upon it This for Vasquez And as for Bellarmin's adoration improprie and per accidens Bishop Forbes tells us l. 2. c. 2. § 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet And Bellarmin himself as appears by the former citations waving these School disputes tells us Status Quaestionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus i. e. no more is defined decided imposed on Christians faith by the Church than this nor more needs be desputed with or maintained against Protestants than this This in the 2d place from § 11. Of Catholicks professing their Adoration with divine worship of Christ only present in the Sacrament with the Symbols not of the Symbols or not of the Sacrament if taken for the Symbols § 17 3ly Therefore also Catholicks ground their Adoration a thing Cardinal Perron much insists upon in his Reply to King James not on Transubstantiation tho' both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation involve it so that either of these maintained Adoration necessarily follows as if Transubstantiation defeated Adoration is so too but on a Real Presence with the Symbols 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 Lutheran saith but tho' 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 substance of the Bread unchanged yet as long as not confuted in the point of Real Presence they would never the less 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 argument of Barnesius a Roman Writer apud Forbes l. 2. c. 2. § 12. Corpus Christi est cum pane vel permanente vel transeunte uno vel alio modo per consequens non est idololatria adorare Christum ibi in Euchristia realiter praesentem See in Conc. Trid. 13. § c. 5. the reason immediately following the requiring of Adoration Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo i. e. Sacramento adesse credimus quem Pater introducens in orbem terrarum dicit Et adorent eum c. If therefore the Roman Church enjoyns these three 1. To believe Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament 2. To believe such presence by way of Transubstantiation 3. To adore Christ as being there present It follows not that she enjoyns the third in order to the second but may only in order to the first as the first being without the second a sufficient ground thereof Neither can I disbelieving the second yet believing the first refuse obedience to the third that is to worship the same object in the same place as those do who also believe the second and in my believing both the first and the second yet may I nevertheless ground the third only on that which is by Christians more generally agreed on and still worship out of no other intention after Transubstantiation believed than I did before I believed it when only I held in general a corporal presence or than others do who believing a Real presence do not yet believe Transubstantiation § 18 4. Let us then not granting it suppose Transubstantiation an error yet if the tenent of Corporal or Real presence as held by the Lutherans or others be true Catholicks plead their Adoration is no way frustrated but still warrantable and to be continued § 19 5ly Suppose not only Transubstantiation but Real presence an error and the Lutheran and the Roman Catholick both mistaken yet there can be no pretence why these later in such Adoration grounded by both on Real presence with the Symbols will not be as excusable from Idolatry as the other For thus far these two Parties agree 1. That Christ is corporally present 2. That he may be worshipped 3. That no other there but He may be worshipped 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 to God possible for any thing we know The one saith he is there both under the substance and accidents of 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 if 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 cannot be made hereby Idolaters since they say and freely profess that if his body be not there under those appearances but the same substance still under them which was formerly then 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 worshipping the thing in that place they worship bread this were a right charge if they affirmed that they worshipped 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 Christ's Body and not bread and that for this supposition they have a rational ground of which by and by Now saying they worship it because it is so is saying if it be not so they intend no worship to it He that saith I give divine Adoration to that which is under the species of Bread because believed by me or if you will certainly known by me but he indeed mistaking to be Christ's Body and so Christ present is yet far from saying I worship whatever is under the species of Bread whether it be Christ's Body or no. And he that saith the later of these if bread happen to be there is willingly granted an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not so the former Daille as it much concerns him excuseth a Lutheran adoring upon a falsly supposed real or corporal presence of our Lord from any Idolatry for this reason Because saith he * 1. Reply to Chaumont p. 63. such adoration is mistaken not in this that it addresseth it self to an Object not adorable but only that by error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not
Two Discourses CONCERNING the ADORATION OF OUR B. SAVIOUR IN THE H. EUCHARIST The FIRST ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Alterations of the RVBRICK in the Communion-Service in the Common-Prayer-Book of the CHURCH of ENGLAND The SECOND The Catholicks DEFENCE for their Adoration of our LORD as believed Really and Substantially present in the Holy Sacrament of the EUCHARIST At OXFORD Printed Anno 1687. ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ALTERATIONS of the RUBRICK in the COMMVNION-SERVICE c. CONTENTS A Brief Narration of the Alterations made in the English Reformed Service of the Eucharist by K. Edw. VI. and Qu. Elizabeth § 1 2 3. Three Observables concerning K. Edward's Declaration § 4 5 6. 1. Contrary to the first Observable the Presence of our Lord 's Natural Body and Blood in the Eucharist maintained by Calvin Beza and English Divines § 8 9 10 c. to § 18. 2. Contrary to the second Observable the Reason given of our Lord 's not being present namely because a Body cannot be in two places at once discussed Where 1. Protestants are shewn confessing the Presence of our Lord an ineffable Mystery 2. That any one seeming contradiction can no more be effected by Divine Power than another or than many other the like may and therefore this of the same Bodies being at the same time in several places cannot by these Writers be denied a possibility of being by the Divine power so verified § 21. 3. That these Writers must hold this seeming contradiction true or some other equivalent thereto so long as holding a real substantial Presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy Communicant here on Earth contradistinct to any such other Real Presence as implies only a presence thereof in its virtue efficacy benefits spirit § 23. The difference of Schoolmen concerning the Mode of Presence in the Eucharist § 24. 4. This Proposition of a Bodies not being in several places at once by the more judicious Protestants formerly not allowed to regulate their Faith but only Divine Revelation § 28. 3. Contrary to the third Observable That no Adoration is intended or due to any Corporal Presence shewn 1. That all granting Kneeling and Adoration due to God the Father and the Son not likely that the Clergy will deny That were there a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament then such Kneeling and Adoration to be due § 39. 2. Corporal Presence denied that is with the ordinary properties of a Body yet if any other Presence whatever name be given it as Real as one Corporal be assigned from Divine Revelation Adoration thus no less due § 40. 3. That the Church of England hath heretofore believed and maintained such Presence as they allowed adorable § 41. Some Replies that may be returned to this Discourse considered 1. That not the Essence of the Body of our Lord is denied in the Eucharist but its corporal manner of Essence § 48. This granted by all 2. That naturally Christ's Body cannot be at once in many places tho' supernaturally it may and therefore is here denied to be in the Eucharist 1. The truth of such Exception is denied since if God can make the Essence or Substance of a Body to be in more places or ubi's than one at once he can make all the properties or qualities thereof to be so too § 51. 2. Admitting this Exception for true as also the first yet hence no foundation of denying Adoration due to Christ's natural Body as being in the Eucharist which being granted by these Replies to be there tho' not after a natural manner can be no less for this an object of Adoration § 52. 3. That Adoration to Christ's Body as really present in the Eucharist is not denied but only to any corporal Presence there 1. If so the Adoration ought to have been expressed how due as well as a Presence denied § 54. Opposite Protestant Testimonies produced from the same Authors afford us no relief since to free them from contradicting either these here cited for Real Presence must stand or those alledged for Zuinglianism in opposition to the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers § 55. Concerning the RUBRICK of the English LITVRGY CHAP. I. A brief Narration of the Alterations made in the English Reformed Service of the Eucharist § 1 AFter that King Edward's former Liturgy had been censured by many especially foreign Divines as not sufficiently purg'd and removed to a right distance from the former errors and superstitions of Popery in the Fifth year of that King's Reign it suffered a Review and a new Reformation and then amongst other things this following Declaration in the Administration of the Lord's Supper for the explaining of the Intention of the Church of England enjoyning kneeling at the receiving of the Communion was de novo inserted into it Whereas it is ordained in this Office of the Administration of the Lord's Supper that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue yet lest the same kneeling should by any persons either out of Ignorance and Infirmity or out of Malice and Obstinacy be misconstrued and depraved it is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more places than one There were also certain Articles of Religion composed under King Edward about the same time as the second Common Prayer Book was In one of which the Article concerning the Lord's-Supper is found this explicatory Paragraph For as much as the truth of Man's Nature requireth that the Body of one and the self same Man cannot be at one time in divers places but must needs be in one certain place therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places and because as Holy Scripture doth teach Christ was taken up into Heaven and there shall continue unto the end of the World a faithful Man ought not either to believe or to confess the Real and Bodily Presence as they term it of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper But in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign who is observed by Dr. Heylin * Hist of Q. Eliz. p. 124. and others to have been a zealous Propugner of the Real Presence upon a second Review by her Divines of the same Common-Prayer Book it was thought meet that this Declaration should be
thrown out again and so the Common-Prayer Books ever since have been cleared of it till the alterations therein made after the King's return in A. D. 1661. at which time it was reinserted The same Q. Elizabeth's Divines in their Review of these Articles also as they cast the Declaration out of the Liturgy so did they expunge this passage likewise being of the same temper as the Declaration out of the Article which hath been omitted ever since § 2 Again whereas King Edward's former Common-Prayer Book useth these words as they have descended from Antiquity in delivering the Eucharist The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life the Composers of the second in the fifth year of that King's Reign suitable to their Declaration which denies any Real or Essential Presence of this Body in the Eucharist thought fit to remove this Form and put instead thereof only these words Take and eat this left without any substantive in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving leaving out these words also of the former Consecration-Prayer And with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctifie 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 Jesus Christ They omit also the Priest's touching or handling the Patin or Chalice in the Prayer of Consecration required in the former Book done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols of which also Bucer saith * Censura p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quidquam his elementis adesse Christi extrausum praebitionis receptionis For the same reason it seems to be that the Glory be to God on high c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum corda the one is transferred till after the Communion and the other omitted differently from King Edward's first Form likewise whereas it is said in the former Liturgy in the Prayer of Humble access Grant us so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Blood in these holy mysteries the 2d omits these words in these holy mysteries But the Divines of Qu. Elizabeth in their Review §. 3. n. 1. as they nulled the Declaration in the Common-Prayer Book and purged the 28th Article of the forementioned explication so they thought fit to restore the former ejected Form in the administring of the Sacrament The Body of our Lord c. preserve thy body and soul putting after it the later Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving But then the new Liturgy prepared for Scotland and published A. D. 1637. rectifies and reduces many of the former things again to the first mode first restores those words in the Consecration with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless c. that They may be unto us the Body c. ordering again the Presbyter that officiates to take the Patin and Chalice in his hands and then takes quite away the words added in King Edward's second Form in the delivering of the Mysteries Take and eat this c. and instead thereof adds after the former words The Body of our Lord c. the People's Response Amen according to the custom of Antiquity See Dionys Alexandr apud Euseb Hist 7. l. 8. c. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7 mi mensis Augustin ad Orosium quaest 49. spoken as a Confession of their Faith that they acknowledged that which they received to be Corpus Domini Of all which Laudensium Autocatacrisis heavily complains observing That in the Consecration-Prayer are restored the words of the Mass whereby God is besought by his Omnipotent Spirit so to Sanctifie the oblation of Bread and Wine that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood From which words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation Wherefore the English Reformers i. e. the latter in King Edward's days scraped them out of their Books but our Men put them fairly in And good reason have they so to do For long ago they professed that about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists except only about the formality and mode of Presence here quoting Montague's Appeal p. 289. Lastly when the late Clergy A. D. 1661. being upon I know not what inducements §. 3. n. 2. solicited to receive the foremention'd Declaration rejeded in Q. Elizabeth's days came to examine it they judged meet not to publish it entire as it ran before but these words It is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood they cancelled and instead of them inserted these It is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural fâ—â—sh and Blood as we find them in the present Rubrick § 4 Having exhibited this general view of the Mutations which have been made in this Church in several times according as different Judgments had the power somewhat waveringly it see as in the things relating to so great an Article of Faith I think fit now more particularly to resume the consideration of the Declaration about Adoration In which are contained these three Observables 1. That here the present Clergy do profess expresly 1. Observ that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist § 5 2. That they urge for this Non-presence there this reason or ground out of Natural Philosophy 2. Observ That it is against the truth of a Natural body to be in more places than one at one time here seeming to found their Faith in this matter on the truth of this position in Nature § 6 3. In consequence of these they declare that kneeling in receiving the Eucharist so much excepted against by the Presbyterian is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers 3. Observ and for the avoiding of such prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but that hereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood where they either leave this undetermined whether there be not another presence of Christ's flesh and blood as real and true as is the corporal to which an adoration is at this time due or else do determine as seems concludable from their former Proposition viz. That the natural Body of Christ is not there that there is not any such real
Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential into No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence 1. Yet methinks here also first they should have more clearly expressed this to prevent such a misapprehension 2. Adoration being granted due in one way as not due in another § 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way as not present in another methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more than the latter and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus according to the true meaning of those who received it viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored yet ought to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven but also truly in the Eucharist it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body if not after a natural manner yet in its true reality and essence after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power to be at one time in more places than one § 55 Lastly in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here produced perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Authors that seem to qualifie these here set down and better to suit with the expressions of this Declaration But neither will this afford any relief For to free them from a real contradiction the sense of the others reduced to those here cited with leave all things in the same state or else the sense of these accommodated to others will appear to abett no more than bare Zuinglianism i. e. an absolute non-presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist save only in its vertue and effects and the presence of his Spirit c. and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers FINIS THE CATHOLICKS DEFENCE FOR THEIR ADORATION OF THE Body and Blood OF OUR LORD As believed Really and Substantially present IN THE Holy SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST At OXFORD Printed Anno 1687. THESES of Adoration of the EVCHARIST CONTENTS 1. PRotestant-Concessions § 1. 2. Catholick-Assertions § 1. Presuppositions § 1. 1. Of a Precept of giving Divine Worship to our Lord. § 1. 2. Of our Lord's whole Person its being where his Body is § 2. 3. Of this Divine Person being supremely adorable wherever his Body is Granted by Protestants § 3. Not only in Virtue but Substance § 5. 4. That this Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood is by Protestants affirmed in the Eucharist and that this Body is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration § 5. 5. Further affirmed That Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant but to the Symbols and whilst present are to be adored § 7. 6. Granted by Daille That tho' he and his believe not Christ's Body present in the signs yet they for this break not Communion with those that hold it § 8. Catholick Assertions 1. A Sign or Symbol to remain after Consecoration distinct from the thing signified § 9. This external Sign to be all that which is perceptible by the senses of the Bread and Wine tho' not their Substance § 10. 2. The word Sacrament to be taken not always in the same sense but sometimes for the Sign or Symbol sometimes for the thing signified § 11. 3. Catholicks ground Adoration not on Transubstantiation which as also Consubstantiantion involves it but on Real Presence with the Symbols maintaining Adoration due tho' Christ's Body were present neither under the Accidents of Bread as Catholicks say nor under the Substance of Bread as Lutherans say but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § § â—7 4. Supposing not grantâ—â—g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bstantiation an error yet if Corporal or Real Presâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the Lutherans be true Catholicks plead their Adoration warrantable § 18. 5. Supposing Real Presence an Error and the Lutheran and Roman Church both mistaken yet these latter in such Adoration as excusable from Idolatry as the other § 19. 6. Supposing both the former Opinions Errors and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all yet such Adoration by the one or the other of Christ who is a true object of supreme Adoration and only mistaken by them to be where he is not cannot be termed such Idolatry as is the professed worshipping of an Object not at all adorable § 21. 7. Whatever Idolatry it is called in a Manichean worshipping Christ in the Sun or in an Israelite worshipping God in the Calves at Dan and Bethel because adoring a fancy of their own and a good intention grounded on a culpable ignorance excuseth none from Idolatry yet since Daille and perhaps others allows a reasonable tho' mistaken ground of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry hence if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry on the same terms § 22. Catholicks Grounds for their Belief 1. Divine Revelation § 24. 2. The Declaration thereof by the supremest Church-Authority in Councils § 25. 3. The Testimony of Primitive Times § 26. 4. The Vniversal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches § 27. 5. Protestant Concessions § 28. 8. For these Grounds given by Catholicks Idolatry by many Protestants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome § 30. 9. Catholicks grant That to adore what is believed to be Bread or perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there where the Worshipper believes he is not is unlawful to be done by any whilst so perswaded § 33. CATHOLICK Theses Concerning the ADORATION of Christ's Body and Blood IN THE EUCHARIST § 1 COncerning the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood and so of his Divine Person as present in the Eucharist 1. I shall shew what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants 2. Examine what Catholicks maintain 1. I suppose a general precept of giving supreme and divine adoration to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ And Suppositions that as Affirmative precepts such as this is do not oblige to every time and place so if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place nor is there any need of any particular divine command in respect of these i. e. places and times without which command we may not obey them For what absurdities would follow hence For Was our Saviour when on Earth never lawfully worshipped but in place or time first commanded Nor then when he shewed and presented himself to them for some other purpose
non potest See also the Gallican Confession produced by this Bishop p. 23. where they say Christus in coelis mansurus donec veniat and yet nutriens vivificaâ—s nos Corporis Sanguinis sui substantia i. e. in the Sacrament that Hoc mysterium nostrâ—e cum Christo coalitionis tam sublime est ut omnes nostros sensus totumque adeo ordinem naturae superat In all these then doth not the incomprehensibility and supernaturality of this Mystery lie in this that the one Body of our Lord should be at once in two places viz. present at the same time in Heaven and to us here in the Sacrament And yet this Bishop seems to find some trouble in it to make any other unexplicable or unintelligible mystery in the Catholicks Transubstantiation save only this See p. 122. For the ceasing of the substance of the Elements by God's Omnipotency he allows very feisible and then the Adduction of Christ's Body pre-existent in the place of their substance labours under no other difficulty save this this Body its being at once in two places here and in Heaven nor having twice * p. 122. p. 125. mentioned such a Sacramental Presence of our Lord hath he replied any thing against it but that thus the term of Transubstantiation is not rightly applied to such an Adduction which is a Logomachy But this seems the difficulty and incomprehensibility that Protestants also confess in their Sacramental Presence of our Lord in tanta locorum distantia pascentis nos in Eucharistia vera Corporis sui praesentia substantia Lastly after this Bishop with others §. 5. n. 5. hath so far conformed to the Expressions and Language of the Fathers as to allow an Essential or Substantial presence of Christ's Body it seems he finds some of these Expressions also so far to advance toward a Substantial transmutation of the Elements as that he saith p. 113. Non abnuimus nonnulla apud Chrysostomum aliosque Patres inveniri quae emphatice immo vero Hyperbolice de Eucharistia prolata sunt Et quae nisi dextre capiantur incautos homines facile in errores abducent And below Sanctissimi Patres quo haec auditorum animis vehementius efficacies imprimerent de Typis tanquam si essent ipsa Antitypa Oratorum more multa enunciant And again p. 117. Si verba i. e. of some of the Fathers nimis rigide urgeantur absque intellectu Sacramentali nihil aliud ex iis colligi potest quam Panem Vinum proprie realiter ipsum Christi Corpus Sanguinem esse quod ne ipsi quidem Transubstantiatores admittunt Where he granting the expressions of some of the Fathers so high as to transcend the Assertions of Catholicks or Transubstantiators whose Assertions again transcend those of Protestants in this Mystery it seems not reasonable that he should after this depress and extenuate their meanings to counteance and comply rather with that Opinion that is farther distant from their expressions Neither will the same Fathers calling in other places the Elements Symbols and Signs of Christ's Body as he pleadeth p. 116. afford him that relief he seeks for from it For since the Catholicks as well as Protestants do firmly maintain and profess an external Symbol as well as the thing signified in the Eucharist viz. all that is perceived by our senses and that is visible gustable or tangible of the Elements as the Protestants contend this Symbol to be not only these but the very Substance and nature of the Elements also here it will be found that these sentences of the Fathers do suffer much less force and torture if understood according to the Symbol supposed by Catholicks than that by Protestants For example the Bishop * p. 120. hath mentioned that passage of the ancient Author de Coena Domini in S. Cyprian's Works the words are these Panis iste quem Dominus discipâ—lis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se effudit essentia Here I say if the Sacramentum visibile and the external Symbol be taken in this Bishops way for substantia or natura panis all is extremely forced and confounded and so he is driven to expound it that by mutatio naturae panis is meant only mutatio usus * p. 120. the change of which use of the Bread also seems no object of God's Omnipotence But the Symbol or Sacrament being taken for such as the Catholicks make it viz. for the external Effigies or Sensibles of the Bread all is good sense and coherent and nothing strained and the Omnipotentia Verbi rightly applied to the mutatio naturae panis as God's Omnipotency may be observed in the Fathers to be frequently urged not only in relation to the presence of our Lords Body and Blood there but also to the transmutation of the Elements there whilst the exteriors of them still remain But now in the last place supposing the natura panis to remain which the Father saith is changed yet so long as these Divines maintain according to the Doctrine of the Fathers a substantial presence of our Lord's Body in the Eucharist and that with the Symbols as he saith p. 45. Sacramento suo quasi contectum tho' they will not admit such a Symbol as the Catholicks and a Transubstantiation of the Elements yet they must if complying with the Fathers at least confess some kind of Consubstantiation or conjunction of the substances of Christ's Body and of the Elements in the Eucharist to which opinion the sayings of the Fathers constrained Luther as he often professeth Mean while if it be asked why such a Consubstantiation is declined by Catholicks their answer is ready viz. because the greatest Councils that have been held successively in the Church-Catholick upon and since the agitation of this controversy have frequently and constantly stated and delivered That the Scriptures as understood and expounded by the Fathers and Church-Tradition declare a Transubstantiation in the Judgments of which Councils Catholicks hold it their Duty to acquiesce This of a Substantial Presence asserted by Protestants 2. Next §. 6. n. 1. for Adoration too of this Body as there present either with the Symbols upon their Consecration or at least to all worthy receivers see the same Bishop Andrews ib. c. 8. p. 195 where to what Bellarmin hath said Inter novitia nupera dogmata ponit Adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistae i. e. adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento miro sed vero modo praesentis he answers thus Sacramenti ait id est Christi Domini in Sacramento Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit rem scil Sacramenti at non Sacramentum And Nos vero in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio non id
ex duabus rebus terrena coelesti compositam esse And of S. Gregory dial 4. l. 58. c. In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari terrena exlestibus jungi unum ex visibilibus ac invisibiltbus fieri So that tho' these symbols and Christ's Body may be said to make unum aggregatum yet if this be only the species or accidents of die Bread and Wine that remains these cannot be said to have any inherence in this Body of Christ tho' it is true on the other side that being accidents only they cannot be said to make a distinct suppositum from it or if a substance remain this cannot be said to have any hypostatical union or to make one suppositum with our Lord's Divinity or Humanity as our Lord's Humanity hath such an union with his Divinity From which it is observed by Dr. Taylor Real Presence p. 336. That therefore still there is the less reason for Romanists to give any Divine worship as he saith they do to the symbols Far therefore are Catholicks from granting what a late Author * Stilligst Rom. Idol P. 128. pretends they do but that which he alledgeth no way shews it as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Sacrament as between the Divine and Humane Nature § 10 This external sign or symbol they also affirm to be all that of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any sense And tho' after such Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread nor nothing visible nor tangible or otherwise perceptible by any sense are involved in it Of which signs also they predicate many things which they will by no means allow to be properly said of or at least to be received in or effected by or upon Christ's Body now immortal and utterly impassible So sapere digeri nutrire confortare corporaliter and again frangi dentibus comburi rodi a brutis animalibus and whatever other things may be named excepting only those attributes which in general are necessary to indicate the presence of Christ's Body to us with the species whilst integrae as the local positions elevari recondi ore recipi c. they apply to these symbols that remain not to Christ's Body which is indivisibly there Christus vere in sacramento existens nullo modo laedi potest non cadit in terram id enim proprie cadit saith he quod corporaliter movetur so also anima non cadit non teritur non roditur non putrescit non crematur illa enim saith Bellarmin * De Eucharist 3. l. 10. c. in speciebus istis recipiuntur sed Christum non afficiunt § 11 2. Concerning Adoration of the Sacrament they affirm the word Sacrament not to be taken always in the same sense but sometimes to be used to signify only the external signs or symbols sometimes only the res Sacramenti or the thing contained under them which is the much more principal part thereof And as Protestants much press so Catholicks willingly acknowledge a great difference between these two the worshipping of the Sacrament as this word is taken for the symbols and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament Now as the word Sacrament is taken for the Symbols they acknowledge a certain inferior cult and veneration due thereto as to other holy things the holy Chalices the holy Gospels the holy Cross c. of which Veneration much hath been spoken in the Discourse of Images § 42. c. but they acknowledge no supreme or divine Adoration due to the Sacrament as taken in this sense for the Symbols but only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in this Sacrament or with these Symbols So that be these Symbols of what latitude you will either larger as the Lutheran believes or straiter as the Catholicks say they are or be they not only these but the substance of bread also under them as Catholicks believe it is not yet neither those species nor this substance have any divine Adoration given or acknowledged due to them at all no more than this substance of bread believed there by the Lutherans yet hath from them any such Adoration given to it § 12 That Catholicks thus by Adoration of the Sacrament with Latria only understand that of the res Sacramenti the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament 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 venerations exhibeant Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus quem Pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei quem Magi procidentes adoraverunt Where tho' the Council useth the expression of exhibiting latriae cultum Sacramento yet that this cultus latriae is not applied to the Sacrament as it implies the Sign or Symbol but only the thing signified both the words joined to it qui vero Deo debetur which signifies the Council maintains that to be God they gave this cultus latriae to and the explication annexed Nam illum eundem Deum c. may sufficiently convince to any not obstinately opposite Neither do those words interposed Neque enim ideo Sacramentum minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum any way cross such a sense as a late Author * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol c. 2. §. 2. p. 117. too confidently presseth saying That by Sacrament here the Council must understand the Elements or Accidents as the immediate term of that divine worship or else the latter words i. e. quod fuerit a Domino institutum ut sumatur signify nothing at all For what saith he was that which was instituted by the Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible Signs or Elements why do thy urge That the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take of the common objection That we ought not to give divine worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements Thus argues he When as he might know that the Fathers of Trent who said this do hold the chief thing instituted and exhibited in the Sacrament to be not the Elements but Christ's Body and ipsum corpus Domini to be also orally both taken and eaten tho' not modo naturali carnis or corporis as well as the Elements according to our Lord 's express words Accipite Manducate Hoc est Corpus meum i. e. quod
is Idolatry But will any Papist acknowledge that he honours the Elements of the Eucharist or as he thinks the Accidents of them for God Will common Reason charge him to honour that which he believes not to be there If they were there they would not take them for God and therefore they would not honour them for God And that is it not saying that they should be Idolaters if the Elements did remain that must make them Idolaters And Epilogue p. 357. in general he saith Whoso admits Idolatry i. e. in any point whatever to be taught by the Roman Church can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the worship of one God exclusive to any thing else The Roman Church then must either be freed from the imputation of commanding any thing that is Idolatry i. e. adoration of a creature for God or we must affirm there to be and to have been no true Church of Christ never since such command of that which they say is Idolatry went forth which no judicious Protestant I think hath or dare say of the Roman Church since the beginning of the Adoration of the Eucharist For what Church or Sect of Religion can be Apostate at all if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry even the worshipping of a piece of Bread which themselves made for that God which made them and Heaven and Earth And thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur illi Idololatriae crassissimae gravissimae ab his insimulantur damnantur cum plerique Romanenses ut alii fideles credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi unde illi non panem adorant sed tantum ex suppositione licet falsa non-tamen haeretica aut impia vel cum fide directe pugnante ut superiore libro ostensum est Christi corpus quod vere adorandum est adorant In Eucharistia enim mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo decent ipsi Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae inanimes consequenter incapaces adorationis And Ibid. shewing the Greek and Eastern Church as well as the Roman to use it he concludes Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere damnare After the same manner the Archbishop of Spalato de Repub. Eccles 7. l. 11. c. n. 6. Respondeo saith he me nullum idololatricum crimen in adoratione Eucharistiae si recte dirigatur intentio agnoscere Qui enim docent panem non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi illi profecto panem non adorant sed solum ex suppositione licet falsa Christi corpus vere adorabile adorant Non enim nostri dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda Bishop Bramhal cited before § 6. The Sacrament is to be adored said the Council of Trent The Sacrament i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ say some of your Authors we say the same The Sacrament i. e. the species of Bread and Wine say others that we deny Thus he D. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying p. 258. confesseth the Subjects of the Church of Rome no Idolaters in this kind at least so as to worship Bread or any creature with Divine Worship and as God For It is evident saith he that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their minds their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the Blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy Humanity which Humanity they believe actually under the veil of the Sacramental signs And if they thought Him not present they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical i. e. as to the directing this their divine worship to an undue object § 31 Which things if said right by him and the others the same Dr. Taylor is faulty in his charge in Real Presence p. 334. Faulty I say in charging on the Church of Rome not their worship of a right Object in a some-way unlawful and prohibited manner this we are not here examining but their worship of an undue Object of Adoration of a creature instead of God for so he chargeth them there If saith he there they be deceived in their own strict Article he means of Transubstantiation then it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a mere creature the image the Sacrament and representment of the Body of Christ. Thus he When it is evident that the Object c. is the only true and eternal God c. as he said before in the place cited and must say if he will say truth So faulty is also Daille Reply to Chaumont p. 63. in his charging the Church of Rome to worship Bread upon this arguing Catholicks adore that substance that is veiled with the accidents of Bread and Wine but this substance is Bread Ergo they adore Bread By which arguing he may as well prove the Lutherans in the Eucharist to adore a Worm or a Mite thus The Lutherans adore that substance which is joyned with the Bread but that substance is a Worm or Mite for such thing may be there with the Bread at such time of Adoration Ergo they adore a Worm Whereas both the Catholick and Lutheran explain the indefinite term that which used in the major Proposition restrictively to the Body of Christ and exclusively to any other substance whatever that is or may be there either with the Bread or under its accidents Faulty also is Dr. Stillingfleet Rom. Idol c. 2. in saying the Protestants controversie with Catholicks is Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal Presence under them p. 117. And as for the passage in the Council of Trent sess 13. c. 5. urged by him there for it his mistake is shewed before § 12. And so faulty in his concluding p. 118. That the immediate term of that Divine Worship given by Catholicks is the external and visible signs or elements And again p. 124. That upon the principles of the Roman Church no Man can be satisfied that he worships not a mere creature with divine honour when he gives Adoration to the Host whenas Catholicks expound themselves to mean by Host in their Adoration not the Symbols or Sacramentum but rem Sacramenti Again p. 125 127 129. That supposing the Divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein it is present Catholicks grant this
invisibilem quae inter humanitatem divinitatem Christi ubi nisi Eutychen sâ—pere vultis humanitas in divinitatem non transubstantiatur And a little farther Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem 〈◊〉 adorandum statuit And Nos vero in mysteriis carrem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio c. Here is such a presence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist acknowledged as is to be adored and this it seems no less the Bishop's Religion than King James ' s. Add to this that passage in Is Causabon 's Letter §. 11. n. 2. written by the King's command to Card. Perron who when the Cardinal would have joined issue with the King for trying the verity of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist in the King's name declines any such Controversy and saying that the contest was not about rei veritatem but only modum returns this reply p. 50. Miratur vero serenisimus Rex cum fateatur tua illustris Dignitas non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quaerere vos ut credatur Transubstantiatio sed ut de praesentiae veritate ne dubitetur Ecclesiam Anglicanam quae toties id se credere publicis scriptis est testata nec dum vobis fecisse satis and then for explication of the Doctrine of the English Church in this matter recites the forementioned words of Bishop Andrews Quod Cardinalem non latet c. § 12 3. Thus Bishop Hall in his Treatise De pace Ecclesiastica for reconciling the Calvinist and Lutheran which Lutherans undoubtedly hold the same natural body of Christ that is in Heaven to be also in the Eucharist p. 78. Res apud utrosque eadem rei tantum ratio diversa Tantulum dissidium falemur quidem non esse nullius momenti tanti esse ut tam necessariam orbi Christiano fratrum gratiam tam mirabiliter planeque divinitus coeuntem abrumpere debeat id vero est quod constantissime negamus Neque nos soli sumus in ea sententia Mitto Fratres Polonos Germanos nostrarum partium c. Then at last he brings in the decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are received to their communion as agreeing with them in omnibus verae religionis principiis articulisque fundamentalibus § 13 4. Thus Bishop Montague Appeal p. 289. Concerning this point of Real Presence I say that if Men were disposed as they ought to peace there need be no difference for the disagreement is only de modo praesentiae the thing is yielded-to on either side that there is in the Holy Eucharist a Real Presence God forbid saith Bishop Bilson we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's Table It is the Doctrine that we teach others and comfort our selves withal p. 779. Of true Subject And the Reverend and Learned Answerer unto Bellarmine 's Apology cometh home to the Faith or Popery if you will condemned in Mr. Montague who learned it of him and such as he is Nobis vobis-cum de objecto convenit c. He you see represents the difference between parties in the same manner as Mr. Hooker i. e. none as to the point of the presence of the same body here in the Eucharist as it is at the same time above in Heaven § 14 5. Thus Archbishop Lawd Confer with Fisher § 35. n. 3. The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his Passion Yon Roman Catholicks add a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner Consubstantiation which more deny And upon truly and really he notes in the Margin Calvin 's saying in 1 Cor. 11.24 Neque enim mortis tantum resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit Ib. n. 7. Punct 3. I hope A. C. dare not say that to believe the true substantial presence of Christ is either known or damnable Schism or Heresie Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this as do believe possibility of salvation in the Roman Church c. and Ib. n. 3. upon Bellarmin 's words Conversionem Paris Vini in corpus sanguinem Christi esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem he saith That if the Cardinal had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs Real by this he means Substantial as also is affirmed by the Cardinal presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no Man could have spoken better And § 35.6 n. Punct 4. quotes also Bishop Ridley 's Confession set down in Fox p. 1598. whose words are these You the Transubstantialists and I agree in this that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father c. only we differ in modo in the way and manner of being there § 15 6. Thus Dr. Taylor one of the last who hath written a just Treatise on this subject 1. § 11. n. p. 18. It is enquired whether when we say we believe Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that body that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified dead and buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified but he that saith that body is glorified which was crucified says it is the same body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth for there is no other body no other blood of Christ but tho' it is the same we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament as Bertram as S. Hierom as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm the meaning is easie they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense and then calling Corpus spirituale the word spirituale is not a substantial predication but is an affirmation of the manner tho' in disputation it be made the Predicate of a Proposition and the opposite member of a Distinction That Body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words
when the notion is certain and easie And thus far is the sense of our Doctrine in this Article Here we see this Doctor becomes such a zealous advocate of this Cause as to frame an answer to all such sayings in the Fathers as may seem by the expression to import as if the same body that was crucified were not eaten here by us in the Sacrament and defends the contrary Again § 12. p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which flesh suffered for us let them be Anathema But quo modo is the question c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence his Book bearing this Title The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ c. understood to be particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner not spiritual presence therefore so as to exclude Corpus Domini but only the corporal or natural manner of that body now by exclusion of the natural manner is not meant surely the exclusion of nature or of the thing it self for then to say a thing is there after a natural manner were as much as to say the thing is not there but the exclusion of those properties which usually accompany nature or the thing See p. 12. where he allows of the term substantialiter and of that expression of Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest and in the same page he saith when the word Real presence is denied by some Protestants it is taken for natural and not for in rei veritate § 16 7. Thus Bishop Forbes de Eucharistia 2. l. 2. c. 9. § An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus Protestantes saniores non dubitant In sumptione enim Eucharistiae ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis adorandus est Christus vera latria siquidem corpus ejus vivum gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni sed ipsi corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur perfcitur And Ib. § 8. Immanis est rigidorum Protestantium error qui negant Christum in Eucharistia esse adorandum nisi adoratione interna mentali non autem externa aliquo ritu adorativo ut in geniculatione aut aliquo alio consimili corporis situ hi fere omnes male de praesentia Christi Domini in Sacramento miro sed vero modo praesentis sentiunt Again 3. l. 1. c. § 10. Dicunt etiam saepissime sancti Patres in Euharistia offerri sacrificari ipsum Christi Corpus ut ex innumeris pene locis constat sed non proprie realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietatibus servatis sed per commemorationem repraesentationem ejus quod semel in unico illo sacrificio Crucis quo alia omnia sacrifcia consummavit Christus summus Sacerdos noster est peractum per piam supplicationem qua Ecclesia ministri propter unici illius sacrificii perpetuam victimam in Coelis ad dextram Patris assistentem in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem Deum Patrem humillime rogant ut virtutem gratiam hujus perennis victimae Ecclesiae suae ad omnes cerporis animae necessitates efficacem salutarem esse velit Here is acknowledg'd 1. Christi corpus in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesens 2. Hoc corpus oblatum in Eucharistia ut sacrificium Deo Patri 3. Ipsi corpori Christi ut praesenti in Eucharistia miraculo quodam ineffabili immediate debita adoratio varae Latriae § 17 8. Thus the Archbishop of Spalato much-what to the same purpose de Rep. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. 7. § Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis sanguinis Christi ille vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen quodam spirituali miraculoso impereeptibili sumit omnis digne communicans adorare potest debet corpus Christi quod recipit non quod lateat corporaliter in pane aut sub pane aut sub speciebus accidentibus panis sed quod quando digne sumitur panis Sacramentalis tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens § 18 8. And thus Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy 3. l. 3. c. p. 17. That which I have already said is enough to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the same before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the Soul which the eating and drinking Christ's Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth and Ib. 2. c. p. 10. when it follows He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lord's Body unless a Man discern the Lord's Body where it is not of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be c. and 3. l. 23. c. p. 225. he saith That anciently there was a reservation from Communion to Communion and that he who carried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home drinking the Blood at present might reasonably be said to communicate in both kinds Neither can faith he that Sacramental change which the Consecration works in the Elements be limited to the Instant of the Assembly tho' it take effect only in order to that Communion unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth and 3. l. 5. c. p. 44. Having maintained that the Elements are really changed from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament and that in virtue of the Consecration not by the Faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth namely that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them c. and then p. 46. he farther collecteth thus And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is also both propitiatory and impetratory and 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. I suppose saith he that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are and must be adored by a good Christian where the custom of the Church which a Christian is obliged to communicate with requires it And p. 351. Not to balk the freedom which hath carried me to publish all this I do believe that it was practised and done i.e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eucharist in the ancient Church which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ obliging all to
conform to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this That there is no just cause why it shou'd not be done at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole Here is acknowledg'd 1. Presently upon Consecration a presence of Christ's Body and Blood with or in the Elements before any presence of them to the Soul by a living Faith of which body becoming here present the unworthy Receivers are said to be guilty 1 Cor. 11.22 2. A permanency of this Body and Blood with these Symbols in the reservation of them after the assembly had communicated 3. The Elements consecrated in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ is contained in them affirmed to be truly the sacrifice on the Cross 4. Adoration of this Body and Blood as so present to be a duty and antiently practised CHAP. III. Considerations on the second Observable That a natural Body cannot be in many places at once § 19 THis I had to represent and these witnesses to produce against the first Observable the profession made in this Declaration That the natural Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist It were an easy task here to back the testimony of these Writers with those of the Fathers to the same purpose but I conceive it needless since the same Protestant Writers here cited urge the authority of Antiquity as a chief inducement and motive of this their Assertion Now then to consider the second the urging for such Non-presence this reason because it is against the truth of a natural Body to be or because a natural Body cannot truly be in more places than one at one time 1. Here also first I find Protestants §. 20. n. 1. and especially our English Divines generally to confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery which I conceive is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by humane reason For this thus Calvin himself long ago in the beginning of the Reformation Inst 4. l. 17. c. 24. § Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior vel naturae legibus subjicio Humanae rationi minime placebit that which he affirms penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit alimentum Dicimus Christumtam externo symbolo quam spiritu suo ad nos descendere ut vere substantia carnis suae animas nostras vivificet In his paucis verbis qui non sentit multa subesse miracula plusquam stupidus est quando nihil magis incredibile quam res toto coeli terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas in tanta locorum distantia non tantum conjungi sed uniri ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi Nihil magis incredibile therefore not this more incredible that Idem Corpus potest esse in diversis locis simul And §. 31 Porro de modo siquis me interroget fateri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat And § 25. Captivas tenemus mentes nostras ne verbulo duntaxat obstrepere ac humiliamus ne insurgere audeant Nec vero nefas nobis esse ducimus sanctae Virginis exemplo in re ardua sciscitari quomodo â—â—ri possit See more Ibid. § 7. Naturae legibus non subjicio humanae rationi minime placet quomodo fieri potest Surely these argue something in it seemingly contradictory to nature and humane reason Thus King James of the Eucharist in his answer to Cardinal Perron by Causabon §. 20. n. 2. Mysterium istud magnum esse humano ingenio incomprehensibile ac multo magis inenarrabile Eccl. sia Anglicana fatetur docet And thus speaks Dr. Taylor in Real presence §. 20. n. 3. § 11 n. 28. after that he had numbred up many apparent contradictions not only in respect of a natural but as he faiths of an alsolute possibility of Transubstantiation from p. 207. to p. 337. Tet saith he let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it and wake publick amends all my arguments i. e. of apparent Contradictions and absolute Impossibilities And n. 28. To this objection That we believe the doctrine of the Trinity and of the Incarnation of our Saviour's being born of a pure Virgin c. clauso utero and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions notwithstanding seeming impossibilities and therefore why not Transubstantiation He answers That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation as of the other then this Argument were good and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation of which ten thousand then suppose that this be one That Idem corpus non potest esse simul in duobus locis yet we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all Now none can believe a thing true upon what motive soever which he first knows certainly to be false or which is all one certainly to contradict For these we say are not verifiable by divine power and ergo here I may say should Divine Power declare a truth it would transcend it self Again in Liberty of Prophecy 20. § 16. n. he saith Those who believe the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation Yet I suppose himself denies no such doctrine about the Trinity that is commonly delivered in the Schools § 21 2. I conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a perfect contradiction can no more be effected by divine power than another or than many other the like may therefore if these men do admit once that some seeming contradiction to reason may yet be verified in this Sacrament for which they call it an ineffable mystery I see not why they should deny that this particular seeming contradiction among the rest of the same body being at the same time in several al places yet by the divine power I say not is for the knowledge of this depends on Revelation but may be so verified § 22 3. I cannot apprehend but that these Writers must hold this particular seeming contradiction or some other equivalent to it to be true so long as they do affirm a real and substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant here on earth contradistinct to any such other real presence as implies only a presence of Christ's Body in its virtue efficacy benefits spirit c. which
in pluribus locis implitat expresse contradictionem quia illud quod est circumscriptive in distantibus locis oporter quod sit distinctum distinctione locorum quia quicquid est circumscriptive in loco aliquo totum continetur ab ipso it a quod nihil contenti est circumscriptive extra continentem Propter quod illa quae sunt in distinctis locis circumscriptive necessario distincla sunt quia est contra rationem unius quod sit distinctum ideo si unum corpus esset in pluribus locis circumscriptive esset unum non unum seu indistinctum quod implicat contradictionem 2. That they put a third way of presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist real and true and tho' not per modum quantitatis dimensive §. 24. n. 3. yet per modum substantiae * Aqui. n. 3.76 q. 3. art which they say is a mode proper to this Sacrament and such as hinders not the same body at the same time to be alibi elsewhere and yet to remain tho' it be elsewhere indivisum in se which the other Presences in their acception of them do hinder Of which thing thus Durand contends * In 4 sent 11. d. q. 1. That Christ's Body is present in the Sacrament ratione solius praesentiae ad locum not ratione continentiae either circumscriptive or definitive and that Quod est praesens loco hoc modo potest esse simul praesens in pluribus locis sicut Angelus saith he est praesens omnibus corporibus quae potest movere §. 24. n. 4. Mean-while other Schoolmen and Controvertists take liberty to dissent from these See Scotus in 4. sent dist 10. q. 2. and Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 3. c. and it seems not without reason For why should this their Substantial or Sacramental way as real and true as any of the other of Christ's Body being at the same time in Heaven and in the Eucharist consist with this Body's remaining indivisum in se more than the circumscriptive or definitive way rightly understood and freed of their limitations or why impose they such a notion on these two ways that they must imply an exact adequation of the place and the placed or exclude it from being at all any where else any more than the other Substantial or Sacramental way which they maintain doth Thus far I have stept aside to shew that the Doctor receive◠〈◊〉 advantage here for the denying the Essential or Substantial pâ—â—sence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist from the difference in the Schools concerning the Mode thereof whilst all of them agree both in such Substantial presence and also in Transubstantiation § 25 Consequently to what hath been said I gather also First That if we do not take praesentia corporalis or praesentia naturalis in such a sense as they imply the presence of some corporal or natural accidents or properties by divine power separable as some are the essence still preserved and who knows exactly how many in which respect Christ's Body is denied as by the English so by the Roman and Lutheran Churches to be in the Eucharist modo corporeo or naturali but take them as they imply the corporal or natural presence of the essence or substance of this Body thus will Real or Essential Presence be the same with corporal and natural And therefore these words Real and essential presence seem as truly denied to be in the Eucharist by the first composers of the foresaid Declaration in the latter end of K. Edward's days as the words Corporal and Natural presence are in this 2d Edition thereof in A. D. 1661. I say the one the essential or substantial denied to be there as much as the other the natural whenever this reason in both is added for it viz. because Idem corpus non potest esse simul in diversis locis For this reason seems necessarily to exclude the one as well as the other the real and essential presence as well as corporal and natural § 26 Indeed the present Rubrick hath only these words That no adoration ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood whereas that in King Edward's time hath these That no adoration ought to be done unto any real and essential presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood the words Real and essential then being now changed into Corporal and this seems to be done with some caution for the present Church her maintaining still a real and essential presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist whereas those in the later time of King Edward seem to have denied it For as the first days of this Prince seem to have been more addicted to Lutheranism so the latter days to Zuinglianism as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley see his last examination in Fox p. 1598. and his stating the first Question disputed at Oxford about the Real Presence and of Peter Martyr * See Disput Oxon. 1549. fol. 18 67 88. When also this Question An Corpus Christi realiter vel substantialiter adsit in Eucharistia in Oxford was held negatively and when all those alterations were made in the Form of the Service of our Lord's Supper mentioned before in the beginning of this Discourse that might seem to favour any presence of Christ's Body in relation to the Symbols But here I say if the words of the former Rubrick real and essential were by the late Clergy changed into corporal on any such design that so the real and essential presence might be still by them maintained then I ask here how can the same reason be still retained in their opinion thus altered For this reason that the same body cannot be at one in several places as I have said combats as well a real and essential presence which they now would seem to allow as a corporal which they reject § 27 2. I infer that let them express this essential or substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist still defended by them how they please by calling in Mystica Spiritualis Symbolica Sacramentalis or the like yet if the presence of the Essence or Substance be still retained they are eased no more thus from maintaining that Idem corpus potest esse in duobus locis or ubi simul than any other party which hold any grosser presence there And therefore suppose if you will a body cloath'd with all its usual accidents of quantity and dimensions and of quality except you will number also this amongst them to possess but one place and except you will annex to circumscriptive or definitive the restrictions mentioned before § 24. n. 2. and it may no less when such is the divine pleasure be thus at the same time in many places than when stript of them for the same seeming absurdities and contradictions follow from an Angel's or Soul's being at the same time in two distinct definitive ubi's without any continuation if I
semel nunquam quaesitum esse aut disputatum an possit Deus hoc aut illud efficere sed hoc tantum an ita velit See more in the Author To which I may add S. Austin's saying Cura pro mortuis c. 16. Ista Quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincit quemadmodum opitulentur Martyres iis quos per eos certum est adjuvari utrum ipsi per seipso adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis tanta inter se longinquitate discretis c. or whether this was done per Angelica ministeria usquequaque diffusa shew this Father believed no impossibility of a Martyrs being uno tempore in diversis locis § 31 And from this reason of their uncertainty of such contradiction whether it is real in respect of the divine power it seems to be that the Convocation of the Clergy in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's days both cast out of the 28 of the former Articles of Religion made in the end of King Edward's Reign these words following Cum naturae humanae veritas requirat ut unius ejusdemque hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit sed in uno aliquo definito loco esse oporteat idcirco Christi corpus in multis diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest Et quoniam ut tradunt sacrae literae Christus in coelum fuit sublatus ibi usque ad finem saeculi est permansurus non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus sanguinis realem praesentiam corporalem ut loquuntur praesentiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri And also cast out this very Rubrick or Declaration out of the then Common-prayer book and also restored again the former Form in administring the Communion The Body of our Lord c. preserve thy body and soul and all this saith Dr. Heylin * Hist Reform Q. Eliz. p. 11. lest under colour of rejecting a Carnal they might be though also to deny such a Real presence as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers § 32 And lastly the late Clergy also in 1661 in that part of this received Rubrick or Declaration wherein they reject the words of the former real and essential presence as is said before § 3. n. 4. seem to disallow the opinion of K. Edward's latter Clergy and to vindicate still the real presence but then they retaining still unchanged the last expressions of the former Rubrick which affirm Christ's natural Body not to be in the Eucharist and that upon such a ground as is there given seem again to disclaim it unless they will justifie as seeming a contradiction as that is of idem in pluribus locis simul which they condemn A contradiction I say for I cannot discern how this Christ's natural body is here and is in Heaven and yet but one body can be pronounced a contradiction and this Christ's natural body is not here but only in Heaven and yet this natural body is here most certainly received can be pronounced none For if this can be justified to be part of their Faith that the natural body of Christ is not here in the Eucharist but only in Heaven yet this is another part thereof see the former Testimonies § 8. c. that the natural body of Christ is here in the Eucharist received It the body that was born of the B. Virgin not a grace only not a spirit only but it it self for both Hoc est corpus meum and the general Tradition of the ancient Church seems to have necessitated these Divines to this expression and facti participes substantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione saith Calvin quoted before § 8. Now if these things be so then this expressing only is one part of their faith in this Rubrick viz. that the natural body is not here and the not mentioning the other part with it viz. that the naturul body notwithstanding is here received by every worthy Communicant it matters not after what manner received so this manner deny not the presence of this body seems at least to betray their Faith to a dangerous misconstruction and to precipitate him who hears such a confession into Zuinglianism But if we would express our whole and entire Faith here concerning this matter it cannot be but that he who hears it observing that both Christ's body is here for he really receives it and not here for it is only in Heaven in that it is both within him and at the same time many millions of miles from him and yet cannot possibly be at two places at one will presently say with Calvin * See before §. 20. S. Virginis exemplo Quomodo fieri possit Nihil magis incredibile and then I see not what they have to answer him but Mysterium Arcanum Miraculum Ineffabile And then how can they urge others as they do here with contradictions and impossibilities who go about to explain this ineffable mystery by Idem corpus in pluribus locis and mean while maintain the like contradictions themselves desiring to have their contradiction passed and currant the others supporessed § 33 To express my disquisitions yet a little more fully and to see if they can possibly find and evasion without retiring to Zuinglianism from those difficulties themselves with which here they press others If they say that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist but they mean not to the Elements but to the Receiver and that not to his Body but to his Soul yet if they affirm it as much or as far present to the Soul as others do to the sings as Mr. Hooker saith they differ only about the subject not the presence do not the same objections absurdities c. concerning Christ's being both really and essentially in Heaven and in the place where the Communion is celebrated with which they afflict others for making it present with the signs return upon themselves for making it present with the Receiver For if it be possible that the Body of Christ now sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven can notwithstanding this be present in our Soul or in our Heart in such a place on Earth so may it under with or instead of Bread in the same place unless we say that they affirm not the real presence to the Soul which the others do to the Bread But the these writers must not say that they differ only about the manner or the subject of his Presence but the Presence it self also § 34 If they say that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist but they mean spiritually not naturally or not corporally so say others both Romainst and Lutheran i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities accompanying where is no supernatural effect the nature or essence of a Body but if they will extend spiritually so far as that it shall imply
Christ's Body to be there really and essentially yet not to be there quoad naturam or essentiam suam or Christ's Body to be there not quoad corpus this is by a distinction to destroy the thesis § 35 Again if they say really and essentially there present but not locally so say the Lutheran and Roman Doctors i. e. circumscriptive or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have in their natural condition but if they will extend locally so far as that they understand Christ's Body to be there by no manner of ubi at all not so much as ubi definitive or so that they may truly say 't is hic so as not ubique or not alibi where no Communion is celebrated what is this but to affirm 't is there so as that it is not at all there § 36 If they say really and essentially present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on Earth as members to it in Heaven besides that thus Christ's Body is no more present in the Eucharist that in any other Ordinance or Sacrament wherein the Spirit is conferred such presence is properly of the Spirit not of the Body and advanceth us not beyond Zuinglianism § 37 But if at last they plainly interpret real and essential presence by Christ's being present in corporal absence to the worthy Receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof Thus also they slide back into Zuinglianism Concerning which opinion the Remonstrants well discerning the difficulties into which the affirming of a Real presence doth cast other Protestant parties in the Apol. pro Confessione sua p. 256. said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima ad idololatriam omnem evitandam in hac materia in primis necessaria quae a Calvino illius sequacibus dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. And upon the same terms the Socinians reject Calvin's Doctrine See Volkelius 4. l. 22. c. p. 316. Tertius error eorum est qui Christi corpus sanguinemque re-vera quidem in sacra coena a nobis comedi bibique existimant verum non corporali sed spirituali ratione hoc a nobis fieri affirmant Cujus quidem opinionis falsitas vel hoc uno convincitur quod non solum Christi verbis nequaquam continetur sed etiam cum sanae mentis ratione pugnat quae dictat fieri non posse ut Christi corpus tanto intervallo a nobis disjunctum in coena re-vera comedamus Idcirco ille ipse Calvinus qui sententiae istius author est fatetur se hoc mysterium nec mente percipere nec lingua explicare posse § 38 I find also a late Writer replying on this manner to his Adversary W. H. urging Roman Tradition examined p. 12. That some of the Learned'st of the English Clergy confess the Holly Eucharist after Consecration to be really and truly our Saviour's Body and therefore adore it and for this cause disown the New Rubrick which saith Our Lord's Body is in Heaven and not on the Altar telling us that they acknowledge the Thing only dare not be so bold as the Romanists to determine the Manner a thing said by Bishop Andrews and others in the former Testimonies I find him I say returning this answer 1. To the Rubrick That this new Rubrick is but the old one restored where he might have done well to have considered by whom in was also ejected before its late restorement in A. D. 1661. viz. by the English Clergy and that within a year or two after it first appeared a New Additional in King Edward's second Common-Prayer Book 2. To the Persons If saith he you speak true of them what regard should we have of the judgment of such Clergy-men as declare their assent and consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common-Brayer Prayer and Articles of Religion and yet disown the Rubrick and believe Transubstantiation and adore the Eucharist as Christ's Body Why do not you call such the Roman Clergy rather than the English if they differ from you but only in a want of boldness to determine the Manner whilst they acknowledge the Thing What if a Bishop Bramhall will have the Pope to be Principium Unitatis and take Grotius to be of the mind of the Church of England who would have Rome to be the Mistress-Church and the Pope to be the Vniversal Governor according to the Canons of Councils even the Council of Trent must we therefore stoop to such mens judgments Or might you not as well tell us That Cassander or Militier yea or Bellarmine were of your mind Thus he But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary in the Eucharist and with the Symbols tho' the manner not prescribed doth Romanize this Clergy Bishop Cousins is one of those number * See the former Discourse concerning the Eucharist § 5. n. 2. c. And it is much that this person having read his Book who also which I much wonder at makes this his own opinion of an Essential presence that of all Protestants did not discern this but hath in his Postscript recommended for the satisfaction of others one so much differing from his own Judgment who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop in this manner p. 14. That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified which he denies to be flesh and blood but such as was truly flesh and blood which he once offered the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in and by the Eucharist And p. 15. That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood i. e. in the words Hoc est Corpus meum when his real Body was not broken nor slain nor his bloodshed till after And I can scarce believe saith he that man that saith he believeth that they the Apostles believed that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood * p. 57. to St. Cyril's words Do not look on it as bare bread and bare wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ For tho' thy sense suggects this to thee yet let Faith confirm thee he answers The Bread and Wine are not bare or meer Bread and Wine but Christ's Body and Blood as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood and of his Sacrifice on the Cross really given to us in the Eucharist but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins CHAP. IV. Considerations on the third Observation No Adoration intended or due to any Corporal presence THis from § 19. I had to present
to that interpretation thereof which the Supremest Authority in the Church that hath been heretofore convened about such matters hath so often and always in the same manner decided to him and so to act according to its Injunctions § 26 III. But if these Councils be declined as not being so ancient as some may expect i. e. not held before some controversy hapned in the Church touching the point they decided Catholicks still have another very Rational ground of such a sense of the Divine Writ viz. the evident testimony of the more Primitive times Which that they have conveyed the Tradition of such a sense to the present Church and to these former Councils to repeat what hath been said already in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 1. because perhaps by scarcity of copies that Book may come to few hands I think will be clear to any one not much interessed that shall at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by quoted parcels the discourses on this Subject Of St. Ambros de Myster init cap. 9. the Author de Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father 4. l. 4 and 5. Chapters Cyril Hierosol Cateches Mystagog 4 5. Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 83. In Act. Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Greg. Nissen Orat. Catechet ch 36 37. Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatensis de Paschate Serm. 5. Hilarius Pictav de Trinitate the former part of the 8th Book Cyril Alexand. in Evangel Joan. l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the authenticalness of which pieces enough also hath been said elsewhere § 27 IV. In a consequence of and succession from this doctrine of those Primitive times and of the later Councils of the Church when this Point was brought into some Dispute and Controversie a Catholick hath for a Rational ground of his Faith and practice the universal doctrine and practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time and at the present also excepting his followers For the Eastern Churches disputed by some Protestants both their belief of a corporal presence with the Symbols and practice of Adoration see what hath been said at large in the Guide in Controversy disc 3. c. 8. where also are exhibited the testimonies of many learned Protestants freely conceding it and again in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 22. p. 313. and n. 9. p. 294. See also the late eminent evidences of the Faith and Practice of these Eastern Churches at this day collected by Monsieur Arnaud in his two replies to Claude a brief account whereof also is given in the Guide Disc 3. § 81. n. 2 c. In which matter whereas one of the chiefest and commonest Pleas of Protestants is the Greek and Eastern Churches their according with them whereby they seem to out-number the Roman if any will but take the courage notwithstanding his secular Interest candidly to examin it I doubt not he will receive a full Satisfaction Lastly see D. Blondel one much esteemed by Protestants for his knowledge in ancient Church-History granting an alteration in the Doctrine concerning our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist an Alteration he means from that which is now maintained by Protestants and was by the former Antiquity begun in the Greek Church after A. D. 754. * Esclaireissements sur L' Eucharistie c. 15. i. e. begun so soon as any dispute hapned in the Eastern Church concerning this Presence which dispute was first occasion'd there upon an Argument which was taken from the Eucharist and urged against Images by the Council of Constantinople under Constantius Copronymus and was contradicted by Damascen and shortly by the 2d Nicene Council In which opinion of the 2d Nicene Council and Damascen Blondel freely acknowledgeth the Greek Churches to have continued to this day See c. 16. p. 399. Again granting an Alteration in the same Doctrine as is said before begun in the Western Church A. D. 818. * See Ibid. c. 18. i. e. as soon as the like dispute hapned about this Point in the Western Parts which dispute there was occasioned by the Council held at Frankfort under Charles the Great opposing the expressions of the foresaid Constantinopolitan Council in like manner as the 2d Nicene Council had done before Lastly if we ask him what this Alteration in the East first and afterward in the West was 1. He maketh it much-what the same in both And then he explains it to be a kind of Impanation or Consubstantiation or Assumption of the Bread by our Lord Christ His words c. 19. are these Des l' An. 818. c. Some among the Latins did as it were in imitation of the Greek conceive a kind of Consubstantiation partly like partly unlike to what many Germains he means Lutherans now maintain which to speak properly ought to be called Impanation or Assumption of the Bread by the Word of God And c. 20. he goes on The opinion of Paschasius whom he makes Leader in the Western as Damascen in the Greek Church had advanced before A. D. 900. an Impanation of the Word fortified and getting credit by degrees the establishment of which saith he p. 440. both Damascen and Paschasius designed Wherein he saith p. 441. they supposed a kind of Identity between the Sacrament and the Natural Body of Christ founded upon the inhabitation of the Deity in them which at last produced he saith the establishment of Transubstantiation under Pope Innocent the Third Here then 1. We see granted both of the Greek and Latin Church the same Tenent 2. We may observe that this Tenent of Impanation he imposeth on them when well examined is found much more gross and absurd than that of Transubstantiation For which see what is said in Bellarmin de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. 15. Or in Suarez de Sacrament Disp 49. But 3. see in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 13. and n. 16. c. that this Doctrine of Damascen and the Greek Church and afterwards of Paschasius and the Latin before Innocent the Third's time was plain Transubstantiation and is misrepresented by Blondel for Impanation and therefore never hath the Greek Church hitherto had any contest or clashing with the Roman concerning this point And see the concessions also of other Protestants very frequent and more candid of Transubstantiation held by the Greek Churches of later times as well as by the Roman produced in the Rational Account concerning the Guide in Controversies Disc 3. c. 8. 4ly Lastly these Churches in which he saith such an Alteration was made from the former Doctrine of Antiquity deny it at all so to be and affirm that when some new opinions appeared they maintained and vindicated it as the Doctrine of the Fathers their Proofs of it being also extracted out of the Fathers Testimonies Now then to stand against such a strong stream of both East and West running constantly in this course seems