is the Zuinglian real presence For suppose our Savitour's Body to be as they will have it only naturally or locally in heaven yet if the substance the essence the reality of this Body however stript of its natural properties all such as being not the very essence of it are removeable from it per potentiam divinam be here on earth in the Eucharist when it is also in Heaven be it here present to the symbols or to the receiver or to any thing else it matters not we must affirm that this essence or substance of the same body at least is at the same time in divers places or if we will have this essence to be in heaven only as in a place in divers ubi's which is every whit as seeming contradictory as the other And whoever will grant that an Angel by divine power may be at the same time in two several ubi's cannot reasonably deny that a body may be so in several places or in one place and in another ubi I say then that this Proposition That the same Body is at the same time in divers places or another equivalent to it must be conceded to be true so long as we affirm the essence of our Saviour's body to be here on Earth in the Eucharist at the same time as it is also in Heaven unless we defend one of these two things either § 23 1. That this Body is both here and there by an incomprehensible continuation as it were thereof which sounds somewhat like the ubiquity of some Lutherans for which see the words of Calvin quoted before § 8. Res toto coeli terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas conjungi uniri c. words usher'd in by him with a nihil magis incredibile But then as some seem thus to make Christ's Body that is in Heaven by a certain prolonging or continuation incomprehensible as their expressions seem to import to be joyned upon an act of faith to the Soul of the worthy Receiver here on Earthy whilst yet the same body is still only in Heaven and there no way at all enlarged in its dimensions so why may mot others as probably make the same body that is in Heaven by a certain discontinuation ineffable to be present here on Earth upon the act of Consecration to the symbols or receiver tho' it be in both these places only the same body still and not multiplied in its essence As the same Soul is totally in the Head and the Foot yet this Soul not continued in these two places or Vbi's neither by its parts since it hath none nor by two totals since in both it is but one and suppose one foot of this body doth stand in the water the other on the land the same Soul being totally in both these feet consequently will be totally in the water and totally not in the water but on the land And suppose again the two feet cut off from the body and yet preserved still alive i. e. the soul that did before still informing them per potentiam divinam which we see naturally done in many Insects the same Soul will be now totally in the water and totally on the land without continuation if I may so say of it self And suppose again this body which it informs to increase to a much greater bulk and the same Soul will be now in many more places than formerly without any augmentation of it self And why the same things may not be said of Bodies when stript of quantitative dimensions or how far some properties of Spirits may be communicated to them salva essentia corporis who can say What our Saviour said to the Sadduces relucting to believe a revelation concerning the resurrection of the same numerical body Matth. 22.29 because involving in it very many seeming contradictions Erratis nescientes Scripturas neque virtutem Dei may as well be said in this great mystery of the Eucharist Or 2ly §. 24. n. 1. unless we will explain our selves that by the essential real substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist me mean only the presence of the true and real effect blessing virtues of this Body as Dr. Taylor sometimes seems to do but this is after professing with the highest in our words a relapsing into Zuinglianism in our sense I will set you down the Doctor 's words Real Presence § 11. n. 17. where after he hath said That there is not in all School-Divinity nor in the old Philosophy nor in nature any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place circumscriptive definitive repletive and that the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament any of these three ways quoting Turrecremata for it he replies thus to those Schoolmen that rejecting these three ways do say that Christs Body is in a fourth way viz. Sacramentally in more places than one This saith he is very true that is that the Sacrament of Christ's body is in more places than one and so is his Body in more places than one figuratively tropically representatively in being or essence and really in effect and blessing But this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person Thus he But if thus Christ's Body be held by us as to its essence only figuratively tropically and representatively in more places than one and really in those places only in its effect and blessing what will become of our praesentiam non minus quam illi veram see before § 11. if others hold the presence of Christ's very essence and substance in the Eucharist we only the presence thereof its effect and blessing Now as to the proper mode which the Dr. here agitates of Christ's Body being substantially in the Sacrament whether it is circumscriptive definitive or some other way it is true that the Schoolmen do not all agree on one and the same S. Thomas Durand and several others deny the Body of Christ to be either circumscriptive or definitive in this Sacrament and proceed to affirm That Idem Corpus non potest per miraculum or potentiam divinam esse in pluribus locis simul i. e. localiter or in the forementioned ways Circumscriptively or Definitively But you may note 1. That they take circumscriptive §. 24. n. 2. and definitive in such a sense as that these two do exclude not only such a bodies being ubique every where but absolutely its being alibi any where else and that these modes of Presence would infer That the same individual is divided from it self contrary to the nature of individuum or unum if such body should at that time be any where else See S. Thom. Suppl q. 83. Art 5. ad 4um and 3ª q. 76. Art 5. where he saith That that is circumscriptive in loco quod nec excedit nec exceditur And see Durand his follower in 4. sent 44. d. q. 6. where he argueth very clearly thus Existentia unius corporis simul
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
i. e. Sacramentum sed eum qui super altare colitur i. e. Christum rem Sacramenti And is not this res Sacramenti worshipped as upon the Altar too with the Symbols there Since him Bishop Bramhal to the Bishop of Chalcedon * Rep. to Chalced. 2. c. p. 57. asking how the Protestants could profess to agree in all essentials of Religion with the Roman Church which they held to be an idolatrous Church i. e. in worshipping the Sacrament as their God thus replies 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 where he quotes Bellarmin de Sacramento 4. l. 29. c. we say the same So Cardinal Bellarmin and Bishop Bramhal are agreed about this Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist The Sacrament i. e. the species of Bread and Wine say others that we deny and esteem it to be idolatrous Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry for the Error of a party The same concession with the same distinction makes the French-Protestant Divine Daille §. 6. n. 2. in his second Reply to Chaumont p. 29. There is a vast difference between to adore the Sacrament and to adore Jesus Christ in the Sacrament or in the Mysteries The later of these we freely do since we believe him God blessed for ever together with the Father And afterward in answer to the Fathers They speak saith he of the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries of which we do not contest the Adoration and not of the Eucharist And again They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament which is the thing we agree to And in his Apology Ch p he saith concerning the Body of Christ if in the Sacrament That it is evident that one may and that one ought to worship it seeing that the Body of Christ is a subject adoreable And Chap. 10. he grants upon Adorate scabellum That the faithful cast down themselves before the Ark to adore the Lord there where the Divine Service was particularly joyned to the place where the Ark was Dr. Taylor saith * Real presence §. 13. n. 5. Concerning the action of Adoration it is a fit address in the day of Solemnity with a sursum corda with our hearts lift up to Heaven where Christ sits we are sure at the right hand of the Father For nemo digne manducat nisi prius adoraverit c. which rightly understood means illud quod manducat Here the Doctor allows adoring in the the Sacrament Christ as in Heaven But if Christ's Body and so himself in a special manner be substantially present in the Eucharist here on Earth why not adore him not only as in Heaven but as present here See elsewhere Real Pres p. 144. where he saith We worship the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our Souls See Spalatensis de rep Eccles l. 7. c. 11. § 7. c. Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis sanguinis Christi §. 6. n. 3. ille vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen quodam spirituali miraculoso imperceptibili sumit omnis digne communicans adorare potest debet corpus Christi quod recipit Is then the worthy Communicant to worship but not the unworthy because Christ's Body is there present to the one but not to the other Non quod lateat corporaliter in pane aut sub pane aut sub speciebus accidentibus panis sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis tuncetiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesâ—ns Thus Spalatensis And so Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 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 ac gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni sed ipsi Corpori immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur perficitur Thus then Protestants allow Adoration to Christ's Body and Blood as substantially present in the Eucharist if not to the Symbols yet to die worthy receiver § 7 5ly Yet further It is affirmed by another party of Protestants the Lutherans more expresly that Christ's body and blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant but to the consecrated Symbols and whilst so present which is during the action of the Lord's Supper i. e. as I conceive them from the Consecration till the end of the Communion are to be adored Of which thus Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. sess 13. c. 5. Deum Hominem in Divina humana natura in actione Coenae Dominicae vere substantialiter praesentem in spiritu veritate adorandum nemo negat nisi qui cum Sacramentariis vel negat vel dubitat de praesentia Christi in coena Ibid. Et quidem humanam etiam ejus naturam propter unionem cum Divinitate esse adorandam nemo nisi Nestorianus in dubium vocat Ita Jacob Gen. 28. Moses Exod. 34. Elias 3 Reg. 19. non habebant sane peculiare mandatum ut in illis locis Deum adorarent sed quia habebant generale mandatum ut Deum ubique adorarent certi erant Deum sub externis visibilibus illis symbolis vere adesse peculiari modo gratiae se ibi patefacere certe Deum ipsum quem ibi presentem esse credebant adorabant Nec vero Deum illi procul in coelo Empyraeo a se remotum absentem sed vere praesentem quidem peculiari modo gratiae praesentem adorarunt Thus he Nor do I know that the Calvinists have at any time accused their brethren the Lutherans of Idolatry in such a practice I find also Mr. Thorndike in the like manner clearly maintaining 1. A presence of Christ's Body with the symbols immediately upon Consecration and 2. An Adoration due to it See the former in Epilog l. 3. c. 2. and 3. where p. 17. I have said enough saith he 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 see the latter ib. c. 30. p. 350. I suppose saith he that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored where-ever 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 This honour i. e. of worshipping the Body and Blood of Christ being the duty of an
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
presence of the Body at all and so no adoration due in any such respect CHAP. II. Considerations on the first observable The Natural Body and Blood of our Lord not present in the Eucharist § 7 NOW to represent to you as clearly as I can the doubts and difficulties concerning all these three Observables in their order As to the first of these the Learned Protestant Writers seem to me at least in their most usual expressions to have heretofore delivered the contrary viz. That the very substance of Christ's Body that his natural Body that that very body that was born of the B. Virgin and crucified on the Cross c. is present as in Heaven so here in this Holy Sacrament either to the worthy Receiver or to the Symbols § 8 For which First see Calvin whose Doctrine amongst all the rest the Roman Lutheran or Zuinglian the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with especially since the beginning of the Reformation of Q. Elizabeth Thus therefore He in 1 Cor. 11.24 Take eat this is my Body Neque enim mortis tantum resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit Corpus ipsum in quo passus est that is surely his natural Body Again Instit 4. l. 17. c. 11. § Facti participes substantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium commnnicatione Facti participes substantiae ejus i. e. of his natural substance for no other humane substance he had spiritual or corporal than that only which was born of the B. Virgin and that is his natural substance and Ib. § 19. His absurditatibus sublatis quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque Corporis ac sanguinis Domini Communicationem quae sub sacris coenae symbolis fidelibus exhibetur facere potest libenter recipio Ibid. § 16. Of the Lutherans he saith Si ita sensum suum explicarent dum panis porrigitur annexam esse exhibitionem corporis quia inseparabilis est a signo suo veritas non valde pugnarem § 9 And to strengthen further this assertion of Calvin may be added the Confession of Beza and others of the same sect related by Hospinian hist Sacram. parte altera p. 251. Fatemur in Coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam ipsam inquam veram carnem verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice vel figurate proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo repraesentari exhiberi applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive insidelibus proponantur Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i. e. verum corpus verus sanguis Domini cum symbolis copulatur dicimus esse Symbolicum sive Sacramentalem Sacramentalem autem modum vocamus non qui sit figurativus duntaxat sed qui vere certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet offert nempe quod paulo ante diximus verum corpus sanguinem Christi ut appareat nos ipsius corporis sanguinis Christi praesentiam in Coena retinere defendere si quid nobis cum vere piis doctis fratribus controversiae est non de re ipsa sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat qui soli Deo cognitus est a nobis creditur disceptari Here they say rem ipsam i. e. verum corpus verum sanguinem Domini cum symbolis copulari in Coena Domini modum vero esse symbolicum c. § 10 Next to come to our English Divines First Thus Mr. Hooker Eccl. Polit. 5. l. 67. § p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is Administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves This therefore was no doubt amongst the divided parties in Mr. Hooker 's Judgment Whether Christ's natural body was only in Heaven or both in Heaven and also in the Eucharist for if otherwise this so main a doubt that he ought not to have dissembled it Again p. 360. All three Opinions do thus far accord in one That these holy Mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of the grace of that body and blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in true and real tho' mystical manner the very person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire and p. 359. His body and his blood are in that very subject whereunto they administer Life not only by effect or operation even as the influence of the Heavens is in Plants Beasts Men and in every thing which they quicken but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of Vnion which maketh us one with him even as he and the Father are one 2. Thus Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage §. 11. n. 1. Resp ad Apoll. Bell. 1. c. p. 11. Quod Cardinalem non latet nisi volentem ultro dixit Christus Hoc est corpus meum non Hoc modo hoc est corpus meum Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit de modo lis omnis est De hoc est fide firma tenemus quod sit de hoc modo est nempe transubstantiato in corpus pane de modo quo fiat ut sit Per sive In sive Cum sive Sub sive Trans nullum inibi verbum est Et quia verbum nullum merito a fide ablegamus procul inter scita Scholae fortasse inter Fidei articalos non ponimus Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus neutiquam nobis displicet Verbum audimus motum sentimus modum nescimus praesentiam credimus Praesentiam inquam credimus nec minus quam vos veram De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus addo nec anxie inquiramus non magis quam in baptismo nostro quomodo abluat nos sanguis Christi non magis quam in Christi incarnatione quomodo naturae divinae humana in eandem hypostasin uniatur Inter mysteria ducimus quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi id est ut eleganter in primis Patres fide adorari non ratione discuti Again Ib. 8. c. p. 194. speaking of the Conjunction of Christ's Body with the symbols he saith Ea nempe conjunctio est inter Sacramentum visibile rem Sacramenti
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
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
concerning the second Observable in this Declaration the reason given there § 39 Why the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Eucharist I now proceed to the third Observable where it is declared That no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood Where First as I think that all grant a kneeling and adoration both of soul and body due to God the Father and Son for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ given in this sacred Solemnity to all worthy receivers as the Declaration hath it so I suppose the present Clergy will grant that if there were a Corporal presence of Christ's natural Body in this Holy Sacrament then Kneeling and Adoration would be here due also upon such an account 2. Tho' the Corporal presence of Christ's Body i. e. of its being there ad modum Corporis § 40 or cloathed with the ordinary properties of a body be denied as it is not only by the English Divines but by the Lutheran and Roman see below § 48. yet let there be any other manner of Presence known from divine Revelation of the very same body and blood and this is as real and essential let it be called Spiritual Mystical or by what name you please as if corporal and then I do not see but that Adoration will be no less due to it thus than so present 3. And thirdly to shew that the Church of England hath heretofore believed and affirmed such a Presence to which they thought Adoration due § 41 I must here also set before you what I have met with in such writers of hers as are of no mean account Of this then first thus Bishop Andrews in answer to Bellarmine § 42 where the Cardinal collecting from K. James's alledging the Adoration of the Sacrament in the Church of Rome for a Novelty that the King disallowed adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento miro sed vero modo praesentis the learned Bishop Resp ad Apol. 8. c. p. 195. goes on thus Apage vero Quis ei hoc dederit Sacramenti id est Christi in Sacramento Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res in cum Sacramento extra sine Sacramento ubi ubi est adorandus est Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit rem scilicet Sacramenti at non Sacramentum terrenam scilicet partem ut Iraeneus visibilem ut Augustinus Which Father the Bishop had quoted a little before saying Sacrificium Eucharistiae duobus confici visibili elementorum specie invisibili Christi carne sanguine sicut Christi persona constat ex Deo homine cum ipse verus sit Deus verus homo Nos vero in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio non id sed eum qui super altare colitur Male enim quid ibi colatur quaerit Cardinalis cum quis debuit cum Nazianzenus eum dicat non id Nec carnem manducamus quin adoremus prius cum Augustino Sacramentum tamens nulli adoramus § 43 Again thus Dr. Taylor in answer to that saying of Ambrose Adorate scabellum c. per scabellum terra intelligitur per terram caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt We worship c. saith the Doctor for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our souls the flesh and blood of Christ so that we worship he means the body or the flesh of Christ in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his body but we give no divine honour to the signs § 44 Again thus Bishop Forbes quoted before de Euchar. 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 exhibita debetur perficitur § 45 Thus also the Archbishop of Spalato 7. l. 11. c. 7. § Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit Sacrementa corporis sanguinis Christi ille vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen quodam spirituali miraculoso imperceptibili 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 § 46 And lastly thus Mr. Thorndyke argues for it Epil 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 This honour i. e. of worshipping the body and blood of Christ being the duty of an affirmative precept which according to the received rule ties 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 that bodily act of Adoration that inward honour which we always carry towards our Lord Christ as God Now notwithstanding this § 47 whereas the late Declaration first saith That adoration ought not to be done to any corporal presence of our Lord 's natural Body as in the Eucharist and 2ly That upon this reason because the natural Body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist and 3ly That again upon this reason because this Body being in Heaven cannot also be in the Eucharist i. e. in more places than one at the same time therefore it seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's Body as any way present in the Eucharist contrary to the fore-cited Doctrine and contrary to the Religion of King James and Bishop Andrews published to the world abroad Or at least in thus denying adoration due to a corporal presence and then not declaring any other presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament that is adorable when as such a presence they believe it seems to betray the communicants to a greater miscarriage in their behaviour as to such our Saviour's presence at the receiving of these dreadful Mysteries and to abridg this duty of that extent in which it had formerly been
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
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
than for adoration as to teach them to suffer for them c. Might not the Magi worship him lying in the Cratch divested of all appearance of Majesty without a special command from God But it is sufficient to warrant our practice of them if in respect of such time and place there be no express prohibition § 2 2. I suppose that where-ever the Body of our Lord is there is his whole person it being no more since his Resurrection to be a dead body for Christ dieth no more Rom. 6.9 but having the Soul joyned with it as likewise ever since the Incarnation having also its hypostasis or subsistence from the Divinity joyned with it even when it was in the Grave and the Soul severed from it § 3 3. I suppose it is a thing granted also by learned Protestants That where ever this Body of our Lord is present there this Divine Person is supremely adorable As the Divinity every where present is every where adorable and may be so adored in the presence or before any of his Creatures if such adoration be directed to him not it as when I see the Sun rising I may lawfully fall down on my knees and bless the Omnipotent Creator of it and see 1 Cor. 14.24 25. may be I say but not must for where there is only such a general presence of the Divinity as is in every time place and thing here our Adoration may and must be dispensed with as to some times and places None likewise can deny That the Humanity of our Lord also in a notion abstractive from the Divinity personally united to it is truly adorable tho' this with a worship not exceeding that due to a Creature § 4 For the lawfulness of Adoration where ever is such a presence of the person of our Lord see Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. p. 195. Christus ipse Sacramenti res sive in cum Sacramento sive extra sine Sacramento ubi-ubi est adorandus est Thus also Dailié Apol. des â—glis Reform c. 10. Apol. des Eglis Reform c. 10. who in pitching especially on this point Adoration of the Eucharist as hindring the Protestants longer stay in the Roman Communion hath in this Discourse and in two Replies to Chaumont made afterward in defence of it discussed it more particularly than many others in answer to S. Ambrose and S. Austin their adoring the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries The Humanity of Jesus Christ saith he personally united to the Divinity is by consequence truly and properly adorable And again They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament which is the thing we agree to And ibid. p. 29. We do willingly adore Jesus Christ who is present in the Sacrament namely by Faith in the heart of the Communicants c. And see Dr. Stillingfleet in his Roman Idol c. 2. p. 114. The Question saith he between us is not whether the person of Christ is to be worshipped with Divine worship for that we freely acknowledge And altho' the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration he must mean Divine yet being considered as united to the Divine Nature that cannot hinder the same Divine worship being given to his Person which belongs to his Divine Nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him Tho' how well that which he saith before ibid. § 2. as it seems against worshipping Christ supposed present in the Eucharist without a special command to do it consists with what he saith here and with what follows let him look to it 4. It is affirmed by many Protestants §. 5. n. 1. especially those of the Church of England that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present not only in virtue but in substance in the Eucharist either with the Symbols immediately upon the Consecration or at least so as to be received in the Eucharist together with the Symbols by every worthy Communicant and that this Body and Blood of our Lord which is not severed from his Person is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration See 1. for a substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist I mean at least to the worthy Receiver contradistinct to a Presence by effect only Influence Virtue Grace or the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ's Body in Heaven Dr. Taylor of Real Presence p. 12. When the word Real saith he is denied i. e. by Protestants as it was in King Edward's time the word Real is taken for Natural i. e. as he explains it p. 5. including not only the nature of the Body for that is the substance but the corporal and natural manner of its existence he goes on But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantia sua nobis adest in substance but after a Sacramental manner See the Confession of Beza and the French Protestants related by Hosp Hist. Sacram. part ult p. 251. Fatemur in coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam ipsam inquam veram carnem verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice vel figurate proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo repraesentari exhiberi applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Again Beza Epist 68. speaking against Alemannus and some others who opposed a substantial presence Volunt saith he ex-Gallica Confessione Art 36. Liturgia Catech. Din. 53. ex pungi substantiae vocem idcirco de industria passim a Calvino a me usurpatam ut eorum calumniae occarreremus qui nos clamitant pro re Sacramenti non ipsum Christum sed ejus duntaxat dona energiam ponere And Epist. 5. he argues thus against the same Alemannus Velim igitur te imprimis intueri Christi verba Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis traditur Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis funditur Age pro his vocibus Corpus Sanguis dicamus Hoc est efficacia mortis meae quae pro vobis traditur Hic est Spiritus meus qui pro vobis effunditur Quid ineptius est hac oratione Nam certe verba illa Quod pro vobis traditur Qui pro vobis funditur necessario huc te adigunt ut de ipsamet Corporis Sanguinis substantia hoc intelligere cogaris See Hooker Eccles Pol. 5. l. 67. § p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversy saving only
about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves But a great Controversy surely there would be beside this if the one party held Christ's Body substantially and the other virtually present Again p. 360. All three opinions do thus far accord in one c. That these holy mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of that body and blood which were given for the life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in true and real tho' mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Thus also Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell 1. cap. p. 11. Nobis vobiscum de Objecto convenit de modo lis omnis est But there would be a lis concerning the Object if one affirmed the substance of the body there the other only the virtue or efficacy See Bishop Cosins his late Historia Transubstantiationis §. 5. n. 2. tit cap. 2. Protestantium omnium consensus de reali id est vera sed non carnali Praesentia Christi in Eucharistia manifeste constat And in proof of this p. 10. he quotes Poinet Bishop of Winchester his Dialacticon de veritate natura atque substantia Corporis Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Quod saith he non alio consilio edidit quam ut fidem doctrinam Ecclesiae Anglicanae illustraret Et primo ostendit Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini sed etiam ipsam veritatem naturam atque substantiam in se comprehendere idcirco nec has voces Naturae Substantiae fugiendas esse Veteres enim de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse Secundo quaerit an voces illae Veritas Natura Substantia communi more in hoc mysterio a veteribus intelligebantur an peculiari Sacramentis magis accommodata ratione Neque enim observandum esse solum quibus verbis olim Patres usi sunt sed quid istis significare ac docere voluerint Et licet discrimen ipse cum Patribus agnoscat inter Corpus Christi formam humani corporis naturalem habens quod in Sacramento est Corpus mysticum maluit tamen discrimen illud ad modum praesentiae exhibitionis quam ad ipsam rem hoc est Corpus Christi verum accommodari cum certissimum sit non aliud Corpus in Sacramento fidelibus dari nisi quod a Christo pro sidelium salute in mortem traditum fuit Thus he justifying Poinet's expressions speaking in the language of the Fathers p. 43. Non dicimus saith he in hac sacra Coena nos tantum esse participes fructus mortis passionis Christi sed fundum ipsum cum fructibus qui ab ipso ad nos redeant conjungimus asserentes cum Apostolo 1 Cor. 10.16 Panem quam frangimus esse sCorporis Christi Poculum Sanguinis ejus communicationem imo in eadem illa substantia quam accepit in utero Virginis quam sursum in coelos invexit in hoc tantum a Pontificiis dissidentes quod illi manducationem hanc conjunctionem corporaliter fieri credunt nos non naturali aliqua ratione aut modo corporali sed tamen tam vere quam si naturaliter aut corporaliter Christo conjungeremur Here I understand his non modo corporali not to exclude Corpus Domini or non ratione naturali to excude natura rei or the thing it self but only to signify that the Body is present not after a corporal manner or with the dimensions and other common qualities of a Body which thing indeed Catholicks also affirm He seems also to grant §. 5. n. 3. this substantial Presence to be with the Symbols after Consecration on the Table and before communicating For p. 65. for this he quotes the Conc. Nicaen Sublata in altum mente per fidem consideremus proponi in sacra illa mensa Agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi And p. 43. Quoniam saith he res significata nobis offertur exhibetur tam vere quam signa ipsa ea ratione signorum cum Corpore Sanguine Domini conjunctionem agnoscimus mutata esse elementa dicimus in usum alium ab eo quem prius habuerunt i. e. to be now conjoyned with and to exhibit to us this Body of our Lord which conjunction he saith p. 45. is made per omnipotentiam Dei So he saith ibid. Non quaeritur An Corpus Christi a Sacramento suo juxta mandatum ejus instituto ac usurpato absit quod nos Protestantes Reformati nequaquam dicimus aut credimus Nam cum ibi detur sumatur omnino oportet ut adsit licet Sacramento suo quasi contectum sit ibi ut in se est conspici nequeat And p. 125. Fieri enim saith he de Elemento Sacramentum which surely is done in the Consecration nec consistere Sacramentum sine Re Sacramenti firmiter tenent And this conjunctio Corporis Christi p. 35. he affirms to be made in receiving the Sacrament not only cum anima sedetiam cum corpore nostro Lastly §. 5. n. 4. the modus of this true Presence of the Body of our Lord with the Signs or Symbols in the Sacrament when as it remains in Heaven till our Lord's second coming he makes as others to be ineffabilis imperscrutabilis non ratione inquirendus aut indagandus p. 36. Nos vero hunc modum praesentiae Christi in Eucharistia fatemur cum Patribus esse ineffabilem atque imperscrutabilem hoc est non ratione inquirendum aut indagandum sed sola fide credendum Etsi enim videtur incredibile in tanta locorum distantiapenetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit in cibum meminisse tamen oportet quantum supra sensus nostros emineat Spiritus Sancti virtus quam stultum sit ejus immensitatem modo nostro metiri velle Quod ergo mens nostra non comprehendit concipiat fides The like to which esse ineffabilem supra sensus Catholicks say of the same presence of our Lord in the Eucharist in tanta locorum distantia whilst also at the very same time it is in Heaven And thus Lanfrank long ago in his answer to Berengarius who contended that Christi Corpus coelo devocari non poterit quoting the words of St. Andrew a little before his Passion Cum vero in terris carnes ejus sunt comestae vere sanguis ejus sit bibitus ipse tamen usque in tempora restitutionis omnium in coelestibus ad dextram Patris integer semper perseverat vivat Si quaeris saith he modum quo id fieri possit breviter ad praesens respondeo Mysterium est fidei credi salubriter potest vestigari utiliter
Body and so Christ as present there and not adoring any other thing whatever substance or accident that is present there or that is also included in the word Sacrament that accusation which her using such language of adoring the Sacrament can seemingly expose her to is at the most not of an error but an improper expression But the propriety of language dutiful Sons ought to learn from not teach their Mother who also speaks that which hath descended to her from former times Neither will it follow from Catholicks using the word Sacrament precisely in this sense exclusively to any other matter save Christ's Body that therefore one may use the word Sacrament promiscuously for Christ's Body in what respect soever we speak of it and as well or as properly say that the Sacrament meaning Christ's Body is in the Heavens at God's right hand or was on the Cross or the like For tho' Sacrament thus applied involves no other subject or thing at all but Christ's Body yet it connotes besides it the place or manner of its presence signifying this Body only as present in the Mysteries not as a term adequate to and convertible with it being in whatever time and place § 15 I think these Testimonies produced both out of the Council of Trent and other Catholick Authors and also out of Protestants confessing so much of them do show sufficiently the great extravagancy of those Protestant Authors who tell their Readers that the state of this controversy is not Whether Christ's Body and so Christ in the Sacrament be adorable with supreme Honours but whether the Sacrament and then by Sacrament are pleased to understand the Symbols and then to confute the Doctrine of Rome argue that no Creature as the Symbols are is capable of Divine Honour The state of the Controversy saith a late Writer of theirs * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 117. 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 of Christ under them And against it he affirms That supposing the divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein he is present as I do to Christ himself So Bishop Andrews Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere adorandum statuit at non Sacramentum terrenam scilicet partem And Nos in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus Sacramentum i. e. the Symbols nulli adoramus So Dr. Taylor Real Presence p. 335. The Commandement to Worship God alone is so express the distance between God and Bread dedicated to the service is sovast that if it had been intended that we should have Worshipped the H. Sacrament the H. Scriptures would have called it God or Jesus Christ And Disswasive § 5. p. 76. he affirms the Church of Rome to give Divine Honour to the Symbols or Elements and so to a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God So they vainly also undertake to shew that the Primitive Church did not terminate their Adoration upon the Elements that the Fathers when they speak of worship speak of worshipping the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries or Symbols not of worshipping the Mysteries or Symbols These I say are great extravagances whilst the Roman Church owns or imposes no such Doctrine of Divine Adoration due to the Elements and the true Controversy on their side is only this 1. Whether the Body and Blood of Christ prescinding from whatever Symbol is or may be there is adoreable as being present in the Sacrament with these symbols This is affirmed by Catholicks more than this needs not be so And 2. Whether the Adoration of Christ's Body and so of Christ as present if it should not be so will amount to Idolatry § 16 If we here make a further enquiry into the Schoolmen concerning the Adoration or Veneration due to the Symbols they state the same toward them as toward Images the sacred Utensils the H. name of Jesus and other Holy things Omnes saith Vasquez in 3. Thom. tom 1. disp 108. c. 12. eodem modo de speciebus Sacramenti quo de Imaginibus philosophari debent And then of Images we know the Definition of the Second Council of Nice referred to by Trent non latria And for what they say of Images I refer you to the preceding Discourse on them § 42 c. It is true that some of the later Schoolmen to defend the expressions of some of the former have endeavoured to show how a latrical qualified secondary co-adoration may improprie or per accidens be said to be given to the symbols also as sacramentally joyned with our Lord's Body and as this body is as it were vested with them such as say they when Christ was adored here on Earth was given also to his Garments i. e. without making in the act of worship a mental separation of his Person from his Cloths as Bellarmin explains it de Euchar. l. 4. c. 29. Neque enim saith he jubebant Christum vestibus nudari antequam adorarent aut animo cogitatione separabant a vestibus cum adorarent sed simpliciter Christum ut tunc se habebat adorabant tametsi ratio adorandi non erant vestes imo nec ipsa Humanitas sed sola Divinitas Or do allow the giving of the external sign of Latria to them as Bowing to Kissing Embracing them but this without any the least internal act of latria or any other honour or submission directed to them which such inanimate things are uncapable of as Vasquez explains it who is so prodigal of this external sign of honour after he hath stript it of any internal latria or other worship whatever that may accompany it that he allows this external sign not only to all Holy things but to any Creature whatever in our inward adoration mean-while only of God upon the general relation they have to him But indeed such an abstraction of the external sign from an internal honour or respect as other Catholicks censure his opinion makes these outward gestures without any mental intention attending them as to such object like those of a Puppet or Engine utterly insignificant and so Vasquez instead of communicating the latria to Images to the Symbols to other Holy things seems in the judgment of others to allow them no honour or veneration at all and so in seeming to say too much to say too little which hath been more largely discoursed before Of Images § 42. c. And a late Author * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 129. might have done well in mentioning this Author's Opinion to have given also a true relation of it affirming only an external sign of honour given to the creature void of any internal the least respect to them Ita ut tota mentis intentio in Exemplar non in Imaginem or Deum non Creaturam feratur which would easily have taken away all that malignity he fastens