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
affirmative precept which according to the received rule tyes always tho' it cannot tye a Man to do the duty always because he then should do nothing else what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite and presently to take hold and oblige And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to express by the bodily act of Adoration that inward honour which we always carry toward our Lord Christ as God Again p. 351. Not to balk that freedom saith he which hath carried me to publish all this I do believe that it was so practised and done i. e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eucharist in the ancient Church and in the symbols before receiving 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 should not be done at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole which were it taken away that it this adoration might be done again and ought not to be of it self alone any cause of Distance i. e. between the Churches of Christ 6. It is granted by Daille in his Apology c. 11. and in his defence of it against Chaumont 1. That altho' the Reformed of his party do not believe the presence of Christ's body in the Signs yet they esteem not the belief of it so criminal that it obligeth them to break off communion with all those that hold it So that had the Roman Church no other error save this they freely confess it had given them no sufficient cause of separating from it as saith he appears in this that we tolerate and bear with it in the Lutherans And again * Reply to Chaumont p. 63. for the adoration of this Body as so present with the signs when indeed it is not so he saith That it is only vain and unprofitable and that as one may say falls to nothing being deceived not in this that it makes its addresses to an object not adorable but in this only that mistaking it it seeks it and thinks to embrace it there where it is not And c. 12. he also freely confesseth That had the Church of Rome only obliged them to worship Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and not used this expression that the service of Latria ought to be rendred to the Holy Sacrament * Conc. Trid. sess 13.5 she had not obliged them by this to adore any Creature Thus he as it were constrained thereto by the Lutherans Protestants Opinion and Practice for his retaining their Communion and freeing them from Idolatry 2. It is granted also Apol. c. 11. That when our Lord was on Earth a Disciple's giving divine honours upon mistake to another person much resembling him would be no Idolatry So supposing the Consecrated Host were truly adorable granted that should any one see one on the Altar that hapned not to be Consecrated and Worship it neither would such a person be guilty of Idolatry So he pronounces him blameless that should give the Honour and Service due to his true Prince to a Subject whom very like he took for his Prince Yet that a Manichean worshipping the Sun mistaken to be the very substance of Christ see S. Austin contra Faustum l. 12. c. 22. l. 20. c. 9. for Christ or to represent the opinion more refined worshipping with divine honours not the Sun but only Christ in the Sun he could not in this be excused from Idolatry And that that which distinguishes these cases and renders them so different is not a good intention to worship only him that is truly God or Christ nor the opinion and belief Men have that the Object they worship is truly such for this good intention as he in that Chapter and other Reformed Writers and among others Dr. Stillingfleet copiously press is common to the worst of Idolaters as to the rest but the error or ignorance of the Judgment from which flows this mistaking practice as that is perversly affected and culpable or innocent and excusable Of which thus he Ibid. I maintain that ignorance excuseth here when it is involuntary when the subject I add or the presence of it we mistake in is so concealed that whatever desire we have or pains we take to find out the truth it is not possible for us to discover it But there where the ignorance of the Object or of its presence proceeds not from the obscurity or difficulty of the thing but from the malice or negligence of the person this is so far from excusing that it aggravates our fault Thus he excuses one that should have adored a person much resembling our Lord or an unconsecrated Host because no passion or negligence of his caused such a mistake but not those who worshipped the Sun for Christ or Christ in the Sun because saith he the ignorance of such people is visibly affected and voluntary arising from their fault only and not from the obscurity of the things they are ignorant in Nor so Roman Catholicks in their worshipping the Sacrament for Christ because saith he the error proceeds entirely from their passion and not any thing from abroad Thus he clearing such actions from Idolatry where the error of the judgment is no way perverse voluntary and culpable Having hitherto shewed you several Concessions of Protestants and having urged none here from any of them but such as I think all will or in reason ought to admit next I proceed to examine what it is that in this matter Catholicks do maintain § 9 1. And first Catholicks affirm in the Eucharist Assertions after the Consecration a sign or symbol to remain still distinct and having a diverse existence from that of the thing signified or from Christ's Body contained in or under it See Conc. Trident. sess 13. c. 3. Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis ut sit symbolum rei sacrae visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae By which forma visibilis as Bellarmin expounds it de Eucharist 4. l. 6. c. is meant the species of the Elements not the Body of Christ So Bellarmin Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species panis vini sunt signa corporis sanguinis Christi ibi revera existentium And 3. l. 21. c. Accidentia remanent quia si etiam accidentia abessent nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile proinde nullum esset Sacramentum So Estius in 4. sent 1. dist 3. § 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 4. l. 34. c. where he saith Eucharistiam
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
recommended by this Church This briefly on the third Observable CHAP. V. Some Replies to the former Discourse TO conclude Some Replies I can imagine to this former Discourse Such as these 1. To the first Observable abovesaid § 48 The First Limitation The Natural Body of our Lord not in the Eucharist modo naturali § 4. viz. That the natural Body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist that the meaning is not that it is not there in its essence or substance at all but only that the natural body c. is not there modo naturali or ad modum corporis naturalis not there after a natural manner And if the Declaration means only this for which see Dr. Taylor before § 15. and in the following Discourse concerning the Eucharist § 6. I grant it a truth but find all other parties the Lutherans Calvinists the Roman as well as the English Church agreeing in it For for the Roman thus speaks the Council of Trent Sess 13. 1. c. Neque enim haec inter se pugnant juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dextraâ—â— Patris nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem Sacramentaliter ea existendi ratione quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus possibilem tamen esse Deo cogitatione per sidem illustrata assequi possumus c. Thus Bellarmine de Euchar. 1 l. 2. c. 3 5. c. 10. c. and elsewhere in that Treatise Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco vel ut in vase aut sub aliquo velo sed eo modo ut panis prius sed non ita ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi substantiae 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 well understand this word to exclude not naturam but modum corporis And thus Dr. Holden p. 316. Verum reale corpus Christi profitemur esse in hoc Sacramento non more corporeo passibili sed spirituali invisibili nobis-omnino incognito Spirituali i. e. as opposed to corporali but by no means as opposed to reali And as for the Lutheran I find this in the pacifick Discourses of Bishop Morton Bishop Hall and Bishop Davenant see the 11th Chapter of his adhort ad pacem Ecclesiae sufficiently taken notice of and urged for lessening the difference between the several parties of the Reformed Christum adesse signis but invisibiliter intangibiliter spiritualiter ineffabiliter sacramentaliter modo supernaturali rationi humanae incomprehensibili coelesti Deo soli noto Again about oral manducation in this his presence with the signs Recipi quidem ore sed participari modo divino admirabili inscrutabili non atteri dentibus non dividi partiri frangi per substantialiter corporaliter oraliter nihil aliud significari nisi veram manducationem non physicum non esse cibum corruptibilem sed spiritualem manducari a fidelibus non ad corpus nutriendum i. e. materially sed ad animam sustentandam c. Therefore do they as others detest the Capernaitan error To these I may add what Bishop Forbes saith de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. 28. § Nemo sanae mentis Christum de coelo vel de dextra Patris descendere visibiliter aut invisibiliter ut in coena vel signis localiter i. e. per modum corporis adsit existimat Fideles omnes unanimi consensu uno ore profitentur se firmiter retinere articulos sidei sentiae credere se non esse naturalem corporalem carnalem localem per se c. sed absque ulla coelorum desertione sed supernaturalem c. But then besides that the Proposition carrying such a meaning § 49 had need to be altered in the expression these two being very different the natural body is not here and the natural body is here but not after a natural mode the Reason which follows and is given to confirm it hindreth me from thinking that the present Clergy so understands it viz. this Reason giveth That Christ's natural Body is not there because it is against the truth of Christ natural Body to be which seems all one as if it said Christ's natural Body cannot be at one time in more places than one But if they hold the natural Body to be there as well as in Heaven this its being there tho' there modo non naturali overthrows this Reason by its being still in two places the same time in one modo naturali in the other modo non naturali To the 2d Observable the Reason given It may be said also § 50 The 2d Limitation A natural Body not in many places at one modo naturali That it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be modo naturali or ad modum corporis naturalis in more places than one at once but yet that modo non naturali it might by the divine power be rendred in divers places at once and therefore that this natural Body absolutely speaking is not denied to be also in the Eucharist and not only in Heaven 1. But here also first I do not see any truth in such a gloss § 51 for that which hath been said before § 27. For if it not implying a true contradiction God by his divine power 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 same properties or qualities thereof to be so too For I see not how there can be more difficulty or contradiction to make one and the same quantity or quality to be in two places at once than to make one and the same natural substance nor why more to make the same natural substance of a body to be circumscriâ—â—◠〈◊〉 two places than the same Angel definitive both of these being finite and having certain limits of their essence out of which there essence naturally is not 2. Admitting this Gloss for true § 52 as also that made upon the first Observable § 48. yet I see not how these two assertion iâ— the Declaration § 45. if they be thus understood can afford any foundation for the 3d. assertion for which they are urged viz. That no Adoration is due to Christ's natural Body as being in the Eucharist which natural Body being granted by these glosses to be there tho' not after a natural manner yet can be no less for this an object of Adoration § 53 3. To the 3d. Observable concerning Adoration it may be said That Adoration to Christ's Body The Third Limitation Adoration not denied to Ch. Body as really and essentially but only as corporally present as really and essentially present in the Eucharist is not denied but only as to any corporal presence of it there which seems also to be the cause that the