to that interpretation thereof which the Supremest Authority in the Church that hath been heretofore convened about such matters hath so often and always in the same manner decided to him and so to act according to its Injunctions § 26 III. But if these Councils be declined as not being so ancient as some may expect i. e. not held before some controversy hapned in the Church touching the point they decided Catholicks still have another very Rational ground of such a sense of the Divine Writ viz. the evident testimony of the more Primitive times Which that they have conveyed the Tradition of such a sense to the present Church and to these former Councils to repeat what hath been said already in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 1. because perhaps by scarcity of copies that Book may come to few hands I think will be clear to any one not much interessed that shall at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by quoted parcels the discourses on this Subject Of St. Ambros de Myster init cap. 9. the Author de Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father 4. l. 4 and 5. Chapters Cyril Hierosol Cateches Mystagog 4 5. Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 83. In Act. Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Greg. Nissen Orat. Catechet ch 36 37. Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatensis de Paschate Serm. 5. Hilarius Pictav de Trinitate the former part of the 8th Book Cyril Alexand. in Evangel Joan. l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the authenticalness of which pieces enough also hath been said elsewhere § 27 IV. In a consequence of and succession from this doctrine of those Primitive times and of the later Councils of the Church when this Point was brought into some Dispute and Controversie a Catholick hath for a Rational ground of his Faith and practice the universal doctrine and practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time and at the present also excepting his followers For the Eastern Churches disputed by some Protestants both their belief of a corporal presence with the Symbols and practice of Adoration see what hath been said at large in the Guide in Controversy disc 3. c. 8. where also are exhibited the testimonies of many learned Protestants freely conceding it and again in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 22. p. 313. and n. 9. p. 294. See also the late eminent evidences of the Faith and Practice of these Eastern Churches at this day collected by Monsieur Arnaud in his two replies to Claude a brief account whereof also is given in the Guide Disc 3. § 81. n. 2 c. In which matter whereas one of the chiefest and commonest Pleas of Protestants is the Greek and Eastern Churches their according with them whereby they seem to out-number the Roman if any will but take the courage notwithstanding his secular Interest candidly to examin it I doubt not he will receive a full Satisfaction Lastly see D. Blondel one much esteemed by Protestants for his knowledge in ancient Church-History granting an alteration in the Doctrine concerning our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist an Alteration he means from that which is now maintained by Protestants and was by the former Antiquity begun in the Greek Church after A. D. 754. * Esclaireissements sur L' Eucharistie c. 15. i. e. begun so soon as any dispute hapned in the Eastern Church concerning this Presence which dispute was first occasion'd there upon an Argument which was taken from the Eucharist and urged against Images by the Council of Constantinople under Constantius Copronymus and was contradicted by Damascen and shortly by the 2d Nicene Council In which opinion of the 2d Nicene Council and Damascen Blondel freely acknowledgeth the Greek Churches to have continued to this day See c. 16. p. 399. Again granting an Alteration in the same Doctrine as is said before begun in the Western Church A. D. 818. * See Ibid. c. 18. i. e. as soon as the like dispute hapned about this Point in the Western Parts which dispute there was occasioned by the Council held at Frankfort under Charles the Great opposing the expressions of the foresaid Constantinopolitan Council in like manner as the 2d Nicene Council had done before Lastly if we ask him what this Alteration in the East first and afterward in the West was 1. He maketh it much-what the same in both And then he explains it to be a kind of Impanation or Consubstantiation or Assumption of the Bread by our Lord Christ His words c. 19. are these Des l' An. 818. c. Some among the Latins did as it were in imitation of the Greek conceive a kind of Consubstantiation partly like partly unlike to what many Germains he means Lutherans now maintain which to speak properly ought to be called Impanation or Assumption of the Bread by the Word of God And c. 20. he goes on The opinion of Paschasius whom he makes Leader in the Western as Damascen in the Greek Church had advanced before A. D. 900. an Impanation of the Word fortified and getting credit by degrees the establishment of which saith he p. 440. both Damascen and Paschasius designed Wherein he saith p. 441. they supposed a kind of Identity between the Sacrament and the Natural Body of Christ founded upon the inhabitation of the Deity in them which at last produced he saith the establishment of Transubstantiation under Pope Innocent the Third Here then 1. We see granted both of the Greek and Latin Church the same Tenent 2. We may observe that this Tenent of Impanation he imposeth on them when well examined is found much more gross and absurd than that of Transubstantiation For which see what is said in Bellarmin de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. 15. Or in Suarez de Sacrament Disp 49. But 3. see in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 13. and n. 16. c. that this Doctrine of Damascen and the Greek Church and afterwards of Paschasius and the Latin before Innocent the Third's time was plain Transubstantiation and is misrepresented by Blondel for Impanation and therefore never hath the Greek Church hitherto had any contest or clashing with the Roman concerning this point And see the concessions also of other Protestants very frequent and more candid of Transubstantiation held by the Greek Churches of later times as well as by the Roman produced in the Rational Account concerning the Guide in Controversies Disc 3. c. 8. 4ly Lastly these Churches in which he saith such an Alteration was made from the former Doctrine of Antiquity deny it at all so to be and affirm that when some new opinions appeared they maintained and vindicated it as the Doctrine of the Fathers their Proofs of it being also extracted out of the Fathers Testimonies Now then to stand against such a strong stream of both East and West running constantly in this course seems
Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential into No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence 1. Yet methinks here also first they should have more clearly expressed this to prevent such a misapprehension 2. Adoration being granted due in one way as not due in another § 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way as not present in another methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more than the latter and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus according to the true meaning of those who received it viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored yet ought to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven but also truly in the Eucharist it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body if not after a natural manner yet in its true reality and essence after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power to be at one time in more places than one § 55 Lastly in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here produced perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Authors that seem to qualifie these here set down and better to suit with the expressions of this Declaration But neither will this afford any relief For to free them from a real contradiction the sense of the others reduced to those here cited with leave all things in the same state or else the sense of these accommodated to others will appear to abett no more than bare Zuinglianism i. e. an absolute non-presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist save only in its vertue and effects and the presence of his Spirit c. and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers FINIS THE CATHOLICKS DEFENCE FOR THEIR ADORATION OF THE Body and Blood OF OUR LORD As believed Really and Substantially present IN THE Holy SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST At OXFORD Printed Anno 1687. THESES of Adoration of the EVCHARIST CONTENTS 1. PRotestant-Concessions § 1. 2. Catholick-Assertions § 1. Presuppositions § 1. 1. Of a Precept of giving Divine Worship to our Lord. § 1. 2. Of our Lord's whole Person its being where his Body is § 2. 3. Of this Divine Person being supremely adorable wherever his Body is Granted by Protestants § 3. Not only in Virtue but Substance § 5. 4. That this Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood is by Protestants affirmed in the Eucharist and that this Body is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration § 5. 5. Further affirmed That Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant but to the Symbols and whilst present are to be adored § 7. 6. Granted by Daille That tho' he and his believe not Christ's Body present in the signs yet they for this break not Communion with those that hold it § 8. Catholick Assertions 1. A Sign or Symbol to remain after Consecoration distinct from the thing signified § 9. This external Sign to be all that which is perceptible by the senses of the Bread and Wine tho' not their Substance § 10. 2. The word Sacrament to be taken not always in the same sense but sometimes for the Sign or Symbol sometimes for the thing signified § 11. 3. Catholicks ground Adoration not on Transubstantiation which as also Consubstantiantion involves it but on Real Presence with the Symbols maintaining Adoration due tho' Christ's Body were present neither under the Accidents of Bread as Catholicks say nor under the Substance of Bread as Lutherans say but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § § â—7 4. Supposing not grantâ—â—g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bstantiation an error yet if Corporal or Real Presâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the Lutherans be true Catholicks plead their Adoration warrantable § 18. 5. Supposing Real Presence an Error and the Lutheran and Roman Church both mistaken yet these latter in such Adoration as excusable from Idolatry as the other § 19. 6. Supposing both the former Opinions Errors and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all yet such Adoration by the one or the other of Christ who is a true object of supreme Adoration and only mistaken by them to be where he is not cannot be termed such Idolatry as is the professed worshipping of an Object not at all adorable § 21. 7. Whatever Idolatry it is called in a Manichean worshipping Christ in the Sun or in an Israelite worshipping God in the Calves at Dan and Bethel because adoring a fancy of their own and a good intention grounded on a culpable ignorance excuseth none from Idolatry yet since Daille and perhaps others allows a reasonable tho' mistaken ground of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry hence if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry on the same terms § 22. Catholicks Grounds for their Belief 1. Divine Revelation § 24. 2. The Declaration thereof by the supremest church-Church-Authority in Councils § 25. 3. The Testimony of Primitive Times § 26. 4. The Vniversal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches § 27. 5. Protestant Concessions § 28. 8. For these Grounds given by Catholicks Idolatry by many Protestants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome § 30. 9. Catholicks grant That to adore what is believed to be Bread or perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there where the Worshipper believes he is not is unlawful to be done by any whilst so perswaded § 33. CATHOLICK Theses Concerning the ADORATION of Christ's Body and Blood IN THE EUCHARIST § 1 COncerning the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood and so of his Divine Person as present in the Eucharist 1. I shall shew what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants 2. Examine what Catholicks maintain 1. I suppose a general precept of giving supreme and divine adoration to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ And Suppositions that as Affirmative precepts such as this is do not oblige to every time and place so if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place nor is there any need of any particular divine command in respect of these i. e. places and times without which command we may not obey them For what absurdities would follow hence For Was our Saviour when on Earth never lawfully worshipped but in place or time first commanded Nor then when he shewed and presented himself to them for some other purpose
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 objections that are made against plurality of places For as Cardinal Bellarmin presseth well to this purpose De Euchar l. 3. c. 3. Si quis objiciat aliam esse rationem corporum aliam spirituum is facile refelli potest Nam ratio cur corpora non videantur posse esse in pluribus locis non tam est moles quam unitas Ideo autem non videtur 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 probetur and I add sive de corpore essentiali sive de naturali The like things he saith of a Sacramental presence and not per occupationem 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 substantial 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 Philosophical 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 thereof but that if any divine revelation of the contrary can be shewed 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 purpose 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 Scripture or the antient Tradition of the Primitive Church or by apparent reason And p. 446. We dispute not what God is able to effect by his absolute power neither is this question of any use in the matter 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 according 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. Except 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 compelled 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 interpret 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 audacter 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 omnipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum imo Angelorum Id quidem quod implicet contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt omnes sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat quae sit uniuscujusque rei essentia ac proinde quid implicet quid non implicet contradictionem magnae profecto temeritatis est propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem Deo limites praescribere praefracte negare omnipotentia 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 proinde 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 Vtinam hic pedem fixissent nec ulterius progressi fuissent discipuli In Coll. Malbrunnensi actione 8. Jacobo 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 pluribus in locis esse posse hoc in controversiam non venit sed an hoc velle Christum ex verbis ejus probari possit Itaque hoc te velle existimavimus Christi corpus non tantum posse sed etiam reipsa oportere in S. Coena praesens esse c. v. Vrs c. p. 155. Idem Vrsinus Action ead p. 153. Conaberis etiam ostendere alloquitur Jacobum Andream 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 Vrsin to urge both plurality of places to one Body and plurality of Bodies to one place De quo responsum est non
Protestants with him doth allow not an absolutely certain but a reasonable tho' mistaken ground or motive of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry upon which account a Disciple adoring with divine worship a person very much resembling our Saviour when he was upon Earth or supposing a consecrated Host truly adorable one who adores an Host placed on the Altar and by some deficiency in the Priest not truly consecrated is freely absolved by them herein from committing any Idolatry See before § 8. Hence therefore if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry upon the same terms § 23 1. Now here first the Lutherans being allowed to have such a plausible ground or motive for their Adoration whereby they become by other Protestants absolved from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there only their Adoration inutile saith Daille tombent en neant I see not why the ground of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs For if we compare the one's Con with the other 's Trans substantiation the later seems more agreeable to our Lord's words Hoc est Corpus meum and to the most plain literal obvious sense thereof Hoc est Corpus meum by a change of the Bread rather than Hoc est Corpus meum by a conjunction with the Bread and therefore is the Roman equalled with or else preferred before the Lutheran sense by many Protestants that are neutral and dissent from both Longius Consubstantiatorum saith Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 1. c. 4 § 5. quam Transubstantiatorum sententiam a Christi verbis recedere sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospinianus caeteri Calviniani communiter And Hospinian Histor Sacram. 2. part fol. 6. saith of Luther Errorem errore commutavit nec videns suam opinionem non habere plus imo etiam minus coloris quam Scholasticorum Papae And see the same judgment of the Helvetian Ministers and Calvin apud Hospinian f. 212. But next Catholicks founding their Adoration not on Transubstantiation but on Corporal Presence the same common ground of this they have with Lutherans viz. our Lord's words implying and so it must excuse both or neither § 24 2. Laying aside this comparison let us view more particularly what rational ground Catholicks exhibit of this their belief of a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist and so of Adoration I. This their Ground then of such a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants * See Guide in Controversy Disc 1. §. 62. is pretended to be Divine Revelation and if it be so as pretended then no argument from our senses and against it valid and that as was said but now taken in its most plain literal natural and grammatical sense in the words Hoc est Corpus meum so often iterated in the Gospel and again by S. Paul without any variation or change or explication of that which yet is pretended by Calvinists to be a metaphorical expression and such if we will believe them as this that the Church is his Body Eph. 1.23 or He the true Vine Joh. 15.1 A great argument this the Apostles punctual retaining still in their expressing the Institution thereof the same language and words that our Lord intended it literally as he spoke it Pretended also to be Divine Revelation from many other Scriptures the citing and pressing of which takes up all Bellarmin's first Book de Eucharistia to which I refer the inquisitive Reader but especially from the Discourse Jo. 6. Which Apostle writing his Gospel so late when the Communion of our Lord's Body and Blood was so much frequented and celebrated in the Church seems therefore to have omitted the mention of it at all in his story of the Passion and the time of its first Institution because he had dilated so much upon it before in relating a Sermon of our Lord 's made in Gallilee about the time of the yearly Feast of eating the Paschal Lamb Jo. 6.4 c. The literal and grammatical sense of which Divine Revelation saith Dr. Taylor Liberty of Prophesying § 20. p. 258. if that sense were intended would warrant Catholicks to do violence to all the Sciences in the circle And that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural Reason would be no argument to make them disbelieve who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the Schools and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church or he might have said which are in the Athanasian Creed with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation And elsewhere Real Presence p. 240. saith as who will not say That if it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation he for his part will burn all his Arguments against it and make publick Amends § 25 II. Again Catholicks have for their Rational ground of following this sense in opposition to any other given by Sectaries the Declaration of it by the most Supreme and Universal church-Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former times for the decision of this controversie long before the birth of Protestantism a brief account of which Councils to the number of seven or eight if the 2d Nicene Act. 6. tom 3. be reckoned with the rest before that of Trent all agreeing in the same sentence see concerning the Guide in Controversy Disc 1. § 57 c. Out of the number of which Councils said to establish such a Doctrine as Bishop Cosins Hist Transub c. 7. p. 149. after many others hath much laboured to subduct the great Lateran Council under Innocent 3. upon pretence of the reputed Canons thereof their being proposed therein only by the Pope Mr. Dodwel Considerations of present concerument § 31. p. 165. but not passed or confirmed by the Council so another late Protestant Writer upon another Protestant interest viz. out of the 3d. Canon of the same Council charging not only the Pope but the Councils themselves and the Catholick Religion as invading the Rights of Princes hath with much diligence very well vindicated these Canons against the others as the true Acts of this Great Assembly and not only the designs of the Pope and copiously shewed them as in truth they were owned as such both in the same and the following times And thus the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in this Council is firmly established whilst Catholicks contend in the other Canon concerning Secular Powers the Sense of the Council is by Protestants mistaken Now upon this I ask what more reasonable or secure course in matters of Religion whether as to Faith or Practice can a private and truly humble Christian take than where the sense of a Divine Revelation is disputed to submit