sententiam a Christi verbis recedere i. e. I conceive as they take the Third Opinion to affirm ipsum panem esse corpus Domini for this seems much more unreasonable than Hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus Domini sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospin hist Sacr. parte altera p. 7. c. Calviniani communiter See Calvin Instit l. 4. c. 17. s 20. where speaking of some of the Lutherans affirming proprie loquendo panem esse corpus Christi he argues that consequently they must say panem esse Christum because totus Christus offertur in coena and then concludes intolerabilis autem Blasphemia est sine figura Praedicari de elemento corruptibili quod sit corpus Again s 30. inveighing against Lutherans Ubiquity he saith Papistarum tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est doctrina And see Judicious Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 5. s 67. how indifferently he behaves himself between the two Tenents of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation censuring them both only as Opinions unnecessary and superfluous and p. 361. saying of the later the Transubstantialists that they justly shun some Labyrinths of the former the Consubstantialists but yet that the way which they take to the same Inn is somewhat more short but no whit more certain See likewise Spalat Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. n. 6. Fateor neque Transubstantiationem neque Ubiquitatem haeresin ullam directe continere c. § XI 7. Yet even those Reformed who cry out of the Fourth Opinion as Heretical Obs 7 Diabolical Blasphemous c. for such also there are Seventhly Observe That for the most part those of the Second Opinion hold the Third notwithstanding the near alliance it appears to have with the Fourth no ways Heretical or tho erroneous destructive of any fundamental or prinpal Article of Faith unless by some Consequences renounced by those who hold the Third Opinion and therefore giving no just cause of any separation of Communion from any such Credere quod caro Christi ubique est quod in pane est oraliter manducetur idque etiam ab impiis stipula palea est Par. in 1 Cor. 3. See many quotations in Bishop Forb Euch. l. 1. c. 4. See likewise Daille's Charity in the place quoted before in the end of the Fourth Observation p. 16. notwithstanding those dangerous Consequences of the Third Opinion of destroying Christ's Humanity by Ubiquity and of Adoration by presence with the Elements See Bishop Hall's Davenant's Morton's Discourses De Pace Ecclesiastica How far can men bend when they have a good mind to it See particularly Bish Hall p. 73. Res apud utrosque eadem c. At last he brings in the Decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are receiv'd to their Communion as agreeing with them in omnibus verae Religionis principiis Articulisque fundamentalibus See Disc conc Rub. of Eng. §. 12. How well therefore the same men can refuse Communion with those of the Fourth Opinion supposing the falsity thereof or asperse it with the name of Heresie c. I see not and perhaps the more moderate do not refuse nor quarrel with it for this But the thing they blame is Adoration or the imposing their Transubstantiation on others as an Article of Faith of which anon to which purpose Daille in his Answer to the Remarks made by Chaumont on his Apology p. 20. hath these words after vindicating Beza and Calvin from holding any real Presence of Christ's Body in the Signs Mais bienque nous ne croyons pas c. Altho we believe no such Presence in the Signs yet we esteem not that Belief so criminal as that it obligeth us to break off Communion with those who hold it as it appears by our tolerating it in the Lutherans So that had the Church of Rome no other Error than this we voluntarily accord her to have given us no sufficient cause of Separation from her What is that Faith of Rome then which I alledg'd as a sufficient cause of Separation then he names this l' Adoration de l'Ostie Thus he § XII Having thus made a Cursory over the Four Opinions about the Eucharist give me leave now to reflect a little upon and search more strictly into the Second Opinion which I think is the Tenent of many of the Church of England Concerning which I do not well understand How it must not either fall into many of the difficulties and seeming contradictions of the Third and Fourth Opinions or slide back into the sense of the First the most intelligible and perspicuous indeed but thought by the rest too much diminutive of this tremendum Mysterium this ineffable Mystery § XIII Concerning the Second Opinion Now let us consider this Second Opinion first concerning its affirming or denying the real or substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Celebration of the Eucharist Next concerning its affirming or denying such Presence in or with the Signs As to the former the phrase of real Presence if we mean by it only presence in something real may be used by those who deny substantial presence For if Christ be present to us in the Eucharist in the benefits of his Passion in his Grace in his Spirit he is present to us in something real tho not in the reality of his Person But they going beyond all these even the last of them also the presence by his Spirit see before p. 2. neque enim mortis tantum c neque enim mihi satisfaciunt c. affirm a real and substantial presence for indeed what can real presence of a substance such as body and blood is be but substantial presence even of that body which suffered upon the Cross for us which presence they clearly contradistinguish to presence by effect influence virtue grace or an uniting of our bodies with Christ's body by the same Spirit abiding in both by which way things furthest distant if we call this presence may be said to be present to one another as long as there is any thing between them that immediately toucheth or informeth both so the head may be said to be present to the foot the Saints in heaven to those on earth the West to the East-Indies so the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood may be affirmed as well as here when ever there is any communication of his Spirit as in Baptism and as properly as the Bread which we break and the Cup which we bless here so the Water that is then poured on us may be said to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ these manners of Presence therefore they count not enough to satisfy the Scripures and Tradition Therefore they speak of Eucharistical-presence as a great mystery Eph. 5. wrought by God's omnipotence after a manner ineffable or incomprehensible to man's reason Lastly as far in substantial
clear consequence tho not acknowledg'd by the Party to ruine Christ's true humane nature the other to destroy the Trinity Such ought to be separated from as men not discerning this consequence only from a some way culpable and affected ignorance See what Daille saith of this Rep. 2. p. 82 83. But to return to Daille therefore saith he tho Adoration should follow upon the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's presence in the Eucharist yet if they acknowledg no such consequence or practise no such thing we may not for their error abhor their Communion In which I may advance one step farther with Daille's good leave that should the Lutherans also acknowledg the consequence and practise such a thing as Adoration of Christ as corporally present in the Eucharist yet for this neither is their Communion refusable Because such Adoration opposeth no Principle but is at the most but vain and inutile according to Daille's own judgment quoted before Observe here also from this Proposition of Daille's That he holds a duty of separation from the Communion of the Church of Rome because of their worshipping the Eucharist tho they should not enjoin it to any because we ought not to Communicate with any such who acknowledg and profess a Doctrine or Practise clearly repugnant to a Principle as he contends the Roman Adoration is As for the other cause of Separation the enjoining this Practise upon men contrarily perswaded we shall speak to it anon Thus much for Daille § XXXI The Roman Qualifications concerning Adoration Next To see what qualifications the Transubstantialists make concerning their Adoration 1. First After Consecration they affirm not Christ's Body to be there alone but the Symbols also to remain with it This is shew'd before 2. They affirm the Symbols capable of some reverence as being holy things but not at all of divine worship as being Christ's Body for they are distinct from it See Cassand Consult de Ador. Euch. Quae adoratio non ad ipsum signum quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interius creditur referenda est quamvis ipsi signo cujus jam virtus intelligitur tanquam religioso sacro sua veneratio debeatur See Forbes his Testimony of them l. 2. c. 2. s 9. In Eucharistia mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae c. Neque satis est quod Christus sub illis sit quia etiam Deus est in anima tanquam in Templo suo tamen adoratur Deus non anima ut ait Suarez Tom. 3. Qu. 79. Art 8. disp 65. sect 1. See Spalat l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri i. e. Romanists dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda sed dicunt corpus Christi verum reale quod sub illis speciebus latet deberi adorari Lastly See Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 6. Species illae neque excellunt aliis sacramentis imo sunt inferiores omnibus cum sint pura accidentia neque adorari possunt Again c. 29. Neque ullus Catholicus est qui doceat ipsa Symbola externa per se proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minori qui omnibus sacramentis convenit Where also he saith those Lutherans that hold Christ adorable in the Sacrament only modo loquendi a Catholicis dissentire And whereas many are offended see Taylor p. 366. that he puts in per se proprie and holds the Adoration of Christ aliquo modo pertinere ad Symbola Yet 1. This is no stating of the Church in any Council 2. Nor an universal Doctrine of the Roman Doctors see Forbes l. 2. c. 2. s 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet 3. He doth afterwards such up again or suspend what he had said before in the conclusion where he saith Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae 4. Lastly If examin'd close the matter is not great for he saith only that we worship Christ in the Eucharist vested with the Symbols as a Disciple worshiped him on Earth his Divinity clothed with Humanity and that again clothed with Garments without making in the act of his Worship a mental separation of his Humanity from his Clothes or of his Deity from his Humanity When yet saith he ratio adorandi i. e. with supreme Adoration non erant vestes imo nec ipsa humanitas sed solum divinitas So then at the worst he affirms no more Worship due to the Symbols in the Eucharist than to Christs Garments when he was on the Earth 3. They deny also any Divine Worship due to the substance of the Bread as well as to its species or symbols which substance of Bread many of them at least hold to be chang'd both for form and also matter that is to be annihilated and nothing at all thereof to remain Catholici cum negent saith Bellarmin panem in Sacramento remanere quomodo possunt asserere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Euch. l. 4. c. 29. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Tenent of it saith Forbes Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur illi idolatriae crassissimae c. insimulantur cum credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem c. l. 2. c. 2. s 9. Tilenus there quoted s 10. Tametsi hi panem ex sententia Protestantium adorant non tamen panem adorandum esse dictitant They deny any Divine Worship due to Bread i. e. to any thing which whilst they affirm to be Christ's Body they acknowledg also to be Bread as those who worshipped the Sun for Christ or the Molten Calf for the God that brought them out of Egypt affirming these still to be the Sun and a Molten Calf for they hold it impossible and involving contradiction That the Bread remaining Bread should also be the Body of Christ and much urge the Lutherans for saying Hic Panis est Corpus meum Therefore also they say That should they worship Bread for the Body of Christ they should be the greatest Idolaters in the World. But yet this I conceive they say not That should they worship Christ's Body as being under the accidents of Bread and yet indeed not his Body but the Bread it self be still under those accidents that so also they should be the greatest Idolaters that ever were For this their very Adversaries less partial to their cause yet will not say of them Nor do they say it of themselves for Bellarmin speaking of one mistakingly Adoring an unconsecrated Host saith Adoratio ex intentione potissimum pendet Quare qui talem panem adorat quod certo credat non esse paâ—â—m sed Christum is
es Lutheriens Quell est donc la cause de nostre separation d'auec elle l'adoration de l' hostie c. 3. He holds that Adoration follows necessarily the tenent of the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist Quant au droit qu' on le peut qu' on le doit adorer attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable Which shews Adoration to be rightly grounded on Christ's corporal presence be it after what manner soever that of the Romanist or that of the Lutheran for le corps de Christ est suiet adorable Apol. 9. c. 4. He resolveth Apol. 10. c. the Jews worshipping before the Ark or footstool Psal 99.5 and Psal 132.7 into worshiping God as especially present there upon the Ark symbolum praesentiae Dei as Rivet calls it or between the Cherubims ver 1. And if we compare adorate scabellum there as the Vulgar read it with adorarunt vitulum Exod. 32.8 to worship the true God of Israel in the Calf is judged idolatry to worship the same God before the Ark or between the Cherubims none 5. So he grants Apol 11. c. That when our Saviour was on â—arth a Disciple's giving divine honour upon mistake to another person much resembling him would be no idolatry so supposing the consecrated Host truly adorable should one see one exposed on the Altar that hapned not to be consecrated and worshiped neither would such a person be guilty of idolatry So he pronounceth him blameless that should give the honour and service due to his true Prince to a subject whom being very like he took for his Prince See concerning Adoration p. 11. The same thing I conceive it is in apparitions Had S John Rev. 22.28 taken the Angel for God appearing as some think he did but the Angel quickly rectified his mistake and so given him divine honours such as Abraham and many other Saints in the Old Testament gave to the Lord appearing this had bin far from an act of idolatry in him So had Mary Magdalen as she took our Saviour for a Gardiner worshiped a Gardiner like apparrelled c for our Saviour it had bin no idolatry But saith Daille should any worship the Sun for Jesus Christ as S. Austin mentions some that did or the Virgin Mary for a Goddess as the Collyridians are said to have done these will be guilty of high Idolatry I add further Should any worship not only an image but which Dr. Hammond hath observed in his Treatise of Idolatry sect 47. any glorified Saint or Angel by giving any of God's attributes to them as the knowledge of the secrets of mens hearts and of all other passages in this lower world and the ability likewise of working miraculous effects as they please and both these not from God's communicated but their own original power and should address his prayers to them as fancied such by him this man will certainly be an idolater Now the reason Daille gives in the same 11. chapter Apol. why in this worshiping the creature for God or Christ some are idolaters some not by Idolaters I mean sinful and formal idolaters as some call them for note that it is no otherwise in idolatry than in other sins there may be a material act or real adultery without fault suppose another man's wife conveyed into the husbands bed instead of his own as Leah was once into Jacobs so the real killing of his neighbour without any guilt suppose by the miscarrying of some instrument a man is using in his vocation and here an ignorance of such a fact without any faulty error in the judgment or obliquity of the intention excuseth the sin Daille's reason therefore for distinguishing guilty idolatry from that which materially may also be called so is not the good intention to worship only him who is truly God or Christ or the opinion and belief they have that the subject they worship is truly such for this as he in that Chapter and other Writers copiously express is common to the worst of Idolaters but the error or ignorance of the judgment from which flows this mistaking practise as that is only affected and culpable or innocent and excusable Of which thus he in that Chapter J ' avoue que l'ignorance excuse la i. e. in this very matter of Idolatry ou elle est involuntaire quand le suiet que nous mesconoissons est tellenent cachê c. mais la ou l'ignorance d'un objet procede non de l'obscurite difficulté de la chose mais de la malice ou de la negligence de l' homme alors tant s'en faut qu'elle excuse c. So he saith those that worshipp'd the Sun for Christ were unexcusable because l'ignorance de tous ces gens estoit visiblement affectes voluntaire née de leur vice seulement non de l'obscuritê des choses qu' ils ignoroient Therefore also afterward upon this reason as he excuseth him that should have worshipp'd one resembling our Saviour or an unconsecrated Host c. because non sa passion ou sa non chalance avoit cause cette mesprise c. So he blameth the Romanist mistaking and worshipping the Sacrament for Christ because l'erreur vient tout enliere de leur passion non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux 6. Mr. Daille grants which I have touch'd before That as we may not reject the Communion of any for every erroneous Tenent when it offends against no principal or fundamental point of Religion see Apol. c. 7. so we may not reject it for Errors tho destructive of a Principle see Apol. c. 9. if it do this not immediately and directly but by some consequences thereof which consequences also are renounc'd and the Principle still maintain'd by those who hold the error Tho if you desire my opinion of this First I see not how any can hold a Principle and yet hold a contrary Tenent that directly and immediately opposeth it for no man is so sottish as to hold two things directly contradictory the one to the other See what he saith for this when press'd by Chaumont in his second Reply p. 81. So then when any one 's Tenent opposeth the Principle which also he holds by some consequence it must be and not be point blank Secondly I see not but that if one holding the Principle hold also another Tenent which by a consequence clear and manifest to others tho not to him ruineth the Principle such an one is to be rejected c. as if he denied the Principle And thirdly The judgment of the clearness of such consequences private men must leave to the Church and her Councils Esse two men as interessed and prepossessed ordinarily pretend contradictories both to be clear For example If the Lutheran Tenent of the ubiquity of Christ's humanity or the Greek Tenent of the Holy Ghost not proceeding from the Son should seem to a General Council the one by a
conc tho speaking somewhat more diminutively of the Eucharist than the other yet seems to say more than any Protestant will allow as is shewed before 2ly That it was an Assembly of Bishops called together by that Emperour that caused the Patriarch of Constantinople to be scourged assented to by no Patriarch which thing is objected against it by the Conc. Nice Act. 6. tom 1. in these words Quomodo autem magna universalis in quam neque omnes consenserunt reliquarum Ecclesiarum praefecti non admiserunt sed anathemate eam devoverunt Non habuit cooperarium ut haec quae nunc celebratur Romanum Papam neque illius Sacerdotes neque per Vicarios neque per provinciales literas quemadmodum fieri in Synodis debet Quinetiam neque concordantes habuit Orientis Patriarchas Alexandrinum inquam Antiochenum urbis sanctae suminos Pontifices neque cum illis etiam inystas sacerdotes Thus Conc. Nice But the same things are affirmed by the historians of those times as also that this Copronymus was opposed for demolishing images in Churches by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch whom he shamefully abused and his Father Leo Isaurus excommunicated for the same cause by Gregory the 3d Bishop of Rome Besides this to lessen the esteem which may be had of it by the reformed I might name the 15. and 17. Canons thereof Whereof the 15th runs thus Si quis non confitetur sanctam semper Virginem Mariam quavis visibili invisibili creatura superiorem cum sincera fide ejus intercessiones tanquam quae libertatem apud eum qui ex se genitus est Deum habeat non postulaverit Anathema And the 17th Canon not unlike Si quis sanctorum c. intercessiones non petierit utpote qui libertatem apud Deum habeant secundum Ecclesiasticam Traditionem pro mundo intervenire Anathema Which Canon tho 't is noted by the Second Nicene Council Act. 6. Tom. 6. post hanc editionem suam c. to have been left out in some later Copies of the Acts of this Council those times growing on after this Synod from opposing of Images to destroying of Reliques and denying of Saints Intercessions a thing not disallow'd by the Reform'd and of calling them also by the name of Saints See the Authors quoted by Mr. Mede Apostasie of later times p. 131 135 c. tho the Council is clear'd from any such Decrees both by Mr. Mede p. 137 and by the whole Body of their Acts examined by the Second Nicene Council their severe Antagonists Yet it is clear that it was one of the ultimate Definitions of that Council since it is found not in the first framing only as Mr. Mede would have it p. 135. but in that first Edition of their Acts which was subscribed by all the Council as appears in the Conclusion of Act. 6. Tom. 6. of the Second Conc. Nic. and which accordingly the Nicene Council undertook to refute as not the first Draughts but the Ratified Acts of that Synod 3. That the Council which revers'd its Doctrine of the Eucharist was General and Confirm'd by all the Patriarchs 4. And lastly That the Council of Francfort also tho it might in something mistake the meaning of the Council of Constantinople for which I will not contend with Mr. Blondel for so perhaps did they of Nice too misunderstand it yet perusing the Doctrine of Nice Censures not it at all a far greater if an error but almost in the same phrase with it Blameth the other of Constantinople saying The mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord was not now to be call'd Imago but Veritas not Umbra but Corpus Which word and other expressions that they imported not less than those of Nice may be shrewdly presum'd from Mr Blondel's Concession c. 18. p. 415. That within a few years after this Council follow'd a Change in the Eucharist-Doctrine in the West a change i. e. to this Tenent of Corporal presence Now all those things well weigh'd let any one judg between the Constantinopolitan Council and those two that follow'd who are more likely to be the Innovators or whose Determination a good Subject of the Church not so able in such high Mysteries to guide himself ought rather to adhere and submit to § XL Now to go on This opinion of Damascen and the Council of Nice The state of the Greek Church since these Councils hath been owned and embraced ever since even to this day by the Greek Church without any opposition to it and that not only as being theirs but the Tenent also of all the Greek Fathers before this Councll which also are frequently by them quoted for it See this confess'd by Mr. Blondel c. 16. p. 399 400. Le Concile de Nice 2. a imposê une tacite loy aux Grecs posterieurs Their adherence ever since to the Doctrine of Nic. Conc. 2 qui ont jusques a nos jours reverê ses decrets de parler a sa mode de renoucer so he is pleased to say but they pretend the contrary en imitant ses fautes au style de la plus venerable antiquité And then he reckons up their Writers since both ancienter and more modern concurring in this opinion naming amongst the ancienter Theophylact and Euthymius See Sandys West Relig. p. 233 234. who confesseth the Greeks to agree with the Romanists in Transubstantiation Sacrifice and the whole Body of the Mass See Dr. Potter Char. Mist sect 7. p. 225. where he saith In the opinion of Transubstantiation the later Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists and justifieth what he saith by many quotations in the Margent See Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s 2. who himself opposing Transubstantiation yet after many Authorities given concludes that Section Certum est recentiores Graecos a Transubstantiationis opinione non fuisse neque etiamnum esse omnino alienos hosce autem omnes Christianae pietatis cultores haereseos aut erroris exitialis damnare magnae profecto audaciae temeritatis esset So l. 2. c. 2. s 14. Graeci Venetiis viventes reliqui omnes Graeci etiam adorant Christum in Eucharistia quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere damnare To give you some of the Graecian expressions since this Council See Theophylact who liv'd in the Ninth Age in Mat. 26. Non enim dixit Hoc est Figura sed hoc est Corpus ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur panis And in 1 Cor. 11. expounding those words non dijudicans Corpus Domini he saith Si certiores essemus quisnam quantus sit ille qui nobis in conspectu adjacet i. e. in Altari nulla ferme rei alterius ope indigeremus c. So speaks Oecumenius on the same place Euthymius in Mat. 26. Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit si ita loqui liceat ita haec ineffabiliter transmutat
to pass over c. But why is Bishop Forbes's testimony past over so unconcernedly and instead of an Answer to his assertions an obloquy left on his Name involving the whole Family of Reconcilers Did he not in that passage write his thoughts Was his intention only a palliating or recommending of Error and Idolatry not a retrenching the opinions and unjustifiable aggravations of those that affect extremes and thro rage desert truth I always conceited the aim of that wise and moderate Person and of other Accommodators to have bin the undisguising of Doctrines and a representation of them in their proper lineaments and habit but not a betraying of truth to purchase a wicked peace Henceforward therefore if this Minister be regarded whenever we hear a man speak of reconcilement we must double our guards and apprehend treachery But where was the Bishop's conscience and respect to piety if according to this Minister to cement a rotten Union he condiscended not only to relinquish his Faith but also to establish an inexcusable Idolatry for his words assert both a substantial presence on the holy Table and an Adoration of our Lord's body there present The presence he means is such a one of which the more orthodox Protestants do not doubt which the Holy Fathers very often mention and which the Puritans grosly erring rejected but the rigider Protestants reject a substantial not a gracious presence so that the Bishop's sense will admit of no other evasion besides his being of the Pacifick tribe which is it seems with this Minister if not in maledictionibus of no authority Thus this impartial Friend to truth whilst he should weigh the arguments considers the personal qualities of an Author and is carried for or against those as these affect or displease him Pag. 66. l. 1. For Bishop Tailor I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication c. Nor I the Answerer of folly for medling with what he can no better discharge His business is to shew either that Bishop Tailor had written no such passage as was cited out of his works or that his words were perverted from their literal sense by the Discourser for to alledge out of the same or another Book sentences contradictory thereto will expose the Bishop indeed but satisfies not the difficulty for the Discourser no where undertook that Dr. Taylor has not said and unsaid acording to the custom of Protestants and Wits but that he has said what with any candor is incapable of any other meaning than is imposed in the Oxford Treatises Bucer's advice to P. Martyr ut Dogma sacramentarium ambiguis loquendi formulis involveret and Dr. Taylor 's boastings and practices are too notorious to be insisted-on or for us to expect from so inconstant artificial and confident a Writer other than that according as his humor or circumstances engaged he should sometimes deliver himself plainly sometimes in affected and intricate terms and never scruple contradicting himself so he might procure a present relief when reduced by his cause or indiscretions to a strait This Reply to this Minister's Answer to Dr. Taylor 's testimony will serve for what was return'd pag. 49. 50. to Calvin's and Beza's Authorities If other places contradictory can be pickt out of their Writings yet that will not manifest that they in the sentences cited intended not a substantial presence But where does Calvin say solum beneficium non corpus ipsum the proposition contradictory to neque tantum beneficium sed corpus ipsum Is it not of this Proposition that Archbishop Lawd says Nor can that place by any art be shifted or by any violence wrested from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist The Archbishop was a Puny in evasions and of a feeble spirit for what his acuteness could not contrive and his courage durst not attempt this Minister has discovered and adventured to perform even to shift off and wrest this place by some that say nothing different and by others that say nothing contradictory Pag. 69. l. 24. And now I am afraid his cause will be desperate unless Mr. Thorndike can support it The same course is taken to answer Mr. Thorndike as was followed to dismiss most of the precedent viz. endeavouring to oppose Mr. Thorndike to himself this practice how useful and how frequently used soever it be by the Answerer as wondrous sufficient yet is rejected by him in parallel cases and he takes that liberty he disallows to such as have equal right to it with himself Yet how will this rare controvertist vindicate Mr. Thorndike from approving Idolatry if he deny that learned Man to hold a substantial presence for what can be more express for Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist than his words are I do believe that it adoration was practised and done in the ancient Church I know the consequence to be this that there is no just cause why it should not be done at present c. Whatever notion therefore Mr. Thorndike had of our Lord's presence certainly he maintained the presence of such a Body as was adorable and that the adoration practised in the Catholick Church was not Idolatry Having thus copiously discuss'd this Point Whether the Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Real Presence was from Queen Elizabeth 's days till the Restauration of the last King for a substantial or but gracious Presence and having amply demonstrated that a substantial Presence was its faith and that as well its Article Communion-Office and Catechism as its supremest Governors and most dignified and learned Doctors are peremptory and full in the case for which the Discourses contend one chief Design of them is secured and defended and by this Minister's confession several points are gain'd as 1. That of all men living the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought not to press us with such contradictions wherein their own opinion is equally involved pag. 41. l. 18. 2. That it is no less a contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by the Church of England's mode of Substantial Presence than by the Church of Rome's which add's only the Manner of that Substance being present viz. Transubstantiation the repugnancy being in the thing it self not in the manner of it Therefore the Philosophical Maxim of the impossibility of one Body's being in many places at the same time must not by Church of England-men be relied-on nor urged in the Dispute between us pag. 44. l. 4. Besides we obtain 3ly That the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought neither to impeach Catholicks of Idolatry nor in taking the Test profess we are Idolaters since according to their faith our object is right and there where we believe it to reside Should they charge the whole Church with Idolatry for worshiping Jesus Christ substantially present in the Eucharist which they both believe and practise Does not
the same reason compel them to affirm Adoration follows their own Doctrine and therefore ours which forced Bishop Morton to say it followed the Lutheran 4ly Their deference to the certainty of sense must be adjusted with ours and Miracles must not be confined to its sphere 5ly Such language as this Minister uses must be forborn and his blasphemous Ironies receive the same detestation with them as they have with as For instance Pref. p. 6. l. penult That the Council of Lateran gave the Priests power of making their God for Church of England Priests if true Priests have the same power with the Catholick But neither pretend by Sacerdotal consecration to make the substance of Christ's Body but only to invoke the Holy Ghost to effect by its Almighty power that the substance of our Lord 's glorified body which now exists gloriously in Heaven may also exist Sacramentally on the Altar Is this making their God The Lateran Definition de Fide Catholica and the Council of Trent informed this Minister what part by Christ's institution not their gift as this man imposes the Priest has in the consecration if he had not bin willing to forget or mistake it for vile purposes Again p. 75. l. 8. That the Popish Real Presence is a meer figment and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored Such putrid falshoods and conceited nonsense will be very indecent in a genuine Church of England man's mouth not only because of his Defender but of his Faith too For such a one to tell us of adoring the Mass and that He abhors it and accounts our Real presence a figment is both absurd and impious But this is the result of a Gallican vagary and of learning the Doctrine of the Church of England from Hugonotal conversation Tales and Fathers Pag. 72. l. 1. That the alterations which have bin made in our Rubric were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions c. Tho it signify little whether the Alterations in the Article and Liturgy and the Disgrace of the Rubric were or were not from a change of opinions so long as the Doctrine of the Church was changed tho this I grant may well be and the other not according to the gloss of subscribing not with assent but for peace and tho too t is a strange casualty for Divines remarkable for resolution and famous for immutability to flit their sentiments as ordinarily as the Moon does her appearances yet the Proof brought that those Divines did not imitate Cranmer in compliance and submission of judgment to the present Possessor of White-Hall is no more than an heap of this Minister's conjectures stampt with the superscription of a Rational account when-as Dr. Heylin equal to Dr. Burnet in abilities and industry and incomparably more honest than that perfidious Fugitive reports that the changes were made lest in excluding a carnal Presence they the Divines sure might be thought to reject such a Real presence as was defended in the writings of the Ancient Fathers Nor is the design of reconciling Parties inconsistent with a change of opinions A comprehension-affair may be pursued by Real Presence-men as well as Zuinglians As to the Copy of Articles perused by Dr. Burnet and out of him mentioned pag. 58. we say again that it ought to be concluded from that rased Monument rather that the Divines did than did not change their Opinions for he that reverses a subscription voluntarily is likelier to have altered his resolution than to have retain'd it especially when induced to expunge what had bin agreed on by an Authority whereto by the Principle of Lay-Supremacy lately assumed by the Prince and submitted to by themselves their judgments were to conform and whose sentiments in Religion they were to believe and profess For Queen Elizabeth had by a dreadful example just then told the world as after she had like to have done in the Lambeth-Articles-Affair that She would not hear the Church but tho a woman be heard by it in matters of Faith and would neither consult with nor follow but controll and prescribe-to Convocations in causes of meer Religion Had She not refused to hear the voice of the whole Clergy in her first and the last Canonical Convocation In a Convocation acting agreeably not only to the institution of Christianity and rules of the Catholick Church but of all other Convocations that ever were in the Nation unless a few in Hen. 8. and Edw. 6. time in a Convocation acting according to all Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil then in force in this Kingdom and representing the Church of England by Law established How then could its Declaration be illegal as the Reflecter on the Historical Part of the Fifth part of Church-Government p. 82. will needs esteem it What could the Queen under a penalty justly prohibit them the use of that Authority both Christ and the Laws of the Land had setled on them alone If this were not tyranny where shall instances of it be found But that Reverend and Catholick Assembly understood both its own power and duty better than so and despising the temporal terrors that only a Tyrant in that case would threaten and a Persecutor execute discharged it self with constancy as became men entrusted with the souls of the Nation tho deprivation were the reward of their Confession Her new and parasitical Ministers understood then what they must do and that for that very end She had raised them up even to think and act at her appointment In return to the conjectures wherewith the Answerer strives to blanch o're a soul defection from the Catholick faith we will relate how we apprehend Religious affairs were managed At Edward the Sixths coming to the Crown the Doctrine of the Church of England was a substantial Presence the manner of that Presence was Transubstantiation but thro the Ambition and Avarice of Governing Parties some quickly began to contest and forsake this Faith vet by degrees rejecting first the manner and afterwards the Presence being assisted in this Apostasy by a few and opposed by most of the Clergy and Laity hence tho there were Assemblies and deliberations had yet no Canonical determinations pass'd or are extant unless such approbations may be deemed Synodical that were obtained by terrors and deprivations of many the most eminent Bishops and dignified Ecclesiasticks for relucting at what derogated from Christian Truth and Church Authority All was done by the conduct and influence of the evil Spirit and neither Scripture nor Antiquity rightly consulted or observed only herein the diligence and craft of those destroying Reformers must to their eternal infamy be own'd that they distinguished points immediately obstructing their gain and licentiousness from others more indifferent rejecting chiefly such as debarred them from spoiling the Church and gratifying their sensual appetites Thus as superstitious or idolatrous prayer for the Faithful deceased that Chanteries the Mass that the furniture of Altars c might be alienated