serves the turn 3. Because from a thing prov'd useless sometimes or to some persons from some incapability of the subject c. it follows not that it is so altogether and to others As it follows not that such a Diet not nourishing or also hurting a languishing stomach therefore doth not profit to a sound To illustrate it a little in our present subject By Baptism or also by Faith and Repentance before Baptism or the fervent desire of Baptism when it cannot be had we are regenerated and united to Christ and made members of his body yet will any therefore say that in Baptism we enjoy as much a communion of the body and blood of Christ as in the Eucharist Or that the Eucharist is inutile Therefore hath Christ given us also the symbols of his body in vain Therefore do we possess no more of his grace and goodness by believing and receiving also the Sacrament of his body and blood than only by believing on him But the if receiving him spiritualiter by Faith and sacramentaliter be better than spiritualiter only why may not sacramentaliter and coporaliter be also better than sacramentaliter only Who can demonstrate it That the faithful receive no more benefit from the Divine good pleasure by faith and the body of our Lord substantially present than he should by faith and the body only typically present since all depends on God's good pleasure Why may it not be his will to confer the complement of our union with him and the perfection of grace and charity in us and the last seal of our immortality and incorruptibility in us not by the receipt of the symbols of his body but by his very body united and join'd to our souls and bodies and yet not these to all that receive it neither because it acts not physically or irresistibly but to the worthy Calvin as he is very inconstant in his expressions concerning this Sacrament seems to hint something to this purpose Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 9. s 11. Quae omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin Christus totus spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat that we may be membra corporis ejus ex ossibus ejus carne ejus magnum istud arcanum Eph. 5. and s 11. Quo i. e. exhibitione sanguinis corporis ejus primum in unum corpus cum ipso coalescimus deinde participes substantiae ejus facti in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentimus See B. Forbes l. 1. c. 1 s 26 27. much to this purpose Prisci fideles ante Christi incarnationem carnem Christi spiritualiter edebant in manna rebus aliis figuratam sufficienter pro statu Oeconomiae illius ad salutem 1 Cor. 10. Sed nihilominus per communicationem carnis Christi in Eucharistia multo altius solidius nos Christianos incorporari Christo quam priscos fideles qui spiritualiter tantum seu per solam fidem carnem Christi manducabant credidit semper Ecclesia Catholica nos cum edimus eundem Christum fide quidem utili sed fide rei praesentis quae actu ipso non sola spe nobis cum pane exhibetur modo tamen ineffabili c. câ—rtum est per manducationem mysticam corporis Domini nos multo efficacius plenius sublimius augustius strictius arctius corpori sanguini Christi uniri quam perilla i. e. verbum fidem baptismum c. Quam ob causam Hoc sacramentum dicitur per excellentiam communio quia scil hunc modum per manducationem mysticam Christus instituit longe efficacissimum perficiendae unionis conjunctionis quam arctissimae inter sese membra sua c. I conclude therefore that very transcendent may the effect of this corporal presence of our Saviour be beyond a spiritual and symbolical only as the effect of a spiritual and also symbolical in the. Sacrament is granted to be more than of a spiritual only tho the virtue thereof by God's good pleasure be obstructed and denyed to the unworthy even as his blood shed on the Cross and given for all yet is not effectual or beneficial to many To the 6th Chapter of St. John's Gospel Supposing for the present § LV what Dr. Taylor and others contend for That our Saviour speaks only of a spiritual feeding on him by faith and not of the sacramental at all Yet as the Doctor will grant that this Chapter contains in it nothing prejudicial to our attaining some benefit by receiving the sacrament and the symbols of Christ's body therein tho it is most true of these symbols that they of themselves profit nothing as to confer on us an eternal life without the participation also of the spirit of Christ communicated only to believers So I return that it contains nothing in it prejudicial to our obtaining some benefit from the sacramental receiving of our Saviour's very flesh Tho it is most true also of this very flesh that receiv'd alone without the spirit as it is by all the unworthy communicants it doth help nothing at all to make a man live for ever The whole passage in Joh. 6. seems to be thus When our Saviour had told the Capernaites upon occasion of their boasting how Moses gave them Manna to eat that much beyond those Manna-eaters that were dead he whosoever should eat the flesh of the Son of man should live for ever they conceiv'd his meaning to be that whoso could get a piece of his flesh and eat it should by virtue thereof for ever be preserv'd in life And this seem'd to them so unreasonable and so barbarous a thing either that he should any way feed them with his flesh or that they that fed with it should by the strength and force thereof live for ever that they forsook him and his doctrine Upon which he instructs them further in this mystery as it seems to me to this effect 1. That they should not eat his flesh at all in such a manner as they imagin'd i. e. in its natural condition but that he should ascend up to Heaven where he was before and so that his flesh with him see ver 62. upon which ascent the Spirit should come upon all true believers which Spirit should give them this life see Joh. 7.38 39. 2. That his flesh if eaten then or whenever it should be eaten in such manner as he should communicate it to them could give them no life alone or by its own virtue but only by his Spirit which is the fountain of life eternal join'd with and accompanying his flesh and that not to all receiving his flesh but to the believer of his words which words therefore in the close of ver 63 when believ'd in he calls spirit and life i. e. conferring the Spirit from which is receiv'd that life See ver 63. wherein that you may the better understand the usual expression of this Evangelist see Joh. 4.14 and 7.38 39. where the Spirit signified in both places by water is declar'd to be the fountain of life eternal And
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
doctrines wherein she agrees with the Catholick Church she chooseth to abstain from her terms The 4th Alteration was in King Charles I time in the Book of Common Prayer sent down into Scotland wherein most things were reduced to the first edition of King Edward VI. but was most barbarously defamed by the Presbyterians there for Popery But Arch-Bishop Lawd did not intend any Popery but vainly imagined to settle a Church neer to but not conformable with the Catholick Religion which was impossible it being not a plant planted by our Lord but of his own policy and therefore was to be rooted up or a branch torn from the Vine of the Catholick Church and therefore dead and unfruitful The last Alteration was at the Return of King Charles II. wherein was a contrary course endeavoured a complying with the Presbyterians a business somewhat plausible but not according to Religion Then was brought in the Rubrick against the Real presence And tho as I have heard the Clergy at that time made great opposition yet when by an Higher Power it was established they all submitted to and embraced it The Church hath always held a Real presence so far as a real Participation implies one It is most certain that if the Body of our Lord be really received it is also really present But the Replier owns not a real participation of the Body of our Saviour but a figurative one of the benefits of his Passion and those not really but by faith only which is only of things revealed and things not enjoyed besides the reception is oral only and not of the benefits or effects but of the bread and wine after which follows a feeding by faith which is properly spoken neither of the symbols nor the benefits That the Church of England never acknowledged any other presence is false as hath bin shewed both in the precedent Discourse and Appendix and if these testimonies be not sufficient he shall have as many more as he pleaseth But see his Instances p. 14. how a real reception may be of a thing really absent He that receives a Disciple receiveth Christ But this is not a really true but a figurative expression signifying that he who receives a Disciple shall be esteemed and rewarded as if he received Christ himself The Disciples received the Holy Ghost really if as some Doctors think the Holy Ghost descended upon them if only the graces of the Spirit as is more ordinarily said it was only a figurative speech and no real reception A man receives an inheritance when he receives the writings livery and seisin c. but here is nothing really received but the writings or some other thing whereby the inheritance is conceived to be given not properly but by common custom and vulgar manner of speaking grounded upon positive laws or mutual compact A Prince receiveth a Kingdom really if he be present in and to it but if any other way he receives it not really It is no news that the word receive is sometimes used figuratively and in divers manners but the word really is not figurative nor being applied to receive suffers it to be taken figuratively And so the Church hath always understood it i. e. both that receiving and the received were true and real and not figurative only and it is hard to conceive that our Lord in the last and most solemn mystery of his whole life should make use of so dilute and improper an expression Pag. 5. It is easie to assign good reasons for the Alterations Be it easie neither himself nor any else that I have seen have given such good reasons He refers us to Dr. Burnet Foxes and Firebrands c. dirty Pools which himself also had fished already and found nothing 'T is said first That it was not thought fit to cast off Superstition all at once Superstition then that ancient Form was which notwithstanding had remained so many hundred years already and the whole Church for all that time was guilty of Superstition But the new Form establish'd by a few partial or also ignorant persons was void of Superstition But if they chang'd the former because of Superstition what made them so often change the other Heresie But how came it to pass that they tolerated Superstition so long Must ill be done that good may come of it But why would Q. Eliz. introduce Superstition again when once ejected Again 't is said That the Alterations were lawful because not against Scripture and in that the Subjects ought to acquiesce not regarding the prudence of the Changes for which the true reasons are only guessed but political ones may be seen in Burnet c. It seems the Reformers guided themselves not by Religion but Policy an evil ingredient in Church-matters But neither indeed were they either political expedient or lawful For certainly it was not good policy 1. To introduce such a division into the Nation which at the beginning raised Commotions and Civil Wars in several parts of the Kingdom 2. To introduce Antimonarchical Principles and such Opinions as manifestly oppose the Kingly Government By unhinging their Consciences and diminishing the Power of the Clergy which as long as it was incorporated into the rest of the great Body of the Church did and would always have been able to maintain the Power of the King and setting up the Power of the People making them Judges of matters of Religion thereby exempting them from the Government of the Clergy by whom they might be and were kept in Obedience to God and their Soveraign Noâ— were the Alterations lawful because not made by the lawful Ecclesiastical Magistrates or agreeable to the rest of God's Church but an erecting an Altar against an Altar a Sacramentary Zuinglian Table against the Altar of God in his Holy Church and consequently made a breach upon the Unity of the Church and exposed those who consent to them to the great wrath of Almighty God and hazard of their own Salvation Another Argument of the Change of the Doctrine was the Omission of divers Ceremonies very significant of if not necessary unto the perfection of this Sacrament As first The omission of taking the Bread or Patten into the Hand of the Consecrator being in it self an application of the words of Consecration to the matter proposed To this the Replier saith That the Nature of the Action implies the Ceremony of the Handling the Patten and Chalice Therefore more the shame of them who made it not necessary but left it indifferent Then 1. The omitting of them denies a Consecration I say If that Ceremony was omitted or not enjoin'd 't is very probable that neither was Consecration intended or believ'd which secondly to be the intention of the Framers of the second Liturgy is very likely because they omitted the words The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ as also because they chang'd the Form into Take and eat this individuum vagum something or nothing Consecrated or not-Consecrated Tho