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. III. Considerations on the second Observable, That a natural Body cannot be in many places at once.

[§. 19] THis I had to represent, and these witnesses to produce against the first Observable; the profession made in this Declaration, That the natural Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Holy Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist. It were an easy task here to back the testi∣mony of these Writers with those of the Fathers to the same pur∣pose; but I conceive it needless, since the same Protestant Writers here cited urge the authority of Antiquity, as a chief inducement and motive of this their Assertion. Now then to consider the se∣cond, the urging for such Non-presence, this reason; because it is against the truth of a natural Body to be, or because a natural Body cannot truly be, in more places than one, at one time.

1. Here also, first, I find Protestants,* 1.1 and especially our English Divines generally to confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eu∣charist to be an ineffable mystery, (which I conceive is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to, and there∣fore incomprehensible and ineffable by, humane reason.) For this thus Calvin himself long ago, in the beginning of the Reformation, Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 24. §. Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior, vel naturae legibus subjicio. — Humanae rationi minime placebit [that which he affirms] penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit alimentum. —Dicimus Christumtam externo symbolo, quam spiritu suo ad nos descendere, ut vere substantia carnis suae animas no∣stras vivificet. —In his paucis verbis qui non sentit multa subesse mi∣racula, plusquam stupidus est: quando nihil magis incredibile, quam res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas, in tanta locorum distan∣tia, non tantum conjungi, sed uniri; ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi: [Nihil magis incredibile; therefore not this more incredible, that Idem Corpus potest esse in diversis locis si∣mul.] —And §.31. — Porro de modo siquis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat. — And §. 25. Captivas tenemus mentes no∣stras ne verbulo duntaxat obstrepere, ac humiliamus ne insurgere, au∣deant. —Nec vero nefas nobis esse ducimus, sanctae Virginis exemplo, in re ardua sciscitari, quomodo ••••ri possit? See more Ibid. §. 7. [Na∣turae legibus non subjicio, — humanae rationi minime placet, —quomodo fieri potest] — Surely these argue something in

it seemingly contradictory to nature and humane reason.

Thus King James of the Eucharist in his answer to Cardinal Per∣ron by Causabon.* 1.2 —Mysterium istud magnum esse humano ingenio incomprehensibile, ac multo magis inenarrabile, Eccl. sia Anglicana fa∣tetur & docet.

And thus speaks Dr. Taylor in Real presence,* 1.3 §. 11 n. 28. after that he had numbred up many apparent contradictions, not only in respect of a natural, but, as he faiths of an alsolute, possibility of Transubstantiation, (from p. 207. to p. 337.) Tet (saith he) let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it, and wake publick amends: [all my arguments, i. e. of apparent Contradictions and absolute Impos∣sibilities.] And n. 28. To this objection. That we believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, of our Saviour's being born of a pure Virgin, &c. clauso utero, and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies (in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions) notwithstanding seeming impossibilities; and therefore why not Tran∣substantiation? He answers, That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation, as of the other, then this Argument were good: and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation, [of which ten thousand then sup∣pose that this be one, That Idem corpus non potest esse simul in duo∣bus locis] yet we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all. [Now none can believe a thing true, upon what motive soever, which he first knows certainly to be false, or, which is all one, cer∣tainly to contradict. For these, we say, are not verifiable by di∣vine power, and ergo here, I may say, should Divine Power de∣clare a truth, it would transcend it self.] —Again, in Liberty of Prophecy, 20. §. 16. n. he saith, Those who believe the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School, and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church, believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation. Yet I suppose himself denies no such doctrine about the Trinity, that is commonly delivered in the Schools.

[§. 21] 2. I conceive, that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a perfect contradiction, can no more be effected by divine power, than another, or than many other the like may: therefore if these men do admit once, that some seeming contradiction to reason may yet be verified in this Sacrament, for which they call it an ineffable mystery; I see not why they should deny, that this particular seeming con∣tradiction, among the rest, of the same body being at the same time in

several al places, yet by the divine power (I say not is, for the know∣ledge of this depends on Revelation, but) may be, so verified.

[§. 22] 3. I cannot apprehend but that these Writers must hold this particular seeming contradiction, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; so long as they do affirm a real and substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant here on earth, contradistinct to any such other real presence, as implies only a presence of Christ's Body in its virtue, efficacy, benefits, spirit, &c. which is the Zuinglian real presence. For suppose our Savi∣tour's Body to be (as they will have it) only naturally or locally in heaven; yet if the substance, the essence, the reality of this Body (however stript of its natural properties, all such as being not the very essence of it, are removeable from it per potentiam divinam) be here on earth in the Eucharist, when it is also in Heaven, (be it here present to the symbols, or to the receiver, or to any thing else, it matters not:) we must affirm that this essence or substance of the same body at least is at the same time in divers places; or (if we will have this essence to be in heaven only, as in a place) in divers ubi's, which is every whit as seeming contradictory as the other. And whoever will grant, that an Angel by divine power may be at the same time in two several ubi's, cannot reasonably deny, that a body may be so, in several places; or in one place, and in another ubi. I say then, that this Proposition, [That the same Body is at the same time in divers places,] or another equivalent to it, must be conceded to be true, so long as we affirm the essence of our Saviour's body to be here on Earth in the Eucharist at the same time, as it is also in Heaven; unless we defend one of these two things; either,

[§. 23] 1. That this Body is both here and there by an incomprehensible conti∣nuation, as it were, thereof, (which sounds somewhat like the ubi∣quity of some Lutherans) for which see the words of Calvin quoted before, §. 8. Res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas conjungi & uniri, &c. words usher'd in by him with a nihil magis incredibile. [But then, as some seem thus to make Christ's Body that is in Hea∣ven, by a certain prolonging or continuation incomprehensible (as their expressions seem to import) to be joyned, upon an act of faith, to the Soul of the worthy Receiver here on Earthy, whilst yet the same body is still only in Heaven, and there no way at all enlarged in its dimensions; so why may mot others as probably make the same body that is in Heaven, by a certain discontinuation ineffable, to be present here on Earth, upon the act of Consecration, to the symbols or receiver, tho' it be in both these places only the same body still, and not multiplied in its essence? As the same Soul is

totally in the Head and the Foot; yet this Soul not continued in these two places or Ʋbi's, neither by its parts, since it hath none; nor by two totals, since in both it is but one: and suppose one foot of this body doth stand in the water, the other on the land; the same Soul being totally in both these feet, consequently, will be to∣tally in the water, and totally not in the water, but on the land. And suppose again the two feet cut off from the body, and yet pre∣served still alive, i. e. the soul, that did before, still informing them per potentiam divinam, (which we see naturally done in many In∣sects:) the same Soul will be now, totally in the water, and to∣tally on the land, without continuation (if I may so say) of it self. And suppose again this body, which it informs, to increase to a much greater bulk; and the same Soul will be now in many more places than formerly without any augmentation of it self. And why the same things may not be said of Bodies, when stript of quan∣titative dimensions; or how far some properties of Spirits may be communicated to them, (salva essentia corporis) who can say? What our Saviour said to the Sadduces relucting to believe a revela∣tion concerning the resurrection of the same numerical body,* 1.4 be∣cause involving in it very many seeming contradictions, Erratis, nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem Dei, may as well be said in this great mystery of the Eucharist.]

Or 2ly,* 1.5 unless we will explain our selves, that, by the essential, real, substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, me mean only the presence of the true and real effect, blessing, virtues, of this Body, (as Dr. Taylor sometimes seems to do,) but this is, after pro∣fessing with the highest in our words, a relapsing into Zuinglianism in our sense. [I will set you down the Doctor's words, (Real Pre∣sence §. 11. n. 17.) where, after he hath said, That there is not in all School-Divinity, nor in the old Philosophy, nor in nature, any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place, circum∣scriptive, definitive, repletive, and that the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament any of these three ways, (quoting Turrecremata for it) he replies thus to those Schoolmen, that rejecting these three ways, do say, that Christs Body is in a fourth way, viz. Sacramen∣tally in more places than one. —This, saith he, is very true; that is, that the Sacrament of Christ's body is [in more places than one]; and so is his Body [in more places than one] figuratively, tropically, representatively in being [or essence,] and really in ef∣fect and blessing. But this is not a natural real being in a place, but a relation to a person. Thus he. But if thus Christ's Body be held by us, as to its essence, only figuratively, tropically, and re∣presentatively

in more places than one; and really in those places only in its effect and blessing, what will become of our —praesen∣tiam non minus quam illi veram, (see before, §. 11.) if others hold the presence of Christ's very essence and substance in the Eucharist, we only the presence thereof its effect and blessing?

Now as to the proper mode (which the Dr. here agitates) of Christ's Body being substantially in the Sacrament, whether it is circumscriptive, definitive, or some other way; it is true, that the Schoolmen do not all agree on one and the same. S. Thomas, Durand, and several others, deny the Body of Christ to be either cir∣cumscriptive, or definitive in this Sacrament, and proceed to affirm, That Idem Corpus non potest, per miraculum, or potentiam divinam, esse in pluribus locis simul, i. e. localiter, or, in the forementioned ways, Circumscriptively or Definitively.

But you may note, 1. That they take circumscriptive,* 1.6 and defi∣nitive, in such a sense, as that these two do exclude, not only such a bodies being, ubique, every where; but absolutely its being alibi, any where else; and that these modes of Presence would infer, That the same individual is divided from it self, (contrary to the nature of individuum, or unum,) if such body should at that time be any where else. See S. Thom. Suppl. q. 83. Art. 5. ad 4^um—and 3^a q. 76. Art. 5. where he saith, That that is circumscriptive in loco, quod nec excedit, nec exceditur. —And see Durand, his follower, in 4. sent. 44. d. q. 6. where he argueth very clearly thus: — Exi∣stentia unius corporis simul in pluribus locis implitat expresse contradi∣ctionem; quia illud quod est circumscriptive in distantibus locis, oporter quod sit distinctum distinctione locorum; quia quicquid est circum∣scriptive in loco aliquo, totum continetur ab ipso, it a quod nihil con∣tenti est circumscriptive extra continentem. Propter quod illa quae sunt in distinctis locis circumscriptive, necessario distincla sunt; &, quia est contra rationem unius quod sit distinctum, ideo si unum cor∣pus esset in pluribus locis circumscriptive, esset unum & non unum seu indistinctum; quod implicat contradictionem.

2. That they put a third way of presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, real and true, and tho' not per modum quantitatis di∣mensive,* 1.7 yet per modum substantiae* 1.8, which they say is a mode pro∣per to this Sacrament, and such as hinders not the same body at the same time to be alibi, elsewhere, and yet to remain, tho' it be elsewhere, indivisum in se: which the other Presences, in their ac∣ception of them, do hinder. Of which thing thus Durand con∣tends* 1.9, That Christ's Body is present in the Sacrament ratione so∣lius praesentiae ad locum, not ratione continentiae either circumscriptive

or definitive; — and that Quod est praesens loco hoc modo, potest esse si∣mul praesens in pluribus locis; sicut Angelus, saith he, est praesens omnibus corporibus quae potest movere.

* 1.10Mean-while other Schoolmen and Controvertists take liberty to dissent from these. See Scotus in 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 2. and Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 3. c. and it seems not without reason. For, why should this their Substantial or Sacramental way (as real and true as any of the other) of Christ's Body being at the same time in Hea∣ven and in the Eucharist, consist with this Body's remaining indi∣visum in se; more than the circumscriptive or definitive way, rightly understood, and freed of their limitations; or, why impose they such a notion on these two ways, that they must imply an exact adequation of the place and the placed, or exclude it from being at all any where else; any more than the other Substantial or Sa∣cramental way (which they maintain) doth?

Thus far I have stept aside, to shew, that the Doctor receive•• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 advantage here, for the denying the Essential or Substantial p••••∣sence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, from the difference in the Schools concerning the Mode thereof, whilst all of them agree both in such Substantial presence, and also in Transubstantiation.

[§. 25] Consequently to what hath been said I gather also, First, That if we do not take praesentia corporalis, or praesentia naturalis in such a sense as they imply the presence of some corporal or natural acci∣dents or properties by divine power separable (as some are, the es∣sence still preserved, and who knows exactly how many: in which respect Christ's Body is denied, as by the English, so by the Roman and Lutheran Churches, to be in the Eucharist modo corporeo, or na∣turali:) but take them as they imply the corporal or natural presence of the essence or substance of this Body; thus will Real or Essential Presence be the same with corporal and natural. And therefore these words [Real and essential presence] seem as truly denied to be in the Eucharist, by the first composers of the foresaid Declaration in the latter end of K. Edward's days, as the words [Corporal and Natural presence] are in this 2d. Edition thereof in A. D. 1661. I say the one, the essential or substantial, denied to be there, as much as the other, the natural: whenever this reason in both is added for it, viz. because, Idem corpus non potest esse simul in diversis locis. For this reason seems necessarily to exclude the one, as well as the other, the real and essential presence, as well as corporal and natural.

[§. 26] Indeed the present Rubrick hath only these words, [That no adoration ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natu∣ral flesh and blood,] whereas that in King Edward's time hath these,

[That no adoration ought to be done unto any real and essential pre∣sence of Christ's natural flesh and blood,] the words Real and essenti∣al then, being now changed into Corporal; and this seems to be done with some caution for the present Church her maintaining still a real and essential presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist; whereas those in the later time of King Edward seem to have denied it. [For as the first days of this Prince seem to have been more ad∣dicted to Lutheranism, so the latter days to Zuinglianism; as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley, (see his last examination in Fox p. 1598. and his stating the first Question disputed at Ox∣ford about the Real Presence,) and of Peter Martyr.* 1.11 When also this Question, An Corpus Christi realiter vel substantialiter adsit in Eucharistia, in Oxford, was held negatively; and when all those alterations were made in the Form of the Service of our Lord's Sup∣per (mentioned before in the beginning of this Discourse) that might seem to favour any presence of Christ's Body in relation to the Symbols.] But here I say, if the words of the former Ru∣brick, real and essential, were by the late Clergy changed into corporal on any such design, that so the real and essential presence might be still by them maintained; then I ask here, how can the same reason be still retained in their opinion thus altered? For, this reason, [that the same body cannot be at one in several places] as I have said, combats as well a real and essential presence, which they now would seem to allow, as a corporal, which they reject.

[§. 27] 2. I infer; that let them express this essential or substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, still defended by them, how they please, by calling in Mystica, Spiritualis, Symbolica, Sacra∣mentalis, or the like; yet if the presence of the Essence or Sub∣stance be still retained, they are eased no more thus, from main∣taining, that Idem corpus potest esse in duobus locis (or ubi) simul, than any other party, which hold any grosser presence there. And therefore suppose, if you will, a body cloath'd with all its usual ac∣cidents of quantity and dimensions, and of quality (except you will number also this amongst them, to possess but one place, and except you will annex to circumscriptive or definitive the restri∣ctions mentioned before §. 24. n. 2.) and it may no less (when such is the divine pleasure) be, thus, at the same time in many places, than when stript of them: for the same seeming absurdities and contradictions follow, from an Angel's, or Soul's being at the same time in two distinct definitive ubi's; without any continuation (if I may so say) of its essence between these ubi's; as do follow from a body so qualified being in two circumscriptive places, without the

like continuation; as you may see in perusing the common ob∣jections that are made against plurality of places.

For as Cardinal Bellarmin presseth well to this purpose:* 1.12 —Si quis objiciat aliam esse rationem corporum, aliam spirituum, is facile refelli potest. Nam ratio cur corpora non videantur posse esse in plu∣ribus locis non tam est moles quam unitas. —Ideo autem non vi∣detur posse esse, quia non potest divilli a seipso: & videtur necessario debere divilli ac distrahi a se, si ponatur in variis locis. Porro ista repugnantia quae sumitur ab unitate rei non minus invenitur in spiritu quam in corpore: utrumque enim est unum, & a se dividi non potest. Quare perinde est in hac quaestione sive de Corpore sive de Spiritu pro∣betur, [and I add, sive de corpore essentiali, sive de naturali.] The like things he saith of a Sacramental presence, and not per occupati∣onem loci; so this presence be real. Quae realis praesentia, saith he, in tot Altaribus & non in locis intermediis non minus tollere videtur indivisionem rei, quam repletio plurium locorum.

[§. 28] This being said from §. 22. That, in my apprehension either these our English Divines must affirm this Proposition of one body at the same time being in more places than one, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; or must cease to assert any real, essential, or sub∣stantial presence of Christs body in the Eucharist, contradistinct to the Sense of the Zuinglians.

4. In seems to me, that some of the more judicious amongst them heretofore have not laid so great weight on this Philosophi∣cal position, as wholly to support and regulate their faith in this matter by it, as it stands in opposition not only to nature's, but the divine power: because they pretend not any such certainly there∣of; but that, if any divine revelation of the contrary can be shew∣ed, they profess a readiness to believe it.

[§. 29] See the quotations out of Dr. Taylor before § 20. n. 3. And thus Bishop White against Fisher p. 179. much-what to the same pur∣pose. —We cannot grant (saith he) that one Individual body may be in many distant places at one and the same instant, until the Papist demonstrate the possibility hereof by testimony of Sacred Scri∣pture, or the antient Tradition of the Primitive Church, or by appa∣rent reason. And p. 446. —We dispute not what God is able to ef∣fect by his absolute power, neither is this question of any use in the mat∣ter non in hand. —That God changeth the Ordinance which himself hath fixed, no divine testimony or revelation affirmeth or teacheth. There is a Twofold power in God, ordinata, and absoluta. One ac∣cording to the order which himself hath fixed by his Word and Will, the other according to the infiniteness of his essence. Now according to

the power measured and regulated by his Word and Will, all things are impossible which God will not have to be. — and p. 182. — Ex∣cept God himself had expresly revealed and testified in his Word, that the contrary [i. e. to the common ordinance of the Creator] should be found in the humane body of Christ, &c. a Christian cannot be com∣pelled to believe this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed upon the sole voice and authority of the Lateran or Tridentine Council. [But if they were certain of such contradiction, then are they certain that there neither is nor can be such contrary revelation; and when any revelation, tho' never so plain, is brought, they are bound to in∣terpret it so, as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility.]

[§. 30] Again, thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 1. §. censures those other Protestants, who peremptorily maintain that there is such a real certain contradiction. — Admodum periculose & nimis au∣dacter negant multi Protestantes, Deum posse panem substantialiter in corpus Domini convertere, [which conversion involves the putting idem corpus simul in diversis locis.] Multa enim potest Deus om∣nipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum, imo & Angelorum. Id quidem quod implicet contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt om∣nes: sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat, quae sit uniuscu∣jusque rei essentia, ac proinde quid implicet, & quid non implicet con∣tradictionem; magnae profecto temeritatis est, propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem, Deo limites praescribere, & praefracte negare om∣nipotentia sua illum hoc vel illud facere posse: Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtenbergicorum in Confessione sua, Anno 1552. Concilio Tridentino proposita, cap. de Eucharistia, (vide Harmon. Confes.) Credimus, inquiunt, 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 omnipotentiam in Eucharistia exerceat, non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum, & apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum. After which the same Bishop goes on to shew the moderation also of some foreign reformed Divines herein, tho' much opposing the Lutheran and Roman opinion. Zuinglius & Oecolampadius, (saith he) aliquoties, ut constat, concesserunt Luthero & illius sequacibus, ac pro∣inde Romanensibus, (ut qui idem non minore contentione urgent in Transubstantiatione sua defendenda, quam illi in Consubstantiatione sua) Deum quidem hoc posse efficere, ut unum corpus sit indiversis locis; sed quod idem in Eucharistia fieret, & quod Deus id fieri vellet, id vero sibi probari postularunt. Ʋtinam hic pedem fixissent, nec ulteri∣us progressi fuissent discipuli. In Coll. Malbrunnensi actione 8. Ja∣cobo Andreae Lutherano objicienti Calvinistas negare Christi corpus

coelesti modo pluribus in locis esse posse, ita respondet Zach. Ursinus Theol. Heidelburgensis: Non negamus eum ex Dei omnipotentia plu∣ribus in locis esse posse; hoc in controversiam non venit, sed an hoc velle Christum ex verbis ejus probari possit? Itaque hoc te velle existi∣mavimus Christi corpus non tantum posse, sed etiam reipsa oportere in S. Coena praesens esse, &c. v. Ʋrs. &c. p. 155. Idem Ʋrsinus Action. ead. p. 153. Conaberis etiam ostendere (alloquitur Jacobum An∣dream) elevari & imminui a nobis omnipotentiam Dei, cum dicamus Deum non posse facere, ut corpus in pluribus sit locis, aut ut Christi corpus per lapidem penetret [the like contradictions seeming to Ʋr∣sin to urge, both plurality of places to one Body, and plurality of Bodies to one place:] De quo responsum est, non semel nunquam quaesitum esse aut disputatum, an possit. Deus hoc aut illud efficere; sed hoc tantum, an ita velit. — See more in the Author. To which I may add S. Austin's saying, Cura pro mortuis, c. 16. Ista Quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincit, quemadmodum opitulentur Mar∣tyres iis, quos per eos certum est adjuvari: utrum ipsi per seipso adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis & tanta inter se longinquitate discretis, &c. or whether this was done per Angelica ministeria usquequaque diffusa, shew this Father believed no impossibility of a Martyrs be∣ing uno tempore in diversis locis.

[§. 31] And from this reason of their uncertainty of such contradiction, whether it is real in respect of the divine power, it seems to be, that the Convocation of the Clergy in the beginning of Q. Eli∣zabeth's days, both cast out of the 28 of the former Articles of Re∣ligion, made in the end of King Edward's Reign, these words fol∣lowing: [—Cum naturae humanae veritas requirat, ut unius ejusdem∣que hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit, sed in uno ali∣quo & definito loco esse oporteat; idcirco Christi corpus in multis & diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tra∣dunt sacrae literae, Christus in coelum fuit sublatus, & ibi usque ad fi∣nem saeculi est permansurus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus & sanguinis realem praesentiam & corporalem (ut loquuntur) praesenti∣am in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri.] And also cast out this very Rubrick or Declaration out of the then Common-prayer book; and also restored again the former Form in administring the Com∣munion; [The Body of our Lord, &c. preserve thy body and soul,] and all this (saith Dr. Heylin)* 1.13 lest under colour of rejecting a Car∣nal, they might be though also to deny such a Real presence, as was de∣fended in the writings of the ancient Fathers.

[§. 32] And lastly, the late Clergy also in 1661, in that part of this re∣ceived Rubrick or Declaration wherein they reject the words of

the former, [real and essential presence,] as is said before, §. 3. n. 4. seem to disallow the opinion of K. Edward's latter Clergy, and to vindicate still the real presence: but then, they retaining still un∣changed the last expressions of the former Rubrick, which affirm Christ's natural Body not to be in the Eucharist, and that upon such a ground as is there given, seem again to disclaim it; unless they will justifie as seeming a contradiction as that is of idem in pluribus locis simul; which they condemn. A contradiction, I say; for I cannot discern, how this [Christ's natural body is here, and is in Heaven, and yet but one body,] can be pronounced a contradiction: and this [Christ's natural body is not here, but only in Heaven, and yet this natural body is here most certainly received] can be pronoun∣ced none. For if this can be justified to be part of their Faith, that the natural body of Christ is not here in the Eucharist, but only in Heaven; yet this is another part thereof, (see the former Testimo∣nies §. 8. &c.) that the natural body of Christ is here in the Eucha∣rist received. It, the body that was born of the B. Virgin, not a grace only, not a spirit only, but it it self, for both Hoc est corpus meum, and the general Tradition of the ancient Church, seems to have ne∣cessitated these Divines to this expression, and —facti participes sub∣stantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium com∣municatione, saith Calvin, quoted before, §. 8. —Now if these things be so, then this expressing only is one part of their faith in this Rubrick, viz. that the natural body is not here, and the not mentioning the other part with it, viz. that the naturul body not∣withstanding is here received by every worthy Communicant, (it mat∣ters not after what manner received, so this manner deny not the presence of this body) seems at least to betray their Faith to a dan∣gerous misconstruction, and to precipitate him, who hears such a confession, into Zuinglianism. But if we would express our whole and entire Faith here concerning this matter, it cannot be, but that he, who hears it, (observing that both Christ's body is here, for he really receives it; and not here, for it is only in Heaven; in that it is both within him, and at the same time many millions of miles from him, and yet cannot possibly be at two places at one;) will presently say with Calvin,* 1.14 S. Virginis exemplo, Quomodo fieri possit? — & — Nihil magis incredibile, —and then I see not what they have to answer him, but —Mysterium, —Arca∣num, —Miraculum, —Ineffabile. And then how can they urge others (as they do here) with contradictions and impossibilities, who go about to explain this ineffable mystery by Idem corpus in pluribus locis; and mean while maintain the like contradictions

themselves, desiring to have their contradiction passed and currant; the others supporessed?

[§. 33] To express my disquisitions yet a little more fully, and to see if they can possibly find and evasion (without retiring to Zuinglia∣nism) from those difficulties themselves, with which here they press others. If they say, that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist, but they mean not to the Elements, but to the Receiver; and that not to his Body, but to his Soul; yet if they affirm it as much, or as far present to the Soul, as others do to the sings, (as Mr. Hooker saith, they differ only about the subject, not the presence:) do not the same objections, absurdities, &c. (con∣cerning Christ's being both really and essentially in Heaven, and in the place where the Communion is celebrated) with which they afflict others for making it present with the signs, return upon themselves, for making it present with the Receiver? 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 in such a place on Earth; so may it under, with, or instead of Bread in the same place; unless we say that they affirm not the real presence to the Soul, which the others do to the Bread. But the these writers must not say, that they differ only about the manner, or the subject of his Presence; but the Presence it self also.

[§. 34] If they say that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist; but they mean spiritually, not naturally, or not cor∣porally; so say others, both Romainst and Lutheran; i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities accompanying (where is no super∣natural effect) the nature or essence of a Body: but if they will ex∣tend spiritually so far as that it shall imply Christ's Body to be there really and essentially; yet not to be there quoad naturam or essentiam suam; or Christ's Body to be there, not quoad corpus; this is, by a distinction to destroy the thesis.

[§. 35] Again, if they say really and essentially there present, but not lo∣cally; so say the Lutheran, and Roman Doctors, i. e. circumscriptive, or by such commensuration to place, as bodies use to have in their natural condition: 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, not so much as ubi definitive, or so that they may truly say 'tis hic, so, as not ubique, or not alibi, where no Communion is cele∣brated; what is this, but to affirm, 'tis there so, as that it is not at all there?

[§. 36] If they say really and essentially present, by reason of the same Spi∣rit uniting us here on Earth, as members to it in Heaven: besides that

thus Christ's Body is no more present in the Eucharist, that in any other Ordinance or Sacrament, wherein the Spirit is conferred; such presence is properly of the Spirit, not of the Body; and ad∣vanceth us not beyond Zuinglianism.

[§. 37] But if at last they plainly interpret real and essential presence, by Christ's being present (in corporal absence) to the worthy Receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof; Thus also they slide back into Zuinglianism. Concerning which opinion the Remonstrants well discerning the difficulties, into which the affirming of a Real pre∣sence doth cast other Protestant parties, in the Apol. pro Confessione sua, p. 256. said; the Zuinglian opinion was, simplicissima, & ad idololatriam omnem evitandam in hac materia in primis necessaria, —& quae a Calvino & illius sequacibus dicuntur, manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem, tum absurditatem; & ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam, &c. And upon the same terms the So∣cinians reject Calvin's Doctrine; See Volkelius 4. l. 22. c. p. 316. —Tertius error eorum est, qui Christi corpus sanguinemque re-vera quidem in sacra coena a nobis comedi bibique existimant: verum non corporali, sed spirituali ratione hoc a nobis fieri affirmant. Cujus qui∣dem opinionis falsitas vel hoc uno convincitur, quod non solum Christi verbis nequaquam continetur; sed etiam cum sanae mentis ratione pug∣nat: quae dictat, fieri non posse, ut Christi corpus tanto intervallo a nobis disjunctum in coena re-vera comedamus. Idcirco & ille ipse [Calvinus] qui sententiae istius author est, fatetur, se hoc mysterium nec mente percipere, nec lingua explicare posse.

[§. 38] I find also a late Writer replying on this manner to his Adver∣sary W. H. urging,* 1.15 —That some of the Learned'st of the English Clergy confess the Holly Eucharist, after Consecration, to be really and truly our Saviour's Body; and therefore adore it; and for this cause disown the New Rubrick, which saith, Our Lord's Body is in Heaven, and not on the Altar; telling us, that they acknowledge the Thing, only dare not be so bold as the Romanists to determine the Man∣ner, [a thing said by Bishop Andrews and others, in the former Testi∣monies.] I find him, I say, returning this answer, 1. To the Rubrick. —That this new Rubrick is but the old one restored; [where he might have done well to have considered by whom in was also ejected, be∣fore its late restorement in A. D. 1661. viz. by the English Clergy; and that within a year or two after it first appeared a New Additi∣onal in King Edward's second Common-Prayer Book.] 2. To the Persons. —If (saith he) you speak true of them, what regard should we have of the judgment of such Clergy-men, as declare their assent and con∣sent to all things contained in, and prescribed by, the Book of Common-Brayer,

Prayer, and Articles of Religion; and yet disown the Rubrick, and be∣lieve Transubstantiation, and adore the Eucharist as Christ's Body? Why do not you call such the Roman Clergy rather than the English, if they differ from you but only in a want of boldness to determine the Manner, whilst they acknowledge the Thing? What if a Bishop Bram∣hall will have the Pope to be Principium Unitatis, and take Grotius to be of the mind of the Church of England; (who would have Rome to be the Mistress-Church, and the Pope to be the Ʋniversal Gover∣nor, according to the Canons of Councils, even the Council of Trent;) must we therefore stoop to such mens judgments? Or might you not as well tell us, That Cassander or Militier, yea or Bellarmine, were of your mind? Thus he. But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body, or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary, in the Eucharist, and with the Symbols, tho' the manner not prescribed, doth Romanize this Clergy; Bishop Cousins is one of those number.* 1.16 And it is much, that this person, having read his Book, (who also, which I much wonder at, makes this his own opinion of an Essential presence that of all Protestants) did not discern this; but hath in his Post∣script recommended for the satisfaction of others, one so much differing from his own Judgment; who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop, in this manner. p. 14. —That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative; and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified, [which he denies to be flesh and blood,] but such as was truly flesh and blood, which he once offered; the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in, and by, the Eucharist. And p. 15. —That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood, [i. e. in the words, Hoc est Corpus meum,] when his real Body was not broken nor slain; nor his bloodshed, till after. And —I can scarce believe (saith he) that man, that saith he believeth, that they [the Apostles] believed, that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood.* 1.17, to St. Cyril's words, [Do not look on it as bare bread, and bare wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. For tho' thy sense suggects this to thee, yet let Faith confirm thee.] he answers, The Bread and Wine are not bare or meer Bread and Wine, but Christ's Body and Blood; as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass. In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood, and of his Sacrifice on the Cross, really given to us in the Eucharist; but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there; a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins.

Notes

• * 1.1

  §. 20. n. 1.
• * 1.2

  §. 20. n. 2.
• * 1.3

  §. 20. n. 3.
• * 1.4

  Matth. 22.29.
• * 1.5

  §. 24. n. 1.
• * 1.6

  §. 24. n. 2.
• * 1.7

  §. 24. n. 3.
• * 1.8

  Aqui. n. 3.76. q. 3. art.
• * 1.9

  In 4 sent. 11. d. q. 1.
• * 1.10

  §. 24. n. 4.
• * 1.11

  See Dis∣put. Oxon. 1549. fol. 18, 67, & 88.
• * 1.12

  De Eu∣char. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.13

  Hist. Reform. Q. Eliz. p. 11.
• * 1.14

  See be∣fore §. 20.
• * 1.15

  Roman Tradition examined, p. 12.
• * 1.16

  See the former Discourse concern∣ing the Eucharist. § 5. n. 2. &c.
• * 1.17

  p. 57.