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
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
these Ego Berengarius corde credo panem c. substantialiter converti in veram propriam vivificatricem carnem Domini c. In the former Roman Council an 1060. tho the words of the Recantation are Ego Berengarius anathematizo eam haeresin quae astruere conatur panem post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse Yet that the Council meant the Bread to be Christ's Body not whilst being but by ceasing to be Bread methinks is sufficiently vindicated by what Lanfranck one of it and Guitmund and Anselm contemporaries say of this Council as I find them quoted by Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 21. Lanfran de Corpore Domini to Berengarius Nicolaus Papa comperiens te docere panem vinumque altaris post consecrationem sine materiali mutatione in pristinis essentiis remanere c. praecepti tradi scripturam tibi i. e. the Recantation nam'd before Guitmund l. 3. De Corpore Domini speaking of the same Council saith Panem in corpus Christi substantialiter converti non sicut delirat Berengarius corporis Domini figuras tantum esse umbras aut intra se latentem Christum tegere universalis Ecclesiae consensione roboratum est Anselm tho I grant 't is not necessary to understand this to be spoken of the former Council notwithstanding semper abhorruit some way involves it Panis substantiam post consecrationem in altari superesse semper abhorruit pietas Christiana nuperque damnavit in Berengario But Anselm dyed an hundred years before the Lateran Council Besides the force of these Testimonies 't is not probable that in the eighteen years space that interceded between these two Councils the Judgment of the Church in the later should be so much alter'd and that without any noise or opposition from the former § XLVIII 4. Concerning these Councils that have so strictly determin'd the manner of corporal presence Councils excusable in determination of the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist which many pious men have wished that the Church had rather left undefin'd permitting to every one the liberty of their private conjecture and only imposing silence on all to forbear curious disputes Yet we may consider That the same we say concerning this point of the Eucharist is said by Sectaries concerning Decisions of Councils in any other point wherein they differ from her Judgment So she is by several complain'd of for her too much curiosity and punctuality in the mystery of the Trinity in her addition a Filioque in concluding that hard and long-disputed point of Rebaptization c. That not private men but the Church her self is meetest to judg what is fit to be determin'd or not determin'd by her That curious disputes may indeed easily be prohibited but once on foot will never be actually laid but still multiply into new controversies till something most probable is setled by just Authority That as there were then on foot some opinions very destructive and diminutive to this ineffable Mystery as Berengarius his first Doctrine so others again very extravagant as that of Hypostatical union of the Deity to a new Breaden Body That these Councils did no more in this than other Councils from time to time have done in very subtle only if much controverted matters in not silencing the Disputants but as became a Judg confiding in the Holy Spirit 's assistance determining the point as seem'd to them truest That these Councils in this point after all things had been for a long time more exactly debated and sifted than in former Ages before giving any sentence thereon in their decision follow'd the words of our Saviour Mat. 26.26 in their simplest meaning and the commonest phrase of the Writings of Antiquity tho some Fathers in their judgment perhaps differ'd from the rest i. e. conversion or transmutation taken in the strictest sense That if we restrain the Church from determining any thing where Scripture seems ambiguous tho the testimony and exposition of Antiquity perhaps in the same point is not so her decisive Authority in matters once controverted will be made void because so often is Scripture ambiguous i.e. by several men severally understood And in matters not controverted 't is needless That there comes 〈◊〉 more Peace to the Church by such a definition and no danger to Christians from this thing defined if an Error supposing still corporal presence a truth from which also follows Adoration because 't is only a purely speculative mistake and no point of practice depending on it Lastly That in the general acknowledgment of so much obscurity and uncomprehensibleness of this mystery as the Church hath less light to judg of the exact manner thereof c. so have others less grounds to contradict her Judgment As for her making it an Article of Faith now which was not so heretofore which is much objected by some Reformed In what sence they impose it as an Article of Faith. see Chemnitius quoted before Sed quia transubstantiatio saith he pro articulo fidei sub paena anathematis proponitur necessario contradicendum est c. See Dr. Taylor p. 331. Before the Lateran Council saith he Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei as Scotus saith and how it can be afterward since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our Faith and therefore all Faith was deliver'd from the beginning is a matter of highest danger and consideration Thus he I think it is sufficiently answer'd and the offence thereof taken away in my notes of Infallibility so that I need say little here Only this First They make this point of Transubstantiation no more an Article of Faith than their other Decrees to which they require assent under Anathema as they do to this For example 'T is made no more an Article of Faith by them than this is De Bapt. Can. 1. Baptismum Johannis non habere eandem vim cum baptismo Christi But if the Church may not be permitted to make thus new Articles of Faith she may not to make any new determination not formerly made nor to enjoin people to believe or assent to any thing which formerly was not enjoin'd nor believ'd But to explain the business a little We must know That all Divine Revelation any thing in God's Word whatever is eo nomine an Article or point of Faith and that as Article of Faith is taken for dogma verum and so credible for a divine truth which is creditable or which may be most surely believ'd So what Dr. Taylor saith is most true such it is not only after Decreed by a Council but at least from the time of our Saviour and the Apostles and nothing at any time thus an Article of Faith which is not so always And thus far doubtless was it from Scotus his thought That Transubstantiation at the Lateran Council began to be a divine truth when it was not so
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 nourished it makes us partakers of his Life which being immortal and glorious renders ours such also And 3. Other Food being either inanimate or having a Life inferior unto and differing from ours this Body of his is become superior more Divine than ours and is a quickning Spirit And therefore we should receive his Body and Blood after the manner of natural bodies which the Capernaites and our sensual Doctors can apprehend it would profit us nothing as to the great effects promised by our Receiving in the Eucharist And these effects are true and real not notional or imaginary or by Faith only apprehended yea much more than the Manna Faith being an assent in the understanding is quite different from enjoyment in the will and affections And Faith i. e. a believing either that our Lord was the true Messias or Messenger from the Father for else he could not be the true Bread which came down from Heaven or that this which is given us is the real Body of our Saviour for else it would be only common Bread precedes the Receiving yet is not any part of it much less the enjoyment of any of the effects of it Again If eating by Faith whatever it signifies be all that is meant in the Eucharist how comes it to be preferr'd before the Manna which was a continual Miracle and daily exercise of their Faith And why would our Lord suffer so many of his Followers to go away from him when he might in so few words have inform'd them of the Truth without a Metaphor Why should he use such sublime and spiritual expressions repeating it to be his body and blood that it came down from Heaven that he would give it for the life of the world c. and not once explain the meaning of those to them obscure phrases And if the Church Catholick and even the Church of England till the last of King Edward VI. had not conceiv'd some great Mystery why would she keep the words so obscure and really as they suppose improper of the Institution so precisely even till the Church of England made the breach and by the Expressions different from the whole Church profess'd her self not to be a Member of it But of this sufficient is said before and in the Reformation of the Church of England from § 148. Wherefore the Catholicks speaking of the real presence of our Lord mean◠the very essence substance the very thing it self is there present taken and eaten by us and not only the benefits of his Passion believ'd by us And in the Church's sense we use in this Discourse the words really really present c. and yet not naturally locally or any other manner of its being according to the qualities of a natural body § 2 And note secondly That these Writers and others pretending to be of the Church of England by their spiritual by Faith mystical eating which they sometimes also call Sacramental intend a sense contrary and opposite to eating the natural body of our Lord spiritualiz'd and that is all the eating they acknowledg The Catholick Church also useth the same word spiritual in opposition to real or sacramental meaning thereby the reception of some spiritual grace or encrease of it As the Fathers in the Wilderness did eat the same meat Manna and the Rock-water spiritually in as much as these were Types of spiritual things under the Gospel by receiving whereof they also obtain'd the graces of Gods Spirit And this spiritual reception of Grace is not only in the Eucharist but in all the other Sacraments in all actions of Devotion and Piety and all manner of well-using Grace once given But this is not all the Sacramental receiving tho contain'd in it So that there are two manners of receiving Grace and our Saviour 1. Spiritual only which our Replier says is all 2. Spiritual and real or Sacramental because proper to the Eucharist The real without the spiritual profiteth nothing yea it is also damnable For except a man come to the Eucharist well prepar'd i. e. by Mortifications Devotions Acts of Religion i. e. in a state of Grace he eats and drinks condemnation to himself The spiritual receiving without the real profiteth indeed but neither so much nor in such manner as when they are join'd both together For spiritual receiving is of more Grace upon well-using the former is only in general and in the inner man therefore difficultly discern'd and more subject are we to be deceiv'd in it But real receiving as all other Sacraments is instituted to help the weakness and imperfect discernment of our spiritual and internal condition by the visible signs of invisible Grace therein bestow'd The spiritual eating gives us a right and title to Grace but the other is the very instrument of conveying it Also in that Grace is given according to the measure of the Receiver's disposition and that Grace also which is of the same nature with those dispositions But in the Sacraments are given new and peculiar Graces as in Baptism the forgiveness of all sins already committed and admission into the Church of Christ and all the rights and benefits thereof So in the holy Eucharist there is conferr'd also forgiveness of sins and a nearer incorporating us into our Lord himself more intimately and consequently a more certain hope and confidence of eternal life by receiving himself into us who is now become a quickning Spirit unto us working by his body receiv'd the seed of immortality all things necessary or useful to our happy progress thither Be pleased therefore to consider Whether they who acknowledg no other than a spiritual receiving do not either quite evacuate the power and efficacy or at least diminish much and weaken the force of this divine Sacrament And also that whoever they are who endeavour to subject or reduce Religion to the Rule of Reason do not in effect deny and despise the wisdom of God declar'd in the mystery of our holy Religion § 3 Note Thirdly That Catholicks trouble not themselves to reconcile Religion to Philosophy Their endeavour is to understand the true sense of what God hath revealed and to this purpose they make use of all the helps which others do but principally depend upon what the Church Catholick and her Doctors from time to time have receiv'd and declar'd i. e. how they to whom our Lord committed his Mysteries have from the beginning believ'd and deliver'd that charge deliver'd unto them how the practice hath interpreted the Law and how the Holy Spirit by his Instruments the Clergy of the Catholick Church hath continued it down to their time Nor do they regard what either private interpretation or what Philosophy or Principles fram'd by men's understandings out of their experience or frame of Languages suggest They leave these to them who affect to diminish the unfathomable knowledg communicated to us by God in his Revelations to Arians Socinians Latitudinarians and other Doctors of Sensuality But
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
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
sententiam a Christi verbis recedere i. e. I conceive as they take the Third Opinion to affirm ipsum panem esse corpus Domini for this seems much more unreasonable than Hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus Domini sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospin hist Sacr. parte altera p. 7. c. Calviniani communiter See Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 20. where speaking of some of the Lutherans affirming proprie loquendo panem esse corpus Christi he argues that consequently they must say panem esse Christum because totus Christus offertur in coena and then concludes intolerabilis autem Blasphemia est sine figura Praedicari de elemento corruptibili quod sit corpus Again s 30. inveighing against Lutherans Ubiquity he saith Papistarum tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est doctrina And see Judicious Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. s 67. how indifferently he behaves himself between the two Tenents of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation censuring them both only as Opinions unnecessary and superfluous and p. 361. saying of the later the Transubstantialists that they justly shun some Labyrinths of the former the Consubstantialists but yet that the way which they take to the same Inn is somewhat more short but no whit more certain See likewise Spalat Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. n. 6. Fateor neque Transubstantiationem neque Ubiquitatem haeresin ullam directe continere c. § XI 7. Yet even those Reformed who cry out of the Fourth Opinion as Heretical Obs 7 Diabolical Blasphemous c. for such also there are Seventhly Observe That for the most part those of the Second Opinion hold the Third notwithstanding the near alliance it appears to have with the Fourth no ways Heretical or tho erroneous destructive of any fundamental or prinpal Article of Faith unless by some Consequences renounced by those who hold the Third Opinion and therefore giving no just cause of any separation of Communion from any such Credere quod caro Christi ubique est quod in pane est oraliter manducetur idque etiam ab impiis stipula palea est Par. in 1 Cor. 3. See many quotations in Bishop Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. See likewise Daille's Charity in the place quoted before in the end of the Fourth Observation p. 16. notwithstanding those dangerous Consequences of the Third Opinion of destroying Christ's Humanity by Ubiquity and of Adoration by presence with the Elements See Bishop Hall's Davenant's Morton's Discourses De Pace Ecclesiastica How far can men bend when they have a good mind to it See particularly Bish Hall p. 73. Res apud utrosque eadem c. At last he brings in the Decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are receiv'd to their Communion as agreeing with them in omnibus verae Religionis principiis Articulisque fundamentalibus See Disc conc Rub. of Eng. §. 12. How well therefore the same men can refuse Communion with those of the Fourth Opinion supposing the falsity thereof or asperse it with the name of Heresie c. I see not and perhaps the more moderate do not refuse nor quarrel with it for this But the thing they blame is Adoration or the imposing their Transubstantiation on others as an Article of Faith of which anon to which purpose Daille in his Answer to the Remarks made by Chaumont on his Apology p. 20. hath these words after vindicating Beza and Calvin from holding any real Presence of Christ's Body in the Signs Mais bienque nous ne croyons pas c. Altho we believe no such Presence in the Signs yet we esteem not that Belief so criminal as that it obligeth us to break off Communion with those who hold it as it appears by our tolerating it in the Lutherans So that had the Church of Rome no other Error than this we voluntarily accord her to have given us no sufficient cause of Separation from her What is that Faith of Rome then which I alledg'd as a sufficient cause of Separation then he names this l' Adoration de l'Ostie Thus he § XII Having thus made a Cursory over the Four Opinions about the Eucharist give me leave now to reflect a little upon and search more strictly into the Second Opinion which I think is the Tenent of many of the Church of England Concerning which I do not well understand How it must not either fall into many of the difficulties and seeming contradictions of the Third and Fourth Opinions or slide back into the sense of the First the most intelligible and perspicuous indeed but thought by the rest too much diminutive of this tremendum Mysterium this ineffable Mystery § XIII Concerning the Second Opinion Now let us consider this Second Opinion first concerning its affirming or denying the real or substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Celebration of the Eucharist Next concerning its affirming or denying such Presence in or with the Signs As to the former the phrase of real Presence if we mean by it only presence in something real may be used by those who deny substantial presence For if Christ be present to us in the Eucharist in the benefits of his Passion in his Grace in his Spirit he is present to us in something real tho not in the reality of his Person But they going beyond all these even the last of them also the presence by his Spirit see before p. 2. neque enim mortis tantum c neque enim mihi satisfaciunt c. affirm a real and substantial presence for indeed what can real presence of a substance such as body and blood is be but substantial presence even of that body which suffered upon the Cross for us which presence they clearly contradistinguish to presence by effect influence virtue grace or an uniting of our bodies with Christ's body by the same Spirit abiding in both by which way things furthest distant if we call this presence may be said to be present to one another as long as there is any thing between them that immediately toucheth or informeth both so the head may be said to be present to the foot the Saints in heaven to those on earth the West to the East-Indies so the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood may be affirmed as well as here when ever there is any communication of his Spirit as in Baptism and as properly as the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless here so the Water that is then poured on us may be said to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ these manners of Presence therefore they count not enough to satisfy the Scripures and Tradition Therefore they speak of Eucharistical-presence as a great mystery Eph. 5. wrought by God's omnipotence after a manner ineffable or incomprehensible to man's reason Lastly as far in substantial
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
theirs seem not so suitable to such a meaning and may easily cause a mistake in the unwary reader and why they use them I cannot tell unless it be to imitate the phrase of the words of Institution and also of the Fathers See Dr. Tailor p. 7. After the Minister hath consecrated the bread and the wine the Symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ in a Spiritual real manner May we then say that the Baptismal water after prayers c is changed into the Spirit in a spiritual real manner because that is an instrument upon using of which the Holy Spirit is conferred So p. 21. The question is not whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood or no for it is granted but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative or natural and bodily c. So p. 265.266 Before consecration it is meer bread but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ truly his flesh and truly his blood Yet if we enquire how he means that the bread is so surely he means only this that upon receiving or at the same time that we receive the bread suffering only an accidental mutation as he calls it of condition of sanctification and usage at the same time Christ's real body is received but not in or joyned with the bread at all by the faithful The expression is strangely differing methinks from the meaning thereof But especially see such full expressions in his Great Exemplar 3d. part disc 18. p. 109. in the former Edition sect 3. where amongst other things he saith It is hard to do so much violence to our sense as not to think it bread but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be Christ's body Again He that believes it to be bread and yet verily to be Christ's body is only tied also by implication to believe God's omnipotence that he who affirmed it can also verify it And if we profess we understand not the manner of this Mystery we say no more but that it is a mystery c. See the place Strange expressions when the thing required to be believed is this That Christ's body is no way present to the bread neither by the bread being any way changed into it nor joyned with it but only it given and present to the faithful upon the receit of this sanctified bread Now would any discourse of the waters of Baptism by which the Spirit is received on this manner It is hard to do so much violence to the sense as not to think it water but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith as not to believe it to be the Spirit c. Would not he rather explain himself that the one is not the other but the one received by God's free gift upon the receiving of the other § XVII After the real or substantial presence of Christ's body thus granted if I well understand them by the second opinion to the worthy receiver but denied to the symbols or signs Whether Antiquity affirmed Corporeal Presence and whether this to the worthy Receiver only or also to the Symbols upon consecration let our next Quaere be what may be the opinion of Antiquity which is of great moment with all obedient Sons of the Church in this matter Where supposing it granted by all that the Fathers also held the real presence as much as those of the second opinion do it remains only to be examined whether they held this real presence not only to the worthy receiver but also to the Symbols and that ante usum which if they did if their judgment is not to be submitted to at least their followers are to be excused § XVIII 1. And note here first before I proceed further That the aâ—guments usually urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Tâ—ansubstaâ—tiation disprove not theâ—â— hoâ—ding of a Corporal Presence at least after some other manner with the Symbols that I enquire here only after the tenent of the Ancients concerning a real or substantial Presence of Christ's body with the outward signs but whether they maintain it cum pane remanente or transeunte whether by Con or Tran-substantiation or whether some of them affirmed the one some the other for t is not necessary that either in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation they must all go one way or some also a several way from both I meddle not And indeed I am apt to believe in so high and difficult a mystery before such particular manners so punctually discussed and before the determination of any Council concerning them a likelihood of some variance in their opinions 2. And therefore when as some of their Testimonies affirm the nature of the Bread after Consecration to be chang'd Ambr. de Myst init c. 9. speaking of this Sacrament Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur i. e. miraculously Others the nature of the Bread after Consecration to remain still I can neither altogether embrace the Answer for making Antiquity unanimous of some Protestants to the first That by the change of Nature c. is meant only an accidental change of its now sanctified condition and usage for so we say urges Dr. Taylor p. 271. a man of a good nature i. e. disposition and that it is against our nature i. e. our custom and affection c. See the like concerning the word substance in Blondel in answer to a Latin Father p. 179. notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 324. nor the answers of some Romanists to the second that by the nature of Bread remaining is meant only the remaining of the natural accidents or the properties of Nature or species or natura exterior not interior substantia tho 't is always to be remember'd that the fourth Opinion in holding not only the outward appearance colour and figure of the Bread to remain but all other properties and sensibles thereof and besides these all the operations whatsoever which agree to the substance as corporally nourishing c. by miracle to remain to these accidents and that without any communication unto or dependance upon the Body of Christ but existent by themselves do indeed tantum non hold also the substance it self to remain see Obs 3. p. 24. and methinks differ too little from the third Opinion to make such an abhorrence as some Protestants entertain of the one in comparison of the other Neither will I justifie that Apology made by Bellarmin for such a forc'd interpretation see de Euch. l. 3. c. 24. concerning St. Austin and c. 27. concerning Theodoret namely because otherwise such a Father will be made repugnare apertissime Cyrillo Ambrosio Nysseno Epiphanio Chrysostomo c. his Cotemporaries or also his Masters For why may not some of them differ in something concerning the manner of so high a Mystery of which some of the acutest of the Roman Writers confess there was no manifest
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.
substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body was not so rare an Opinion in the Church in ancient times They also use words very emphatical for to express such a change of the Bread see them set down in Blond p. 156. in Dr. Taylor p. 267. The Greek Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Latins conversio mutatio transitio migratio transfiguratio And they prove the possibility of such a change as they suppose made in the Elements from God's Omnipotency and from several instances of other changes but all such as they conceive miraculous done by the Power of God in the Old Testament and by our Saviour in the New. Among which instances these are very usual The Creation with a Word of all things at first out of Nothing Than which how much easier to change the Nature of things already in being The Rod of Moses chang'd into a Serpent The Water of Nile into Blood. The fetching Water out of the Rock The dividing of the Red Sea and of Jordan Eliah 's word bringing Fire from Heaven Elisha 's making the Iron to swim Our Saviours changing Water into Wine a frequent instance Our Saviour's preternatural Conception of a pure Virgin comparing this union of Christ and the symbols for the fourth Opinion also holds something of the Bread remaining with Christ's Body with the Incarnation with the change of the Bread that our Saviour eat into his Body by Nutrition with Angels appearing to men in bodily shapes with man's being regenerate made a new creature partaker of the Divine Nature Flesh of Christ's Flesh and Bone of his Bone by the Spirit Which last tho some Writers Blond c. 4. s 8. prop. 17. bring in as a Diminutive of the pretended change of the Sacramental elements yet St. Paul calls it a great mystery Eph. 5. and St. Austin a greater effect of Gods power than the Creation and Chrysostom in Joh. c. 3. v. 6. that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit saith Formatio primi hominis mulieris ex latere ejus Helisaei preterea miraculum qui ex sundo ferrum revocavit transitus Judaeorum per rubrum mare piscinâ—e ab Angelo commotio mundatio Naaman Syri a lepra in Jordanc haec omnia generationem purgationem futuram tanquam in figura permoustrarunt Lastly with the change of our Bodies that shall be at the Resurrection They urge some difficulties about it not incident to a change only of sanctification as for example Nyssen Catech. Orat. c. 37. Cum solum illud corpus quod Deum suscepit hanc gratiam acceperit ut per communionem immortalis nostrum factum sit particeps incorruptionis oportet considerare quomodo fieri queat ut cum unum illud corpus assidue per totum orbem tot fidelium millibus impertiatur totum cujusque per partes evadat in seipso totum permaneat Chrys l. 3. de Sacerdotio speaking of the Sacrament O miraculum qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus illum accipere They forbid enquiring after the quomodo nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus quomodo aut cogitemus aut proferamus Cyr. Alexand. and frequently exhort the people to a firm belief without any doubting of the truth thereof Epiphan Anchorat p. 60. bringing it in for a simile How Man may be Gods Image saith of the Eucharist Videmus aequale illud non esse nec simile non susceptae carnis imagini non divinitati ipsi quae videri non possit non membrorum lineamentis ac notis Illud enim rotundum est sensus expers nihilominus ex gratia pronunciare voluit Hoc meum est hoc Neque quisquam est qui ei sermoni fidem non adhibeat for so in their giving It the Priest anciently said Corpus Christi and the Communicant answer'd Amen Ambr. de Sac. l. 4. c. 4. Apost Const l. 8. c. 20. Nam qui verum illum i.e. sermonem or Christum esse non credit a gratia salute prorsus excidit verum quodcunque tandem audierimus aut crediderimus ipsius esse credimus c. As B. Forbes also notes de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s 27. That the Faith more properly requir'd at the receiving the Sacrament is ea fides qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis Hoc est corpus meum credere Christum esse ibi etiam carne-vivificatrice praesentem Of which S. Austin saith Crede manducasti Considering the foresaid passages in the Fathers methinks I miss some candor in Mr. Blondel if perhaps he intended to make a history of the Fathers opinions in this matter that whereas he is so punctual in the 8th propos of the 4th cap. he is so remiss in the 6th especially in not taking notice of the miraculousness the Fathers held in the change and their recourse to omnipotency for it as likewise of some other things I shall mention anon See for the truth of the things I have said in this Section the authorities quoted by Blond 4. c. 6. prop. and more at large in Bellarmin's whole 2d book de Euch. or in 4. sent 11. dist 1. 3. sect But if you desire more perfectly to inform your self because quotations are but short pieces dismembred from the context and glosses are made upon them according to the interest of the writer that selects them spend an hour or two in a publick library and read more specially these Ambros de myst initiand 9. c. De Sacr. 4. l. 4. and 5. c. where also you shall find the Canon of the Mass not differing from the present in any thing of those which the Reformed dislike in the present Mass save in one where the elements but before consecration are called figura corporis Christi See Cyril Hieros catech mystag 4. Chrysost Hom. 83. in Matt. Greg. Nyss orat catech 36 37. c. Euseb Emyssen or the supposed author quoted in Blond p. 69. serm 5. de Paschate de corpore Domini Now that you need not fear lest you should take in the testimonies of some age by the Reformed disallow'd know that Mr. Blondel holds no doctrine of Transubstantiation to be maintained till after the 10th age no alteration of doctrine about the Eucharist till after in the Eastern Church the 7th in the Western Church the 8th age no change of language and expression till in the Eastern Church the 6th in the Western the 7th So that any author for the first 600 years may be securely quoted and therefore in the present Canon of the Mass which is granted by Protestants to be the same as in Gregory the Great 's time all things are acknowledged conformable to the doctrine of uncorrupted Antiquity And whatsoever expressions concerning the Eucharist are made by that Constantinopolitan Council under Constantine Copronymus in the East and by that of Francfort under Carolus M. in the West are by Mr. Blondel held orthodox
and also animates us to persist in it since those who have quitted our communion and relinquished our faith in other matters discern so strong Motives to retain this that tho very willing they cannot without violence to their consciences renounce it Pag. 117. l. 20. It is confessed by the greatest men of their Church c. A forgery Our great men make the contrary confession and if any of them seems to speak towards what this Minister feigns it is with respect to Transubstantiation not a corporal presence particularly Scotus misquoted Praef. p. 6. That most subtle Doctor as has bin often answered to this most impudent objection lays it down That the Points discuss'd by him in his 4ti Dist 11. q. 3. do all intend to maintain That the Body of Christ is truly in the Eucharist because to deny that is plainly against Faith for it was expresly from the beginning of the Institution of the truth of Faith that the Body of Christ is contain'd there truly and really And afterwards in his Reply to Objections fixing on Transubstantiation as the manner of the substantial presence he adds And if you demand why the Church chose this so difficult a sense i. e. of Transubstantiation being the manner of this Article when the words of Scripture may be rendred in a sense easy and as to appearance truer concerning this Article To this Objection he returns I say that the Scriptures are expounded by the direction of that Spirit by which they were composed And so it is to be supposed that the Catholick Church hath interpreted by the same Spirit by which the Faith was delivered to us viz. taught by the Spirit of truth and therefore she chose this sense because it is true For it is not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true but of God the Institutor but the Church directed herein as t is believed by the Spirit of truth hath explicated the sense delivered to Her by God. Now t is evident that the Schoolman is here speaking of Transubstantiation not of the corporal presence next that he says not the facility or appearance of a sense to be that designed in Scripture is to be regarded in Faith but the declaration of the Church in whose custody the traditive sense of Scripture i.e. what God intended not what we surmise is deposited and by whose mouth the Holy Spirit speaks Lastly that the Declaration of the Church is for Transubstantiation therefore this must be concluded to be the proper sense of Scripture tho that Scripture sound never so plausibly for some other sense Our Adversaries persevering in an imposture with so much pertinacy and immodesty extorts this tedious Repetition All we shall further remark upon it is that it yeilds this Minister a very wholsom Instruction how to interpret Scripture not by Jewish customs nor Rabbinical Deliriums not by the superficial notices of sense or vain Maxims and cheating suggestions of Science falsly so called but by the Guidance of the Church assisted with the Holy Spirit for of these two Directors in expounding Scripture this Mâ—nister seldom has regard whilst Catholicks enquire of the Church what sense the Holy Spirit chiefly design'd and without hesitancy adhere to that she gives whether it be literal or mystical because our Lord's promise of assisting the Church and leading her into all truth is so absolute that we think we may as justly distrust his being the Messiah as be jealous of his Fidelity or Providence in acquitting himself of this engagement Should we not be suspicious if without apprehension nay with perfect firmness and security we did not acquiesce in her expositions And how many of those who have leap'd from this Rock and committed themselves to the conduct of a Private spirit are now carried away by the wind of Socinianism Judaism Mahomatism or irreligion whilst we that stand on it have not only the same Faith still but cannot possibly fail by misbelief Pag. 118. l. 7. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of those words of Institution destroys the certainty of sense c. If he mean our interpretation of a corporal presence then he contradicts what he thrice told us that the Lutherans do no violence to sense but if he mean the Interpretation of Transubstantiation his observation is wide of the point contested But in both meanings t is false for we derogate from sense not in the least and if we did in one-case in obedience to Faith whereto we think sense may as justly be captivated as the understanding that will not infer we may in another destitute of such a revelation till a particular premise can support an universal conclusion The Fallacy and Ignorance of this importunate Argument so often brought and so often bafled and exposed must certainly be used by these men merely to deceive the People As to the Paradox of Miracles being discoverable by sense only we refer this Minister to Calvin Bishop Forbes and many other Classic Reformers for correction who esteem them stupid that disclaim the Eucharistical Miracles and truly by sense we discern none there How then by your favour came they to discern Miracles in the Eucharist But what Was there no miracle in the conception of our Lord What sense acquaints men with it That he was a Man we might know by sense but that he was miraculously conceived only Revelation not Experience assures all besides his Mother To pass this how comes it to be collected that if one of the evidences of the truth of Christianity cannot be had strait our certainty of the truth of Christianity is destroy'd Tell me I pray were Miracles its sole evidence Were accomplishments of Old Testament-prophecies none or uncertain Had all Believer's miracles before they assented Did none believe with certainty but such as had Miracles to attest what was tendred to them What 's become of the Beatitude Blessed are those that have not seen a miracle Christ risen and yet have believed on the credible relation of others and because it was foretold he should rise c. If the performance of something in Nature otherwise than any created Power uses or can do I say the performance of it by Power Divine be a Miracle and that such a performance may be effected in spiritual as well as sensible affairs the knowledg of which may and must be attain'd if it be had by an information not sensible then the confining of Miracles to be objects of Sense is exploded Having thus overturn'd two of his Observations his Arguings from them vanish as do all other Bubbles Pag. 119. l. 4. No Papist can have any Reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of holy Scripture c. A Papist has the same Reason to believe Transubstantiation tho he cannot read at all as the first Christians had before the Gospels were written or a blind man has now The mistake of Dr. Stillingfleet Tillotson Tenison this
Answerer and others insisting so eagerly and obstinately on the Authority of Sense grows if it be not an Artifice perhaps from their taking the Maxim Nothing is in the Intellect which was not before in the Senses absolutely as if the only Conveyer of Notices to the Mind were the Senses or no thought had its birth there without an external promter whenas to omit the ill consequences c. of the later there are other means of acquainting the Intellect without the concurrence of the Senses as by Good and Bad Spirits c. Now these either convey always the same Notices as the Senses or they do not if they do then the Mind must ever judg with the Senses which is against experience If they do not how comes the Intellect to determine against the Notices of Sense e. g. in the Magnitude of the Sun Surely it neglects the information of Sense either upon some other more powerful motive and overruling remonstrance than Sense has given or arbitrarily but whether way soever it goes the Maxim is rejected and the Mind 't is clear does not find it self obliged to determine in all cases as Sense deposes Sense then is no Judg but only a conveyer of Intelligence to the Judg according to which Intelligence we confess that Judg is to censure and resolve except when better Intelligence from Reason or Revelation be interposed and arrest such a Judgment Now Sense informs a Catholick Mind that hath so much Learning as to read which Protestants think few have they are so ignorantly educated that the words of Institution are in that Book the Church tells him are the Gospels and neither Reason nor Revelation countervening this Notice a Papist judges with certainty according to the deposition of the Senses but when a Papist desires to proceed further and would understand not only that there are such words but also what is that very meaning not which may be put upon them wherein his sense and reason may assist him but which the Holy Ghost intended and the Church holds then he relies not on his senses or reason only because he knows the sentiments of Men to be very different as amongst themselves so from the Church's and Holy Spirit 's and if he might rely on his own so might others and consequently collect opposite truths from their discordant conceptions Wherefore he resorts to that hand which reacht out to him the words of Institution as Gods word to give him also their true meaning which he receives and professes without demur or fear And thus Papists arrive at all saving-truth thus they attain Unanimity and learn not only to think but speak the same thing whilst the minds and language of all Sectaries who pretend to follow sense and reason only in their Interpretation of Scripture are at wars and Babilonish For private Spirits are many and are Dissenters but the Church the Holy Spirit is but One and at Unity with it self And thus I suppose not our but the Minister's culpable ignorance is apparent Ibid. l 28. But let us quit this Reflection c. Content If he would not hasten to new untruths Where is it confess'd that we have neither command nor example in Holy Scripture for Adoring our Lord in the Eucharist If there he any command for Adoring our Lord at all there is for Adoring him in the Eucharist For once Adorable and he is always and every-where Adorable in what condition or circumstances soever and special injunctions or instances are not of necessity to warrant or oblige us to Adore St. Austin knew there was a command or he would not have said in Psal 98. Peccemus non Adorando Again tho we confess that Defects may possibly happen yet who grants them to be infinite or difficultly avoidable Is it not rather difficult considering the Caution of the Church that any defects should chance which are destructive to the Eucharist Can we not have a moral certainty the Priest has the Orders to which he pretends Do not our Senses inform us as to both the matter and Form of the Sacrament and the serious application of the one to the other As to the intention 't is true it is deem'd necessary will the Minister profess that none is needful to the performance of a Religious Action but what degree or sort of intention is a Question in the Schools some Divines requiring more some less Of the later kind if he please the Reader may view what Contenson writes of it Theolog. Mentis Cordis l. 11. p. 1. Diss 2. Append. § 2. c. It is undoubtlingly to be asserted says this Modern Divine that an Intention of seriously performing the External Rites amongst Christians counted Religious suffices for the validity of a Sacrament and that being observed no retention nor perverseness of the Minister's Intention doth void a Sacrament This Position he confirms by many Authorities and concludes them with that of the Council of Trent Sess 14. Cap. 6. Can. 9. where that Holy Synod declares the Sacrament not to be performed if a Priest act in Jest c. inferring thereupon that the Council understood by an Intention of doing what the Church does not as this Minister of doing what the Church intends but a doing with external seriousness what the Church prescribes Which inference he inforces by Cardinal Palavicini's Reflection on that Passage of the Council par 2. l. 12. c. 10. From these last words any one reading them may conjecture that the Opinion of Catherine and other Divines thinking a Will in the Minister to act seriously suffices for and that only Jesting which the Receiver of the Sacrament may discover does obstruct the accomplishment of a Sacrament was not expunged According to this Doctrine then the Consecration of the Eucharist does not depend on the Priest's believing Transubstantiation or secretly intending to Consecrate c. but only on an external intention to do seriously what the Church injoins which is very discernable to the Attendants by the Priest's exterior actions and deportment How many therefore of the Answerer's Dangers and Defects are blown away And if Adoration may at any time be paid to our Lord in the Eucharist it may ordinarily be so without any scruple by Catholicks Appendix II. ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Reply to the two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Holy Eucharist SOME time ago were printed in OXFORD Two Discourses the one concerning the Alterations in the Church-Service of the Church of England the second concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The Design whereof was to shew the incertitude and inconstancy of the Church of England in her Doctrine and Practices Whence it will follow That none can trust or rely upon her Authority nor safely either believe or practise according to her directions Of both these the Author took these two Articles as a manifest and sufficient instance But because there is nothing so true against which
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
indeed our Replier's Opinion seems to dislike the word this and thinks it should rather be these Benefits which neither can be eaten nor consecrated nor require any symbols But he saith these Ceremonies were practis'd by divers but he instanceth only in Bishop Jewel Mr. Rastal's testimony he groundlesly denies For we know that in the late times till it was re-commanded by the Rubric few practis'd it or indeed regarded it as a thing of Consequence Which doubtless was the reason of that Command in the Margin it was recall'd into use because disused and the Replier's Reason insufficient P. 6. Gloria in Excelsis Deo and Benedictus qui venit are two Hymns the first plac'd in this part of the Mass as is commonly said by St. Telesphorus the Ninth Bishop of Rome from St. Peter and was the Congratulation of the Angels for the Lord 's coming into the world as the Benedictus was for his Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem both most properly applied to the beginning of this Office as rejoicing for his coming to be present upon the Altar Such universal ancient solemn parts of God's Service were not omitted by chance nor would they have been so had they not contain'd an Argument against the new-devised Absence of the Lord from his people The Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus was not anciently call'd the Trisagium but Hymnus Angelicus Victorialis The Trisagium was Sanctus Deus Sanctus fortis Sanctus immortalis not so much used in the Western as in the Eastern Church which was sung when the Priest approached the Quire v. Menardum To which some add after fortis some after immortalis Qui Crucifixus es pro nobis And they as most of the Asiaticks who apply'd the Hymn to our Saviour meant no harm but they who attributed it to the Trinity as the Constantinopolitans and the West generally condemned it But this only obiter as also that concerning the Receiver's answering Amen which as our Author proves by irrefragable testimonies were it worth the pains to vindicate them not to have been an answer to a Prayer but an acknowledgment of our Lord's Presence there We will add notwithstanding what we find in St. Ambrose's Works l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis Non otiose cum accipis dicis Amen Jam in Spiritu confiteris quod accipias corpus Christi Dicit Sacerdos corpus Christi tu dicis Amen i. e. verum est Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus The omission of these words these Holy Mysteries might be purely accidental And might not be so For they have a signification contrary to the Opinion of the Reformers and all other deniers of the real presence of our Lord nor can they find any mystery in taking eating a Morsel of Bread and a Sup of Wine and remembring our Lord's death and sufferings and then by faith feeding upon him not receiv'd This perhaps is a mystery for I do not understand it P. 7. No fault with the second Form Faulty enough certainly because contrary to the former Book which to prove was the Author's chief intention and consequently from that of the Church of Christ 2. Because either non-sense or to most unintelligible either what is meant by this or by feeding on our Saviour's benefits by Faith. P. 8. These words that these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine may be to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son in the Reformation of the Liturgy were left out because manifestly owning a real change and were not restor'd in Qu. Elizabeth's Liturgy For She probably could not examine all the Alterations by her own self and her Bishops being inclin'd to Zuinglianism did not willingly restore any thing against their own Opinion Afterward Archbishop Laud restor'd it in the Scottish Liturgy For which he was severely censur'd by Baily's Laudensium Autocatacrisis This being as he saith a notable Argument for Transubstantiation at least for the real presence to the Receiver it was Tho it is most certain the Archbishop did not incline to defend Transubstantiation but only the real presence to the Receiver according to the Doctrine of the Church of England mis-understood by that Puritan Pag. 10. Dishonestly or ignorantly worded False They are natural Deductions or rather Propositions almost verbatim taken out of the Declaration whereas those the Replier after his new way of answering would rather have them modell'd into are Nonsense Pag. 11. Calvin and Beza are mentioned because by them were the English Reformers much directed tho our Author doth not ty himself up to speak only of the Church of England-men The Author makes use of Conciliators as being less biassed and therefore better disposed to understand the truth and obliged by their design to a more accurate examination of the Doctrines of both parties and a more strict declaration of them as being assur'd to be opposed by both parties Mr. Thorndike he saith had in this matter opinions of his own agreeable neither to the Catholick nor Church of England The like he saith of our Author p. 1. I am afraid the fault is not in the object but the organ his endeavour to blast so learned a person shews him to have bin rightly quoted by our Author But why should I spend more pains to vindicate the opinions of the Doctors of the English Church which is sufficiently performed in the discourse in the History of the English Reformation from § 148 and by the Discourse here newly printed and the first Appendix to it Pag. 12. The quotations out of Dr. Taylor are most true but if that Doctor was not constant to himself or his own opinion or if by forget fulness he speaks one thing in one place and otherwise â—n another or if he did not throughly understand the difference and therefore vented many undigested and incoherent notions as he seems to most men to have done what is that to us May not we make use of the good wheat because tares are mingled with it Yet I do not remember that he any where sustains as our Replier doth that the Protestants may use the same terms as the Catholicks and yet in a quite different sense But are we come in this great question to may use the terms of the Church in a quite different notion than Antiquity and the Church hath and doth still use them but let them use them as they please only they should give notice of their meaning and tell the world that their words are like Jacob's but their intention like Esau and so plainly confess their heresy and not seek to coyer it with such sorry fig-leaves Pag. 13. Of those to say no worse irreverent expressions of our receiving the dead body and dead blood of our Lord let the Replier and his Capernaits enjoy the honour we content our selves to believe and know that our Lord in this Sacrament is become to us a quickning Spirit How our Lord's body now glorified is received by us as representing his death and sufferings
Ancients from whom we have received these Liturgies they were so thought to be and it hath bin a contest between the Greek and Roman Church of later times See Bishop Forbes his discourse about it de Eucharistia 2. l. 2. c. 1 2 3. sect and Cassand consult art 24. de iteratione p. 202 Both who say that it is the safer opinion to place it in both and that veteres Latini utriusque pariter invocationis sive precis Dominicorum verborum mentionem faciunt in consecrandis mysteriis And that passage of Damascene and of Epiphanius in 2. Nicen Conc. act 6. tom 3. that Basil called the Symbols antitypa only before not after consecration whereas he calls them so after the words of Institution but before Fac istum panem corpus c. shews that they in those times conceived the consecration partly at least to be in these following words And Basil himself saith Invocation was used by the Church as well after as before the Evangelical words tanquam multum habens momenti ad mysterium See Basil de Spiritu S. 27. c. where speaking of the authority of unwritten Traditions amongst many others he names the formes of the Liturgies Invocationis verba cum conficitur panis Eucharistiae poculum benedictionis quis sanctorum i. e. of the Apostles in scripto nobis reliquit Nec enim his contenti sumus quae commemorat Apostolus aut Evangelium verum alia quoque ante post dicimus tanquam multum habentia momenti ad mysterium quae ex traditione citra scriptum accepimus Consecramus autem aquam Baptismatis ex quibus scriptis nonne a tacita secretaque traditione c. Now this being supposed that other prayers besides our Lords words bear some part in the consecration many of the objections made will be of no force some of which also may be and are used as arguments to confirm this tenent 1. To ν t is answered To ν. first that this matters not if true because as much tho not the same is said in the Roman form before the words of Institution Therefore to no purpose were it to alter some and not the rest which is as opposite to their opinion 2. That no alteration is made of the ancient form for the things objected they being found placed in the same order in the Ambrosian Liturgy de sacram 4. l. 4. c. by which unquestioned-ancient form you may find Bellarmin to defend the Roman Missal in all the chief objections made against it in his 2. l. de Miss 24. cap. To ξ an answer may be collected out of what is said above in the 5th consideration To ξ. and out of what was but now said to α. Now to their Answer to the second argument of the Fathers To Ï„ I say To Ï„. Reply to their answer to the 2d argument out of the Fathers but the Reformed deny the change of any accident at all in the bread of the change of which bread in something or other the Fathers speak and that before communicating and all the change they allow save only relative is in the communicant ex pacto or promissione divina upon receit of the bread To Ï see the answer which is made p. And we not unusually compare things when not only in some other things they are incomparable To Ï Ïƒ. but in the reason of the comparison one far transeends or is transcended by the other Which may be said also to σ To Ï„ I grant both in Baptism and the Eucharist to be a miraculous or supernatural effect wrought upon the soul of the worthy receiver To Ï„. to which such miraculous instances wrought by God's omnipotency may be not unfitly applied But besides this effect acknowledged in general first in Baptism it hath bin a question and undecided for any thing I know by any Council Whether the Baptismal water contineat aut conferat gratiam per virtutem aliquam creatam i.e. upon the benediction thereof quae illi insit qua effectum gratiae operetur or quia divina virtus illi ad producendum gratiae effectum certo infallibiliter ex Christi promissione assistit ut habeat rationem causae sine qua non i. e. that God immediately by himself and not by the water gives such grace whenever the water washeth a sinner Now tho the later opinion is the more common yet some of the Fathers at least are thought to incline to the former which makes a great miracle wrought not upon the Baptized only but upon the water See Chrysost who is quoted by them for his high expressions concerning Baptism as well as concerning the Eucharist in Johan Hom. 25. Ex quo Jordanis alveum ingressus est Christus non amplius reptilia animarum viventium sed animas rationales spirituales aqua producit And Hom. 24. upon c. 3. Unless a man be born of water Si quis interroget quomodo ex aqua rursus ego illud quomodo ex terra i.e. in man's first generation nam quemadmodum terra inanimata c divina voluntate ad tanta miracula producenda vires accepit ita spiritu sensibili aqua omnia haec admirabilia humanam cogitationem excedentia facile exoriuntur Nunquam aqua Baptismi purgare peccata credentium posset nisi tactu Dominici corporis fuisset sanctificata And Cyril Alexand. in Joann 2. l. 42. c. Sicut viribus ignis intensius aqua calefacta non aliter quam virtute ignis urit sic aqua virtute Spiritus sancti in se suscepta abstergit peccata And Estius 4. sent 1. d. 5. s. Haec sententia est probabilior si nudas quasdam Patrum sententias ut sonant attendamus Now suppose the Fathers to be of this opinion they might well apply the same instances and expressions to Baptism for this supernatural infused virtue into the water as they do to the Eucharist for the supernatural mutation of the elements without any diminution at all to the miraculousness of this effect This for Baptism 2. In the Eucharist there is pretended to be besides the supernatural effect wrought upon the communicant by Christ's body a miraculous conversion also of the elements into that his body Now that the Fathers used those miraculous instances of God's omnipotency to illustrate a miraculous change made not in the communicant but also in the elements and to prove not a presence of Christ's body simply in the Eucharist but a supernatural mutation of the bread some way or other into it I think is both plain if you please to review the places I quoted out of them from their clear language applied to the elements not to the communicants and very consonant to the other arguments which are drawn out of them to shew their Tenent of the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist before communicating Again to Ï… that they held this change in the elements of the Eucharist much otherwise
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