Two Discourses CONCERNING the ADORATION OF OUR B. SAVIOUR IN THE H. EUCHARIST.

The FIRST: ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Altera­tions of the RƲBRICK in the Communion-Service, in the Common-Prayer-Book of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.

The SECOND: The Catholicks DEFENCE for their Ado­ration of our LORD, as believed Really and Substantially present in the Holy Sacra­ment of the EUCHARIST.

At OXFORD Printed, Anno 1687.

…

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ALTERATIONS of the RUBRICK in the COMMƲNION-SERVICE, &c.
CONTENTS.

  • A Brief Narration of the Alterations made in the English Re­formed Service of the Eucharist by K. Edw. VI. and Qu. Eli­zabeth. § 1, 2, 3.
  • Three Observables concerning K. Edward's Declaration. §. 4, 5, 6.
    • 1. Contrary to the first Observable the Presence of our Lord's Na­tural Body and Blood in the Eucharist maintained by Calvin, Beza, and English Divines. §. 8, 9, 10, &c. to §. 18.
    • 2. Contrary to the second Observable, the Reason given of our Lord's not being present; namely, because a Body cannot be in two places at once, discussed. Where;
      • 1. Protestants are shewn confessing the Presence of our Lord an ineffable Mystery.
      • 2. That any one seeming contradiction can no more be effected by Divine Power, than another, or than many other the like may; and therefore this, of the same Bodies being at the same time in several places, cannot by these Writers be denied a possibi­lity of being by the Divine power so verified. §. 21.
      • 3. That these Writers must hold this seeming contradiction true, or some other equivalent thereto, so long as holding a real sub­stantial Presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy Communicant here on Earth, contradistinct to any such other Real Presence as implies only a presence thereof in its virtue, efficacy, benefits, spirit. §. 23.
        • The difference of Schoolmen concerning the Mode of Presence in the Eucharist. §. 24.
      • [Page] 4. This Proposition, of a Bodies not being in several places at once, by the more judicious Protestants formerly not allowed to regulate their Faith, but only Divine Revelation. §. 28.
    • 3. Contrary to the third Observable, That no Adoration is inten­ded, or due to any Corporal Presence, shewn.
      • 1. That, all granting Kneeling and Adoration due to God the Fa­ther and the Son; not likely, that the Clergy will deny, That were there a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacra­ment, then such Kneeling and Adoration to be due. §. 39.
      • 2. Corporal Presence denied (that is with the ordinary properties of a Body) yet if any other Presence (whatever name be given it) as Real as one Corporal, be assigned from Divine Revela­tion, Adoration, thus, no less due. §. 40.
      • 3. That the Church of England hath heretofore believed, and maintained such Presence, as they allowed, adorable. §. 41.
    • Some Replies that may be returned to this Discourse, considered.
      • 1. That not the Essence of the Body of our Lord is denied in the Eucha­rist, but its corporal manner of Essence. §. 48. This granted by all.
      • 2. That, naturally, Christ's Body cannot be at once in many places, tho' supernaturally it may; and therefore is here denied to be in the Eucharist.
        • 1. The truth of such Exception is denied; since, if God can make the Essence, or Substance of a Body to be in more places or ubi's than one at once; he can make all the properties or qualities thereof to be so too. §. 51.
        • 2. Admitting this Exception for true, as also the first, yet hence no foundation of denying Adoration due to Christ's natural Body as being in the Eucharist: which being granted by these Replies to be there, tho' not after a natural manner, can be no less, for this an object of Adoration. §. 52.
      • 3. That, Adoration to Christ's Body as really present in the Eucha­rist is not denied, but only to any corporal Presence there.
        • 1. If so; the Adoration ought to have been expressed how due, as well as a Presence denied. §. 54.
    • Opposite Protestant Testimonies produced from the same Authors afford us no relief: since to free them from contradicting, either these here cited for Real Presence must stand; or, those alledged for Zuinglia­nism in opposition to the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fa­thers. §. 55.

Concerning the RUBRICK of the English LITƲRGY.

CHAP. I. A brief Narration of the Alterations made in the English Reformed Service of the Eucharist.

§. 1 AFter that King Edward's former Liturgy had been censured by many, especially foreign Divines, as not sufficiently purg'd, and removed to a right distance from the former errors, and superstitions of Popery, in the Fifth year of that King's Reign it suffered a Review and a new Reformation; and then, amongst other things, this following Declaration in the Administration of the Lord's Supper, for the explaining of the Intention of the Church of England, enjoyning kneeling at the receiving of the Communion, was de novo inserted into it.

Whereas it is ordained in this Office of the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneel­ing, (which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disor­der in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue,) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of Ignorance and Infir­mity, or out of Malice and Obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; it is here declared, that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their ve­ry natural Substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians.) And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one.

There were also certain Articles of Religion composed under King Edward, about the same time as the second Common Prayer Book was. In one of which (the Article concerning the Lord's-Supper) is found this explicatory Paragraph. — For as much as [Page 2]the truth of Man's Nature requireth, that the Body of one and the self same Man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in one certain place; therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places: and because, as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the World; a faithful Man ought not either to believe, or to confess, the Real and Bodily Presence, as they term it, of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

But in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign (who is observed by Dr. Heylin Hist. of Q. Eliz. p. 124., and others, to have been a zealous Propugner of the Real Presence) upon a second Review by her Divines of the same Common-Prayer Book it was thought meet, that this Declara­tion should be thrown out again, and so the Common-Prayer Books ever since have been cleared of it till the alterations therein made after the King's return in A. D. 1661. at which time it was reinserted.

The same Q. Elizabeth's Divines, in their Review of these Arti­cles also, as they cast the Declaration out of the Liturgy, so did they expunge this passage likewise, being of the same temper as the Declaration, out of the Article; which hath been omitted ever since.

§. 2 Again; whereas King Edward's former Common-Prayer Book useth these words, (as they have descended from Antiquity) in de­livering the Eucharist, [The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life,] the Composers of the second in the fifth year of that King's Reign, suitable to their Declaration, which denies any Real or Essential Presence of this Body in the Eu­charist, thought fit to remove this Form, and put instead there­of only these words, [ Take and eat this (left without any substan­tive) in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving,] leaving out these words also of the former Consecration-Prayer, [And with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.]

They omit also the Priest's touching or handling the Patin or Chalice in the Prayer of Consecration, required in the former Book, done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. where­by seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols: of which also Bucer saith Censura p. 476., Antichristianum est affirmare quidquam his elementis adesse Christi, extrausum praebitionis & receptionis. For the same reason [Page 3]it seems to be, that the Glory be to God on high, &c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, after the Sursum corda, the one is trans­ferred till after the Communion; and the other omitted, differently from King Edward's first Form: likewise whereas it is said in the former Liturgy in the Prayer of Humble access, — Grant us so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood in these holy mysteries; the 2 d omits these words [ in these holy mysteries.]

But the Divines of Qu. Elizabeth in their Review, §. 3. n. 1. as they nulled the Declaration in the Common-Prayer Book, and purged the 28th Article of the forementioned explication; so they thought fit to restore the former ejected Form in the administring of the Sacra­ment. [ The Body of our Lord, &c. preserve thy body and soul,] put­ting after it the later Form, — [ Take and eat this in remembrance, &c. and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving.] But then, the new Liturgy prepared for Scotland, and published A. D. 1637. rectifies and reduces many of the former things again to the first mode; first restores those words in the Consecration [ with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless, &c. that They may be un­to us the Body, &c.] ordering (again) the Presbyter that officiates, to take the Patin and Chalice in his hands; and then takes quite a­way the words added in King Edward's second Form in the deli­vering of the Mysteries [ Take and eat this, &c.] and instead there­of adds after the former words [ The Body of our Lord, &c.] the Peo­ple's Response [Amen,] according to the custom of Antiquity. (See Dionys. Alexandr. apud Euseb. Hist. 7. l. 8. c. — Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7 mi mensis. — Augustin. ad Orosium quaest. 49.) spoken as a Confession of their Faith, that they acknowledged that, which they received, to be Corpus Domini. [Of all which Laudensium Autocata­crisis heavily complains; observing — That in the Consecration-Prayer are restored the words of the Mass, whereby God is besought by his Omnipotent Spirit so to Sanctifie the oblation of Bread and Wine, that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood. From which words (saith he) all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transub­stantiation. Wherefore the English Reformers [ i. e. the latter in King Edward's days] scraped them out of their Books; but our Men put them fairly in. And good reason have they so to do. For long ago they professed that, about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration, they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists, except only about the formality and mode of Presence, [here quoting Montague's Appeal, p. 289.]

Lastly; when the late Clergy A. D. 1661. being upon I know not what inducements, §. 3. n. 2. solicited to receive the foremention'd De­claration [Page 4]rejeded in Q. Elizabeth's days, came to examine it, they judged meet not to publish it entire, as it ran before, but these words [It is here declared, that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood] they cancelled; and instead of them inserted these, [It is here declared, that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural f [...]sh and Blood,] as we find them in the present Rubrick.

§. 4 Having exhibited this general view of the Mutations, which have been made in this Church in several times (according as diffe­rent Judgments had the power) somewhat waveringly, it see as, in the things relating to so great an Article of Faith; I think fit now more particularly to resume the consideration of the Declara­tion about Adoration. In which are contained these three Obser­vables.

1. That here the present Clergy do profess expresly, 1. Observ. that the natu­ral Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, are not in the blessed Sacra­ment of the Eucharist.

§. 5 2. That they urge, for this Non-presence there, this reason or ground out of Natural Philosophy, 2. Observ. That it is against the truth of a Natural body, to be in more places than one at one time; here seeming to found their Faith in this matter on the truth of this position in Nature.

§. 6 3. In consequence of these, they declare; that kneeling in re­ceiving the Eucharist (so much excepted against by the Presbyte­rian) is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknow­ledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, 3. Observ. and for the avoiding of such prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue, but that hereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natu­ral flesh and blood; where they either leave this undetermined, whether there be not another presence of Christ's flesh and blood, as real and true as is the corporal to which an adoration is at this time due: or else do determine as seems concludable from their former Proposition, [viz. That the natural Body of Christ is not there] that there is not any such real presence of the Body at all, and so no adoration due in any such respect.

CHAP. II. Considerations on the first observable; The Natural Body and Blood of our Lord not present in the Eucharist.

§. 7 NOW to represent to you, as clearly as I can, the doubts and difficulties, concerning all these three Observables in their order. As to the first of these; the Learned Protestant Writers seem to me, at least in their most usual expressions, to have here­tofore delivered the contrary; viz. That the very substance of Christ's Body, that his natural Body, that that very body that was born of the B. Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, &c. is present, as in Heaven, so here in this Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy Receiver, or to the Symbols.

§. 8 For which, First see Calvin, whose Doctrine amongst all the rest ( the Roman, Lutheran, or Zuinglian) the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with, especially since the beginning of the Reformation of Q. Elizabeth. Thus there­fore He, in 1 Cor. 11.24. [Take eat, this is my Body.] Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Chri­stus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est & resurrexit, [Corpus ipsum in quo passus est, that is surely his natural Body.] — Again. Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 11. §. — Facti participes substantiae ejus, virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium commnnicatione. [Facti participes substantiae ejus, i. e. of his natural substance, for no other humane substance he had, spiritual or corporal, than that only, which was born of the B. Virgin, and that is his natural substance.] — and Ib. §. 19. — His absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque Corporis ac sanguinis Domini Communicationem, quae sub sacris coenae symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter reci­pio. — Ibid. §. 16. — Of the Lutherans he saith: — Si ita sensum su­um explicarent, dum panis porrigitur, annexam esse exhibitionem corpo­ris, quia inseparabilis est a signo suo veritas, non valde pugnarem.

§. 9 And, to strengthen further this assertion of Calvin, may be ad­ded the Confession of Beza, and others of the same sect, related by Hospinian, hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251. — Fatemur in Coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii ho­minis substantiam, ipsam, inquam, veram carnem, & verum illum sanguinem, quem fudit pro nobis, non significari duntaxat, aut sym­bolice, typice, vel figurate proponi, tanquam absentis memoriam: sed [Page 6]vere ac certo repraesentari, exhiberi, & applicanda offerri, adjunctis symbolis minime nudis, sed quae (quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem & offerentem attinet) semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant, sive fidelibus, sive insidelibus proponantur. Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i. e. verum corpus, & verus sanguis Domini, cum symbolis copulatur, dicimus esse Symbolicum, sive Sacramentalem: Sacramentalem autem modum vocamus, non qui sit figurativus dun­taxat, sed qui vere & certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet, quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet & offert, nempe (quod paulo ante diximus) verum corpus & sanguinem Christi; ut appareat, nos ip­sius corporis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam in Coena retinere & de­fendere; & si quid nobis cum vere piis & doctis fratribus controver­siae est, non de re ipsa, sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat, qui soli Deo cognitus est, & a nobis creditur, disceptari. [ Here they say, rem ipsam, i. e. verum corpus & verum sanguinem Domini cum sym­bolis copulari in Coena Domini, modum vero esse symbolicum, &c.]

§. 10 Next to come to our English Divines. — First — Thus Mr. Hooker, Eccl. Polit. 5. l. 67. §. p. 357. — Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no controversy, saving only about the sub­ject, where Christ is: — nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this; but whether, when the Sacrament is Administred, Christ be whole within Man only, or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves.

[ This therefore was no doubt amongst the divided parties in Mr. Hooker 's Judgment; Whether Christ's natural body was only in Heaven, or both in Heaven and also in the Eucharist. (for if other­wise) this so main a doubt that he ought not to have dissembled it.]

— Again p. 360. — All three Opinions do thus far accord in one, — That these holy Mysteries, received in due manner, do instrumen­tally both make us partakers of the grace of that body and blood, which were given for the Life of the World; and besides also impart unto us, even in true and real, tho' mystical, manner, the very person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire. — and p. 359. — His bo­dy and his blood are in that very subject, whereunto they admini­ster Life, not only by effect, or operation, even as the influence of the Heavens is in Plants, Beasts, Men, and in every thing which they quicken; but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of Ʋ ­nion, which maketh us one with him, even as he and the Father are one.

[Page 7] 2. Thus Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage, §. 11. n. 1. Resp. ad Apoll. Bell. 1. c. p. 11. — Quod Cardinalem non latet, nisi volentem & ultro, dixit Christus, Hoc est corpus meum; non, Hoc modo hoc est corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit, de modo lis omnis est. De hoc est, fide firma tenemus, quod sit: de, hoc modo est (nempe transubstantiato in corpus pane) de modo, quo fi­at, ut sit Per, sive In, sive Cum, sive Sub, sive Trans, nullum ini­bi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul: inter scita Scholae fortasse, inter Fidei articalos non, ponimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus, neutiquam nobis displicet, Verbum au­dimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. Praesentiam, inquam, credimus, nec minus, quam vos, veram, De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus, addo, nec anxie inquiramus; non magis quam in baptismo nostro, quomodo abluat nos sanguis Chri­sti: non magis quam in Christi incarnatione, quomodo naturae divinae humana in eandem hypostasin uniatur. Inter mysteria ducimus (& quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa) cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi, id est, ut eleganter in primis Patres, fide adorari, non ratione discuti. — Again, Ib. 8. c. p. 194. speaking of the Con­junction of Christ's Body with the symbols, he saith, — Ea nempe conjunctio est inter Sacramentum visibile, & rem Sacramenti invisi­bilem; quae inter humanitatem & divinitatem Christi, ubi nisi Euty­chen s [...]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.

[Page 8] §. 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 [Page 9]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, 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 [Page 10]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, [Page 11]& 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 [Page 12]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 conform to it in all things within the power of it: I know the conse­quence to be this, That there is no just cause why it shou'd not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole. [ Here is acknowledg'd, 1. Pre­sently upon Consecration a presence of Christ's Body and Blood with, or in, the Elements, before any presence of them to the Soul by a living Faith; of which body becoming here present, the un­worthy Receivers are said to be guilty, 1 Cor. 11.22. 2. A per­manency of this Body and Blood with these Symbols in the reser­vation of them, after the assembly had communicated. 3. The Elements consecrated, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ is contained in them, affirmed to be truly the sacrifice on the Cross. 4. Adoration of this Body and Blood as so present, to be a duty, and antiently practised.]

CHAP. III. Considerations on the second Observable, That a natural Body cannot be in many places at once.

§. 19 THis I had to represent, and these witnesses to produce against the first Observable; the profession made in this Declaration, That the natural Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Holy Sacra­ment of the Eucharist. It were an easy task here to back the testi­mony of these Writers with those of the Fathers to the same pur­pose; but I conceive it needless, since the same Protestant Writers here cited urge the authority of Antiquity, as a chief inducement and motive of this their Assertion. Now then to consider the se­cond, the urging for such Non-presence, this reason; because it is against the truth of a natural Body to be, or because a natural Body cannot truly be, in more places than one, at one time.

1. Here also, first, I find Protestants, §. 20. n. 1. and especially our English Divines generally to confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eu­charist to be an ineffable mystery, (which I conceive is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to, and there­fore incomprehensible and ineffable by, humane reason.) For this thus Calvin himself long ago, in the beginning of the Reformation, Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 24. §. Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior, vel naturae legibus subjicio. — Humanae rationi minime placebit [that which he affirms] penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit alimentum. — Dicimus Christumtam externo symbolo, quam spiritu suo ad nos descendere, ut vere substantia carnis suae animas no­stras vivificet. — In his paucis verbis qui non sentit multa subesse mi­racula, plusquam stupidus est: quando nihil magis incredibile, quam res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas, in tanta locorum distan­tia, non tantum conjungi, sed uniri; ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi: [Nihil magis incredibile; therefore not this more incredible, that Idem Corpus potest esse in diversis locis si­mul.] —And §.31. — Porro de modo siquis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat. — And §. 25. Captivas tenemus mentes no­stras ne verbulo duntaxat obstrepere, ac humiliamus ne insurgere, au­deant. — Nec vero nefas nobis esse ducimus, sanctae Virginis exemplo, in re ardua sciscitari, quomodo [...]ri possit? See more Ibid. §. 7. [Na­turae legibus non subjicio, — humanae rationi minime placet, —quomodo fieri potest] — Surely these argue something in [Page 14]it seemingly contradictory to nature and humane reason.

Thus King James of the Eucharist in his answer to Cardinal Per­ron by Causabon. §. 20. n. 2. — Mysterium istud magnum esse humano ingenio incomprehensibile, ac multo magis inenarrabile, Eccl. sia Anglicana fa­tetur & docet.

And thus speaks Dr. Taylor in Real presence, §. 20. n. 3. §. 11 n. 28. after that he had numbred up many apparent contradictions, not only in respect of a natural, but, as he faiths of an alsolute, possibility of Transubstantiation, (from p. 207. to p. 337.) Tet (saith he) let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it, and wake publick amends: [all my arguments, i. e. of apparent Contradictions and absolute Impos­sibilities.] And n. 28. To this objection. That we believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, of our Saviour's being born of a pure Virgin, &c. clauso utero, and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies ( in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions) notwithstanding seeming impossibilities; and therefore why not Tran­substantiation? He answers, That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation, as of the other, then this Argument were good: and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation, [of which ten thousand then sup­pose that this be one, That Idem corpus non potest esse simul in duo­bus locis] yet we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all. [Now none can believe a thing true, upon what motive soever, which he first knows certainly to be false, or, which is all one, cer­tainly to contradict. For these, we say, are not verifiable by di­vine power, and ergo here, I may say, should Divine Power de­clare a truth, it would transcend it self.] —Again, in Liberty of Prophecy, 20. §. 16. n. he saith, Those who believe the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School, and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church, believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation. Yet I suppose himself denies no such doctrine about the Trinity, that is commonly delivered in the Schools.

§. 21 2. I conceive, that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a perfect contradiction, can no more be effected by divine power, than another, or than many other the like may: therefore if these men do admit once, that some seeming contradiction to reason may yet be verified in this Sacrament, for which they call it an ineffable mystery; I see not why they should deny, that this particular seeming con­tradiction, among the rest, of the same body being at the same time in [Page 15]several al places, yet by the divine power (I say not is, for the know­ledge of this depends on Revelation, but) may be, so verified.

§. 22 3. I cannot apprehend but that these Writers must hold this particular seeming contradiction, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; so long as they do affirm a real and substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant here on earth, contradistinct to any such other real presence, as implies only a presence of Christ's Body in its virtue, efficacy, benefits, spirit, &c. which 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 [Page 16]totally in the Head and the Foot; yet this Soul not continued in these two places or Ʋbi'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 [Page 17]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 4 um—and 3 a 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 in pluribus locis implitat expresse contradi­ctionem; quia illud quod est circumscriptive in distantibus locis, oporter quod sit distinctum distinctione locorum; quia quicquid est circum­scriptive in loco aliquo, totum continetur ab ipso, it a quod nihil con­tenti est circumscriptive extra continentem. Propter quod illa quae sunt in distinctis locis circumscriptive, necessario distincla sunt; &, quia est contra rationem unius quod sit distinctum, ideo si unum cor­pus esset in pluribus locis circumscriptive, esset unum & non unum seu indistinctum; quod implicat contradictionem.

2. That they put a third way of presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, real and true, and tho' not per modum quantitatis di­mensive, §. 24. n. 3. yet per modum substantiae Aqui. n. 3.76. q. 3. art., which they say is a mode pro­per to this Sacrament, and such as hinders not the same body at the same time to be alibi, elsewhere, and yet to remain, tho' it be elsewhere, indivisum in se: which the other Presences, in their ac­ception of them, do hinder. Of which thing thus Durand con­tends In 4 sent. 11. d. q. 1., That Christ's Body is present in the Sacrament ratione so­lius praesentiae ad locum, not ratione continentiae either circumscriptive [Page 18]or definitive; — and that Quod est praesens loco hoc modo, potest esse si­mul praesens in pluribus locis; sicut Angelus, saith he, est praesens omnibus corporibus quae potest movere.

§. 24. n. 4.Mean-while other Schoolmen and Controvertists take liberty to dissent from these. See Scotus in 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 2. and Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 3. c. and it seems not without reason. For, why should this their Substantial or Sacramental way (as real and true as any of the other) of Christ's Body being at the same time in Hea­ven and in the Eucharist, consist with this Body's remaining indi­visum in se; more than the circumscriptive or definitive way, rightly understood, and freed of their limitations; or, why impose they such a notion on these two ways, that they must imply an exact adequation of the place and the placed, or exclude it from being at all any where else; any more than the other Substantial or Sa­cramental way (which they maintain) doth?

Thus far I have stept aside, to shew, that the Doctor receive [...] [...] advantage here, for the denying the Essential or Substantial p [...] ­sence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, from the difference in the Schools concerning the Mode thereof, whilst all of them agree both in such Substantial presence, and also in Transubstantiation.

§. 25 Consequently to what hath been said I gather also, First, That if we do not take praesentia corporalis, or praesentia naturalis in such a sense as they imply the presence of some corporal or natural acci­dents or properties by divine power separable (as some are, the es­sence still preserved, and who knows exactly how many: in which respect Christ's Body is denied, as by the English, so by the Roman and Lutheran Churches, to be in the Eucharist modo corporeo, or na­turali:) but take them as they imply the corporal or natural presence of the essence or substance of this Body; thus will Real or Essential Presence be the same with corporal and natural. And therefore these words [Real and essential presence] seem as truly denied to be in the Eucharist, by the first composers of the foresaid Declaration in the latter end of K. Edward's days, as the words [ Corporal and Natural presence] are in this 2d. Edition thereof in A. D. 1661. I say the one, the essential or substantial, denied to be there, as much as the other, the natural: whenever this reason in both is added for it, viz. because, Idem corpus non potest esse simul in diversis locis. For this reason seems necessarily to exclude the one, as well as the other, the real and essential presence, as well as corporal and natural.

§. 26 Indeed the present Rubrick hath only these words, [That no adoration ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natu­ral flesh and blood,] whereas that in King Edward's time hath these, [Page 19][ That no adoration ought to be done unto any real and essential pre­sence of Christ's natural flesh and blood,] the words Real and essenti­al then, being now changed into Corporal; and this seems to be done with some caution for the present Church her maintaining still a real and essential presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist; whereas those in the later time of King Edward seem to have denied it. [For as the first days of this Prince seem to have been more ad­dicted to Lutheranism, so the latter days to Zuinglianism; as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley, (see his last examination in Fox p. 1598. and his stating the first Question disputed at Ox­ford about the Real Presence,) and of Peter Martyr. See Dis­put. Oxon. 1549. fol. 18, 67, & 88. When also this Question, An Corpus Christi realiter vel substantialiter adsit in Eucharistia, in Oxford, was held negatively; and when all those alterations were made in the Form of the Service of our Lord's Sup­per (mentioned before in the beginning of this Discourse) that might seem to favour any presence of Christ's Body in relation to the Symbols.] But here I say, if the words of the former Ru­brick, real and essential, were by the late Clergy changed into corporal on any such design, that so the real and essential presence might be still by them maintained; then I ask here, how can the same reason be still retained in their opinion thus altered? For, this reason, [that the same body cannot be at one in several places] as I have said, combats as well a real and essential presence, which they now would seem to allow, as a corporal, which they reject.

§. 27 2. I infer; that let them express this essential or substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, still defended by them, how they please, by calling in Mystica, Spiritualis, Symbolica, Sacra­mentalis, or the like; yet if the presence of the Essence or Sub­stance be still retained, they are eased no more thus, from main­taining, that Idem corpus potest esse in duobus locis (or ubi) simul, than any other party, which hold any grosser presence there. And therefore suppose, if you will, a body cloath'd with all its usual ac­cidents of quantity and dimensions, and of quality (except you will number also this amongst them, to possess but one place, and except you will annex to circumscriptive or definitive the restri­ctions mentioned before §. 24. n. 2.) and it may no less (when such is the divine pleasure) be, thus, at the same time in many places, than when stript of them: for the same seeming absurdities and contradictions follow, from an Angel's, or Soul's being at the same time in two distinct definitive ubi's; without any continuation (if I 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 [Page 20]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 [Page 21]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. Ʋtinam hic pedem fixissent, nec ulteri­us progressi fuissent discipuli. In Coll. Malbrunnensi actione 8. Ja­cobo Andreae Lutherano objicienti Calvinistas negare Christi corpus [Page 22]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. Ʋrs. &c. p. 155. Idem Ʋrsinus 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 Ʋr­sin to urge, both plurality of places to one Body, and plurality of Bodies to one place:] De quo responsum est, non semel nunquam quaesitum esse aut disputatum, an possit. Deus hoc aut illud efficere; sed hoc tantum, an ita velit. — See more in the Author. To which I may add S. Austin's saying, Cura pro mortuis, c. 16. Ista Quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincit, quemadmodum opitulentur Mar­tyres iis, quos per eos certum est adjuvari: utrum ipsi per seipso adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis & tanta inter se longinquitate discretis, &c. or whether this was done per Angelica ministeria usquequaque diffusa, shew this Father believed no impossibility of a Martyrs be­ing uno tempore in diversis locis.

§. 31 And from this reason of their uncertainty of such contradiction, whether it is real in respect of the divine power, it seems to be, that the Convocation of the Clergy in the beginning of Q. Eli­zabeth's days, both cast out of the 28 of the former Articles of Re­ligion, made in the end of King Edward's Reign, these words fol­lowing: [— Cum naturae humanae veritas requirat, ut unius ejusdem­que hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit, sed in uno ali­quo & definito loco esse oporteat; idcirco Christi corpus in multis & diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tra­dunt sacrae literae, Christus in coelum fuit sublatus, & ibi usque ad fi­nem saeculi est permansurus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus & sanguinis realem praesentiam & corporalem (ut loquuntur) praesenti­am in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri.] And also cast out this very Rubrick or Declaration out of the then Common-prayer book; and also restored again the former Form in administring the Com­munion; [ The Body of our Lord, &c. preserve thy body and soul,] and all this (saith Dr. Heylin) Hist. Reform. Q. Eliz. p. 11. lest under colour of rejecting a Car­nal, they might be though also to deny such a Real presence, as was de­fended in the writings of the ancient Fathers.

§. 32 And lastly, the late Clergy also in 1661, in that part of this re­ceived Rubrick or Declaration wherein they reject the words of [Page 23]the former, [real and essential presence,] as is said before, §. 3. n. 4. seem to disallow the opinion of K. Edward's latter Clergy, and to vindicate still the real presence: but then, they retaining still un­changed the last expressions of the former Rubrick, which affirm Christ's natural Body not to be in the Eucharist, and that upon such a ground as is there given, seem again to disclaim it; unless they will justifie as seeming a contradiction as that is of idem in pluribus locis simul; which they condemn. A contradiction, I say; for I cannot discern, how this [Christ's natural body is here, and is in Heaven, and yet but one body,] can be pronounced a contradiction: and this [Christ's natural body is not here, but only in Heaven, and yet this natural body is here most certainly received] can be pronoun­ced none. For if this can be justified to be part of their Faith, that the natural body of Christ is not here in the Eucharist, but only in Heaven; yet this is another part thereof, (see the former Testimo­nies §. 8. &c.) that the natural body of Christ is here in the Eucha­rist received. It, the body that was born of the B. Virgin, not a grace only, not a spirit only, but it it self, for both Hoc est corpus meum, and the general Tradition of the ancient Church, seems to have ne­cessitated these Divines to this expression, and — facti participes sub­stantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium com­municatione, saith Calvin, quoted before, §. 8. —Now if these things be so, then this expressing only is one part of their faith in this Rubrick, viz. that the natural body is not here, and the not mentioning the other part with it, viz. that the naturul body not­withstanding is here received by every worthy Communicant, (it mat­ters not after what manner received, so this manner deny not the presence of this body) seems at least to betray their Faith to a dan­gerous misconstruction, and to precipitate him, who hears such a confession, into Zuinglianism. But if we would express our whole and entire Faith here concerning this matter, it cannot be, but that he, who hears it, (observing that both Christ's body is here, for he really receives it; and not here, for it is only in Heaven; in that it is both within him, and at the same time many millions of miles from him, and yet cannot possibly be at two places at one;) will presently say with Calvin, See be­fore §. 20. S. Virginis exemplo, Quomodo fieri possit? — & — Nihil magis incredibile, —and then I see not what they have to answer him, but — Mysterium, — Arca­num, — Miraculum, — Ineffabile. And then how can they urge others (as they do here) with contradictions and impossibilities, who go about to explain this ineffable mystery by Idem corpus in pluribus locis; and mean while maintain the like contradictions [Page 24]themselves, desiring to have their contradiction passed and currant; the others supporessed?

§. 33 To express my disquisitions yet a little more fully, and to see if they can possibly find and evasion (without retiring to Zuinglia­nism) from those difficulties themselves, with which here they press others. If they say, that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist, but they mean not to the Elements, but to the Receiver; and that not to his Body, but to his Soul; yet if they affirm it as much, or as far present to the Soul, as others do to the sings, (as Mr. Hooker saith, they differ only about the subject, not the presence:) do not the same objections, absurdities, &c. (con­cerning Christ's being both really and essentially in Heaven, and in the place where the Communion is celebrated) with which they afflict others for making it present with the signs, return upon themselves, for making it present with the Receiver? For if it be possible, that the Body of Christ, now sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven, can, notwithstanding this, be present in our Soul, or in our Heart in such a place on Earth; so may it under, with, or instead of Bread in the same place; unless we say that they affirm not the real presence to the Soul, which the others do to the Bread. But the these writers must not say, that they differ only about the manner, or the subject of his Presence; but the Presence it self also.

§. 34 If they say that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist; but they mean spiritually, not naturally, or not cor­porally; so say others, both Romainst and Lutheran; i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities accompanying (where is no super­natural effect) the nature or essence of a Body: but if they will ex­tend spiritually so far as that it shall imply Christ's Body to be there really and essentially; yet not to be there quoad naturam or essentiam suam; or Christ's Body to be there, not quoad corpus; this is, by a distinction to destroy the thesis.

§. 35 Again, if they say really and essentially there present, but not lo­cally; so say the Lutheran, and Roman Doctors, i. e. circumscriptive, or by such commensuration to place, as bodies use to have in their natural condition: but if they will extend locally so far, as that they understand Christ's Body to be there by no manner of ubi at all, not so much as ubi definitive, or so that they may truly say 'tis hic, so, as not ubique, or not alibi, where no Communion is cele­brated; what is this, but to affirm, 'tis 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 [Page 25]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, [Page 26]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 Ʋniversal Gover­nor, according to the Canons of Councils, even the Council of Trent;) must we therefore stoop to such mens judgments? Or might you not as well tell us, That Cassander or Militier, yea or Bellarmine, were of your mind? Thus he. But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body, or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary, in the Eucharist, and with the Symbols, tho' the manner not prescribed, doth Romanize this Clergy; Bishop Cousins is one of those number. See the former Discourse concern­ing the Eucharist. § 5. n. 2. &c. And it is much, that this person, having read his Book, (who also, which I much wonder at, makes this his own opinion of an Essential presence that of all Protestants) did not discern this; but hath in his Post­script recommended for the satisfaction of others, one so much differing from his own Judgment; who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop, in this manner. p. 14. — That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative; and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified, [which he denies to be flesh and blood,] but such as was truly flesh and blood, which he once offered; the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in, and by, the Eucharist. And p. 15. — That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood, [ i. e. in the words, Hoc est Corpus meum,] when his real Body was not broken nor slain; nor his bloodshed, till after. And — I can scarce believe (saith he) that man, that saith he believeth, that they [the Apostles] believed, that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood. p. 57., to St. Cyril's words, [ Do not look on it as bare bread, and bare wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. For tho' thy sense suggects this to thee, yet let Faith confirm thee.] he answers, The Bread and Wine are not bare or meer Bread and Wine, but Christ's Body and Blood; as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass. In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood, and of his Sacrifice on the Cross, really given to us in the Eucharist; but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there; a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins.

CHAP. IV. Considerations on the third Observation: No Adoration intend­ed or due to any Corporal presence.

THis from §. 19. I had to present concerning the second Ob­servable in this Declaration; the reason given there, §. 39 Why the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Eucharist. I now proceed to the third Observable, where it is declared, That no Adoration is in­tended, or ought, to be done unto any Corporal presence of Christ's natu­ral Flesh and Blood.

Where First, as I think, that all grant a kneeling and adora­tion both of soul and body due to God the Father and Son, for a sig­nification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ, given in this sacred Solemnity to all worthy receivers, as the De­claration hath it: so I suppose the present Clergy will grant, that if there were a Corporal presence of Christ's natural Body in this Holy Sacrament, then Kneeling and Adoration would be here due also upon such an account.

2. Tho' the Corporal presence of Christ's Body, i. e. of its being there ad modum Corporis, §. 40 or cloathed with the ordinary properties of a body, be denied; as it is not only by the English Divines, but by the Lutheran and Roman (see below §. 48.) yet let there be any other manner of Presence (known from divine Revelation) of the very same body and blood, and this is as real and essential (let it be called Spiritual, Mystical, or by what name you please) as if cor­poral; and then I do not see, but that Adoration will be no less due to it, thus, than so, present.

3. And thirdly to shew that the Church of England hath here­tofore believed and affirmed such a Presence to which they thought Adoration due; §. 41 I must here also) set before you what I have met with in such writers of hers, as are of no mean account.

Of this then first thus Bishop Andrews in answer to Bellarmine; §. 42 where, the Cardinal collecting from K. James's alledging the Ado­ration of the Sacrament in the Church of Rome for a Novelty, that the King disallowed adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento miro, sed vero modo praesentis, the learned Bishop ( Resp. ad Apol. 8. c. p. 195.) goes on thus, Apage vero, Quis ei hoc dederit? Sacramenti, id est, Christi in Sacramento. Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res, in, & cum Sacramento, extra & sine Sacramento, ubi ubi est, ado­randus [Page 28]est: Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere & adorandum statuit; rem scilicet Sacramenti, at non Sacramentum; terrenam scilicet partem, ut Iraeneus; visibilem, ut Augustinus. [Which Father the Bishop had quoted a little before, saying, Sa­crificium Eucharistiae duobus confici, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Christi carne & sanguine; sicut Christi persona constat ex Deo & homine, cum ipse verus sit Deus, & verus homo.] Nos vero & in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio; & non id, sed eum qui super altare colitur. Male enim, quid ibi colatur, quaerit Cardinalis, cum quis, debuit; cum Nazianzenus eum dicat, non id. Nec carnem manducamus, quin adoremus prius, cum Augu­stino: & Sacramentum tamens nulli adoramus.

§. 43 Again, thus Dr. Taylor in answer to that saying of Ambrose, [Adorate scabellum, &c. per scabellum, terra intelligitur, per ter­ram caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis, ( i. e. the Eu­charist or Symbols) adoramus; & quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt.] We worship, &c. (saith the Doctor) for we receive the mysteries, as representing and exhibiting to our souls the flesh and blood of Christ; so that we worship [he means the body or the flesh of Christ] in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his body, but we give no divine honour to the signs.

§. 44 Again thus Bishop Forbes, quoted before, de Euchar. 2. l. 2. c. 9. §. — An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus, Protestantes saniores non dubitant. In sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archi­episcopi Spalatensis) adorandus est Christus vera latria; siquidem cor­pus ejus vivum & gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest: & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni; sed ipsi corpori Christi immediate, per sumptionem Eu­charistiae exhibita, debetur & perficitur.

§. 45 Thus also the Archbishop of Spalato, 7. l. 11. c. 7. §. — Si se­cundum veritatem qui digne sumit Sacrementa corporis & sanguinis Christi, ille vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi, in se corpo­raliter, modo tamen quodam spirituali, miraculoso, & imperceptibili, sumit; omnis digne communicans adorare potest & debet corpus Chri­sti quod recipit: non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub speciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis, tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens.

§. 46 And lastly, thus Mr. Thorndyke argues for it, Epil. 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. — I suppose (saith he) that the body and blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are, and must be adored by a good Chris­tian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obliged to [Page 29]communicate with, requires it. — This honour [i. e. of worshipping the body and blood of Christ] being the duty of an affirmative pre­cept, (which according to the received rule, ties always, tho' it cannot tye a Man to do the duty always; because he then should do nothing else:) what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite, and presently to take hold and oblige? And is not the presence thereof in the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to express, by that bodily act of Adoration, that inward honour, which we always carry towards our Lord Christ as God?

Now notwithstanding this, §. 47 whereas the late Declaration first saith, That adoration ought not to be done to any corporal presence of our Lord's natural Body, as in the Eucharist; and 2ly, That upon this reason, because the natural Body of our Lord is not in the Eucha­rist; and 3ly, That again upon this reason, because this Body being in Heaven cannot also be in the Eucharist; i. e. in more places than one at the same time: therefore it seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's Body as any way present in the Eucharist; contrary to the fore-cited Doctrine, and contrary to the Religion of King James and Bishop Andrews published to the world abroad. Or at least, in thus denying adoration due to a corporal presence, and then not declaring any other presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament that is adorable, when as such a presence they believe: it seems to betray the communicants to a greater miscarriage in their behavi­our, as to such our Saviour's presence at the receiving of these dreadful Mysteries; and to abridg this duty of that extent in which it had formerly been recommended by this Church. This briefly on the third Observable.

CHAP. V. Some Replies to the former Discourse.

TO conclude. Some Replies I can imagine to this former Dis­course. Such as these. 1. To the first Observable abovesaid, §. 48 The First Limitation; The Natu­ral Body of our Lord not in the Eucharist modo na­turali. §. 4. viz. That the natural Body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist, that the meaning is, not, that it is not there in its essence, or sub­stance at all; but only that the natural body, &c. is not there modo naturali, or ad modum corporis naturalis, not there after a natural manner. And if the Declaration means only this, (for which see Dr. Taylor before §. 15. and in the following Discourse concerning the Eucharist §. 6.) I grant it a truth; but find all other parties, the [Page 30] Lutherans, Calvinists, the Roman as well as the English Church, a­greeing in it. [For, for the Roman thus speaks the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. 1. c.— Neque enim haec inter se pugnant, juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dex­tra [...] Patris, & nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem Sacramentaliter, ea existendi ratione; quam, etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possi­bilem tamen esse Deo cogitatione per sidem illustrata assequi possumus, &c. Thus Bellarmine de Euchar. 1 l. 2. c.—3, 5. c. 10. c. and else­where in that Treatise.— Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco, vel ut in vase, aut sub aliquo velo, sed eo modo ut panis prius; sed non ita, ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi substantiae; non co­existere aut commensurari loco; non esse, ita ut habeat ordinem ullum ad corpora circumstantia; non esse sensibile, visibile, tangibile, exten­sum; non adesse mobiliter, extensive, corporaliter, [as well understand this word to exclude not naturam, but modum corporis.]

And thus Dr. Holden, p. 316.— Verum & reale corpus Christi profitemur esse in hoc Sacramento; non more corporeo & passibili, sed spirituali & invisibili, nobis-omnino incognito. Spirituali, i. e. as opposed to corporali, but by no means as opposed to reali. And as for the Lutheran I find this in the pacifick Discourses of Bishop Mor­ton, Bishop Hall, and Bishop Davenant (see the 11th. Chapter of his adhort. ad pacem Ecclesiae) sufficiently taken notice of, and urged for lessening the difference between the several parties of the Re­formed. — Christum adesse signis, but invisibiliter, intangibiliter, spiritualiter, ineffabiliter, sacramentaliter, modo supernaturali, rati­oni humanae incomprehensibili, coelesti, Deo soli noto. —Again, (a­bout oral manducation in this his presence with the signs) — Re­cipi quidem ore, sed participari modo divino, admirabili, inscrutabili; non atteri dentibus, non dividi, partiri, frangi: per substantialiter, corporaliter, oraliter, nihil aliud significari nisi veram manducati­onem; non physicum, non esse cibum corruptibilem, sed spiritualem; manducari a fidelibus, non ad corpus nutriendum, [i. e. materially,] sed ad animam sustentandam, &c. Therefore do they, as others, detest the Capernaitan error.

To these I may add what Bishop Forbes saith, de Euchar. l. 1. c. 1. 28. §. — Nemo sanae mentis Christum de coelo, vel de dextra Patris descendere visibiliter aut invisibiliter, ut in coena vel signis localiter, (i. e. per modum corporis) adsit, existimat. Fideles omnes unanimi consensu, & uno ore profitentur, se firmiter retinere articulos sidei sentiae credere se non esse naturalem, corporalem, carnalem, localem, per se, &c. sed absque ulla coelorum desertione, sed supernaturalem, &c.

[Page 31]But then, besides that the Proposition, carrying such a meaning, §. 49 had need to be altered in the expression (these two being very dif­ferent, the natural body is not here, and the natural body is here, but not after a natural mode:) the Reason which follows, and is given to confirm it, hindreth me from thinking, that the present Clergy so understands it, viz. this Reason giveth, That Christ's natural Body is not there, because it is against the truth of Christ natural Bo­dy to be (which seems all one as if it said, Christ's natural Body can­not be) at one time in more places than one. But if they hold the na­tural Body to be there, as well as in Heaven; this its being there (tho' there modo non naturali) overthrows this Reason, by its be­ing still in two places, the same time, in one, modo naturali; in the other, modo non naturali.

To the 2d. Observable, the Reason given. It may be said also, §. 50 The 2d. Li­mitation; A natural Body not in many places at one modo na­turali. That it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be modo na­turali, or ad modum corporis naturalis, in more places than one at once; but yet that, modo non naturali, it might by the divine power be rendred in divers places at once: and therefore that this natural Body ( absolutely speaking) is not denied to be also in the Eucharist, and not only in Heaven.

1. But here also first, I do not see any truth in such a gloss, §. 51 for that which hath been said before, §. 27. For if (it not implying a true contradiction) God by his divine power can make the essence or substance of a Body to be in more places or ubi's than one at once; he can make all the same properties or qualities thereof to be so too. For I see not how there can be more difficulty or contradi­ction, to make one and the same quantity or quality to be in two places at once, than to make one and the same natural substance; nor why more, to make the same natural substance of a body to be circumscri [...] [...] two places, than the same Angel definitive; both of these being finite, and having certain limits of their essence, out of which there essence naturally is not.

2. Admitting this Gloss for true, §. 52 as also that made upon the first Observable, §. 48. yet I see not how these two assertion i [...] the Declaration (§. 45.) if they be thus understood, can afford any foundation for the 3d. assertion for which they are urged, viz. That no Adoration is due to Christ's natural Body as being in the Eu­charist: which natural Body being granted by these glosses to be there, tho' not after a natural manner, yet can be no less, for this, an object of Adoration.

[Page 32] §. 53 3. To the 3d. Observable concerning Adoration, it may be said; That Adoration to Christ's Body, The Third Limitati­on; Adora­tion not de­nied to Ch. Body as re­ally and es­sentially, but only as corporally present. as really and essentially present in the Eucharist, is not denied; but only as to any corporal presence of it there, (which seems also to be the cause, that the Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former) [No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential] into [No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence.]

1. Yet methinks here also first, they should have more clearly expressed this, to prevent such a misapprehension. 2. Adoration being granted due in one way, as not due in another; §. 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way, as not present in another: methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more, than the latter; and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus, according to the true meaning of those who received it; viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done, tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very na­tural substances, and therefore may not be adored; yet ought to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood: because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven, but also truly in the Eucharist; it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body, ( if not after a natural manner, yet) in its true reality and essence, after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power, to be at one time in more places than one.

§. 55 Lastly, in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here pro­duced, perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Au­thors that seem to qualifie these here set down, and better to suit with the expressions of this Declaration. But neither will this af­ford any relief. For to free them from a real contradiction, the sense of the others reduced to those here cited with leave all things in the same state; or else the sense of these accommodated to others will appear to abett no more than bare Zuinglianism, [i. e. an abso­lute non-presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, save only in its ver­tue, and effects, and the presence of his Spirit, &c.] and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers.

FINIS.
THE CATHOLICKS DEFEN …

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 EƲCHARIST.
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.
    • [Page]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. §. § [...]7.
      • 4. Supposing (not grant [...]g [...]bstantiation an error, yet if Corporal or Real Pres [...] [...] 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; [Page]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 Ʋniversal Doctrine and Practice of the later, both Eastern and Western Churches. §. 27.
          • 5. Protestant Concessions. §. 28.
      • 8. For these Grounds given by Catholicks, Idolatry by many Pro­testants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome▪ §. 30.
      • 9. Catholicks grant, That to adore what is believed to be Bread, or perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as pre­sent there, where the Worshipper believes he is not, is unlaw­ful to be done by any whilst so perswaded. §. 33.

CATHOLICK Theses, Concerning the ADORATION of Christ's Body and Blood IN THE EUCHARIST.

§. 1 COncerning the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood, and so of his Divine Person, as present in the Eucharist, 1. I shall shew, what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants. 2. Examine what Catholicks maintain.

1. I suppose a general precept of giving supreme and divine ado­ration to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: And, Suppositi­ons. that as Affirma­tive precepts (such as this is) do not oblige to every time, and place; so, if they are unlimited and general, they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place; nor is there any need of any particular divine command in respect of these (i. e. places and times,) without which command we may not obey them. [For, what absurdities would follow hence? For, Was our Saviour, when on Earth, never lawfully worshipped, but in place, or time, first commanded? Nor then, when he shewed and presented himself to them for some other purpose, than for adoration? as to teach them, to suffer for them, &c. Might not the Magi worship him lying in the Cratch, divested of all appear­ance of Majesty, without a special command from God?] But it is sufficient to warrant our practice of them; if, in respect of such time, and place, there be no express prohibition.

§. 2 2. I suppose; that, where-ever the Body of our Lord is, there is his whole person; it being no more since his Resurrection to be a dead body, (for Christ dieth no more, Rom. 6.9.); but having the Soul joyned with it: as likewise, ever since the Incarnation, having also its hypostasis or subsistence from the Divinity joyn­ed with it; even when it was in the Grave, and the Soul se­vered from it.

[Page 2] §. 3 3. I suppose, it is a thing granted also by learned Protestants, That, where ever this Body of our Lord is present, there this Divine Person is supremely adorable: As the Divinity every where present is every where adorable, and may be so adored in the presence or before any of his Creatures; if such adoration be directed to him, not it, (as, when I see the Sun rising, I may lawfully fall down on my knees, and bless the Omnipotent Creator of it; and see 1 Cor. 14.24, 25.) may be, I say, but not, must: for where there is only such a general presence of the Divinity; as is in every time, place, and thing; here our Adoration may and must be dispensed with, as to some times, and places.

None likewise can deny, That the Humanity of our Lord also, in a notion abstractive from the Divinity personally united to it, is truly adorable; tho' this with a worship not exceeding that due to a Creature.

§. 4[For the lawfulness of Adoration, where ever is such a presence of the person of our Lord, see Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. p. 195. Christus ipse Sacramenti res [sive] in & cum Sacramento, sive extra & sine Sacramento, ubi-ubi est, adorandus est.

Thus also Dailié, Apol. des [...]glis. Re­form. c. 10. Apol. des Eglis. Reform. c. 10. who, in pitching especially on this point, Adoration of the Eucharist, as hindring the Protestants longer stay in the Roman Communion, hath in this Discourse, and in two Replies to Chaumont made afterward in de­fence of it, discussed it more particularly than many others) in an­swer to S. Ambrose and S. Austin their adoring the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries. — The Humanity of Jesus Christ (saith he) per­sonally united to the Divinity, is by consequence truly and properly ado­rable. And again: They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament; which is the thing we agree to. And ibid. p. 29. We do willingly adore Jesus Christ, who is present in the Sacrament, namely by Faith in the heart of the Communicants, &c. And see Dr. Stillingfleet in his Roman. Idol. c. 2. p. 114. — The Question (saith he) be­tween us, is not whether the person of Christ is to be worshipped with Divine worship, for that we freely acknowledge. And altho' the humane nature of Christ, of it self, can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration [he must mean, Divine]: yet being consider­ed as united to the Divine Nature, that cannot hinder, the same Divine worship being given to his Person, which belongs to his Di­vine Nature; any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him. Tho' how well that which he saith before, ibid. §. 2. (as it seems against worshipping Christ suppo­sed present in the Eucharist, without a special command to do it) [Page 3]consists with what he saith here, and with what follows, let him look to it.]

4. It is affirmed by many Protestants, §. 5. n. 1. especially those of the Church of England, that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really pre­sent, not only in virtue, but in substance in the Eucharist, either with the Symbols immediately upon the Consecration; or at least so, as to be received in the Eucharist, together with the Symbols, by e­very worthy Communicant: and that this Body and Blood of our Lord, which is not severed from his Person, is then to be worship­ped with supreme Adoration.

[See 1. for a substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucha­rist, (I mean at least to the worthy Receiver, contradistinct to a Presence by effect only, Influence, Virtue, Grace, or the Holy Spirit, uniting us to Christ's Body in Heaven) Dr. Taylor of Real Presence, p. 12. When the word Real (saith he) is denied [ i. e. by Protestants, as it was in King Edward's time] the word Real is taken for Natural, [ i. e. as he explains it p. 5. including not only the nature of the Body, for that is the substance; but the corpo­ral and natural manner of its existence: he goes on,] But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question, which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent; Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantia sua nobis adest; in substance, but after a Sacramental manner. See the Confession of Beza, and the French Protestants (related by Hosp. Hist. Sacram. part. ult. p. 251..) Fatemur in coena Domini non modo omnia Chri­sti beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam, ipsam, in­quam, veram carnem & verum illum sanguinem, quem fudit pro nobis, non significari duntaxat, aut symbolice, typice, vel figurate pro­poni tanquam absentis memoriam; sed vere ac certo repraesentari, exhi­beri, & applicanda offerri, adjunctis symbolis minime nudis, sed quae (quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem & offerentem attinet) semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant; sive fidelibus, sive infidelibus proponantur.

Again, Beza Epist 68. speaking against Alemannus, and some o­thers, who opposed a substantial presence; Volunt (saith he) ex-Gallica Confessione [Art. 36.] & Liturgia [Catech. Din. 53.] ex pungi substantiae vocem, idcirco de industria passim a Calvino & a me usurpatam, ut eorum calumniae occarreremus, qui nos clamitant pro re Sacramenti non ipsum Christum, sed ejus duntaxat dona & ener­giam, ponere. And Epist. 5. he argues thus against the same Ale­mannus. — Velim igitur te imprimis intueri Christi verba; Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis traditur, & Hic est sanguis me­us [Page 4]qui pro vobis funditur. — Age pro his vocibus Corpus & San­guis, dicamus, Hoc est efficacia mortis meae, quae pro vobis tradi­tur; Hic est Spiritus meus qui pro vobis effunditur: Quid ineptius est hac oratione? Nam certe verba illa, Quod pro vobis traditur, & Qui pro vobis funditur, necessario huc te adigunt, ut de ipsamet Corporis & Sanguinis substantia hoc intelligere cogaris.

See Hooker, Eccles. Pol. 5. l. 67. §. p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions▪ when there remaineth now no Controversy, saving only about the sub­ject where Christ is? — Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this, but whether, when the Sacrament is administred, Christ be whole with­in Man only; or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves? [But a great Contro­versy surely there would be beside this, if the one party held Christ's Body substantially, and the other virtually present.] Again, p. 360. — All three opinions do thus far accord in one, &c. That these holy mysteries, received in due manner, do instrumentally both make us par­takers of that body, and blood, which were given for the life of the World; and besides also impart unto us, even in true and real, tho' my­stical, manner, the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire.

Thus also Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. Bell, 1. cap. p. 11. Nobis vobiscum de Objecto convenit, de modo lis omnis est. [But there would be a lis concerning the Object, if one affirmed the substance of the body there, the other only the virtue, or efficacy.]

See Bishop Cosins his late Historia Transubstantiationis, §. 5. n. 2. tit. cap. 2. Protestantium omnium consensus de reali, id est, vera, ( sed non car­nali) Praesentia Christi in Eucharistia manifeste constat. And in proof of this p. 10. he quotes Poinet Bishop of Winchester, his Dia­lacticon de veritate, natura, atque substantia Corporis & Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia; Quod (saith he) non alio consilio edidit, quam ut fidem & doctrinam Ecclesiae Anglicanae illustraret. Et primo ostendit Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini; sed etiam ipsam veritatem, naturam, atque substantiam in se comprehen­dere; idcirco nec has voces Naturae & Substantiae fugiendas esse; Veteres enim de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse. Secundo quaerit, an voces illae, Veritas, Natura, & Substantia, communi mo­re in hoc mysterio a veteribus intelligebantur; an peculiari & Sacra­mentis magis accommodata ratione? Neque enim observandum esse so­lum, quibus verbis olim Patres usi sunt, sed quid istis significare ac docere voluerint. Et licet discrimen ipse cum Patribus agnoscat, inter Corpus Christi formam humani corporis naturalem habens, & quod [Page 5]in Sacramento est Corpus mysticum; maluit tamen discrimen illud ad modum praesentiae & exhibitionis, quam ad ipsam rem, hoc est, Corpus Christi verum accommodari; cum certissimum sit, non aliud Corpus in Sacramento fidelibus dari, nisi quod a Christo pro sidelium salute in mortem traditum fuit. Thus he, justifying Poinet's expressions speaking in the language of the Fathers. p. 43. — Non dicimus (saith he) in hac sacra Coena nos tantum esse participes fructus mor­tis, & passionis Christi; sed fundum ipsum cum fructibus, qui ab ip­so ad nos redeant, conjungimus; asserentes cum Apostolo, 1 Cor. 10.16. Panem quam frangimus esse sCorporis Christi, & Poculum Sanguinis ejus communicationem; imo in eadem illa sub­stantia, quam accepit in utero Virginis, & quam sursum in coelos in­vexit; in hoc tantum a Pontificiis dissidentes, quod illi manducationem hanc & conjunctionem, corporaliter fieri credunt; nos non naturali aliqua ratione, aut modo corporali; sed tamen tam vere, quam si na­turaliter aut corporaliter Christo conjungeremur. [Here I understand his non modo corporali not to exclude Corpus Domini, or non ratione naturali to excude natura rei, or the thing it self; but only to signify, that the Body is present, not after a corporal manner, or with the dimensions and other common qualities of a Body; which thing in­deed Catholicks also affirm.]

He seems also to grant, §. 5. n. 3. this substantial Presence to be with the Symbols, after Consecration, on the Table, and before communi­cating. For p. 65. for this he quotes the Conc. Nicaen. Sublata in altum mente per fidem consideremus, proponi in sacra illa mensa Ag­num Dei tollentem peccata mundi. And p. 43. — Quoniam (saith he) res significata nobis offertur & exhibetur tam vere quam signa ipsa: ea ratione signorum cum Corpore & Sanguine Domini conjunctionem agnoscimus; & mutata esse elementa dicimus in usum alium ab eo quem prius habuerunt. [ i. e. to be now conjoyned with, and to exhibit to us this Body of our Lord: which conjunction, he saith p. 45. is made per omnipotentiam Dei.] So he saith ibid. — Non quaeritur, An Corpus Christi a Sacramento suo, juxta mandatum ejus instituto ac usurpato, absit; quod nos Protestantes & Reformati nequa­quam dicimus aut credimus. Nam cum ibi detur & sumatur, om­nino oportet ut adsit; licet Sacramento suo quasi contectum sit, & ibi, ut in se est, conspici nequeat. And p. 125. — Fieri enim (saith he) de Elemento Sacramentum [which surely is done in the Consecration] nec consistere Sacramentum sine Re Sacramenti, firmi­ter tenent. And this conjunctio Corporis Christi, p. 35. he affirms to be made in receiving the Sacrament, not only cum anima, sedetiam cum corpore nostro.

[Page 6]Lastly, §. 5. n. 4. the modus of this true Presence of the Body of our Lord with the Signs or Symbols in the Sacrament, when as it remains in Heaven till our Lord's second coming, he makes, as others, to be ineffabilis, imperscrutabilis, non ratione inquirendus aut indagan­dus. p. 36. — Nos vero hunc modum [praesentiae Christi in Eu­charistia] fatemur cum Patribus esse ineffabilem, atque imperscru­tabilem, hoc est, non ratione inquirendum, aut indagandum; sed so­la fide credendum. Etsi enim videtur incredibile in tanta locorum distantiapenetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit in cibum; me­minisse tamen oportet, quantum supra sensus nostros emineat Spiri­tus Sancti virtus, & quam stultum sit ejus immensitatem modo no­stro metiri velle. Quod ergo mens nostra non comprehendit, concipi­at fides. [The like to which esse ineffabilem, & supra sensus, Ca­tholicks say of the same presence of our Lord in the Eucharist in tanta locorum distantia, whilst also at the very same time it is in Hea­ven.] And thus Lanfrank long ago in his answer to Berengarius, (who contended that Christi Corpus coelo devocari non poterit,) quo­ting the words of St. Andrew a little before his Passion: — Cum vero in terris carnes ejus sunt comestae, & vere sanguis ejus sit bibi­tus; ipse tamen usque in tempora restitutionis omnium in coelestibus ad dextram Patris integer semper perseverat & vivat. Si quaeris (saith he) modum quo id fieri possit; breviter ad praesens respon­deo, Mysterium est fidei: credi salubriter potest, vestigari utiliter 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 & vivifica [...]s nos Corporis & Sanguinis sui substantia, [ i. e. in the Sacrament:] that Hoc mysterium nostr [...]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 [Page 7]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 disci­p [...]lis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, Omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro: & sicut in persona Christi Humanitas ap­parebat, [Page 8]& 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 [Page 9]statuit, rem scil. Sacramenti; at non Sacramentum. And — Nos vero & in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio; & non id [ i. e. Sacramentum] sed eum, qui super altare colitur, [ i. e. Christum rem Sacramenti.] And is not this res Sacramenti wor­shipped as upon the Altar too with the Symbols there?

Since him, Bishop Bramhal to the Bishop of Chalcedon, Rep. to Chalced. 2. c. p. 57. asking, how the Protestants could profess to agree in all essentials of Reli­gion with the Roman Church, which they held to be an idolatrous Church, i. e. in worshipping the Sacrament as their God? thus re­plies: The Sacrament is to be adored, said the Council of Trent: The Sacrament, i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ, say some of your Authors, [where he quotes Bellarmin de Sacramento, 4. l. 29. c.] we say the same. [So Cardinal Bellarmin and Bishop Bram­hal are agreed about this Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist.] The Sacrament, i. e. the species of Bread and Wine, say others: that we deny, and esteem it to be idolatrous. Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry for the Error of a party?

The same concession with the same distinction makes the French-Protestant Divine Daille, §. 6. n. 2. in his second Reply to Chaumont, p. 29. There is a vast difference between to adore the Sacrament, and to adore Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, or in the Mysteries. — The later of these we freely do, since we believe him God blessed for ever together with the Father. And afterward, in answer to the Fa­thers: They speak (saith he) of the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the My­steries, (of which we do not contest the Adoration) and not of the Eu­charist. And again: They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacra­ment, which is the thing we agree to. And in his Apology, Ch—p— he saith concerning the Body of Christ if in the Sacrament, That it is evident, that one may, and that one ought to worship it; seeing that the Body of Christ is a subject adoreable. And Chap. 10. he grants upon Adorate scabellum, — That the faithful cast down themselves before the Ark to adore the Lord there, where the Divine Service was particularly joyned to the place where the Ark was. Dr. Taylor saith Real presence §. 13. n. 5., — Concerning the action of Adoration, it is a fit address in the day of Solemnity with a sursum corda, with our hearts lift up to Heaven, where Christ sits (we are sure) at the right hand of the Fa­ther. For, nemo digne manducat, nisi prius adoraverit, &c. [which, rightly understood, means illud quod manducat.] Here the Doctor allows adoring in the the Sacrament Christ as in Heaven. But if Christ's Body (and so himself in a special manner) be substantial­ly present in the Eucharist, here on Earth; why not adore him, not only as in Heaven, but as present here? See elsewhere, Real [Page 10]Pres. p. 144. where he saith, We worship the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our Souls.

See Spalatensis de rep. Eccles. l. 7. c. 11. §. 7. &c. — Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Christi, §. 6. n. 3. ille vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi, in se corporaliter, mo­do tamen quodam spirituali, miraculoso, & imperceptibili, sumit; om­nis digne communicans adorare potest & debet corpus Christi quod reci­pit. [Is then the worthy Communicant to worship, but not the unworthy; because Christ's Body is there present to the one, but not to the other?] Non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub speciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis, tuncetiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale, illi communioni realiter praes [...]ns. Thus Spalatensis.

And so Bishop Forbes, de Euchar. 2. l. 2. c. 9. §. — An Chri­stus in Eucharistia sit adorandus, Protestantes saniores non dubitant. In sumptione enim Eucharistiae ( ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalaten­sis) adorandus est Christus vera latria, siquidem corpus ejus vivum, ac gloriosum, miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest; & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni, sed ipsi Corpori immediate, per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito, debetur, & perficitur. [Thus then Protestants allow Adoration to Christ's Body and Blood, as substantially present in the Eucharist, if not to the Symbols, yet to die worthy receiver.]

§. 7 5ly. Yet further; It is affirmed by another party of Protestants, the Lutherans, more expresly, that Christ's body and blood are pre­sent, not only to the worthy Communicant, but to the consecrated Symbols; and whilst so present, which is during the action of the Lord's Supper, ( i. e. as I conceive them, from the Consecration till the end of the Communion) are to be adored.

[Of which thus Chemnitius, Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 2. sess. 13. c. 5. Deum & Hominem in Divina & humana natura, in actione Coenae Dominicae, vere & substantialiter praesentem, in spiritu & veri­tate adorandum, nemo negat; nisi qui cum Sacramentariis vel negat, vel dubitat de praesentia Christi in coena. Ibid. — Et quidem hu­manam etiam ejus naturam, propter unionem cum Divinitate, esse ado­randam, nemo nisi Nestorianus in dubium vocat. — Ita Jacob Gen. 28. Moses Exod. 34. Elias 3 Reg. 19. non habebant sane peculiare mandatum, ut in illis locis Deum adorarent: sed quia habebant generale mandatum ut Deum ubique adorarent, & certi erant Deum sub exter­nis & visibilibus illis symbolis vere adesse, & peculiari modo gratiae se ibi patefacere; certe Deum ipsum, quem ibi presentem esse credebant, adorabant. Nec vero Deum illi procul in coelo Empyraeo a se remotum [Page 11]& absentem, sed vere praesentem, & quidem peculiari modo gratiae praesentem, adorarunt. —Thus he. Nor do I know, that the Cal­vinists have at any time accused their brethren the Lutherans of Idolatry in such a practice. I find also Mr. Thorndike in the like manner clearly maintaining, 1. A presence of Christ's Body with the symbols, immediately upon Consecration: and, 2. An Adora­tion due to it. See the former, in Epilog. l. 3. c. 2. and, 3. where p. 17. I have said enough (saith he) to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the Elements, as the Sacrament of the same, before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the soul, which the eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood spiritually by living Faith importeth. And see the latter, ib. c. 30. p. 350. — I suppose (saith he) that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored where-ever they are; and must be a­dored by a good Christian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obliged to communicate with, requires it. — This honour [ i. e. of worshipping the Body and Blood of Christ] being the du­ty of an affirmative precept, (which, according to the received rule, tyes always; tho' it cannot tye a Man to do the duty always, because he then should do nothing else:) what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite, and presently to take hold and oblige? And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occa­sion presently to express by the bodily act of Adoration, that inward honour, which we always carry toward our Lord Christ as God? —Again p. 351. Not to balk that freedom (saith he) which hath carried me to publish all this: I do believe that it was so practi­sed and done [ i. e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eu­charist] in the ancient Church, and in the symbols before receiving; which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ, obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it. I know the consequence to be this, That there is no just cause why it should not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the re­forming of some part of the Church without the whole: which, were it taken away, that it [this adoration] might be done again, and ought not to be, of it self alone, any cause of Distance [ i. e. between the Churches of Christ.]

6. It is granted by Daille in his Apology, c. 11. and in his de­fence of it against Chaumont, 1. That altho' the Reformed of his party, do not believe the presence of Christ's body in the Signs, yet they esteem not the belief of it so criminal, that it obligeth them to break off communion with all those that hold it. So that, had the Roman Church no other error, save this, they freely confess, it had given [Page 12]them no sufficient cause of separating from it: as (saith he) ap­pears in this, that we tolerate and bear with it in the Lutherans. And again, Reply to Chaumont, p. 63. for the adoration of this Body as so present with the signs, (when indeed it is not so,) he saith, — That it is only vain and unprofitable, and that, as one may say, falls to nothing; being deceived not in this, that it makes its addresses to an object not adora­ble; but in this only, that mistaking it, it seeks it, and thinks to em­brace it there where it is not. And c. 12. he also freely confesseth, That had the Church of Rome only obliged them to worship Je­sus Christ in the Sacrament, and not used this expression, that the ser­vice of Latria ought to be rendred to the Holy Sacrament: Conc. Trid. sess. 13.5. she had not obliged them by this to adore any Creature. Thus he, as it were constrained thereto by the Lutherans Protestants Opinion and Pra­ctice, for his retaining their Communion, and freeing them from Idolatry. 2. It is granted also, Apol. c. 11. —That when our Lord was on Earth, a Disciple's giving divine honours, upon mi­stake, to another person much resembling him, would be no Idolatry. So, supposing the Consecrated Host were truly ado­rable, granted, that should any one see one on the Altar, that hapned not to be Consecrated, and Worship it, neither would such a person be guilty of Idolatry. So he pronounces him blame­less, that should give the Honour and Service due to his true Prince to a Subject, whom, very like, he took for his Prince. Yet that a Manichean worshipping the Sun, mistaken to be the very sub­stance of Christ, (see S. Austin contra Faustum l. 12. c. 22. l. 20. c. 9.) for Christ; or (to represent the opinion more refined) wor­shipping with divine honours not the Sun, but only Christ in the Sun, he could not in this be excused from Idolatry. And, that that which distinguishes these cases, and renders them so different, is, not a good intention to worship only him that is truly God, or Christ; nor the opinion and belief Men have, that the Object they worship is truly such; for this good intention (as he in that Chap­ter, and other Reformed Writers, and among others Dr. Stillingfleet, copiously press) is common to the worst of Idolaters, as to the rest: but the error or ignorance of the Judgment, from which flows this mistaking practice; as that is perversly affected and culpable, or in­nocent and excusable. Of which thus he, Ibid. — I maintain, that ignorance excuseth here when it is involuntary; when the sub­ject [I add, or the presence of it] we mistake in, is so concealed, that whatever desire we have, or pains we take, to find out the truth, it is not possible for us to discover it. — But there, where the igno­rance of the Object [or of its presence] proceeds not from the ob­scurity [Page 13]or difficulty of the thing, but from the malice or negligence of the person; this is so far from excusing, that it aggravates our fault. Thus he excuses one that should have adored a person much re­sembling our Lord, or an unconsecrated Host, — because no passion or negligence of his caused such a mistake: — but not those who wor­shipped the Sun for Christ, [ or Christ in the Sun;] — because (saith he) the ignorance of such people is visibly affected and volunta­ry, arising from their fault only, and not from the obscurity of the things they are ignorant in. Nor so Roman Catholicks in their wor­shipping the Sacrament for Christ; because (saith he) the error proceeds entirely from their passion, and not any thing from abroad. [Thus he, clearing such actions from Idolatry, where the error of the judgment is no way perverse, voluntary, and culpable.]

Having hitherto shewed you several Concessions of Protestants, and having urged none here from any of them, but such as I think all will, or in reason ought, to admit; next I proceed to examine, what it is that in this matter Catholicks do maintain.

§. 9 1. And first, Catholicks affirm in the Eucharist, Assertions. after the Con­secration, a sign or symbol to remain still distinct; and having a diverse existence from that of the thing signified, or from Christ's Body contained in, or under it. [See Conc. Trident. sess. 13. c. 3. Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis, ut sit symbo­lum rei sacrae, & visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae. By which for­ma visibilis (as Bellarmin expounds it, de Eucharist. 4. l. 6. c.) is meant the species of the Elements, not the Body of Christ. —So Bellarmin, Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species pa­nis & vini sunt signa corporis & sanguinis Christi ibi revera ex­istentium. —And 3. l. 21. c. Accidentia remanent; quia si etiam accidentia abessent, nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile; pro­inde nullum esset Sacramentum. So Estius in 4. sent. 1. dist. 3. §. Eucharistia constat ex pane, tanquam materia quadam partim tran­seunte, partim remanente; transeunte quidem secundum substantiam; remanente vero secundum accidentia, in quibus tota substantiae vis & operatio nihilominus perseverat. Hence they allow of that expres­sion of Irenaeus, 4. l. 34. c. where he saith, — Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus, terrena & coelesti, compositam esse. And of S. Gregory, dial. 4. l. 58. c. In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari: terrena exlestibus jungi: unum ex visibilibus ac invisibiltbus fieri.] So that tho' these symbols and Christ's Body may be said to make unum aggregatum; yet, if this be only the species or accidents of die Bread and Wine that remains, these cannot be said to have any inherence in this Body of Christ, (tho' it is true on the other side that, being ac­cidents [Page 14]only, they cannot be said to make a distinct suppositum from it;) or, if a substance remain, this cannot be said to have any hypostatical union (or to make one suppositum) with our Lord's Divinity or Humanity, as our Lord's Humanity hath such an union with his Divinity. From which it is observed by Dr. Taylor ( Real Presence, p. 336.) That therefore still there is the less reason for Romanists to give any Divine worship (as he saith they do) to the symbols. Far therefore are Catholicks from granting (what a late Author Stilligst Rom. Idol. P. 128. pretends they do, but that which he alledgeth no way shews it) as great an hypostatical union be­tween Christ and the Sacrament, as between the Divine and Hu­mane Nature.

§. 10 This external sign or symbol they also affirm to be all that of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any sense. And tho' after such Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to re­main yet is substance here taken in such a sense, as that neither the hardness nor softness, nor the frangibility, nor the savour, nor the odour, nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread, nor nothing visible, nor tangible, or otherwise perceptible by any sense, are involved in it. Of which signs also they predicate many things, which they will by no means allow to be properly said of, or at least to be received in, or effected by, or upon Christ's Body, now immortal and utterly impassible. So sapere, digeri, nutrire, confortare, corpo­raliter; and again, frangi dentibus, comburi, rodi a brutis, animali­bus, and whatever other things may be named (excepting only those attributes, which in general are necessary to indicate the pre­sence of Christ's Body to us with the species whilst integrae; as the local positions, elevari, recondi, ore recipi, &c.) they apply to these symbols that remain; not to Christ's Body which is indivisibly there. — Christus vere in sacramento existens nullo modo laedi potest; non cadit in terram, [id enim proprie cadit (saith he) quod cor­poraliter movetur; so also, anima non cadit,] non teritur, non roditur, non putrescit, non crematur: illa enim (saith Bellarmin De Eu­charist. 3. l. 10. c.) in speciebus istis recipiuntur, sed Christum non afficiunt.

§. 11 2. Concerning Adoration of the Sacrament, they affirm the word Sacrament, not to be taken always in the same sense; but some­times to be used to signify only the external signs or symbols; some­times only the res Sacramenti, or the thing contained under them, which is the much more principal part thereof. And, as Protestants much press, so Catholicks willingly acknowledge, a great difference between these two, the worshipping of the Sacrament, as this word is taken for the symbols, and the worshipping of Christ's Body in [Page 15]the Sacrament. Now as the word Sacrament is taken for the Sym­bols, they acknowledge a certain inferior cult and veneration due thereto, as to other holy things, the holy Chalices, the holy Gos­pels, the holy Cross, &c. of which Veneration much hath been spoken in the Discourse of Images, §. 42. &c. but they acknowledge no su­preme or divine Adoration due to the Sacrament, as taken in this sense for the Symbols; but only to our Lord's Body and Blood, and so to our Lord himself as present in this Sacrament, or with these Symbols. [So that be these Symbols of what latitude you will, ei­ther larger, as the Lutheran believes; or straiter, as the Catholicks say they are; or be they not only these, but the substance of bread also under them, as Catholicks believe it is not: yet neither those species, nor this substance, have any divine Adoration given or ac­knowledged due to them at all; no more than this substance of bread, believed there by the Lutherans, yet hath from them any such Adoration given to it.]

§. 12[That Catholicks thus by Adoration of the Sacrament with La­tria only understand that of the res Sacramenti, the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, see Conc. Trid. sess. 13. c. 5. Omnes Christi fideles, pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latriae cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sacra­mento in venerations exhibeant. Neque enim ideo minus est ado­randum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum; nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus, quem Pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit, Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei: quem Magi procidentes adoraverunt. Where, tho' the Council useth the expression of exhibiting latriae cultum Sacra­mento; yet that this cultus latriae is not applied to the Sacrament, as it implies the Sign or Symbol, but only the thing signified, both the words joined to it, qui vero Deo debetur, (which signi­fies the Council maintains that to be God they gave this cultus la­triae to) and the explication annexed, Nam illum eundem Deum, &c. may sufficiently convince to any not obstinately opposite. Nei­ther do those words interposed, — Neque enim ideo [Sacramentum] minus est adorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institu­tum, any way cross such a sense, as a late Author Stilling­fleet, Rom. Idol. c. 2. §. 2. p. 117. too confidently presseth, saying, — That by Sacrament here the Council must un­derstand the Elements or Accidents as the immediate term of that divine worship, or else the latter words [ i. e. quod fuerit a Domino institu­tum ut sumatur] signify nothing at all. For what (saith he) was that, which was instituted by the Lord as a Sacrament? was it not the external and visible Signs, or Elements? why do thy urge, That [Page 16]the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored, because it was to be taken, but to take of the common objection, That we ought not to give divine worship to that which we eat? And what can this have respect to, but the Elements? Thus argues he. When as he might know, that the Fathers of Trent, who said this, do hold, the chief thing instituted and exhibited in the Sacrament to be, not the Elements, but Christ's Body; and ipsum corpus Domini to be also orally both taken and eaten, (tho' not modo naturali carnis or corporis) as well as the Elements, according to our Lord's express words, Accipite, Manducate, Hoc est Corpus meum, [i. e. quod mandu­catis:] and when-as he might know also, that the occasion of ad­ding this clause was in opposition to a party of Luther's followers, who, granting Christ's Body present with the Symbols, and yet denying Adoration, said for it, that our Lord's Body [not the Sym­bol] was present there, non ut adoretur, sed ut sumatur. And Calvin also saith some such thing, Institut. l. 4. c. 17. §. 35. urging, there was no such mandate for Adoration, i. e. of Christ's Body, of which he was formerly speaking; but that our Lord commanded only, accipite, manducate, bibite, — quo (saith he) accipi [or sumi, if you will Sacramentum, non adorarijubet: meaning Sacramentum in re­lation to Corpus Domini; else he said nothing to the purpose of his former Discourse. And it may be consider'd here also, that not only the Council of Trent, but no Schoolman at all (some of which are thought uncautious in their expressions about Adoration of Images, and consequently of the holy Symbols in the Eucharist; nor is any Catholick accountable for them) takes the boldness to give cultus latriae ( qui vero Deo debetur, as the Council saith here) to the Elements, without annexing some qualification of a coadoratio, per accidens, improprie, sicut vestes Regis adorantur cum Rege, or ut Rex vestitus adoratur, yet without our mental notion at such a time stripping him of his Garments. Therefore neither can the Council here be rationally presumed to speak of the Symbols, when it useth no such qualifications.

§. 13 But, to put this matter out of all doubt, the Definition of this Council in the 6th. Canon (more than which is not required to be professed by any Son of the Roman Church) is this: — Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum, — & ejus Adoratores esse Idololatras, Anathema sit. Concerning which, and some other passages in this Council, in comparing the Chapters with the Canons, Franciscus a sancta Clara, Enchiridion of Faith Dial. 3. §. 18. judiciously observes, — That altho' Catholick faith, [Page 17]as to the substance, is declared in the Chapters, (as indeed it is,) yet according to this we are obliged only sub anathemate to that form of expression which is defined in the Canons. 1. Because the Chapters are not framed in the stile of Conciliary Definitions, with Anathema 's, and the like. 2. Because the Canons (where the very form is exceed­ing exact) sometimes differ from the manner of expression in the Chapters, in order to the same matter: As sess. 6. of Justification; Canon 11. and Chapter 7. also sess. 13. of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; Canon 6. Chapter 5. and elsewhere: yet sub anathemate all must stand to the Canons; and therefore must expound the Chapters by them. See more in the Author.

Soave also, l. 4. p. 343. in his censure of this 13th. Session, tho' he saith magisterially enough in opposition to a Council, — That the manner of speech used in the 5th. point of Doctrine, saying, That divine worship was due to the Sacrament, was noted also for im­proper; since it is certain, that the thing signifyed or contained is not meant by the Sacrament, but the thing signifying or containing. [But what Catholick will grant him this, that Sacrament includes not both; or, of the two, not more principally the thing contained in, or joined with the Symbols?] Yet he observes, — That it was well corrected in the 6th. Canon, which said, That the Son of God ought to be worshipped in the Sacrament. See the same observed also by Grotius in Apolog. Rivet Discuss. p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's forequoted passage: That the Controversy between Ca­tholicks and Lutherans in their saying, The Sacrament, or Christ in the Sacrament, was to be worshipped, was only in modo loquendi: To which nothing is replied by Rivet in Dialysi Discussionis, but the matter there, as also in his Apologetic, passed over in silence. Add to Grotius what Mr. Thorndike discourseth in defence of the expres­sion of worshipping the Sacrament, Epilog. 3. l. 30. c. p. 352. I con­fess it is not (necessarily) the same thing to worship Christ in the Sa­crament of the Eucharist, as to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Yet in that sense, which reason of it self justifies, it is. For the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, by reason of the nature thereof, is neither the vi­sible species, nor the invisible Grace of Christ's body and blood; but the union of both by virtue of the promise; in regard whereof — both con­cur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist, — by the pro­mise which the Institution thereof containeth. If this be rightly under­stood, then to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist, is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus he.

§. 14 This in vindication of the Council. And Bellarmine explains himself in the same manner as the Council, in his Apology to King [Page 18] James, Inter nupera dogmata ponit [Rex] adorationem Sacramenti Eu­charistiae, i. e. [as Catholicks understand and explain it] adorationem Christi Domini miro, sed vero, modo praesentis. To which Bishop Andrews replies: — Quis ei hoc dederit? Sacramento i. e. Christi in Sacramento. Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res in Sacramento adorandus est. Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesen­tem, vere & adorandum statuit. [Thus far then the King, Bi­shop, and Cardinal are agreed] Again, de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 29. — Quicquid sit de modo loquendi, status Quaestionis non est, nist, An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae? And, as it were to avoid offence, when he comes to treat on this sub­ject, de Euchar. 4. l. c. 29. he prefixeth the Title to it, not De adoratione, but De veneratione hujus Sacramenti: And in it saith that — Nullus Catholicus est qui doceat, Ipsa symbola externa per se & proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae, sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minore.

Of this Doctrine of Catholicks Bishop Forbes gives this testimo­ny, l. 2. c. 2.9. §. In Eucharistia mente discernendum esse Chri­stum a visibili signo docent Romanenses; & Christum quidem ado­randum esse non tamen Sacramentum: quia species illae sunt res creatae, &c. neque satis est [i. e. to give them divine worship] quod Christus sub illis sit: quia etiam Deus est in Anima tanquam in Templo suo; & tamen adoratur Deus, non Anima; ut ait Suares 3. Tom. 79. quaest. 8. art. disp. 65. §. 1. And so Spalatensis l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri [i. e. Catholicks] dicunt species panis & vini, hoc est, accidentia illa esse adoranda: sed dicunt cor­pus Christi verum & reale, quod sub illis speciebus latet, debere ado­rari. When then the Roman Church, speaking of supreme Adoration, explains her language of adoring the Sacrament, to mean only adoring Christ's Body, and so Christ as present there; and not adoring any other thing whatever (substance, or accident) that is present there, or that is also included in the word Sacra­ment: that accusation, which her using such language of adoring the Sacrament can seemingly expose her to, is at the most, not of an error, but an improper expression. But the propriety of language dutiful Sons ought to learn from, not teach, their Mother; who also speaks that which hath descended to her from former times. Neither will it follow from Catholicks using the word Sacrament precisely in this sense, exclusively to any other matter save Christ's Body, that therefore one may use the word Sacrament promiscu­ously for Christ's Body, in what respect soever we speak of it; and, as well or as properly say, that the Sacrament, meaning Christ's [Page 19]Body, is in the Heavens at God's right hand, or was on the Cross, or the like. For tho' [Sacrament] thus applied involves no other subject or thing at all but Christ's Body; yet it connotes, besides it, the place or manner of its presence; signifying this Body only as present in the Mysteries; not as a term adequate to, and convertible with it, being in whatever time and place.

§. 15 I think these Testimonies produced both out of the Council of Trent, and other Catholick Authors, and also out of Protestants con­fessing so much of them, do show sufficiently the great extrava­gancy of those Protestant Authors who tell their Readers, that the state of this controversy is not, Whether Christ's Body, and so Christ in the Sacrament be adorable with supreme Honours? but whe­ther the Sacrament, and then by Sacrament are pleased to under­stand the Symbols? and then, to confute the Doctrine of Rome, ar­gue, that no Creature, as the Symbols are, is capable of Divine Ho­nour. The state of the Controversy (saith a late Writer of theirs Stilling­fleet Rom. Idol p. 117.) is, Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of re­ceiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a Corporal Presence of Christ under them? And against it he affirms, — That supposing the divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein he is present, as I do to Christ himself. So Bishop Andrews, Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere adorandum statuit, — at non Sacramentum, terrenam scilicet partem. And — Nos in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus, Sacramentum [i. e. the Symbols] nulli adoramus. So Dr. Taylor, (Real Presence p. 335.) The Commandement to Worship God alone is so express; the distance between God and Bread dedicated to the service is so­vast, — that, if it had been intended that we should have Worship­ped the H. Sacrament, the H. Scriptures would have called it God, or Jesus Christ. And Disswasive §. 5. p. 76. he affirms the Church of Rome to give Divine Honour to the Symbols or Elements, and so to a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God. So they vainly also undertake to shew, that the Primi­tive Church did not terminate their Adoration upon the Ele­ments; that the Fathers, when they speak of worship, speak of worshipping the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries, or Symbols; not of worshipping the Mysteries or Symbols. These, I say, are great extravagances: whilst the Roman Church owns or imposes no such Doctrine of Divine Adoration due to the Elements, and the true Controversy on their side is only this; 1. Whether the Body and Blood of Christ, prescinding from whatever Symbol is or [Page 20]may be there, is adoreable, as being present in the Sacrament with these symbols? (This is affirmed by Catholicks: more than this needs not be so;) And, 2. Whether the Adoration of Christ's Bo­dy, and so of Christ as present, if it should not be so, will amount to Idolatry?

§. 16 If we here make a further enquiry into the Schoolmen concern­ing the Adoration or Veneration due to the Symbols, they state the same toward them as toward Images, the sacred Utensils, the H. name of Jesus, and other Holy things. Omnes (saith Vasquez, in 3. Thom. tom. 1. disp. 108. c. 12.) eodem modo de speciebus Sa­cramenti, quo de Imaginibus, philosophari debent. And then of Images we know the Definition of the Second Council of Nice re­ferred to by Trent — non latria. And for what they say of Ima­ges I refer you to the preceding Discourse on them, §. 42, &c. It is true, that some of the later Schoolmen (to defend the expressions of some of the former) have endeavoured to show how a latrical, qualified, secondary co-adoration may improprie or per accidens be said to be given to the symbols also, as sacramentally joyned with our Lord's Body, and as this body is as it were vested with them; such as, say they, when Christ was adored here on Earth, was given also to his Garments, i. e. without making in the act of worship a mental separation of his Person from his Cloths; as Bellarmin explains it, de Euchar. l. 4. c. 29. — Neque enim (saith he) jubebant Christum vestibus nudari antequam adorarent; aut animo & cogitatione separabant a vestibus cum adorarent; sed sim­pliciter Christum, ut tunc se habebat, adorabant: tametsi ratio ado­randi non erant vestes, imo nec ipsa Humanitas, sed sola Divinitas. Or do allow the giving of the external sign of Latria to them: as Bowing to, Kissing, Embracing them; but this without any the least internal act of latria, or any other honour or submission directed to them, which such inanimate things are uncapable of; as Vasquez explains it; who is so prodigal of this external sign of honour, after he hath stript it of any internal latria, or other worship whatever that may accompany it; that he allows this external sign not only to all Holy things, but to any Creature whatever, (in our inward adoration mean-while only of God,) upon the general relation they have to him. But indeed such an abstraction of the external sign, from an internal honour or re­spect (as other Catholicks censure his opinion) makes these out­ward gestures, without any mental intention attending them as to such object, like those of a Puppet or Engine, utterly insignificant: and so Vasquez, instead of communicating the latria, to Images, [Page 21]to the Symbols, to other Holy things, seems, in the judgment of others, to allow them no honour or veneration at all; and so, in seeming to say too much, to say too little; which hath been more largely discoursed before, Of Images §. 42. &c. And a late Author Stilling­fleet Rom. Idol. p. 129. might have done well, in mentioning this Author's Opinion, to have given also a true relation of it, affirming only an external sign of honour given to the creature void of any internal the least respect to them; Ita ut tota mentis intentio in Exemplar, non in Imaginem [or, Deum, non Creaturam] feratur: which would easily have taken away all that malignity he fastens upon it. This for Vasquez. And as for Bellarmin's adoration improprie and per accidens, Bishop Forbes tells us l. 2. c. 2. §. 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet. And Bellar­min himself, as appears by the former citations, waving these School disputes, tells us, — Status Quaestionis non est nisi, An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus? i. e. no more is defined, decided, im­posed on Christians faith by the Church, than this: nor more needs be desputed with, or maintained against, Protestants, than this. [This in the 2d. place from §. 11. Of Catholicks professing their Adoration with divine worship of Christ, only present in the Sa­crament with the Symbols, not of the Symbols; or, not, of the Sa­crament, if taken for the Symbols.]

§. 17 3ly. Therefore also Catholicks ground their Adoration (a thing Cardinal Perron much insists upon in his Reply to King James) not on Transubstantiation, (tho' both Transubstantiation and Con­substantiation involve it; so that, either of these maintained, Ado­ration necessarily follows) as if, Transubstantiation defeated, Ado­ration is so too; but on a Real Presence with the Symbols; which in general is agreed on by the Lutheran together with them. Which Adoration they affirm due, with all the same circumstances where­with it is now performed, tho' Christ's Body were present with the Symbols, neither as under the accidents of Bread, as they say; nor under the substance of Bread, as the Lutheran saith; but, tho' after some other unknown manner, distinct from both: and if they were convinced of the error of Transubstantiation, and of the truth of the presence of the substance of the Bread unchanged; yet as long as not confuted in the point of Real Presence, they would never the less for this continue to adore the self same Object, as now, in the self same place, namely, the Body of Christ still present there with the Symbols, and therefore there adorable; tho' present after another manner than they imagined. See the argument of Barnesius a Roman Writer apud Forbes. l. 2. c. 2. §. 12. [Page 22] Corpus Christi est cum pane vel permanente, vel transeunte, uno vel alio modo, & per consequens non est idololatria adorare Chri­stum ibi in Euchristia realiter praesentem. See in Conc. Trid. 13. §. c. 5. the reason immediately following the requiring of Ado­ration, — Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo [i. e. Sacramen­to] adesse credimus, quem Pater introducens in orbem terrarum dicit, Et adorent eum, &c.

If therefore the Roman Church enjoyns these three: 1. To be­lieve Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament. 2. To believe such presence by way of Transubstantiation. 3. To adore Christ as being there present: It follows not that she enjoyns the third in order to the second: but may only, in order to the first; as the first be­ing (without the second) a sufficient ground thereof. Neither can I, disbelieving the second, yet believing the first, refuse obe­dience to the third, that is, to worship the same object in the same place, as those do who also believe the second; and in my belie­ving both the first and the second, yet may I nevertheless ground the third only on that, which is by Christians more generally a­greed on; and still worship out of no other intention, after Tran­substantiation believed, than I did before I believed it (when on­ly I held in general a corporal presence) or than others do; who, believing a Real presence, do not yet believe Transubstantia­tion.

§. 18 4. Let us, then, not granting it, suppose Transubstantiation an error; yet if the tenent of Corporal or Real presence (as held by the Lutherans, or others) be true, Catholicks plead, their Adoration is no way frustrated, but still warrantable, and to be continued.

§. 19 5ly. Suppose not only Transubstantiation, but Real presence an error, and the Lutheran and the Roman Catholick both mistaken; yet there can be no pretence why these later, in such Adoration, (grounded by both on Real presence with the Symbols) will not be as excusable from Idolatry as the other. For, thus far these two Par­ties agree: 1. That Christ is corporally present: 2. That he may be worshipped: 3. That no other there but He may be worshipped; not Bread, nor any other meer creature: 4. That nothing visible in the Sacrament is He, or his Body; which is present only invisibly, with­out any thing visible, inhering, or appertaining to it, as the sub­ject thereof. They differ only about the manner of the presence of this invisible Substance. The one saith, it is there together with the Bread; the other saith there, instead of the Bread, and the Bread away; a thing also to God possible, for any thing we know. The one saith, he is there both under the substance and accidents [Page 23]of Bread; the other, there under the accidents only of the bread. Now, whilst both worship the same Object in the same place, and veiled with the same sensible accidents, if the one adoring him as being under the substance of bread, (he not being there) are freed from any Idolatry in such worship; the other adoring him as be­ing under the accidents of bread, (he not being there) cannot be made hereby Idolaters: since they say, and freely profess, that, if his body be not there, under those appearances, but the same sub­stance still under them which was formerly; then they confess it a creature, and renounce all adoration of it.

Whereas therefore it is objected, That the substance of bread only being in that place, where they suppose Christ's Body, and not any Bread, to be, therefore in worshipping the thing in that place, they worship bread; this were a right charge, if they affir­med, that they worshipped the substance that is in that place un­der such accidents whatever it be: but this none say; but, that they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body, and not bread, and that for this supposition they have a rational ground, (of which by and by.) Now, saying they worship it, be­cause it is so, is saying, if it be not so, they intend no worship to it. He that saith, I give divine Adoration to that which is under the species of Bread, because believed by me, or, if you will, certainly known by me (but he, indeed, mistaking) to be Christ's Body, and so Christ present, is yet far from saying, I worship whatever is under the species of Bread, whether it be Christ's Body or no. And he that saith the later of these, if bread happen to be there, is wil­lingly granted an [...]; but not so the former.

Daille, as it much concerns him, excuseth a Lutheran adoring up­on a falsly supposed real or corporal presence of our Lord, from any Idolatry, for this reason: Because, saith he, 1. Reply to Chau­mont, p. 63. such adoration is mistaken not in this, — that it addresseth it self to an Object not ado­rable, but only that by error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not, and so he saith it becomes only vain and unprofitable, &c. as is said before §. 8. The same therefore must he allow to Catholicks, if meaning nothing more by their Language of Adora­tio Sacramenti than Christi in Sacramento; as hath been shewed before §. 12. &c. that they do not: and that the contention about this is a meer Logomachy; and that they also, as the others, ground their Adoration not on Transubstantiation, but Corporal Presence.

§. 20 As for Costerus, or perhaps some other Roman Writers, that say, if Transubstantiation [ where also they must mean, or a Corporal Pre­sence, [Page 24] some other way] were not true, the Idolatry of Heathens is much more excusable, than of Christians, that worship a bit of bread: they do not, or at least are not necessitated to grant the consequence necessary, that, if Transubstantiation or Corpo­ral Presence fail, then they must adore the bread; which bread mean while they deny also to be there: no more than Protestants do or think themselves necessitated to grant this consequence, That if Consubstantiation or Corporal Presence fail, then the Lutherans do adore the Bread; which bread also tho' the Lutherans affirm to be there, yet do other Protestants deny that the Lutherans worship. But Costerus, and others, only maintain this: That, supposing that which is imposed upon them, viz. that Catholicks, if there be no Transubstantiation, do worship a bit of bread; the Heathen Ido­latry, in their worshipping a golden or silver Image, or some li­ving creature, &c. would be far more tolerable, and more noble. Shewing by this (as Dr. Taylor expresseth it, Liberty of 'Prophesying, p. 258.) That they are so far from worshipping the bread in such case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so; and intending, by advancing this fault the higher, the more to make appear the impos­sibility of such an error, its for so many hundred years possessing the Ʋ ­niversal Church of Christ, assisted by our Saviour to the end of the World, and the Pillar of Truth: and thinking the greatness of this crime a good argument of the Churches innocency therein; whilst per­haps, in some smaller matters, she might be liable to a mistake. I do believe (saith Mr. Thorndike, Epilog. 3. l. 30. c. p. 353.) that it hath been said by great Doctors of the Church of Rome, that they must needs think themselves flat Idolaters, if they could think that the Elements are not abolished: That shews with what confidence they would have the World apprehend, that they hold their opinion; but not, that the consequence is true; unless that which I have said be reprovable. And again, in Just weights c. 19. — When they say they must be flat Idolaters, if the Elements be there, zeal to their opi­nion makes them say more than they should say. —Lastly, If Co­sterus saith, that Transubstantiation failing, Catholicks do wor­ship the bread, Bellarmin de Eucha. l. 4. c. 30. and others, say just the contrary, arguing thus concerning a Catholick's worship­ping an unconsecrated Host, which is nothing but bread, — Ado­ratio ex intentione [i. e. such as is rationally grounded] potissimum pendet. Quare qui [talem] panem adorat, quod certo credat non esse panem sed Christum, is proprie & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem. Which may as well be said of an Host consecrated, that is not Transubstantiated (when the adorer upon probable grounds [Page 25]believes it to be so,) but remains still bread, — Qui hunt panem adorat, quod certo credat non esse panem, sed Christum, is proprie & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem. And the same, much-what, as by Bellarmin, is said by Dr. Hammond, Disc. of Idolatry, §. 64. That, supposing their error be grounded on an honest and blameless mis­understanding of Scripture, it is, tho' material, yet perhaps in them not formal Idolatry; because, if they were not verily perswaded that it were God, they profess they would never think of worshipping it. Thus he.

This in the 5th. place of not only Transubstantiation, but Real Presence being supposed an error, yet that the Roman practice, or error, compared with the Lutheran, the first is no more peccant than the later; and therefore that the Lutheran by Protestants being excused from Idolatry, so ought the Roman Catholick too.

§. 21 6. Both these being supposed errors, and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all, as is by them both imagined there; yet, such Adoration, by the one or the other, of Christ, who is a true object of supreme Adoration, and only by them mistaken to be in some place where he is not, cannot be termed any such Idola­try, as is the worshipping of an object not at all adorable. So, for exam­ple, If we suppose a Heathen worshipping a Heathen-God, as ha­ving some particular residence in an Image; or an Israelite wor­shipping the true God of Israel, as having a special residence in the Calf at Sinai; or in Jeroboam's Calves, called also by him Cheru­bims; or lastly, a Manichean, mistaking nothing in the Nature or Attributes of our Lord Christ, save that he thinks him to have some particular residence in the Sun, and so worshipping him as present there: None of these would be any such Idolatry, or pa­rallel to it, as that of another Heathen worshipping the very Mol­ten Image; or Israelite worshipping the very Calf for his God; or Manichean worshipping the Sun it self for Christ. Again; nei­ther can any of these that adore only God or Christ as specially present where indeed he is not, ( e. g. as fancied God so present in the Calf, or Christ in the Sun,) if we suppose something else invisi­bly and undiscerned by him to be there present, as if we imagine an Angel in the Sun, or a Serpent within the Calf, therefore be said to adore such Angel, or Serpent: and whatever fault may be in such worship, yet it would be great injustice to accuse such Israe­lite or Manichean, of adoring such Angel or Serpent upon this inde­finite Proposition, that he professeth to worship that which he believes to be present there; especially if such person do also declare against the adoration of any such particular things, if, contrary to his be­lief, [Page 26]there present. Neither then can it be justly deduced from a Lutheran's or Catholick.'s adoring Christ as under the substance or species of Bread, that therefore these adore the thing it self that is present under them.

§. 22 7. Whatever fault or also Idolatry it may be called (tho' not so gross as the former) in a Manichean that worships Christ in the Sun, or in an Israelite that worships God as specially present or resident in the Calves of Dan and Bethel or that at Sinai, because it is adoring a fancy of their own, without any rational ground or pretence thereof; and however meerly a good intention ground­ed upon a culpable ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry, or any other fault, (which as it is often pressed by Protestants, is free­ly granted by Catholicks.) Yet since Daille (and, I suppose, other 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 [Page 27]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 [Page 28]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 that interpretation thereof, which the Supremest Authority in the Church, that hath been heretofore convened about such matters, hath so often and al­ways in the same manner decided to him; and so to act according to its Injunctions?

§. 26 III. But, if these Councils be declined as not being so ancient as some may expect; i. e. not held before some controversy hapned [Page 29]in the Church touching the point they decided, Catholicks still have another very Rational ground of such a sense of the Divine Writ, viz. the evident testimony of the more Primitive times. Which that they have conveyed the Tradition of such a sense to the pre­sent Church, and to these former Councils, (to repeat what hath been said already in Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 321. n. 1. because perhaps by scarcity of copies that Book may come to few hands) I think will be clear to any one, not much interessed, that shall at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read, entire, and not by quoted parcels, the discourses on this Sub­ject; Of St. Ambros. de Myster. init. cap. 9. —the Author de Sacra­mentis, ascribed to the same Father, 4. l. 4, and 5. Chapters. — Cyril. Hierosol. Cateches. Mystagog. 4, & 5. — Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 83. — In Act. Hom. 21. — In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. — Greg. Nissen. Orat. Catechet. ch. 36, 37. — Euseb. Emissen. or Caesarius Arelatensis de Paschate, Serm. 5. — Hilarius Pictav. de Trinitate, the former part of the 8th. Book. — Cyril. Alexand. in Evangel. Joan. l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the authenticalness of which pieces enough also hath been said elsewhere.

§. 27 IV. In a consequence of, and succession from, this doctrine of those Primitive times, and of the later Councils of the Church, when this Point was brought into some Dispute and Controversie, a Catholick hath for a Rational ground of his Faith, and practice, the universal doctrine and practice of the later both Eastern and West­ern Churches till Luther's time, and at the present also, excepting his followers. For the Eastern Churches (disputed by some Pro­testants) both their belief of a corporal presence with the Symbols, and practice of Adoration, see what hath been said at large in the Guide in Controversy, disc. 3. c. 8. (where also are exhibited the testimonies of many learned Protestants freely conceding it) and again, in Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 321. n. 22. p. 313. and n. 9. p. 294. See also the late eminent evidences of the Faith and Practice of these Eastern Churches at this day, collected by Monsieur Arnaud, in his two replies to Claude; a brief account whereof also is given in the Guide, Disc. 3. §. 81. n. 2, &c. In which matter (whereas one of the chiefest and commonest Pleas of Protestants is the Greek and Eastern Churches their according with them, whereby they seem to out-number the Roman) if any will but take the courage, notwithstanding his secular Interest, candidly to examin it, I doubt not he will receive a full Satis­faction.

[Page 30]Lastly, see D. Blondel (one much esteemed by Protestants, for his knowledge in ancient Church-History) granting an alteration in the Doctrine concerning our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist (an Alteration he means from that which is now maintained by Protestants, and was by the former Antiquity) begun in the Greek Church after A. D. 754. Esclaire­issements sur L' Eu­charistie c. 15. i. e. begun so soon as any dispute hapned in the Eastern Church concerning this Presence; which dispute was first occasion'd there upon an Argument which was taken from the Eucharist, and urged against Images by the Council of Constantinople, under Constantius Copronymus, and was contradicted by Damascen, and shortly by the 2d. Nicene Council. In which opinion of the 2d. Nicene Council and Damascen, Blondel freely ac­knowledgeth the Greek Churches to have continued to this day. See c. 16. p. 399. Again, granting an Alteration in the same Do­ctrine (as is said before) begun in the Western Church A. D. 818. See Ibid. c. 18. i. e. as soon as the like dispute hapned about this Point in the We­stern Parts: which dispute there was occasioned by the Council held at Frankfort under Charles the Great, opposing the expressions of the foresaid Constantinopolitan Council in like manner as the 2d. Nicene Council had done before. Lastly, if we ask him, what this Alteration in the East first, and afterward in the West, was; 1. He maketh it much-what the same in both. And then he explains it to be a kind of Impanation, or Consubstantiation, or Assumption of the Bread by our Lord Christ. His words, c. 19. are these Des l' An. 818. &c. — Some among the Latins did ( as it were in imitation of the Greek) conceive a kind of Consubstantiation, partly like, partly unlike, to what many Germains [he means Lu­therans] now maintain; which, to speak properly, ought to be called Impanation, or Assumption of the Bread by the Word of God. And c. 20. he goes on, — The opinion of Paschasius, [whom he makes Leader in the Western, as Damascen in the Greek Church] had advanced before A. D. 900. an Impanation of the Word, fortified and getting credit by degrees; the establishment of which (saith he p. 440.) both Damascen and Paschasius designed. Wherein (he saith p. 441.) they supposed a kind of Identity between the Sacra­ment and the Natural Body of Christ, founded upon the inhabi­tation of the Deity in them; which at last produced, he saith, the establishment of Transubstantiation, under Pope Innocent the Third.

Here then 1. We see granted, both of the Greek and Latin Church, the same Tenent. 2. We may observe, that this Tenent of Im­panation he imposeth on them, when well examined, is found [Page 31]much more gross and absurd than that of Transubstantiation: For which see what is said in Bellarmin, de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. & 15. Or in Suarez, de Sacrament. Disp. 49. But 3. see in Considerations on the Council of Trent §. 321. n. 13. and n. 16. &c. that this Doctrine of Damascen and the Greek Church, and afterwards of Paschasius and the Latin, before Innocent the Third's time, was plain Transubstan­tiation; and is misrepresented by Blondel for Impanation; and therefore never hath the Greek Church hitherto had any contest or clashing with the Roman concerning this point. And see the concessions also of other Protestants very frequent and more candid, of Transubstantiation held by the Greek Churches of later times, as well as by the Roman, produced in the Rational Account concerning the Guide in Controversies, Disc. 3. c. 8. 4ly. Lastly, these Churches, in which, he saith, such an Alteration was made from the former Doctrine of Antiquity, deny it at all so to be; and af­firm, that, when some new opinions appeared, they maintained and vindicated it as the Doctrine of the Fathers; their Proofs of it being also extracted out of the Fathers Testimonies. Now then to stand against such a strong stream of both East and West run­ning constantly in this course, seems 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 [Page 32]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 [Page 33]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- [...]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 is Idolatry. But will any Papist acknowledge, that he honours the Elements of the Eucha­rist, [Page 34]or, as he thinks, the Accidents of them for God? Will common Reason charge him to honour that, which he believes not to be there? If they were there, they would not take them for God; and therefore they would not honour them for God: And that is it ( not saying that they should be Idolaters if the Elements did remain) that must make them Idolaters. And Epilogue p. 357. in general he saith; — Whoso admits Idolatry, [i. e. in any point whatever] to be taught by the Roman Church, can by no means grant it to be a Church; the very being whereof supposeth the worship of one God, exclusive to any thing else. The Roman Church, then, must either be freed from the imputation of commanding any thing that is Idolatry, ( i. e. a­doration of a creature for God): or we must affirm, there to be, and to have been, no true Church of Christ, never since such com­mand of that which they say is Idolatry went forth, (which no ju­dicious Protestant, I think, hath or dare say of the Roman Church, since the beginning of the Adoration of the Eucharist:) For what Church or Sect of Religion can be Apostate at all, if not a Church committing, and commanding Idolatry; even the worshipping of a piece of Bread, which themselves made, for that God which made them and Heaven and Earth.

And thus Bishop Forbes, de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. Perperam [...] Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur, & illi Idololatriae crassissimae & gravissimae ab his insimulantur & damnantur; cum ple­rique Romanenses, ut & alii fideles, credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem, sed corpus Christi; unde illi non panem adorant: sed tantum ex suppositione, licet falsa, non-tamen haeretica, aut impia, vel cum fide directe pugnante, ut superiore libro ostensum est, Christi corpus, quod vere adorandum est, adorant. In Eucharistia enim men­te discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo decent ipsi; & Christum quidem adorandum esse, non tamen Sacramentum, quia species illae sunt res creatae & inanimes, & consequenter incapaces adorationis. And Ibid. shewing the Greek and Eastern Church, as well as the Ro­man, to use it, he concludes, Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Ido­lolatriae arcessere & damnare? After the same manner the Archbi­shop of Spalato, de Repub. Eccles. 7. l. 11. c. n. 6. — Respondeo (saith he) me nullum idololatricum crimen in adoratione Eucharistiae, si recte dirigatur intentio, agnoscere. Qui enim docent, panem non esse amplius panem, sed corpus Christi, illi profecto panem non adorant: sed solum ex suppositione, licet falsa, Christi corpus vere adorabile a­dorant. Non enim nostri dicunt species panis & vini, hoc est, acci­dentia illa, esse adoranda.

[Page 35]Bishop Bramhal, cited before, §. 6. — The Sacrament is to be adored, said the Council of Trent. The Sacrament, i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ say some of your Authors: we say the same. — The Sacrament, i. e. the species of Bread and Wine say others: that we deny. Thus he.

D. Taylor, in his Liberty of Prophesying, p. 258. confesseth the Subjects of the Church of Rome no Idolaters in this kind; at least so as to worship Bread or any creature with Divine Worship, and as God: For, — It is evident, saith he, that the Object of their Adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts, and purposes, and by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of humane actions) in the Blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically joyned with his holy Huma­nity; which Humanity they believe actually under the veil of the Sa­cramental signs. And if they thought Him not present, they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so; which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical, [ i. e. as to the directing this their divine worship to an undue object.]

§. 31 Which things if said right by him and the others, the same Dr. Taylor is faulty in his charge in Real Presence, p. 334. Faulty I say, in charging on the Church of Rome, not their worship of a right Object in a some-way unlawful and prohibited manner, this we are not here examining; but their worship of an undue Object of Adoration, of a creature instead of God: for so he chargeth them there. If (saith he there) they be deceived in their own strict Article, [he means of Transubstantiation,] then it is certain, they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a mere creature, the image, the Sacrament and representment of the Body of Christ. Thus he. When it is evident that the Object, &c. is the only true and eternal God, &c. as he said before in the place cited, and must say if he will say truth. So, faulty is also Daille, ( Reply to Chau­mont, p. 63.) in his charging the Church of Rome to worship Bread, upon this arguing: Catholicks adore that substance that is veiled with the accidents of Bread and Wine; but this substance is Bread: Ergo they adore Bread. By which arguing he may as well prove the Lutherans in the Eucharist to adore a Worm or a Mite, thus: The Lutherans adore that substance which is joyned with the Bread; but that substance is a Worm or Mite: (for such thing may be there with the Bread at such time of Adoration) Ergo, they adore a Worm. Whereas both the Catholick and Lutheran explain the indefinite term [that which,] used in the major Propo­sition, [Page 36]restrictively to the Body of Christ, and exclusively to any o­ther substance whatever, that is, or may be, there, either with the Bread, or under its accidents. Faulty also is Dr. Stillingfleet, Rom. Idol. c. 2. in saying the Protestants controversie with Catholicks is; Whether proper Divine Worship, in the time of receiving the Eucha­rist, may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal Pre­sence under them, p. 117. And, as for the passage in the Coun­cil of Trent, sess. 13. c. 5. urged by him there for it, his mistake is shewed before, §. 12. And so, faulty, in his concluding, p. 118. — That the immediate term of that Divine Worship given by Ca­tholicks, is the external and visible signs or elements. And again, p. 124. That, upon the principles of the Roman Church, no Man can be satisfied that he worships not a mere creature with divine ho­nour, when he gives Adoration to the Host: [whenas Catholicks expound themselves to mean by Host in their Adoration, not the Symbols, or Sacramentum, but rem Sacramenti.] Again, p. 125, 127, 129. — That, supposing the Divine Nature present in any thing, gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein it is present.] [Catholicks grant this as much as he: and doth not himself say several times, That Catholicks condemn the worshipping of a mere creature for Idolatry?] See §. 4. p. 120. — If (saith he) it should be but a mere creature [that I a­dore,] all the World cannot excuse me from Idolatry, and my own Church [he means the Roman] condemns me; all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry. Again; p. 119. It is (saith he) a principle in­disputable among them, [ i. e. Catholicks,] that to give proper divine honour to a creature is Idolatry. Again; p. 126. he saith, — he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church, that the Humane Nature of Christ considered alone, [ i. e. without an Hyposta­tical union to the Divinity,] ought not to have divine honour given to it: [and therefore neither any other creature whatever, that is not Hypostatically united, as none besides It is.] All these, I say, faulty and mistaken in charging the Church of Rome with this species of Idolatry, of worshipping a creature [the Bread] instead of Christ; from which the other Protestants clear it.

§. 32 Lastly, Dr. Hammond, in his Treatise of Idolatry, §. 64. upon supposition that the ignorance or error of Catholicks is grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture, [I add, so expounded to them by the supreme Church-Authority,] seems to charge them rather with a material than a formal Idolatry; which material Idolatry in ma­ny cases is or may be committed without sin; as also material Adultery, and the like. His words are; — That if it be demand­ed, [Page 37]Whether in this case, that their ignorance or error be grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture, this so simple and not gross ignorance may serve for a sufficient antidote to allay the poison of such a sin of material, tho' perhaps in them not formal, Idolatry, &c. because if they were not verily perswaded that it were God, they profess they would never think of worshipping it? — he had no necessity to define and sa­tisfie it, being only to consider what Idolatry is; and not how excusable ignorance or mistake can make it. And indeed Protestant Writers, that will have it to be Idolatry, are concerned to make it such a gentle one, as that the practice thereof, died in, and it neither particular­ly confessed, nor repented of, yet excludes not from Salvation; or else they must damn all those who lived in the visible communion of the Church Catholick for five or six hundred years, by their own confession.

§. 33 9. Mean-while Catholicks willingly grant to Protestants that, for which Daille's Apology of the Reformed Churches, c. 2. p. 98. much contendeth in their behalf: That to Adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord, but Bread; or to 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, so long as the person continues so perswaded: For, Conscientia erronea obli­gat. But then, if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord; neither will the same person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his conscience, and in his not adoring: disobedience to the Churches just commands being no light offence. Neither for the yielding such obedience in general is it necessary that the Churches Sub­jects be absolutely certain of the rightness or lawfulness of the Churches Decrees or Commands: For, thus, the more ignorant in spiritual matters and the things commanded that any person is, the more free and released should he be from all obedience; the contrary of which is true. But sufficient it is even in the stating of judicious Protestant Divines, when writing against Puritans, (see Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 295. n. 3, 4.) that such persons be not absolutely certain that the Churches commands are unjust, and that they do in something demonstratively contradict God's Law: which plain contradiction, if a private person can see it, 'tis strange the Church should not. And as to this particular matter, after the Churches motives of Adoration, that are deliver­ed before, §. 24, &c. well considered, I leave the Reader to judge, whether such a pretended certainty can have any solid ground. It is better indeed to forbear an action, when we are not certain of the [Page]lawfulness thereof, provided that we are certain, that in such for­bearance we do not sin. But thus certain of our not sinning in such forbearance we cannot be, concerning any thing that is en­joyned us by our lawful and Canonical Superiors; whom we are obliged to obey: unless (as hath been said) we are first certain that such their command is unlawful.

And hitherto of this Controversie; where the Two main things that seem worthy to be examined, by any Christian, who in this point seeks satisfaction, are, 1. Whether the Roman Ca­tholick's grounds of believing Christ's Corporal Presence in the Eu­charist, with the Symbols, are solid and true. 2. And next; Whe­ther this Church, for any ones enjoying her Communion, exacts more of him, than the confessing that Christ as present there is also there to be adored: whilst mean-while such person renounceth and de­clares against any adoration, or, if you will, co-adoration of the species, or any other thing whatever there present, with any La­tria or supreme worship, proper or improper, or with any other honour or reverence, save only such an inferior veneration as is exhibited by us to other Holy Things.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.