charity either to our selves or to them or to some others obligeth us to the contrary And this for many good ends as to preserve our selves from all contagion and infection from their vices or partaking of their punishments or giving suspicion of our consentment with them in their errors or scandal to others who by our example may use the same converse to their hurt To produce some shame and confusion and so perhaps amendment in them Upon this we read St. Austins Holy Mother Monica forbare sitting at table or eating with her Son when addicted to the Manichean Heresie †Austin Confess l. 3. c. 11. Matt. 18.17 If any Brother i. e. in Christianity refuse to hear the Church we to carry our selves to him as to an Heathen who were Idolaters or a Publican with whom the religious Jews forbare to eat or converse Rom. 16.17 Those Christians that cause divisions contrary to the Doctrine which we have received to mark and avoid them Titus 3.10 An Heretick after admonition to be rejected 2. Thess 3.14 If any man obey not our word be a Separatist from the Church and her Doctrine note that man and have no company with him 2 Joh. 10. If there come any unto you and bring not this Apostolical Doctrine receive him not into your house nor say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God save you to him For he that saith so to him communicates with his wickedness And it seems this Apostles practice was according to his rule For Irenaeus ‖ l. 3. c. 3. saith S. Polycrap related of him That going into a Bath to wash himself he presently leaped out of it and departed when he saw Corinthus there who denied our Lords Divinity § 284 The same may be gathered from our glorified Lords own vehement expressions after his Ascension Apocal. 2d and 3d. chapter against those new Sects that indeavoured to mingle themselves with and to seduce the Catholicks by tempting them to compliance when in persecution where he calls them the Synagogue of Satan Profunda Satanae Jesebels followers of Balaam c. Praiseth the Churches of Ephesus and Philadelphia for trying them and not suffering them and not complying and denying him with them but hating their deeds as himself did See Apocalyps 2.2 6. 3.8.9 and censureth others of the Churches for doing the contrary Apoc. 2.14 15 16 20. and especially reprehendeth that of Laodicea for her lukewarmness and neither being cold nor hot and then urgeth her to be zealous Apoc. 3.15 16 19. The same also seems to appear by his severe censure upon occasion of the Samaritan Woman's consulting him about her Religion of the Samaritan Schismatical worship in a Temple built in opposition to that in Jerusalem some 250. years before our Lords coming in Mount Garisim Which one Manasses the High Priest expelled from the function of his Office in Jerusalem procured to be erected and afterward officiated there our Lord telling this woman That the Samaritans knew not what they worshipped and that salvation was of the Jews And before this the same appears * from Gods great displeasure against the Division made by Israel in setting up the Calves though 't is probably imagined worshipping still the same God in the same Representation of Cherubims only in another place And afterward * from Elias his expostulation with the people 3 King 18.21 Vsque quo claudicatis in duas partes which holds as well for separating Sects as false Religions God having so established the Oeconomy of his Church as to be worshipped therein in unity as well as verity Vnus Dominus Caput unum Corpus una fides Eph. 4.4 From all these Texts prohibiting Communication in our daily converse with particular persons so affected I argue how much more we not to communicate 1 with whole Congregations of them and 2 with such Congregations separated from the Church and 3 this in holy things lastly 4 so communicating with them in these as to forbear the same Communion with the Church Catholick § 285 Yet some of these and several other Texts See 1 Cor. 10.20 21. 1 Cor. 5.4 5 13. 2 Cor. 6.14 17 seem more chiefly to prohibit Communion with such in the Sacraments especially that of the Holy Eucharist and the publick Divine Worship and this upon some other yet higher reasons Namely the duty of the publick owning and professing our Religion and the keeping it pure from and unmixt with any unbelieving Heretical or Schismatical Societies For this Holy Sacrament of feeding at the Lords Table being instituted as for a sacred instrument of our Communion with the Deity so also for a publick tessera and mark of a strict league and amity between all those who together partake it so that as the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10.17 by being made partakers of that one bread and Body of our Lord we though being many become one bread and one Body and so in this Body members of one another things I say standing thus in this Grand Sacrament of Union neither will the honour we owe to God the Father who dwelleth in us and adopts us for his children 2 Cor. 6.16.18 Nor to God the Son of whose Body we are members 1 Cor. 6.15 16. Nor to the holy Spirit whose Temples we are 1. Cor. 3.16 17. suffer us by such a sacred and solemn tye to link and unite our selves to any Congregations that are once estranged from him or disclaimed by him This is mingling light with darkness 2 Cor. 6.14 †joyning the members of Christ to a Spiritual Harlot by which they two become one Body 1 Cor. 6.15 16. For such a vertue hath this Sacrament as that they become one Body amongst themselves that partake it ‖ 1. Cor. 10.16 17. And by touching the unclean our selves also becoming unclean Lev. 5.2 3. For all those separations under the law of the corporally unclean from the Congregation of the Lord because they were to be a sanctified people unto the Lord and holy as he is holy Lev. 11.43 44. were only types of the separation which ought to be from such notorious sinners and such false worshippers of him as we here speak of To which the Apostle makes application of them 2 Cor. 6.17 Be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing saith the Lord taken out of Esa 52.11 And hence also taketh he strict order for the separation and ejection of such persons out of the Church especially from the communicating the Sacraments thereof as of a piece of Leaven from a lump unleavened that our Christian Passeover may not be celebrated with such a meslange See 1 Cor. 5.2 5 7 13. Ejection I say or casting them out where the Church hath the power Or her going out from them 2 Cor. 6.17 where they have the power but still a separation there must be else in consorting with them we provoke our Lord to jealousie 1 Cor. 10.22 as if we are not a true and loyal Spouse to Him and
our selves that are upon the Earth because we see the Earth under our feet for we are translated into Heaven and placed among the Angels Where saith he the Father denies not absolutely that we are upon Earth and so he thinks himself as safely guarded here against the Panis apparet by this as before against the Eucharist being pretended to be Ipsum Corpus Christi in a litteral or a proper sense by his shewing that the poor were said to be ipsum or Verum Corpus Christi too Such Evidences therefore rejected by M. Claude he requires for the verifying of Transubstantiation that we produce a Testimony such as this That the Bread is Transubstantiated or the Substance of Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body So that according to him The Bread but not a Substance is said by them to be changed into Christs Body but not inâ—o a Substance And by the same reason we may say That our Lords Nourishment when he lived here on Earth being changed into our Lords Body proves not that it was changed into the Substance of his Body But suppose then the Expression running as he would have it That the Bread is changed into the Substance of Christs Body And that though it seems the Substance of Bread Yet in truth it is the Substâ—nce of Christs Body or Flesh are we ever a whit now the abler to silence him Or will not his answers still fit as well as befoâ—e viz. That though it seems yet it is not the simple or naked Substance of Bread That it is in truth also the Substance of Christs Body i. e. containing in it the whole Vertue or if I may so say the Substance of this Substance For so it may be shewed sometimes that Substance is used for Vertue He Grants †l. 3. c. 10. p. 263. the Greeks cannot think Christs Flesh or Body to be the Subject of those accidents which are perceived by our Sences to remain in the Eucharist and then the Greeks also to say Videtur Panis Vinum in veritate Corpus Christi Sanguis est and yet will not yield that they hold the Existence of these Appearances or Accidents in the Eucharist without a Subject He grants the Greeks to hold our Lords Body that is distributed in the Eucharist to be indivisible impartible impassible and then affirms them though it is not so to say that no other Substance is this Body than the Bread and yet not to hold the accidents only of the Bread to be passible partible c. The Greeks say that the Body of our Lord which is consecrated and offered in many places at once and at many times successively yet in all these is but one and the same Body and that though it is in all these places broken divided and eaten by many Communicants yet is received by each of them not in a piece of it but whole and entire and after this remains still perfect unconsum'd alive immortal And yet he saith †l. 3. c. 13. the Greeks do not hold or affirm Idem Corpus in pluribus locis do not maintain a concomitancy of our Lords Flesh and Blood not the existence of his Body in the Eucharist after a non-natural manner And that the same Greeks do hold the Substance of that which is offered and distributed in one place as to one person to be really and numerically diverse from that offered or distributed in another But that their meaning only is that the Vertue of this Body is in all places one and the same and to all persons whole and entire and must he not say also that this Vertue is incorrupted and alive 2 Resp p. 514. I yield saith he †in answer to D. Arnaud's Objections touching Remigids that if the Bread were made the Body of Christ in its Substance it would follow that our Lord would have so many Bodies as he is united i. e. in his Divinity to different Breads this he grants notwithstanding Remigius his arguing all these Breads but one and the same Body from the same Divinity replenishing them of which more below But the Bread not being made Christs Body save only in Vertue and in efficacy this consequence is null because this Vertue through the whole world is one and the same For this Vertue is indivisible and is all of it entire wherever it is Thus he And that such are his answers and explications of these expressions of the Greeks as I have here represented You may see in his 2d. Answer part 3. c. 2. 4. His last Answer l. 3. c. 9 c. 10. l. 4. c. 7. l 5 c. 7. l. 6. c. 10. and frequently elsewhere § 321 Where chiefly you may observe n. 8. that how punctual soever the Expressions of the Greeks are concerning the preâ—ence of Christs very Body yet he expounds them only of the Vertue exclusive to the Substance of Christs Body And yet this person confesseth that the Greeks hold †l. 4. c 7. That the Bread is made the proper Body of Christ opposed to figure by the way of Augmentation of his Natural Body so as our Nourishment is made our Body And yet elsewhere †l. 6. c. 10. more fully †That upon the Consecration they held and Vnion of the Bread with the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity an Vnion to his natural Body and that they understood that by the means of this Vnion or of this Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and is made the same Body with it I add as our nourishment by its union to the same Soul is made the same Body with our's Now then when we say that our nourishment upon such an operation passing upon it is or is changed into or is made our Body or Flesh did he candidly here interpret our meaning who should say that we affirm only that this nourishment is our Body or Flesh in Vertue or changed into the Vertue of it exclusively to its being also made the Substance of it So doth this person deal candidly for instance when Euthymius a Greek Author that held this opinion expresseth himself thus †Comment Quemadmodum Jesus Christus supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit m Matt. c. 64 Etiam Hac the Bread and Wine ineffabiliter transmutat i. e. by his united Deity in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suunt in gratiam ipsorum which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthening us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating and encouraging us as Wine †See Psalm 103.15 I say doth he deal ingenuously to expound the here by a C ' est a dire or id est Transmutat ineffabiliter in ipsum Corpus in ipsum Sanguinem id est in gratiam ipsorum Making the Body a Synonyman with its vertue Such a Synonyman saith he as that of S. Paul in 1. Tim. 4.3 They who believe and
know the truth or 1 Tim. 6.3 Wholsom words and Doctrine of Godliness But might he not have said more aptly such a Synonymaâ— as that in Psal 32. Verbo Domini Caeli firmati sunt omnis virtus eorum firmati sunt Caeli id est virtus eorum Or Psal 147. Magnus Dominus magna virtus ejus Dominus id est virtus Domini But if the Greeks mean as he saith indeed they do That the Bread by Consecration is made out Lords proper Body though not that Numerical one born of the Virgin yet another added to it by way of Augmentation and so in some sence made the same with it viz. so as our nourishment is with ours by the Union and inhabitation of our Lords Divinity to and in them both and lastly that by its being thus made our Lords Body it hath also the vivificating vertue of his natural Body inherent in it then I say in plain dealing this Person expounding the Expressions of the Greeks ought to have confessed their maintaining the presence in the Eucharist of this Substance of Christs Body as well as of its Vertue this Substance I say of which they affirm that it is the same with the other crucifyed so far as to be united to the same Divinity and in the same person of our Lord and from this to receive the same vivisicating Vertue though indeed this new Substance from that crucifyed numerically distinct Nor consequently ought he to impose upon the Greeks as every where he doth their holding the Bread after Consecration to remain still so entirely Bread as it was before but only the matter of it so to remain as the matter of our Nourishment doth when yet that which was Bread is now truly our Flesh and no more Bread our Flesh not by I know not what Mystical Relation to it but by a most interior receptio and incorporation into it and dispersion through that our Substance or Flesh which was existent before Nor lastly using the same integrity ought he to have said this new Substance to have been held by the Greeks augmentative of Christs Natural Body or also to be the same with it as the Greeks alwayes say it is by reason of a supernatural vertue of Christs Natural Body communicated to it as he usually explains them for one thing may have the Vertue of another without being an aug mentative part of it or contracting any Identity with it But that this new Substance is held by the Greeks an accruit to our Lords natural Body and the same also with it from its Vnion to the Divinity and so its change into Christs Flesh and so its partaking also the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Graces or Vertues of it which the Greeks speak of with much reason as well as of the substance because in these we are most concern'd Thus perhaps with much less labour might this ingenious Person have comprehended in his Answers and Explications of the Greek's opinion more Truth and gained from his Readers more belief And for this I appeal to any sober Person when he shall have considered M Claudes concessions set down below n. 11. and the necessary consequences of them n. 12. But this person well saw the great prejudice he should do to his cause in explaining these Authors in such a manner which would have made a fair way at least toward a Total Transubstantiation and therefore judged it safest to hold fast to a vertual presence Now in this way he takes many of these Expressions seem so clearly to say the contrary to what he would have them as a proof can hardly be brought against such anfâ—wes that will not have as little or perhaps less evidence in it that the thing that is proved And in such manifest wresting of an Authors clear sence it is Conscience only must confute such gain-sayers not an Argument And in such cases it concerns the Reader not easily to resign his Reason to anothers engagement's nor suffer his Judgement to be figured with the impressions of every mans fancy especially when opposing Church Authority nor to apprehend difficulty in every thing so long as he sees it to be contested This of M. Claude's Art in evading of such as seem very evident and indisputable Testimonies § 321 6. But n 9. 6ly Suppose such clear and express Testimonies produced as that no such answers can discountenance them nor no Exceptions be made against them then especially out of the 1 st and 2 d. Observations precedent he hath some at least against the Person Urge against him the Testimonies of the Modern Greek Writers such as will admit none of his Qualifications He tells us many of them are Greeks Latiniz'd and won over to Rome Or the writing quoted wants another testimony that it is not forged such as lived in the same times having in their writings not mentioned such a Piece thus he throws off Samonas and Agapius †l 4 c. 3. Proceed in adding to these the testimonies of several Dignifyed persons of the present Greek Clergy and that in several Countreys and Churches of the East distinct and averse from the Roman Communion By a diligent Collection of which his prudent Adversary hath done the Church Catholick great service * in manifesting that the doctrine and practice of the Greeks not only touching Real presence and Transubstantiation but most of the other Controversies agitated in the West consents and agrees with the Church of Rome and * in representing to the more ingenuous amongst Protestants how singular they stand and divided in their Faith from the whole Christian world He tells us They are the Declarations only of Greeks Latinized and corrupted by the Roman Missions Though the same persons still maintain their dissent from the Latines as to those Points formerly in Controversie between the two Churches and though the Testimony they give is not so much concerning their particular perswasion as what is the Common Tenent and Profession of the Greek i. e. those no way reconciled to the Roman Communion or other Oriental Churches A matter wherein a false testimony as it would carry a greater guilt so lies too open to discovery Urge to him the testimony of the Orientals especially persons dignifyed in the Clergy that have travailed about some negociations into the West He saith l. 5. c. 5 p 594. There is little credit to be given to this kind of People who come not usually into the West but for their own Interest and who fail not to speak in such a manner as one would have them Urge to him the testimony of those of the Greek Communion inhabiting in the West and here indulged their own Service and Rites easily inquired into as for example the Greek Church in Venice See Respon 2. part 2 c. 8. his answer to what was urged out of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia the Prelate there That we are not to think it strange is one who had lived some 40 years in
happened and consequently that all M. Arnaud 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sence and meaning of Antiquity on what side This stands is the thing chiefly questioned and debated between the Roman Church and Protestants unless he will throw off this too and retreat only to sense of Scripture I suppose to wise men it will seem little less than the loss of the Protestant cause and too great a prejudice to it to be so slightly yielded up if that not the Roman only but the whole visible Catholick Church besides themselves from the 11 th to the present age doth defend a Corporal presence and a literal sence of Hoc est corpus meum or also Transubstantiation and so consequently doth concur and Vote against them touching the sense of former Antiquity for this each side in their present Doctrine and Practice pretend to follow And I can hardly think M Claude would spend so great a part of his Book to defend a Post the loss of which he thought no way harm'd Him Again thus it is manifest that in an Oecumenical Council if now assembled the Protestants would remain the Party Condemned 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently garded §. 321. n. 11. He proceeds l. 3c 13. thus to declare the true opinion of the Modern Greeks on this Subject which I will give you in his own words p. 310. They believe saith he That by the Sanctification or Consecration is made a Composition of the Bread and the Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joyn'd to the Divinity and That by the impression of the Holy Ghost they are changed for the Faithful alone the Body of our Lord being supposed either to be not present at all or to cease to be so in the particles of the Symbole received by the unworthy into the vertue of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ being by this means made not a Figure but the proper and true Body of Jesus Christ and this by the way of Augmentation of the same natural Body of Jesus Christ To which they apply the comparison of the nourishment which is made our own Body by Assimilation and Augmentation Again p. 237. more briefly The Doctrine of the Greek Church is That the substance of Bread conserving its proper Being is added to the Natural Body of Jesus Christ that it is rendred like unto it That it augments and by this means becomes the same Body with it By this also he saith p. 334. and see the same in his 4 l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sence of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sence This Bread is the sacred sign or Sacrament of my Body Or which comes to the same pass The Bread signifies my Body They on the contrary taking the word is in some sort according to the letter would have that the same subject which is the Bread is also the Body of Christ From preserving this pretended literal sence it is also That they would have it That the Bread is made one with the Body by its Vnion to the Divinity by the Impression of the Holy Ghost and by a change of vertue Or as he hath it in his 6. l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of the Bread to the Divinity of our Lord and by the Divinity to his natural Body by means of which Vnion or Conjunction the Bread becomes the Body of Christ and made the same Body with it with his natural Body Again for preserving this literal sence That they bring the comparison of Nourishment made One with our Body and that they have invented this way of Augmentation of the natural Body of Christ It seems also That the Modern Greeks understand some real or Physical impression of the Holy Ghost and of the vivificating vertue of Jesus Christ upon the Bread with some kind of inherence i. e. of the vertue Although I will not saith he ascertain positively that this is the General Belief of their Church though the expressions seem to sway on this side But however it be this is not our opinion We believe that the Grace of the Holy Ghost and vertue of Christs Body accompanies the lawful use of the Sacrament and that we partake the Body of Jesus Christ by Faith as much or more really then of we received it in the mouth of our Body But we 〈◊〉 understand this Real impression or inherence i. e. of the Supernatural Vertue of the Body of Christ See p. 338. †l. 3. c. 13. p. 315. viz. that born of the Virgin of the Greeks Whence it is that our Expressions are not so high as theirs And this Opinion of theirs he makes to be as ancient as Damascen This Opinion of the Modern Greeks faith he seems to be taken from Damascen some of whose expressions I think fit to produce For it is certain that to make a good Judgement of the Opinion of the modern Greeks we must ascend as high as him And M. Arnaud himself hath observed That John Damascen is as it were the S. Thomas of the Greeks Thus He. But § 321. n. 12. lest he should seem to fasten such a gross Opinion upon the Greek Church as they will not own nor others easily believe they maintain for he confesseth that it hath something in it that appears little reasonable and especially as to the Augmentation of Christs natural Body to be assez bizarre †and lest he should make it lyable to so many and odious absurdities as that a Transubstantiation which he endeavours to avoid may seem much the more plausible and eligible of the two perhaps I say for these considerations he undertakes to qualifie and render a credible and likely sence to it on this manner In saying 1. That they hold indeed an Vnion of the Divinity to the Bread and that in an higher manner than to any other Sacred sign or Ceremony but yet not Hypostatical 2. That they hold the Bread changed into an augmentative part of Christ's natural Body but it remaining still entire Bread as before and altered only in a Supernatural vertue added to it 3. Hold it to be joyned to Christs Body and augmenting it but so as to be not individually the same but unmerically distinct from it as also those new parts we receive by nourishment are distinct from all the former parts of our Body To be joyned to this natural Body of Christ not locally or to it as present in the Eucharist but as in Heaven How this As saith he a Mystery may be said to be an Appendix or Accessory to the thing of which it is a Mystery And to these 4 Qualifications this Author semms necessitated because otherwise Adoration and Transubstantiation in some part tho not a total Existence of the
Haec inessabiliter saith he transmutat in ipsum vivificum Corpus in ipsum pretiosum sanguinem suum in Gratiam or virtutem or vim eorum which Grace he explains presently after by this Body strengthening us as Bread doth and this Blood exhilarating us as Wine †See Psal 103.15 And see Theophylact's Comment on Joh. 6. the like addition Panis saith he speaking of our Lords nourishment in corpus ejus mutabatur there is the change of the Substance Et in augmentum sustentamentum conferebat there is the vertue Again Ita nunc Panis in Carnem Domini mutatur there is the Substance Nec nudi hominis Caro est sed Dei quae deificare valet there is the Vertue Now Virtus taken thus in Theophylact all things in him agree well together Thus it suits well with verè Caro est with Ineffabilis Operatio Language not so usual for a change of vertue only With the Question Cur non videtur Caro simply asked if Theophylact spake only of a change of vertue and not Substance too and if this then the known common Doctrine With his answer to the Question which as I have shew'd in case he held a presence of vertue only ought to have been quite another and such as a Protestant now would give Lastly it suits well with his former arguing Non enim Dixit Hoc est Figura Corporis sed Hoc est Corpus which if good must hold as well of virtus or of any thing else that is not ipsum Corpus But Vertue taken so exclusively overturns all and makes Theophylact contradict himself that he may not M. Claude Thus much in vindication of the true sence of Vertue when used by the Greek Authors A like passage to this in Theophylact see in Remigius Antisicodor in Expos Missae a follower a M. Claude grants †l. 6 c. 10. p. 862. of the Opinion of Damascen and the Greeks Cum Mysterium sit saith he quod alind significat Si Eucharistia in veritate Corpus Christi est quare appellatur mysterium Propterea utique quia post Consecrationem aliud est aliud videtur Videtur siquidem Panis Vinum sed in veritate Corpus Christi est sanguis Consulens ergo omnipotens Deus infirmitati nostrae qui usum nou habemus comedere Carnem erudam sanguinem bibere facit ut in pristinâ remaneant formâ illa duo munera etsi in veritate Corpus Christi Sanguis sicut ipse dixit c. Where Pristina forma cannot be extended to the internal substantial Form or Essence of Bread still remaining as M. Claude †p. 869. would divert the sence For this internal Form or Essence either in the Bread or Flesh since not seen neither causeth nor removeth Horrour and the maintaining of this Form suits not with the In veritate Christi Corpus est and verè Caro est in these Authors which expressions do imply In veritate not Panis but is to be understood only of the external form and other qualities thereof occurring to sence the sight taste c. For so that the Eucharist hath all these exterior qualities of Bread where we do not see or taste we dread not crude Flesh and the horrour we have is from its appearing not from its being Flesh Now this Panis quidem apparet Caro verè est of the Greeks what is it but saying the same thing with that of the Latines Substantia panis mutatur in carnem licet remaneant adhuc accidentia Panis quae sub sensum cadunt And Hence when upon an unusual expression happening in the Council at Constantinople under Constantius Copronymus that the only Image adorable was the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi in the Holy Sacrament the Real and corporal presence from a jealousie though causless as this Council explained it self that this expression might vary or derogate something from it began now to be more particularly insisted upon and explicated a curious Question arose among the Greeks as well as Latines whether upon the Bread being thus changed and becoming our Lords Body the Body of our Lord were digestible and corruptible which caused to some affirming it the imputation of Stercoranism But such odious name surely these could never have incurr'd no more than now Protestants do had they held at least as the opposite party understood them only a vivisicating vertue of our Lords body to reside in the Bread and not the very Substance of his Body to be present instead of it according to the then common Opinion This of the 2d thing wherein M. Claude's explication is deficient the change the Greeks held of the Bread into the Substance of our Lords Body at least so far as our Nourishment is into the Substanct of ours the principal reason of their using this similitude Yet wherein M. Claude deserts it though in some other things more advantagious to him as in the matter of the nourishment still remaining and that numerically distinct from the Body nourished he presseth it too far Now this 2 d. thing the Bread in the Eucharist its receiving such a change as our Nourishment once granted will be at least an half-Transubstantiation of it the Substantis Form of Bread being gone the former Qualities of Bread gone viz. from their any longer inherence in the Bread So that the Substance not of Bread but of Flesh is also under the former Accidents of the Bread The name also gone with the thing it being in truth now no more to be called Bread but the Flesh of our Lord. And so when the Bread is said by S. Damascen to be united to the Divinity it must be understood so as that in the Union it becomes another thing though still it remains a diverse thing from the Divinity Hence also the pretence of the Bread its being made our Lords body only in Vertue not in Substance gone and all M. Claud's quest after this word Vertue in the Greek Authors useless and his Descants upon it unsound of which enough hath been said already § 321. n. 8. The 3d. If we may prosecute their similitude of nourishment to its utmost extent §. 321. n. 15. That there is a local Union of the Bread and the Body of our Lord not by way of Accumulation and Addition or of Continuation only as a Leg and an Arm are joyned in the same Body but by way of an interior reception one into the other and the most intimate commixtion and con-fusion of them as to the least natural parts that are divisible and capable of a digestion one within the other So as the least part of one cannot be severed from the other or communicated without the other and as to any actual separation of them a thing not fecible they may be said to be numerically the same which comes also the nearest to a total tranfition even of its matter also into another Substance though as
make use of a Negative Argument which is sometimes very weak sometimes very strong and convincing according to the circumstances which must be left to the prudent to consider whereas the Greek Doctors had they declared the Body of our Lord that is distributed in the Eucharist to be really diverse from that on the Cross and when Consecrated in several places diverse one from another a necessary consequent as M. Claude saith of their Tenent might have rendred thâ—s Mystery much more easie and intelligible Yet they have never mentioned any such diversity but still as it were to prevent and strangle any such fancy cautiously added that it is one and the same with that which was born and dyed for us And for this numerical Identity urge our Lords own words †Matt. 26.28 Luke 22.19 Hoc est illud quod tradetur that Flesh of his that was to be Crucifyed and so for his Blood qui effundetur that was to be shed on the Cross As if our Lord would make this for ever a firm Article of our Faith and prevent all such Equivocation as eadem caro quoad suppositum or personam And upon this supposition of the same numerical Body here present the Greeks mistaking the sence of it censure the expression of the Latines in their Canon Jube haec perferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in supercaeleste Altare tuum c. as incongruous if pronounced after the Consecration once ended For so saith Cabasilas †Quomodo fuerit Liturg expos c. 30. si nondum est supercaeleste ipsum Corpus Christi quod est supercaeleste Quomodo sursum ferretur in manu Angeli quod supra omnem Principatum c. that is above already But this Quomodo might soon have been answered by himself if he held this Consecrated here a new body really distinct from that above This of the 1 st proof of a Total Transubstantiation the Greek's holding the Eucharist the same numerical body with that Crucifyed which according to M. Claude necessarily infers a total Transubstantiation of the Bread as well for its matter as Form 2 ly they hold the Body that is thus present by Consecration §. 321. n. 17.2 to be incorruptible and this Incorruption of it to depend on its Resurrection and so to relate only to that numerical Body that was Crucifyed and Raised from Death Quod nec laeditur nec corrumpiour nec in secessum abit Hoc avertat Deus saith Damascen and therefore the Greeks who are said generally to follow his Opinion must in Justice be freed from Stercoranism Now the Bread remaining entire for its whole Substance or for its Matter and qualities at least as before Consecration cannot be held such a Body of our Lord as suffers no digestion or corruption For something there is in the Sacrament that suffers this And we cannot imagine that the Greeks whilst holding the Substance of Bread to remain will lay these changes only upon the Species or Accidents of it and not the Substance at all so that though they eat the Bread they taste and are fed only by the Accidents and so without a Transubstantiation will espouse the difficulties of it Their holding then the Body that is present and participated in the Eucharist to be incorruptible excludes the Substance or matter of Bread from this Body And Panis quidem videtur or apparet sed revera Caro est as Theophylact. †In Matt. 26 Corpus Christi non particulatim diducitur c. Partitio est accidentium sub sensum cadentium as Samonas ‖ Dialog cum Saraceno Non Panis sed Corpus Domini sacrificatur and Si Panis manens sacrificatus fuisset Panis esset Sacrificium non Agni Dei and Cabasilas ‖ Liturg. Expositio c. 32. must all be understood of an entire change of the Bread as well its Matter as Form 3 ly They hold this Body that is present and distributed in the Eucharist to remain quoties frangitur totum integrum in unoquoque frusto And Omnibus distributum minimè diminutum Frangitur Agnus Dei non comminuitur semper comeditur non consumitur saith their Liturgy ‖ Missa Chrysostom Not a several piece or part of 〈◊〉 Lord's Body received in the several Particles but all Nor those receiving more of this Body that receive more of the Symbole In infinite places offered only the same Sacrifice viz. that one which was offered on the Cross To several Communicants distributed the self same Body and It to each entire A Tenent flowing from the former Its incorruptibility and by all the same persons maintained For what is so is no more capable of being parted or divided c. Now these things cannot suit to our Lords Body if the matter of Bread be said still to remain and to make up an augmentative part of our Lords natural Body but this numerically and really distinct from it For so in several places will be offered Sacrifices but these really different from one another as also from that of the Cross Nor will the Communicants receive our Lords Body entire but each a part and this part numerically differing from that Corpus quod traditum est which Communion of a parcel was a thing objected to the Stercoranists and those who held our Lords Body corruptible See M. Claud's Concessions concerning this 2 d. Answ part 3. c. 2. and so his retreat to a Virtual presence to verifie these expressions of the Greeks of this Body every where the same and received by every one entire As for some speeches used by the Greeks in making application of their Similitudes none of which can exactly fit so high a Mystery that seem not to accord so well with a Total Transubstantiation The Bread said by them to be assumed by or united to the Divinity of our Lord The Bread and his Body by the Divinity to be made One An Augmentation of Christs Body to be made by the Bread consecrated as here on Earth by his Nourishment c. I see no Reason why this Person should not be contented with the former Explications given of them Such as 1 both free these Authors from contradicting themselves and 2 do render the sence of the Fathers unanimous and the Christian Doctrine to run all in one common Stream viz. the Real Presence and Exhibition in the Eucharist of that numerical Body that suffered for us on the Cross 3. and whereby also may be avoided those many gross absurdities concerning new Contracts and Unions and new Bodies of our Lord which being so unworthy these high Mysterious and very injurious to our Lords Incarnation are all avoided by a total Transubstantiation See if you please these absurdities mentioned by Bellarmine De Euchar l. 3. c. 13. 〈◊〉 and by Suarez De Sacrament Disp 49. § 3. The Divinity of our Lord then may be said to assume or unite it self unto the Bread or to make the Bread one with his
Body not by a meer joyning it to Himself or to his Body whilst it remains still Bread but by his first converting and changing of it by his Divine Omnipotency into his Body and then his uniting Hypostatically his Divinity to it And his Body may be said in some sort to receive daily an Augmentation from these iterated Consecrations of Bread to be made his Body in as much as there is a daily multiplication of his Body as to its local Existence in more places than before according to the frequency of Communions whilst his Body in Heaven doth not descend but keeps its constant former residence there Thus Greeks and Latines ormer and latter times §. 321. n. 20. will be at some accord Whereas this Author to maintain a variance between the two Churches seems necessitated to fasten on the Greeks an Opinion which being taken in its just extent Tranubstantiation seems much the more eligible and which he is forced many times also to pare and qualifie so that it may have some Conformity to the Doctrine of Protestants and keep a greater distance from the Roman as offers extreme violence to the natural sence of their words For Example He allows * an Union of the Divinity to our Lords Body in the Eucharist as the Greeks say But no such Vnion Hypostatical * Christ s body in the Eucharist the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin as they say but in such a sence as mean-while to remain really essentially numerically diverse from it * The Bread the same body with that born of the Virgin but It not changed into Christs Flesh but remaining still Bread * Bread still not only for the matter as it was in our Lords or is in our nourishment but for the same Substantial Form and Qualities still inhering in it as before * The Bread made the very and true body as they say But virtually only in having infused into it and inherent in it the vivisicating virtue of Christs natural body Where the Protestants leave the Greeks to stand by themselves allowing this Vertue communicated to the Believeer only not to the Symbols * The Eucharistical body conjoyn'd as our nourishment is to ours to Christs natural body as they say but the one only in Heaven the other on Earth * Our Lords Body in the Eucharist by the same Divinity inhabiting in both made one and the same with that born of the Virgin as they say but Mystically and Sacramentally only For the same Divinity replenishing both doth not therefore render them really the same one with another * The same Body this with that but no Sovereign Adoration due or by the Greeks given to this as to that * This the same body with that and this also as indivisible received entire by every Communicant as the Greeks say But this Body entire in vertue only not in Substance * The same Body of our Lord in all places where this Sacrament is celebrated But only in the former sence i. e. the vertue and the efficacie of it the same If such be their sence the Reader cannot but think the Greeks very unfortunate in their Expressions or if not their sence this person presuming he should meet with very credulous Readers This from n. 11. of the 8 th Observation M. Claud's explication of the true Opinion of the Modern Greeks and the necessary consequents of it 9 ly After this §. 321. n. 21 He confesseth That it doth not appear that the Greeks have made any Opposition to the Roman Church about Transubstantiation l. 4. c. 5. p. 390. In a word saith he the Greeks neithâ—r Believe nor impugne Transubstantiation They believe it not for it hath no place in the Doctrine of their Church It is neither in the Confessions of their Faith nor Decisions of Councils nor Liturgies i. e. in such Language as he exacts Surely this main Point the Manner of our Lords Presâ—â—ce is not omitted in all these the Constantinopolitan the second Nicene Council the Liturgies speak of it Nor is Transubstantiation impugned in them according to Him is clearly maintained by them according to Catholicks They do not impugne it For as far as appears they have not argued with the Latines nor formally debated it with them in their former Disputes Thus He. And as he grants the Creeks not to have quarrelled with the Latines p. 375. because they held Transubstantiation So †the Latines never to have accused the Greeks as if they held it not There seems therefore no great need of Missions distributing charities teaching Schools there c. to induce these Orientals to approve a Teneâ—t which they never formerly contested and of an errour in which though the main Point these two Churches never accused one another Nay the Greeks in some of their Confessions as in that of the Venetian Greeks to the Cardinal of Guise seem to have out-done the Latines and to go beyond Transubstantiation Mean-while the great quarrels the same Greeks make with the Latines about smaller matters in this principal part of the Christian Service and the chief Substance of its Liturgies the Eucharist as about the manner of the Consecration and about Azymes and on the other side the great Storms that have been raised between Catholicks and Protestants from the very begining of the Reformation about this very Point of Transubstantiation do shew that if the difference between the Greeks and Latines were considerable and real herein there could not have been on both sides such a constant silence Though in some other matters of little consequence or at least of little evidence such as M. Claude instanceth in there can be shewed a silent toleration of the different Judgments as well of Churches as of private Persons 10 ly Hitherto §. 321. n 22. from § 321. n. 11. I have reflected on M. Claude's Explication of the Greeks Opinion concerning Transubstantiation Now to view the other Point Adoration Here 1 st He denies not an inferiour and Relative Adoration to be allowed to be due and paid by the Greeks to the Holy Mysteries in the Eucharist such as is given to the Holy Gospel and to other Sacred things Of which we find in S. Chrysostom's Masse that before his reading the Gospel Diaconus respondet Amen reverentiam Sancto Evangelio exhibet See M. Claud's last Answer l. 3. c. 7. p. 219. where he grants That the Greeks have much Devotion for Pictures for the Evangile and for the pain benit for the Bread of the Eucharist before the Consecration 2 ly A Supreme Adoration he grants lawful and due to our Lords Humanity wherever present and allows such an Adoration actually given even by Protestants at the time of their receiving the Eucharist to our Lord Christ and to his Sacred Humanity as in Heaven And to his Adversary urging some places of the Fathers for the practice of Adoration in the Communion he replies ‖ 2 Resp part 2. c. 8 p 416. The Author
esteemed this a sufficient and lawful Communion and no way offending against any command of our Lord enjoying the contrary 2ly It is a thing not denied by Protestants that Christ now no more divisible is totally contained in or exhibited by every particle of either Symbol 3ly These things supposed the Council maintains Ib. c. 12. that the Church did not change the former ordinary custom of receiving in both kinds without great and just cause moving her thereto 4ly But yet the Council grants also That some just Motives there may be for restoring the use of the Cup especially as to some particular places or persons and lastly referreth the judgment of these and Concession of it to the Pope's prudence the impediment that no such Dispensation was conceded by the Council it self upon so much importunity used by several Princes who having their States much imbroiled with new Sects hoped by this way to give them some satisfaction being this That the Fathers in the Council did not unanimously concur in the same judgment but the Spanish Bishops chiefly made great opposition to it as they not having the same motives which others for such an alteration and much fearing least some Division might happen between National Churches from the Communion celebrated in a several manner †See Soave p. 459 Neither were the rest willing to pass such an act with the displeasure of so considerable a party Though if we may believe Soave the Legats of the Pope then Pius Fourth who of himself also was well inclined to grant it ‖ See Soave p. 459. laboured much for the Concession of it †Soave p. 567. Of which Concession these conditions also were proposed by some in the Council †Soave p. 525. That the Cup should never be carried out of the Church and that the bread only should be sufficient for the sick that it should not be kept to take away the danger of its sowring that they should use little pipes to avoid effusion as was formerly done in the Roman Church And when it could not be passed in the Council Pro being strongly opposed as was said by the Spanish Bishops and others where the Reformed Religion had taken no root it was with much diligence by the same Legats procured that it should not be voted contra but referred to the Pope and this reference also first was drawn up with a clause of the Councils approbation of the Concession thereof if he so pleased in this manner ‖ Apud Pallav l. 18 c. 7. n. 13. That since the Council could not at present determine such affair They remitted it to the judgment of his Holiness who premising the diligences that he thought fit should either with the Conditions forementioned or some other according to his prudence allow the use thereof if it should seem good to him with the vote and approbation of the Council But neither would such clause pass See Soave p. 569. But to the Pope at last it was referred unbyassed any way by the Council to do that in it Quod utile Reipublicae Christianae salutare petentibus usum Calicis fore judicaverit †Conc. Trid. Sess 22. fin § 242 And so it was that after the Council ended the Pope upon the Petition of the Emperour and some others ‖ Soave p. 823. granted the use of the Cup to some parts of Germany Though this practice not having such effect as was hoped for reducing Sectarists as who differed from Catholicks in so many other points for which though they seem to have less pretence yet they did retain in them no less obstinacy neither did it continue long amongst the Catholicks who desired in this matter to conform to the rest of the Church The same practice was likewise indulged formerly by the Popes to the Greeks in Polonia to the Maronites and others reconciled to the Church of Rome that they should still receive the Sacrament in both kinds after their former manner viz. the Body of our Lord intinct in the Blood and both delivered them out of the Chalice in a Spoon Indulged also by Pope Paul the Third †Soave p. 293 â—â—4 in the Cessation of the Council to those in Germany who should humbly demand it nor did condemn the Churches contrary practice and so that it were done neither in the same time nor place with that Communion which is given by decree of the Church this caution I suppose being inserted to avoid the offence which others communicating only in one kind might take thereto Indulged also formerly to the Bohemians and Moravians by the Council of Basil See Histor Bohem. apud Aeneam Silvium c. 52. His Boemis Moravis qui consuevissent sub binâ specie panis scilicet vini divinae Eucharistiae communicare licebit And should any Pope or Council restore the use of the Cup generally to the whole Church yet can this no way infer any variation of the Churches Faith or Confession of her former Error For in such matters of practice where no divine precept confineth us to any side the doing one thing is far from inferring a confession of the unlawfulness of having done the contrary unless the Pope or Council should restore the Cup upon this reason because our Lord hath expresly commanded it But then as this would shew a fault so it would no less condemn the practice of antiquity than the present §. 243. n. 1. To To The too much frequency of Excommunication See the Provision made by the Council against it Sess 25. De Reform Gener. c. 3. Excommunication to be forborn where any other punishment effective can be inflicted To σ. To σ. Disorders of Monasticks See the reformation of them delivered Sess 25. in 22. Chapters Wherein amongst other things it is ordered * That frequent Visitations be made of such Houses for the strict obâ—ervance of their Rule and for this purpose those Houses formerly subjected immediatly to the Pope are submitted to the Bishop as his Delegat * That none living in any such Houses retain any Propriety nor any superfluous expence be made therein not suiting to the vow of Poverty * That Monasticks never depart from their Convent for the service of any place or person or any pretence of other imployment whatsoever without a Licence obtained in writing from their Superior otherwise to be punished by the Bishop as Desertors of their Profession * That none shall have leave to wear their habit secretly None be permitted to depart from an Order more strâ—ct to one of more liberty * That the Bishop take care That any offending scandalously out of his Convent receive due punishment * That all Superiours and Officers be elected by secret scrutiny * That no Estate or Goods of any Novice save for his food and apparel be received by any Monastery before his Profession that so after his Noviceship ended he may retain a perfect freedom to depart
never so universal as to the rest of Christianity would have been accepted by the Protestant Bishops who fell under its censures § 300 But if the present supreme Church-Authority in actual being is that to which such persons in any contests of Superiors alwaies owe their submission the most of those who have not skill to comprehend or decide to themselves Controversies yet have light enough to discern this their Superior Guide For example Whether a Patriarch or a Primate be of an higher authority Whether an Occidental Council at Trent under Pius Or a National at London under K James be the Superior and more comprehensive and universal For the Subordinations of Clergy and their Synods are well known and amongst Sects that are in corners the Church-Catholick stands like a City set on a hill and a light on a Candlestick Quae usque ad confefsionem generis humani ab Apostolicâ sede per successiones Episcoporum frustra Haereticis circumlatrantibus c. as St. Austin before § 293. culmen authoritatis obtinuit and which its very Adversaries shew but as an intolerable ambition in it to be that body which challengeth in our Lords name obedience from all the world Christian and hitherto hath out-numbred any other Christian Society of one Communion For all Sects as they divide from it so also most certainly from the same continued liberty against Authority among themselves And therefore though such others as by their mean education and low imployments know no more of the Church its Governours or Doctrine than what their Parish Priest perhaps factious teacheth them and so without ascending higher here terminate their obedience may be excused by invincible ignorance for a thing that is their unhappiness indeed but not their crime yet those who by their more liberal Education and ingenuous imployments cannot be inculpably ignorant of such Authority and whose example the ruder sort are steered by if they neglect to range themselves under it shall bear their own judgment and also that of their followers And if any Authority canonically subject to another shall rebel against it and declare it self as to some part of the Church supreme and will govern that part independently what less can it expect from the Divine Justice than that its Subjects likewise animated by its example should revolt from it and as it reforms for it self against others above it so it should suffer more Reformations still for themselves from others below it and the measure meted by it to others be meted again by others to it till all divine matters not on a suddain which is not the ordinary course of God's long-suffering but in process of time be brought in such part to confusion and Anarchy § 301 This from § 292. 1. That such as are wholy unstudied in Controversies or after reading them still unsatisfied are to submit their judgments to the present Church-Authority 2. And then this divided to the highest in actual being which without much search cannot but be known to the greatest part of Christians 3. Next as to Church-Authority past with which many would evacuate the present here also such as cannot search and examine or in examining cannot clear to themselves its certain Traditions ought also concerning it to take the judgment of the present Church for whose can they prudently prefer to it But yet give me leave to add one thing more that without looking into the Ancients themselves for which few have leisure or Books such persons may easily discern by many other Symptoms and evidences and by their travelling no further than the modern writings on what side Antiquity stands as to matters of religion in present debate and which of the opposite parties it is that hath deserted and receded from it Of whom you may see what hath been said already to this purpose in 3 Disc § 78. § 302 1. For first He that is acquainted only with the modern writings will find the one party in general much claiming and vindicating liberty of Opinion of Judgment of Conscience and indeavouring to prove the Fallibility of whatever Authority whereas the other generally presseth obedience and adherence to Authority and defends the Infallibility also of it as to all necessaries Which argues that such Authority pincheth the one promotes the other § 303 2. Again As to this Church-authority past whether taken collectively in its Councils or disjunctively the particular Fathers As to the first He will find the one party usually disparaging and weakening upon some pretence or other most of those Councils formerly held in the Church * Requiring such conditions of their power to oblige obedience as indeed neither past Councils were nor future can be capable of I mean either as to such an universal Convention or acceptation as this Party demands He will find them * urging much the Non-necessity of Councils the difficulty to know the right qualifications of the persons the legality of their proceedings the sence of their Decrees * Quarrelling about the calling of them the presiding in them the paucity of their members inequality of Nations Pretending their contradictions Councils against Councils saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 376. their being led by a faction * carping at their Anathema's even those of the very first Councils The Fathers of the Church saith Mr. Chillingw †p. 200. in after times i.e. after the Apostles might have just cause to declare their judgments touching the sence of some general Articles of the Creed But to oblige others to receive their Declarations under pain of damnation i. e. of Anathema what warrant they had I know not He that can shew either that the Church of all ages was to have this Authority or that it continued in the Church for some ages viz. for the four first General Councils and then expired let him for my part I cannot Thus he Questioning their making more new Articles of Faith after the declaration of the Third General Council at Ephesus against it All these I say are manifest Indications concerning such Questioners that the forepast Councils are no friends to their cause § 304 3. Next For the Fathers apart he will find the same Party * frequent in alledging the corruptions and interpolations of those writings which it confesseth theirs * affirming several writings which the rest of the world admits for genuine to be supposititious and none of theirs will find them * complaining sometimes of their obscurity sometimes of their Rhetorick and Allegories which occasion often a mistake of their opinion and their using terms in a much other sense than the modern do * Representing them as to the many matters now in Controversie impertinent or ambiguous confused not clear by their own judgment then the Fathers not clear on their side * Discovering their nakedness as much as they can and laying open their errors Repugnances and Contradictions Contradictions of one to another of the same to himself Some Fathers against others the same Fathers
they might easily discern and the phenomena or Characters of the Apocalyptical false Prophet which are by them through insuperable difficulties misapplied to the Pope the Head of the Church to have been most visibly and eminently fulfilled in Him * Who is the head and Founder of that false Religion which hath so boldly invaded Christianity after so many hundred years growth and supplanted it in the greatest and most dignified part of the converted world Whose signs and wonders how lying or ridiculous soever for God forbid any such should be expected from this false Prophet as our Lord or his Apostles did have had the very same effect as the two Apostles †Apocal. 13.13 14. 2 Thess 2.9 10. have foretold those of the false Prophet should have viz. the seduction and delusion of the Nations and if there be no wonder in the wonders the greater wonder there is in the seduction that followed upon them * Who hath introduced a new Gospel and that pretended to have been written in heaven he assuming therein the person and voice of God new Sacraments new daies and places of solemn worship who hath moulded a new fine easie religion void as he saith of all Controversies and subtilties and consisting only of one Article of Faith One only God and Mahomet his Prophet Devised new pleasing laws which that they might be point-blanck opposit to our Lords are full of lust and uncleanness on one fide and of cruelty rapin tyranny violence the sword slavery and the law martial on another and hath invented new future sensual Beatitudes suitable to the observance of his laws * Who hath changed Dies Dominica for solemn worship into Dies Veneris and the visiting of our Lords Sepulchre and Temple at Jerusalem to his at Mecha Subjecting Sarah to Hagar and Isaac to Ismael * Who hath taken away the Christian Altars and the daily Evangelical Sacrifice the Sacraments the Priests and thrown out of the Churches of Bodies of the Saints interred there as contaminating them § 313 * Who after the attempts of Cerinthus Carpocrates and others in S. Johns daies and the progress of Arius and his Disciples in following ages almost all the ancient Hereticks being treacherous to our Lords Divinity hath at last compleated that which is spoken of 1 Joh. 4.2 * the Dissolution of Jesus as the vulgar and those Greek Copies it follows have it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 †See Socrat. Hist l. 7 c. 32. Irenaeus l 3. c. 18. or * the denial of Jesus his coming in the flesh as other Copies i. e. his descending from Heaven into the flesh whilst he hath rob'd our Lord not only of his Divinity but also by this of the High Prerogatives of his Humanity too rob'd him also of his Cross and Death which he saith he never suffered and so rob'd Him and the world of his Satisfactions and Merits and all the vertue of the Sacraments relating thereto and hath challenged the Honour of being the last Prophet sent from God unto himself * In whom the Dragon seems to have shewed his greatest Apoc. 13.2 and last Art after the world was somewhat well acquainted with his former snares For whereas heretofore he thrust all the world into Idolatry now out of the envy which Satan bears to the Honour given by the Church to the glorified Saints his Disciple and Champion this false Prophet becomes a professed enemy to all former Idolatry and much displeased he is with Christianity upon this account And again out of the envy Satan bears to the Divinity of our Lord a great zealot this his false Prophet is for the worship of one only God that saith he hath neither wife nor child Yet who in opposing and denying the Divinity of our Lord Jesus the Son hath lost and depriv'd himself of God the Father too in St. Johns consequence For 1 Jo. 2.23 He who denieth the Son i. e. that Jesus is the Son or ver 22. that Jesus is the Christ or 1 Jo. 4.3 that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh i. e. come from heaven or from God into the flesh all which this false Prophet expresly opposeth He that thus denies the Son the same also hath not the Father saith the Apostle And so this man of sin retaines no title either to God the Son or God the Father either to the God of Christians or to the Heathen God's whom also he hath cast off § 314 * Who hath planted himself in all the primitively famous Churches to whom our Lord or his Apostles directed their Epistles except one where the woman cloth'd with the Sun hath hitherto had a place provided for her and Apoc. 12.6 14.2 Thess 2.4 Apoc. 13.3.12 13. Apoc. 13.3 4. amongst others in God's Temple at Jerusalem from the possession of which no Christian Heroical attempts have been able hitherto finally to expell him * Who possessing all the middle of the earth and having thrust up the Church as it were into a corner and the outerskirts thereof the Islands of the West hath erected a new dreadful Empire and reviv'd the Image of the former Heathen State that persecuted the Church in the beginning and which long since seemed to have received its mortal wound which he hath wonderfully cured And seated this his Empire in the very same place and turned the St. Sophia heretofore the glory of Christian Churches into a Mosche * Whose miraculous conquests have made the world to wonder after him and to Adore him saying who is like to him who able to make war with him Apoc. 13.3 4. * With whose persecution no former can be compar'd either for duration of time or by his facile and sensual Religion slaughter of souls * Who also hath afflicted Christianity now for above a 1000 of the Protestants 12 hundred and sixty Daies ‖ Apoc. 12 6.14 13.5 11.3 Dan. 7.25 12.7 taken for years near upon the same time that they may see the â—numbers also fit Him as they say the Pope hath oppressed it Only the Antiquity of the Churches pretended Idolatry said to be about or before A. D. 400. †Mede Apostacy of latter times c. 14. Dr. More Synops Prophet c. 7. n 7. Apoleg p. 552. forceth them to begin their account of the Popes Apostacy and oppression of the Faith so early as justly computed it happens to be already expired Yet expired without any alteration of affairs observed at this time correspondent to the Prophecy for that change at the Reformation a great one indeed on the other side comes too early whereas the account applied to the Mahometan Apostacy being of 200. years later date suffers as yet no contradiction from the event § 325 * Who by all these things by abrogating the Laws and Worship not only of all the former Heathen Gods but also of the Christians and the true God and instead thereof setting up his own 2 Thess 2.4 hath opposed and exalted himself above all that is
l. 3. c. 1. p. 157. In the Dispute concerning the Greeks our business is only about Transubstantiation and not at all about Real presence For it was to this only and Adoration that I formally limited my self in my last Answer But then as if this might do him some prejudice he as it were cautiously addeth Yet I would have none draw a Consequence from hence that I acknowledge a Real presence established in the Greek Church But here to make his words true he adds again in that sense as the Roman Church understands it And what sense is that surely by the way of Transubstantiation And so you see he pares his words till they say no more than just what he said before That he acknowledgeth no Real presence viz. by way of Transubstantiation established in the Greek Church And this is to say only that he acknowledgeth them not to hold Transubstantiation 2. Next concerning the Greeks their receiving or opposing Transubstantiation he hath one Hold more Ibid. It is not saith he our business to know whether the Greeks formally reject Transubstantiation Or whether they have made It an Article of Controversy between them and the Latines but only whether they comprehend it amongst their points of Faith or no Our Dispute is only concerning this matter One would think that he had been chaced very much and driven up to the wall that to preserve himself safe he makes so many out-works and contracts the Subject of his Disputation within so narrow a Compass But doth he not here for the Greek Church also thus decline and tacitly as it were yield up that to the Catholicks which they have always professed to be the main Controversie with Protestants on this Subject viz. The Real and Corporal presence of our Lord and the perpetuity of the Christian Faith as well East as West in the constant Belief of this for all the later times of the Church Catholick which consent found in the later times is the truest proof from which we may collect also the true sense of the former And from this Corporal presence once established whether a Transubstantiation be or be not necessarily follows also the lawfulness of a Soveraign Adoration which renders the Dispute concerning one of the two Points he contesteth needless and decideth it against him since an Adoration of the Mysteries practised among the Greeks he is content to allow but not Soveraign Now Real presence makes it out a Soveraign one 5. His way thus far made §. 321. n. 7. and his cause pretended not to be conterned in that the Greeks have a different Sentiment of the Eucharist from Protestants Nor that they take Hoc est corpus meum as also the Latines in a literal sense and hold a Real presence Nor that they do not reject the Roman Transubstantiation Or make any Controversie with the Latines about it And so all Authorities save those that press Transubstantiation being removed from giving him any trouble Next For the Greeks asserting a Transubstantiation the alledging such Testimonies as these which follow and frequently occur in their Authors will not be admitted by him as good or to the purpose That by the Consecration the Bread is changed and converted into the very the proper the True or in veritate in reipsa Body of Christ which Body also is the same with that born of the Blessed Virgin and that suffered on the Cross That the Eucharist is not a Figure or Image only of this Body but the very Body of our Lord united to his Divinity as the Body born of the Blessed Virgin was Neither are these now two but one Unum corpus unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpfit in utero Virginis quod dedit Apostolis And Calix quem Sacerdo◠sacrificat non est alius nisi ipse quem Dominus Apostolis tradidit That the Bread that is offered in the Mysteries is the very same Flesh of Jesus Christ that was Sacrificed at the time of his Passion and buryed in the Sepulchre and which St. Thomas handled and which is at the Right Hand of the Father That after the Consecration Though it appears Bread yet in verity it is the Body of Christ Or Licet Panis nobis videatur revera Caro est Or Non manet Panis sed pro Pane factum est Corpus Christi I say such expressions as these very usual in the Greeks are not current with him for proving a Substantial change of the Bread Or That the Substance of it after Consecration doth not still remain so entire as before For as for Ipsum proprium verum c. he can produce places in the Fathers where they are applyed to a Metaphor where the Poor the Faithful the Church are said to be Ipsum or Verum Corpus Christi The Bread is changed into the Body of Christ i. e. saith he not in Substance but in Vertue The Eucharist is not a Figure or Image of this Body i. e. without all Vertue or Efficacy but the very Body it self i. e. in being such an Image or Figure as retains the supernatural Vertue of it But still I say This Supernatural Vertue is not the Body And if the Greek's arguing from our Lords Dixit Hoc est Corpus meum be good viz. That what-ever is not our Lords Body the Eucharist is not It holds as well against Virtus if taken exclusively to Substance for such Substance is Body here or else why not Imago a Body as against Imago or Figura as well against Imago cum Efficacia as sine c. For Non dixit Hoc est Virtus or continens virtutem Corporis mei but Hoc est Corpus meum And this being urged by his Adversary the best answer that I see M. Claude makes to it †l. 4. c. 7. is That the Protestanes are no engagers for the verity of the Greek's Opinions i. e. He imposeth such a sense on the Greeks as makes a Contradiction in their Opinion or arguing and then leaves them to make it good Again Though it appears Bread it is truly Flesh i. e. saith he The Greeks hold it indeed still Bread in Substance and not Flesh at all But they mean here that though it appears or seems yet it is not simple Bread but it is truly Flesh in as much as it now hath the true Vertue of Christs Flesh making them say It is in truth that which yet they hold it is not save only in Vertue or Efficacy And again that it only appears that which yet they hold that in Substance and in truth it is And to render this his Exposition more current in his 2. Answer he saith We must not press too much such manner of expressions as these †part 3. c. 2. licet appareat Panis tamen in veritate Corpus Christi est lest we make the Fathers speak many absurdities And so urgeth a place in S. Chrysostom where the Father saith That we ought not to think of
to this total Conversion we must permit the operation of Gods Omnipotency out of his infinite kindness to us in the Holy Fucharist to stand fingular and unparallel'd by any work of Nature All these three therefore the Author in dealing ingenuously with the Greek's comparison and their expressions as it seems to me ought to have allowed But this probably he much dreaded as seeing he might as well nay in some respects better have admitted a total Transubstantiation of matter as well as Form which would have avoided those many prejudices and indignities which an Impanation labours under But yet thus the Sentiment of the Greeks supposing no total Conversion is advanced far beyond not only M. Claud's and The Calvinists vertual presence but also the Lutherans Consubstantiation For whereas these hold only Bread and Christs natural Body joyned in the Eucharist so that the Body and the Bread are two several things still this Opinion holds the one changed into the other so as that as Jeremy the Patriarch of Constant replyed upon the Lutherans in his 2d. Answ †c. 4. and as Damoscen also said long before ‖ De Fid. Orthod l. 4. c. 14 Non duo jam sunt i. e. as the Lutherans said Panis and Corpus Christi joyn'd sed unum idem i. e. Corpus Christi only The Bread made his natural Flesh animated with his Soul Hypostatically united to his Divinity in fine the same with his Body as much at least as our Nourishment interiorly received and digested is with ours Thus far the Greeks usual simile carries us §. 321. n. 16. But their common Doctrine farther even to a Total Transubstantiation as I think will appear from what follows 1. For 1 st They hold that the same Numerical Body of our Lord that was born of the Virgin and Crucifyed is exhibited to us in the Eucharist Present not by its descending from Heaven but by the Conversion of the Consecrated Elements into the self-same Body and by the multiplication of its local Existence in more places than before 1. Which appears 1 st From this That the Identity of the Body Consecrated and that Crucifyed quod suppositum or as both united to and filled with the same Divinity which well consists with a Real Substantial Numerical diversity between themselves is not sufficient that the one of them therefore may be denominated of the other or this said to be thâ—â— nor yet sufficient that all the same things may be said of them both Some general things indeed may be predicated of them wherein both agree but their Properries individual as local presince Motion any particular Qualities or applications them cannot Yet which Individual properties are usually applyed by the Greeks to the Body Crucifyed and to that distributed in the Eucharist as one and the same Any Individual Properties of the one or the other I grant may alwayes be truly demonstrated of our Lords Body in general as we will But cannot be truly said of both or either of these the Consecrated and the Crucifyed as we please if these not numerically the same So we cannot say That ones Soul is his Body or a Leg an Arm or the one in the same place or motion or every way affected as the other is because that both are parts of one and the same Person or Body and both animated with one and the same Soul And for a Grecian Priest to tell his Communicants that he delivers them the same Body that was Crucifyed and offered for their Salvation and Redemption when he gives them neither it nor any part of it because he gives them another Augmentative Breaden part belonging to the same Person which Person indeed was Crucifyed for them seems too bold an Equivocation to be by this Person so confidently imposed on the Greek Church and their ordinary expressions The Truth therefore of that which the Greeks or other Latines embracing their Opinion do affirm viz. that the Eucharists Consecrated in never so many places are all the self-same Body one with another and all with the Crucifyed because replenished every where with the same Divinity must be understood to proceed not from the meer Union or Conjunction how intimate soever of these two as is shewed but now but to proceed from the effect as M. Claude pressed with his Adversaries Arguments confesseth †p. 867. from the effect I say which this Divinity first uniting or conjoyning it self to the Elements upon the words of Consecration worketh in them to make them by a total Transmutation of their Substance for nothing less can do it individually all one and the same with one another and with that crucifyed after which follows another an Hyppostatical Vnion of the same Divinity to them as made our Lords Body 2. Again Their holding a Numerical Identity every where of this Body of our Lord appears from this that they explain its being in all places but one and in every place and in every Particle whole and intire by the Divinity 's being so and the Divinity is so numerically See that passage of Remigius and Alcuin cited by M. Claude l. 6. c. 10. concerning the effect of this repletion of the Consecrated Elements by the Divinity Sicut Divininas Verbi Dei una est una numero quae totum implet mundam Ita licet multis locis innumerabilibus diebus illud Corpus consecretur non sunt tamen multa corpora Christi neque multi Calices sed unum Corpus Christi unus Sanguis cum eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis quod dedit Apostolis Divinitas enim verbi replet illud quod ubique est the Bread conjungit ac facit by a transmutation of this Bread by the Divinity joyn'd to it ut sicut ipsa Divinitas quae totum implet mundum tamen una est ita quod ubique est or Panis conjungatur i. e. by such a transmutation of it Corpori Christi unum corpus ejus sit in veritate i. e. one not only as to the Person but one in Reality and Essence as the Divinity is one and otherwise that which follows and which he collects from this Unity cannot be true Vnde animadvertendum est quòd sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat omnes equaliter Corpus Christi integerrimè sumunt generaliter omnes specialiter unusquisque Certainly where the whole is in every part and every part if I may so say contains in it the whole here is supposed a numerical Identity and a sicut Divinitas una est Nor hath M. Claude in his holding the Substance of the Eucharist in several places really diverse and so to each Communicant any way to relieve himself in answer to such expressions necessarily inferring a total Transubstantiation but by inducing vertual presence only which Vertue he saith is every where numerically the same and whole and entire to every Receiver This for Remigius And here also if we may
deceives us in proving what is not controverted For the Question is not whether in the Communion we ought to adore Jesus Christ our Redeemer and his Flesh personally united to the Word represented by the Sacrament We practice it with an ardent and humble Devotion when we approach to the Holy Table And afterward Who doubts but that the Body of Jesus Christ is Soveraignly Adorable 3 ly He cannot but know or else hath been very careless to inform himself that no Soveraign Adoration is pretended either by the Roman or Greek Church to be given to the external Species or Symboles of the Eucharist which they hold Venerable only with an inferiour cult such as is due to all other Holy things but only to the Body and Blood of Christ contained under them as the Council of Trent allowing the Expression of adoring the Sacrament cultu Latriae yet explains it in their Canon thus ‖ Sess 13. c. 6. Si quis dixerit in Sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum Anathema sit And as Bellarmin †De Euchar. l. 4. c. 29. also resolves the state of the Controversie Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status questionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistiâ sit adorandus cultu Latriae 4 ly In the 4 th Observation precedent M. Claude saith he will not contest the Greek's holding a Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist Though he contends it is not by the Roman way of Transubstantiation Now from this Real Presence held by the Greeks even after that way he allows at least if he will but grant the true consequences thereof mentioned before § 321. n. 13. Viz. An Hypostatical or other Union to this Body offered and distributed in the Eucharist such as converts it into the Flesh of our Lord and renders it the Body of the same Person with that born of the Blessed Virgin non aliud ab eo quod sumpsit in utero Virginis By which she People seem sufficiently instructed not to distinguish in their Mode of Adoration between these two that they are taught to be personally the same I say from such a Real Presence held by the Greeks a lawfulness of adoring Christs Body as there present must be held by them And then if it can be shewed by M. Claude they do not actually adore it must be reckoned a matter of neglect not of Conscience or denying such thing due 5 ly But now to consider their Practice He denies not the Greeks to adore in their Mode of Adoration which is by inclining the Head and Body seldom kneeling when they receive the Communion their Liturgies have it often repeated and surely he will allow them herein as much Devotion as he doth to the Protestants and also them to give at least an external Relative Devotion to the Mysteries for such they give to the Evangiles and methinks the witnesses he produceth p. 216. should not in general denie simply any Adoration of the Greeks at all The Question then only is granting already an external Adoration given by the Greeks when they approach to the Communion whether this in their intention be a soveraign Adoration exhibited to Christs Sacred Divinity Humanity as there present Now the Greek's holding this Humanity there really present conceded before seems sufficient to determine this without more ado And for one to pretend that this Adoration of the Greeks is given only to God or to Christs Divinity as every where present or to the Humanity united to it but only this as in Heaven and not to it also as present in the Eucharist when the same Greeks confess it to be so and when the Eucharistical presence is the occasion of such their Adoration here I say not to allow the extent of their Adoration so far as they believe the presence of the Person adored and their worship the same latitude as their Faith would be an unjust and groundless abridgement of their Devotions as also this to pretend an interior or relative Adoration given by them only to the Mysteries where the same Communicants hold a supreme due to the Person Present with them To view a little the Form of their Liturgy We read in S. Chrysostom's Masse That the Priest after Consecration and before he takes the Holy bread to communicate himself with it adores and saith Attende Domine Jesu Christe de Sancto habitaculo tuo veni ad sanctificandum nos qui in excelsis cum Patre simul resides hic unâ nobiscum invisibiliter versaris dignare potenti manu tuâ nobis impertiri immaculatum Corpus tuum pretiosum sanguinem per nos toti Populo Corpus tuum I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self To whom also the Priest had faid before in the begining of the Service Tu enim es qui offers offerris assumis distribueris Christe Deus noster Then the Priest adores again and saith thrice to himself Deus propitius esto mihi Peccatori An Act of Humiliation used here by him before he takes the Sancta into his hands for the Communion as it was once before at the begining of the Oblation And so saith the Rubrick all the People adore with him Populus similiter cunctus cum devotione adorat Then he takes the Holy Bread and makes the Elevation of it yet whole and entire saying Sancta Sanctis And the Quire answers with relation to It yet one and entire Vnus Sanctus Vnus Dominus Jesus Christus Then the Priest breaking it into 4. Pieces saith Frangitur Agnus Dei qui frangitur at non comminuitur qui semper comeditur non consumitur which shews what Agnus Dei whether this in Heaven or present here is now spoken of and thus adored Sed eos qui sunt participes sanctificat So taking a piece thereof in his hand and preparing himself to receive it he saith Credo Domine confiteor Quòd Tu es Christus c. Dignare in praesepe animae meae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in coinquinatum meum Corpus ingredi dignare me participem effici sanctissimi tui Corporis Sanguinis I add never severed from thy Divinity and thy self Also when he calls the Deacon to communicate him with the Holy Bread 't is said Accedens Diaconus Reverentiam exhibet And so also before receiving the Chalice It is said again Diaconus venit adorat semel dicens Ecce venio ad immortalem Regem c. Where it must be remembred that the Greeks also held the Body of our Lord that is received in the Eucharist to be immortal and incorruptible This we find in the Liturgy And suitable to this we read in Cabasilas †c. 39. expounding the Liturgy concerning the People before their communicating Ipsi autein saith he fidem attendentes aedorant benedicunt Jesum qui in eis donis
Sanctificatis intelligitur oppos'd to videtur ut Deum celebrant Where M. Claud's note is †l. 3. c. 7 p. 222. that Non adorant dona sed Jesum But who saith that a Soveraign Adoration is due or given to the Dona Again 2 Jesum saith he qui intelligitur i. e. only qui representatur in Donis But all the former Expressions implying our Lords presence shew their belief to be contrary Tues said the Priest before qui offers offerris assumis distribueris Christe Deus noster And the People after this adoring in their receiving say Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini of which the same Cabasilas Tanquam nunc ad eos venientem apparentem Christum benedicunt Who also before c. 24. intimates the custom of the Greeks in the Service adorare alloqui corpus sanguinem Domini Now I say All these Passages in the Greek Liturgy well considered Here for one to grant the Real and corporal Presence of our Lord in his whole Person in the Holy Mysteries to be believed by this Priest Deacon and other Communicants and yet to say their Adoration and other Addresses and Allocutions are not given and made to him as there present but to him only as in Heaven or only to his Divinity as there and every where present abstracted from his Humanity is such a Comment upon this Liturgie as nothing but a strong pre-ingagement can force upon any ones judgment The Testimonies §. 321. n 23. this Author brings †l. 3. c. 7. p. 216. do accuse the Greeks of some neglect in this Duty but do not shew them to justifie it and these very Persons that censure such neglect toward the Holy Mysteries after Consecrated accuse them almost of committing Idolatry toward them before So that it seems rather some defect of knowledge in such concerning the Ceremonies of Consecration than want of Devotion Cabasilas †c 24. long ago observed the same in some ignorant People and blamed it but yet in the same place allows the Adoraâ—ion of and Allocutions made to the Body and Blood of our Lord when the Offerings are Sacrificed and perfected The Consecration also of the Greeks being longer extended and the Adoration not so unitedly peâ—formed presently upon the pronouncing of our Lords words of Institution as amongst the Latines but disjunctively at their communicating might occasion some mistake in those Latines who accused them of a Non Adoration So the other irreverences and indecencies objected are to be esteemed only negligences in privâ—te practice not consequences of the publick Doctrine nor countenanced by their Liturgies Which Lâ—turgies use as much Ceremony towards the Holy Mysteries as the Roman doth Where also first the Remains of the Holy Bread are carefully put into the Chalice for the People to be communicated threrewith and then for the Remains after the Communion consummated Sacerdos saith the Rubrick quod residuum est Communionis in Sancto Calice cum attentione devotione consumit ter S. Calicem abluit attendit ne remaneat particula Margarita vocata not the least crum of the intinct Host As for several Devotions and Honours performed to the Blessed Sacrament here in the West which this person dâ—ligently reckons up much to its praise not so in the East freqâ—ently urged by M. Claude as good Arguments of the Greek Church not believing Transubstantiation or such a Real Presence as the Roman and in latter times here more than in the former 1 st they are held no such necessary circumstances or consequences without the which a Real Presence may not be believed and a due Adoration in some convenient manner or other practised 2 ly The occasion of them is well known to have been the Berengarian and many other Errors concerning the Eucharist which appeared here in the West but disturbed not the East Which Errors inferrâ—ng many Indignities and affronts to this richest and dearest Legacy of our departing Lord caused the Church to multiply also the external testifications of her Devotion Gratitude and Reverence to it and Gods wisdom as usually out of such vilifyings and disrespects extracted a greater Honour as to External Ceremony to these High Mysteries So also the many subtle Questions that have been discussed and stated among the Latines not so much thought on by the Greeks but all shut up in a Quo modo novit Deus another frequent Argument with this Author of the Greeks not believing Transubstantiation acknowledge the same Originall viz. the Provocations Objections contrary false positions of the Heterodox Which forced the Church to descend to the same particulars with them Nor could she censure these as Errours without establishing their Contradictories as Truth This of Adoration To conclude The many Concessions of M. Claude § 321 n. 24. and the Consequences of them forementioned seem to me sufficient 1 st to disswade any sober and modest person who relies not on his own judgment for the controverted sence of Holy Scriptures but holds it a safer way to conform to that of Church-Authority to disswade him I say from any such Communion as he sees by the former Account opposed both by the Latines and the Greeks Greeks present or past as high as Damascen in the 8 th age and may not I say as high as Gregory Nyssen †See before in the 4 th whilst both these Latines and Greeks hold a Real or Corporal presence of our Lord in the Eucharist §. 321. n. 14. and agree in a literal sence of Hoc ost Corpus meum Nor will M. Claude enter with his Adversary into this Controversie 2. Next to perswade him of the two rather to the Roman Communion as whose Transubstantiation besides that it hath been established by so many Councils †See the guide in Controversy Disc 1. §. 57 58. is of it self much more credible and more accommodated to the Scripture-expressions then I know not what Augmentation of Christs natural Body born of the Blessed Virgin by a new Breaden one assumed in the Eucharist numerically distinct from the other yet by the like assumption and Union to our Lords Divinity rendred personally one and the same Body with it But much more will be confirmed in the same Resolution if by what hath been said above †§. 321. n. 16 c. he discerns M Claud's Relation of the Modern Greek opinion unsound and that the main Body of them except perhaps some few Impanatists that have been there as also in the Western Church in holding a total substantial change of the Bread have accorded with the Roman Church I hope the Reader will pardon this digression §. 321. n. 29 the rather because it serves much to illustrate that whereof I was discoursing †That notwithstanding whatever evidence of Truth Answers and Replyes from Persons ingenious and pre-ingaged find no end and that when Controversies are by one of the contending parties denyed any Decisive Judge though
practice as well of the Iconoclasts as the Catholicks nor any Controversie in those daies concerning it Thus the Seventh General Council whose whole business was the stating of this Question And see the comparing of the Honour given to Images with that to the Name of Jesus in a Synod held at Mentz A. D. 1549. since the Reformation c. 41 in the larger Acts of it †Apud Vasquez in 3. Thom. Disp 108. c 14. Codicem oculis perlustrans cum ad venerabile tremendum nomen Jesu devenerit caput aperit suspiciens in coelum oculos attollit ob id omni reprehensione Idololatria suspicione caret siquidem non literas c. sic honorat sed cogitatione veneratione mentis suae ad eum honorandum i. e. latria rapitur cujus memoriam hae literae ei suggerunt Cur ergo superstitionis aut Idololatriae reus peragitur qui ante Imaginem crucifixi Domini caput aperit aut procumbens adorat c. And see Vasquez who cites this Synod thus entitling his c. 11. Disp 108. in 3. S. Thom. Eodem modo atque Imagines nomen Jesu alias res sacras naming Crucem vasa sacra lib. Evangeliorum esse adorandas And see Suarez Disput 54. § 6. Card. Lugo de Incarnatione Disp 36. § 6. saying the same I have the rather mentioned here the reverence given at the name of Jesus because though that to the sacred utensils and Holy Gospels is grown into desuetude among Protestants yet this other is still retained When therefore we speak of that Superior Honour latria §. 323. n. 2. or Dulia that is given or due to the Exemplar I mean either the internal honor of the soul or also external of the body for the latria Divine worship consists of both and herein the external act receives its specification from the internal and not one but both these we equally give to our Lord then also when we pray to him not-before or without an Image or if you will when in the middle of our prayers an Image is presented before us I say when this Superior Worship is spoken of though here we uncover our Heads we kneel 〈◊〉 and â—â—brace it yet is the Image neither objectum nor Ratio Adorationis but only Adjunctum as the Cardinal hath it De Imag. l. 2. c. 23. Ipsa Imago nec est suppositum quod adoratur nec ratio adorationis sed quiddam Adjunctum a Circumstantial an Inductive a Motive thereof For the mental intention here wholy directs as it can at pleasure to the Prototype these outward notes of Honour some of which as kissing or embracing are accidentally and concomitantly applied to the Image Neither is such external latrical worship conveighed to the person represented either by or through the Image as a medium to it any way so to facilitate or promote the acceptance thereof or ingratiate it with the Prototype But the Image is a meer circumstance of such Adoration as time and place are and any creature of God may be Yet a circumstance very beneficial for reminding us of such duty as also for rendring this service more fixt and steady or intense and devout This for worship due to the Ptototype Next as for the inferior relative Veneration exhibited to their Images Catholicks do not here pretend or affirm any peculiar presence of our Lord or his Saints or any vertue either natural or accessary and derivative in any such Image for which it should be worshipped or honoured or our requests to have any more access or efficacy by or through any such Image upon the Exemplar or person represented Or again the Exemplar any greater influence by or through it upon those who supplicate him before it these are Heathen fancies derided by Christians lastly pretend no advantage in the use of such Images either to render our prayers or worship more acceptable to our Lord or his Saints or more effectual to us save only as the retaining of such a grateful memory of our Lord and his Saints is conceived a thing well-pleasing to them And as the frequent beholding also such representations may excite and increase our Devotion Affection Imitation c. and these again performed obtain a greater reward Things standing thus on the Catholick side §. 323. n. 3. as most certainly they do I ask what certainty or demonstration can a Protestant here produce of any other error or fault in the Church unless he will dispute here against some subtile expressions of some School-men or some practice of rude people The first of which he is neither tyed by the Church to justifie nor the second to follow In this poâ—nt if any tryal necessary it seems to be Whether the present Church continue to teach what the former hath defin'd For which see the late Council of Trent referring to that ancient 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 and sufficiently expressed in a very eminent stating of this point Whether the practice of some ignorant people in the Church be so faulty as some would make it And if it be whether the Church teaching otherwise be chargable with it or obliged to take away Images for it Lastly if here a fault in the Church Whether a Subject of hers obliged to nothing in this matter unlawful may for such her fault quarrel with her and desert her Communion For the Fourth Communion in one kind Here since it is granted by Protestants § 324 * †See Confess Wirtenberg Chamier l. 9. c. 8. Confess Protest in the Diet at Ausburg as also taken for Principle by Catholicks †Conc. Trid. Sess 21 cap. 3 Can. 3. That Christ is wholy and entirely contained and exhibited in either species taken singly and in every least Particle of either species Christs Body Blood Soul Deity suffering no more separation since his Resurrection so that none need fear the being deprived of our Lords precious Blood by receiving only the Symbole of his Body Since this I say is agreed on The Question only is Whether there be any absolute Precept in Scripture commanding alwaies to all persons the communicating in both kinds Now Catholicks think this matter that there is no such precept sufficiently cleared by the practice of Antiquity and the purest times Which on several occasions gave it in one kind only and this when there was no case of absolute necessity to give it in one kind but then alwaies indeed some inconvenience in giving it in both which is still pretended when the Church administers it in one Now such practice could be in no times lawful if there were a Divine Precept absolutely to all persons enjoyning the contrary But if such universal precept there be § 325 enjoyning a necessary Communion of the Cup As Drink ye all of this Matt. 26 27. Or Do this in remembrance of me Luk. 22.19 Or Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood ye have no life in you Jo. 6.53 which
is equivalent to this Let all those eat my flesh and drink my blood that will have life It seems most reasonable 1. That such Precept be extended to all Communions whatever as well those private or domestick as the publick since in both possible to be observed For there occurs nothing in our Lords words distinguishing these Communions one from another or ordering a receit of the Cup in the one which shall be left at liberty in the other And so by such sence of Scripture as we have said the practice of Antiquity is condemned 2. That it be extended as to the receiving in both kinds so to the receiving them apart and to the drinking of the one as the eating of the other For the Scripture is no more express for the receiving of the blood than it is for receiving it separated by it self and for drinking of it By which the practice of the Eastern Churches is condemned who receive the Symbole of Christs Body only intinct in the Blood 3. Especially from that text in c. 6. John 53. That this precept be extended to all persons for whom we expect eternal life and so to Infants Therefore the communicating of them also in both kinds or one at least was a custom used in Antiquity Yet such a necessity by vertue of any Scripture-precept Protestants together with Catholicks deny and both desist from such a practice § 326 Again several other Texts we find in Scripture that may seem to have the force of Universal Precepts as much as any concerning communicating in both kinds As Act. 15.29 for abstaining from Blood and things strangled Luke 6.30 Of him that takes away your Goods ask them not again and Give to every one that asketh Matt. 6 17. When you fast wash your face and anoint your head c. 5.34 Swear not at all Matt. 23 9. Call no man your Father on the earth neither be ye called Masters The Quakers Precepts Salute one another with a kiss of charity or an holy kiss frequent in the Apostle Rom 16.16 1 Cor. 16 20. 2 Cor. 13.12 1 Thess 5.26 I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you Jo. 13.14 for the Clergies washing feet before the Communion Do this unlimited in St. Luke 22.19 for any Christian whatever his breaking bread or consecrating and distributing the communion If any be sick among you let him call for the Elders of the Church and let them pray over him anointing him with oyl in the name of the Lord and the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up not that every sick person that the Apostles prayed over should be cured and if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him James 5.14 15. urged as enjoyning extreme unction § 327 Now notwithstanding the shew of strict and universal Precepts yet in the understanding and practising of all these save the last Protestants conform to the judgment of former and present Church And in the last though Catholicks think themselves obliged to receive it as a Precept and accordingly practice yet Protestants deny the one and forbear the other Lastly some Protectants there be and those of note that deny any peremptory precept or command in Scripture as in these so in those urged for Communion sub utraque species * Vbi jubentur in Scripturis saith Bishop Montague †Origin Eccl. p. 396. Infantes baptizari aut Caenam Domini sub utraque specie communicantes participare Sexcenta sunt ejusmodi c. de quibus possumus profiteri Nil tale docet scriptura * Bishop White on the Sabbath p. 97. Genuine Traditions derived from the Apostolical times are receiv'd and honoured by us Now such are these which follow The historical Tradition concerning the numbers and dignity of the Books of Canonical Scripture The Catholick exposition of many sentences of holy Scripture Which indeed unless received there will be no conviction or cure of Heresies and Schismes Baptism of Infants observation of the Lords day The service of the Church in a known tongue the tongues used by the Apostolical times for God's publick Service the Church still continues unchanged The delivering of the Holy Communion to the people in both kinds i. e. for publick communions For as for private ancient Tradition many times practised otherwise * Spalatens de Rep. Eccl. l. 5. c. 6. Dico non esse adeo sub praecepto ut Eucharistia in cibo in potu semper à fidelibus sumatur quin ex gravi seu privatâ privatorum causâ possit cum fructu licite etiam sub solo pane sumi c. And indeed in the omnes added to Bibite Matt. 26. it seems clear that our Lord had no particular intention thereby to prescribe what every Christian was necessarily to practice because the Manducate as necessary as the Bibite is pronounced without an omnes But only to shew what he would have to be done at that time by all the other Apostles as well as by him whom he first delivered the Cup to For whereas several portions of the bread were severally given to every one of them Yet the Cup was delivered only to one from whom it was to be handed successively to all the rest and divided amongst them all Therefore St. Luke instead of omnes hath Take this and divide it among your selves § 328 In this point then the main Trial seems to be Whether Antiquity did indeed use such a practice as on several occasions where inconveniences happened of giving it in both to communicate persons in one kind only Which if found true it would be too great a temerity and boldness in a Protestant to alledge certainly or pretend Demonstration of the sense of any Text of Scripture contrary to that wherein both the present and ancient Church hath understood and interpreted it Especially as I said when these they stile Demonstrations do not convince others or if notwithstanding this they be good and sufficient Demonstrations then must they be so too for mâ—â—y other Texts named before as well as for these touching communion to impose the same sence and universal preceptive force on them Yet against which sence Protestants are necessitated to concur in their judgment with Catholicks nay proceed further to deny some to be Precepts which Catholicks accept for such § 329 This Digression from § 320. I have made as hoping it might be beneficial to shew in some Controversies of consequence what small Foundation Protestants have to pretend Certainty and Demonstration against the former Church's Doctrine To which in the last place I may add that such pretence of Certainty against Church-Authority suffers a greaâ— prejudice from that which S. Austin hath observed that it is a plea used by all Hereticks Hoc facium saith he †Enarrat in Psal 8. Haeretici universi vetant credere Ecclesiâ proponente incognita certam scientiam pollicentur And he saith †De