours this Body of his is become superior more Divine than ours and is a quickning Spirit And therefore we should receive his Body and Blood after the manner of natural bodies which the Capernaites and our sensual Doctors can apprehend it would profit us nothing as to the great effects promised by our Receiving in the Eucharist And these effects are true and real not notional or imaginary or by Faith only apprehended yea much more than the Manna Faith being an assent in the understanding is quite different from enjoyment in the will and affections And Faith i. e. a believing either that our Lord was the true Messias or Messenger from the Father for else he could not be the true Bread which came down from Heaven or that this which is given us is the real Body of our Saviour for else it would be only common Bread precedes the Receiving yet is not any part of it much less the enjoyment of any of the effects of it Again If eating by Faith whatever it signifies be all that is meant in the Eucharist how comes it to be preferr'd before the Manna which was a continual Miracle and daily exercise of their Faith And why would our Lord suffer so many of his Followers to go away from him when he might in so few words have inform'd them of the Truth without a Metaphor Why should he use such sublime and spiritual expressions repeating it to be his body and blood that it came down from Heaven that he would give it for the life of the world c. and not once explain the meaning of those to them obscure phrases And if the Church Catholick and even the Church of England till the last of King Edward VI. had not conceiv'd some great Mystery why would she keep the words so obscure and really as they suppose improper of the Institution so precisely even till the Church of England made the breach and by the Expressions different from the whole Church profess'd her self not to be a Member of it But of this sufficient is said before and in the Reformation of the Church of England from § 148. Wherefore the Catholicks speaking of the real presence of our Lord mean◠the very essence substance the very thing it self is there present taken and eaten by us and not only the benefits of his Passion believ'd by us And in the Church's sense we use in this Discourse the words really really present c. and yet not naturally locally or any other manner of its being according to the qualities of a natural body § 2 And note secondly That these Writers and others pretending to be of the Church of England by their spiritual by Faith mystical eating which they sometimes also call Sacramental intend a sense contrary and opposite to eating the natural body of our Lord spiritualiz'd and that is all the eating they acknowledg The Catholick Church also useth the same word spiritual in opposition to real or sacramental meaning thereby the reception of some spiritual grace or encrease of it As the Fathers in the Wilderness did eat the same meat Manna and the Rock-water spiritually in as much as these were Types of spiritual things under the Gospel by receiving whereof they also obtain'd the graces of Gods Spirit And this spiritual reception of Grace is not only in the Eucharist but in all the other Sacraments in all actions of Devotion and Piety and all manner of well-using Grace once given But this is not all the Sacramental receiving tho contain'd in it So that there are two manners of receiving Grace and our Saviour 1. Spiritual only which our Replier says is all 2. Spiritual and real or Sacramental because proper to the Eucharist The real without the spiritual profiteth nothing yea it is also damnable For except a man come to the Eucharist well prepar'd i. e. by Mortifications Devotions Acts of Religion i. e. in a state of Grace he eats and drinks condemnation to himself The spiritual receiving without the real profiteth indeed but neither so much nor in such manner as when they are join'd both together For spiritual receiving is of more Grace upon well-using the former is only in general and in the inner man therefore difficultly discern'd and more subject are we to be deceiv'd in it But real receiving as all other Sacraments is instituted to help the weakness and imperfect discernment of our spiritual and internal condition by the visible signs of invisible Grace therein bestow'd The spiritual eating gives us a right and title to Grace but the other is the very instrument of conveying it Also in that Grace is given according to the measure of the Receiver's disposition and that Grace also which is of the same nature with those dispositions But in the Sacraments are given new and peculiar Graces as in Baptism the forgiveness of all sins already committed and admission into the Church of Christ and all the rights and benefits thereof So in the holy Eucharist there is conferr'd also forgiveness of sins and a nearer incorporating us into our Lord himself more intimately and consequently a more certain hope and confidence of eternal life by receiving himself into us who is now become a quickning Spirit unto us working by his body receiv'd the seed of immortality all things necessary or useful to our happy progress thither Be pleased therefore to consider Whether they who acknowledg no other than a spiritual receiving do not either quite evacuate the power and efficacy or at least diminish much and weaken the force of this divine Sacrament And also that whoever they are who endeavour to subject or reduce Religion to the Rule of Reason do not in effect deny and despise the wisdom of God declar'd in the mystery of our holy Religion § 3 Note Thirdly That Catholicks trouble not themselves to reconcile Religion to Philosophy Their endeavour is to understand the true sense of what God hath revealed and to this purpose they make use of all the helps which others do but principally depend upon what the Church Catholick and her Doctors from time to time have receiv'd and declar'd i. e. how they to whom our Lord committed his Mysteries have from the beginning believ'd and deliver'd that charge deliver'd unto them how the practice hath interpreted the Law and how the Holy Spirit by his Instruments the Clergy of the Catholick Church hath continued it down to their time Nor do they regard what either private interpretation or what Philosophy or Principles fram'd by men's understandings out of their experience or frame of Languages suggest They leave these to them who affect to diminish the unfathomable knowledg communicated to us by God in his Revelations to Arians Socinians Latitudinarians and other Doctors of Sensuality But
Replier would falsly translate or interpret The real presence which we hold is as real as the corporal which the Papists hold Which Proposition is both false in it self and falsly father'd upon Bishop Andrews For they who believe only a figurative presence believe not so much as they who believe a real also For it is to say That he who believes a real absence believes a real presence Pag. 27. Marg. Christ was made in all things like to us In his Incarnation that we might be made like to him in his glorification In his Incarnation a natural body with the like imperfections sufferings c. in his Glorification a spiritual body The Heavens must contain him The word is not contain but receive him That his body which is not now endowed with natural properties but spiritual is in Heaven no Catholick denies for that would be against the Creed But they say that he is both in Heaven and in the Eucharist or else what needs all this discourse about his being in several places at once Pag. 28. Would he not wonder that St. Austin Our Author's quotation out of St. Austin de cura pro mortuis is true and pertinent Our Replier himself p 29. seems not to dare affirm that a Spirit cannot be in several places or ubi's but if it be a contradiction S. Austin needs not enquire if not a coutradiction neither is it for a spiritual body to be so So that it matters not whether the Martyrs bodies are spoken of by St. Austin Nor doth the quotations brought by our Replier out of St. Austin Ep. 57. ad Dardanum nor that of Tract 31. in Johan in the least contradict the doctrine of the Church But that in Tract 30. in Joh. is perfectly against the Replier For after that S. Austin had said that our Lord was in divers places in heaven and earth in his life time by the omnipotence of Almighty God he saith that homo indeed secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non est He speaks here of men in this natural state which is most true if no miracle interposed but concerning our Saviour he had said before that he was whilst upon earth in heaven also by the power of God. Pag. 29. A contradiction for a body to be locally in one place and really received in another What the Author saith is most true what the Replier substitutes is neither the Author's nor common sense But it is most certain that to say the real substantial body of our Lord is only in heaven and the same body to be really received upon earth is as much a contradiction as to say the natural essential body of our Lord is really in several places which is none at all Thus have I with very great taedium justified our Author against the Replier what remains is either repetition of what is said before or concerns the subject of Adoration concerning which if it please God to continue our strength we shall not be long in his debt Corrigenda Addenda Pag. line  11. 20. p. 54. 72. 18. 28. to body 28. 2. dele in the quotation set down above p. 50. 34. 35. Obs 3. p. 13. 51. 28. p. 49. 50. the places 52. 14. before p. 35. 54. 4. dele p. 123. 54. 23. opinion p. 69. 64. 13. Christus non jubet 71. 6. c. See p. 60. 71. 19. observation p. 19.  21. cross p. 75. 80. 17. taken passively 87. 23. quotation p. 48. 108. 19. of Suarez p. 105. 110. 24. above p. 102. 129. 33. there confuting it 133. 1. comes more peace 148. 13. Bishop Poinet