Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential into No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence 1. Yet methinks here also first they should have more clearly expressed this to prevent such a misapprehension 2. Adoration being granted due in one way as not due in another § 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way as not present in another methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more than the latter and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus according to the true meaning of those who received it viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored yet ought to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven but also truly in the Eucharist it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body if not after a natural manner yet in its true reality and essence after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power to be at one time in more places than one § 55 Lastly in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here produced perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Authors that seem to qualifie these here set down and better to suit with the expressions of this Declaration But neither will this afford any relief For to free them from a real contradiction the sense of the others reduced to those here cited with leave all things in the same state or else the sense of these accommodated to others will appear to abett no more than bare Zuinglianism i. e. an absolute non-presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist save only in its vertue and effects and the presence of his Spirit c. and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers FINIS THE CATHOLICKS DEFENCE FOR THEIR ADORATION OF THE Body and Blood OF OUR LORD As believed Really and Substantially present IN THE Holy SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST At OXFORD Printed Anno 1687. THESES of Adoration of the EVCHARIST CONTENTS 1. PRotestant-Concessions § 1. 2. Catholick-Assertions § 1. Presuppositions § 1. 1. Of a Precept of giving Divine Worship to our Lord. § 1. 2. Of our Lord's whole Person its being where his Body is § 2. 3. Of this Divine Person being supremely adorable wherever his Body is Granted by Protestants § 3. Not only in Virtue but Substance § 5. 4. That this Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood is by Protestants affirmed in the Eucharist and that this Body is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration § 5. 5. Further affirmed That Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant but to the Symbols and whilst present are to be adored § 7. 6. Granted by Daille That tho' he and his believe not Christ's Body present in the signs yet they for this break not Communion with those that hold it § 8. Catholick Assertions 1. A Sign or Symbol to remain after Consecoration distinct from the thing signified § 9. This external Sign to be all that which is perceptible by the senses of the Bread and Wine tho' not their Substance § 10. 2. The word Sacrament to be taken not always in the same sense but sometimes for the Sign or Symbol sometimes for the thing signified § 11. 3. Catholicks ground Adoration not on Transubstantiation which as also Consubstantiantion involves it but on Real Presence with the Symbols maintaining Adoration due tho' Christ's Body were present neither under the Accidents of Bread as Catholicks say nor under the Substance of Bread as Lutherans say but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § § â—7 4. Supposing not grantâ—â—g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bstantiation an error yet if Corporal or Real Presâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the Lutherans be true Catholicks plead their Adoration warrantable § 18. 5. Supposing Real Presence an Error and the Lutheran and Roman Church both mistaken yet these latter in such Adoration as excusable from Idolatry as the other § 19. 6. Supposing both the former Opinions Errors and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all yet such Adoration by the one or the other of Christ who is a true object of supreme Adoration and only mistaken by them to be where he is not cannot be termed such Idolatry as is the professed worshipping of an Object not at all adorable § 21. 7. Whatever Idolatry it is called in a Manichean worshipping Christ in the Sun or in an Israelite worshipping God in the Calves at Dan and Bethel because adoring a fancy of their own and a good intention grounded on a culpable ignorance excuseth none from Idolatry yet since Daille and perhaps others allows a reasonable tho' mistaken ground of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry hence if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry on the same terms § 22. Catholicks Grounds for their Belief 1. Divine Revelation § 24. 2. The Declaration thereof by the supremest Church-Authority in Councils § 25. 3. The Testimony of Primitive Times § 26. 4. The Vniversal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches § 27. 5. Protestant Concessions § 28. 8. For these Grounds given by Catholicks Idolatry by many Protestants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome § 30. 9. Catholicks grant That to adore what is believed to be Bread or perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there where the Worshipper believes he is not is unlawful to be done by any whilst so perswaded § 33. CATHOLICK Theses Concerning the ADORATION of Christ's Body and Blood IN THE EUCHARIST § 1 COncerning the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood and so of his Divine Person as present in the Eucharist 1. I shall shew what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants 2. Examine what Catholicks maintain 1. I suppose a general precept of giving supreme and divine adoration to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ And Suppositions that as Affirmative precepts such as this is do not oblige to every time and place so if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place nor is there any need of any particular divine command in respect of these i. e. places and times without which command we may not obey them For what absurdities would follow hence For Was our Saviour when on Earth never lawfully worshipped but in place or time first commanded Nor then when he shewed and presented himself to them for some other purpose
Christ's Body to be there really and essentially yet not to be there quoad naturam or essentiam suam or Christ's Body to be there not quoad corpus this is by a distinction to destroy the thesis § 35 Again if they say really and essentially there present but not locally so say the Lutheran and Roman Doctors i. e. circumscriptive or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have in their natural condition but if they will extend locally so far as that they understand Christ's Body to be there by no manner of ubi at all not so much as ubi definitive or so that they may truly say 't is hic so as not ubique or not alibi where no Communion is celebrated what is this but to affirm 't is there so as that it is not at all there § 36 If they say really and essentially present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on Earth as members to it in Heaven besides that thus Christ's Body is no more present in the Eucharist that in any other Ordinance or Sacrament wherein the Spirit is conferred such presence is properly of the Spirit not of the Body and advanceth us not beyond Zuinglianism § 37 But if at last they plainly interpret real and essential presence by Christ's being present in corporal absence to the worthy Receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof Thus also they slide back into Zuinglianism Concerning which opinion the Remonstrants well discerning the difficulties into which the affirming of a Real presence doth cast other Protestant parties in the Apol. pro Confessione sua p. 256. said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima ad idololatriam omnem evitandam in hac materia in primis necessaria quae a Calvino illius sequacibus dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem tum absurditatem ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam c. And upon the same terms the Socinians reject Calvin's Doctrine See Volkelius 4. l. 22. c. p. 316. Tertius error eorum est qui Christi corpus sanguinemque re-vera quidem in sacra coena a nobis comedi bibique existimant verum non corporali sed spirituali ratione hoc a nobis fieri affirmant Cujus quidem opinionis falsitas vel hoc uno convincitur quod non solum Christi verbis nequaquam continetur sed etiam cum sanae mentis ratione pugnat quae dictat fieri non posse ut Christi corpus tanto intervallo a nobis disjunctum in coena re-vera comedamus Idcirco ille ipse Calvinus qui sententiae istius author est fatetur se hoc mysterium nec mente percipere nec lingua explicare posse § 38 I find also a late Writer replying on this manner to his Adversary W. H. urging Roman Tradition examined p. 12. That some of the Learned'st of the English Clergy confess the Holly Eucharist after Consecration to be really and truly our Saviour's Body and therefore adore it and for this cause disown the New Rubrick which saith Our Lord's Body is in Heaven and not on the Altar telling us that they acknowledge the Thing only dare not be so bold as the Romanists to determine the Manner a thing said by Bishop Andrews and others in the former Testimonies I find him I say returning this answer 1. To the Rubrick That this new Rubrick is but the old one restored where he might have done well to have considered by whom in was also ejected before its late restorement in A. D. 1661. viz. by the English Clergy and that within a year or two after it first appeared a New Additional in King Edward's second Common-Prayer Book 2. To the Persons If saith he you speak true of them what regard should we have of the judgment of such Clergy-men as declare their assent and consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Book of Common-Brayer Prayer and Articles of Religion and yet disown the Rubrick and believe Transubstantiation and adore the Eucharist as Christ's Body Why do not you call such the Roman Clergy rather than the English if they differ from you but only in a want of boldness to determine the Manner whilst they acknowledge the Thing What if a Bishop Bramhall will have the Pope to be Principium Unitatis and take Grotius to be of the mind of the Church of England who would have Rome to be the Mistress-Church and the Pope to be the Vniversal Governor according to the Canons of Councils even the Council of Trent must we therefore stoop to such mens judgments Or might you not as well tell us That Cassander or Militier yea or Bellarmine were of your mind Thus he But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary in the Eucharist and with the Symbols tho' the manner not prescribed doth Romanize this Clergy Bishop Cousins is one of those number * See the former Discourse concerning the Eucharist § 5. n. 2. c. And it is much that this person having read his Book who also which I much wonder at makes this his own opinion of an Essential presence that of all Protestants did not discern this but hath in his Postscript recommended for the satisfaction of others one so much differing from his own Judgment who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop in this manner p. 14. That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified which he denies to be flesh and blood but such as was truly flesh and blood which he once offered the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in and by the Eucharist And p. 15. That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood i. e. in the words Hoc est Corpus meum when his real Body was not broken nor slain nor his bloodshed till after And I can scarce believe saith he that man that saith he believeth that they the Apostles believed that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood * p. 57. to St. Cyril's words Do not look on it as bare bread and bare wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ For tho' thy sense suggects this to thee yet let Faith confirm thee he answers The Bread and Wine are not bare or meer Bread and Wine but Christ's Body and Blood as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood and of his Sacrifice on the Cross really given to us in the Eucharist but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins CHAP. IV. Considerations on the third Observation No Adoration intended or due to any Corporal presence THis from § 19. I had to present
invisibilem quae inter humanitatem divinitatem Christi ubi nisi Eutychen sâ—pere vultis humanitas in divinitatem non transubstantiatur And a little farther Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem 〈◊〉 adorandum statuit And Nos vero in mysteriis carrem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio c. Here is such a presence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist acknowledged as is to be adored and this it seems no less the Bishop's Religion than King James ' s. Add to this that passage in Is Causabon 's Letter §. 11. n. 2. written by the King's command to Card. Perron who when the Cardinal would have joined issue with the King for trying the verity of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist in the King's name declines any such Controversy and saying that the contest was not about rei veritatem but only modum returns this reply p. 50. Miratur vero serenisimus Rex cum fateatur tua illustris Dignitas non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quaerere vos ut credatur Transubstantiatio sed ut de praesentiae veritate ne dubitetur Ecclesiam Anglicanam quae toties id se credere publicis scriptis est testata nec dum vobis fecisse satis and then for explication of the Doctrine of the English Church in this matter recites the forementioned words of Bishop Andrews Quod Cardinalem non latet c. § 12 3. Thus Bishop Hall in his Treatise De pace Ecclesiastica for reconciling the Calvinist and Lutheran which Lutherans undoubtedly hold the same natural body of Christ that is in Heaven to be also in the Eucharist p. 78. Res apud utrosque eadem rei tantum ratio diversa Tantulum dissidium falemur quidem non esse nullius momenti tanti esse ut tam necessariam orbi Christiano fratrum gratiam tam mirabiliter planeque divinitus coeuntem abrumpere debeat id vero est quod constantissime negamus Neque nos soli sumus in ea sententia Mitto Fratres Polonos Germanos nostrarum partium c. Then at last he brings in the decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are received to their communion as agreeing with them in omnibus verae religionis principiis articulisque fundamentalibus § 13 4. Thus Bishop Montague Appeal p. 289. Concerning this point of Real Presence I say that if Men were disposed as they ought to peace there need be no difference for the disagreement is only de modo praesentiae the thing is yielded-to on either side that there is in the Holy Eucharist a Real Presence God forbid saith Bishop Bilson we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's Table It is the Doctrine that we teach others and comfort our selves withal p. 779. Of true Subject And the Reverend and Learned Answerer unto Bellarmine 's Apology cometh home to the Faith or Popery if you will condemned in Mr. Montague who learned it of him and such as he is Nobis vobis-cum de objecto convenit c. He you see represents the difference between parties in the same manner as Mr. Hooker i. e. none as to the point of the presence of the same body here in the Eucharist as it is at the same time above in Heaven § 14 5. Thus Archbishop Lawd Confer with Fisher § 35. n. 3. The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ truly and really and of all the benefits of his Passion Yon Roman Catholicks add a manner of this his presence Transubstantiation which many deny and the Lutherans a manner Consubstantiation which more deny And upon truly and really he notes in the Margin Calvin 's saying in 1 Cor. 11.24 Neque enim mortis tantum resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est resurrexit Ib. n. 7. Punct 3. I hope A. C. dare not say that to believe the true substantial presence of Christ is either known or damnable Schism or Heresie Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this as do believe possibility of salvation in the Roman Church c. and Ib. n. 3. upon Bellarmin 's words Conversionem Paris Vini in corpus sanguinem Christi esse substantialem sed arcanam ineffabilem he saith That if the Cardinal had left out Conversion and affirmed only Christs Real by this he means Substantial as also is affirmed by the Cardinal presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no Man could have spoken better And § 35.6 n. Punct 4. quotes also Bishop Ridley 's Confession set down in Fox p. 1598. whose words are these You the Transubstantialists and I agree in this that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father c. only we differ in modo in the way and manner of being there § 15 6. Thus Dr. Taylor one of the last who hath written a just Treatise on this subject 1. § 11. n. p. 18. It is enquired whether when we say we believe Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that body that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified dead and buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified but he that saith that body is glorified which was crucified says it is the same body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth for there is no other body no other blood of Christ but tho' it is the same we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that body which was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament as Bertram as S. Hierom as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm the meaning is easie they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense and then calling Corpus spirituale the word spirituale is not a substantial predication but is an affirmation of the manner tho' in disputation it be made the Predicate of a Proposition and the opposite member of a Distinction That Body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words
is the Zuinglian real presence For suppose our Savitour's Body to be as they will have it only naturally or locally in heaven yet if the substance the essence the reality of this Body however stript of its natural properties all such as being not the very essence of it are removeable from it per potentiam divinam be here on earth in the Eucharist when it is also in Heaven be it here present to the symbols or to the receiver or to any thing else it matters not we must affirm that this essence or substance of the same body at least is at the same time in divers places or if we will have this essence to be in heaven only as in a place in divers ubi's which is every whit as seeming contradictory as the other And whoever will grant that an Angel by divine power may be at the same time in two several ubi's cannot reasonably deny that a body may be so in several places or in one place and in another ubi I say then that this Proposition That the same Body is at the same time in divers places or another equivalent to it must be conceded to be true so long as we affirm the essence of our Saviour's body to be here on Earth in the Eucharist at the same time as it is also in Heaven unless we defend one of these two things either § 23 1. That this Body is both here and there by an incomprehensible continuation as it were thereof which sounds somewhat like the ubiquity of some Lutherans for which see the words of Calvin quoted before § 8. Res toto coeli terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas conjungi uniri c. words usher'd in by him with a nihil magis incredibile But then as some seem thus to make Christ's Body that is in Heaven by a certain prolonging or continuation incomprehensible as their expressions seem to import to be joyned upon an act of faith to the Soul of the worthy Receiver here on Earthy whilst yet the same body is still only in Heaven and there no way at all enlarged in its dimensions so why may mot others as probably make the same body that is in Heaven by a certain discontinuation ineffable to be present here on Earth upon the act of Consecration to the symbols or receiver tho' it be in both these places only the same body still and not multiplied in its essence As the same Soul is totally in the Head and the Foot yet this Soul not continued in these two places or Vbi's neither by its parts since it hath none nor by two totals since in both it is but one and suppose one foot of this body doth stand in the water the other on the land the same Soul being totally in both these feet consequently will be totally in the water and totally not in the water but on the land And suppose again the two feet cut off from the body and yet preserved still alive i. e. the soul that did before still informing them per potentiam divinam which we see naturally done in many Insects the same Soul will be now totally in the water and totally on the land without continuation if I may so say of it self And suppose again this body which it informs to increase to a much greater bulk and the same Soul will be now in many more places than formerly without any augmentation of it self And why the same things may not be said of Bodies when stript of quantitative dimensions or how far some properties of Spirits may be communicated to them salva essentia corporis who can say What our Saviour said to the Sadduces relucting to believe a revelation concerning the resurrection of the same numerical body Matth. 22.29 because involving in it very many seeming contradictions Erratis nescientes Scripturas neque virtutem Dei may as well be said in this great mystery of the Eucharist Or 2ly §. 24. n. 1. unless we will explain our selves that by the essential real substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist me mean only the presence of the true and real effect blessing virtues of this Body as Dr. Taylor sometimes seems to do but this is after professing with the highest in our words a relapsing into Zuinglianism in our sense I will set you down the Doctor 's words Real Presence § 11. n. 17. where after he hath said That there is not in all School-Divinity nor in the old Philosophy nor in nature any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place circumscriptive definitive repletive and that the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament any of these three ways quoting Turrecremata for it he replies thus to those Schoolmen that rejecting these three ways do say that Christs Body is in a fourth way viz. Sacramentally in more places than one This saith he is very true that is that the Sacrament of Christ's body is in more places than one and so is his Body in more places than one figuratively tropically representatively in being or essence and really in effect and blessing But this is not a natural real being in a place but a relation to a person Thus he But if thus Christ's Body be held by us as to its essence only figuratively tropically and representatively in more places than one and really in those places only in its effect and blessing what will become of our praesentiam non minus quam illi veram see before § 11. if others hold the presence of Christ's very essence and substance in the Eucharist we only the presence thereof its effect and blessing Now as to the proper mode which the Dr. here agitates of Christ's Body being substantially in the Sacrament whether it is circumscriptive definitive or some other way it is true that the Schoolmen do not all agree on one and the same S. Thomas Durand and several others deny the Body of Christ to be either circumscriptive or definitive in this Sacrament and proceed to affirm That Idem Corpus non potest per miraculum or potentiam divinam esse in pluribus locis simul i. e. localiter or in the forementioned ways Circumscriptively or Definitively But you may note 1. That they take circumscriptive §. 24. n. 2. and definitive in such a sense as that these two do exclude not only such a bodies being ubique every where but absolutely its being alibi any where else and that these modes of Presence would infer That the same individual is divided from it self contrary to the nature of individuum or unum if such body should at that time be any where else See S. Thom. Suppl q. 83. Art 5. ad 4um and 3ª q. 76. Art 5. where he saith That that is circumscriptive in loco quod nec excedit nec exceditur And see Durand his follower in 4. sent 44. d. q. 6. where he argueth very clearly thus Existentia unius corporis simul
may so say of its essence between these ubi's as do follow from a body so qualified being in two circumscriptive places without the like continuation as you may see in perusing the common objections that are made against plurality of places For as Cardinal Bellarmin presseth well to this purpose De Euchar l. 3. c. 3. Si quis objiciat aliam esse rationem corporum aliam spirituum is facile refelli potest Nam ratio cur corpora non videantur posse esse in pluribus locis non tam est moles quam unitas Ideo autem non videtur posse esse quia non potest divilli a seipso videtur necessario debere divilli ac distrahi a se si ponatur in variis locis Porro ista repugnantia quae sumitur ab unitate rei non minus invenitur in spiritu quam in corpore utrumque enim est unum a se dividi non potest Quare perinde est in hac quaestione sive de Corpore sive de Spiritu probetur and I add sive de corpore essentiali sive de naturali The like things he saith of a Sacramental presence and not per occupationem loci so this presence be real Quae realis praesentia saith he in tot Altaribus non in locis intermediis non minus tollere videtur indivisionem rei quam repletio plurium locorum § 28 This being said from § 22. That in my apprehension either these our English Divines must affirm this Proposition of one body at the same time being in more places than one or some other equivalent to it to be true or must cease to assert any real essential or substantial presence of Christs body in the Eucharist contradistinct to the Sense of the Zuinglians 4. In seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them heretofore have not laid so great weight on this Philosophical position as wholly to support and regulate their faith in this matter by it as it stands in opposition not only to nature's but the divine power because they pretend not any such certainly thereof but that if any divine revelation of the contrary can be shewed they profess a readiness to believe it § 29 See the quotations out of Dr. Taylor before § 20. n. 3. And thus Bishop White against Fisher p. 179. much-what to the same purpose We cannot grant saith he that one Individual body may be in many distant places at one and the same instant until the Papist demonstrate the possibility hereof by testimony of Sacred Scripture or the antient Tradition of the Primitive Church or by apparent reason And p. 446. We dispute not what God is able to effect by his absolute power neither is this question of any use in the matter non in hand That God changeth the Ordinance which himself hath fixed no divine testimony or revelation affirmeth or teacheth There is a Twofold power in God ordinata and absoluta One according to the order which himself hath fixed by his Word and Will the other according to the infiniteness of his essence Now according to the power measured and regulated by his Word and Will all things are impossible which God will not have to be and p. 182. Except God himself had expresly revealed and testified in his Word that the contrary i. e. to the common ordinance of the Creator should be found in the humane body of Christ c. a Christian cannot be compelled to believe this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed upon the sole voice and authority of the Lateran or Tridentine Council But if they were certain of such contradiction then are they certain that there neither is nor can be such contrary revelation and when any revelation tho' never so plain is brought they are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility § 30 Again thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 1. § censures those other Protestants who peremptorily maintain that there is such a real certain contradiction Admodum periculose nimis audacter negant multi Protestantes Deum posse panem substantialiter in corpus Domini convertere which conversion involves the putting idem corpus simul in diversis locis Multa enim potest Deus omnipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum imo Angelorum Id quidem quod implicet contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt omnes sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat quae sit uniuscujusque rei essentia ac proinde quid implicet quid non implicet contradictionem magnae profecto temeritatis est propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem Deo limites praescribere praefracte negare omnipotentia sua illum hoc vel illud facere posse Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtenbergicorum in Confessione sua Anno 1552. Concilio Tridentino proposita cap. de Eucharistia vide Harmon Confes Credimus inquiunt omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse ut possit in Eucharistia substantiam panis vini vel annihilare vel in corpus sanguinem Christi mutare Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam omnipotentiam in Eucharistia exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum After which the same Bishop goes on to shew the moderation also of some foreign reformed Divines herein tho' much opposing the Lutheran and Roman opinion Zuinglius Oecolampadius saith he aliquoties ut constat concesserunt Luthero illius sequacibus ac proinde Romanensibus ut qui idem non minore contentione urgent in Transubstantiatione sua defendenda quam illi in Consubstantiatione sua Deum quidem hoc posse efficere ut unum corpus sit indiversis locis sed quod idem in Eucharistia fieret quod Deus id fieri vellet id vero sibi probari postularunt Vtinam hic pedem fixissent nec ulterius progressi fuissent discipuli In Coll. Malbrunnensi actione 8. Jacobo Andreae Lutherano objicienti Calvinistas negare Christi corpus coelesti modo pluribus in locis esse posse ita respondet Zach. Ursinus Theol. Heidelburgensis Non negamus eum ex Dei omnipotentia pluribus in locis esse posse hoc in controversiam non venit sed an hoc velle Christum ex verbis ejus probari possit Itaque hoc te velle existimavimus Christi corpus non tantum posse sed etiam reipsa oportere in S. Coena praesens esse c. v. Vrs c. p. 155. Idem Vrsinus Action ead p. 153. Conaberis etiam ostendere alloquitur Jacobum Andream elevari imminui a nobis omnipotentiam Dei cum dicamus Deum non posse facere ut corpus in pluribus sit locis aut ut Christi corpus per lapidem penetret the like contradictions seeming to Vrsin to urge both plurality of places to one Body and plurality of Bodies to one place De quo responsum est non
non potest See also the Gallican Confession produced by this Bishop p. 23. where they say Christus in coelis mansurus donec veniat and yet nutriens vivificaâ—s nos Corporis Sanguinis sui substantia i. e. in the Sacrament that Hoc mysterium nostrâ—e cum Christo coalitionis tam sublime est ut omnes nostros sensus totumque adeo ordinem naturae superat In all these then doth not the incomprehensibility and supernaturality of this Mystery lie in this that the one Body of our Lord should be at once in two places viz. present at the same time in Heaven and to us here in the Sacrament And yet this Bishop seems to find some trouble in it to make any other unexplicable or unintelligible mystery in the Catholicks Transubstantiation save only this See p. 122. For the ceasing of the substance of the Elements by God's Omnipotency he allows very feisible and then the Adduction of Christ's Body pre-existent in the place of their substance labours under no other difficulty save this this Body its being at once in two places here and in Heaven nor having twice * p. 122. p. 125. mentioned such a Sacramental Presence of our Lord hath he replied any thing against it but that thus the term of Transubstantiation is not rightly applied to such an Adduction which is a Logomachy But this seems the difficulty and incomprehensibility that Protestants also confess in their Sacramental Presence of our Lord in tanta locorum distantia pascentis nos in Eucharistia vera Corporis sui praesentia substantia Lastly after this Bishop with others §. 5. n. 5. hath so far conformed to the Expressions and Language of the Fathers as to allow an Essential or Substantial presence of Christ's Body it seems he finds some of these Expressions also so far to advance toward a Substantial transmutation of the Elements as that he saith p. 113. Non abnuimus nonnulla apud Chrysostomum aliosque Patres inveniri quae emphatice immo vero Hyperbolice de Eucharistia prolata sunt Et quae nisi dextre capiantur incautos homines facile in errores abducent And below Sanctissimi Patres quo haec auditorum animis vehementius efficacies imprimerent de Typis tanquam si essent ipsa Antitypa Oratorum more multa enunciant And again p. 117. Si verba i. e. of some of the Fathers nimis rigide urgeantur absque intellectu Sacramentali nihil aliud ex iis colligi potest quam Panem Vinum proprie realiter ipsum Christi Corpus Sanguinem esse quod ne ipsi quidem Transubstantiatores admittunt Where he granting the expressions of some of the Fathers so high as to transcend the Assertions of Catholicks or Transubstantiators whose Assertions again transcend those of Protestants in this Mystery it seems not reasonable that he should after this depress and extenuate their meanings to counteance and comply rather with that Opinion that is farther distant from their expressions Neither will the same Fathers calling in other places the Elements Symbols and Signs of Christ's Body as he pleadeth p. 116. afford him that relief he seeks for from it For since the Catholicks as well as Protestants do firmly maintain and profess an external Symbol as well as the thing signified in the Eucharist viz. all that is perceived by our senses and that is visible gustable or tangible of the Elements as the Protestants contend this Symbol to be not only these but the very Substance and nature of the Elements also here it will be found that these sentences of the Fathers do suffer much less force and torture if understood according to the Symbol supposed by Catholicks than that by Protestants For example the Bishop * p. 120. hath mentioned that passage of the ancient Author de Coena Domini in S. Cyprian's Works the words are these Panis iste quem Dominus discipâ—lis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se effudit essentia Here I say if the Sacramentum visibile and the external Symbol be taken in this Bishops way for substantia or natura panis all is extremely forced and confounded and so he is driven to expound it that by mutatio naturae panis is meant only mutatio usus * p. 120. the change of which use of the Bread also seems no object of God's Omnipotence But the Symbol or Sacrament being taken for such as the Catholicks make it viz. for the external Effigies or Sensibles of the Bread all is good sense and coherent and nothing strained and the Omnipotentia Verbi rightly applied to the mutatio naturae panis as God's Omnipotency may be observed in the Fathers to be frequently urged not only in relation to the presence of our Lords Body and Blood there but also to the transmutation of the Elements there whilst the exteriors of them still remain But now in the last place supposing the natura panis to remain which the Father saith is changed yet so long as these Divines maintain according to the Doctrine of the Fathers a substantial presence of our Lord's Body in the Eucharist and that with the Symbols as he saith p. 45. Sacramento suo quasi contectum tho' they will not admit such a Symbol as the Catholicks and a Transubstantiation of the Elements yet they must if complying with the Fathers at least confess some kind of Consubstantiation or conjunction of the substances of Christ's Body and of the Elements in the Eucharist to which opinion the sayings of the Fathers constrained Luther as he often professeth Mean while if it be asked why such a Consubstantiation is declined by Catholicks their answer is ready viz. because the greatest Councils that have been held successively in the Church-Catholick upon and since the agitation of this controversy have frequently and constantly stated and delivered That the Scriptures as understood and expounded by the Fathers and Church-Tradition declare a Transubstantiation in the Judgments of which Councils Catholicks hold it their Duty to acquiesce This of a Substantial Presence asserted by Protestants 2. Next §. 6. n. 1. for Adoration too of this Body as there present either with the Symbols upon their Consecration or at least to all worthy receivers see the same Bishop Andrews ib. c. 8. p. 195 where to what Bellarmin hath said Inter novitia nupera dogmata ponit Adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistae i. e. adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento miro sed vero modo praesentis he answers thus Sacramenti ait id est Christi Domini in Sacramento Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit rem scil Sacramenti at non Sacramentum And Nos vero in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio non id
Protestants with him doth allow not an absolutely certain but a reasonable tho' mistaken ground or motive of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry upon which account a Disciple adoring with divine worship a person very much resembling our Saviour when he was upon Earth or supposing a consecrated Host truly adorable one who adores an Host placed on the Altar and by some deficiency in the Priest not truly consecrated is freely absolved by them herein from committing any Idolatry See before § 8. Hence therefore if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry upon the same terms § 23 1. Now here first the Lutherans being allowed to have such a plausible ground or motive for their Adoration whereby they become by other Protestants absolved from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there only their Adoration inutile saith Daille tombent en neant I see not why the ground of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs For if we compare the one's Con with the other 's Trans substantiation the later seems more agreeable to our Lord's words Hoc est Corpus meum and to the most plain literal obvious sense thereof Hoc est Corpus meum by a change of the Bread rather than Hoc est Corpus meum by a conjunction with the Bread and therefore is the Roman equalled with or else preferred before the Lutheran sense by many Protestants that are neutral and dissent from both Longius Consubstantiatorum saith Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 1. c. 4 § 5. quam Transubstantiatorum sententiam a Christi verbis recedere sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospinianus caeteri Calviniani communiter And Hospinian Histor Sacram. 2. part fol. 6. saith of Luther Errorem errore commutavit nec videns suam opinionem non habere plus imo etiam minus coloris quam Scholasticorum Papae And see the same judgment of the Helvetian Ministers and Calvin apud Hospinian f. 212. But next Catholicks founding their Adoration not on Transubstantiation but on Corporal Presence the same common ground of this they have with Lutherans viz. our Lord's words implying and so it must excuse both or neither § 24 2. Laying aside this comparison let us view more particularly what rational ground Catholicks exhibit of this their belief of a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist and so of Adoration I. This their Ground then of such a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants * See Guide in Controversy Disc 1. §. 62. is pretended to be Divine Revelation and if it be so as pretended then no argument from our senses and against it valid and that as was said but now taken in its most plain literal natural and grammatical sense in the words Hoc est Corpus meum so often iterated in the Gospel and again by S. Paul without any variation or change or explication of that which yet is pretended by Calvinists to be a metaphorical expression and such if we will believe them as this that the Church is his Body Eph. 1.23 or He the true Vine Joh. 15.1 A great argument this the Apostles punctual retaining still in their expressing the Institution thereof the same language and words that our Lord intended it literally as he spoke it Pretended also to be Divine Revelation from many other Scriptures the citing and pressing of which takes up all Bellarmin's first Book de Eucharistia to which I refer the inquisitive Reader but especially from the Discourse Jo. 6. Which Apostle writing his Gospel so late when the Communion of our Lord's Body and Blood was so much frequented and celebrated in the Church seems therefore to have omitted the mention of it at all in his story of the Passion and the time of its first Institution because he had dilated so much upon it before in relating a Sermon of our Lord 's made in Gallilee about the time of the yearly Feast of eating the Paschal Lamb Jo. 6.4 c. The literal and grammatical sense of which Divine Revelation saith Dr. Taylor Liberty of Prophesying § 20. p. 258. if that sense were intended would warrant Catholicks to do violence to all the Sciences in the circle And that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural Reason would be no argument to make them disbelieve who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the Schools and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church or he might have said which are in the Athanasian Creed with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation And elsewhere Real Presence p. 240. saith as who will not say That if it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation he for his part will burn all his Arguments against it and make publick Amends § 25 II. Again Catholicks have for their Rational ground of following this sense in opposition to any other given by Sectaries the Declaration of it by the most Supreme and Universal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former times for the decision of this controversie long before the birth of Protestantism a brief account of which Councils to the number of seven or eight if the 2d Nicene Act. 6. tom 3. be reckoned with the rest before that of Trent all agreeing in the same sentence see concerning the Guide in Controversy Disc 1. § 57 c. Out of the number of which Councils said to establish such a Doctrine as Bishop Cosins Hist Transub c. 7. p. 149. after many others hath much laboured to subduct the great Lateran Council under Innocent 3. upon pretence of the reputed Canons thereof their being proposed therein only by the Pope Mr. Dodwel Considerations of present concerument § 31. p. 165. but not passed or confirmed by the Council so another late Protestant Writer upon another Protestant interest viz. out of the 3d. Canon of the same Council charging not only the Pope but the Councils themselves and the Catholick Religion as invading the Rights of Princes hath with much diligence very well vindicated these Canons against the others as the true Acts of this Great Assembly and not only the designs of the Pope and copiously shewed them as in truth they were owned as such both in the same and the following times And thus the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in this Council is firmly established whilst Catholicks contend in the other Canon concerning Secular Powers the Sense of the Council is by Protestants mistaken Now upon this I ask what more reasonable or secure course in matters of Religion whether as to Faith or Practice can a private and truly humble Christian take than where the sense of a Divine Revelation is disputed to submit
to Catholicks with S. Austin very unreasonable Similiter etiam saith he Epist 118. Januario siquid horum tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia nam hinc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est And Graeci omnes saith Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. as well as the Roman Church adorant Christum in Eucharistia Et quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere damnare § 28 V. Lastly besides this great Body Catholicks have since Luther's time in the Reformation no small number of Protestants I mean such as are the genuine Sons of the Church of England proceeding thus far as to confess both a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist and Adoration of it as present there a real presence of it to each worthy Receiver tho' not to the Elements And Hooker if he mistook not the Doctrine of the Church of England in his time saith Eccles Pol. l. 5. § 67. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so many manifold Contentions when there remaineth now no Controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves So that if Hooker and his party are in the right Catholicks do not mistake Christ's Body as present in a place where it is not but only in thinking it in that present to one thing the Elements when it is so only to another the Receiver of them But then the same Catholicks have another half of the Reformation viz. all the Lutheran Protestants that affirm with the Roman Church Christ's Body present also to the Elements or Symbols And see Mr. Thorndike also Epilog l. 3. c. 3. much for this presence of Christ's Body to be in with or under the Elements immediately upon and by the consecration of them which consecration also he placeth l. 3.4 c. p. 24. in the blessing of the Elements before the breaking c. mentioned before § 7. Look back now upon all these Pleas of Catholicks and see if they will not make up at least a reasonable ground or motive of their Adoration A reasonable ground I say not here what I might sufficient to secure their faith from all suspicion of error but which serves my purpose to secure them from Idolatry in their Adoration tho' they should be mistaken when as other persons because proceeding on like reasonable motives are by Protestants in their Adoration of a mistaken Presence or Object excused from it See before § 8. As for example the Lutheran the Adorer of one much resembling our Lord here on Earth the Adorer of an unconsecrated Host or Wafer placed on the Altar c. especially when Catholicks in crediting such divine Revelation of Christ's Presence and so for their Adoration receive no contradiction as it is pretended they do from their senses because they adore I mean with divine Adoration nothing visible or sensible at all nor any substance invisible wherein any thing that occurs to their senses inheres but only understand Christ's Body present there where their senses can no way certainly and against any pretended divine Revelation inform them either when it is present or not since salvis omnibus phaenomenis all appearances granted most true such a Presence is possible § 29 These rational Grounds of Catholicks for Adoration which we expected should have been most strictly examined by those who conclude the Roman practice herein Idolatry are slightly passed over by Daille in pronouncing that this error of Catholicks vient toute entiere de leur passion Apolog. des Eglis Reform c. 11. p. 90. And after in reducing all their ground thereof to a la seule authorite du Pape de son Concile and by Dr. Taylor Real Pres § 13. p. 346. in calling them some trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers Elsewhere indeed when he was in a more charitable temper Liberty of Prophes p. 258. he saith That for a motive to such an opinion Roman Catholicks have a divine Revelation whose literal and grammatical Sense if that Sense was intended would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle but prudently there omits their Plea of Catholick Tradition securing to them such a literal sense of the Text. Dr. Stilling-fleet Rom Idol c. 2. § 7. saith first That if a mistake in this case will excuse the Romanist it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the World And in comparing two persons one worshipping Christ as really present in the Sun another Christ as really present in the Sacrament he saith as inconsiderately as magisterially That supposing a mistake in both we are not to enquire into the reasons of the mistake i. e. as he saith before concerning the probability of the one mistake more than of the other but the influence it hath upon our actions So he But what is more manifest than that the influence which a mistake hath upon our actions as to making them culpable or innocent is not always the same but very various and often contrary rendring them sometimes blameless sometimes faulty according as the mistake is ex â—r in-excusable Next he grants Ibid. § 5. a Catholick Tradition of Transubstantiation to be a sufficient ground for Adoration But the Cacholick Tradition that is pleaded here necessary for Adoration is only that of a corporal Presence Now for a sufficient evidence of such a Tradition I refer the consciencious Reader to what hath been said before waving that of Transubstantiation as to this Controversy tho' the same Catholick Tradition authorizeth both namely a corporal Presence by a mutation of the Elements into our Lord's Body This from § 24. Of the Rational grounds Catholicks have for their Adoration § 30 8ly For such Rational grounds therefore of their worship as are here given and not from any excess of Charity or from the singular Fancies of some few tho' learned men as Dr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to Roman Idolatry would insinuate Idolatry is by many Protestants of late either not at all or but faintly charged on the Church of Rome For first see Mr. Thorndike in his Epilogue 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. I say first saith he that the Adoration of the Eucharist which the Church of Rome prescribeth is not necessarily Idolatry I say not what it may be accidentally by that intention which some men may conceal and may make it Idolatry as to God but I speak upon supposition of that intention which the profession of the Church formeth And in his Just Weights c. 19. p. 125. They who give the honour proper to God to his Creature are Idolaters they that worship the Host give the honour due to God to his Creature this is taken for a Demonstration that the worship of the Host
when the notion is certain and easie And thus far is the sense of our Doctrine in this Article Here we see this Doctor becomes such a zealous advocate of this Cause as to frame an answer to all such sayings in the Fathers as may seem by the expression to import as if the same body that was crucified were not eaten here by us in the Sacrament and defends the contrary Again § 12. p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour which flesh suffered for us let them be Anathema But quo modo is the question c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence his Book bearing this Title The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ c. understood to be particular in nothing but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner not spiritual presence therefore so as to exclude Corpus Domini but only the corporal or natural manner of that body now by exclusion of the natural manner is not meant surely the exclusion of nature or of the thing it self for then to say a thing is there after a natural manner were as much as to say the thing is not there but the exclusion of those properties which usually accompany nature or the thing See p. 12. where he allows of the term substantialiter and of that expression of Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest and in the same page he saith when the word Real presence is denied by some Protestants it is taken for natural and not for in rei veritate § 16 7. Thus Bishop Forbes de Eucharistia 2. l. 2. c. 9. § An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus Protestantes saniores non dubitant In sumptione enim Eucharistiae ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis adorandus est Christus vera latria siquidem corpus ejus vivum gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni sed ipsi corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur perfcitur And Ib. § 8. Immanis est rigidorum Protestantium error qui negant Christum in Eucharistia esse adorandum nisi adoratione interna mentali non autem externa aliquo ritu adorativo ut in geniculatione aut aliquo alio consimili corporis situ hi fere omnes male de praesentia Christi Domini in Sacramento miro sed vero modo praesentis sentiunt Again 3. l. 1. c. § 10. Dicunt etiam saepissime sancti Patres in Euharistia offerri sacrificari ipsum Christi Corpus ut ex innumeris pene locis constat sed non proprie realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietatibus servatis sed per commemorationem repraesentationem ejus quod semel in unico illo sacrificio Crucis quo alia omnia sacrifcia consummavit Christus summus Sacerdos noster est peractum per piam supplicationem qua Ecclesia ministri propter unici illius sacrificii perpetuam victimam in Coelis ad dextram Patris assistentem in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem Deum Patrem humillime rogant ut virtutem gratiam hujus perennis victimae Ecclesiae suae ad omnes cerporis animae necessitates efficacem salutarem esse velit Here is acknowledg'd 1. Christi corpus in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesens 2. Hoc corpus oblatum in Eucharistia ut sacrificium Deo Patri 3. Ipsi corpori Christi ut praesenti in Eucharistia miraculo quodam ineffabili immediate debita adoratio varae Latriae § 17 8. Thus the Archbishop of Spalato much-what to the same purpose de Rep. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. 7. § Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis sanguinis Christi ille vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen quodam spirituali miraculoso impereeptibili sumit omnis digne communicans adorare potest debet corpus Christi quod recipit non quod lateat corporaliter in pane aut sub pane aut sub speciebus accidentibus panis sed quod quando digne sumitur panis Sacramentalis tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens § 18 8. And thus Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy 3. l. 3. c. p. 17. That which I have already said is enough to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the same before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the Soul which the eating and drinking Christ's Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth and Ib. 2. c. p. 10. when it follows He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lord's Body unless a Man discern the Lord's Body where it is not of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be c. and 3. l. 23. c. p. 225. he saith That anciently there was a reservation from Communion to Communion and that he who carried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home drinking the Blood at present might reasonably be said to communicate in both kinds Neither can faith he that Sacramental change which the Consecration works in the Elements be limited to the Instant of the Assembly tho' it take effect only in order to that Communion unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth and 3. l. 5. c. p. 44. Having maintained that the Elements are really changed from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament and that in virtue of the Consecration not by the Faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth namely that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them c. and then p. 46. he farther collecteth thus And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is also both propitiatory and impetratory and 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. I suppose saith he that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are and must be adored by a good Christian where the custom of the Church which a Christian is obliged to communicate with requires it And p. 351. Not to balk the freedom which hath carried me to publish all this I do believe that it was practised and done i.e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eucharist in the ancient Church which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ obliging all to