to 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 abridgment of their Devotions as also this to pretend an inferior 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 Mass 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 una nobiscum invisibiliter versaris dignare potenti manu tua 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 said before in the beginning 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 beginning 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 it seems with relation to It yet one and entire Vnus Sanctus Vnus Dominus Jesus Christus Then the Priest breaking it into four 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 Quod 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 et adorat semel dicens Ecce vēnio 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 their Liturgy And sutable to this we read in Cabasilas †c. 39. expounding the Ligurgy concerning the People before their communicating Ipsi autem saith he fidem attendentes et adorant et benedicunt et Jesum qui in eis donis Sanctificatis intelligitur opposed to videtur ut Deum celebrant Where M. Claude's note is †l. 3. c. 7. p. 222. 1. 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 repraesentatur in Donis But all the former Expressions implying our Lord's presence shew their belief to be contrary Tu es saith the Priest before qui offers et offerris assumis et 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 et apparentem Christum benedicunt Who also before c. 24. intimates the custom of the Greeks in the Service adorare et alloqui corpus et 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 Liturgy as nothing but a strong pre-ingagement can force upon any ones judgment § 21 The Testimonies 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 Adoration of and Allocations 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 performed presently upon the pronouncing of our Lords words of Institution as amongst the Latins but disjunctively at their communicating might occasion some mistake in those Latins who accused them of a Non-Adoration So the other irreverences and indecencies objected are to be esteemed only negligences in private practice not consequences of the publick Doctrine nor countenanced by their Liturgies Which Liturgies 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 therewith and then for the Remains after the Communion consummated Sacerdos saith the Rubrick quod residuum est Communionis in Sancto Calice cum attentione et devotione consumit et ter Sanctam Calicem abluit et attendit ne remaneat particula Margarita vocata not the least crumb of the intinct Host As for several Devotions and Honours performed to the Blessed Sacrament here in the West which this person diligently reckons up much to its praise not so in the East frequently 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 1st They are held no such necessary circumstances or consequences
Crucified 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 Crucified for them seems too bold an Equivocation to be by this Person so confidently imposed on the Greck Church and their ordinary expressions The Truth therefore of that which the Greeks or other Latins embracing their Opinion do affirm viz. that the Eucharist Consecrated in never so many places are all the self-same Body one with another and all with the Crucified 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 Adversary's Arguments confesseth ‖ p. 867. from the effect I say which this Divinity first uniting or conjoining 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 Crucified after which follows another an Hypostatical Vnion of the same Divinity to them as made our Lord's 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 Divinitas Verbi Dei una est una numer quae totum implet mundum 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 illus quod ubique est the Bread conjungit ac facit by a transmutation of this Bread by the Divinity joined 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 quod sive plus sive minus quis inde percipiat omnes aequaliter Corpus Christi integerrime 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 his 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 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 this 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 and 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 †Mat. 26.28 Luk. 22.19 Hoc est illud quod tradetur that Flesh of his that was to be Crucified 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 sense of it censure the expression of the Latins in their Canon Jube haec preferri per manus sancti Angeli tui in supercoeleste Altare tuum c. as incongruous if pronounced after the Consecration once ended For so saith Cabasilas †Liturg. expos c. 30. Quomodo fuerit 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 1st proof of a Total Transubstantiation the Greeks holding the Eucharist the same numerical body with that Crucified which according to M. Claude necessarily infers a Total Transubstantiation of the Bread as well for its Matter as Form § 15 2ly They hold the Body that is thus present by Consecration to be incorruptible and this Incorruption of it to depend on its Resurrection and so to relate only to that numerical Body that was Crucified and Raised from Death Quod nec laeditur nec corrumpitur 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 Theophilact †Corpus Christi non particulatim diducitur c. Partitio est accidentium
designs upon the matter of the Differences between the two Communions Catholick and Protestant which they pretend to accommodate and reconcile So he Censures Casaubon out of Spondanus †Levitatem animi Vacillantem eum perpetuo tenuisse cum his illis placere cuperet nulli satisfecisset Where indeed whose judgment ought sooner to be credited than theirs who appear more indifferent between the two contending parties So To Archbishop Lanfrank's words to Berengarius Interroga Graecos Armenios seu cujus libet Nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubstantiationis se testabuntur hahere cited by Dr. Arnauld He answers ‖ p. 361. That Pre-occupation renders his Testimony nothing worth Urge the Socinians because the Fathers oppose so manifestly their own opinions therefore more apt to speak the truth of them in their opposing also those of other Protestants and particularly in their differing from them in this point of the Eucharist He tells us they are not creditable in their Testimony because so much interested to decry the Doctrine of the Fathers in their own regard and thus they imagine Protestants will have less countenance to press them with an Authority that themselves cannot stand to Urge the Centurists confessing Transubstantiation found in some of the Fathers and in magnifying their new-begun Reformation more free plainly to acknowledge those they thought errours of former times He ‖ l. 1. c. 5. denies them fit witnesses in this Controversie because themselves holding a Real Presence they had rather admit a Transubstantiation in the Fathers than a Presence only Mystical And suppose such excuses should fail him yet how easie is it to find some other whereby a person may be represented never to stand in an exact indifferency as to whatever Subject of his Discourse With such personal exceptions M. Claude frequently seeks to relieve his Cause where nothing else will do it Whereas indeed such a common Veracity is to be supposed amongst men especially as to these matters of Fact that where a multitude though of a party concern'd concur in their Testimony they cannot reasonably be rejected on such an account either that their being deceiv'd or purpose to deceive and to relate a lie is possible or that what they say can be shewed a thing well-pleasing and agreeable to their own inclinations For as it is true that ones own interest if as to his own particular very considerable renders a Testimony less credible So on the other side almost no Testimony would be valid and current if it is to be decried where can be shewed some favour or engagement of affection to the thing which the person witnesseth and cannot be manifested an equal poise to all parties and so for Example in the Narration of another Country's Religion often made by all Parties none here can be believed save in what he testifies of them against his own Such things therefore are to be decided according to the multitude and paucity and the Reputation of the Witnesses rather than their only some way general interest and the Credibility of such things is to be left to the equal Reader 's Judgment § 8 But 7ly Should all that is said touching the later Greek's from the eleventh or the eighth to the present age their holding Transubstantiation be undeniably made good and all the Testimonies concerning it exactly true Yet he saith ‖ l. 2. c. 1. It will not follow that a change of the Church's former Faith in this Point is impossible or hath not actually happened and consequently that all M. Arnauld 's long dispute about it is vain and unprofitable I add and then so his Replies But here since the true sense 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 eleventh to the present age doth defend a Corporal Presence and a literal sense 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 seem to 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 § 9 8. After all these Defences wherewith he seems sufficiently guarded He proceeds l. 3. c. 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 Wine and of the Holy Ghost That these Symboles keeping their own Nature are joined 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 4th l. c. 7. the Greeks would observe in some sort the literal sense of the words Hoc est Corpus meum which saith He we do not we understand them in this sense 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 sense 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 6th l. c. 10. That there is an Vnion of