in coena retinere defendere si quid nobis cum vere pits doctis fratribus controversiae est non de re ipsa sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat qui soli Deo cognitus est a nobis creditur disceptare c. Hold they not here the presence of Christ's body cum symbolis Lastly Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. sect affirms even of the Sacramentaries and the first opinion that those who read their books shall find that they grant the holy mysteries instrumentally both to make us partakers of that grace of that body and blood which was given for the life of the world and besides also to impart unto us in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Thus much now of the second opinion to which I shall return by and by § III The 3d. opinion goes yet farther than the second and moved by the expressions partly of Scriptures 3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation 't is said that Luther Epist ad Argentinenses acknowledges se valde propensum fuisse in eam sententiam quae in Eucharistia nihil praeter panem agnoscit conatum totis viribus hoc asserere sed non potuisse satisfacere Scripturis quae contra objiciebantur comparing Matt. 26.26 and 1 Cor. 11.24 c with 1 Cor. 11.26 27. eateth this bread partly also of the Fathers who many times also call it bread after consecration affirms a real presence of Christ's body with or under the signs meaning by them the substances of the bread and wine still remaining after consecration Making if we take the moderatest stating thereof for see what Cassander consult art 10 p. 81. quotes Melancthon and some others at some time before the reformed opinion to have held Asserimus cum Christo Domino corpus Christi non modo esse in cum sub pane sed quod panis sit corpus Christi ipsum itaque unum cum ipso praedicatione identica the meaning of hoc est corpus meum to be not hic panis manens adhuc panis ipse etiam est corpus meum but hoc quod continetur sub pane consecrato est corpus meum making the article hoc supponere confuse to use Bellarmin's termes pro eo quod continetur sub pane as the 4th opinion makes it supponere confuse pro eo quod continetur sub speciebus and to shew the understanding of those words Hoc est corpus meum after this manner to be very proper they exemplify in some like ordinary phrases So de dolio vini recte dicimus hoc est vinum speaking only of the thing contained so de marsupio pleno pecuniis recte dicitur hae sunt pecuniae so demonstrando vestes sub quibus est Petrus we say hoc or hic est Petrus Nam abstrahentium non est mendacium Now some hold this conjunction of Christ's body with the elements ante usum in mensa presently after consecration others perhaps the better to avoid pretences of adoration or of reservation of the Sacrament only in the use and act of receiving in ore fidelium Again some to make this presence seem more certain and more conceivable holding an ubiquity of Christ's body not only a presence then and there but always every where by reason of its hypostatical union to the ubiquitary Deity only lest we may say we receive it as well then in all other bread stating that tho it is ubique yet non posse ubique capi sed solum in ea re quam Christus ad hoc instituit § IV The fourth opinion yet transcends this except in the point of ubiquity and affirms the real presence of Christ's body with 4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation or under the signs meaning by them only the accidents or properties or all that is any way to be perceived by sight or any other sense of the bread and the wine which accidents they affirm still to remain but holding from the most proper sense as to them seems of the solemn words of the Institution Hoc est corpus meum c a Conversion of the substance of them into the body and blood of our Saviour conversio totius substantiae Conc. Trid. sess 13.4 c. Which seems to be so punctually expressed because of those who all held Christ's corporal presence some there were that held the substantial form of bread changed but not the matter others the matter but not the form others again that held no total substantial conversion of the bread at all but an impanation or hypostatical union of Christ with the bread whereby it became his body corpus Christi non carneum but panaceum such as there was with the humane nature in his incarnation saying panem a Christo fieri corpus suum non mutando vel destruendo panem sed assumendo ad personam suam Now this conversion of the substance was thought fit in latter times to be expressed by the word Transubstantiation as a diminutive to conversion For whereas conversion of the bread might be understood either of it with all its properties and accidents or only of the substance thereof and not of the rest therefore to express this distinctively the word Transubstantiation was used Primi authores hujus sententiae finxerunt conversionem physicam simplicem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi quam posteriores Romani Scholastici defendere ut possint manentibus accidentibus panis vini commenti sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Transubstantiationem Casp Peucerus hist pag. 527. Compare with Transubstantiation that expression of the Greeks in their answer to Claudius Cardinal of Guise Credimus panem in Christi corpus c ita mutari ut neque panis neque substantiae ipsius accidentia maneant sed in divinam substantiam transelemententur and Transubstantiation saith the least of the two But here note that tho Councils have defined a conversion of the whole substance yet since such a conversion there may be many several ways see those reckon'd up in Field Append. to 3. lib. 17. cap. the particular manner they have no way determined and the Roman Doctors remain in their opinions divided Fatemur saith Dr. Holden de resol fid 2. l. 4 c. hujusmodi supernaturalis conversionis substantialis modum nos penitus latere c. and Bellar. in his recognit lib. Euchar. after his discoursing of conversion adductive and productive c concludes Quicquid sit de modis loquendi illud tenendum est conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Domini esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem c. Whilst the third opinion therefore interprets our Saviour's words of the Institution thus Hic panis continet sub se corpus meum or hoc quod continetur sub pane est corpus meum the
Christus de terra terram quia caro de terra est de carne Mariae accepit carnem quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit ipsam carnem jam manducandam nobis ad salutem dedit nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit inventum est quem-admodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domim ut non solum non peccemus adorando sed non adorando peccemus Which matter some think he borrowed from S. Ambrose upon the same Psalm and text de Spiritu Sancto 3. l. 12. c. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur per terram autem caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt Like to this are many other sayings of S. Austin Psal 48.33 21. And Ep. 120. ad Honorat 27. c. expounding that in 21. Psal 29. v. Manducaverunt adoraverunt omnes divites terrae he saith ipsi divites per divites terrae saith he before hoc loco superbi intelligendi sunt adducti sunt ad mensam Domini accipiunt de corpore sanguine ejus sed adorant tantum non etiam saturantur alluding to 26. v. edent pauperes i. e. humiles saith he saturabuntur quia non imitantur Here he saith the wicked do adorare that which they receive de mensa Domini but t is certain they may not adore any thing else however consecrated or sanctified or whatever it represent but only the real body and blood of Christ But of Aderation more fully afterward In which sayings of his we find the real body of Christ in mensa in altari in ore manducantium not only in corde in the oblation which was before communicating adored before manducation and therefore I think t is plain as S. Austin held with the second opinion the real presence of Christ so with the 3d and 4th opinion the real presence in mensa or Altari with the elements or the signs Now I say if these two things be granted once I do not see what thing that Father can say in any place of the bread and wine being symbols figures c of Christ's passion or of Christ's body that was crucified c which thing the 4th opinion may not say of the species of the bread or wine being so Thus much of the 2d note that the 4th opinion as well as the other after consecration makes a sign remaining and distinct from the thing signified of which signs many things are predicated which cannot be so of Christ's body § VII 3. Note 3ly in comparng the two last opinions together That some at least of the defenders of the 4th opinion reject the third as contrary to the Scripture and reason Obs 3 1. by supposing a sense in it which the third I mean the moderater party thereof doth not own whereas their sense well understood their difference seems not so great For thus Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 19. c. argues against it Hic panis triticeus non est corpus Domini but who is there saith it is fieri enim non potest ut una res non mutetur tamen fiat alia esset enim ipsa non esset ipsa but at last when he takes into consideration the instance whereby the third opinion explains it self that as of a barrel of wine we say Hoc est vinum so we say not of the bread but that contained under it Hoc est corpus Domini even as the fourth opinion saith Hoc est corpus Domini of that which is contained under the species of bread He hath little to say against their tenent in respect of the expression of Scripture or evidence of reason his arguments from which 3. l. 22. c. seem of little moment but see the end of 19. c. flies to this ward licet in verbis Domini esset aliqua ambiguitas tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Ecclesiae consensum Patrum And so do many of the Schoolmen see the quotations in Blondel de Euchar. 12. cap. and cocerning this proposition Potuisse Deum efficere ut in Sacramento vere adesset corpus Christi cum pane si hoc fecisset mysterium futurum fuisse facilius minus miraculorum in se continens Bellarmin saith Aliqui negant alii concedunt res ad fidem non pertinet i. e. of the possibility of this neque de eo est nobis cum haereticis controversia de Euchar. 3. l. 23. c. 2. Indeed the difference is not much when as one saith hoc est corpus meum quod continetur sub accidentibus panis the other hoc quod continetur sub substantia panis of which the former men grant a possibility and when as the fourth opinion denies panis to remain after consecration not because corpus Domini cannot possibly be sub pane which the third opinion affirms but because panis cannot be corpus Domini in which the third opinion agrees with them yet corpus Domini sub pane the fourth opinion admits not the better to accord with Antiquity who affirm the bread consecrated to be to be made to be changed into Christ's body which mutation of it into another they think cannot consist with its being the same as it was before but the bread remaining as formerly only Christ's body now with or under it tho it may be thought to suit well with the words of Institution yet they canceive agrees not so well with those expressions of the Fathers this interpretation arguing a change indeed about the bread but not a change indeed of the bread and perhaps I may say to follow the closer the words of Institution of which tho the Lutheran sense be not improper as is shewed in the former instances yet the sense that the fourth opinion gives of them tho perhaps encountring more difficulties seems more proper whilst in it the article Hoc no way includes or involves any other substance besides corpus meum As we may say it would also be yet more proper if the article Hoc no way involved any foreign accidents as in the sense of the fourth opinion it doth but those belonging to our Saviour's body So to say hoc est vinum is more proper when t is covered with no other substance or accidents but its own than when t is said so of it hid within a barrel or other vessel 3. Thus much of the distance between the third and fourth opinion As for some incommodious explications and expressions used by some of the third opinion as that of the ubiquity of the Manhood by reason of its union with the Deity with which the Lutheran opinion hath no need to defend its self against the Transubstantialist who grants a possibility of Christ's bodily presence and that of the bread's being properly called Christ's body in the words of Institution from the bread's being united with it because the
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
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
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
Blondel p. 70. reckon'd amongst the Authors that hold the Elements to be chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ in his sixth Proposition This therefore at the least will amount to Consubstantiation like Theodoret's 3. Concerning that noted place of St. Ambrose De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. quoted by Dr. Taylor p. 306. the words are these Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini ut ea incipiant esse quae non erant he refers to Ipse dixit facta sunt quanto magis operatorius est ut sint quae erant in aliud commutentur Here the true natural meaning seems to be as Bellarmin observes ut quae erant sint answering to the former quae non erant incipiant esse i. e. ut quae erant maneant quamvis mutata As in another Treatise De Myster init c. 9. he saith non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas And in the same Chapter out of which the former Testimony is taken are also these words Panis iste panis est ante verba consecrationis ubi accesserit consecratio de pane sit caro Christi But suppose him to hold no change here of the substance of the Bread yet must he mean some real change effected by God's Omnipotence beyond the Bread's being chang'd from common to a sacred use and this such as puts the substantial presence of Christ's Body at least with the Bread since he supposeth a miraculous operation some-way upon Nature But this shall be clear'd more anon 4 That Saying of St. Austin's Sermon to the New-Baptiz'd recited by Fulgentius Baptism Aethiop lat cap. and Bede in 1 Cor. 10. Quod vidistis panis est calix quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi calix est sanguis In this later clause that at least the Body of Christ is affirm'd substantially present with the Bread see what I have said Observ 2. And consider also his moving the doubt in the same place since Christ was now ascended in Body into Heaven quomodo est panis corpus ejus calix vel quod habet calix quomodo est sanguis ejus where he answers ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta quia in illis aliud videtur aliud intelligitur Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem By which aliud intelligitur if he meant only the benefits of Christ's Body and Blood shed upon the Cross which are receiv'd in the Sacrament surely he would have said est fructus spiritualis and not habet fructum c. but this word intelligitur non videtur is frequently used by him concerning Christ's Body tho present with the Sacrament because the symbols only and not It are present there to the sight or senses Tho we are to understand It to be there also as appears out of many other places of St. Austin quoted before 5 Let there be added to these those many quotations in Blondel c. 4. prop. 1 2 3. out of the Fathers and c. 21. out of the ancient Lyturgies and Missals of the Eucharist after Consecration call'd Bread and of something said of the signs or symbols not agreeable to Christ's Body As for this later since the Transubstantialists as well as the rest affirm symbols after Consecration distinct from the Body see Obs 2. I see not how it makes against any Opinion As for the former as long as it can be shew'd that the Fathers with that they call'd Bread hold a substantial presence some way or other of our Saviour's Body if the Answer of the Transubstantialists set down before misinterpret their meaning yet at the most such a term will but prove Consubstantiation which opposeth not our Position 6 As for that Proposition so usual in the Fathers that the Bread is Christs Body press'd by some Protestants as inconsistent not only with Trans but Con-substantiation and the words of Bellarmin quoted in this behalf by them Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Si Dominus ait hic panis est corpus meum necessario sequitur ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia si nimirum proprte panis materialis dicatur esse corpus Domini quod aperte implicat contradictionem aut panis sit corpus non proprie sed figurate quod volunt Calvinistae aut denique panis non manens panis sed benedictione mutatus sit corpus Domini quae est sententia Ecclesiae Catholicae Whereby it seems to follow That if the Fathers accord not in the sense of it with the Transubstantialist they must with the Calvinist and the Schoolmen also brought in to oppose it see Blondel p. 155. I answer this Proposition Hic panis est corpus meum as it is diversly explain'd seems proper enough to be used by any of the Three Opinions First by those who hold a substantial conversion for indeed at least some of those Fathers who use this phrase yet seem clearly to hold a substantial conversion as I shall shew anon and the same Fathers who say that the Bread is the Body of Christ say the Bread is so by a change for it may be interpreted thus Hic panis consecratus i. e. mutatus per consecrationem est Corpus Domini Panis denoting the former matter or the terminus a quo Such a Speech is not unordinary upon a sudden change see Exod. 7.12 where Aaron's Rod is said to devour the Magicians Rods Aaron's Rod i. e. turn'd into a Serpent devour'd c. See somewhat like this ver 19 20 21. where the Water already turn'd into Blood ver 20. notwithstanding is call'd Water afterward ver 21. And they could not drink of the Water of the River the Water i. e. now turn'd into Blood. See the like Joh. 2.9 And when the Ruler of the Feast-had tasted the Water that was made Wine i. e. had tasted the Wine made of the Water But more especially here may such a denomination be made than after other changes because there remains even in the Transubstantialists opinion still something namely all that which is any way sensible of the former substance But 2ly the same proposition may as well be used by those who hold a Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread still remaining not taken in such a sense whereof Bellarmin and the Schoolmen say that it plainly contradicts but in the more qualified and moderate sense set down § 3. As pointing at vessels filled with several liquors we ordinarily say This vessel is wine that beer c. or hic purpuratus est Rex So the proposition Sub hoc pane est corpus Christi into which the Lutheran resolves it is as remote from contradiction as the proposition sub specie hujus panis est c the resolution of the Transubstantialist 3ly The same proposition may bear only a figurative sense like that I am the vine or I am the door and
the pillar stript and in the common Hall arrayed in 's Mock Regalia without an actual distinction of his garments from himself had the same object of his piety Ibid. l. 18. I must tell him that the adoration of those among the Lutherans is infinitely more excusable than theirs the Catholicks And this Good Man he is forced to assert not out of prejudice but by the cogency of some reasons The Reader will admire his assurance if he weighs his arguments As first because we Catholicks violate sense which the Lutherans preserve entire Now to wave both the impertinence and falshood of this leading Reason as intimating that we violate sense and that either the nature or heinousness of Idolatry depends thereon t is enough to quash it to affirm that the Lutherans violate sense as much as we Do they not believe the Body of our Lord present with the Bread Do not our senses tell us as experimentally there is no flesh present as they do that Bread is there He that says there are ten men in a Room where sense informs there are but five must needs treat sense with as much violence as he that says there are but five when ten are seen The violence done to sense therefore if any be done and so the inexcusableness is equal on the Lutheran to that on our side We descend to his next Reason the former part of it viz. that the Lutherans are right in their Object himself has overthrown in 's 89th pag. if he approve what he cites out of Dr. Taylor For the Lutheran object is a non Ens if Jesus Christ be not substantially present and if He be not in ours how can He be in their Eucharist since our Priesthood whereon all grant his being there in some sort depends is more undoubted valid and canonical than theirs they deriving Sacerdotal Orders from a Presbyter's Ordination which all Antiquity and Prelatick Protestants in their seuds with Presbytery and by their present practice in ordaining such Ministers anew damn not only as spurious but as null we from Episcopal legitimately communicated If then the Lutherans be right in their object much more are we Have we not more assurance that our Lord is there and He only is there We run therefore a less risque of missing him than they The other part of his 2d Reason seems to be an Ignoratio Elenchi the common Fallacy imploy'd by Protestants and this Minister especially in this dispute to amuse and deceive his Reader for if I comprehend him he proceeds on this ground that we hold the substance of the Bread to be the material of which the Body of Christ is made whenas we believe nothing like it Our Doctrine is that by Sacerdotal consecration the substance of our Lord's Body which now resides in Heaven and shall enjoy that glorious condition till his second Advent becomes however existent also under the species of Bread and Wine in a Spiritual manner and that the substance of Bread and Wine wholly ceases to he under those species as before consecration it was but further notice our faith takes not of the Breaden substance whether it be annihilated or how it ceases If the Breaden substance be absent then we do not adore that substance for Christ's body which is not his and if it be present we do not adore it unless we can be supposed to adore what we think not of or what we think to be nothing or to believe and adore two substances of one Body and be said to direct our devotion another way at the same time we with the strictest abstraction aim at the substance assumed by the eternal Word in the Virgin 's womb and now and ever personally united to it If we should worship the Eucharist whether there be a Substantial presence or no then we might well pass for Bread-worshippers if our Lord were not substantially present but worshiping not so loosly at random nor without a solid supposition of a substantial presence demonstrates we do direct our piety to our Saviour only never reflecting on what either ceases or remains of the elements so as to make them partners or rivals with him in our Duty The truth of the 5th Catholick Assertion is then evinced our worship is as excusable as the Lutherans and the new auxiliary Reasons drawn up p. 102. l. ult to oppose it afresh are indeed nothing to the purpose and moreover the former of them is false too We can be sufficiently sure of due consecration and anathematizing Dissenters does not alter the excusableness of our worship If our worship be of the same nature with the Lutheran and have as good grounds the imposing of it adds not one jot of guilt to it whatever it do to the imposers The Answerer then ought to have totally assented to the 6th Catholick Assertion for the same sound reason which moved him to grant it true of the Lutherans that their Object is right ours being certainly as true or the same with theirs and if we mistake the substance of Bread they worship nothing for Christ We worship no Host i.e. neither any substance that ever was or is a breaden substance nor yet the symbols but only Christ sacramentally existing who never was nor can be a Wafer nor made of either the substance or accidents of Bread. How then can we possibly mistake what is not Christ for Him unless the Christ born of the ever-blessed Virgin be not Christ Perverse therefore is the parallel of our worship to that of a Manichee's fancying Christ to be made of the Sun's substance this in that Heretick was both groundless and impossible whenas ours is quite another sentiment and founded on motives clear and infallible so far different in the thing as the substance born of our Lady is from that of the Bread or the Sun so far unlike in the ground as the fiction of a single Persian impostor is less credible than express Revelation and the constant Tradition of the Catholick Church Much-what the same Chaff is served up p. 106. to shew more difference between Us and the Lutherans than a Trans and Con amount to So zealous is this Polemic Divine to reduce Christians to an amicable temper that he exceeds the bounds of discretion and reverence not only to his own Party and the Noblest Nations of Christendom but also to his Prince For whilst He and others labour for Peace this man like seditious Love represents them irreconcilable His first reason here is already exposed There is either no or an equal violence done to Sense by Us and the Lutherans His second Reason is as faulty as his first if we are at defiance with any Texts that call the Eucharist Bread are not the Lutherans at as much defiance with those that call it Flesh and our Lord's Body for both it cannot be substantially Flesh and substantially Bread. To his third Reason viz. That the words of Institution afford occasion of inferring a Presence of
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
4th saith Hic panis per conversionem est or fit corpus meum or hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus meum the one holding the substance of the bread to be transient the other permanent § V But first here note 1. That both this third and fourth opinion hold an oral reception Observations touching These opinions by all communicants even the unworthy according to 1 Cor. 11.27 29. of the very body and blood of Christ tho by the last not at all to their benefit but greater condemnation Which I note here to shew that no complaint upon this account can be raised against the fourth opinion Obs 1 which may not be as justly against the third § VI 2. Note 2ly concerning the 4th opinion that tho it makes the whole compositum ex materia forma to be changed Obs 2 yet not so the whole aggregatum ex subjecto accidente 1 and tho it makes the thing signified really present yet it as well as the other opinions allows a sign not only of the inward grace and spiritual nourishment of the soul obtained thereby but also of Christ's body remaining after consecration distinct from the thing signified namely all that of the bread and wine which is perceived by sense But so that under this sign is contained the thing signified it being figura non nuda sed veritati suae substantiae conjuncta signum rei praesentis sed rei invisibilis lest any should think the sign needless Hence the Church-hymn allow'd and recommended by Dr. Taylor p. 331. Sub duabus speciebus signis tantum non rebus latent res eximiae Conc. Trid. 13. sess 3. c. saith Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis ut sit symbolum rei sacrae visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae by which forma visibilis as Bell. expounds it 4. l. 6. c. is meant the species of the elements not the body of Christ So Bell. Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species panis vini sunt signa corporis sanguinis Christi ibi revera existentium and 3. l. 22. c. Accidentia remanent quia si etiam accidentia abessent nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile proinde nullum esset Sacramentum So Estius Eucharistia constat ex pane tanquam materia quadam partim transeunte partim remanente transeunte quidem secundum substantiam remanente vero secundum accidentia in quibus tota substantiae vis operatio nihilominus perseverat Hence they allow of that expression of Irenaeus where he saith Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus terrena coelesti compositam esse and S. Gregory's In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari terrena coelestibus jungi unum ex visibilibus invisibilibus fieri 2 Nay further they allow that these appurtenances of bread may have in some sense in reference to former matter contained under them and in as much as still substantiae ipsius omnem operationem retinent and have often had the name of the substance granting them to be called so after consecration by the Fathers hence they reject not that expression of St. Austin Panem consumi comedendo by the Apostle 1 Cor. 11.26 27 nay by our Saviour Mat. 26.29 Mar. 14.25 Of these signs they predicate many things which they allow by no means to be said of Christ's body and ordinarily the same things of these accidents of bread which the 3d. opinion saith of the substance See Blondel acknowledging this p. 215. so sapere digeri nutrire comfortare corporaliter c they apply to these accidents affirming singulari miraculo tam operationes panis c quam proprietates subsistere conservari absque natura And to Theodoret and some other Fathers that say after consecration the nature of Bread remains they grant thus far naturales vires proprietates remanere and think this sufficiently clears the Fathers meaning Now what is this but tantum non to affirm consubstantiation and close in with the 3d. opinion which methinks much reflects upon those who very charitable to the one maintain so great a feud against the other So frangi dentibus digeri comburi rodi a brutis animalibus and whatever other things may be nam'd excepting only those attributes which indicate the presence of Christ's Body to or with the species whilst integrae all or at least the more modest of them no Council having decided any thing in this matter apply only to the accidents not to Christ's Body Bellarmin who bolder than some others useth some expressions of Christ's Body being capable of such things per accidens improprie in specie aliena saith Christus vere in Sacramento existit sed nullo modo laedi potest non cadit in terram non teritur non roditur non putrescit non crematur illa enim in speciebus istis recipiuntur sed Christum non afficiunt licet species ipsae sint conjunctae cum Christo Euch. l. 3. c. 10. and the conclusion of that Chapter is in propria specie Christus haec pati non potest And good reason to say this because these accidents are held ad suppositum Christi non pertinere neque in illo inhaerere see Estius Sent. 4. Dist. 9. Sect. 3. Ob. 4. and Bishop Forbes de Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s 9. Now in affirming of Christ's Presence to them in some abuses of these Signs tho since his Body is voluntarily present sine ulla sui laesione desinit esse sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat whether it may not in such cases be withdrawn I think none can say and the Roman Doctors are divided about it See Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s 9. Blon p. 212. yet I see no great cause of offence since as the Cardinal well saith in the same Chapter ipsa divinitas nonne ubique est praesens tamen non sordescit in sordibus non crematur in flammis nec putrescit in putrescentibus rebus 3 Again 3 as these species are acknowledged by them Signs of the Body in one sense present so of the Body in another acception or mode not present namely a Memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ as it was broken and shed upon the Cross Signa corporis Christi ut sacramentaliter praesentis signa Corporis Christi ut in cruce immolati Thus they are called a Memorial or a Representation of the Passion in the Scripture-phrase see 1 Cor. 11.25 26. and therefore may be also in the Church's In which respect also the Fourth Opinion allows the name of type antitype similitude figure c. not only before but after Consecration proper to them Veteres quando hoc sacramentum dicunt signum esse figuram non negant ibi esse verum Christi corpus sed intelligunt non ibi esse in propria specie sc ut conversans in mundo patiens in cruce Nay yet farther they
say ipsum corpus sanguis Domini ut sunt sub illis speciebus signa sunt ejusdem corporis sanguinis ut fuerunt in cruce For Eucharistiam take it for the signum signatum which signatum is invisible in the Eucharist both together they hold to be signum symbolum representationem memoriale typum c. mortis seu passionis Christi seu carnis sanguinis ut illa suffixa ille effusus est visibiliter in cruce For Corpus Christi ut sub speciebus panis being idem quoad substantiam but not idem quoad qualitatem nor eo modo in Eucharistia quo fuit in cruce non est vere sed representative corpus in cruce And this it is also by reason of the visible species since it self not perceivable cannot be representative 4 And this which they say here methinks seems not unreasonable by which also they accord many sayings of the Fathers which else would contradict what the same Fathers say in other places which Dr. Taylor p. 311. passeth over with saying 't is their fault or forgetfulness notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor hath said against it p. 317 c. where he first urgeth that idem non est simile Resp. but tho these are suppos'd idem in substance yet in all the qualities and modifications thereof as Dr. Taylor himself grants p. 20. the same Body to be crucified and eaten in several manners of being And what more ordinary than for a Body or Man at one time to be said to be like or unlike what he was at some other time Secondly If I well understand him he urges the absurdity of making an invisible and glorified Body the sign of a visible and humbled Resp But they making the Body as in the Eucharist a sign or representment of it as upon the Cross do not divide or abstract it from the species of Bread as he doth for indeed how can a thing invisible be a sign in respect of Men who discern all by their Senses and indeed none can know when such a sign is or is not but say Corpus as Sacramentally present sub illis speciebus is a sign or symbol of it as it was once upon the Cross Secondly Tho they say the Body in the Sacrament is the same with that glorified yet is it not in the Sacrament but only in Heaven as glorified see Dr. Taylor p. 20. Now I say why not as well the manner several from what it is in Heaven as from what it was on the Cross But however this be concerning the Body of Christ being a type figure or symbol of it self I think the fourth Opinion is no more necessitated in answer to the Fathers to affirm any such thing than the second or the third since these expressions of the Fathers are in shew arguments and are so used by the first Opinion against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament see Dr. Taylor p. 319. The Sacramental Body is a figure and type of the Real which Real Presence both the 2d and 3d. Opinions maintain And if here you say they are good arguments against real Presence with the Signs but not with the Receiver This seems to me to be said gratis and without reason since the real Body is no less invisible if with the Signs than if with the Receiver only and we usually say that something we see is a Sign of the Presence of another thing we see not tho they be both together as Breathing is a Sign of Life Smoke of Fire present tho not seen the same may be said of Similitude as a Vizard resembling a Face may be truly said a Similitude when the Face is under it 5. But if the 2 d. and third Opinions notwithstanding that both of them hold Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist ordinarily say of the Bread and Wine that they are Signs and Figures both of the Body as then present and also of it as it was formerly on the Cross and thus satisfy the Fathers tho the first Opinion denies they satisfie them the same thing saith the fourth Opinion of the species of the Bread and Wine remaining that they are symbols figures c. which species they affirm singulari miraculo to have as all the operations and proprieties so much more all the significations of the Bread and Wine And because Dr. Taylor instanceth in some sayings of St. Austin of the Sacrament being signum Corporis c. to which he disalloweth their answers and saith p. 310. That it is so evident that that Father was a Protestant in this Article that it were a strange boldness to deny it and upon equal terms no man's mind in the world can be known Yet things I believe out of that Father will not be so clear for his side as is pretended if first he will grant that St. Austin held as much as himself doth or at least as others of the second Opinion Real Presence and secondly if such expressions as these which follow in St. Austin will prove that he held this real Presence of Christ's Body with the elements or signs namely that saying Conf. l. 9. c. 13. Tantum memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit unde ex quo altari sciret dispensari victimam sanctam qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis qua triumphatus est hostis c. and that saying Conf. 9. l. 12. c. where he saith of the consecrated elements or Eucharist cum offeretur pro ea posito cadavere juxta sepulchrum sacrificium pretii nostri which he saith of the Eucharist before communicating but surely would not say but of Christ's body not of bare bread And that saying contra adversarium Legis Prophet 2. l. 9. c. where writing against an Heretick that denied and urged many absurdities in the Old Testament he saith Eat plane iste retro cum suis similibus sociis qui dixerunt Durus est hic sermo c. Jo. 6. Nos autem audiamus intelligamus duo Testamenta in duobus filiis Abrahae c. Sicut Mediatorem Dei hominum hominem Christum Jesum dantem carnem suam nobis manducandam sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus quamvis horribilius videatur humanam carnem manducare quam perimere humanum sanguinem potare quam fundere And elsewhere Adhuc in Sacramento spes est quo in hoc tempore i.e. till the day of judgment consociatur Ecclesia quamdiu bibitur quod de Christi latere manavit Contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. See the places quoted p. concerning Christ's body received also by the wicked Lastly that saying in comment Psal 98. with the Reformed 99. upon those words 5. ver Adorate scabellum ejus which we translate Worship at his footstool where alluding to terra scabellum pedum meorum Isa 66. he goes on Invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra scabellum pedum ejus suscepit enim
hold the Principle and utterly deny and renounce such a Consequent of their error he saith none ought to impose or impute such a Consequence unto them or for it separate from their Communion Neither may one then impose upon the Fourth Opinion the Consequential Contradictons or Absurdities thereof or for these Desert their Communion But of this Rule of Daille's more anon when we come to Adoration § IX 5. Note in the fifth place for the Third and Fourth Opinion That Obs 5 since they affirm from pretended sense of Scriptures such as Mat. 26.26 1 Cor. 10.16 11.27 29. Eph. 5.30 32 1 c. whether that which is oppos'd to qualifie these Texts 1 Cor. 11.27 28. be taken only for all the sensibilia of Bread as the Fourth or also for the substance of Bread remaining together with Christ's Body as the Third Opinion will have it the Mystery of the Sacrament to be Miraculous and Supernatural and Incomprehensible which also the Second Opinion pretends to hold no Arguments drawn from Sense or natural Reason or also from any Rules of Contradiction can be of any force to confute them 2 For first for the matter of Sense they affirm it not to be deceiv'd at all but truly to discern its proper object every thing sensible in the Eucharist remaining after Consecration as before it and the Presence of Christ's Body whatever it is there being invisible intangible c. As for that Argument ordinarily made against the Fourth Opinion from the position of the Accidents which are discern'd by sense to the position of the Substance which in the ordinary course of Nature they accompany as It hath the usual colour taste c. of Bread therefore it is Bread 't is granted good where intervenes no supernatural or miraculous effect reveal'd unto us by the Scriptures Good therefore was that Argument of our Saviours Lu. 24.39 Handle one and see c. And that of the Apostle 1 Jo. 1.1 That which we have heard which we have seen c. Good that of the Fathers from these and such-like places against the Marcionites to prove Christ had no phantastical but a true Body and Good still tho the Marcionites had pretended a Miracle because such pretended Miracle was not provable from Scripture but the plain contrary as appears in the forequoted Texts But such Argument were not good if one should argue from the outward appearance touch c. that the Angels that came and talk'd and eat and drank with Abraham and also led Lot out of Sodom were Men because the Scripture hath told us they were Angels In which cases it consists well notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 169. with the Justice and Goodness of God to be angry with us for believing our Senses or our Reason whenever he makes known to us such Mysteries contrary to the ordinary experience of Nature 3 But then you will say the Scripture hath reveal'd unto us no miraculous or supernatural effect in the Eucharist and therefore an Argument from our Senses here stands good The Third and Fourth Opinion contend mainly that it hath You see then till this is decided of which anon no Argument from Senses is to be heard and after this is clear'd it needs not be urg'd The same which is said of Arguments from Sense may be said of Arguments from seeming Contradiction For tho this Proposition be willingly granted That whatever truly contradicts cannot be effected Potentia Divina not naturally nor supernaturally so that there is no place of pleading to make two contradictories good by urging Miracle Yet this general Rule is utterly useless to us in any particular Controversie unless we know first what things truly contradict Now a contradiction is only when the same thing is denied of or removed from it self as this a Man is not a Man or this a Man is white and not white where the formal contradiction being resolv'd is whiteness is not whiteness Now such plain apparent contradictions none having the use of Reason will make or maintain it being one of the primest principles of Reason Impossible est idem esse non esse Therefore where we find Contradictions in terminis a thing not unusual with Orators to make the acuter expression these terms are taken in several senses by those who propose them one term not signifying the formal essence of the thing So those Contradictions in terminis observ'd by Dr. Taylor p. 14 15. to the Roman party as corpus incorporeum cruor incruentus if the terms be took in several acceptations will be no formal Contradictions as if cruor be taken for the substance of Blood incruentus for the colour and other accidents usually accompanying but as the Proponents suppose possibly separable from the substance So if corpus be taken for the substance of a Body and incorporeum for extension in a place c. which the Proponents conceive not essential but accidental to a Body else if corpus incorporeum taken in any sense be a Contradiction so will the Apostle's corpus spirituale be for in the predicament of substance incorporeum and spirituale are made the same 4 But tho not plain and formal Contradictions yet virtual I grant many may and do make whilst they take those things to be diverse which are the same as if quantum or extensum be the same with corpus or rather extensio with corporeitas as Rivet affirms it is but the Romanist denies then corpus non-extensum will be a Contradiction To know then what truly contradicts and so is Potentia Divina unfaisible or unseparable we must know exactly what things are the same what different 1. First we must perfectly discern all the accidents of any thing from the essence of it not only what accidents are ordinarily separated for this will have no place where a supernatural effect is urged but what are potentia divina separable For that all things separable are actually in the course of nature separated or that every thing not essential is sometimes locally disjoyned from the essence or that nothing can be done by miracle which nature never worketh who can justify Now by what means any can know this I much wonder 2. Secondly since the Essence also of all creatures is composit not simple we must discern all the parts of its essence one from another and then know in which of those essentials or constitutives the essence of the thing more chiefly consists so that this removed the name of the thing can be no longer retained For note that a thing may be said to be the same still even tho some part of the essence thereof be changed or removed if that wherein it more formally consists still abides as a man or a ship is still the same tho much of the matter of both of them be altered Now if these things no man can exactly know then to say all things are possible to God except what contradicts is as much as to say Every
or real presence they seem to go as any either the third or fourth opinion in that they question not the matter of that presence the which the other affirm but the manner which whilst the others guess some after this some after that manner they will guess nothing at all of it by which they are free from any objections and well modestly prudently this only if such would not so peremptorily condemn the conjectures of others as perhaps some of them do not See for what I have now said besides the quotations before p. 2. in the relation of this second opinion many places in Dr. Tailor the very Title of his book wherein Spiritual must be took in such a sense as not to deny real and of Christ must be understood of the Body and Blood of Christ For this he saith often in the Book namely p. 7. see p. 20. where in answering some hard sayings of the Fathers c. as if the same Body that was crucified was not eaten in the Sacrament he saith That Proposition is true if we speak of the eating of Christ's Body in the same manner of being for it had one manner of being on the Cross and another in the Sacrament But that Body which was crucified the same Body we do eat if we speak of the same thing in a several manner of being c Christ's Body therefore is in the Sacrament not only in its operation but being tho after another manner of being than it was on the Cross And what Dr. Taylor saith methinks answers several arguments brought afterward by himself out of the Fathers against real presence under or with the symbols see p. 311. Non hoc quod videtis c. see p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence to be particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner c. See Arch B. Laud See Disc concerning the Rub. of the En. Lyt §. 14 15. p. 286. where he saith The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ c. And Arch B. Cranmer as the Arch B. quotes out of Fox p. 1703. confesseth That tho he was indeed of another opinion and inclining to that of Zuinglius yet B. Ridly convinc'd his judgment and settled him in the point 2. Add to these Bishop Hall quoted before Res apud utrosque eadem rei tamen ratio diversa c. utrosque he means Lutheran but the Consequence is as good for the Romanist See the same opinion of A. Spalat and Bishop Forbes quoted hereafter Lastly in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland in the Administring the Sacrament the former words or comment Feed on him in thy heart by Faith are left out according to the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. and also the Form in the Missals perhaps as being a Diminutive of this great Mystery in which is maintain'd another a more real eating and participation of Christ's Body than that by Faith alone As likewise there are added in the Prayer of Consecration these words agreeable to the first Book of Edw. VI. and the Forms of all Antiquity only those run not ut nobis sint but ut nobis fiant corpus c. So bless and sanctifie with thy Word and Holy Spirit these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son which seem to tend to the same purpose and upon Bucer's exceptions at them in his Censura in ordine Eccl. c. 9. were by the Second Reformers of the Common-Prayer-Book cast out Now in these passages above recited if I well understand them the Presence of Christ's Body is as fully and properly affirm'd by these as by the Lutheran or Romanist only all the difference is not about the Presence whether carnally or spiritually substantially or locally after the manner of other Bodies or not locally or substantially but about the subject only to which present as Mr. Hooker well observes whether to the worthy Receiver only or also to the elements or signs or if present to the signs whether not some other way present to them than either Cousubor Transubstantially Whereas therefore the Lutheran and Romanist dispute the manner whether our Saviour's Body be Consubstantially or Transubstantially with the signs the other Reform'd and these dispute the manner whether with the signs or only with the Receiver or also whether with the signs not by the forenam'd but some other unknown way but in its presence with the worthy Receiver all agree and one affirm it as much as another 3. But now if one should affirm Christ personlly or substantially present to the Receiver another only virtually present in his Grace Spirit c. 't is plain that here a difference between them is not in the manner of the presence but in the presence it self So the first Opinion tho affirming a virtual presence is said to deny the real presence or any mystery in the Sacrament § XIV Thus much of their affirming the substantial or personal presence of Christ in the Sacrament as to the third and fourth Opinion But now I confess I do not see how this doth consist with many other things which they say See Dr. Taylor p. 15. But we by the spiritual real presence of Christ do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful by blessing and grace p. 107. by saith and blessing and this is all which we mean beside the Tropical and Figurative presence p. 21. They the Romanists say that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in vertue or effect is not sufficient tho this is done also in the Sacrament See p. 218. where after shewing that Christ's Body is in the Eucharist neither circumscriptive definitive nor repletive the only three ways that are conceivable of being in a place he saith his Body is there figuratively tropically representatively in Being might not he say or in reallity now representatively only in respect of reallity is the same with not really and really in effect and blessing but this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person I suppose he means but Christ's Body in Heaven having a relation to a Communicant on Earth in some effect and blessing Add to these what he saith p. 120 121 That we under the Sacrament of Bread and Wine receive Christ's Body no more really than the Israelites did in the Manna Rock Cloud c. both in a divers Sacrament saith he but in all the same reallity whatsoever we the same they did eat Surely this then argues only a virtual presence thereof not a substantial because Christ's Body or Flesh was not then as yet assum'd See likewise p. 276 277. See p. 7. where he quotes the
evidence either from Scripture or Reason before things were yet fully discuss'd and determin'd by the Church Therefore neither need I undertake here a Confutation of those Arguments that are brought out of Fathers or ancient Lyturgies against Transubstantiation in which the Bread is affirm'd to remain after Consecration if these also be not against or do establish Consubstantiation or at least a substantial presence some other way of Christ's Body to the symbols either Bread or the species of Bread presently upon Prayer or Consecration of these Elements Which thing were it once granted by the second Opinion the necessary consequents thereof with reference to practice of which more anon are such that the contests between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation would quickly vanish Now I think it will appear that many of those most evident authorities that are urg'd against Transubstantiation yet confirm Consubstantiation and so destroy as well the Tenent as of the fourth so of those of the first and second Opinion who use them against the fourth As for example The comparing of the Incarnation and the Eucharist i.e. the being of the Bread together with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament as of the Humane Nature with the Divine in the Incarnation against Eutyches about the time of Conc. Chalcedon tho the same comparison before Eutyches is made by Justin Martyr and that in confession of this great mystery to a Heathen Emperor as it seems to make against a change of the Bread so to confirm the substantial and real presence of Christ's Body with the Bread. § XIX To name some particulars 1. That noted place of Theodoret in Eranist Dial. 2. p. 87. not fully set down by Dr. Taylor 1 p. 321. runs thus as you fin it also quoted fully in Blondel esclaircissement sur l' Eucharistie p. 59. Eran. the Eutychian Qui appellas donum quod offertur ante sacerdotis invocationem Orthod Cibum ex talibus seminibus Eran. post sanctificationem vero quomodo haec apellas Orthod Corpus Christi sanguinem Christi Eran. Et credis te corpus Christi sanguinem percipere Orthod Ita credo Eran. Sicut ergo symbola Dominici corporis sanguinis alia sunt ante sacerdotis invocationem post invocationem vero mutantur alia funt ita Dominicum corpus post ascensionem in Divinam substantiam mutatum est Orth. Retibus quae ipse texuisti captus es Neque enim signa mystica per sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura manent enim in priori substantia figura forma videri tangi possunt sicut prius Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt creduntur adorantur ut quae illa sint quae creduntur Confer igitur imaginem cum archetypo videbis simil tudinem Illud enim corpus i. e. post ascensionem priorem habet formam circumscriptionem ut semel dicam corporis substantiam Immortale autem post resurrectionem immune a corruptione factum est sedemque a dextris adeptum ab omni creatura adoratur quia Domini-naturae corpus appellatur Here the later part which is omitted by Dr. Taylor shews Theodoret to believe the consecrated Elements to contain and someway to be made Christ's Body as well as to remain what they were formerly and to be ador'd as being indeed what they are believ'd to be Which adoration I hope cannot be due to Bread. Theodoret therefore at the least held Consubstantiation But had Theodoret not held Christ's Body present with the Bread instead of the later part intelliguntur c. he might more readily have destroy'd the Supposition of the Eutychians namely the mutation of Bread into the Body of Christ in denying Christ's Body to be there at all either with or instead of the Bread. Besides this the Doctor joins another place out of Dial. 1. p. 18. On which having not quoted the words perfectly he descants thus the words are not capable of an answer if we observe that he saith there is no change made but only Grace superadded in all things else the things are the same Thus he But the passage in the Author is this Orthod Salvator noster nomina permutavit corpori quidem id quod erat symboli nomen imposuit symbolo vero quod erat corporis Eran. Vellem permutationis nominum causam ediscere Orthod Manifestus est scopus iis qui Divinis mysteriis sunt initiati Volebat enim eos qui Divinis mysteriis participant non attendere naturam eorum quae cernuntur sed per nominum mutationem mutationi quae ex gratia facta est fidem adhibere Qui enim corpus naturale frumentum Jo. 12.24 panem Jo. 6. apellavit vitem rursus seipsum nominavit is visibilia symbola corporis sanguinis appellatione honoravit non naturam mutans sed naturae gratiam addens Where the Author plainly affirms a change tho not of the nature of the Bread yet in the Sacrament upon Consecration mutationi fidem adhibere namely by Christ's Body then being there and as there Ador'd And for his not speaking more plainly of the manner thereof in the first Dialogue he saith Mystice mystica dicta sunt And in the second Aperte dicendum non est veri simile est enim adesse aliquos mysteriis non initiatos All therefore that Theodoret saith consists well with Consubstantiation and necessarily includes a real presence But neither do I see that which Dr. Taylor much presseth p. 322. That Theodoret's answer suppos'd to speak in the sense of the Transubstantialists of the properties only would have been insufficient since they also affirm naturam symbolorum externorum panis non mutari eo modo in Eucharistia esse duas naturas impermixtas Whereas the Eutychian asserted our Saviour to have Flesh only in Apparition and devoid of all the properties thereof Nasci enim pati mori indignum esse Deo. But suppose the Eutychian still press'd the substance of the Flesh at least to be chang'd as that of Bread in the Eucharist yet if there were a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist I hope it will not follow necessarily that there must be one too in the Incarnation as Dr. Taylor p. 320. would make men afraid unless there be also Revelation of the one as well as of the other for a potentia ad actum is no good arguing And for the potentia too it follows not If that one Creature may be chang'd into another therefore a Creature may be chang'd into the Creator or e contra i. e. Christ's Humanity into his Divinity Thus much for Theodoret. 2. Concerning that of Gelasius quoted by Dr. Taylor p. 324. That the Sacraments of the Body c. are a Divine-thing yet cease not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine In the same place the same Author saith mutari Panem Spiritu Sancto perficiente in substantiam Divinam And see him by
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.
33. I proceed to confirm it And this 1. Their firming change of elements to Christ body First from that usual prayer in the consecration of these elements in all Liturgies and Missals of the antiquity of which anon ut Deus Spiritu suo dona sanctificet faciatque ea corpus sanguinem Filii sui Blondel p. 469 confesseth this phrase not only in the modern forms but in all the other ancient Liturgies c. 21. yet is this phrase laid aside in the forms of the Reformation Instead of which our English hath these words Hear us O Merciful Father and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine according to thy Son our Saviour's holy Institution in remembrance of his death and passion may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood c. but no prayer that those elements may be made his body and blood And from those ordinary expressions in the Fathers whereby is signified not only the real body and blood of Christ to be received in the action or communication of the Sacrament but the bread and wine to be to be made to be changed into of them to be made Christ's body and blood not by the virtue of worthy receiving but by the virtue of the consecration preceding the receiving quae fit Dominicis verbis therefore these in no Liturgy omitted invocatione Divini nominis See many of these expressions in Blondel 4. c. 4 5 6 7 propos and Cassand consult art 10. The Fathers calling the Eucharist Christ's body when in altari when in manibus Sacerdotis hoc ipsum corpus Magi habuerunt in praesepi nos in altari illi in ulnis Mulieris nos in manibus Sacerdotis c. Chrysost which shews that what presence they held of Christ's body in the Sacrament they held it ante usum with the consecrated elements and not only with the worthy receiver These two expressions to be reverenced for antiquity I find in S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch An. Dom. 71. his Epistles I mean those Epistles free from the paraphrase allowed by Archbishop Usher and Dr. Hammond one in Ep. ad Philadelphicos Si quis schisma facientem sequitur regnum Dei non haereditat Stude igitur una Eucharistia uti una enim curo Domini nostri Jesu Christi unus calix in unionem sanguinis ipsius unum altare unus Episcopus cum Presbyteris c. the other in Ep. ad Smyrnaeos Quid enim juvat me quis si me laudat Dominum antem meum blasphemat non confitens ipsum carniferum who said also secundum videri ipsum passum esse before this afterward it follows ab Eucharistia oratione recedunt Theodoret dial 3. quotes it oblatione recedunt propter non confiteri Eucharistiam carnem esse Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi pro peccatis nostris passam quam benignitate Pater resuscitavit Contradicentes ergo huic dono Dei perscrutantes moriuntur conferens autem esset ipsis diligere ut resurgant Secondly From their affirming such a change of the elements as was miraculous miraculous in such a manner as that after the words of Consecration with made of or instead of the substance of the Bread c. is the substance of the Body of Christ that Body which was born of the B. Virgin Some of them at least affirming it such a change as that the substance or nature of Bread ceaseth to be and saying that our senses for this matter were not to be trusted in whom are found also some of the modern phrases of the Catholicks and Schoolmen I will set you down some of them Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum c. non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit Quare cum omni certitudine corpus sanguinem Christi sumamus Nam sub specie panis datur ibi corpus sub specie vini datur sanguis Cyril Hieros Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur natura i.e. of the Bread and Wine sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere quod non erat non potest is quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant Non minus est novas rebus dare quam mutare naturas Ambr. Sermo Christi immutat quando vult instituta naturae applied to the Eucharist as if something in Nature is there chang'd Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. Haec tribuit virtute benedictionis in corpus suum rerum quae videntur i.e. panis vini naturam mutans Greg. Nyss Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis verbo suo secreta potestate immutat Ante quam invocatione sui nominis consecretur substantia illic est panis vini post verbum autem Christi corpus sanguis est Christi Quid mirum autem si ea quae verbo creare potuit possit creata convertere c. Caesarius Arelat quoted by Blondel p. 69. Ne ergo consideres tanquam nudum panem nudum vinum est enim corpus sanguis Christi secundum ipsius Domini verba quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit tamen fides te confirmet ne ex gustu rem judices Hoc sciens pro certissimo habens panem hunc qui videtur a nobis non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat sed esse corpus Christi c. Cyr. Hier. Carech 4. Mystag Here observe that the presence of Christ's Body is applied not only to the Receiver but to the Elements else why should the Fathers press the mistakes and errors of sense about the Elements For what Protestant warns his Scholars of a fallacy of their senses in the Eucharist Chrysost in Mat. Hom. 83. Credamus ubique Deo nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit quoniam ergo ille dixit Hoc est corpus meum c. Num vides panem num vinum num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt absit ne cogites quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur nihil substantiae remanet nihil superfluit sic hic puta mysteria consumi corporis substantia Chrys Hom. de Euch. in Encoeniis Forte dicas aliud video quomodo tu mihi asseris quod Christi corpus accipiam quantis probamus exemplis c. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi Ambr. Besides these methinks two passages in Dr. Taylors Book tho not urg'd by him to such a purpose one p. 320. of the Eutychians using this principle or argument now all proof proceeds a notiori ad minus notum that in the Sacrament the Bread was changed into Christ's Body to prove that so the Human Nature might be into the Divine And another p. 343. of Averroes his saying That the Christians Eat their God Do shew that a
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
Fathers to have held a substantial presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments 1. Concerning the change of the Elements into Christs Body something is said both by Mr. Blondel and Dr. Taylor and others but what seems to me no ways satisfactory To the first second and third they say but I would wish you to peruse their own Books lest their Answers may receive some wrong by my relation or something in them more considerable be omitted by me they say then that where the Fathers say 1. That the Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ 2. That of the Bread by Consecration it made the Body of Christ 3. That after Consecration it ceaseth to be Bread. 4. Or That it is not only Bread. 5. That the Nature and Substance of Bread by Consecration is chang'd into Christs Body c. they mean α only 1. Is a sign or Sacrament of Christ's Body or his Body in Sacrament or as Dr. Taylor p. 266 the Bread is verily the Body of Christ truly his Flesh and the Wine truly his Blood How by a change of condition of sanctification and usage 2. That of Bread is made the Sacrament of his Body 3. That it ceaseth to be Bread i. e. common Bread. 4. That it is not only Bread by reason of the Grace of Consecration added to its nature 5. That the nature of it is chang'd from simple Bread to pain benit or Sacramental Bread and that it acquires a new essence i.e. the essence of a Sacrament See such solutions in Blondel p. 64. c. in his Margin and p. 222 224. So in his Explication of the Canon of the Mass p. 452. See likewise p. 470. where it petitions ut oblatio fiat nobis corpus sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi he expoundeth Corps c. en Sacrement Again where it ut quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus sanguinem sumpserimus c. he interprets prendrons le Sacrament du sacro-sainct corps de ton fils qui est ce mesme sacro-sainct corps en representation signification where note also that he holds not any substantial presence of Christ's Body to the worthy Receiver in which thing those of the second Opinion I think will not consent to him Lastly they say That by change of the Elements the Fathers mean no more than an accidental Sacramental conversion a change of condition of sanctification and usage and efficacy as a Table by consecration is chang'd into an Altar a House into a Church a Man into a Priest as the Water of the River into the Laver of Regeneration See this in Dr. Taylor p. 270. and the like in Blondel p. 472. Bref par tout ce pain est apellê sainct de mesme que le calice la table la palatine sont apeller saincts Ascavoir entant qu'ils servent a une usage sainct c. without any presence of Christs Body either to them or instead of them See Blond p. 156 157 174 c. Taylor p. 266. Now tho as it appears I think above the expressions of the Fathers for such a change of the symbols as that after Consecration the substance of Christs Body is there with them are so full as 't is hard to say such a thing more plainly than they do Yet that they are not in such a sense to be understood they urge many things B First That we must not interpret them so as to make them contradict themselves or one another See Blond p. 158 232. Then they shew that the same Fathers that use these high expressions yet cease not to call the Elements even after Consecration images figures types similitudes signs sacraments of the Body c. representations memorials exemplars symbols Corpustypicum symbolicum mysticum See many more Blond c. 4. prop. 8. and Taylor p. 313. p. 290. where that expression of Tertullian is much stood upon adv Marcion l. 4. c. 40. Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum indignum enim fuit ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus acceptum panem distributum discipulis corpus suum illum fecit Hoc est corpus meum dicendo id est figura corporis mei Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus Caeterum vacua res quod est phantasma as Marcion contended Christs Body was figuram capere non posset and say that they are Christs Body not proprie but aliquo modo c. γ Now idem non est simile the sign can't be the very thing signified by the sign nor the type figure the prototype or the truth See Tayl. p. 318. Blond 207.210 δ Especially these places of S. Austin are much insisted on by them 23. Ep. ad Bonifacium Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum quarum Sacramenta sunt non haberent omnino Sacramenta non essent Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est ita Sacramentum fidei i. e. Baptism fides est Sicut de ipso Baptismo Apostolus Consepulti inquit sumus Christo per Baptismum in mortem non ait sepulturam significamus sed prorsus ait consepalti sumus Sacramentum ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupatur So in Psal 33. Concio 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo cum diceret Hoc est corpus meum ζ. In Psal 98. upon those words in St. John Verba quae locutus sum vobis spiritus est vita Spiritualiter intelligite quod locutus sum non hoc corpus quod videtis manducatisri estis bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt qui me crucifigent Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi De doctrina Christiana 3. l. 16. c. Si praeceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens non est figurata si autem slagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit carnem filii hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis Flagitium vel facinus videtur jubere figura est ergo praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa vulnerata sit η To these they add some other places of St. Austin wherein he saith the unworthy Communicants receive the Sacrament of Christ's body but not his Body which argues the body at least not present with the Symbols Such that tract 26. in Johan Qui non
manet in Christo in quo non manet Christus proculdubio nâ—c manducat Spiritualiter in my book carnem ejus nec bibit ejus sanguinem licet carnaliter visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis sanguinis Christi sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat And tract 59. where he saith of the Apostles and Judas Illi manducabant panem Dominum ille panem Domini contra Dominum I find likewise urged by some two places out of Chrysostom One out of 20. Hom. in 2. Corinth that he there prefers the poor as being reipsa or ipsummet corpus Christi before the Sacrament or corpus Christi in Altari but searching the place I find and so may any that please to peruse it the comparison not to be at all between the poor and corpus Christi in altari but between the poor and altare quia capit corpus Christi Another out of 11. Hom. in Matth. of the opus imperfectum where it is said vasa sanctificata c in quibus non verum corpus Christi sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur Words plain enough but none of S. Chrysostom's See Bell de Euch. 2. l. 22. c. and Erasmus his Preface to that work To which Dr. Tailor's reply p. 308. no way satisfies me it not following that because they happen to be inserted among S. Chrysostom's works therefore he must be esteemed a good Catholick that writ them which rule should it generally pass the Protestants would have much the worse by it There are urged also by them two places out of the same book of S. Ambrose which here we have made much use of against their tenent The one place de Sacr. 4. l. 4. c. Vinum aqua in calicem mittitur sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi coelestis i.e. by the words Hoc est corpus meum pronounced by the Priest Sed forte dices Speciem sanguinis non video Sed habet similitudinem Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti i. e. in not seeing any crucifixion of him in the Sacrament ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis ut nullus horror cruoris sit pretium tamen operetur redemptionis The other places 6. l. 1. c. where the Father makes a recapitulation of things formerly said Sicut verus est Dei Filius ita vera caro quam accepimus Forte dicas quomodo vera qui similitudinem video non video sanguinis veritatem Primo dixi tibi de sermone Christi i. e. the words of Consecration Hoc est c. qui operatur ut possit mutare convertere generalia instituta naturae Deinde ubi non tulerunt sermonem Christi discipuli ejus Jo. 6.52 How can this man give us his flesh to eat ne igitur plures hoc dicerent veluti quidam esset horror cruoris sed maneret gratia redemptionis ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis Sacramenta sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris Ï‘. These things they strengthen with the Conc. Constant under Constant. Copronymus calling the Eucharist the Image of Christ's Body and Christ's Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 see Tail. p. 313. Blond p. 378. c. and with the inference of the 2. Conc. Nice in their refuting the Constant Conc. where they say Demittentes quidem mendacium quadantenus veritatem contingunt confessi divinum fieri corpus panem â— At si imago corporis est non potest sane fieri divinum Corpus urged by Mr. Blondel p. 385. therefore The Fathers likewise making it imago figura c. by this deny it to be Corpus Divinum λ Again with the Form of the Canon of the Mass which they say plainly makes for them against substantial Conversion μ For in it both before the words of Consecration there is an Oblation made of the Elements and that pro Ecclesia Catholica pro peccatis c. See that Prayer Suscipe sacrosancte Pater and Te igitur clementissime Pater both before the Consecration not to be denied saith Bellarmine veteres Patres passim idem tradunt saith he i. e. that the Creatures of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are offer'd to God see him de Missa l. 1. c. 27. and there they are call'd dona sancta sacrificia illibata c. â— And likewise some of those Expressions and Forms of Oblation which are made after Consecration in the Roman Canon are put before it in some other Liturgies ξ Again after the Consecration many expressions are found in the Roman Canon no way suting to the presence of Christs real Body As the praying that God would accept these Offerings i. e. accept of his Son say the Romanists as if he were at any time not acceptable accept them as he did that of Abel's Abraham's Melchisedech's Sacrifices saith Blond on bruts on inanimez a fit comparison to Christ his Son That God would command them perferri per manus St. Angeli tui in sublime Altare suum in conspectu c. i. e. the Body of our Saviour to Heaven where it is continually And in other Liturgies as that of St. James they being call'd Bread and Wine and the Fruits of the Earth after Consecration and particularly in that Form set down in the Apost Const l. 8. c. 17. where after the words of Institution rehears'd by which words they are suppos'd to be Consecrated it follows Rogamusque Te ut benigne respicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo complaceas tibi in ipsis in honorem Christi tui Et mittas S. Spiritum super hoc sacrificium testem passionis Domini Jesu ut ostendat hunc Panem Corpus Christi Tui hunc Calicem Sanguinem Christi Tui ut qui eum percipiunt c. See much more to this purpose in Blondel from p. 454 to 467. § XXII Secondly For the miraculous instances by which the Fathers use to illustrate the change of the Bread into the Body of Christ Mr. Blondel p. 315 Concerning the miraculousness of changes seems to deny the Fathers to have acknowledg'd any miracle at all in the Eucharist saying ou est le Pere qui dit que les symboles soyent changes miraculeusement which I am astonisht at and the rather when presently after he saith that Chrysostom and others on t considerê l' Eucharistie comme un object plein des merveilles and then he urgeth Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10. as if that he denied all miracle in the Eucharist I look'd diligently upon the place and I found nothing at all there advantageous for Mr. Blondel to this purpose St. Austin falls into a discourse there that there are several things de materia corporali quae tamen ad aliquid divinitus annuntiandum nostris sensibus admoventur And these either natural where amongst others he instances in Jacob's Stone which he Consecrated Or
which are made by Men and these vel aliquantulum mansura sicut potuit Serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in Eremo vel peracto ministerio transitura sicut panis ad hoc factus in accipiendo sacramento consumitur Then adds he sed quia haec omnibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt as the brazen Serpent and the Bread used in the Sacrament are things made by Man honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere stuporem tanquam mira non possunt he goes on itaque illa quae per Angelos fiunt quo ignotiora eo mirabiliora sunt nobis c. All he saith then is That the Bread or brazen Serpent have no wonder in the substance or matter of them for men make them both Now who affirms any miracle in any thing that is visible in the Eucharist The miracle is in that which is invisible the presence of Christ's Body with the signs But could any justly argue from hence That the Cure of the Man by looking on the Serpentine figure of Brass was not miraculous because St. Austin says the Brass or Figure shapen by Man had nothing miraculous in it but was known and ordinary Having clear'd this passage of Mr. Blondels now to go on I say for those miraculous instances they endeavour to qualifie the matter in saying â— That some of them are only accidental mutations not substantial as the bringing Water out of the Rock by Moses Fire from Heaven by Elijah Iron made to Swim on the Water by Elisha c. See Mr. Blondel p. 165. Ï Or becoming new creatures and members of Christ by Regeneration a comparison in the Fathers which the Reformed make much use of see Blond p. 100. But if you still press upon them the miraculousness of these mutations tho accidental they answer σ That some of those instances argue another or greater change than any party will allow of in the Eucharist and what proves too much proves nothing See Taylor p. 347. 274. 278. Ï„ That the effect produced by the instrumency or upon the receipt of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist is miraculous and no way proportioned to the natural qualities of them as also the efficacy of the water of Baptism and the real mutation which it causeth in the soul is supernatural ν And lastly that some of the same miraculous mutations are applied to Baptism for which chiefly a passage in Ambrose de Sacram. 2. l. 3. c. is quoted and other sacramentals or rituals of the Church which Sacramentals the Fathers also illustrate by the change made in the Eucharist and affirm such change to be in the one as in the other See for this Blond p. 165. 316. 101. c. Tail. p. 276. See Calvin Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 14. s Patres hic quoque i.e. in Baptism mirificam conversionem statuunt cum dicunt ex corruptibili elemento fieri spirituale animae lavacrum See Daille's first Reply to Chaumont p. 30. c. Ï Add to these that it may be said that the second Opinion in affirming the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body to every worthy receiver affirms a most miraculous effect in the Eucharist tho this not having any reference to the signs and therefore seems to concur with these testimonies of the Fathers as professing in the Eucharist a work of God's Omnipotency χ. As to the third that of the Fathers using and offering the Eucharist before communicating as a Sacrifice c. § XXIII I do not remember that Dr. Tailor takes much notice of it Concerning a Sacrifice but Mr. Blondel saith 4. c. 9. prop. that they celebrated or offered it only as a memorial image representation antitype of the Sacrifice upon the Cross and then heaps up many testimonies where the Fathers call it by these and the like names § XXIV To the 4th Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament and that before communicating Concerning Adoration which seems to pinch closer than any of the rest I find them to say little or nothing with any close application to the testimonies brought out of the ancients 1. In general they say Christ may be worshipped when we receive the Eucharist or Symbols of his Body for which practice Daille in the Reply to Chaumont quotes and allows of the Church of England but Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven not as in his body there present See Calvin de Christianae pacificationis ratione p. 50. Fateor certe Christum ubicunque simus esse adorandum in coena vero cum se nobis fruendum offerat rite aliter recipi nequit quam si adoretur Sed hoc quaeritur sursumne an deorsum respiciat nostra adoratio Quum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa ab ipso discedit And Instit 4. l. 17. c. 37. s. In coena adoratio ea est legitima quae non in signo residet sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur To the same purpose writes Dr. Taylor p. 343. and quotes St. Austin as speaking of such Adoration So Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry 67. s. Our Church adores Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in which certainly Christ is not Christ's body locally present under the shape of the Elements Thus he But this worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament as it signifies an action in the end of the Section is explained to be only this That we in that time and place when and where he is eminently represented by the Priest and offered to God for us i.e. rerepresentatively do worship him i. e. as being according to his humane nature only in heaven See 66. s. But I find some expressions in some of them when shaping answers to the Fathers tho I do not well understand them therefore I shall set you down their own words as if they did allow of something more namely of adoring Christ as someway there present present both to the worthy receiver and to the Mysteries or Symbols Of which Dr. Taylor thus-in answer to that saying of Ambrose Adorate scabellum c. Per Scabellum terra intelligitur per terram caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt We worship c. saith the Doctor for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our soul the flesh and blood of Christ So that we worship it he means the body or the flesh of Christ in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his Body but we give no divine honour to the signs And thus Daille 2d Reply to Chaumont p. 29. in answer to the places of the Fathers I l ' y a une enorme difference entre adorer le Sacrament adorer Jesus Christ au Sacrament ou es mysteres Le second signifie ou Adorer Jesus Christ en communiant a son Sacrement ce
Junius thinks it is an interrogation rather referring to Infanticidium Apol. c. 7. And that de Idol c. 7. Semel Judaei Christo manus intulerunt isti quotidie corpus ejus lacessunt speaking of the Eucharist And that adv Marcion l. 1. c. 14. At ille quidem i. e. Christus nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris c. nec panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat i. e. praesentem reddit if we may interpret it by the same sense of the word in l. 4. c. 22. Itaque jam repraesentans eum i. e. Deus Christum Hic est Filius meus utique subauditur quem repromisi repraesentans i. e. praesentans To γ How the same in some sense may be said to be like or unlike it self see before But there being two things in the Sacrament and something remaining after Consecration which is not the Body of Christ but the Symbol thereof c. None say that Christ's Body in the Eucharist is the Image or sign figure or similitude of it self as in the Eucharist But either that the Symbols are signs figures c. of the Body or the Body as in the Eucharist a figure c. of the same Body as Crucified To δ that S. Austin held a real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist those of the second opinion I think will not deny That he held this its presence in the Eucharist to be with the symbols also before communicating I think is clear from his other sayings quoted p. 38 c. The words immediately before those here quoted are Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur nec ubique mentitur qui interrogatus eum responderit immolari Si enim Sacramenta c. From this it seems plain that St. Austin speaks of the Eucharist as signifying Christ's immolation on the Cross and so t is rightly said not properly but secundum quendam modum or quodammodo the Body of Christ as the Body was in that manner existent And thus Paschasius answered this place above 800 years ago But it is capable also of another answer and so some other places like it That by Sacramentum S. Austin there means the symbols That corpus Christi may be predicated quodammodo of the sign thereof whether it be the substance or only the species of the bread namely after such a manner as the Consubstantialists say Hic panis est corpus meum And thus Algerus answered this place against Berengarius before any Council had decreed Transubstantiation Lastly S. Austin instanceth in Baptism that the Apostle saith in it consepulti sumus because Baptismus sepulturam significabat but none may lawfully conclude from hence that S. Austin held Baptism only to signifie grace and not to confer it neither therefore may he that the Sacrament of the Eucharist only signified Christ's Body To ζ 1. The place in Psalm 98. Since S. Austin speaks here of eating it all those who hold the worthy receiver to partake and eat that very substantial body which suffered for them upon the cross can make no use of this place Now for this I must remember you again of Calvin's expression Neque enim mortis suae tantum beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est And see what Dr. Tailor saith p. 20. 2. Note that S. Austin elsewhere as in Psalm 33. upon those words Accedite ad eum illuminemmi and contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. saith as plainly the seeming-contrary to this Judaei de crucifixo tenebrati sunt nos manducando bibendo crucifixum illuminamur Et nunc bibimus quod de Christi latere manavit 3. In the very same 98. Psal are those words quoted before Nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit which shews either Christ's very flesh in the Eucharist or adoration of another creature for the flesh of Christ 4. I see no reason why that old answer may not pass given long since against Berengarius quoting this place Non idem corpus i.e. in propria sua specie accompanied with the natural qualities of flesh and blood Non in specie mortali visibili ut aderat tunc praesens discipulis suis sed alio modo impassibiliter invisibiliter se habens Neither doth Daille's Reply in his 2d answer to Chaumont p. 45. move me that when corn is first sown and cared and threshed and so ground and moulded into bread we may with the same reason maintain that the eater of this bread eats not the same corn that was threshed c because it s now changed in its qualities because this alteration about our Saviour's body as it is invisible impassible c in the Eucharist is much more strange than that he instanceth in But that all such expressions as we make this to be are not improper see the Apostles 1 Cor. 15.37 Thou sowest not that body that shall be i. e. with such and such qualities and ornaments as it shall come up tho it shall be idem numero corpus in the resurrection and so flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven tho flesh otherwise qualified shall inherit it for our Saviour's glorified body had flesh and bone Luk-24 39 And see St. Austin's discourse upon these places Ep. 146. where to reconcile caro possidebit and caro non possidebit c he saith caro secundum substantiam possidebit caro autem cum secundum corruptionem intelligitur non possidebit And so for the wheat sown Non quod triticum saith he non erit ex tritico sed quod nemo seminat herbam stipulam c cum quibus ista semina exurgunt 5. Lastly the same phrases are found in other Fathers whose opinion perhaps is more clear than S. Austins that the same body that was crucified is in the Sacrament received as in S. Ambrose comment in Luc. l. 8. urged by Daille 2d Rep. to Chaum p. 331. and in S. Hierom. in Ephes 1. cap. where he thus on 7. verse Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi caro intelligitur Spiritualis illa atque divina de qua ipse dixit Caro mea vere est cibus sanguis meus vere est potus nisi manducaveritis carnem meam sanguinem biberitis non babebitis vitam aeternam vel caro sanguis quae crucifixa est qui militis effusus est lancea Juxta hanc divisionem in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis carnis accipitur ut alia sit caro quae visura est salutare Dei alia caro sanguis quae regnum Dei non queant possidere But here he means alia in quality only as is shewed before This distinction of Christ's flesh in S. Hierom Dr. Tailor qualifies thus p. 10. That Body which was crucified is not that Body which 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 is the same we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating the same answer the Doctor gives here I conceive fits this place of S. Austin To the place de doct Christiana flagitium or facinus can appear only in the Capernaitan conceit of eating it as I mentioned but now in the answer given to the last place urged by Berengarius in propriasua specie as accompanied c. see p. Therefore the Father meaneth only that the text was not so to be understood But supposing that it is indeed Christ's very body we receive in the Eucharist yet what flagitium what horror can any apprehend in it as he receives it after another manner of being impassibiliter invisibiliter se habens under the visible species only of bread and wine As for that the Father saith afterward that the locution is figurata and inculcates only a memorial of the Passion c. it is very true tho Christ's very Body that suffered on the Cross be granted to be present also in the Eucharist because it is not in the same manner present and in its Eucharistical presence relates to the other for which see what is said that I may not often repeat the same things before in the 2d Observation p. _____ and below of the sacrifice of the Eucharist being a representative or commemorative in respect of that of the Cross p. _____ yet in this place S. Austin seems to speak not of the manducation of Christ's body made more particularly in the Eucharist but extrasacramental and in general as by faith it may and is to be done at all times by us in a spiritual manner and as our Saviour's auditors might have eaten it at that very time when he made this Sermon to them Therefore it is worth the marking that what in some verses of this Chapter he expresseth by feeding in others he promiscuously denoteth by believing on him See Jo. 6.35 40 47 64 compared with 50 53 54 57. To these places that follow quoted out of S. Ambrose I answer to the first That there are two ways to understand similitudo sanguinis or cruoris either similitudo non cruor or veritas cruoris or similitudo non species or exterior apparentia cruoris lest there should so arise some horror from it Now that the Father opposeth not the similitudo to exclude cruor or veritatem cruoris his assertion before puts out of doubt vinum aqua fit sanguis Christi and sanguis not in figura or sacramento but verus sanguis as appears in the latter place quoted Which assertion occasions the objection His meaning therefore is Bibimus similitudinem c ne sit horror sed sub qua similitudine continetur licet non videatur veritas To the 2d place vere naturae gratia virtus may be understood either virtus gratia sanguinis either simul cum natura sanguinis or sine natura sanguinis But if it be taken this latter way then the Father after such high expressions will be made to assert in earnest no more than a Zuinglian and this interpretation will never consist with what goes before vera caro veritas sanguinis sicut verus Filius sermo Christi mutans generalia Instituta naturae upon which an objection being raised non video sanguinis veritatem therefore there seems to be there in the Cup no such thing he that makes the Father to deny under similitudo veritatem sanguinis makes him in his answer to grant the objection and reverse his former positions To η I will first set you down for an allay some other places in S. Austin expressing carnem sanguinem Domini to be received by the unworthy and then you will better digest the common answer to these places Contra Donatistas 5. l. 8. c. To illustrate against them that Is nullo modo facit ut Baptismus bonus non sit aut ut omnino Baptismus non sit quisquis eo sive quia in haeresi sive quia in pessimis moribus vivit non legitime utitur he brings in a simile from the Eucharist Indigne quisque sumens Dominicum Sacramentum non efficit ut quia ipse malus est malum sit aut quia non ad salutem accipit nihil acceperit Corpus enim Domini sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis quibus dicebat Apostolus Qui manducat indigne judicium sibi manducat bibit In Matt. 11. Sermon upon those words Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum non habebit remissionem in aeternum to illustrate Christum non intendisse omnem sed quendam blasphemantis in Sp. S. reatum he brings that saying Jo. 6. Qui manducat meam carnem c. in me manet Upon which Nunquid saith he etiam illos hic poterimus accipere de quibus dicit Apostolus quod judicium sibi manducent bibant cum ipsam carnem manducent ipsum sanguinem bibant c. Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem c. quomodo qui manducaverit in Christo manet quem modum utique ipse Christus videbat quando ista dicebat Sic igitur in eo quod ait Qui blasphemaverit 162. Epist against the Donatists Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos quod fideles noverunt pretium nostrum Et. 163. Traditorem suum qui jam pretium ejus acceperat usque ad ultimum pacis osculum inter innocentes secum esse perpessus est Lastly see those quotations p. 10 11 and especially that where he saith â—ivites terrae i.e. superbos accipere de corpore sanguine Christi adorare manducare c and this adorare is such as he allows to no other creature as you may see in his discourse upon adorate scabellum which adoration also being before manducarion it sufficiently inferreth S. Austin's belief of the presence of Christ's body with the symbols before communicated This qualification premised the common distinction in answer which was given of old before any Conciliary decree concerning Transubstantiation and also is set down in Conc. Trid. 13. Sess 8. c. is this Quosdam accipere Christi corpus Sacramentaliter tantum as the unworthy receivers yet in which Sacramental sumption is the true body of Christ tho not the fruit and efficacy and benefit thereof as to them that received but hurt and judgment as the same good nourishment is received by the sick and healthful stomach but as the one is fed the other is damag'd by it quosdam Spiritualiter tantum qui voto illum coelestem panem edentes fide viva quae per dilectionem operatur fructum ejus utilitatem sentiunt quosdam Sacramentaliter simul Spiritualiter as the worthy receivers of it who by the Sacramental reception as well as Spiritual
partake more the virtue thereof than the only Spiritual receivers but of this more anon as also the wicked incur more judgment by their unworthy reception of it than were it only of the bare representative thereof they thus being in a higher manner rei corporis Christi in the Apostle's expression 1 Cor. 9. Now S. Austin means non manducant corpus Domini Spiritualiter But if it seem still to some S. Austin's opinion that the wicked do no way at all receive the very body but only the sacrament thereof as understood only as representing it Yet I see not with submission to better judgments that it must necessarily infer that he held not Christ's true body's being before present with the symbols and offered to the wicked but only it by ceasing to be there for his body is only voluntarily present and perhaps only in such cases as this may desinere ibi esse sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat not to be received at all by the wicked as many hold it not to be devoured together with the consecrated elements by beasts c neither in specie propria nor aliena See before And Estius gives it the place of an argument 4. sent 9. distinct 3. sect Peccator magis est Deo abominabilis quam animal brutum multo minus igitur peccator sumit Christi corpus To answer which he holds the opinion contrary to the others namely that a brutis animalibus etiam sumitur non secundum propriam speciem sed secundum species Sacramentales And see Dr. Field Append. to the 3d. book 17 18. c. quoting out of Waldensis Tom. 2. de Euchar. 19. c. That many who affirmed the bread to be changed into Christ's body yet held when unworthy men came to communicate the body and blood of Christ to cease to be present and when a wicked man is to receive it the substances of bread and wine to return c why might not S. Austin's conceit be the same To ϑ besides that two Councils not long after one in the East another in the West opposed that of Constantinople in this matter of the Sacrament see hereafter I can say only this that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be taken in such a sense as that upon consecration the elements are not made divinum corpus or adoration not due to it For these two things that Council affirms as well as image and corpus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and for this the Council of Nice that followed said of those Fathers of Constantinople that huc illucque se jactantes inconstantia minime firma omnia sua dogmata asserunt But why may not Image here and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be opposed not to the verity of Christ's body in the Eucharist after some manner but only to its being there as formerly on earth that is after a natural manner for it is not in the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Eucharist so by other Fathers is called only an Image of it And why might not the Council of Nice mistake the sense of this Council in one point as well as Mr. Blond p. 411 grants that of Franckfort did misunderstand it in another To μ see what is said to γ To λ which seems more material than the rest with which I shall consider also χ their Reply to the 3d Consideration about Sacrifice First I say if there be found so much not only in the ancient Missals but those now used Concerning the Sacrifice of the Eucharist that makes against any substantial conversion of the elements into Christ's body and if the offering the Eucharist therein as a Sacrifice is only commemorative of that upon the Cross in which sense the Reformed also allow a Sacrifice without involving any special presence of Christ's body with the elements how comes it to pass that only the fourth opinion retains still the same forms for the things which are here objected that were used in St. Ambrose's days or if only used in the time of Gregory the Great yet then they grant there was yet no corruption in the doctrine concerning the Sacrament against whose modern tenents these formes make so much and that all the other three opinions have made new formes to themselves and rejected the old which they plead are so favourable unto them In doing which things Luther is said in the beginning of his book de abroganda Missa to object to himself Magnum est certe tot saeculorum consuetudini tantae multitudinis sensui tantorumque Authoritati reluctari Tu solus sapis totne errant universi tanta saecula erraverunt Again how can we more justifie their reverence to Antiquity than in this thing that they have not taken the boldness to correct or change or note in the daily and Publick Service what makes so much against their present opinions Now to come closer to the matter and to speak a little more fully 1. in answer to χ in what sense the Eucharist is now or was anciently used as a Sacrifice that that which follows may be more cleared by it and that you may see whether there may be so just cause for that clamor that is made against it as injurious and derogating from the Sacrifice upon the Cross § XXVI 1 First 'T is confess'd as by the Fathers The opinion of the Fathers concerning it so by those of the fourth Opinion That the Sacrifice made on the Cross is the only Sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away Sins and that there is no need of any more Sacrifice for Sin i. e. for making full satisfaction and paying the due debt for Sin that therefore the Sacrifice cannot nor need not to be iterated in this respect for then must Christ often have suffer'd c. see Heb. 9.25 26 28. see Heb. 10.10 12 14 18. That therefore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is no new or divers Sacrifice from that of the Cross no suplement or completement of it but only representative or commemorative of it applying see the manner more explain'd hereafter unto particular men the remission purchas'd thereby as also all other fruits and benefits thereof Which application as it is said to be obtain'd by Christ's present intercession now in Heaven by Faith by Prayer by the Sacraments c. in a several way without any suspition of a diminution or injury done thereby to the merits of the Passion so may it as safely be attributed to this continual Sacrifice of Christians the Eucharist For this see Conc. Trid. s. 22. c. 1. Dominum nostrum in coena novissima Dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibili sicut hominum natura exigit reliquisse sacrificium quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesentaretur ejusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret atque illius i. e. of the Sacrifice of the Cross salutaris virtus in remissionem
Ver. 44 45 46. p. 493 494. Yet more plainly from 1 Cor. 10.21 You cannot be partakers c. where these two Tables imply contrary Covenants now here the Table of Devils is so call'd because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to Devils see ver 20. whereby those that Eat thereof Eat of the Devil's Meat Therefore the Table of the Lord is likewise call'd his Table not because the Lord ordain'd it but because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to him in the same manner as the other of those Offer'd to the Devil p. 519. And therefore that he knows not why St. Paul Heb. 13.15 and St. Peter 1 Epist. 2.5 in the Sacrifices mention'd there may not be understood to speak of the solemn and publick Service of Christians wherein the Passion of Christ was Commemorated p. 487. 4. Lastly He allows all the benefits and effects whether propitiatory or impetratory by the Ancients attributed to this Sacrifice granting the Prayers of the Church to have been Offer'd to the Divine Majesty through Christ Commemorated in the Symbols of Bread and Wine as by a medium whereby to find acceptance and the representation of the Body of Christ in this Christian Service to have been rightly us'd as a Rite whereby to find Grace and Favour with God. Only the presence of Christ's real Body with the symbols in it he acknowledges not See p. 499 500 501. 5 The Fathers also affirm'd it to be and Offer'd it as a Saâ—rifice not only Eucharistical or Latrentical but also Expiatory or Propitiatory in the sense abovesaid for the Remission of Sins and Impetratory of all sorts of Benefits not only Spiritual but Temporal and both these for all persons according to their several capacities not only for those present receiving the Sacrament but for all those for whom this Oblation is made tho absent tho deceas'd In Euchristia sacramenti susceptio soli sumenti prodest ut autem est sacrificii consummatio prodest illis omnibus pro quibus oblatum est sacrificium For wherever they held Prayers beneficial they held this Oblation or Presentation to the Father of the Body and Blood and this solemn commemoration and repetition as it were of the precious Death of his dear Son for such persons much more as being the most effectual and moving kind of Petition that can be made to him And therefore remembrance of the absent or deceas'd at the Altar namely when this Sacrifice was Offer'd was more especially desir'd than in other ordinary Devotions Non ista mandavit nobis saith St. Austin of his Mother sed tantunmodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit Confess l. 9. c. 13. For this see if you please the Collections of Places in the Fathers in the Controvertists See Bellarm. de Missa l. 2. c. 2 3. See the quotations set down before See all the Liturgies unanimously according in this Form Offerimus tibi pro peccatis pro omnibus Fidelibus vivis atque defunctis pro Ecclesia Catholica c. pro pace pro copia fructuum c. See Bishop Forb de Euch. l. 3. c. 2. s 12. Sacrificium autem hoc coenae non solum propitiatorium esse pro peccatorum quae nobis quotidie committuntur remissione c. sed etiam impetratorium omnis generis beneficiorum c. licet scripturae diserte expresse non dicant Patres tamen unanimi consensu scripturas sic intellexerunt c. Liturgiae omnes veteres c. s 15. Nos inre certa clara diutius immorari nolumus 6 Lastly See Dr. Taylor in his Great Exemplar p. 3. dise 18. on the Sacrament sect 7. There he says The Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice as well as a Sacrament in both capacities the benefit next to infinite Whatsoever Christ did at the Institution the same he commanded the Church to do c. and Himself also doth the same things in Heaven for us c. There he sits an High-Priest continually and Offers still the same One perfect Sacrifice i. e. still represents it as having been once finish'd and consummate in order to perpetual and never-failing events And this also his Ministers do on Earth as all the effects of Grace were purchas'd for us on the Cross but are apply'd to us by Christ's intercession in Heaven so also they are promoted by acts of Duty c. that we by representing that Sacrifice may send up together with our Prayers an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation As Christ is a Priest in Heaven for ever and yet doth not Sacrifice himself afresh nor yet without a Sacrifice could he be a Priest but by a daily ministration and intercession represents his Sacrifice to God and offers himself as Sacrificed so he doth upon Earth by the Ministery of his Servants He is Offer'd to God i. e. he is by Prayers and the Sacrament represented or offer'd up to God as Sacrificed which in effect is applying of his Death to the present and future necessities of the Church c. It follows then that the Celebration of this Sacrifice be in its proportion an Instrument of applying of the proper Sacrifice to all the purposes which it first design'd It is ministerially and by application an instrument propitiatory it is Eucharistical it is an act of Homage and Adoration it is impetratory obtaining for the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice which is now apply'd c. And its profit is enlarg'd not only to the persons Celebrating but to all to whom they design it according to the nature of Sacrifices and Prayers and all such solemn Actions of Religion Thus much Dr. Taylor conformably to the judgment of the Church in all Ages and practice in her publick Liturgies See the same in Medes Diatrib upon Mal. 1.11 And 't is worth your labour to see the Alterations concerning this matter which have been lately made I suppose by some of the most prudent and learned Fathers of the English Church in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland tending much to the vindication of the use of the Eucharist by way of Sacrifice In the Prayer for the whole State of Christ's Church are put in these words We commend especially unto thy merciful Goodness the Congregation which is here Assembled in thy Name to Celebrate the Commemoration of the most precious Death and Sacrifice of thy Son c. Where and Sacrifice is added de novo But the rest of the words are found in the former Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. Again in the Prayer of Consecration whereas 't is said in all the former Liturgies to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious Death until his coming again 't is added here Death and Sacrifice until c. But chiefly after the Prayer of Consecration and before the administring of the Sacrament to the Communicants you may find interpos'd after the manner of the first Books of Edw. VI. a Prayer as it is there call'd of Oblation in which
hoc mystico sacrificio Cassand non tam tum peractae semel in cruce oblationis cujus hic memoria celebratur quam tum perpetui sacerdotii jugis sacrificii quod quotidie in coelis sempiternus Sacerdos offert rationem habuerant cujus hic imago per solennes ministrorum preces exprimitur Neither is there any more incongruity that Christ's true body and blood be here offered and yet this be done also in commemoration of his body offered upon the cross than that his real body which those of the second opinion maintain be here partaken of by the worthy receiver and yet this also done in commemoration of the same body given for us upon the cross See for the Fathers holding an oblation in the Eucharist of the true and real body of Christ the places quoted out of them before See likewise Bishop Forbes 3. l. 1. c. 10. s. Dicunt etiam saepissime Sancti Patres in Eucharistia offerri sacrificarripsum Christi corpus ut ex innumeris pene locis constat sed non proprie realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietatibus servatis sed per commemorationem sacrificii crucis Et per piam supplicationem qua Ecclesiae ministri propter unius illius sacrificii perpetuam victimam so they call Christ's body remaining still after sacrificed 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 corporis animi necessitates efficacem salutarem esse velit Where note also that either Bishop Forbes his opinion tho he opposeth Transubstantiation is That Christ's body is present with the symbols before communicating tho this is not so clearly professed by him in 1. l. 1. c. see the 7. sect there and rather the contrary intimated in 2. l. 2. c. 8 9. sect or else here he seems to contradict himself in these words especially in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem for this ceremony of oblation upon the table is before communicating To which add those words of his 3d. Book 2. c. 13. sect where Bishop White shewing how the Eucharist might be said to be a sacrifice here non solum ratione precum actionis gratiarum which is the common solution sed ratione Eucharistiae ipsius both quia elementa externa panis vini consecrantur ad Dommi cultum deputantur c and also quia corpus sanguis Christi praesentia animae fide pietate pastoris populi qui haec mysteria percipiunt Deo offeruntur sistuntur Bishop Forbes censures that expression with a nimis jejune hoc dictum but who will say more must affirm a presence of it with the symbols See likewise his quotation out of Nazianzen 2. l. 2. c. 8. s. See 1 book 1. c. 26. s. Christi corpus reale nobis cum pane exhibetur Fifthly tho the oblation of the body and blood of this Son of God in the Eucharist was always presumed to be in its self most acceptable unto the Father yet in respect of those who or for whom it is offered the same thing by the Ancients was conceived of it as of all other prayers that it is sometimes accepted by God for them sometimes again not namely if they be such as are otherwise unreformed in their lives and unworthy of God's favours Again that sometimes more sometimes less benefit is received by it according to the several preparation or indigence of the Suppliants or also the good pleasure of the divine dispensation as also that of the cross tho infinite in its value and offered for all is beneficial for some not others and as Christ's intercession in heaven is still continued for our several necessities though one single act thereof had it so seem'd good to the divine ordination had bin supersufficient for the obtaining for all for ever all benefits whatsoever Hence are those Prayers in the Liturgies concerning this oblation after the words of Institution pronounced supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris accepta habere sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel c. jube haec perferri per manus S. Angeli tui in sublime Altare tuum and in some Liturgies after the words of Institution pronounced Fac Domine panem istum corpus Filii tui or something to this purpose All which Petitions if they are not to be thought part of the Consecration of these Elements are to be understood to be made with reference not so much to the thing Offer'd as to the Offerers That God would accept it from them for them them for it and confer on them the benefits and fruits thereof As if I said Respice pro nobis fac nobis Jube proferri pro nobis c. Cassan in Consult art 24. p. 208. Haec non ad ipsam hostiam corporis Christi in se sed ad offerendi modum qui prece fide devotione constat referenda sunt videlicet quia sacrificio omnia non dignitate rei oblatae sed offerentis animo aestimantur These five things well consider'd I think first an Answer to χ is sufficiently made it appearing that as the Fathers in this Sacrament held a Commemoration in this Sacrifice of that upon the Cross so an Oblation nevertheless of the real Body and Blood of Christ which two are shew'd before well to coexist To Μ To Μ Concerning the Form of the Mass First This Objection methinks presseth also the Objectors and therefore they must help to answer it for they do not allow it a commemorative Sacrifice before but only after Consecration and Sanctification of the Elements Which Consecration therefore they neglect not neither I think will they grant those Epithets that in this first Oblation are given any way to belong to simple and common Bread. Secondly That the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist is Offer'd to God none deny even none of those who hold a real presence of Christ's Body nor that the Symbols after Consecration remain with and are Offer'd with the Body of Christ else there could be no visible Sacrifice at all there nor that many things are and may be said in Liturgies after Consecration of the Symbols as well as of the Body and that also they are call'd by the name of Bread Gods Creatures c. See what is said of this before Thirdly That in the primitive times at least when at this Solemnity by much people much provision was brought in for the relief of the Poor an Oblation in the first place might be made to God of them as of the People's Alms and Thanksgivings for his Blessings it is very probable which Offertory before the Communion is retain'd also in the English Liturgy and in that prepar'd for Scotland also many new Texts added to those formerly read in the time of
the Offering that are very expressive to this purpose Which addition is taken notice of and censur'd in the Book call'd Laudensium Autocatacrisis p. 101. as directly saith it in a literal sense carrying to a Jewish Oblation Likewise whereas the Rubrick of the former Common-Prayer-Book ordereth only that such Alms be put in the Poor Man's-Box this new one enjoineth that the Deacon shall reverently bring the said Bason with the Oblations therein and deliver it to the Presbyter who shall humbly present it before the Lord and set it Upon the Holy Table See Cassand Consult art 24. p. 194. who ranks the several Offices in the Canon thus Symbolorum consecrandorum oblatio oblatorum consecratio mortis Domini commemoratio gratiarum actio pro communi omnium salute supplicatio which last St. Ambrose and St. Austin were of opinion was a prescribed Form left by St. Paul to all Churches in the Celebration of this Sacrament according to what is said in 1 Tim. 2.1 Sacramentorum distributio participatio And p. 202. Primum populi oblationes Deo commendantur Der nomen invocatur symbola oblata verbis Domini consecrantur mors Domini commendatur vivorum mortuorum memoria agitur pro tota Ecclesia totius orbis incolumitate Deo preces offeruntur This is the Order he saith of the present Roman Service Again p. 207 of the same Service he saith Primum sacrificii doni nomine intelligitur sacrificium populi quod consistit in pane vino deinde est sacrificium corporis Christi c. And see Bishop Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s 9. Panis Eucharisticus Deo consecratur quia de profano seu non sacro sacer fit Deo specialiter dedicatur ut constat ex rebus factis verbis dictis circa ipsum ideo negari non potest quin Deo specialiter offeratur fit igitur ibi quodammodo sacrificium panis c. This Offering up of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament is also expresly appointed in the new English Liturgy where after the Oblation made of the Alms the Rubrick saith and the Presbyter shall then i. e. together with the Alms Offer up c. the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table c. Thus the Bread may be said to be Offer'd as a Sacrifice of Alms and Praise and Thanksgiving for God's good Creatures c. or as some portion of it is then Dedicated Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. In omnibus Liturgiis seu Graecis seu Latinis quantumvis antiquis pars actionis est oblatio rerum consecrandarum This being as I conceive for the intentions but now mention'd But Fourthly To go a little further since it must be granted from what is said above That the Fathers in some part or other of this Service make an Oblation of the real Body of our Lord and since again its manifest that the same expressions are used in the Oblations made before as in those after the words of Institution pronounc'd and the Offering mention'd in these there is tending to all the same ends and purposes whether Propitiatory Impetratory or Eucharistical as you may see by comparing the Prayers before Suscipe Sancte Pater c. and Te igitur Clementissime Pater c. with the Prayer after the words of Institution unde memores Domine c. From these two things therefore I think it follows That all these Prayers and Service before as well as after refer to the same Sacrifice and Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord It being most improbable that the same or the like expressions would be used of that which they conceiv'd only Bread and afterward of that which they conceiv'd to be Christ's real Body if the former was us'd as a distinct Oblation without relation to the later The action therefore of this Oblation is only preparatory in the precedent Prayers according to that expression in one of them Benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto nomine praeparatum consummate in that following unde memores c. offerimus c. Offertur panis non ut sacrificium perfectum sed ut inchoatum perficiendum saith Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. Therefore the chief purpose of the Prayers before seems to be Consecratory and Benedictive of the Symbols rather than Oblatory tho in them the Oblation is mention'd So they begin with Petition Suscipe hanc hostiam c. quam offero i. e. quam oblaturus sum pro c. or cujus oblationem praepare according to which is that following offerimus deprecantes c. after which is said Veni sanctificator benedic hoc sacrificium praeparatum c. and Te igitur clementissime Pater rogamus uti accepta habeas benedicas haec dona haec sancta sacrificia illibata Sancta illibala i. e. post benedictionem and after this quam oblationem tu Deus benedictam facere digneris c. But after the Institution follows a consummated Oblation And indeed in some Liturgies we find no Oblation at all made I mean in this kind pro peccatis pro Ecclesia c. till after the words of Institution and Consecration compleated see Const Apost l. 8. c. 17 18. See Chrysost Liturg offerimus tibi c. pro requiescentibus in fide c. super oblatis sanctificatis pretiosis donis Dominum rogemus ut benignus Deus noster dimittat nobis divinam gratiam c. after the Consecration finish'd And there being no controuersie amongst them about the matter of the Sacrament we cannot doubt the intentions in all the Liturgies are the same Then therefore follows a consummated Oblation in a more singular manner unde memores Domine nos servi offerimus Majestati tuae de tuis donis hostiam puram c. and the prayers following are for God's acceptation of their Oblation not for benediction not benedicta facere but accepta habere jube perferri per manus c. And then lastly follow other prayers with reference to the worthy communicating of his Body For note that as some petitions first for benediction and then for acceptation there are with respect to the Eucharist as an oblation which oblation is joyned also with those prayers so other prayers there are with respect to it as a sacrament and the communication to us of Christs Body to be performed afterwards And to this may aptly be applied that Prayer made in some Liturgies after the words of Institution Fiat nobis corpus Christi tui i. e. to us communicating thereof to all the spiritual effects and benefits thereof 5. But fifthly one thing ordinarily taken for granted That our Saviour's words of Institution are I do not say the chiefest part of but the whole and only consecration so that this is neither begun by any Prayers before these nor continued by any after them is a thing very disputable Whether in the opinion of the
clear consequence tho not acknowledg'd by the Party to ruine Christ's true humane nature the other to destroy the Trinity Such ought to be separated from as men not discerning this consequence only from a some way culpable and affected ignorance See what Daille saith of this Rep. 2. p. 82 83. But to return to Daille therefore saith he tho Adoration should follow upon the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's presence in the Eucharist yet if they acknowledg no such consequence or practise no such thing we may not for their error abhor their Communion In which I may advance one step farther with Daille's good leave that should the Lutherans also acknowledg the consequence and practise such a thing as Adoration of Christ as corporally present in the Eucharist yet for this neither is their Communion refusable Because such Adoration opposeth no Principle but is at the most but vain and inutile according to Daille's own judgment quoted before Observe here also from this Proposition of Daille's That he holds a duty of separation from the Communion of the Church of Rome because of their worshipping the Eucharist tho they should not enjoin it to any because we ought not to Communicate with any such who acknowledg and profess a Doctrine or Practise clearly repugnant to a Principle as he contends the Roman Adoration is As for the other cause of Separation the enjoining this Practise upon men contrarily perswaded we shall speak to it anon Thus much for Daille § XXXI The Roman Qualifications concerning Adoration Next To see what qualifications the Transubstantialists make concerning their Adoration 1. First After Consecration they affirm not Christ's Body to be there alone but the Symbols also to remain with it This is shew'd before 2. They affirm the Symbols capable of some reverence as being holy things but not at all of divine worship as being Christ's Body for they are distinct from it See Cassand Consult de Ador. Euch. Quae adoratio non ad ipsum signum quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interius creditur referenda est quamvis ipsi signo cujus jam virtus intelligitur tanquam religioso sacro sua veneratio debeatur See Forbes his Testimony of them l. 2. c. 2. s 9. In Eucharistia mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae c. Neque satis est quod Christus sub illis sit quia etiam Deus est in anima tanquam in Templo suo tamen adoratur Deus non anima ut ait Suarez Tom. 3. Qu. 79. Art 8. disp 65. sect 1. See Spalat l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri i. e. Romanists dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda sed dicunt corpus Christi verum reale quod sub illis speciebus latet deberi adorari Lastly See Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 6. Species illae neque excellunt aliis sacramentis imo sunt inferiores omnibus cum sint pura accidentia neque adorari possunt Again c. 29. Neque ullus Catholicus est qui doceat ipsa Symbola externa per se proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minori qui omnibus sacramentis convenit Where also he saith those Lutherans that hold Christ adorable in the Sacrament only modo loquendi a Catholicis dissentire And whereas many are offended see Taylor p. 366. that he puts in per se proprie and holds the Adoration of Christ aliquo modo pertinere ad Symbola Yet 1. This is no stating of the Church in any Council 2. Nor an universal Doctrine of the Roman Doctors see Forbes l. 2. c. 2. s 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet 3. He doth afterwards such up again or suspend what he had said before in the conclusion where he saith Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae 4. Lastly If examin'd close the matter is not great for he saith only that we worship Christ in the Eucharist vested with the Symbols as a Disciple worshiped him on Earth his Divinity clothed with Humanity and that again clothed with Garments without making in the act of his Worship a mental separation of his Humanity from his Clothes or of his Deity from his Humanity When yet saith he ratio adorandi i. e. with supreme Adoration non erant vestes imo nec ipsa humanitas sed solum divinitas So then at the worst he affirms no more Worship due to the Symbols in the Eucharist than to Christs Garments when he was on the Earth 3. They deny also any Divine Worship due to the substance of the Bread as well as to its species or symbols which substance of Bread many of them at least hold to be chang'd both for form and also matter that is to be annihilated and nothing at all thereof to remain Catholici cum negent saith Bellarmin panem in Sacramento remanere quomodo possunt asserere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Euch. l. 4. c. 29. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Tenent of it saith Forbes Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur illi idolatriae crassissimae c. insimulantur cum credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem c. l. 2. c. 2. s 9. Tilenus there quoted s 10. Tametsi hi panem ex sententia Protestantium adorant non tamen panem adorandum esse dictitant They deny any Divine Worship due to Bread i. e. to any thing which whilst they affirm to be Christ's Body they acknowledg also to be Bread as those who worshipped the Sun for Christ or the Molten Calf for the God that brought them out of Egypt affirming these still to be the Sun and a Molten Calf for they hold it impossible and involving contradiction That the Bread remaining Bread should also be the Body of Christ and much urge the Lutherans for saying Hic Panis est Corpus meum Therefore also they say That should they worship Bread for the Body of Christ they should be the greatest Idolaters in the World. But yet this I conceive they say not That should they worship Christ's Body as being under the accidents of Bread and yet indeed not his Body but the Bread it self be still under those accidents that so also they should be the greatest Idolaters that ever were For this their very Adversaries less partial to their cause yet will not say of them Nor do they say it of themselves for Bellarmin speaking of one mistakingly Adoring an unconsecrated Host saith Adoratio ex intentione potissimum pendet Quare qui talem panem adorat quod certo credat non esse paâ—â—m sed Christum is
proprie formaliter Christum adorat non panem de Euch. l 4. c. 30. Thus much that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in this sense not that de facto they do worship but that also they hold a worship of the Bread cannot justly be objected to them 4. They use the phrase indeed of worshipping the Sacrament and that speaking of Divine Worship which phrase also is us'd by the Ancients see Conc. Trid. Sess 13. c. 5. Omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant But by it they mean the worshipping not of any thing visible or sensible in the Sacrament nor of any substance invisible that is not Christ for these they expresly make uncapable of any such worship but only the body of Christ present invisibly impassibly c after the manner described before not of the Sacrament as it implies the signum but only the significatum then there also really present See therefore that expression of Conc. Trid. now quoted explained both by the reason immediately following Nam illum eundem praesentem in eo adesse credimus quem Pater aeternus introducens c dicit Et adorent cum omnes Angeli Heb. 1. and most clearly in the following Canon to which the Anathema is affixed for those who denied such adoration to be due Can. 6. which runs thus Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c Anathema sit This is observed by Father Paul in his history of that Council 4. l. pag. 343. The manner of speech used in the 5th point of doctrine saying That divine worship was due to the Sacrament was noted also for improper since it is certain that the thing signified or contemed is not meant by the Sacrament but the thing signifying or containing and therefore it i.e. the manner of speech was well corrected in the 6th Canon which said that the Son of God ought to be worshiped in the Sacrament Observed also and pressed by F. Sancta Clara Enchiridion of Faith Dial. 13. Its true saith he that in the 5th chap. the Fathers say that the Sacrament is to be adored but here in the Canon they speak more strictly and the reason in the Chapter is the same nam illum eundem Deum c. And elsewhere 3d. dialogue he shews where the expressions differ for which he names besides this place the 2d Canon of 6. Sess compared with 7. chapter Our obligation to be to the Canon not the Chapter * because the chapter rather declares the doctrine to be defined than contains the definition it self neither is framed in the stile of Conciliary definitions with Anathema's and * because the Council of Trent it self doth seem to put a difference between these two Sess 14. c. 3. of Extr. Unction haec sint quae c. in making a further Commination for violation of the doctrines of the Canons than of the Chapters Observed also by Grot. in his Apolog. Rivet discussio p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's fore-quoted passage that the controversy between the Catholicks and Lutherans was only in modo loquendi in saying the Sacrament or Christ in the Sacrament was to be worshiped and to this nothing is replied by Rivet and it appears that that indeed is said by them which Daille wisheth Apol. 12. c. See Dr. Holden de resol fidei 2. l. 4. c. In hoc sacrosancto Eucharistiae sacramento Christus unigenitus Dei filius cultu latriae adorandus est and this is all saith he that in this matter is fide Catholica credendam See Dr. Tailor Liberty of Prophecy 20. s. 16. n. Now it is evident that the object of their Adoration i.e. the Romanists that which is represented to them in their thoughts their minds their purposes by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the Blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joined with his holy Humanity which Humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs Add to this that the same argument Daille Apol. 9. c. urgeth to prove that we may not worship the Sacrament because Christ is in it namely this that Christ is in the faithful as in his Temple yet may we not adore the faithful the same they urge to the same purpose See the former quotations out of Suarez p. 200. Now if Mr Daille say that the word Sacrament cannot properly be applied to only Christ's Body or the thing signified abstracted from the Sign I shall accord willingly but then we must accuse the Church of Rome not of an erroneous tenent for this if she expound to us her orthodox meaning but of an improper expression And for that which he saith 1 Reply p. 22. That if the word Sacrament in the Council of Trent signified nothing besides Jesus Christ formally and precisely then we might affirm que le sacrament est la aut haux cieux a la dextre de Dieu I answer that precisely is to be taken as tho not involving besides Christ any other subject yet including besides Christ the manner of his presence which is not natural in the Sacrament as it is in the Heavens 5. Therefore also they ground adoration a thing Card. Peron much insisteth upon in his reply to King James not on Transubstantiation tho both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation involveth it so that either of these posita ponitur adoratio as if sublata Transubstantiatione tollitur Adoratio but on real presence which in general is agreed on by the Lutheran together with them Which adoration they affirm due with all the same circumstances wherewith it is now performed tho Christ's Body were present with the symbols neither as under the accidents of bread as they say nor under the substance of bread as the Lutherans say but after some other unknown manner distinct from both and if they were convinced of the error of Transubstantiation and of the truth of the presence of the sabstance of the bread unchanged yet as long as not confuted in the point of real presence would they nevertheless for this continue to adore the self same object as now in the self same place namely the body of Christ still present there with the symbols and therefore there adorable tho present after another manner than they imagined See the arguing of Barnesius a Romanist Forbes 2. l. 2. c. 12. s. Corpus Christi ibi est cum pane vel permanente vel transeunte uno vel alio modo c per consequens non est idololatria adorare Christum ibi in Eucharistia realiter praesentem See in Conc. Trid. 13. s. 5. c. the reason immediately following the requiring of adoration Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo sacramento adesse credimus
very like him for him would not be so See Daille's reason for it in his fifth Concess Why then is the Transubstantialist an Idolater in his Account See c. 11. of his Apol. because l'erreur de ceux c. vient tout entiere de leur passion non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux Here therefore lies all the trial of their Idolatry Let this be disputed this judged of by indifferent persons For this let what is said before in this Paper be well consider'd and what shall be said by and by § XXXIII 1. For First Suppose they ground Adoration on real presence whatever becomes of Transubstantiation the mistake of this ground i. e. of real presence will be excusable in them for in the Lutherans it is so But suppose the ground of their Adoration be the Tenent of Transubstantiation yet after a granted possibility thereof the Tradition of Antiquity in Exposition of the Scriptures concerning the Eucharist so much favouring some way or other a substantial conversion and in after times when this point grew to a debate the Decision of Councils the first of which was before A.D. 800. Conc. Nic. 2. for such a conversion if in some of them not the same Transubstantiation yet as strange the reception of such Decisions by the succeeding Ages of the Church Universal Eastern Western till Luther's time and since his time the affirming still in general of a Corporal presence with the Symbols by a considerable Party of the Reformed I mean the Lutheran of the reasonable obligation of private Judgments to which Determinations and Practices of the Church in matters divine I have discoursed elsewhere These motives I say however Daille passeth over them in that 11. cap. with a light foot reducing all to a laseule authoritê du Pape de son Concile and Dr. Tailor the like p. 346. will sufficiently shew that their mistake is not un erreur qui vient tout entiere de leur passion non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux Surely no practice can be idolatry where is no malignant or heretical opinion of God or our Saviour but such corporal presence is not in Daille's nor Transubstantiation in many other Protestants opinion See before 2. Compare we this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialist with those mistakes mentioned in Daille's 5th concession which tho worshiping of the meer creature for Christ yet are excused by him from idolatry and we may find it no less excusable than they For tho this hath not the same reason drawn from sense i. e. a corporal similitude yet it hath another supposed strong enough to ground such practice upon i.e. divine revelation as interpreted by Ecclesiastical authority Tho indeed the mistake of the Transubstantialist is not so much as ones mistaking of a thing like Christ for Christ because he worships nothing visible at all nor any thing invisible wherein those accidents which he seeth do inhere but only supposeth Christ's body present where his sense can no way sufficiently inform him since salvis phaenomenis this presence is possible when it is absent 3. Lastly compare we this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialists with that of the Consubstantialists and I think we shall find no reason to accuse the one of flat idolatry whilst the other of inutility or vanity only or to charge the one with a bad consequent which they renounce of their erroneous tenent as that consequent is that they adore a piece of bread from that tenent of theirs that the bread is annihilated and Christ's Body instead thereof notwithstanding they hold the principle that no meer creature may be worshiped whilst we absolve the other from them as long as they cease to own them and hold the principle they oppose See Daille's 6th concession § XXXIV Thus far these two parties the Transubstantialist and Lutheran agree 1. That Christ is corporally present 2. That he may be worshiped 3. That no other object there but He may be worshiped not bread nor any other meer creature 4. That nothing visible in the Sacrament is He or his Body which is present only invisibly without any thing visible inhering or appertaining to it as the subject thereof They differ only about the manner of the presence of this invisible substance The one saith it is there together with the bread the other saith there instead of the bread and the bread away a thing also possible for any thing we know The one saith he is there under both the substance and accidents of the Bread the other there under the accidents only of the Bread. Now whilst both worship the same object in the same place and veiled with the same sensible accidents yet the one adoring him as being under the substance of Bread he not being there are freed from any Idolatry in such worship the other adoring him as being under the accidents of Bread he not being there are made idolaters Why so since they say and profess that if his Body be not there under those appearances but the same substance still under them which was formerly they confess it a creature and renounce all adoration of it Whereas therefore it is objected that the substance of bread only being in that place where they suppose Christ's Body and not any bread to be therefore in worshiping the thing in that place they worship bread this were a right charge if they affirmed that they worshiped the substance that is in that place under such accidents whatever it be but this none say but that they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christs Body and not bread and that for this supposition they have rational grounds Now saying that they worship it because it is so is saying if it be not so they intend no worship to it And this worship is like theirs which Bishop Andrews saith was rendred by some formerly out of fear of a some-way defective consecration Si es Christus te adoro Resp ad Apol. Bell. 1. c. Again whereas it is objected that a good intention excuseth not idolatry for so the Sun-worshippers suppose they held a Transubstantiation and thought Christ to be instead of the Sun and should say Si es Christus te adoro would be no idolaters this would be true were their good intention founded upon an excusable and unaffected ignorance But notwithstanding their intention and supposition it remains idolatry still not because whilst thinking to worship Christ there they de facto worship only what is the Sun but because they have no reasonable motive to imagin such a thing as that Christ is there and by consequence so to act upon it which the Transubstantialist pleads he hath This clearly appears in that should Christ be worshiped by them not as being instead of the substance but as being under the substance of the Sun idolaters still they would be yet none argue thence that the Lutheran in adoring Christ under the substance of the bread
writings you may see at large in Foxes Martyrol Henr. 8.1540 quoted by Dr. Tailor p. 330. and by Archbishop Usher Jes chall p. 77. who there shews many passages of his to be verbatim translated out of Bertram whose expressions methinks are somewhat obscure of the bread being truly after its hallowing turned into Christ's Body ghostly or spiritual not into that in which he suffered Afterward in the 11th Age when the opinion opposing corporal presence as it was never very openly maintained so now was almost laid aside and sunk of it self without the interdict of any Council appeared Berengarius a stout reviver and open abetter of it who at first is said to have held the Lord's Body present in the Eucharist only ut res significata in suo signo but pressed by many adversaries and much persecuted for his doctrine was afterwards brought to recant it and to acknowledge a real corporal presence But then presently began to be agitated new controversies about this real presence whether it was together with the bread also remaining entire and unchanged and what mutation the Elements underwent by consecration When arose some who maintained only a conjunction of Christ's body with the bread others a kind of Impanation of Christ of which something is said before non quia panis vertatur in carnem Domini sed quia assumatur a verbo ex quo sequitur panem esse corpus Christi sed non humanum neque carneum sed panaceum longe diversum ab illo quod de Virgine sumptum est Haec duo corpora posse tamen dici unum quia unus Christus est qui utrumque assumpsit Others there were that held a mutation only of part of the bread into Christ's body namely that portion received by the worthy communicant not the rest lest the wicked also might seem to partake of it which they thought most improbable Of some of these opinions are named to be Berengarius himself after his first recantation or at least some of his followers of such also Rupertus and others and perhaps Aelfrick mentioned before might have such conceit of Impanation And Mr. Blondel in his 16. and 19. chapters would perswade us that this also was partly the opinion both of Damascen and Paschasius and others of the former times § XLII Opposites to all these tenents and to the maintainers of them were Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury Guitmundus Algerus and generally the writers following those times Anselm Peter Lombard Bernard Hugo and Richardus de Sancto Victore c who all writ before the Council of Lateran By these opposit Authors above-named is every corner of the ancient Fathers writings sought into the same places then quoted as now they are by the Romanists and Protestants one side pressing much their words of miraculous change c. The other those of image type figure c and the same answers as now returned then by both sides If you please to look into Bellarmin's 2d book de Eucharist he often makes use of the answers of these ancient Authors to what is urged by the Protestants and saith if they bring the arguments of their Forefathers Bertram Berengarius c we return the answers of ours Paschasius Algerus c. Amongst these disputes a corporal presence and also a substantial conversion of the elements prevailing yet some again there were also that allowed such a conversion in the form of bread only not the matter Durand's opinion and some others affirmed e contra a change of the matter but not of the form which opinions were opposed by the ordinary stream of writers Now as these controversies arose or grew to any height so several Councils since Nicen. 2. for the setling and preserving of the Churches peace and quiet have bin in several Ages assembled The corporal presence was decided against Berengarius by five several Councils see Blond 20. c. before that of Lateran under Innocent 3. A substantial conversion of the elements determined by the Lateran whether also by those before it more anon and many others following it A conversion of the whole substance of them stated more expresly in the Tridentine Council Notwithstanding which Synodal determinations from time to time there have not wanted those successively who have taught contrary to their decrees See Blond 20. c. p. 441. as Petrus Bruise and Henricus his disciple Petrus Waldo from whom the Waldenses and Albigenses John Wicklif whom John Hus his disciple followed not in this point c but these very rare and their disciples most what some vulgar not the learned until the times of Luther § XLIII Reflections upon the former narration Now concerning this narration of the passages of the times after 2. Conc. Nice and that of Franckfort observe 1. That tho the other doctrine was much easilier credible as more agreeing to humane reason yet that that of Paschasius and his followers was the common and the most prevalent not only in the Eastern shewed before but also in the Western Church 1. Corporal presence then the common opinion and this not only after but before and when Paschasius writ See what he saith lib. de verb. instit Sacramenti Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto qui hoc i.e. Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist ita esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur For Paschasius writ before either Johan Erigena or Bertram and when Bertram writ otherwise it was tecte admodum sine successu as Estius notes of him And Osbert quoted before saith only Quidam Clericorum seducti c. And this more appears in that when Berengarius afterward shewed himself afresh for that opinion all the Church-governours unanimously resisted him so that there is not one Bishop found to have consented to his opinion and the Authors who oppose him much object the singularity of his tenent to him Guitmund 3. l. Notissimum est hoc tempore priusquam Berengarius insaniisset hujusmodi vesanias nusquam fuisse And Laufranck in his last Book against him Interroga universos qui Latinae linguae nostrarumve literarum notitiam perceperunt interroga Graecos Armenios seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque Christianos uno ore hanc fidem which he maintained against Berengarius se testabuntur habere and he himself as Lanfranck reports of him called the opinion opposed by him sententiam vulgi The Historians likewise of those times relate Berengarius his as a new and singular tenent See W. Malmsbury 3. l. de gestis Anglorum Observe likewise that no Councils after Nice and Franckfort determining any thing in this point for the space of about 300 years before the times of Berengarius argues the Church not much afflicted with open contentions in this matter that when they did determine any thing it was not before that the Fathers by several writers pro and con had bin much searched and examined that tho
many Councils called about it yet they differed not in their judgments but exactly agreed one with another and still condemned the same side without its finding a party tho smaller in any of them to patronize it § XLIV 2. Observe that there is granted a substantial presence of Christ's body with the symbols which as I have often said is the main business to be agreed upon by all these Authors and Councils All Councils since the 2d of Nice unanimously deciding corporal presence with the symbols before the Lateran Council so that tho some contest there may be between the Lutheran and Catholick about the perswasions of these times concerning Impanation and the remaining of bread in part at least after consecration yet none can there be between the Calvinist and Catholick concerning those times holding corporal presence with the symbols and consequently concerning Adoration for this the Calvinist must grant to be the judgment of these Writers and Councils above-named beginning at Nice until the Lateran 3. Observe that whereas Mr. Blondel in c. 16 19 20. p. 397 431 441 affirms both Damascen and Paschasius And that not by way of Impanation as Blon affirms of the former part of those times and the other Authors that held corporal presence till the beginning of the 12th Age and Councils till the Lateran not to have held Transubstantiation or substantial conversion of the elements but only a certain union or identity between them remaining still in their former substance and the natural body of Christ by the inhabitation of the Deity in or its assumption of them which he calls impanation There are many things which to this may be replied 1. If it were as he saith yet since it warrants the main business of corporal presence with the Symbols and Adoration what relief can Mr. Blondel's or the Protestant-cause receive thereby Again since such impanation differs very much from the Lutheran Consubstantiation see what Blondel confesseth to this purpose p. 436 and 400. And it is clear enough also from Paschasius his assertions set down by Blondel p. 423 which no Lutheran will subscribe to and it is a tenent if well consider'd much more absurd than that of substantial conversion or Transubstantiation which he saith succeeded it in these later times as it making Christ to have two bodies by union hypostatical one Carneum in his assuming humanity and another Panaceum in the Sacrament And these two bodies again identified by the same Person of the Deity present to both c. see it examin'd by Bellarmine as one Rupertus his opinion in the 12th Age and the absurdities thereof display'd in l. 3. de Euch. c. 11 15. I say that to prove such to have been the opinion of Antiquity which makes as much against Protestants as the present doth and is more incommodious than the present doth not only no way patronize their cause but also help to excuse their Adversary 2. Algerus one of Berengarius his Opposites in his first Book de Sacr. c. 6. calling it novam haeresin suo tempore exortam absurdissimam and there confessing it This argues it very unlikely to have been the common opinion until his Age as is affirm'd unless we will make him mistake the opinion of those Writers and Councils immediately before him 3. Tho Mr. Blondel doth not yet Dr. Taylor acknowledgeth concerning Paschasius in particular that he held and writ for a substantial change see p. 328. And comparing Mr. Blondel's quotations out of Paschasius p. 423 with those p. 432 I see not any thing brought to prove the contrary Bishop Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s 1. saith Bertram in his Preface clearly affirms that some in his time held that which is since call'd Transubstantiation Who could this be but Paschasius and others whom he opposed 4. Again The expressions of these Authors who are said to hold no substantial conversion of the bread c. are ordinarily such as these Damascen Panis vinumque per invocationem adventum Spiritus sancti supernaturaliter transmutantur in corpus sanguinem Christi non sunt duo sed unum idem Pasch Licet figura panis vini hic sit omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt see many more gather'd by Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. which it will be tedious here to set down Now these expressions shew them to have held a conversion or transmutation beyond Consubstantiation wherein the element becomes not locally join'd but the same with Christ's body and if perhaps they or some of them by such expressions should not have intended such a conversion of the bread as that nothing thereof should afterwards remain but a conversion into Christ's body only in Rupertus his sense quia per hypostaticam unionem fit corpus Christi as Bellarmin interprets him in his Recognitions yet it seems plain that they held beyond the tenent of the Lutherans such a physical change in the substance and nature thereof as that it could not afterward be truly call'd bread tho some diversity of phrase there might be in what no Council had yet so punctually decided 5. And this is more confirm'd by the Opinion of the Greek Church who if Damascen and the Nicene Council whom they follow held no conversion of the Bread in its nature or substance how come they to hold it and about Transubstantiation to nourish no difference at all with the Latins See the quotations before Surely in that Answer they gave to the Cardinal of Guise quoted in Blondel p. 400. where they say neither substance nor accidents of Bread to remain but all to be transelemented into the substance Divine some change they would intimate much divers from the Lutheran with whom they could not agree in this point and not much abhoring from the Roman Opinion excepting only that the Roman is the more moderate § XLVI As for comparison of Christ's presence in the Eucharist with that of the Incarnation and of the Divinity in such manner infusing it self into the Bread as once into our Nature found in these Authors as likewise in the Fathers either they meant only that the Bread in this infusion was turn'd by the Divine Omnipotence into the Lord's Body as the Catholick's say or something more gross if they held the Deity thus to contract a new hypostatical union with the Bread whereby it properly becomes his Body So that the crime that their posterity in this is accused of will be only that they are less absurd than their Ancestors Thus much for those Authors before the 12th Age. § XLVII Now that the Councils which were before the Lateran wherein Berengarius was Condemn'd understood a substantial conversion of the Bread in the Eucharist notwithstanding what Blondel saith c. 29. p. 439 c. I think is also plain enough In the Roman Council Assembled an 1078. wherein Berengarius last recanted the words are
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
4.14 and 7.38 39. where the Spirit signified in both places by water is declar'd to be the fountain of life eternal And now it is high time to leave of to tire you with a Discourse the more tedious because entangling it self with the Writings of so many others Now to conclude I pray the good Lord To preserve you or any other that reads it from being moved or perswaded by any thing erroneous therein And may he make the shame of any thing that is said amiss here by me tho he knows unwittingly yet I may not say innocently to fall upon me and open your Understanding to see all my Defects that so if this my Endeavour in this History of the Eucharist intended chiefly to make men tho of another perswasion yet more charitable at least to the Doctrine of our Forefathers which they have left can do no good it may do no hurt but that Truth may ever prosper prevail triumph Blessed be his holy Name for ever Amen FINIS Appendix I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the substantial Presence and Adoration of Our B. Saviour in the Eucharist asserted With a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject Publish'd at Oxford from the Exceptions of a Sacramentary Answer Printed at London I. THE former Part of the Answer Combating Transubstantiation is foreign to the Oxford Discourses treating of the Real Presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist Therefore tho liable to material exceptions such are false and perverted quotations long since detected and expos'd Romantick Stories impertinent if true fallacious Arguings and wretched Calumnies industriously contriv'd to deceive and incense the Populace yet It shall be neglected and our Animadversions commence at Part 2. c. 2. where the Minister's Reflections are professedly applied to the Treatises II. Pag. 44. l. 14. All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase is only a Real Presence of Christ's invisible Power and Grace c. A Presence of Grace and Power only i. e a real absence of our Lord's body and blood from both the Eucharist and worthy Communicant was indeed profest by the Puritan Party which exclaimed against Archbishop Laud Bishop Mountague and others for maintaining a substantial Presence From whose Clamour and Impeachment these Learned Prelates vindicated themselves not by that easie and complete way of disowning the Doctrine and interpreting their Expressions and Sentiments to intend a presence of Grace and Power only which obvious Reply would have silenc'd if not appeased the Faction but by justifying their Tenet to be what the Church of England held and prescrib'd A presence of Grace only can import no more than a bestowing of Grace or benefits without the thing beneficial or gracious But that the Church of England by her Heads or eminentest Members from Q. Elizabeth's time to the Return of Char. II. own'd this Zuinglianism for her Faith is from no authentick act that I have perus'd yet evident 1. Not evident from the XXVIII Article tho the Answerer affirms so much For that Article neither does nor was intended to contain any thing inconsistent with a substantial Presence tho it condemns Transubstantiation To ratifie this I need alledge against this Minister a Witness no better qualified then Dr. Burnet because produc'd as very credible in this case by this Man in p. 58. who says it was thought to be enough to condemn in this Article Transubstantiation c. 2. Not evident from the Communion-Office as the same Historian relates Hist Ref. Part 2. p. 390. It was proposed to have the Communion-Book so contriv'd that it might not exclude the Belief of the Corporal Presence For the chief Design of the Queen's Council was to Unite the Nation in One Faith and the greater part of the Nation continued to believe such a Presence thereupon the Rubrick is left out And indeed had we not this uncontrolable testimony out of that very Author who would fain have been set up in Churches as the Old Fox's Monuments yet as much might be collected from the Office it self that no-where excludes the substance or limits the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ to Grace and Power which it must do before it can countenance the Answerer's tenet Surely any Person not extreamly prepossest will sooner interpret these Passages The Communion of the Body c. We Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ c. When the Minister delivers the Communion The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. omitted in the Answer Take eat c. We thank God that he doth vouchsafe to feed us with the Food of the most precious Body c. The Bread that we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ c. I say an unprejudic'd Man will sooner understand these expressions as including a substantial presence than a signifying only the power and grace of Christ's Body and Blood. How could they then take them otherwise who believ'd a corporal presence and till the last years of Edw. VI. scarce ever heard that the words were capable of any other sense 3. Not evident from the Catechism In which the Church of England is so far from teaching her Children a Presence of Grace only that she plainly instructs them to believe a substantial Presence Does she not as it were dissect the Eucharist into its parts acquainting them that it consists of an Outward part or sign Bread and Wine of an Inward part or thing signified the Body and Blood of Christ c. and then demands What are the Benefits or effects of these Parts whereof we are partakers thereby i. e. by the Body and Blood of Christ Now if she design by body and blood of Christ the benefits only of them then her Question runs thus What are the Benefits whereof we are partakers by the Benefits which are the inward Part of the Lord's Supper A Question too ridiculous to be proposed by any person of sobriety much less fit for a Church to put in her institution of Christians If then the Catechism may be explicated literally as one would imagin a Catechism ought the Church of England both believes and teaches a substantial Presence Agreeable hereto is Bishop Ken's Exposition licensed 1685 by Jo. Battely Chaplin to the Archbishop of Canterbury O God incarnate says the Bishop how thou canst give us thy flesh to eat and thy blood to drink how thy flesh is meat indeed c. How thou who art in Heaven art present on the Altar I can by no means explain but I firmly believe it all because thou hast said it and I firmly rely on thy love and on thy Omnipotence to make good thy word tho the manner of doing it I cannot comprehend Here in expressions very fervent and becoming a Christian Pastor he instructs the people of his Diocese to believe that God incarnate gives them his flesh to eat c. Next that tho in Heaven yet the same God incarnate is present on the Altar 3ly
But how could our Councils be Parties when they Defined no otherwise than they had receiv'd from Fathers both Greek and Latin that had written the same both Synodically and as particular Doctors How could they be Parties when they Defin'd just as all Christians One single Berengarius and some perverted by him excepted then believ'd and profest Who refused their Determinations If they had not an universal Presence of Prelates yet the general acceptation of their Decrees is equivalent to it and demonstrates their Doctrine without peradventure true unless every Christian may in so great a point of Faith fail and the Gates of Hell prevail over the Promise of our Saviour and be more powerful than the conduct of the Holy Spirit which leads if not the chiefest and most yet some Christians into all truth even to the end of the world There is neither error nor opposition in the Formulary profest by Berengarius the difference between them is no disagreement in Doctrine but only a condemning the different errors of that unhappy Man. That of Nicholas II. establisht a Real presence against the first error of Berengarius which was what the Sacramentaries now hold The Sence wherein the Council intended and St. Lanfrank explains it is Orthodox and own'd at this day That under Greg. VII defined Transubstantiation against the second error of Berengarius which was Consubstantiation This is told our Adversaries by our Divines particularly by the Cardinal de Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 21. as the Form it self cited by the Answerer in 's Margent p. 111. had done his Reader if he had not shamefully fallify'd it by omitting both the word substantialiter and others of singular moment We shall convict him of his wilful Fraud if in two Columns we annex what Berengarius profest and what this Man says he did BERENGARIUS his Profession in the 6th Council at Rome under Greg. 7. 1079. Lup. pars quinta p. 312. The Form entire Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor panem vinum quae ponuntur in Altari per mysterium sacrae Orationis verba nostri Redemptoris substantialialiter converti in veram propriam ac vivificatricem carnem sanguinem Jesu Christi Domini nostri post consecrationem esse verum Christi corpus quod natum est de Virgine quod pro salute Mund. oblatum in cruce pependit quod sedet ad dextram Patris verum sanguinem Christi qui de ejus latere effusus est non tantum per signum virtutem Sacramenti sed in proprietate Naturae veritate substantiae Thus Berengarius profess'd The Form as mutilated by this Minister Confiteor panem vinum converti in veram ac propriam carnem sanguinem I. C. D. N. post consecrationem esse verum corpus Christi non tantum per signum virtutem sacramenti sed in proprietate Naturae veritate substantiae This speaks of a conversion but of what kind it says not Thus the Minister castrates the Profession made by Berengarius Does the true Form mention nothing of the manner of the conversion in the Eucharist Does it not say as clearly as if written with a Sun-beam that t is a substantial conversion of bread and wine into that body and blood which were born of the Virgin c If this be not not only a corporal presence which serves our purpose but also transubstantiation which this man would suppress we must despair of producing expressions intelligible and satisfactory to our Adversaries in any matter But how can we wonder at this corruption and palpable untruth when we consider it was necessary to sustain many others industriously written by this Answerer in this very Pamphlet Such is the Hyperbole in his Praef. p. 6. That Transubstantiation was unknown to the Church for above one thousand years when not only Paulus Diaconus about 774. relates these words of St. Greg. 1. Praescius conditor nostrae infirmitatis ea potestate qua cuncta fecit ex nihilo panem vinum aqua mistum manente propria specie in carnem sanguinem suum Spiritus sui sanctificatione convertit Strabus Auctor Glossae ord in Gloss cap. 11. prioris ad Cor. Nos incerta relinquentes quod ex authoritatibus certum est profitemur sc substantiam panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Dominici converti modum vero conversionis nos ignorare non erubescimus fateri Quae autem remanent de priori substantia accidentia sc color sapor forma pondus nec ipsum corpus Christi afficiunt nec in eo fundantur This Divine lived about 840. and asserts Transubstantiation and the separate existence of the Accidents separate I say not only from the former substance but from the Body of Christ so as not to affect it or be supported by it And Stephanus Eduensis also about 950 writes Oramus ut oblatio panis vini transubstantietur in corpus sanguinem Christi I say not only these Writers prove that Transubstantiation was known to the Church before a thousand years after our Lord's birth but many more in Centuries precedent to these might be produced As St. Ambrose himself in the 4th Age l. De iis qui initiantur mysteriis c. 9. says etiam benedictione natura ipsa mutatur His co-temporary St. Greg. Nyss uses the same expression as does too the Ancient Sermon de coena Dom. amongst St. Cyprian's Works cited and much relied-on in the 9th Age as both very ancient and very orthodox It says the Bread given by our Lord to his Disciples changed not in effigie but natura was by the omnipotence of the Word made Flesh Nay our Answerer that he may consist with himself within a few lines confesses that a Monk was laying the foundation of it in the 7th Age which Monk did not speak so highly of the Eucharist as St. Cyril of Jerusalem St. Ambrose or St. Chrysostom had done long before him as may easily be discerned by such as please to compare their expressions and besides t is ridiculous to fancy such did not believe a substantial presence the point in hand who are taxed to be founding or erecting the superstructure of Transubstantiation He goes on confessing against himself that a General Council carried on Transubstantiation in the 8th and another Monk the great Protestant eye-sore Paschasius formed it into a better shape in the 9th century yet all this while the Founders the carriers-on those that furnished features and drapery never heard of what they were designedly at work about Nay tho some of the Agents were General Counsellors and even General Councils themselves i.e. the whole Church was in a plot against truth and piety and was ignorant of the conspiracy This Minister was resolved to be absurd beyond imitation Again such another Hyperbole is what he says of Peter Lombard in the Margen of this 111th p. for the Master often professes that the
substance of the Bread and Wine is turn'd into that of Christ's Body and Blood and only the manner of that substantial conversion is in question with him as also with his commentators Scotus Durand and many others mis-quoted Pref. p. 7. of which falsities ignorance if it were in fault cannot excuse him since either the Authors themselves or the Letter printed 1665 discovering these amongst 150 false or wrested quotations in Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive might so easily have informed him As to the irreverent Descants on the Great Council celebrated at Lateran by the most learned and prudent Innocent 3. it is observed That when the deposing Power must be imputed to us as an Article of our Creed then that Council is obligatory and Mr. Dodwel has proved it so but when it defines Transubstantiation then the Canons are surreptitious and a Papal contrivance and Du Pin may be found in the Margen One while that Council enters the Stage conferring power on the Pope to dethrone Kings and on Priests as if there had bin no Priesthood before that Council to make God. Another while all this was forced upon the Fathers of that Synod or publisht as their Act without their privity by a pragmatical and intriguing Pope What would the man be at Is his Arrogance content with no less than confirming and rescinding General Councils arbitrarily Pag. 113. l. 23. As to the point of Antiquity I have already fully discuss'd it above c. I suppose he means from p. 24. to 32 where we may find indeed much passion against Transubstantiation but we are not so short-sighted as to confound it with corporal presence the thing here in discussing And for the Fathers referr'd to by the Discourser where shall we find the Protestant Answers to St. Ambrose de iis qui init Myst c. 9. to St. Hilary St. Cyril Alex Are these spurious too Are not those ascribed to St. Ambrose Eusebius Emisenus sermo de coena Domini the Epist of the Presbyt of Achaia concerning St. Andrew's passion much more ancient than either Paschasius in the West or Anastasius Sinaita in the East Were they ever excepted against as containing Doctrine disagreeable to that of the Church tho thro the negligence of Transcribers the true Authors of them be not very certain It is not a Book 's being attributed by a mistake to a wrong Author but its containing suspicious Doctrine or false Relations and being fathered on eminent Names to pass it with authority in the world that chiefly subjects it to the censure of Apocryphal But why should a doubt concerning the Author of such Books elude the testimony fetcht from them when St. Ambrose in a Book unquestioned and others more ancient coeval or not much juniors to the questioned pieces as St. Gandentius St. Remigius c write as fully for not only a corporal presence but also Transubstantiation Pag. 114 l. 9. This Ground the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time is not certainly true and if it were yet certainly it is nothing to the purpose T is certainly true if the whole may be determined to be on that side where all the members of the Church are for whosoever denied this Faith of a corporal presence was ipso facto an Heretick in opposing an Article so weighty and so solemnly declared and required of all the faithful in at least ten Councils before Zuinglius dreamed But the Apostates from a corporal presence were indeed very few before and of those few scarce one was in being at Luther's revolt he also continuing a bitter enemy to the Sect that soon grew upon him If true t is certainly to the purpose whilst this is true That all Christians to a man cannot miscarry in such a considerable part of Religion as the Eucharist is which they daily frequented and the belief of which real Presence in it was by many ways continually inculcated and confirmed to them Such an unanimous and comprehensive Tradition does at least demonstrate the novelty and falshood of Zuinglianism What Article in our Creed can have a stronger external motive than universal consent And as to the perpetuity of it other Articles have bin sooner and longer and by more numerous Factions opposed than it For of those who have raised debates about the Eucharist the least part are they who denied a substantial Presence the other quarrelling either about Transubstantiation or Communion in both kinds or some other matter yet all the while confessing a real Presence Well to let the Reader understand more fully the seriousness and judgment of this Minister the Argument esteemed impertinent and ridiculed by him here is this The Authority equi-valent to that of any General Council is a solid Ground of Faith but the unanimous profession of all Christians in the last Ages is an Authority equivalent to that of a General Council therefore that unanimous profession is a solid Ground of Faith. The Major is own'd by all such Protestants as submit their judgments to the Authority of such Councils as condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches Origen and the Monothelites assenting to their Definitions as the true sense of Divine Revelations and reciting some of them even in their Creeds The Minor is founded on not only Protestant concessions but also their Definition of a true Church that it has the Word of God rightly preacht and the Sacraments duly administred according to this character then if all preach'd corporal presence it could not be an error in all and so not in any unless there were no true preachers and consequently no Church in some times extant Now if an unanimous profession cannot be erroneous t is doubtless equal to the Authority of any General Council and also very pertinently pleaded as a solid ground of Faith for whatever can declare a Divine Revelation infallibly is so Pag. 115. l. 30. If we did acknowledge this 5th Ground That since Luther's time no small number of Protestants c acknowledge a real and adorable Presence c yet it seems we are mistaken c. It seems rather that you are extremely conceited who contend against as well the first chiefest and best Protestants and the genuine Sons and eminentest Superiors in your own Church as the Catholick Church and all thro that proud pretence that your Sense Reason and expositions of Scripture and Antiquity how wild and unsound soever are absolutely certain and not as we know them to be meer presumptions Is not this an advancing of your self as a standard of truth and science and a requiring what you so vehemently decry in the Catholick Church and shun in your self submission of all judgments to your Fancies The Protestant owning of a substantial Presence is not said to be a ground for our believing Transubstantiation but yet it is an argument against other Protestants for that Faith of a corporal presence which is common to some of their party with us
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
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
Son of God is properly called man from the union of the Humanity and Deity in the person of Christ as they are liable to much exception so are they unnecessary since the third opinion is justifiable without them § VIII Observe in the 4th place concerning the last opinions that for the manner of Christ's real presence with the signs Obs 4 they are not so gross as some apprehend or represent them for they both of them hold Christ's body not to be there physica or locali i. e. ad modum corporum sensibili praesentia or inclusione 1. Thus saith Conc. Trid. sess 13.1 c. Neque enim haec interse pugnant juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidâ—re ad dextram Patris nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem sacramentaliter ea existendi ratione quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus possibilem tamen esse Deo cogitatione per fidem illustrata assequi possumus c. Bellarm. de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 3. l. 5. c. 10. c. and elsewhere in that treatise Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco vel ut in vase aut quod sub aliquo velo sed eo modo ut panis prius sed non ita ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi subtantiae non coexistere aut commensurari loco non esse ita ut habeat ordinem ullum ad corpora circumstantia non esse sensibile visibile tangibile extensum non adesse mobiliter extensive corporaliter as we understand this word to exclude not naturam but modum corporis See many like expressions concerning it quoted by Blond 10. c. p. 321. out of Romanists That nothing belonging formerly to the substance of the bread c can be attributed to it as to be white round c but only words that signifie its presence as contineri manere sub speciebus sumi in Eucharistia ore recipi c. Dr. Holden p. 316. Verum reale corpus Christi profitemur esse in hoc Sacramento non more corporeo passibili sed Spirituali invisibili nobis omnino incognito Spirituli i. as opposed to corporali but by no means as opposed to reali which neither the second opinion will tolerate therefore that 8th Canon Conc. Trid. sess 13. Siquis dixerit Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum spiritualiter tantum manducari non etiam sacramentaliter realiter anathema sit by the second opinion cannot be censured 2. The same expressions the Lutherans have which you may find in the pacifick Discourses of Bishop Davenant Morton Hall c see Davenant adhort ad pacem Eccles cap. 11. lessening the difference between the several parties of the Reformed but by the same reason may be also urg'd as lessening that between the Reformed and Romanist Christum adesse signis but invisibiliter intangibiliter c. Again about oral manducation recipi quidem ore c. Therefore do they as others detest the Capernaitan error 3. See what Bishop Forbes saith de Euchar. 1. l. 28. s Nemo sanae mentis c. Urg'd in Discourse concerning the Rubric of the Eng. Lit. § 48. Hear likewise what Bellarmin confesseth in recogn operum p. 81. upon some men disallowing his conversion not productive but adductive saying non esse vere conversionem sed translocationem which Dr. Taylor also presseth p. 269. namely Quod conversio transubstantiatio pertineant ad panem non ad corpus Christi Quod corpus Christi nec translocari dici potest cum neque deserat locum suum in coelo neque incipiat esse sub speciebus ut in loco sed ut substantia sub accidentibus remota tamen inhaerentia Quod per consecrationem Eucharistiae non producatur de novo sed praexistat c. Sed quicquid sit de modis loquendi illud tenendum est Conversionem panis vini in corpus sanguinem Christi esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem quam solus Deus facere potest qui solus in totam entis naturam absolutam potestatem habet And if we may believe Dr. Tailor in the place sorequoted p. 269.270 and see the same in Blondel p. 197. c. that by conversion or Transubstantiation the Romanists mean only a local succession of Christ's body into the place of bread and nothing to be produced but a new ubi or presentiality whilst it is only made present where it was not before a thing which excepting that clause into the place of bread himself cannot deny unless he saith Christ is no more really present in the time of the Sacrament than out of it tho perhaps some terms may seem to be used unproperly yet the difference and cause of offence is made still less it being then only about the place of the presence of Christ's body for as for annihilation or ceasing to be of the bread this is granted possible to be done and if not done an error no way dangerous 4 Those therefore who dispute against the two last Opinions as professing such gross things as I have shewed above they expresly reject beat the Air and have no Adversary at least not Councils nor the moderater and modester party of their Writers with whose Concessions only the desirous of Christ's Peace ought to debate matters of difference but if they say such gross things follow naturally from their profess'd Tenents tho these Consequences be denied and renounc'd by them here to preserve their Charity towards the Defenders of the Fourth Opinion I must put them in mind of that Rule which Daille hath so much enlarg'd upon in his Apology for the Separation of the Reform'd Churches from that of Rome printed in English c. 9. and in his Letter to Monsieur de Monglat in Answer to Chaumonts Remarks upon his Apology p. 15 16. and in his Considerations upon Chaumonts Reply p. 31 c. to preserve Charity towards the Defenders being Brethren of the Reformaon of the Third Opinion He in these places saith That tho Adoration of the Sacrament should necessarily follow from the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's Presence with the Signs as Bishop Morton saith it doth De Pace Eccl. p. 9. again Tho a Destruction of the Human Nature of Christ necessarily follows from the Lutheran Tenent of the Ubiquity thereof as he himself confesseth it doth again Tho the Destruction of the Trinity of Persons should necessarily follow from the Tenent of the Greek Church denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as he quotes many of the Schoolmen to affirm it doth yet since these opinions destroy or oppugn to such principles or Fundamentals for the destruction of which only see his c. 7. a Separation of Communion may be made par ses suittes non par ses theses c ' est a dire qu' elle induit cette ruine mais ne la pose pas And since such men still