Two discourses concerning the adoration of a B. Saviour in the H. Eucharist the first: Animadversions upon the alterations of the rubrick in the Communion-Service, in the Common-Prayer-Book of the Church of England : the second: The Catholicks defence for their adoration of our Lord, as believed really and substantially present in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

CHAP. II. Considerations on the first observable; The Natural Body and Blood of our Lord not present in the Eucharist.

[§. 7] NOW to represent to you, as clearly as I can, the doubts and difficulties, concerning all these three Observables in their order. As to the first of these; the Learned Protestant Writers seem to me, at least in their most usual expressions, to have here∣tofore delivered the contrary; viz. That the very substance of Christ's Body, that his natural Body, that that very body that was born of the B. Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, &c. is present, as in Heaven, so here in this Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy Receiver, or to the Symbols.

[§. 8] For which, First see Calvin, whose Doctrine amongst all the rest (the Roman, Lutheran, or Zuinglian) the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with, especially since the beginning of the Reformation of Q. Elizabeth. Thus there∣fore He, in 1 Cor. 11.24. [Take eat, this is my Body.] Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Chri∣stus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est & resurrexit, [Corpus ipsum in quo passus est, that is surely his natural Body.] — Again. Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 11. §. — Facti participes substantiae ejus, virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium commnnicatione. [Facti participes substantiae ejus, i. e. of his natural substance, for no other humane substance he had, spiritual or corporal, than that only, which was born of the B. Virgin, and that is his natural substance.] —and Ib. §. 19. — His absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque Corporis ac sanguinis Domini Communicationem, quae sub sacris coenae symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter reci∣pio. — Ibid. §. 16. —Of the Lutherans he saith: — Si ita sensum su∣um explicarent, dum panis porrigitur, annexam esse exhibitionem corpo∣ris, quia inseparabilis est a signo suo veritas, non valde pugnarem.

[§. 9] And, to strengthen further this assertion of Calvin, may be ad∣ded the Confession of Beza, and others of the same sect, related by Hospinian, hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251. — Fatemur in Coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii ho∣minis substantiam, ipsam, inquam, veram carnem, & verum illum sanguinem, quem fudit pro nobis, non significari duntaxat, aut sym∣bolice, typice, vel figurate proponi, tanquam absentis memoriam: sed

vere ac certo repraesentari, 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 insidelibus 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 figurativus dun∣taxat, 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 ip∣sius corporis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam in Coena retinere & de∣fendere; & si quid nobis cum vere piis & doctis fratribus controver∣siae est, non de re ipsa, sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat, qui soli Deo cognitus est, & a nobis creditur, disceptari. [Here they say, rem ipsam, i. e. verum corpus & verum sanguinem Domini cum sym∣bolis copulari in Coena Domini, modum vero esse symbolicum, &c.]

[§. 10] Next to come to our English Divines. — First — Thus Mr. Hooker, Eccl. Polit. 5. l. 67. §. p. 357. — Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no controversy, saving only about the sub∣ject, where Christ is: — nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this; but whether, when the Sacrament is Administred, Christ be whole within Man only, or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves.

[This therefore was no doubt amongst the divided parties in Mr. Hooker's Judgment; Whether Christ's natural body was only in Heaven, or both in Heaven and also in the Eucharist. (for if other∣wise) this so main a doubt that he ought not to have dissembled it.]

— Again p. 360. — All three Opinions do thus far accord in one, — That these holy Mysteries, received in due manner, do instrumen∣tally both make us partakers of the grace of that body and blood, which were given for the Life of the World; and besides also impart unto us, even in true and real, tho' mystical, manner, the very person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire. — and p. 359. — His bo∣dy and his blood are in that very subject, whereunto they admini∣ster Life, not only by effect, or operation, even as the influence of the Heavens is in Plants, Beasts, Men, and in every thing which they quicken; but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of Ʋ∣nion, which maketh us one with him, even as he and the Father are one.

2. Thus Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage,* 1.1 Resp. ad Apoll. Bell. 1. c. p. 11. — Quod Cardinalem non latet, nisi volentem & ultro, dixit Christus, Hoc est corpus meum; non, Hoc modo hoc est corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit, de modo lis omnis est. De hoc est, fide firma tenemus, quod sit: de, hoc modo est (nempe transubstantiato in corpus pane) de modo, quo fi∣at, ut sit Per, sive In, sive Cum, sive Sub, sive Trans, nullum ini∣bi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul: inter scita Scholae fortasse, inter Fidei articalos non, ponimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus, neutiquam nobis displicet, Verbum au∣dimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. Praesentiam, inquam, credimus, nec minus, quam vos, veram, De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus, addo, nec anxie inquiramus; non magis quam in baptismo nostro, quomodo abluat nos sanguis Chri∣sti: non magis quam in Christi incarnatione, quomodo naturae divinae humana in eandem hypostasin uniatur. Inter mysteria ducimus (& quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa) cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi, id est, ut eleganter in primis Patres, fide adorari, non ratione discuti. — Again, Ib. 8. c. p. 194. speaking of the Con∣junction of Christ's Body with the symbols, he saith, — Ea nempe conjunctio est inter Sacramentum visibile, & rem Sacramenti invisi∣bilem; quae inter humanitatem & divinitatem Christi, ubi nisi Euty∣chen s••pere vultis, humanitas in divinitatem non transubstantiatur. — And a little farther, — Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere praesen∣tem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & adorandum statuit. And —Nos vero in mysteriis car∣rem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio, &c. [Here is such a pre∣sence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist acknowledged, as is to be a∣dored; and this it seems no less the Bishop's Religion, than King James's.]

Add to this, that passage in Is. Causabon's Letter,* 1.2 written by the King's command to Card. Perron; who, when the Cardinal would have joined issue with the King, for trying the verity of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist, in the King's name declines any such Controversy, and saying that the contest was not about rei veritatem, but only modum, returns this reply p. 50. —Miratur vero serenisimus Rex, cum fateatur tua illustris Dig∣nitas, non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quaerere vos, ut credatur Transubstantiatio, sed ut de praesentiae veritate ne dubitetur, Ecclesiam Anglicanam, quae toties id se credere publicis scriptis est testata, nec dum vobis fecisse satis: and then, for explication of the Doctrine of the English Church in this matter, recites the forementioned words of Bishop Andrews, — Quod Cardinalem non latet, &c.

[§. 12] 3. Thus Bishop Hall in his Treatise De pace Ecclesiastica for re∣conciling the Calvinist and Lutheran (which Lutherans undoubted∣ly hold the same natural body of Christ that is in Heaven to be also in the Eucharist,) p. 78. — Res apud utrosque eadem, rei tantum ra∣tio diversa. Tantulum dissidium falemur quidem non esse nullius mo∣menti; tanti esse, ut tam necessariam orbi Christiano fratrum gratiam tam mirabiliter planeque divinitus coeuntem abrumpere debeat; id vero est, quod constantissime negamus. Neque nos soli sumus in ea sententia, Mitto Fratres Polonos, Germanos, nostrarum partium, &c. Then at last he brings in the decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton, in which the Lutherans are received to their commu∣nion, as agreeing with them in omnibus verae religionis principiis, ar∣ticulisque fundamentalibus.

[§. 13] 4. Thus Bishop Montague, Appeal p. 289. — Concerning this point of Real Presence, I say, that, if Men were disposed as they ought, to peace, there need be no difference: for the disagreement is only de modo praesentiae: the thing is yielded-to on either side, that there is in the Holy Eucharist a Real Presence. God forbid, saith Bishop Bilson, we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present, and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's Ta∣ble. It is the Doctrine that we teach others, and comfort our selves withal. p. 779. Of true Subject: And the Reverend and Learn∣ed Answerer unto Bellarmine's Apology, cometh home to the Faith (or Popery if you will) condemned in Mr. Montague, who learned it of him, and such as he is. Nobis vobis-cum de objecto con∣venit, &c. — [He, you see, represents the difference between par∣ties in the same manner as Mr. Hooker; i. e. none as to the point of the presence of the same body here in the Eucharist, as it is at the same time above in Heaven.]

[§. 14] 5. Thus Archbishop Lawd, Confer. with Fisher, §. 35. n. 3. — The worthy Receiver is, by his Faith, made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ, truly and really, and of all the benefits of his Passion. Yon Roman Catholicks add a man∣ner of this his presence (Transubstantiation) which many deny; and the Lutherans a manner (Consubstantiation) which more deny. — And upon [truly and really] he notes in the Margin Calvin's saying in 1 Cor. 11.24. Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus, ipsum, in quo passus est & resurrexit.

Ib. n. 7. Punct. 3. I hope A. C. dare not say, that to believe the true substantial presence of Christ is either known, or damnable Schism or Heresie. Now as many and as Learned Protestants be∣lieve

and maintain this, as do believe possibility of salvation in the Roman Church, &c. and Ib. n. 3. upon Bellarmin's words — Con∣versionem Paris & Vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi esse sub∣stantialem, sed arcanam & ineffabilem, he saith; That if the Cardi∣nal had left out Conversion, and affirmed only Christs Real [by this he means Substantial, as also is affirmed by the Cardinal] presence there, after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner, no Man could have spoken better. And — §. 35.6. n. Punct. 4. quotes also Bi∣shop Ridley's Confession set down in Fox, p. 1598.) whose words are these: —You [the Transubstantialists] and I agree in this, that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Ma∣ry, which ascended into Heaven, which sits on the right hand of God the Father, &c. only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being there.

[§. 15] 6. Thus Dr. Taylor, one of the last who hath written a just Treatise on this subject, 1. §. 11. n. p. 18. It is enquired whether, when we say we believe Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament, we mean that body, that flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead and buried? I answer: I know none else that he had, or hath; there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified: but he that saith that body is glorified, which was crucified, says it is the same body, but not after the same manner; and so it is in the Sacrament, we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth; for there is no other body, no other blood of Christ: but tho' it is the same we eat and drink, yet it is in ano∣ther manner. And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fathers deny, that body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, to be eaten in the Sacrament, as Bertram, as S. Hierom, as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm; the mean∣ing is easie, they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense: and then calling Corpus spirituale, the word spirituale is not a substantial predication, but is an affirmation of the manner; tho' in disputation it be made the Predicate of a Proposition, and the opposite member of a Distinction. That Body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament, if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being; but that body which was crucified, the same body we do eat, if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating; and this I no∣ted, that we may not be prejudiced by words, when the notion is cer∣tain and easie. And thus far is the sense of our Doctrine in this Ar∣ticle. [Here we see this Doctor becomes such a zealous advocate

of this Cause, as to frame an answer to all such sayings in the Fathers, as may seem by the expression to import; as if the same body that was crucified were not eaten here by us in the Sacrament; and de∣fends the contrary.] — Again §. 12. p. 288. They that do not con∣fess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us, let them be Anathema. But quo modo is the question, &c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence [his Book bearing this Title The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ, &c.] under∣stood to be particular in nothing, but that it excludes the corpo∣ral and natural manner, [not spiritual presence therefore, so as to exclude Corpus Domini, but only the corporal or natural manner of that body:] now by exclusion of the natural manner is not meant (surely) the exclusion of nature, or of the thing it self, (for, then, to say a thing is there, after a natural manner, were as much as to say, the thing is not there:) but the exclusion of those properties which usually accompany nature, or the thing. —See p. 12. where he allows of the term substantialiter; and of that expression of Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest. —and in the same page he saith, when the word Real presence is denied by some Protestants, it is taken for natural, and not for in rei veritate.

[§. 16] 7. Thus Bishop Forbes de Eucharistia, 2. l. 2. c. 9. §. — An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus, Protestantes saniores non dubi∣tant. In sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis) adorandus est Christus vera latria, siquidem corpus ejus vivum & gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti prae∣sens adest, & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni, sed ipsi corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucha∣ristiae exhibito, debetur & perfcitur. — And Ib. §. 8. — Imma∣nis est rigidorum Protestantium error, qui negant Christum in Eucha∣ristia esse adorandum, nisi adoratione interna & mentali, non autem externa aliquo ritu adorativo, ut in geniculatione aut aliquo alio consi∣mili corporis situ; hi fere omnes male de praesentia Christi Domini in Sacramento, miro sed vero modo praesentis, sentiunt. — Again 3. l. 1. c. §. 10. — Dicunt etiam saepissime sancti Patres in Euha∣ristia offerri & sacrificari ipsum Christi Corpus, ut ex innumeris pene locis constat, sed non proprie & realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietati∣bus servatis; sed per commemorationem & repraesentationem ejus quod semel in unico illo sacrificio Crucis, quo alia omnia sacrifcia con∣summavit Christus summus Sacerdos noster, est peractum; & per piam supplicationem, qua Ecclesia ministri propter unici illius sacri∣ficii perpetuam victimam, in Coelis ad dextram Patris assistentem,

& in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem, Deum Patrem humillime rogant, ut virtutem & gratiam hujus perennis victimae, Ecclesiae suae, ad omnes cerporis & animae necessitates efficacem & salutarem esse velit. [Here is acknowledg'd, 1. Christi corpus in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesens. 2. Hoc corpus oblatum in Eucharistia ut sacrificium Deo Patri. 3. Ipsi corpori Christi ut praesenti in Eucha∣ristia miraculo quodam ineffabili, immediate debita adoratio varae Latriae.]

[§. 17] 8. Thus the Archbishop of Spalato much-what to the same purpose, de Rep. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. 7. §. Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Christi, ille vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi, in se corporaliter, modo tamen quodam spirituali, miraculoso & impereeptibili sumit; omnis digne communicans adorare potest & debet corpus Christi quod reci∣pit; non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub spe∣ciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis Sacramentalis, tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens.

[§. 18] 8. And thus Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy, 3. l. 3. c. p. 17. — That which I have already said is enough to evi∣dence the mystical and spiritual presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements, as the Sacrament of the same, before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the Soul, which the eating and drinking Christ's Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth. —and Ib. 2. c. p. 10. when it follows, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to him∣self, not discerning the Lord's Body; unless a Man discern the Lord's Body where it is not, of necessity it must there be where it is dis∣cerned to be, &c. and 3. l. 23. c. p. 225. he saith, — That ancient∣ly there was a reservation from Communion to Communion: and —that he who carried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home, drinking the Blood at present, might reasonably be said to commu∣nicate in both kinds. Neither can (faith he) that Sacramental change which the Consecration works in the Elements be limited to the Instant of the Assembly: tho' it take effect only in order to that Communion, unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth. — and 3. l. 5. c. p. 44. — Having maintained that the Elements are re∣ally changed, from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament, and that in virtue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that receives; I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth: name∣ly, that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ

upon the Cross, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are con∣tained in them, &c. —and then p. 46. he farther collecteth thus. —And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and im∣petratory both, it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucha∣rist, in as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, —is also both propitiatory and impetratory. — and 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. — I suppose (saith he) that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are, and must be adored by a good Christian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obli∣ged to communicate with, requires it. — And p. 351. —Not to balk the freedom which hath carried me to publish all this; I do believe, that it was practised and done [i.e. our Lord Christ really worship∣ped in the Eucharist] in the ancient Church, which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ, obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it: I know the conse∣quence to be this, That there is no just cause why it shou'd not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole. [Here is acknowledg'd, 1. Pre∣sently upon Consecration a presence of Christ's Body and Blood with, or in, the Elements, before any presence of them to the Soul by a living Faith; of which body becoming here present, the un∣worthy Receivers are said to be guilty, 1 Cor. 11.22. 2. A per∣manency of this Body and Blood with these Symbols in the reser∣vation of them, after the assembly had communicated. 3. The Elements consecrated, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ is contained in them, affirmed to be truly the sacrifice on the Cross. 4. Adoration of this Body and Blood as so present, to be a duty, and antiently practised.]

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 11. n. 1.
• * 1.2

  §. 11. n. 2.