necessaria quae a Calvino illius â—â—quacibuâ— dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. _____ The same say the Socinians See Volkelius And I think Riveâ— in his controversies with Grotius is of the same opinion with the Remonstrants at least much differing from Dr. Tailor's for that saying of the Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest allowed in some sense by the Doctor he maintains to contradict Quia quod sacramentaliter praesens est saith he non est substantia sua praesens nec contra Animad p. 85. And again Examen p. 45. Si corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitative i. e. corporally or secundum modum corporis non est omnino quia corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est aut non est corpus Indeed I have often wondred seeing that something more than they willingly grant seems necessarily to follow upon it why so many of the reformed writers remain not content with a virtual presence which is maintained by them to be sufficient for salvation but concur so much in asserting a real and substantial I guess not only the punctual and fixed expressions of the Scriptures as the words of Institution in so many relations thereof not only in the Gospels but in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians being so unvariably observed besides the expressions 1 Cor. 11.27 29. and the authority of the Fathers who so often call it tremendum mysterium and the stream of Tradition to have as it were necessitated them to it but also the authority of Calvin not a little to have moved them who was a great Leader to our reforming Fore-fathers Again him I suppose to be induced to it as from the former reasons so from a desire to reconcile several parties of the then early begun Reformation and to moderate and temper the former Lutheran and Zuinglian quarrel Of whom therefore Bishop Forbes observes Quod sua doctrina super hac re as it seems here also of the doctrine of others of this second opinion erat maxime incerta dubia atque lubrica Et dum nunc his nunc illis gratificari studuit haud pauca male sibi cohaerentia scripsit de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 6. sect § XVI Now to come to the second thing it s affirming or denying the real or substantial presence of Christ's body with the signs and that ante usum And this I think to be generally denied by the 2d opinion tho I see not with what reason they can deny a possibility thereof since they grant such a presence with the worthy receiver See Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. s. p. 359 The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament The Bread and the Cup are his Body and Blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receit whereof the participation of his Body and blood ensueth For that which produceth any certain effect is not vainly or improperly said to be that very effect whereunto it tendeth This he speaks in behalf of the Scripture-expression saying of the elements This is my body and my blood because we receive by these instruments that which they are termed See Dr. Tailor p. 14. By spiritual we mean present to our Spirits only that is saith he so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith or Spiritual susception Where to digress a little I wonder why he and some others so Dr. Hammond saith for our souls to be strengthened c quoted before do not say that Christ's body is substantially present to the bodies of worthy receivers as well as to the souls yet perhaps they deny it not for tho the body of Christ be only spiritually there yet may a spirit be present to a body for our souls spirits are so And we say in the Liturgy The Body of Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life And Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his blood that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body and our souls washed thro his most precious blood c. And the Fathers therefore called the consecrated elements from their vivifical influence on the body according to Jo. 6. symbola resurrectionis See Grot. Annot. ad Cassand p. 21. Sic corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia sed spem resurrectionis habentia Irenaeus Neither see I any reason for Rivet's expression Corpus Christi affiâ—it corpus per animam Nor for that of Dr. Tailor p. 131. if he means that the Soul receives Christ's body more immediately than the Body doth For tho without faith which is an act of the soul Christ's body is not received at least received profiteth not yet where faith is Christ's body is received as well and as immediately by our body as by our soul and nourisheth and vivifieth equally but spiritually both See what Bishop Forbes saith Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 27. s. Verum Christi corpus non tantum animae sed etiam corpori nostrâ— spiritualiter tamen hoc est non corporaliter exhibetur sane alâ—o ac diverso nobis propinquiori modo licet occulto quam per solam fidem Fides qua proprie Christi caro in Eucharistia spiritualiter hoc est incorporaliter manducatur non est ea sola qua Christus creditur mortuus pro peccatis nostris c ea enim fides praesupponitur c. sed ea fides est qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis Hoc est corpus meum Credere enim Christum ibi esse praesentem etiam carne vivificatrice desiderare eam sumere nimirum hoc est spiritualiter recte eam manducare in Eucharistia Sect. 25. Proinde male docetur a multis Protestantibus hanc praesentiam communicationem per fidem effici Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere apprehendere quam praestare Verbum Dei promissio cui fides nostra nititur praesentia reddit quae promittit non nostra fides T is not faith that confers Christ's body tho by the faithful it is only worthily or as they say only received but received equally and immediately both by the soul and body whether this body of Christ be disjoined from as they think or conjoined with the elements yet whilst this second opinion seems to hold no presence at all to or with the signs but to the receiver they only making the signs to be as well as I can understand them after consecration sanctified instruments upon receit of which by those who believe God gives the other the body and blood of his Son as also in Baptism upon receiving the water God gives the Spirit yet I say some other expressions of
them or he doth not know it and then why will he undertake to confute them whose Doctrine he doth not understand The same absurd error of local presence of our Lord he every where goes about to confute which the Catholicks disdain as well as the Zuinglians How impertinent to urge out of the Rubricks c. What new kind of answering is this so frequent in the Replier It is very unreasonable yet proper to and frequent with this Replier that he should teach his Adversary what to say It is an easy matter to answer what himself suggests but not so usual to propose what he would confute But to say somewhat to this also the Homilies are not quoted because they are of no authority having bin set on soot even as some of their own Bishops disputing against the Puritans have owned only pro tempore and to serve a turn And what say the Articles of them but that they contain wholsom and pious doctrine necessary for those times But do not they also contain some not pious wholsom or orthodox The authorized Catechism is clear enough for the Catholick Doctrine as is proved Appendix I. but he means Nowel's Puritanical Catechism as also Bradford and Hooper of whom we know nothing but what Fox a man of no authority reports from themselves He also is angry that Cranmer is not consulted a man whose character is truly set out in App. I. as may be shewed in due time For the present let it suffice that we think him of no authority as neither is Burnet But is not the Replier in difficulties when he can find no Patrons but such as these The Church of England hath always held a Real presence so far as a real participation implies one But if there be no real participation of his Body at all as this Replier afterwards every where confesseth but onely of the Benefits of his Sufferings then by his own confession there is no Real presence But this being the main point of the difference upon which this Replier insists let us search a little deeper I say then 1. That in the beginning of the pretended Reformation under Edw. VI. the Doctrine of the Church of England was That our Lord's Body and Blood were really by really I mean essentially substantially present in the Eucharist This is plain by the words of Consecration and delivery of the Sacrament where the very form of the Catholick Church was kept only with the addition of such words as more effectually concluded it The Catholick form is Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam The English was The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life When the Common prayer-book was sent into Scotland this Form was re-introduced and the other addition refused which kindled a mighty flame in Scotland they apprehending it to be Popery as appears by Baily's Ladensium autocatacrisis Now it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass and yet intend to give them a quite different signification without giving any notice of it to the people That the people who had bin brought up to understand the real body of our Lord by corpus Domini custodiat animam tuam the next day should hearing the same words in English understand only the real benefits of Christ's passion and not understand at all how these benefits could be eaten or given by the Priest or how they were given for rather than to the people as neither how they should preserve the Receiver's body Truly our Author and the Catholicks have too great a kindness for the Church of England than to impose upon her such an abominable prevarication sufficient to drive away all men from her communion But if the words were so to be understood and no alteration intended why should they in the next edition within so few years alter them after another manner and quite different intention But of this by and by 2ly I say that before the death of King Edw. VI. they altered their doctrine from a Real presence of our Lord's body to real effects or benefits of his Passion or somewhat like it if yet they acknowledged any benefits at all for in the first it was preserve thy body and soul c which was a real benefit but in the second is none but Do this in remembrance of Christ's sufferings and feed on him c but what benefit or benediction is received is not expressed for they altered all things in the Liturgy which might any way countenance the benefits of real presence They kept indeed the words of Consecration but gave over the handling the Chalice Patin c so that they left the words without application to any matter that every man might understand them as he pleased Which was also the reason why they omitted the words of delivery substituting Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving This what individuum vagum or perhaps nothing if nothing consecrated as it seems or perhaps something but they know not what as not being resolved of that point but only that it was not the real body of our Saviour This appears also by the Rubrick by the Articles and Declaration all which are set down plainly by our Author ch 1. The 3d Alteration was made by Q. Elizabeth at her coming to the Crown For she being as is noted zealous for the Doctrine of the Real presence and divers of the Clergy then Genevized against it they made another change leaving out many things as the second had done out of the first and some things established in the second particularly the Rubric and the Declaration in the Article but in the words of delivery joyning both forms together So that it was dressed for all palates whether according to the simplicity and sincerity of the Gospel I judge not But those of the Church of England who were less infected with Geneva considering these things broached a new opinion That the Body of our Lord was indeed really in the Eucharist but not with the Symbols but to the Receiver only and hereby indeed they salved the words of the form but whether effectively and according to truth I refer you to the first of these Appendixes In King James's time there seems not to be any considerable alteration save that there was added in the Catechism a few questions concerning the Eucharist entirely conformable to this Doctrine of the Church of England which distinguishing the benefits from the thing received they say that the Body of our Lord is there truly and indeed and translate it vere revera How realiter and revera differ I know not as neither why the Replier should applaud the Church of England for not using the word really which rather seems a confession of her guilt of Schism inasmuch as in those
A COMPENDIOUS DISCOURSE ON THE EUCHARIST WITH TVVO APPENDIXES OXFORD Printed in the Year M. DC.LXXX.IIX The CONTENTS A Brief Account of the Modern Doctrines concerning the Eucharist Four principal modern Opinions concerning the Eucharist 1. Virtual presence § 1. 2. Real presence aliquo modo § 2. 3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation § 3. 4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation Observations touching these Opinions § 4. 1. Observation That both the third and fourth Opinion hold an Oral reception of Christ's Body by all Communicants § 5. 2. Observation That the fourth Opinion affirms § 6. 1. A Symbol of Christ's Body remaining after consecration viz. all the sensibles of the Bread. n. 1. 2. These Symbols in the Church'es language not unusually to have had the denomination of Bread. n. 2. 3. These Symbols to have several things predicated of them not agreeable to Christ's Body 3. 4. These Symbols to be as signs of Christ's Body sacramentally present so of it as formerly broken on the Cross n. 4. 5. Christ's Body also as sacramentally present to be a 〈…〉 or memorial of the same Body as formerly on the Cross n. 5. 3. Obs That the difference between the third and fourth Opinion is not great § 7. 4. Obs That the third and fourth Opinion affirm not Christ's Bodily presence in the Sacrament after so gross a manner as is objected to them § 8. 5. Obs That no Argument drawn from sense or seeming contradiction can be valid against the third and fourth Opinion § 9. 6. Obs That those of the third Opinion and some also of the second condemn not the fourth as holding a thing impossible or unfeasible § 10. 7. Obs That Communion with the fourth Opinion is unjustly rejected whilst retained with the third § 11 8 Obs That the Doctrine of the second Opinion is very varying dubious and obscure § 12. Where is discussed § 13. 1. Whether they hold any real substantial presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist Several quotations out of them wherein they seem to maintain it Other quotations wherein they seem to retract it § 14 And divers Arguings of theirs against the third and fourth opinion which seem to overthrow it 2. Whether they hold such presence to the Symbols or only to the Communicant § 16. Several quotations wherein they seem to deny such presence to the Symbols Where Whether they hold Christ's Body present to the soul only or also to the body of the worthy receiver Some other sayings wherein they seem to imply such presence to the Symbols And the testimony of Mr. Thorndike expresly declaring for it An Aâ—count of the Doctrine of Antiquity touching Christ's presence in the Eucharist § 17. That the Arguments equally urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Transubstantiation disprove not their holding of a Corporal presence at least after some other manner with the Symbols § 18. As Theodoret. § 19. 1. Gelasius 2. Ambrose 3. St. Austin 4. Other quotations out of Blondel 5. And others 6. Arguments that they hold corporal presence § 20. Because they affirm a change of the Elements into Christs Body n. 1. A miraculous change n. 2. Offering the Body of Christ as a Sacrifice before communicating n. 3. Using Adoration before communicating n. 4. Holding an Oral manducation of Christ's body n. 5. Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments § 21. Concerning the change of the Elements n. 1. Concerning the miraculousness of the change § 22 Concerning its being a Sacrifice § 23. Concerning Adoration § 24. Replies to these § 25. The doctrine of the Fathers concerning it as a Sacrifice § 26. That the sacrifice on the Cross is the only sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away sins n. 1. Yet is the Eucharist a true and real sacrifice n. 2. Testimonies out of Card. Bellarmin C. Trent and Mr. Mede n. 3. 4. Of the Fathers that it is a sacrifice expiatory n. 5. Of Dr. Tailor n. 6. Digr The omission of the daâ—â—y Oblation in the Reformed Churches § 27. The Fathers say that it is an Oblation of the same Body which was crucified § 28. Reply concerning Sacrifice § 29. Reply concerning Adoration § 30. The Roman qualifications concerning Adoration § 31. Suppose Transubstantiation an error yet Adoration lawful if a corporal presence and if no corporal presence yet their Adoration no idolatry § 32. An account of the variance in the doctrine of the Eucharist in later times § 36. In the Eastern Church § 37. In the Western Church § 41. Reflections upon the former narration § 43. 1. Corporal presence then the common opinion 2. All Councils since the 2d of Nice unanimously deciding corporal presence with the symbols § 44. And that not by way of Impanation § 45. Councils excusable in so strictly determining the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament § 48. In what sense they impose it as an Article of faith § 49. Obedience due to such decisions § 51. The objection of a contrary perswasion of conscience considered § 52. Objection of non-certainty considered § 53. The objection of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal presence considered § 54. App. I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Substantial presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament with a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject printed at OXFORD App. II. Animadversions upon the Reply to the Two former Discourses A DISCOVRSE on the EVCHARIST Four principal Opinions concerning the Eucharist COncerning the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist there are Four chief Opinions among Christians The First That it is Present to the Worthy or Faithful Reeciver in all the Efficacy and Benefits thereof either as it suffer'd § 1 or was rais'd again by a communication to us of Christ's Spirit whereby we are vivificated united 1. Virtual Presence and incorporated into him Et nullus hic miraculo dandus locus est cum sciamus qua ratione Christus Caenae suae adsit nimirum Spiritu vivificante spiritualiter efficaciter ut ipsius divinitas possit nos vivificare in nobis habitare oportuit corpus ipsius pro nobis frangi in Cruce c. atque hanc fractionem effusionem fide a nobis apprehendi ut hac fide insiti corpori ipsius caro ipsius sanguis ipsius effecti possimus fieri participes justitiae vitae ipsius atque ita aeternum domicilium divinitatis Spiritus sanctus nos cum Christo conjungens etiam longissime distantia secundum locum copulat multo arctius propius quam in uno loco posita conjunguntur This opinion seems not to put any real or substantial Presence of Christ's very Body and Blood in the Eucharist or worthy Receiver but a real participation of all the benefits thereof by his Spirit communicated to the faithful Receiver of the consecrated
symbols of his Body § 2 The Second Opinion goes beyond this or at least seems so for I must confess I do not well understand it 2. Real Presence aliquo modo and we shall look more into it anon and affirms a real Presence of Christs Body not only in its vertue but in its very substance but in this not after a natural or carnal but spiritual manner not to all 1 but only to the worthy Receivers To them i.e. to their Souls and Spirits by the susception of Faith and not to their Mouth or their Body Again to them but not to the symbols at all or if in some sense to these as Mr. Hooker l. 5. s 67. saith they really exhibit but not contain in them that which with or by them God bestoweth yet not ante usum or before the act of Receiving Neque enim mortis tantum resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit saith Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.24 and these following quotations are found in his Instit l. 4. c. 17. But how these high expressions where he opposes the Zuinglians agree with those diminutive where he opposes the Lutheran and Romanist I know not Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt nos Spiritus modo participes faciunt praeterita carnis sanguinis mentione Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dicta forent carnem ejus vere esse cibum c. non habere vitam nisi qui carnem illam manducaverit c. Quoe omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin totus Christus Spiritu corpore nobis adhaereat Then quoting Eph. 5.30 he saith Apostolus sermonem exclamatione finit magnum inquit istud arcanum ver 32. Extremae ergo dementiae fuerit nullam communionem agnoscere cum carne sanguine Domini quam tantam esse declarat Apostolus ut eam admirari quam explicare malit nullum locum relinquo huic cavillo quasi dum fide percipi Christum dico intelligentia duntaxat velim concipi Manducatio non est fides sed ex fide consequitur panem quem frangimus communio est c. neque est quod objiciat quisque figuratam esse locutionem Hoc est Corpus Meum rem significatam vere exhibet Facti participes substantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione And of the Lutherans he saith Si ita sensum suum explicarent dum panis porrigitur annexam esse exhibitionem corporis quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas non valde pugnarem § 24. In answer to those who objected Se rationi humanae ita addictum esse ut nihilo plus tribuat Dei potentiae in the matter of the Eucharist quam naturae ordo patitur dictat communis sensus he saith Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior vel naturae legibus subjicio Humanae rationi nihilo magis placebit that which he affirms penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit alimentum-In his paucis verbis i. e. of the Doctrine of the Eucharist as he states it qui non sentit multa subesse miracula plusquam stupidus est quando nihil magis incredibile quod res toto coeli terrae spatio dissitas ac rimotas in tanta locorum distantia non tantum conjungi sed uniri ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi See the place in him Porro de modo si quis me interroget fateri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat I cannot but ask here tho I digress seeing this great Doctor of the Reformation in such a good mood what if any should say Christs Body presently after Consecration is with the Symbols after the same inexplicative and miraculous manner as he makes it with the Soul and so together with them is receiv'd from the Priest See what he himself saith favourable to this in that place quoted before Si ita sensum suum c. quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas And § 33. Atque haec est Sacramenti integritas quam violare totus mundus non potest carnem sanguinem Christi non minus vere dar◠indignis quam electis Dei fidelibus simul tamen verum est non secus atque pluvia super duram rupem decidens effluit c. And before Aliud est offerri aliud recipi I ask Are the Bread and Christ's Body offer'd apart Why not together And if they be together when Offer'd why not together before What can he reply from any argument of Sense or Reason against it Will he plead a possibility of Christ's Body being really present to one definite substance in such a place namely the Soul and an impossibility of its presence to another substance the Bread or Wine Or himself thus granting it in general present after an inexplicative or inconceivable manner if any other should name some particular way unexplicative i. e. fully how can he possibly disprove it by any way of Reason since he grants this matter above it now 't is granted by him above it because implying in it something which to Reason seems but which is not contradictory but only by God's Word and plain Revelation As for example If he can shew the Scriptures somewhere to say That Christ's Body is there present but not join'd with the Signs 2 I might add to these of Calvin 2 the Confession of Beza and others when they were desirous to accord the matter with the Lutherans which you will find quoted by Bishop Forbes Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 13. related by Hospin Hist. Sacram. parte altera p. 251. Fatemur in Caena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii Hominis substantiam ipsam inquit veram carnem c. verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo representari exhiberi applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i.e. verum corpus verus sanguis Domini cum symbolis copulatur dicimus esse symbolicum sive sacramentalem sacramentalem autem modum vocamus non qui sit sigurativus duntaxat sed qui vere certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet offert nempe quod paulo ante diximus verum corpus sanguinem Christi ut appareat nos ipsius corporis sanguinis Christi praesentiam
particular thing that can be named to us is for any thing we know without revelation to the contrary to God possible Methinks some such thing appears from Dr. Tailor's concession p. 240. Let it appear that God hath affirm'd Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it and make publick amends See Disc conc Rubric of the Eng. Lit. § 20. Where the Doctor prefers Revelation to all arguments against it 3. Lastly for the seeming contradictions which are objected by Dr. Taylor p. 207. I see not but that a many of them may be as well urged to disprove the world made of nothing the resurrection to every one of the same body when one is fed on or feeds on another the Trinity or the Incarnation for note that if such are to be accounted no true contradictions in respect of the Trinity because this is clearly revealed neither are they in respect of Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation tho it be not revealed nay to disprove the ordinary Philosophical axiom anima est tota in toto tota in qualibet parte which soul if tota in capite tota in pede is consequently tota in two places at once the same may be said of Angels and must much more of the simple essence of God of whom also is believed that the self same nature is totally in three real distinct persons yet without any division or multiplication of it self miratur hoc mens humana et quia non capit fortasse non credit saith St. Augustin Epistola 3. ad Volus but our Saviour also who never departs from heaven on the right hand of the Father till his second coming to judgment Act. 3.21 yet hath often appeared here on earth to many several times to St. Paul. A many of them to disprove a Camel's passing thro a needles eye or our Saviour's body passing thro a door unopened for many bodies to be in one place is as well absurd as one to be in many but especially the multiplying of the five loaves to feed so many thousands which doubtles might as well have bin multiplied to feed all the world at any distance and this without applying an attribute of God Ubiquity to them See how the Doctor hath prosecuted this business of Ubiquity p. 214. 217. c. 231. A many of them to disprove the substantial presence of Christ's body and not only by the effects influence or vertue thereof to the soul of the faithful receiver in so many several places which thing seems to be affirm'd by the second opinion and the Socinians Remonstrants Zuinglians all that hold only the first opinion charge such contradictions and absurdities upon the second opinion as well as those do upon the third and fourth Now any one contradiction found in the second opinion is as irreconcileable to truth as many and if there were no seeming contradiction in it why fly they also to modus ineffabilis plenus miraculis see before p. 3. And indeed what can be more contradictious than for a finite body to be present not only in its effects but substance to another body and yet not be present there after any manner of presence neither of a Body nor of a Spirit neither definitively nor circumscriptively nor repletively See what the Doctor saith to that effect p. 218. But if you say t is there modo ineffabili and think this objection answered by it then why may not others excuse their seeming contradictory expressions by modus ineffabilis Methinks setting aside divine revelation for matter of reasoning those who grant se nescire modum quomodo est praesens should likewise confess se nescire modum quomodo non est praesens for if by their reason they comprehend not the manner how Christ's body is there neither can they by their reason discover but that that particular manner which they oppose may be the manner of his being there § X 6ly Note that the third opinion denies not the possibility or feisibility of the 4th but only disputes the fact Obs 6 acknowledgeth God's power to do it 1. but saith there is no divine revelation that shews that t is his pleasure so to do therefore the chief blame that is laid by them upon the abettors of the fourth opinion is that it in so much doubt and uncertainty of the manner of Christ's Presence should be obtruded on the world prejudicially to the tenents more probable as an article of faith See Harmon Confession Judicium Theol. Wirtemb quoted by Bishop Forbes Credimus omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse ut possit in Eucharistia substantiam panis vini vel annihilare vel in corpus sanguinem Christi mutare sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam potentiam in Eucharistia exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum See Chemnit exam Conc. Trid. de Transub Sed dicat quis Quare ita contendamus an substantia panis in Eucharistia vel remaneat vel non remaneat cum thesaurus Eucharistiae sit non panis naturalis c. sed vera substantialis praesentia exhibitio sumptio corporis sanguinis Christi c Respondeo Nullo modo pari momento censemus panem corpus Christi Et Lutherus semper dixit se in tota hac disputatione magis spectare praesentiam corporis Christi in coena quam praesentiam panis Sed quia Transubstantiatio pro articulo fidei sub poena anathematis proponitur necessario contradicendum est c. See Bell. Euchar. 3. l. c. 11. In hoc valde distinguuntur Lutherani a Calvinistis Calvinistae enim Transubstantiationem sceleratam esse haeresin rem prorsus impossibilem Lutherani dicunt esse possibilem non pugnare aperte cum fide unde magis reprehendunt Catholicos quod Transubstantiationem faciunt articulum fidei quam quod eam defendant 2. Yet some there are of the second opinion who dispute not the supernatural possibility of it see Calvin de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione joyned to Rivet's animadv on Grot. 11. c. Quasi vero hic de Christi potentia disputetur Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse a Christo nos quoque fatemur Quaerendo quianam possit Christus frustra se fatigant cum haec una cognitio sensus omnes nostros in se continere debeat quidnam velit and who grant a possibility of many of those particulars maintained by the 4th opinion as that the same body may be in many places accidents persist without a subject c. which things some others again make to involve a contradiction See many testimonies to this purpose numbred up by Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. Lastly Some of the Second Opinion there are that hold the Fourth Opinion more agreeable to our Saviour's words than the Third See Bishop Forb l. 1. c. 4. s 5. Longius consubstantiatorum quam Transubstantiatorum
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
this in relation to some real effect which it signifies to be produced by it So we may say This bread is my body i. e. a figure sign representative thereof but not only so But this bread is my body i. e. by or with or upon the receit of this bread by his mouth to the worthy communicant in his soul is exhibited or given at the same time my true and real body or in Dr. Tailor's words p. 266. After consecration and blessing i.e. of the bread c it is really Christ's body which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lord's supper Thus he The words are ambiguous but I guess by the rest of his book that he means by it is not the bread is for he holds Christ's real body not present to the bread or symbols but only to the spirit of the worthy receiver of the sanctified bread see p. 65. but that which the souls of the faithful receive whilst with their mouths they receive the hallowed bread is Christ's real body Which sense of the proposition this bread is my body doth not seem to conform so strictly to the words as either of the former do because the body in this 3d. sense hath not so near a relation to the bread as in the other This last interpretation is granted by all the other as Hooker observes for all grant a presence of Christ's real body to the soul but more also is affirmed by them as the other expressions of the Fathers will clearly evince who make whether by Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation or some other way some miraculous effect upon consecration of the elements whereby Christ's body becomes really and substantially present together with the substance or at least with the properties of the bread with which miraculous effect either of the former interpretations well consists but not the third since they utterly deny either any substantial or any other way miraculous change about the symbols 7. So for the quotations made by Blondel cap. 12. and by Dr. Tailor p. 104. of many Schoolmen and Doctors of the Church of Rome even since the decision of Councils confessing Transubstantiation not clearly provable from Scripture or reason amongst which see the concession of Bellarmin himself in his Answer to a Lutheran urging these Schoolmen as on his side de Euch. 3. l. 23. c. Tho all these affirm the same Transubstantiation clear from Fathers and Tradition yet for this also if you will I will suppose it not clear from an unanimous consent of Antiquity i. e. in such a manner that none of them held rather Consubstantiation Perhaps the quotations in Dr. Tailor p. 285. may have something in them to this purpose but for want of books I cannot examin in what sense they are spoken excepting that of P. Lombard Of whom t is not amiss to give you some account because as Dr. Tailor truly saith it was his design to collect the sentences of the Fathers in certain heads or articles He therefore after many sentences of the Fathers recited to that purpose concludeth the 10. dist immediately precedent to the words quoted by the Dr. thus Ex his aliisque pluribus constat verum corpus Christi sanguinem in altari esse imo integrum Christum ibi sub utraque specie substantiam panis in corpus i. e. some way or other vinique substantiam in sanguinem converti The like is said before 9. dist li. B. A malis sub Sacramento sci sub specie visibili caro Christi de Virgine sumpta sanguis pro nobis fusus sumitur After this follow the words quoted by Dr. Tailor wherein he doubts of the manner of the conversion of the bread whereof he names three several ways One ibi substantiam panis vini remanere ibidem corpus Christi esse hac ratione dici illam substantiam i.e. panis fieri istam i.e. corporis quia ubi est haec est illa This opinion he rejects saying sed quod non sit ibi substantia nisi corpus sanguis Christi ex praedictis subditis aperte ostenditur Yet note that he writ before Conc. Lateran A second way he names is sic substantiam converti in substantiam ut haec i. e. panis essentialiter fiat illa i. e. corporis Christi i. e. that that which was the substance of the bread is afterward not annihilated but becoming the substance of Christ's body of this he discourseth B. C. and answers an objection against it The 3d. way he mentions litera D. is panem sic transire in corpus Christi ut ubi erat panis nunc est corpus Christi substantia panis vini redigitur in nihilum and of these two last he saith definire non sufficio and see him notwithstanding this definire non sufficio numbred by Blondel among the first Transubstantiators p. 212. and see what Calvin saith of him Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 13. s. Judge then whether the second opinion had any reason to make use of such a quotation and if I may advise you trust not me nor others in our citations but if you can consult the authors and see the context Yet in general I answer All this makes nothing for the first or second opinion or against our present proposition because what those Roman Doctors say is spoken of Transubstantiation only in comparison to the third opinion which they supposed might contest with it for Scripture-evidence not to the first or second by the third I mean the remaining after consecration with Christ's true body not only the properties but the substance of the bread whilst mean while they affirm against the first and second opinion the true substance of Christ's body some way or other with the elements from Scripture it self to be most clear and evident Therefore Mr. Blondel's saying in the title of that chapter that they confessed the expositions of Protestants compatible with the words of the Gospel and St. Paul is true indeed but it is only of some Protestants namely the Lutherans of another perswasion than he or Dr. Tailor See Dr. Tailor p. 104. where he confesseth these Authors to be for Consubstantiation only and the being of Christ's natural body tho they deny the body to be in the Eucharist modo naturali as Dr. Tailor cannot but know together with natural bread Yet indeed they cannot be said to be for consubstantiation neither since transubstantiation is their tenent also whilst they profess themselves to acquiesce in the Church'es determination but this not from conviction of Scripture or reason but evidence of tradition § XX Having premised thus much to shew that any arguments from Antiquity Arguments that they held corporal presence with the symbols tho supposed to against Transubstantiation yet if they put Consubstantiation or some other manner of Substantial Presence of Christ's Body with the consecrated elements prejudice not at all our present proposal set down p.
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
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.
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
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