misconstruction for which the * Pandectae Canonum c. publish'd at Oxford by Dr. Beverege Council in Trullo Can. 81. condemn'd the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that hymn 4. The omission of these words in these holy mysteries might be purely accidental and pass undiscover'd because as they signifie no more then in this celebration of the Eucharist they have no material influence upon the sense But if we understand as perhaps a perverse man may that these mysteries signifie the same with these elements that is cause enough to omit them because they would assert an opinion which is contrary to sound Doctrine and the declar'd judgment of the Church Disc I. §. 3. n. 1. pag 3. What is farther observable in the two first Sections is repeated and back'd in the third and might be safely pass'd over as containing nothing material but what we again meet with there For concerning the Form prescrib'd in delivering the consecrated Elements he tell 's us that in K. Edwards first book the Form was The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. in his second Take and eat this in remembrance c. in Qu. Elizabeths both these put together as they still continue in the English Liturgy But withal he tells us the first of these Forms descends to us from Antiquity and he finds no fault with the second which is entirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution So that we are yet to seek where the harme lies of using either Form single or both of them together and yet farther to seek to what purpose this observation is made since 't is manifest that neither Form single nor both of them together either owns a Corporal or denyes a Real Presence He addds that the Scotch Rubrick keeping the first Form requires the Communicant to answer to it Amen which without a Rubrick ever was and is still the Practice of the Church of England for what more natural then to answer Amen to a prayer and so were divers other things as for instance standing up at the Gospel and saying Glory be to thee O Lord which the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy having good reason to approve thought fit to injoyn by a Rubrick that the Puritans might have no pretence for Nonconformity But to return to the Communicants answering Amen the Pamphlet truly observes it to be according to custome of Antiquity but I doubt the proofs it quotes are not very judiciously chosen The place in Eusebius belongs plainly to another thing The words are Hist VII 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Which evidently shews that That Amen was answer'd to the Doxology before the distribution of the Elements as not only Justin Martyr could have taught him but even Valesius himself in his Notes upon that passage of Eusebius I leave the examen of the other two Quotations to them that have leisure and the Books by them 't is probable they may prove as pertinent as this For I find it a common practice in this man 's other Works to quote those passages at length which he thinks will bear the stress of an Argument and barely refer to such places as contain only a hint which perhaps an unwary Reader may go near to swallow This Amen was spoken says the Pamphlet as the Communicants confession that what he receiv'd was Corpus Domini But I shall rather learn the meaning of it from Justin Martyr * Just Mart. Edit Steph Apol. 2. pag. 162. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who observes that Amen in Hebrew signifies so be it wherefore according to His notion the Communicant answering Amen only joyns with the Priest in praying that the Body and Blood of Christ may preserve his Body and Soul to everlasting life The Pamphlet farther observes that in K. Edwards first book there was this passage in the prayer of Consecration And with thy holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ which was afterwards left out of the English Liturgy and restor'd in the Scotch This omission by the way is something injudiciously observ'd because it shews us that the Clergy of Q. Elizabeth had no such thoughts of the Real Presence as the Pamphlet would suggest they had But I refer him for answer to his own quotation out of Laudensium Autocatacrisis From these words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation wherefore the English Reformers scrap'd them out of their Books tho' his Gloss upon Restoring them in the Scocth Liturgie is a manifest cavil for no man of sence can interpret them as they lie there in favor of Transubstantiation see Arch-Bishop Cranmers answer to Gardiner p. 70. p. 289. * The Archbishop the most competent Judge in this case thus interprets this passage p 79. of his answer to Gardiner And therefore in the Book of the Holy Communion we do not pray absolutely that the Bread and Wine may be made the Body and Blood of Christ but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthily receive the same that we may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood and that therewith in Spirit and Truth we may be Spiritually nourished And again p. 289. We do not pray c but that they may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ that is to say that we may so eat them and drink them that we may be partakers of his Body Crucified and his Blood shed for our redemption Wherefore this was the sense of our Reformers that compil'd the Communion-office and thus they understood it that restored it in the Scotch Liturgy and so must any man understand it that is not too partially addicted to Popery I must beg the Readers pardon if out of a desire to leave nothing unreply'd to I have particularly spoken to these inconsiderable observations which the Author himself does but skirmish with But we are now come to the Rubrick before which he intends to sit down viz. that for explaining why we Kneel at the Sacrament This he tells us in K. Edward's book deny'd a Real and Essential but now denyes only a Corporal Presence To which I answer that K. Edward's Rubrick by Real and Essential means as the Papists then us'd to do a Real and Bodily Presence as is plain by the Articles set forth about the same time and quoted by the Pamphlet it self pag. 2. He observes farther that both this Rubrick and the explanatory Paragraph in the 28 th Article were expung'd in the first of Q. Elizabeth To which we have already answer'd that this at the utmost implyes but a change in the terms of our Communion and if he think fit to challenge the Church upon that score we are ready to
a Real participation of the body by consequence of the effects and benefits But the great and killing objection against all explications he dislikes is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism Whether the opinion which he brands by that name be truly ascribed to Zuinglius and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend I need not now stay to inquire 't is sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our observation It seemeth saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308. much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective Discourses are made all running upon two points that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament For no man having read their Books and Writings which are thus traduced can be ignorant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true they do not so interpret the words of Christ as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signifie his Blood They grant that these Holy mysteries Receiv'd in a due manner do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in True and Reall though Mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and intire as hath been shew'd These words may receive farther light from Bishop Cosins's History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17 18. Now they that acknowledge thus much hold a Real Participation and Vnion which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be us'd but perhaps be better let alone The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius was as Bucer reports the tenent of the Anabaptists and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puritans in the beginning of the late Rebellion And by them 't is most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours who at that time was observ'd to be their great associate and favourer Disc I. §. 37 p. 25. What the Remonstrants and Socinians say does no way concern us much good may they do the Author they who set up for so great masters of reason will but ill resent it that a man of his head should pretend to them Ibid. §. 38. Who W.H. is and who his Answerer I know not having never seen either of their Books And being so well acquainted with this Author's sincerity I cannot depend upon his Credit I meet with nothing quoted but what 't is easy to give an account of but to do it as it should be one ought to have the Books by him for I vehemently suspect this Answerer has far'd no better then his Brethren CHAP. V. A Reply to the Fourth Chapter of the first Discourse TO the third Observable lay'd down in the first Chapter which now comes to be consider'd the Author has three things to say 1. That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist Disc I p. 27. §. 39. it ought to be then ador'd which we grant him and had he design'd to dispute for the Papists he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present 2. Ibid §. 40. That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be reveal'd which is as Real and Essential as if it were Corporal adoration will be no less due to it thus then so Present That is if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent yet as Truly and Really Present as if it were Locally Present she is as much bound to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence which she owns as she would be if she likewise own'd that Corporal and Local Presence which she deny's I say to adore the Elements for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body abstracting from the hypostatical Union be more then a creature which is not adorable with Divine worship For all understanding men are agreed it is not Or whether Christs person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or howsoever present is to be ador'd both in and out of the Sacrament viz. in the performance of all religious offices still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present for this is allow'd by all true Christians whatsoever This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it in the mean time we deny it 3 He undertakes to shew that the Church of England i. e. five writers of her Communion Disc I. pag. 28. §. 41 42 43 44 45. whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue have heretofore believ'd and affirm'd such a Presence to which they thought adoration due To adore a presence is an odd kind of expression for 't is to adore an extrinsic denomination To adore Christ present in the mysteries is a phrase we better understand though that too be lyable to misconstruction If the author dare to speak plain the point that pinches and the true thing to be prov'd is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshiped upon that account And if this be so as I think I have plainly shewn I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose who expressly in the very quotation declares himself against him saying Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus or Bishop Taylor saying likewise We give no divine honour to the Signs or Bishop Forbes saying Haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni debetur or the Arch-Bishop of Spalato since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Arch-Bishop I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion Disc I. pag 29. §. 47. Having given us this taste of his other good qualities he concludes with a spice of his Logic and infers 1. That notwithstanding what he has said the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist contrary to the forecited Doctrine and K. James's and Bishop Andrews's Religion I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions but tell him that the King 's the Bishop's and the Churches meaning is very plain viz. that since Christs Natural Body is not to be ador'd but where it is Corporally Locally Present it is not so
mistaken is sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry Whence he infers that if Catholics can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excus'd from Idolatry at least by those Protestants who excuse the Lutherans and so he proceeds to shew his Rational Grounds I think it an easy undertaking to shew a vast disparity between the Papists and Lutherans in this point but not very pertinent at this time For neither of those parties is concern'd in the question as 't is now stated by our Author 'T is with him and with his Catholics we have to do with them that prescind from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence and not with the Lutherans or Papists who both stick to a Corporal Presence are not so ill advis'd as to quit their hold to run the hazard of this man's idle suppositions· But here 's the juggle I expected here 's the Main Point lost in a mist We that have been drill'd on through one whole Discourse and twenty and six long pages of another and all in hopes to have seen it prov'd that supposing no Corporal but precisely a Real Presence to adore the Elements is no Idolatry are now to be put of with five stale grounds for beliefe of Transubstantiation I say of Transubstantiation though he only names a Corporal presence For he calls himself the Catholic Defender and the grounds he alleges are the Popish arguments for Transubstantiation and he disclaims being a Lutheran and we know of no party besides these two that now holds a Corporal Presence CHAP. X. A Reply to the six next Grounds of the second Discourse begining at sect 24. SInce my present undertaking obliges me no farther then to answer the Defender's arguments upon the question as he has stated it I might very well pass over his grounds for beliefe of Transubstantiation which were before offer'd in the Guide and in other Authors before that Guide could go alone and may be easily trac'd from Author to Author up to Archbishop Cranmer who has reported and answer'd every one of them in his Book of the Eucharist Our Author delivers in his list of them like a bill that begins with Item Disc 2. pag. 27. sect 24. For he says his first ground for a Corporal presence after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants is Divine Revelation viz. the words hoc est corpus meum so often iterated in the Gospel and again by S. Paul without any variation change or explication as also the discourse of our blessed Saviour in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel Now to this second and foremost argument the * I choose to refer here to the Archbishop's book that the Reader may the better see these Arguments are stale and have been baffl'd above a hundred years since Arch-Bishop has punctually reply'd viz. to the words of the institution p. 8.23.253 and elsewhere and the answers are now so well known that they need not be repeated and whereas the Pamphlet insists upon S. Paul's repeating them without any variation or explication the Archbishop plainly shew's p. 254. * Pag. 254. S. Paul is not afraid for our better understanding of Christ's words somewhat to alter the same least we might stand stifly in Letters and Syllables and err in mistaking the sense and meaning For whereas our Saviour Christ broke the Bread and sayd This is my Body S. Paul say'th that the Bread which we break is the Communion of Christ's Body Christ said his Body and S. Paul said the Communion of his Body meaning nevertheless both one thing that they which eat the Bread Worthily do eat Spiritually Christs very Body that S. Paul both varies and explains them as will be evident to any man that consults 1 Cor. X. 16 so likewise to the Popish explication of our Saviours discourse Joh. 6. the Archbishop answers in divers places * Pag 20. The Spiritual eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood by Faith by digesting his Death in our minds as our only price ransome and redemtion from eternal Damnation is the cause wherefore Christ say'd that if we eat not his Flesh and drink not his Blood we have not Life in us and if we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood we have everlasting Life And if Christ had never ordain'd the Sacrament yet should we have eaten his Flesh and drunken his Blood and have had thereby everlasting Life as all the Faithful did before the Sacrament was ordain'd and dayly do when they receive not the Sacrament See more Ibid and again p. 112. These words what if you see c. Joh. VI. 62.63 our Saviour Christ spake to lift up their minds from Earth to Heaven and from Carnal to Spiritual eating that they should not Fantasy that they should with their teeth eat him present here on earth for his Flesh so eaten saith he should profit them nothing and yet so they should not eat him for he would take his Body away from them and ascend with it into Heaven and there by Faith and not with Teeth they should Spiritually eat him sitting at the right hand of his Father and therefore saith he the words which I do speake be Spirit and Life that is to say are not to be understood that we shall eat Christ with our teeth grossly and carnally but that we shall Spiritually and Ghostly with our Faith eat him being carnally absent from us in Heaven p. 18.31.37.111.217.329 in all things speaking consonant to the sense of the primitive Fathers according to whose notions the true and plain meaning of that Chapter has been so fully express'd in a late Paraphrase that no more need be sayd of that matter And whereas this Author farther says that no argument from our senses is valid against plain revelation though the case was something otherwise in the fourteenth page of the first Discourse to this likewise the Arch-Bishop answers p. 263. * Pag. 263. Let us now consider how the same Transubstantiation is against natural reason and natural operation which although they prevail not against God's word yet when they be joyn'd with God's word they be of great moment to confirm any truth not that they add any authority to God's word but that they help our infirmity p. 266. where giving divers instances out of Scripture of Faith confirm'd by sense he concludes Which sensible proofs were so far from derogation of Faith that they were a sure establishment thereof Again p. 270 concerning arguments drawn from the Schoolmen I make saith he no foundation at all upon them but my very foundation is only upon God's word and mine arguments in this place I bring in only to this end to shew how far your imagin'd Transubstantiation is not only from Gods word but also from the order of nature in the very same manner that we do to this day and have allready answer'd in