this is to be worshiped with Divine worship 2. For the signs species or visible accidents to which no other worship is due besides that reverence which belongs to the instruments of holy worship 3. For both the sign and thing signified together and thus understood the Sacrament is not properly said to be worshiped tho improperly it may because part of it the res Sacramenti is to be worshiped and that which belongs to the principal part is ordinarily attributed to the whole as a man understands thinks argues c tho these be only the actions of the Soul. The like distinction serves also for the word Hoast Hostia which these writers seem to lay as a stumbling-block before the ignorant For it is sometimes used for the outward signs species or whatever is visible before consecration and is not to be worshiped sometimes for the Lord himself as in Eph. 5.2 who alone in proper speaking is to be worshiped But having occasion by God's blessing in convenient time to speak more copiously upon this subject we shall here add no more § 5 Thus have we briefly set down what we conceive necessary to explicate the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this great mystery sufficiently also we hope to instruct them who intend their salvation who are not desirous a lye should be the truth nor prefer their own uncertain conjectures against God's Church Whom also we seriously admonish to beware of those teachers who debase and lower the great grace and mercy of God communicated to us by our Lord who is made unto us wisdom as well as justice and sanctification by debasing it to their own fancies which they call reason as did all the ancient Hereticks and Mahomet himself that great false Prophet To take away all mystery out of Christian Religion is to vilify it and to abolish the virtue of faith and advancement of the understanding and thereby also of piety and devotion For it is no wonder that those sublime and holy passions or operations experienced by devout persons are by such people ridiculed to say no worse For if the Heroical acts of Faith are denied and despised it must needs follow that those great favours bestowed by God upon his best servants must neither be enjoyed nor credited But omitting these matters let us proceed to examin some such few particulars in the Replier's Discourse as seem to contain something considerable For it would be too much abusing the Reader 's time and patience to discover or reprehend all the errors of that Pamphlet wherein I know not if there be any one period that is not obnoxious § 6 To omit the first Chap. containing nothing of consequence we will take notice of the second which seems to be to purpose Our Author 's chief design was to shew the Alterations of the Church of England after her departure from the Church Catholick both in Doctrine and Practice taking this one Article as an instance in both In this chapter the Replier takes notice of these alterations and tho he would gladly deny them yet is it a thing so manifest that he rather thinks fitting to diminish them and notwithstanding the alterations to affirm that the Church of England never changed Little alterations he calls them and yet saith they are the terms of her communion Nothing certainly is little in the Church'es forms especially in our most venerable and solemn worship and the very chiefest and most important service of God even the only holy sacrifice of our Religion and admitting us to and feeding us at his own Table not little that Article upon which they chiefly justify their departure from the Church and by which they continually keep their subjects in disobedience unto and alienation from Her not little which contains the terms of the Church'es communion so that he who assents not to these however differing in their several seasons i.e. he that did not believe the Real presence at the first setting forth the Common Prayer-book and he that did believe it at the second was holden as excommunicate Not little to the disobedience whereof such severe Penalties were imposed both by Acts of Parliament and Canons of 1603. Again if so little why would they for them change those of the Ancient Church except it were for an extreme itch of separating from God's Church the formality and essence of Schism Ib. This design is impertinent No it was the very primary intention of the Author as is plain enough But admit the Church of England hath wavered in her Doctrines as our Author proves irrefragably it follows that she disclaims the authoritative conduct of her subjects by whose doctrines except they submit to so many changes they can never be secure and they who do change cannot keep the unity of the faith which themselves alter but are more like to children unconstant uncertain hurried about with every new blast of doctrine as a powerful person of a different perswasion or interest pleaseth to command This is not the end for which our Good Lord ordained the Clergy his Successors In the beginning of King Edward VI. Reign at the framing of a new Common prayer-book was asserted the Real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist as hath already and by God's assistance shall be more shew'd by and by In his latter end this doctrine was changed to Zuinglianism In Q. Elizabeths time both were joyned in the form of the Liturgy but the declaration against Real presence was omitted which in the Rubric in 1661 was lick'd up again Likewise also the Catechism was changed In King Edward's time the Eucharist was expressed in Zuinglius's notions which in Q. Elizabth's time were omitted and in King James's time those for a Real presence inserted The Articles also were new modell'd the first that I can find were towards the later end of King Edward against the Real presence Q. Elizabeth altered them again leaving out those things seeming to her scandalous and against the Real presence And indeed the Articles were not framed to declare the true doctrine of Religion according to the word of God interpreted by the Catholick Church but for avoiding diversities of opinions amongst themselves establishing some sort of consent and healing the increasing ulcers amongst the teachers of the newly changed Religion Again why doth she punish Dissenters since her self dissents frequently from her self and consequently hath taught that which is false So who can have confidence that in believing her faith or obedience to her commands he endangereth not his salvation Even at this day the Replier and his party teach contrary to the former learned men of their own Church and by their own practice confirm this accusation against their Church Adore the Elements Either the Replier knows that all Catholicks declare which none but God and themselves can disprove that they detest the adoration of any creature and of the Elements in the Eucharist and then he voluntarily calumniates
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
Ver. 44 45 46. p. 493 494. Yet more plainly from 1 Cor. 10.21 You cannot be partakers c. where these two Tables imply contrary Covenants now here the Table of Devils is so call'd because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to Devils see ver 20. whereby those that Eat thereof Eat of the Devil's Meat Therefore the Table of the Lord is likewise call'd his Table not because the Lord ordain'd it but because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to him in the same manner as the other of those Offer'd to the Devil p. 519. And therefore that he knows not why St. Paul Heb. 13.15 and St. Peter 1 Epist. 2.5 in the Sacrifices mention'd there may not be understood to speak of the solemn and publick Service of Christians wherein the Passion of Christ was Commemorated p. 487. 4. Lastly He allows all the benefits and effects whether propitiatory or impetratory by the Ancients attributed to this Sacrifice granting the Prayers of the Church to have been Offer'd to the Divine Majesty through Christ Commemorated in the Symbols of Bread and Wine as by a medium whereby to find acceptance and the representation of the Body of Christ in this Christian Service to have been rightly us'd as a Rite whereby to find Grace and Favour with God. Only the presence of Christ's real Body with the symbols in it he acknowledges not See p. 499 500 501. 5 The Fathers also affirm'd it to be and Offer'd it as a Saâ—rifice not only Eucharistical or Latrentical but also Expiatory or Propitiatory in the sense abovesaid for the Remission of Sins and Impetratory of all sorts of Benefits not only Spiritual but Temporal and both these for all persons according to their several capacities not only for those present receiving the Sacrament but for all those for whom this Oblation is made tho absent tho deceas'd In Euchristia sacramenti susceptio soli sumenti prodest ut autem est sacrificii consummatio prodest illis omnibus pro quibus oblatum est sacrificium For wherever they held Prayers beneficial they held this Oblation or Presentation to the Father of the Body and Blood and this solemn commemoration and repetition as it were of the precious Death of his dear Son for such persons much more as being the most effectual and moving kind of Petition that can be made to him And therefore remembrance of the absent or deceas'd at the Altar namely when this Sacrifice was Offer'd was more especially desir'd than in other ordinary Devotions Non ista mandavit nobis saith St. Austin of his Mother sed tantunmodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit Confess l. 9. c. 13. For this see if you please the Collections of Places in the Fathers in the Controvertists See Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 2 3. See the quotations set down before See all the Liturgies unanimously according in this Form Offerimus tibi pro peccatis pro omnibus Fidelibus vivis atque defunctis pro Ecclesia Catholica c. pro pace pro copia fructuum c. See Bishop Forb de Euch. l. 3. c. 2. s 12. Sacrificium autem hoc coenae non solum propitiatorium esse pro peccatorum quae nobis quotidie committuntur remissione c. sed etiam impetratorium omnis generis beneficiorum c. licet scripturae diserte expresse non dicant Patres tamen unanimi consensu scripturas sic intellexerunt c. Liturgiae omnes veteres c. s 15. Nos inre certa clara diutius immorari nolumus 6 Lastly See Dr. Taylor in his Great Exemplar p. 3. dise 18. on the Sacrament sect 7. There he says The Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament in both capacities the benefit next to infinite Whatsoever Christ did at the Institution the same he commanded the Church to do c. and Himself also doth the same things in Heaven for us c. There he sits an High-Priest continually and Offers still the same One perfect Sacrifice i. e. still represents it as having been once finish'd and consummate in order to perpetual and never-failing events And this also his Ministers do on Earth as all the effects of Grace were purchas'd for us on the Cross but are apply'd to us by Christ's intercession in Heaven so also they are promoted by acts of Duty c. that we by representing that Sacrifice may send up together with our Prayers an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation As Christ is a Priest in Heaven for ever and yet doth not Sacrifice himself afresh nor yet without a Sacrifice could he be a Priest but by a daily ministration and intercession represents his Sacrifice to God and offers himself as Sacrificed so he doth upon Earth by the Ministery of his Servants He is Offer'd to God i. e. he is by Prayers and the Sacrament represented or offer'd up to God as Sacrificed which in effect is applying of his Death to the present and future necessities of the Church c. It follows then that the Celebration of this Sacrifice be in its proportion an Instrument of applying of the proper Sacrifice to all the purposes which it first design'd It is ministerially and by application an instrument propitiatory it is Eucharistical it is an act of Homage and Adoration it is impetratory obtaining for the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice which is now apply'd c. And its profit is enlarg'd not only to the persons Celebrating but to all to whom they design it according to the nature of Sacrifices and Prayers and all such solemn Actions of Religion Thus much Dr. Taylor conformably to the judgment of the Church in all Ages and practice in her publick Liturgies See the same in Medes Diatrib upon Mal. 1.11 And 't is worth your labour to see the Alterations concerning this matter which have been lately made I suppose by some of the most prudent and learned Fathers of the English Church in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland tending much to the vindication of the use of the Eucharist by way of Sacrifice In the Prayer for the whole State of Christ's Church are put in these words We commend especially unto thy merciful Goodness the Congregation which is here Assembled in thy Name to Celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious Death and Sacrifice of thy Son c. Where and Sacrifice is added de novo But the rest of the words are found in the former Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. Again in the Prayer of Consecration whereas 't is said in all the former Liturgies to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious Death until his coming again 't is added here Death and Sacrifice until c. But chiefly after the Prayer of Consecration and before the administring of the Sacrament to the Communicants you may find interpos'd after the manner of the first Books of Edw. VI. a Prayer as it is there call'd of Oblation in which
Millain it is used to this day and to use all one form that of Gregory Now this Gregorian form imposed for uniformity by Charl. M. is verbatim the same with that now in use as Bellarmin proves ibid. from Alcuinus And others who living before 800. and in Charles the Great 's time writ Expositions on the Canon of the Mass as now it is But no alteration of the doctrine Daille saith was before 800. and Charles the Great and his Council at Franckfort assembled 794 who used this form are reckoned by him orthodox therefore also if any change were made by Gregory or the times after him before Charles of which for the Canon I find none alledged yet those times being orthodox it could be no change prejudicial to truth Again The Gregorian Form as now agrees in the chief matters with that form set down by S. Ambrose de sacram 4. l. 5 6. c. expressed also by Mr. Blond in the Margent 21. c. Therefore Bellarmin in 2. de Missa 23 24. c. justifies many things objected against the modern Canon by shewing them to be in that set down by S. Ambrose 200 years before Gregory and this form again S. Ambrose alledgeth ex antiquo ritu Ecclesiae Accordingly these men also seem to justify the present Canon of the Mass if it be rightly understood See Mr. Blondel's conclusion after he hath commented on the meaning of the modern Canon Qu' y at'-il saith he en tout cela qui ne s' accorde a l'escriture au sens a la raison au tesmonaige de l' Antiquitê cap. 21. p. 453. And p. 457. he saith S. Gregory's Liturgy is en substance une mesme formulaire avec celuy qui est en usage entr ' eux So Dr. Field being engaged in the maintaining that Proposition That the Church before Luther tho of the Roman profession were of the Protestant Religion excepting some only that then maintained the modern Popery justifies the Canon also then and now used even those passages thereof of praying for the dead and those words in this prayer des illis locum refrigerii lucis pacis and of the commemoration of Saints and that clause in it quorum meritis precibusque concedas ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio which merits methinks he interprets very well and orthodoxly and thus concludes his discourse concerning it It appeareth by that which hath bin said that the Canon of the Mass rightly understood hath not includeth not in it any such points of Romish religion as some imagin but in sundry yea in all the capital differences between us and them of the Roman faction witnesseth for us and against them Append. to 3. l. 220 221. c. Is it not lawful then now as heretofore for a Protestant in opinion to frequent the Roman Service especially the Mass and then to adore c for so did their Ancestor Protestants before Luther's time for all did so And if it be said that so we must now live under an obligation also to the Conc. Trident. so did they to the Lateran c after the four first Councils or if not they to those why we more to this § XXXVIII By this I think a Christian may take the doctrines about this subject which he finds in the Fathers before 700 or in the Canon of the Mass for authentical and may rationally adhere to them and that this Canon much favours the Roman opinion we have some prejudice in that whilst others urge many arguments out of it for their own side against the other yet they only whom we say it confutes retain it entire and those whom as they plead it favours so much have rejected it § XXXIX Now let us come to the time when after long peace in the Church about this matter controversy began first to appear in the world concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist which by all both Romanists and Protestants is agreed to be after A. D. 750. in the time of the Council of Constantinople assembled by Constantinus Copronymus and of the 2d Nicene Council that followed after Copronymus's decease At that time the contest about the lawfulness of Images in Churches c which were then very frequent being on foot this Constantinopolitan Council called together by the Emperour who vehemently opposed Images amongst other things declared That they acknowledged only one true venerable Image of Christ chosen by him to perpetuate his memory amongst us c namely that of the Eucharist See 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 6. tom 3. and what I have said of it before These expressions falling from this Council concerning the Eucharist were presently resented and opposed first by Damascen then by 2. Coucil Nice called the 7th General Council assembled not long after the other Copronymus being now dead under the Empress Irene who against the other urged That our Saviour said not Sumite edite imaginem corporis mei but Accipite edite Hoc est corpus meum and affirmed neque Dominum neque Apostolos neque Patres incruentum illud Sacrificium quod a Sacerdote offertur imaginem dixisse post sanctificationis consecrationem but the consecration by them probably is imagined to extend beyond the words of Institution see before verùm ipsum corpus sanguinem and accused the former Council of contradicting it self nunc quidem sanctum notabile nostrum sacrificium imaginem sacri corporis Christi nunc autem sacrum divinum corpus asserentes This Council in the East was then opposed again by the Council at Franckfort assembled by Charles the Great in the West which Council mainly disliking Images and seeing as Dr. Tailor conjectures that if the Sacrament were an Image then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images which argues the practice then of worshiping the Sacrament took part in this thing with the Conc. Nic. tho in other things they opposed it and censured the Constantinopolitan expressions of the Eucharist much what in the same language as that of Nice did See Blondel 17. c. pag. 411. Here you see the first controversy and it not so much about substantial conversion of the elements as about the real or substantial presence of Christ's very body denied by the Constantinopolitan Council if that of Nice perhaps mis-understood them not affirm'd by Nice and Franckfort The innovation of Doctrine * saith the Romanist began in the Const Council Primi saith Bellarm. qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vocabant erant iconomachi c. de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. * saith the Protestant began in 2. Conc. Nic. by Damascen and others see Blondel 15. c. But as for the Conc. Francf he contends that tho it was dangerous in its expressions yet was in its opinions orthodox and inveighed against that of Constant upon a mis-understanding of their meaning To reflect a little upon this matter you may observe 1. First that the Constant
That the manner of this Presence whether in or with the elements is inexplicable Lastly that the love and omnipotence of the same God are relied on to make good that Presence whereof the manner is incomprehensible Now if God incarnate were present on the Altar at the same time he is in Heaven by grace and influence only his flesh would be neither present on the Altar nor given us to eat No more mystery nor incomprehensibilitty could be discerned in his Eucharistical than in his Baptismal presence neither would there be such need of extraordinary love and omnipotence to perform his promised presence in this more than in any other Religious ceremony wherein all grant his presence to be only gracious Nay the whole paragraph were no better than a devout and solemn delusion Nor am I prevailed-on to alter my thoughts concerning this Bishop's present faith would he do himself his Order and Christianity that right as to profess it frankly and clearly by any retractation or correction published in the Edition of his Book 1â—86 That amounting to no more than a denyal of Transubstantiation not of a substantial Presence whereby I am perfectly confirmed that by inexplicable incomprehensible manner was intended the manner of the Flesh's being present not whether it were present or no and that it was this he could neither explain nor comprehend To proceed further in evincing affirmatively that the sense of the aforesaid Article Office and Catechism was a substantial presence the supremest and most authentic Interpreters that have appeared since the creation of the present Church of England may be produced 1. We begin with Queen Elizabeth the Parent of modern Prelatick Protestancy This Lady profess'd the Catholick Religion in her Sister's Reign and when she obtein'd the Crown was with difficulty perswaded to alterations in Religion as was long ago told the world from other intelligence and lately from Jewel's c Letters perused by Dr. Burnet in his Ramble In particular She own'd the Real presence to the Count of Feria and others and commended a Preacher for asserting it on Goodfriday 1565. A Real presence I say She patronized and such a one as was own'd by the ancient Fathers and had bin believed in the Church of England since the conversion of that Nation believed without either check or interruption till towards the setting of Edward the 6. when Zuinglianism seems to have bin introduced Now if She profess'd a substantial presence and if She that authorized the Liturgy and Articles did not do it till after she had fluxt them of whatever was malignant to a substantial presence to accommodate them to the majority of the Nation that with her self were so perswaded sure She intended they should be interpreted as her Self and the Most both thought and profess'd Can the genuine sense of the words be both a Substantial presence and a presence of Grace only Could a Nation in a moment believe by the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ spoke at the delivery of the Sacrament to them was meant on the one day that his Body was verily and indeed and in substance if this be more given to them and the next day understand by the same words that the Body of our Lord was not verily and indeed nor in substance but only in figure and benefit exhibited especially when they heard the imposer of such passages declare for the former sense saw her delete what opposed it and retain the self same language the Catholick Church their true Mother used in all times to convey her faith to their Minds Whereupon considering these things together with the miniated copy of Articles c seen by Dr. Burnet considering I say that the chief Pastoress had authority according to the Doctrine of Lay-Supremacy to impose and according to Dr. Burnet's deleted copy did impose her Judgment to be assented to and subscribed by the whole Clergy c. we may truly conclude not only as some have done that the chief Pastors of the Church but that the whole Church Head and Body Queen Clergy and People did then disapprove of or dissemble about the Definition made in King Edward's time and that they were for Real presence 2. Her Successor King James I. either understood the Article and Liturgy in the same sense according to the attestations of Bishop Andrews and Casaubon or where has the Church of England publish'd that she holds a substantial presence as those Learned Persons say she often has either no where if not here or with contradiction to what is here if elsewhere because the proper sense of the Article and Liturgy can't be both a substantial and but only a gracious presence But that Part of the Catechism which concerns the Sacraments and which was composed by Dr. Overal in this King's Reign determins the dispute as to this Prince's faith for tho the Catechism as almost any sentence may be wrested yet it cannot be rendred without absurdity and passing for a meer cheat in favour of any other than a substantial presence And Bishop Cosin's doctrine is some argument that Dr. Overal his Patron and Master did mean no other 3. As to King Charles the First if we may gather his judgment from either Books published by his command or Sermons preach'd before him He adhered to that Faith in this point which all his Christian Ancestors had profess'd Out of such Books and Sermons we present the Reader with two Instances so full to our design that if they can be eluded so may a Demonstration The former is in Archbishop Lawd's Conference with Father Fisher a Book highly esteemed by that Excellent tho calamitous King. And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Blood no Blood but unless Grace be a Body and Benefit be Blood Dr. St. and the Answerer can make a Body no Body c. c. The other is in Dr. Laurence's Sermon before the King Charles I. p. 17 18. As I like not those that say He is bodily there so I like not those that say His Body is not there because Christ saith it is there and St. Paul saith t is there and the Church of England saith t is there and the Church of God ever said t is there and that truly and substantially and essentially c. For the Opinion of the Sons and Successors to this Prince concerning a substantial presence c t is out of question I presume What then we add is That either all these Heads and the Church of England believed the same or she has a miserable Faith wherein no Head since Queen Elizabeth produced Her durst either live or die It were a diffidence in this Proof or an affront to an intelligent Reader to offer him a Protestant nubes Testium as a further confirmation in this matter for then we must recount to
came to be reformed thus the Sacrament of Penance solemn Fastings and Celibacy of Priests c that both Clergy and Laity might indulge themselves as their lusts suggested in luxury and impenitence fell to the ground Not truth nor any consideration of Christians either at home or abroad but libertinism and filthy lucre were then the rule of this unjustifiable Reformation wherewith the majority of Christians as well of England as of the whole world could not choose but be and actually were scandalized But how should better come of Cranmer's intermedlings It was that Cranmer who for flattery lust inconstancy ingratitude treason and most damnable Hobbism utterly pernicrous to the being of a Church deserves the invectives and execrations of all Posterity But now under Queen Elizabeth other Circumstances are to be consider'd why some of the Godly innovations under Edward the Sixth were not revived For first She was rather of her Father 's than Somerset's Religion believ'd and practis'd Invocation of Saints approv'd of Images in Churches was no Admirer of Clerical Marriages nor yet very fond of her new Power of Supremacy given her by Protestants that she might requite them with a Church and a Creed much less of that foreign Drug Zuinglianism professing on all occasions her firm adherence to a Real Presence However to fortifie the weakness of her Title that had been Question'd by Catholicks and Condemn'd by Protestants she was perswaded to restore the Schism begun and assume the Supremacy extorted by her Father but for alterations in other points meerly Doctrinal Protestants do confess her somewhat resty resenting her tepid proceedings with warm Contumelies and most virulent reproaches which shews that her pleasure security or interest not their extravagances was the measure whereby Religion was setled and that Conscience did a little tho Policy more influence transactions She qualified the Title but not the Power or Use of Supremacy extending it as far as either her Father or Brother had done She did perhaps desire to unite the Nation but I suppose it was in that Faith she held and the majority of the Nation with her otherwise she was put upon a very odd method of Union it being easier to bring a few to close with what 's setled or least removed from it than to convert a majority from an old established Religion to embrace the contradictory novelties of a few Thus she setled her Religion and whatever like Jeroboam she devised out of her own heart and it continued without any visible alteration by Authority till the Return of Charles II. when Protestants being about to repair what their Brethren had endeavour'd to demolish the Puritans at the Savoy-Conference 1661 amongst other cunning demands whereby both the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England were undermin'd inserted the restoring of the Black Rubrick into favour but were answer'd that It was not in Queen Elizabeth's Liturgy nor confirm'd by Law nor needful However that wealthy Faction's obliging importunities or pretence of mighty satisfaction that it would give to Dissenters overcame if not the Clergy yet a potent Favourite and so with a few emendations too slight as some sufficient as others thought to save the Church's Doctrine this goodly Henoticon stole into the Liturgy Stole into it I say if with the connivance of any yet with the scandal of the best of the Clergy who on all occasions exprest their dislike of it as truly inconsistent with their Faith and without that effect either of gaining other Sectaries to their promiscuous Communion as was pretended or stilling their clamors and disgusts against kneeling at the Communion And this I am perswaded is the most impartial and exactest account that matter of fact yeilds of the English giddiness tossings and variations in matters of Religion Pag. 77. l. 21. Now these Exceptions against founding an Article of Faith on a Philosophical Maxim being most of them founded on the former mistaken Notion of the Real Presence c. That the Discourser's Notion of the Real Presence was the same the Church of England has asserted is evidenc'd the Minister's Replies therefore are unsatisfactory and it was rightly inferr'd from the high Expressions used by the Members of that Communion concerning the Eucharist as that 't is an ineffable Mystery full of Miracles incomprehensible to not to be measured by sense or reason c. that they believed something in it seemingly this word was omitted by the Transcriber opposite to humane reason But whether the word were omitted or no Not to be agreeable to human Reason to captivate the mind to be incomprehensible to men's wit to do violence to the Principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy Protestant language concerning this Sacrament and other Mysteries are not far short of opposite and coutradictory to human Reason So that a Revelation clear and evident must be submitted-to according to Calvin and Bishop Taylor tho it agree not with Reason tho it propose something incomprehensible and which does violence to it Neither is it a manifest contradiction that a Natural Body should be in more places than One at the same time but manifestly no contradiction as all that know the Rules of Opposition must confess That the same Body should be in a place and not in that place at the same time is a contradiction But this is a Proposition very wide from the other To be and not to be is not equivalent to that To be here and elsewhere too whereby the failure of what the Answerer writes against the second Observation p. 80. l. 14. is manifest For there may be such things as perfect contradictions known to us and yet all that seems to be so to some upon severer scrutiny may prove not so to them or to sharper Judgments The instance is before us Even to this very Minister that seems a contradiction which is none The utmost force of Nature much more of Omnipotence is not so easily comprehended as confident who commonly are the least experienc'd and adverting men boast The more we enquire into them the more sensible shall we be of the narrowness of our knowledg and shortness of our faculties especially when we reflect how modestly persons of vast experience of very capacious and improv'd intellects such as Bishop Forbes c. have spoken in the same case That we are unable in all oppositions to discern the true distance and whether it amount to a real contradiction or no and therefore God may do what may seem to us impossible as well by his ordinary as absolute Power Whereupon in points abstruse where there appears seeming contradictions on the one hand and a Revelation on the other this consideration attended by a just deference to infinite Power ought to move us to captivate our understandings and neglect the objections from nature and reason being joyful to exert the humility of our Minds and to demonstrate we measure not the immense Majesty of our Creator by our selves his worthless potsherds
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