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
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
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