Four prin­cipal Opini­ons concern­ing the Eu­charist.COncerning the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, there are Four chief Opinions among Chri­stians.

The First, That it is Present to the Worthy or Faithful Re­eciver, in all the Efficacy and Benefits thereof (either as it suf­fer'd, §. 1 or was rais'd again) by a communication to us of Christ's Spirit, whereby we are vivificated, united,1. Virtual Presence. and incorporated into him. Et nullus hic miraculo dandus locus est cum sciamus qua ra­tione Christus Caenae suae adsit, nimirum Spiritu vivificante, spiritualiter & efficaciter, —ut ipsius divinitas possit nos vivificare & in nobis habitare, oportuit corpus ipsius pro nobis frangi in Cruce, &c. at­que hanc fractionem & effusionem fide a nobis apprehendi, ut hac fide insiti corpori ipsius, caro ipsius, sanguis ipsius effecti, possimus fieri participes justitiae & vitae ipsius, atque ita aeternum domicili­um divinitatis.—Spiritus sanctus nos cum Christo conjungens, etiam longissime distantia secundum locum copulat multo arctius & propius quam in uno loco posita conjunguntur. This opinion seems not to put any real or substantial Presence of Christ's very Body and Blood in the Eucharist, or worthy Receiver, but a real participation of all the benefits thereof, by his Spirit communicated to the faith­ful Receiver of the consecrated symbols of his Body.

§. 2 The Second Opinion goes beyond this, or at least seems so (for I must confess I do not well understand it,2. Real Pre­sence, aliquo modo. and we shall look more into it anon) and affirms a real Presence of Christs Body, not only in its vertue, but in its very substance; but in this, not after a natural or carnal, but spiritual, manner; not to all, 1 but only to the worthy Receivers. To them, (i.e.) to their Souls and Spirits, by the susception of Faith, and not to their Mouth or their Body. Again, to them, but not to the symbols at all; or if in some sense to these (as Mr. Hooker, l. 5. s. 67. saith, they re­ally exhibit, but not contain in them, that which with, or by, them God bestoweth), yet not ante usum, or before the act of Re­ceiving. [Page 2] Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae benefi­cium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est & resurrexit, saith Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.24. and these following quota­tions are found in his Instit. l. 4. c. 17. But how these high expres­sions, where he opposes the Zuinglians, agree with those dimi­nutive, where he opposes the Lutheran and Romanist, I know not. Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt, nos Spiritus modo participes faciunt praeterita car­nis & sanguinis mentione. Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dicta fo­rent, carnem ejus vere esse cibum, &c. non habere vitam nisi qui carnem illam manducaverit, &c. Quoe omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus, quin totus [Christus] Spiritu & corpore, nobis adhae­reat.—Then quoting Eph. 5.30. he saith, Apostolus sermonem exclamatione finit; magnum (inquit) istud arcanum! ver. 32. Ex­tremae ergo dementiae fuerit nullam communionem agnoscere cum carne & sanguine Domini, quam tantam esse declarat Apostolus, ut eam admirari quam explicare malit, -nullum locum relinquo huic ca­villo, quasi dum fide percipi Christum dico, intelligentia duntaxat velim concipi.—Manducatio non est fides, sed ex fide consequitur. —panem quem frangimus communio est, &c. neque est quod objiciat quisque, figuratam esse locutionem.—Hoc est Corpus Meum rem sig­nificatam vere exhibet.—Facti participes substantiae ejus, virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione. And of the Lutherans, he saith, Si ita sensum suum explicarent, dum panis porrigitur annexam esse exhibitionem corporis quia insepera­bilis est a signo suo veritas, non valde pugnarem. §. 24. In answer to those who objected, Se rationi humanae ita addictum esse, ut nihilo plus tribuat Dei potentiae (in the matter of the Eucharist) quam naturae ordo patitur & dictat communis sensus, he saith, Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior, vel naturae le­gibus subjicio. — Humanae rationi nihilo magis placebit (that which he affirms) penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit alimentum-In his paucis verbis (i. e. of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as he states it), qui non sentit multa subesse miracula, plusquam stu­pidus est; quando, — nihil magis incredibile, quod res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac rimotas in tanta locorum distantia non tantum conjungi, sed uniri, ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi. See the place in him,—Porro de modo si quis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vel meo ingenio com­prehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat. I cannot but ask here (tho I digress), seeing this great Doctor of the Reformation in such [Page 3]a good mood, what if any should say, Christs Body, presently after Consecration, is with the Symbols after the same inexplicative and miraculous manner, as he makes it with the Soul, and so toge­ther with them is receiv'd from the Priest? (See what he himself saith favourable to this, in that place quoted before,—Si ita sensum suum, &c. quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas,—And §. 33. Atque haec est Sacramenti integritas, quam violare totus mun­dus non potest, carnem & sanguinem Christi non minus vere dar [...] indignis, quam electis Dei fidelibus: simul tamen verum est, non secus atque pluvia super duram rupem decidens, effluit, &c. And before, Aliud est offerri, aliud recipi,— I ask, Are the Bread and Christ's Body offer'd apart? Why not together? And if they be together when Offer'd, why not together before?) What can he reply from any argument of Sense or Reason against it? Will he plead a possibility of Christ's Body being really present to one definite substance in such a place (namely, the Soul); and an im­possibility of its presence to another substance, the Bread or Wine? Or, himself thus granting it in general present after an inexplicative or inconceivable manner; if any other should name some particular way unexplicative (i. e. fully), how can he pos­sibly disprove it by any way of Reason, since he grants this matter above it (now 'tis granted by him above it, because implying in it something which to Reason seems, but which is not contradictory) but only by God's Word and plain Reve­lation? As for example, If he can shew the Scriptures some­where to say, That Christ's Body is there present, but not join'd with the Signs.

2 I might add to these of Calvin, 2 the Confession of Beza and others, when they were desirous to accord the matter with the Lutherans (which you will find quoted by Bishop Forbes, Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s. 13. related by Hospin. Hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251. Fatemur in Caena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii Hominis substantiam, ipsam inquit veram car­nem, &c. & verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat, aut symbolice, typice, proponi tanquam absen­tis memoriam, sed vere ac certo representari, 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. Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa, (i.e.) verum corpus & verus [Page 4]sanguis Domini cum symbolis copulatur, dicimus esse symbolicum, sive sacramentalem, sacramentalem autem modum vocamus, non qui sit sigurativus 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 pits & doctis fratribus controversiae est, non de re ipsa, sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat, qui soli Deo cognitus est, & a nobis creditur, di­sceptare &c. Hold they not here the presence of Christ's body cum symbolis? Lastly Mr. Hooker, 5. l. 67. sect. affirms even of the Sacramentaries and the first opinion, that those who read their books, shall find; that they grant the holy mysteries instru­mentally both to make us partakers of that grace of that body and blood which was given for the life of the world; and besides also to impart unto us in true and real, tho mystical, manner, the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire. Thus much now of the second opinion, to which I shall return by and by.

§. III The 3d. opinion goes yet farther than the second, and (moved by the expressions partly of Scriptures,3. Real pre­sence with the symbols by Consub­stantiation. ['tis said that Luther Epist. ad Argentinenses acknowledges se valde propensum fuisse in eam sententiam, quae in Eucharistia nihil praeter panem agnoscit, & conatum totis viribus hoc asserere, sed non potuisse satisfacere Scripturis quae contra objiciebantur,] comparing Matt. 26.26. and 1 Cor. 11.24. &c with 1 Cor. 11.26, 27. [eateth this bread,] partly also of the Fathers, who many times also call it bread after consecration,) affirms a real presence of Christ's body with or under the signs; meaning by them, the substances of the bread and wine still remaining after consecration. Making (if we take the mode­ratest stating thereof; for see what Cassander consult. art. 10 p. 81. quotes Melancthon and some others, at some time before the re­formed opinion, to have held; Asserimus cum Christo Domino corpus Christi non modo esse in, cum, sub pane, sed quod panis sit cor­pus Christi ipsum, itaque unum cum ipso praedicatione identica;) the meaning of [hoc est corpus meum] to be, not hic panis manens adhuc panis, ipse etiam est corpus meum; but, hoc, quod continetur sub pane consecrato, est corpus meum; making the article [hoc] sup­ponere confuse (to use Bellarmin's termes) pro eo quod continetur sub pane; as the 4th opinion makes it supponere confuse, pro eo quod con­tinetur sub speciebus: and to shew the understanding of those [Page 5]words [Hoc est corpus meum] after this manner to be very proper, they exemplify in some like ordinary phrases. So, de dolio vini re­cte dicimus, hoc est vinum, speaking only of the thing contained; so, de marsupio pleno pecuniis recte dicitur, hae sunt pecuniae: so, de­monstrando vestes sub quibus est Petrus, we say, hoc, or hic est Pe­trus. Nam abstrahentium non est mendacium.

Now some hold this conjunction of Christ's body with the ele­ments ante usum in mensa, presently after consecration; others (perhaps the better to avoid pretences of adoration, or of reserva­tion of the Sacrament) only in the use and act of receiving in ore fidelium. Again some (to make this presence seem more certain, and more conceivable) holding an ubiquity of Christ's body; not only a presence then and there, but always every where, by reason of its hypostatical union to the ubiquitary Deity; only (lest we may say, we receive it as well (then) in all other bread) stating, that tho it is ubique, yet non posse ubique capi, sed solum in ea re quam Christus ad hoc instituit.

§. IV The fourth opinion yet transcends this (except in the point of ubiquity,) and affirms the real presence of Christ's body with, 4. Real pre­sence with the symbols, by Transub­stantiation. or under the signs, meaning by them only the accidents, or properties, or all that is any way to be perceived by sight or any other sense, of the bread and the wine; which accidents they affirm still to re­main, but holding from the most proper sense (as to them seems) of the solemn words of the Institution, Hoc est corpus meum &c, a Conversion of the substance of them into the body and blood of our Saviour; conversio totius substantiae: Conc. Trid. sess. 13.4. c. Which seems to be so punctually expressed, because (of those who all held Christ's corporal presence) some there were, that held the substantial form of bread changed, but not the matter; others the matter, but not the form: others again that held no total substan­tial conversion of the bread at all, but an impanation or hypostatical union of Christ with the bread, whereby it became his body, (cor­pus Christi non carneum but panaceum,) such as there was with the humane nature in his incarnation; saying, panem a Christo fieri corpus suum, non mutando vel destruendo panem, sed assumendo ad per­sonam suam. Now this conversion of the substance was thought fit in latter times to be expressed by the word Transubstantiation, as a diminutive to conversion. For whereas conversion of the bread might be understood either of it with all its properties and accidents, or only of the substance thereof, and not of the rest, [Page 6]therefore to express this distinctively, the word Transubstantiation was used. Primi authores hujus sententiae finxerunt conversionem physicam simplicem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi, quam posteriores Romani & Scholastici defendere ut possint, manentibus accidentibus panis & vini, commenti sunt [...] seu Transubstan­tiationem. Casp. Peucerus hist. pag. 527. Compare with Transub­stantiation that expression of the Greeks in their answer to Clau­dius Cardinal of Guise: [Credimus panem in Christi corpus &c ita mutari, ut neque panis neque substantiae ipsius accidentia maneant, sed in divinam substantiam transelemententur,] and Transubstanti­ation saith the least of the two. But here note, that tho Coun­cils have defined a conversion of the whole substance, yet since such a conversion there may be many several ways, (see those reckon'd up in Field Append. to 3. lib. 17. cap.) the particular manner they have no way determined, and the Roman Doctors remain in their opinions divided. Fatemur, saith Dr. Holden de resol. fid. 2. l. 4 c. hujusmodi supernaturalis conversionis substantia­lis modum nos penitus latere &c. and Bellar. in his recognit: lib. Euchar. after his discoursing of conversion adductive and produ­ctive &c, concludes: —Quicquid sit de modis loquendi, illud te­nendum est, conversionem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Do­mini esse substantialem, sed arcanam, & ineffabilem, & nullis natu­ralibus conversionibus per omnia similem &c. Whilst the third opinion therefore interprets our Saviour's words of the Institu­tion thus, Hic panis continet sub se corpus meum, or, hoc quod continetur sub pane est corpus meum; the 4th saith, Hic panis per conversionem est, or fit, corpus meum, or, hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus meum: the one holding the substance of the bread to be transient, the other permanent.

§ V But first here note, 1. That both this third and fourth opinion hold an oral reception,Observati­ons touching These opini­ons. by all communicants, even the unworthy, (according to 1 Cor. 11.27, 29.) of the very body and blood of Christ, tho by the last not at all to their benefit, but greater con­demnation. Which I note here, to shew that no complaint upon this account can be raised against the fourth opinion,Obs. 1 which may not be as justly against the third.

§ VI 2. Note 2ly, concerning the 4th opinion, that tho it makes the whole compositum ex materia & forma to be changed,Obs. 2 yet not so the whole aggregatum ex subjecto & accidente; 1 and tho it makes [Page 7]the thing signified really present, yet it (as well as the other opini­ons) allows a sign not only of the inward grace and spiritual nou­rishment of the soul obtained thereby, but also of Christ's body re­maining after consecration distinct from the thing signified; name­ly, all that of the bread and wine which is perceived by sense. But so, that under this sign is contained the thing signified, it be­ing figura non nuda, sed veritati suae & substantiae conjuncta, signum rei praesentis, sed rei invisibilis, (lest any should think the sign need­less.) Hence the Church-hymn, allow'd and recommended by Dr. Taylor, p. 331. Sub duabus speciebus▪ signis tantum & non rebus, latent res eximiae; Conc. Trid. 13. sess. 3. c. saith, Hoc esse commu­ne Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis, ut sit symbolum rei sacrae, & visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae, by which forma visibilis (as Bell. ex­pounds it 4. l. 6. c.) is meant the species of the elements, not the body of Christ. So Bell. Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrati­onem species panis & vini sunt signa corporis & sanguinis Christi, ibi revera existentium: and 3. l. 22. c. Accidentia remanent, quia si eti­am accidentia abessent, nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile; proinde nullum esset Sacramentum. So Estius: 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, where he saith; Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus, terrena & coelesti compositam esse: and S. Gregory's; In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari, terrena coelestibus jungi; unum ex visibilibus & invisibilibus fieri.

2 Nay further they allow, that these appurtenances of bread may have in some sense (in reference to former matter contained un­der them, and in as much as still substantiae ipsius omnem operationem retinent,) and have often had, the name of the substance, granting them to be called so after consecration by the Fathers, (hence they reject not that expression of St. Austin, Panem consumi comedendo,) by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27; nay, by our Saviour, Mat. 26.29. Mar. 14.25. Of these signs they predicate many things, which they allow by no means to be said of Christ's body; and ordinarily the same things of these accidents of bread, which the 3d. opinion saith of the substance: See Blondel acknowledging this p. 215. so sapere, digeri, nutrire, comfortare corporaliter &c they apply to these accidents, affirming singulari miraculo tam operationes panis &c quam proprietates subsistere & conservari absque natura. And to Theodoret and some other Fathers, that say, after consecration the [Page 8] nature of Bread remains, they grant thus far, naturales vires & proprietates remanere, and think this sufficiently clears the Fa­thers meaning. Now what is this but tantum non to affirm con­substantiation, and close in with the 3d. opinion? (which me­thinks much reflects upon those who, very charitable to the one, maintain so great a feud against the other). So frangi dentibus, digeri, comburi, rodi a brutis animalibus, and whatever other things may be nam'd (excepting only those attributes which in­dicate the presence of Christ's Body to or with the species, whilst integrae) all, or at least the more modest of them (no Council having decided any thing in this matter) apply only to the accidents, not to Christ's Body. Bellarmin (who, bolder than some others, useth some expressions of Christ's Body being ca­pable of such things per accidens, improprie, in specie aliena) saith, Christus vere in Sacramento existit, sed nullo modo laedi po­test, non cadit in terram, non teritur, non roditur, non putrescit, non crematur, illa enim in speciebus istis recipiuntur, sed Christum non afficiunt; licet species ipsae sint conjunctae cum Christo, Euch. l. 3. c. 10. and the conclusion of that Chapter is, in propria spe­cie Christus haec pati non potest. And good reason to say this, because these accidents are held ad suppositum Christi non perti­nere, neque in illo inhaerere; see Estius Sent. 4. Dist. 9. Sect. 3. Ob. 4. and Bishop Forbes de Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s. 9. Now in affirm­ing of Christ's Presence to them in some abuses of these Signs, (tho since his Body is voluntarily present, & sine ulla sui laesione desinit esse, sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat, whether it may not in such cases be withdrawn, I think none can say, and the Roman Doctors are divided about it. See Forb. Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s. 9. Blon. p. 212. yet) I see no great cause of offence, since as the Cardinal well saith in the same Chapter, ipsa divinitas nonne ubique est praesens, & tamen non sordescit in sordibus, non crematur in flammis, nec putrescit in putrescentibus rebus.

3 Again, 3 as these species are acknowledged by them Signs of the Body, in one sense present, so of the Body in another ac­ception, or mode not present; namely a Memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ, as it was broken and shed upon the Cross, Signa corporis Christi ut sacramentaliter praesentis; & signa Cor­poris Christi ut in cruce immolati. Thus they are called a Me­morial or a Representation of the Passion, in the Scripture-phrase; see 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. and therefore may be also in the Church's. In which respect also the Fourth Opinion allows the name of [Page 9] type, antitype, similitude▪ figure, &c. not only before, but after Conse­cration proper to them. Veteres quando hoc sacramentum dicunt signum esse & figuram, non negant ibi esse verum Christi corpus, sed intelligunt non ibi esse in propria specie, sc. ut conversans in mundo, patiens in cruce. Nay yet farther they say, ipsum corpus & sanguis Domini, ut sunt sub illis speciebus, signa sunt ejusdem corporis & sanguinis ut fuerunt in cruce. For Eucharistiam (take it for the signum & signatum, which signatum is invisible in the Eu­charist, both together) they hold to be signum, symbolum, represen­tationem, memoriale, typum, &c. mortis seu passionis Christi; seu carnis & sanguinis, ut illa suffixa, ille effusus est visibiliter in cru­ce: For Corpus Christi ut sub speciebus panis. (being idem quoad substantiam, but not idem quoad qualitatem, nor eo modo in Eu­charistia quo fuit in cruce) non est vere, sed representative cor­pus in cruce. And this it is also by reason of the visible species, since it self not perceivable cannot be representative.

4 And this which they say here, methinks, seems not unreasonable (by which also they accord many sayings of the Fathers, which else would contradict what the same Fa­thers say in other places, which Dr. Taylor, p. 311. passeth over with saying, 'tis their fault or forgetfulness) notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor hath said against it, p. 317, &c. where he first urgeth, that idem non est simile. Resp. but tho these are suppos'd idem in substance, yet in all the qualities and modifications there­of, as Dr. Taylor himself grants, p. 20. the same Body to be crucified and eaten in several manners of being. And what more ordinary than for a Body or Man at one time to be said to be like or un­like what he was at some other time? Secondly, If I well un­derstand him, he urges the absurdity of making an invisible and glorified Body, the sign of a visible and humbled. Resp. But they making the Body, as in the Eucharist, a sign or representment of it as upon the Cross, do not divide or abstract it from the spe­cies of Bread, as he doth; (for indeed how can a thing invisible be a sign in respect of Men, who discern all by their Senses; and indeed none can know when such a sign is, or is not), but say, Corpus, as Sacramentally present, sub illis speciebus, is a sign or symbol of it, as it was once upon the Cross. Secondly, Tho they say the Body in the Sacrament is the same with that glorified, yet is it not in the Sacrament, but only in Heaven, as glorified; see Dr. Taylor, p. 20. Now, I say, why not as well the manner se­veral from what it is in Heaven, as from what it was on the [Page 10]Cross? But however this be concerning the Body of Christ be­ing a type, figure, or symbol of it self; I think the fourth Opi­nion is no more necessitated, in answer to the Fathers, to affirm any such thing, than the second or the third; since these expres­sions of the Fathers are in shew arguments (and are so used by the first Opinion) against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament [see Dr. Taylor, p. 319. The Sacramental Body is a figure and type of the Real], which Real Presence both the 2d. and 3d. Opinions maintain. And if here you say, they are good arguments against real Presence with the Signs, but not with the Receiver; This seems to me to be said gratis, and without rea­son, since the real Body is no less invisible, if with the Signs, than if with the Receiver only; and we usually say, that some­thing we see, is a Sign of the Presence of another thing we see not, tho they be both together; as Breathing is a Sign of Life, Smoke of Fire present, tho not seen: the same may be said of Similitude; as a Vizard, resembling a Face, may be truly said a Similitude, when the Face is under it.

5. But if the 2 d. and third Opinions, notwithstanding that both of them hold Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist, ordi­narily say of the Bread and Wine, that they are Signs and Fi­gures, both of the Body as then present, and also of it as it was formerly on the Cross; and thus satisfy the Fathers (tho the first Opinion denies they satisfie them); the same thing saith the fourth Opinion of the species of the Bread and Wine, re­maining, that they are symbols, figures, &c. which species they affirm singulari miraculo to have, as all the operations and pro­prieties, so much more all the significations of the Bread and Wine. And because Dr. Taylor instanceth in some sayings of St. Austin, of the Sacrament being signum Corporis, &c. to which he disalloweth their answers, and saith, p. 310. That it is so evi­dent, that that Father was a Protestant in this Article, that it were a strange boldness to deny it; and upon equal terms no man's mind in the world can be known: Yet things, I believe, out of that Father will not be so clear for his side, as is pretended, if first he will grant, that St. Austin held (as much as himself doth, or at least as others of the second Opinion) Real Presence; and secondly, if such expressions (as these which follow in St. Austin will prove, that he held this real Presence of Christ's Body with the elements or signs; namely, that saying Conf. l. 9. c. 13. Tantum memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit; unde [Page 11]ex quo altari] sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis, qua triumphatus est hostis &c. and that saying Conf. 9. l. 12. c. where he saith of the conse­crated elements or Eucharist; cum offeretur pro ea, posito cadavere juxta sepulchrum, sacrificium pretii nostri:— which he saith of the Eucharist before communicating, but surely would not say but of Christ's body, not of bare bread. And that saying contra adversa­rium Legis & Prophet. 2. l. 9. c. where writing against an Heretick that denied, and urged many absurdities in the Old Testament, he saith, Eat plane iste retro cum suis similibus sociis, qui dixerunt, Durus est hic sermo, &c. Jo. 6. Nos autem audiamus & intelliga­mus duo Testamenta in duobus filiis Abrahae &c. —Sicut Media­torem Dei & hominum, hominem Christum Jesum dantem carnem suam nobis manducandam, sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus, quamvis horribilius videatur, humanam carnem manducare, quam perimere, & humanum sanguinem potare, quam fundere. And elsewhere; Adhuc in Sacramento spes est, quo in hoc tempore (i.e. till the day of judgment) consociatur Ecclesia, quamdiu bibitur quod de Christi latere manavit. — Contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. See the places quoted p. concerning Christ's body received also by the wicked.— Lastly, that saying in comment. Psal. 98. (with the Reformed, 99.) upon those words 5. ver. Adorate scabellum ejus, which we translate, Worship at his footstool, where alluding to terra scabellum pedum meorum, Isa. 66. he goes on; Invenio, quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra scabellum pedum ejus, susce­pit enim [Christus] de terra terram; quia caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae accepit carnem; & quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit & ipsam carnem jam manducandam nobis ad salutem dedit, nemo autem carnem illam manducat, nisi prius adoraverit, inventum est quem-admodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domim; ut non solum non peccemus adorando, sed non adorando peccemus. [Which matter some think he borrowed from S. Ambrose upon the same Psalm and text de Spiritu Sancto, 3. l. 12. c. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus. Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur- per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt.] Like to this are many other sayings of S. Austin. Psal. 48.33. —21. And Ep. 120. ad Honorat. 27. c. expounding that in 21. Psal. 29. v. Manducaverunt & adorave­runt omnes divites terrae, he saith, & ipsi [divites] (per divites terrae, saith he before, hoc loco superbi intelligendi sunt,) adducti sunt ad mensam Domini, & accipiunt de corpore & sanguine ejus, [Page 12]sed adorant tantum: non etiam saturantur, (alluding to 26. v. edent pauperes, i. e. humiles, saith he, & saturabuntur,) quia non imi­tantur. Here he saith, the wicked do adorare that which they receive de mensa Domini; but tis certain they may not adore any thing else, however consecrated or sanctified, or whatever it re­present, but only the real body and blood of Christ. [But of A­deration more fully afterward.] In which sayings of his we find the real body of Christ in mensa, in altari, in ore manducantium, (not only in corde,) in the oblation (which was before communi­cating) adored before manducation; and therefore I think tis plain, as S. Austin held with the second opinion the real presence of Christ, so with the 3d and 4th opinion the real presence in mensa or Altari with the elements, or the signs. Now, I say, if these two things be granted once, I do not see what thing that Father can say in any place, of the bread and wine being symbols, figures, &c, of Christ's passion, or of Christ's body that was crucified; &c, which thing the 4th opinion may not say of the species of the bread or wine being so. Thus much of the 2d note, that the 4th opinion, as well as the other, after consecra­tion makes a sign remaining, and distinct from the thing signi­fied, of which signs many things are predicated, which cannot be so of Christ's body.

§ VII 3. Note 3ly, in comparng the two last opinions together, That some at least of the defenders of the 4th opinion reject the third as contrary to the Scripture and reason,Obs. 3 1. by supposing a sense in it, which the third, I mean the moderater party thereof, doth not own; whereas, their sense well understood, their difference seems not so great. For thus Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 19. c. ar­gues against it: Hic panis triticeus non est corpus Domini, (but who is there saith it is?) fieri enim non potest, ut una res non mu­tetur, & tamen fiat alia, esset enim ipsa, & non esset ipsa: but at last, when he takes into consideration the instance whereby the third opinion explains it self; that, as of a barrel of wine we say, Hoc est vinum; so we say not of the bread, but that contained under it, Hoc est corpus Domini, (even as the fourth opinion saith, Hoc est corpus Domini, of that which is contained under the species of bread.) He hath little to say against their tenent, in respect of the expression of Scripture, or evidence of reason, his arguments from which (3. l. 22. c.) seem of little moment, but (see the end of 19. c.) flies to this ward; licet in verbis Domini [Page 13]esset aliqua ambiguitas, tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Eccle­siae & consensum Patrum. And so do many of the Schoolmen; see the quotations in Blondel de Euchar. 12. cap. and cocerning this proposition, Potuisse Deum efficere ut in Sacramento vere adesset corpus Christi cum pane, & si hoc fecisset mysterium, futurum fuisse facilius & minus miraculorum in se continens. Bellarmin saith, Aliqui negant, alii concedunt; res ad fidem non pertinet, (i. e. of the possibility of this,) neque de eo est nobis cum haereticis contro­versia. de Euchar. 3. l. 23. c.

2. Indeed the difference is not much, when as one saith, hoc est corpus meum quod continetur sub accidentibus panis; the other, hoc quod continetur sub substantia panis, (of which the former men grant a possibility;) and when as the fourth opinion denies panis to remain after consecration, not because corpus Domini cannot possibly be sub pane, which the third opinion affirms, but because panis cannot be corpus Domini, in which the third opinion a­grees with them: yet corpus Domini sub pane, the fourth opinion admits not, the better to accord with Antiquity, who affirm the bread consecrated to be, to be made, to be changed into, Christ's bo­dy, which mutation of it into another, they think cannot consist with its being the same as it was before; but the bread remain­ing as formerly, only Christ's body now with, or under it, tho it may be thought to suit well with the words of Institution, yet they canceive agrees not so well with those expressions of the Fathers; this interpretation arguing a change indeed about the bread, but not a change indeed of the bread: and perhaps I may say, to follow the closer the words of Institution, of which, tho the Lutheran sense be not improper, as is shewed in the for­mer instances, yet the sense that the fourth opinion gives of them, tho perhaps encountring more difficulties, seems more proper: whilst in it the article Hoc no way includes or involves any o­ther substance besides corpus meum. As we may say, it would al­so be yet more proper, if the article Hoc no way involved any foreign accidents, (as in the sense of the fourth opinion it doth,) but those belonging to our Saviour's body. So, to say hoc est vi­num, is more proper when tis covered with no other substance or accidents but its own, than when tis said so of it hid within a bar­rel or other vessel.

3. Thus much of the distance between the third and fourth o­pinion. As for some incommodious explications and expressions used by some of the third opinion; as that of the ubiquity of the [Page 14]Manhood by reason of its union with the Deity, with which the Lutheran opinion hath no need to defend its self against the Tran­substantialist, who grants a possibility of Christ's bodily presence; and that, of the bread's being properly called Christ's body in the words of Institution, from the bread's being united with it, be­cause the Son of God is properly called man from the union of the Humanity and Deity in the person of Christ; as they are liable to much exception, so are they unnecessary, since the third opinion is justifiable without them.

§. VIII Observe in the 4th place, concerning the last opinions; that, for the manner of Christ's real presence with the signs,Obs. 4 they are not so gross as some apprehend, or represent them: for they both of them hold Christ's body not to be there physica or locali (i. e.) ad modum corporum sensibili praesentia, or inclusione. 1. Thus saith Conc. Trid. sess. 13.1. c. Neque enim haec interse pugnant; juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assid [...]re ad dextram Patris, & nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem sacramentaliter, ea existendi ratione, quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogitatione per fidem illustrata, assequi possumus. &c. Bellarm. de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 3. l. 5. c. 10. c. and elsewhere in that treatise. Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco, vel ut in vase, aut quod sub aliquo velo, sed eo modo ut panis prius; sed non ita ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi subtantiae; 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 we understand this word to exclude, not naturam, but modum corporis. See many like expressions concerning it quoted by Blond. 10. c. p. 321. out of Romanists. That nothing belonging formerly to the substance of the bread &c can be attributed to it; as to be white, round, &c, but only words that signifie its presence, as contineri, ma­nere sub speciebus, sumi in Eucharistia, ore recipi, &c. Dr. Holden p. 316. Verum & reale corpus Christi profitemur esse in hoc Sacra­mento, non more corporeo & passibili, sed Spirituali & invisibili, nobis omnino incognito. Spirituli, i. as opposed to corporali, but by no means as opposed to reali, which neither the second opinion will tolerate: therefore that 8th Canon Conc. Trid. sess. 13. [Siquis dixerit Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum spiritualiter tantum man­ducari, & non etiam sacramentaliter, & realiter, anathema sit,] by the second opinion cannot be censured.

[Page 15]2. The same expressions the Lutherans have (which you may find in the pacifick Discourses of Bishop Davenant, Morton, Hall, &c, (see Davenant adhort. ad pacem Eccles. cap. 11.) lessening the difference between the several parties of the Reformed, but by the same reason may be also urg'd as lessening that between the Reformed and Romanist) Christum adesse signis; but invisibiliter, intangibiliter, &c. Again (about oral manducation), recipi quidem ore &c. Therefore do they as others detest the Capernaitan error.

3. See what Bishop Forbes saith de Euchar. 1. l. 28. s. Nemo sanae mentis &c. Urg'd in Discourse concerning the Rubric of the Eng. Lit. §. 48. Hear likewise what Bellarmin confesseth in re­cogn. operum, p. 81. (upon some men disallowing his conversion not productive, but adductive; saying, non esse vere conversionem sed translocationem, which Dr. Taylor also presseth p. 269.) namely, Quod conversio & transubstantiatio pertineant ad panem, non ad corpus Christi; Quod corpus Christi nec translocari dici potest, cum neque deserat locum suum in coelo, neque incipiat esse sub speciebus, ut in loco, sed ut substantia sub accidentibus, remota tamen inhaerentia. —Quod per consecrationem Eucharistiae non producatur de novo, sed praexistat &c. — Sed quicquid sit de modis loquendi, illud tenendum est, Conversionem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi esse substantialem, sed arcanam & ineffabilem, & nullis naturalibus con­versionibus per omnia similem, & quam solus Deus facere potest, qui solus in totam entis naturam absolutam potestatem habet. And if we may believe Dr. Tailor, (in the place sorequoted, p. 269.270. and see the same in Blondel, p. 197. &c.) that, by conversion or Transubstantiation the Romanists mean only a local succession of Christ's body into the place of bread, and nothing to be produced but a new ubi or presentiality, whilst it is only made present where it was not before, (a thing which, excepting that clause [into the place of bread] himself cannot deny, unless he saith, Christ is no more really present in the time of the Sacrament, than out of it) tho perhaps some terms may seem to be used unproper­ly, yet the difference and cause of offence is made still less: it being then only about the place of the presence of Christ's body; for as for annihilation or ceasing to be of the bread, this is grant­ed possible to be done, and if not done, an error no way dange­rous.

4 Those therefore who dispute against the two last Opini­ons, as professing such gross things (as I have shewed above) they expresly reject, beat the Air, and have no Adversary, at least [Page 16]not Councils; nor the moderater and modester party of their Writers, with whose Concessions only, the desirous of Christ's Peace ought to debate matters of difference; but if they say such gross things follow naturally from their profess'd Tenents, tho these Consequences be denied and renounc'd by them; here, to preserve their Charity towards the Defenders of the Fourth Opinion, I must put them in mind of that Rule which Daille hath so much enlarg'd upon (in his Apology for the Separation of the Reform'd Churches from that of Rome, printed in English, c. 9. and in his Letter to Monsieur de Monglat, in Answer to Chaumonts Remarks upon his Apology, p. 15, 16. and in his Con­siderations upon Chaumonts Reply, p. 31, &c.) to preserve Cha­rity towards the Defenders (being Brethren of the Reforma­on) of the Third Opinion. He in these places saith, That, tho Adoration of the Sacrament should necessarily follow from the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's Presence with the Signs (as Bishop Morton saith it doth, De Pace Eccl. p. 9.); again, Tho a De­struction of the Human Nature of Christ necessarily follows from the Lutheran Tenent of the Ubiquity thereof (as he himself confesseth it doth); again, Tho the Destruction of the Trinity of Persons should necessarily follow from the Tenent of the Greek Church, denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son (as he quotes many of the Schoolmen to affirm it doth) yet, since these opinions destroy, or oppugn to, such prin­ciples or Fundamentals (for the destruction of which only (see his c. 7.) a Separation of Communion may be made), par ses suittes, & non par ses theses: c' est a dire qu' elle induit cette ruine, mais ne la pose pas. And since such men still hold the Principle, and utterly deny and renounce such a Consequent of their error (he saith) none ought to impose or impute such a Consequence unto them; or for it separate from their Commu­nion. Neither may one (then) impose upon the Fourth Opi­nion the Consequential Contradictons or Absurdities thereof; or for these Desert their Communion. But of this Rule of Daille's more anon, when we come to Adoration.

§. IX 5. Note in the fifth place for the Third and Fourth Opinion; That,Obs. 5 since they affirm from pretended sense of Scriptures, such as Mat. 26.26. 1 Cor. 10.16.—11.27, 29. Eph. 5.30, 32,1 &c. whe­ther that (which is oppos'd to qualifie these Texts) 1 Cor. 11.27, 28. be taken only for all the sensibilia of Bread, as the Fourth; [Page 17]or also for the substance of Bread remaining together with Christ's Body, as the Third Opinion will have it; the Mystery of the Sacrament to be Miraculous and Supernatural, and In­comprehensible (which also the Second Opinion pretends to hold) no Arguments drawn from Sense, or natural Reason, or also from any Rules of Contradiction, can be of any force to confute them.

2 For first, for the matter of Sense, they affirm it not to be deceiv'd at all, but truly to discern its proper object; every thing sensible in the Eucharist remaining after Consecration, as before it; and the Presence of Christ's Body (whatever it is there) being invisible, intangible, &c. As for that Argument ordinarily made against the Fourth Opinion, from the position of the Ac­cidents, which are discern'd by sense, to the position of the Sub­stance, which in the ordinary course of Nature they accompany (as, It hath the usual colour, taste, &c. of Bread, therefore it is Bread:) 'tis granted good, where intervenes no supernatural or miraculous effect, reveal'd unto us by the Scriptures. Good there­fore was that Argument of our Saviours, Lu. 24.39. Handle one, and see, &c. And that of the Apostle, 1 Jo. 1.1. That which we have heard, which we have seen, &c. Good, that of the Fa­thers from these and such-like places, against the Marcionites, to prove, Christ had no phantastical, but a true Body; and Good still, tho the Marcionites had pretended a Miracle: because such pretended Miracle was not provable from Scripture, but the plain contrary, as appears in the forequoted Texts. But such Argu­ment were not good, if one should argue from the outward ap­pearance, touch, &c. that the Angels, that came and talk'd, and eat and drank with Abraham, and also led Lot out of Sodom, were Men: because the Scripture hath told us they were An­gels. In which cases it consists well (notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith, p. 169.) with the Justice and Goodness of God, to be angry with us for believing our Senses, or our Reason, whenever he makes known to us such Mysteries contrary to the ordinary experience of Nature.

3 But then you will say, the Scripture hath reveal'd unto us no miraculous or supernatural effect in the Eucharist, and there­fore an Argument from our Senses here stands good. The Third and Fourth Opinion contend mainly, that it hath. You see then, till this is decided (of which anon) no Argument from Senses is to be heard; and after this is clear'd, it needs not [Page 18]be urg'd. The same which is said of Arguments from Sense, may be said of Arguments from seeming Contradiction. For tho this Proposition be willingly granted, That whatever truly contradicts cannot be effected Potentia Divina; (not natu­rally, nor supernaturally;) so that there is no place of pleading to make two contradictories good, by urging Miracle: Yet this general Rule is utterly useless to us in any particular Contro­versie, unless we know first what things truly contradict. Now a contradiction is only when the same thing is denied of, or remo­ved from it self, as this, [a Man is not a Man] or this [a Man is white and not white], where the formal contradiction being resolv'd, is, [whiteness is not whiteness]. Now such plain ap­parent contradictions, none, having the use of Reason, will make or maintain; it being one of the primest principles of Reason, Impossible est idem esse & non esse. Therefore where we find Contradictions in terminis (a thing not unusual with Orators, to make the acuter expression) these terms are taken in several senses, by those who propose them; one term not signifying the formal essence of the thing. So those Contradictions in ter­minis observ'd by Dr. Taylor p. 14, 15. to the Roman party [as corpus incorporeum, cruor incruentus,] if the terms be took in se­veral acceptations, will be no formal Contradictions; as if cruor be taken for the substance of Blood, incruentus for the colour and other accidents usually accompanying, but (as the Propo­nents suppose) possibly separable from, the substance. So, if corpus be taken for the substance of a Body, and incorporeum for exten­sion in a place, &c. which the Proponents conceive not essential, but accidental, to a Body: else, if corpus incorporeum taken in any sense be a Contradiction, so will the Apostle's corpus spirituale be; for in the predicament of substance, incorporeum and spirituale are made the same.

4 But tho not plain and formal Contradictions, yet virtual, I grant, many may and do make, whilst they take those things to be diverse, which are the same: as if quantum or extensum be the same with corpus; or rather, extensio with corporeitas (as Rivet affirms it is, but the Romanist denies) then corpus non-extensum will be a Contradiction. To know then, what truly contradicts, and so is Potentia Divina unfaisible, or unseparable, we must know exactly, what things are the same, what diffe­rent.

[Page 19]1. First, we must perfectly discern all the accidents of any thing from the essence of it, not only what accidents are ordinari­ly separated, (for this will have no place where a supernatural ef­fect is urged,) but what are potentia divina separable. For that all things separable are actually in the course of nature separated; or that every thing not essential is sometimes locally disjoyned from the essence; or that nothing can be done by miracle, which nature never worketh; who can justify? Now by what means any can know this, I much wonder.

2. Secondly, since the Essence also of all creatures is composit, not simple, we must discern all the parts of its essence one from ano­ther, and then know in which of those essentials or constitutives the essence of the thing more chiefly consists; so that this re­moved, the name of the thing can be no longer retained. For note, that a thing may be said to be the same still, even tho some part of the essence thereof be changed, or removed; if that where­in it more formally consists, still abides; as a man or a ship is still the same, tho much of the matter of both of them be altered. Now if these things no man can exactly know, then to say, all things are possible to God except what contradicts, is as much as to say; Every particular thing that can be named to us, is, for a­ny thing we know, (without revelation to the contrary), to God possible. Methinks some such thing appears from Dr. Tailor's concession, p. 240. ‘Let it appear that God hath affirm'd Tran­substantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments a­gainst it, and make publick amends.’ (See Disc. conc. Rubric. of the Eng. Lit. §. 20.) Where the Doctor prefers Revelation to all argu­ments against it.

3. Lastly, for the seeming contradictions which are objected by Dr. Taylor p. 207. I see not but that a many of them may be as well urged to disprove the world made of nothing; the resurre­ction to every one of the same body when one is fed on, or feeds on another; the Trinity; or the Incarnation; (for note, that if such are to be accounted no true contradictions, in respect of the Trinity, because this is clearly revealed; neither are they in respect of Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, tho it be not revealed,) nay to disprove the ordinary Philosophical axiom [anima est tota in toto, & tota in qualibet parte,] which soul, if tota in capite, & tota in pede, is consequently tota in two places at once: the same may be said of Angels, and must much more of the simple essence of God, of whom also is believed, that the [Page 20]self same nature is totally in three real distinct persons, yet without any division or multiplication of it self; (miratur hoc mens humana, et quia non capit, fortasse non credit- saith St. Au­gustin, Epistola 3. ad Volus.) but our Saviour also, who never departs from heaven on the right hand of the Father till his se­cond coming to judgment, (Act. 3.21.) yet hath often appeared here on earth to many, several times to St. Paul. A many of them to disprove a Camel's passing thro a needles eye; or our Saviour's body passing thro a door unopened, (for many bodies to be in one place, is as well absurd, as one to be in many;) but especial­ly, the multiplying of the five loaves to feed so many thousands, which doubtles might as well have bin multiplied to feed all the world, at any distance, and this without applying an attribute of God, Ubiquity, to them. See how the Doctor hath prosecuted this business of Ubiquity, p. 214. 217. &c. 231. A many of them to disprove the substantial presence of Christ's body (and not only by the effects, influence, or vertue thereof,) to the soul of the faith­ful receiver, in so many several places, which thing seems to be affirm'd by the second opinion: and the Socinians, Remon­strants, Zuinglians, all that hold only the first opinion, charge such contradictions and absurdities upon the second opinion, as well as those do upon the third and fourth. Now any one con­tradiction found in the second opinion is as irreconcileable to truth, as many; and if there were no seeming contradiction in it, why fly they also to modus ineffabilis & plenus miraculis? (see before p. 3.) And indeed, what can be more contradictious, than for a finite body to be present, not only in its effects, but sub­stance, to another body; and yet not be present there, after any manner of presence, neither of a Body, nor of a Spirit; neither definitively, nor circumscriptively, nor repletively? (See what the Doctor saith to that effect, p. 218.) But if you say tis there modo ineffabili, and think this objection answered by it, then why may not others excuse their seeming contradictory expres­sions by modus ineffabilis? Methinks, setting aside divine reve­lation, for matter of reasoning, those who grant se nescire mo­dum quomodo est praesens, should likewise confess se nescire mo­dum quomodo non est praesens; for if by their reason they compre­hend not the manner, how Christ's body is there, neither can they by their reason discover, but that that particular manner, which they oppose, may be the manner of his being there.

[Page 21] §. X 6ly, Note, that the third opinion denies not the possibility or feisibility of the 4th, but only disputes the fact; Obs. 6 acknow­ledgeth God's power to do it,1. but saith, there is no divine re­velation that shews, that tis his pleasure so to do; therefore the chief blame that is laid by them upon the abettors of the fourth opinion, is, that it, in so much doubt and uncertainty of the manner of Christ's Presence, should be obtruded on the world, prejudicially to the tenents more probable, as an arti­cle of faith. See Harmon. Confession. Judicium Theol. Wirtemb. quoted by Bishop Forbes. Credimus 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 potentiam in Eucharistia exerceat, non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum, & apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum. See Chem­nit. exam. Conc. Trid. de Transub. Sed dicat quis, Quare ita con­tendamus, an substantia panis in Eucharistia vel remaneat, vel non re­maneat, cum thesaurus Eucharistiae sit non panis naturalis &c. sed vera & substantialis praesentia, exhibitio, sumptio corporis & sangui­nis Christi &c? Respondeo. Nullo modo pari momento censemus panem, & corpus Christi. Et Lutherus semper dixit, se in tota hac disputatione magis spectare praesentiam corporis Christi in coena, quam praesentiam panis. Sed quia Transubstantiatio pro articulo fidei sub poena anathematis proponitur, necessario contradicendum est &c. See Bell. Euchar. 3. l. c. 11. In hoc valde distinguuntur Lutherani a Calvinistis; Calvinistae enim Transubstantiationem sceleratam esse haeresin, & rem prorsus impossibilem; Lutherani dicunt esse possibilem, & non pugnare aperte cum fide; unde magis reprehendunt Catholicos, quod Transubstantiationem faciunt articulum fidei, quam quod eam de­fendant.

2. Yet some there are of the second opinion, who dispute not the supernatural possibility of it, (see Calvin de vera Christi­anae pacificationis ratione, joyned to Rivet's animadv. on Grot. 11. c. Quasi vero hic de Christi potentia disputetur,— Rerum omnium con­versionem fieri posse a Christo, nos quoque fatemur.— Quaerendo quianam possit Christus, frustra se fatigant; cum haec una cognitio sensus omnes nostros in se continere debeat, quidnam velit:) and who grant a possibility of many of those particulars maintained by the 4th opinion; as that, the same body may be in many pla­ces; accidents persist without a subject &c. which things some others again make to involve a contradiction. See many testimonies to this purpose numbred up by Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c.

[Page 22]Lastly, Some of the Second Opinion there are, that hold the Fourth Opinion more agreeable to our Saviour's words, than the Third. See Bishop Forb. l. 1. c. 4. s. 5. Longius consubstantia­torum quam Transubstantiatorum sententiam a Christi verbis rece­dere (i. e. I conceive, as they take the Third Opinion to affirm ipsum panem esse corpus Domini, for this seems much more un­reasonable, than, Hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus Domini) sive litera spectetur, sive sensus, affirmat R. Hospin. hist. Sacr. parte altera, p. 7. &c. Calviniani communiter. See Calvin (Instit. l. 4. c. 17. s. 20.) where, speaking of some of the Luthe­rans affirming proprie loquendo panem esse corpus Christi, he argues, that consequently they must say panem esse Christum; because totus Christus offertur in coena; and then concludes, intolerabilis autem Blasphemia est sine figura Praedicari de elemento corruptibili quod sit corpus.—Again (s. 30.) inveighing against Lutherans—Ubi­quity he saith, Papistarum tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est doctrina. And see Judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. 5. s. 67. how indifferently he behaves himself between the two Tenents of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, censuring them both, only as Opinions unnecessary and superfluous, and p. 361. saying of the later (the Transubstantialists) that they justly shun some Laby­rinths of the former (the Consubstantialists) but yet that the way which they take to the same Inn is somewhat more short, but no whit more certain. See likewise Spalat. Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. n. 6. Fateor neque Transubstantiationem neque Ubiquitatem haeresin ullam directe continere, &c.

§. XI 7. Yet even those Reformed, who cry out of the Fourth Opi­nion as Heretical,Obs. 7 Diabolical, Blasphemous, &c. (for such also there are), Seventhly, Observe, That for the most part those of the Second Opinion hold the Third (notwithstanding the near alliance it appears to have with the Fourth) no ways Hereti­cal, or (tho erroneous) destructive of any fundamental or prin­pal Article of Faith (unless by some Consequences renounced by those who hold the Third Opinion) and therefore giving no just cause of any separation of Communion from any such. Cre­dere quod caro Christi ubique est, quod in pane est, & oraliter man­ducetur, idque etiam ab impiis, stipula & palea est, Par. in 1 Cor. 3. See many quotations in Bishop Forb. Euch. l. 1. c. 4. See likewise Daille's Charity in the place, quoted before in the end of the Fourth Observation, p. 16. notwithstanding those dangerous Con­sequences [Page 23]of the Third Opinion, of destroying Christ's Humanity by Ubiquity, and of Adoration by presence with the Elements. See Bishop Hall's, Davenant's, Morton's Discourses De Pace Ec­clesiastica. How far can men bend, when they have a good mind to it? See particularly Bish. Hall, p. 73. Res apud utrosque eadem, &c. At last he brings in the Decree of the Synod of the French Pro­testants at Charenton; in which the Lutherans are receiv'd to their Communion, as agreeing with them in omnibus verae Reli­gionis principiis Articulisque fundamentalibus. See Disc. conc. Rub. of Eng. §. 12. How well therefore the same men can refuse Communion with those of the Fourth Opinion, supposing the falsity thereof, or asperse it with the name of Heresie, &c. I see not; and perhaps the more moderate do not refuse, nor quarrel with it for this: But the thing they blame is Adoration, or the imposing their Transubstantiation on others as an Article of Faith (of which anon): to which pur­pose Daille, in his Answer to the Remarks made by Chaumont on his Apology, p. 20. hath these words (after vindicating Beza and Calvin from holding any real Presence of Christ's Body in the Signs) Mais bienque nous ne croyons pas &c. Altho we believe no such Presence in the Signs, yet we esteem not that Belief so criminal, as that it obligeth us to break off Communion with those who hold it, as it appears by our tolerating it in the Lu­therans. So that had the Church of Rome no other Error than this, we voluntarily accord her to have given us no sufficient cause of Separation from her. What is that Faith of Rome then which I alledg'd as a sufficient cause of Separation? (then he names this) l' Adoration de l'Ostie. Thus he.

§. XII Having thus made a Cursory over the Four Opinions about the Eucharist; give me leave now to reflect a little upon, and search more strictly into the Second Opinion; which I think is the Tenent of many of the Church of England. Concerning which I do not well understand, How it must not either fall into many of the difficulties and seeming contradictions of the Third and Fourth Opinions, or slide back into the sense of the First, the most intelligible and perspicuous indeed, but (thought by the rest) too much diminutive of this tremendum Mysterium, this ineffable Mystery.§. XIII

Concerning the Second Opinion.Now let us consider this Second Opinion, first concerning its affirming or denying the real or substantial Presence of Christ's [Page 24]Body and Blood in the Celebration of the Eucharist. Next, con­cerning its affirming or denying such Presence in or with the Signs. As to the former; the phrase of real Presence, if we mean by it only presence in something real, may be used by those who deny substantial presence. For if Christ be present to us (in the Eucharist,) in the benefits of his Passion, in his Grace, in his Spi­rit, he is present to us in something real, tho not in the reality of his Person. But they, going beyond all these, even the last of them also, the presence by his Spirit, (see before p. 2. neque enim mortis tantum &c, —neque enim mihi satisfaciunt &c.) af­firm a real and substantial presence (for indeed what can real pre­sence of a substance, such as body and blood is, be but substantial presence?) even of that body which suffered upon the Cross for us: which presence they clearly contradistinguish to presence by effect, influence, virtue, grace, or an uniting of our bodies with Christ's body by the same Spirit abiding in both, (by which way things furthest distant (if we call this presence) may be said to be present to one another, as long as there is any thing between them, that immediately toucheth or informeth both: so the head may be said to be present to the foot, the Saints in heaven to those on earth, the West to the East-Indies: so the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood may be affirmed, as well as here, when ever there is any communication of his Spirit, as in Bap­tism; and as properly as the Bread which we break, and the Cup which we bless here, so the Water, that is (then) poured on us, may be said to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ): these manners of Presence therefore they count not enough to satis­fy the Scripures, and Tradition. Therefore they speak of Euchari­stical-presence as a great mystery, Eph. 5. wrought by God's omnipo­tence after a manner ineffable, or incomprehensible to man's rea­son. Lastly, as far in substantial or real presence they seem to go as any, either the third or fourth opinion; in that they question not the matter of that presence, (the which the other affirm,) but the manner; which whilst the others guess, some after this, some after that manner, they will guess nothing at all of it; (by which they are free from any objections;) and well, modestly, prudently this: only if such would not so perempto­rily condemn the conjectures of others, (as perhaps some of them do not.) See for what I have now said (besides the quotations be­fore, p. 2. in the relation of this second opinion) many places in Dr. Tailor, the very Title of his book, wherein Spiritual must be [Page 25]took in such a sense, as not to deny real; and of Christ, must be understood of the Body and Blood of Christ: For this he saith often in the Book, namely, p. 7. see p. 20. where, in answering some hard sayings of the Fathers, &c. as if the same Body that was crucified, was not eaten in the Sacrament, he saith, ‘That Proposition is true, if we speak of the eating of Christ's Body in the same manner of being [for it had one manner of being on the Cross, and another in the Sacrament] But that Body which was crucified, the same Body we do eat, if we speak of the same thing in a several manner of being, &c: Christ's Body therefore is in the Sacrament, not only in its operation, but being; tho after another manner of being than it was on the Cross.’ And what Dr. Taylor saith, methinks, answers several arguments brought afterward by himself out of the Fathers against real presence under, or with, the symbols, see p. 311. Non hoc quod videtis, &c. see p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour, &c. See p. 5. where he will have spi­ritual presence to be particular in nothing, but that it excludes the corporal, and natural manner, &c. See Arch B. Laud, See Disc. concerning the Rub. of the En. Lyt. §. 14, 15. p. 286. where he saith, The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made Spi­ritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, &c. And Arch B. Cranmer (as the Arch B. quotes out of Fox, p. 1703.) confesseth, That tho he was indeed of another opinion, and in­clining to that of Zuinglius, yet B. Ridly convinc'd his judgment, and settled him in the point.

2. Add to these Bishop Hall, quoted before; Res apud utros­que eadem, rei tamen ratio diversa, &c. utrosque he means Luthe­ran, but the Consequence is as good for the Romanist. See the same opinion of A. Spalat. and Bishop Forbes, quoted hereafter. Lastly, in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland, in the Ad­ministring the Sacrament, the former words or comment [Feed on him in thy heart by Faith] are left out, according to the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. and also the Form in the Missals; perhaps, as being a Diminutive of this great Mystery, in which is maintain'd another, a more real eating and partici­pation of Christ's Body, than that by Faith alone. As likewise there are added in the Prayer of Consecration these words (agree­able to the first Book of Edw. VI. and the Forms of all Anti­quity; only those run not, ut nobis sint, but ut nobis fiant cor­pus, &c.) [So bless and sanctifie with thy Word and Holy Spirit 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] [Page 26]which seem to tend to the same purpose: and upon Bucer's exceptions at them, in his Censura in ordine Eccl. c. 9. were by the Second Reformers of the Common-Prayer-Book cast out. Now in these passages above recited (if I well understand them) the Presence of Christ's Body is as fully and properly affirm'd by these, as by the Lutheran or Romanist; only all the difference is; not about the Presence, whether carnally or spiritually, substan­tially or locally, after the manner of other Bodies, or not locally or substantially; but about the subject only, to which present, (as Mr. Hooker well observes) whether to the worthy Receiver only, or also to the elements or signs; or if present to the signs, whether not some other way present to them, than either Cousub­or Transubstantially. Whereas therefore the Lutheran and Ro­manist dispute the manner, whether our Saviour's Body be Con­substantially or Transubstantially with the signs; the other Re­form'd and these dispute the manner, whether with the signs, or only with the Receiver (or also whether with the signs, not by the forenam'd, but some other unknown way) but in its pre­sence with the worthy Receiver all agree, and one affirm it as much as another.

3. But now if one should affirm Christ personlly or substan­tially present to the Receiver, another only virtually present, in his Grace, Spirit, &c. 'tis plain, that here a difference between them is not in the manner of the presence, but in the presence it self. So the first Opinion, tho affirming a virtual presence, is said to deny the real presence, or any mystery in the Sacrament.

§. XIV Thus much of their affirming the substantial or personal pre­sence of Christ in the Sacrament, as to the third and fourth Opi­nion. But now, I confess, I do not see how this doth consist with many other things which they say. See Dr. Taylor, p. 15. ‘But we by the spiritual real presence of Christ, do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful, by blessing and grace,—p. 107. by saith and blessing,— and this is all which we mean, beside the Tropical and Figura­tive presence, p. 21. They (the Romanists) say, that the spi­ritual and the virtual taking him in vertue or effect, is not suf­ficient, tho this is done also in the Sacrament.’ See p. 218. where, after shewing, that Christ's Body is in the Eucharist, nei­ther circumscriptive, definitive, nor repletive, (the only three ways that are conceivable of being in a place) he saith, [Page 27]his Body is there figuratively, tropically, representatively in Being, [might not he say, or in reallity? now representatively only, in respect of reallity, is the same with not really,] and really in effect and blessing: but this is not a natural, real, being in a place, but a relation to a person. I suppose he means, but Christ's Body in Heaven having a relation to a Communicant on Earth in some effect and blessing. Add to these, what he saith p. 120, 121, ‘That we under the Sacrament of Bread and Wine receive Christ's Body no more really, than the Israelites did in the Man­na, Rock; Cloud, &c. both in a divers Sacrament, saith he, but in all the same reallity: whatsoever we, the same they did eat.’ Surely this then argues only a virtual presence thereof, not a sub­stantial; because Christ's Body or Flesh was not then as yet as­sum'd. See likewise p. 276, 277. See p. 7. where he quotes the Fathers, that whatsoever they speak of the Eucharist, they affirm also the same of the other Sacrament, Baptism, &c. quoting out of St. Austin, "that we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of "Christ, when in Baptism we are made Members of Christ, &c. therefore (whatever may be answer'd to the Fathers, of which more anon, yet) his opinion is, that Christ's Body is no more really present in the Lord's Supper, than in Baptism, &c.

2. I find B. Forbes, tho holding neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation, yet much censuring, out of Spalat. and others, these two diminutive comparisons of the Lord's Supper, de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s. 26, 27. Falso etiam asseritur, haud aliter nos Corpus Christi in Eucharistia comedere, quam Patres veteris Testamenti, &c. and s. 27. Perperam etiam asseritur, res easdem esse Christum in Baptismo induere, & ipsius carnem ac sanguinem in Caena sume­re, &c.

3. I will add to these of Dr. Taylors, an expression of Dr. Ham­mond's Pract. Cat. where he speaks of the Eucharist,—God bestows the Body and Blood of Christ upon us, not by sending it down lo­cally for our Bodies to feed on, but really for our Souls to be streng­thened by it. As when the Sun is communicated to us, the whole Bulk and Body of the Sun is not removed out of its Sphere, but the Rays and Beams of it, and with them the Light and Instu­ences are really and verily bestow'd and darted out upon us. Thus he. As therefore not the Body of the Sun, but only the Beams thereof, can be said to be really and locally here below; so, I conceive the Doctor means, that not the very Body of Christ, but the vertue and efficacy thereof only, are really here present [Page 28]to the worthy receiver. If so, you may see how Mr. Hooker differs from him in the same simile, (in the quotation set down above, p. 50.) where he saith, ‘not only by effect and operation, as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, &c, which they quicken &c.’

4. Lastly, I do not see, how this their opinion of substantial Presence consists with many of those objections made by them against the third and fourth opinion; as that in particular of the impossibility of the same body to be in many places at once, which objection opposeth not the modus, but any presence substantial whatsoever? But if on the other side, in good earnest, a real substantial Presence be affirmed by them; tho in (wisely) not ex­pressing any particular manner, as others do, they both avoid the arguments, which perhaps might be made against it, and have advantage to make some against others; yet I see not, but that, from their affirming in general such a Presence, they must in­cur many of the same difficulties with the third and fourth opi­nion. If they say substantially present, but they mean not to the elements, but to the receiver, and that to his soul, not to his body; yet if they affirm it as much, or as far present to the soul, as the other doth to the signs, (as Mr. Hooker saith, they differ only about the subject, not the presence,) do not the same ob­jections, absurdities, &c, concerning Christ's Body, being both substantially in Heaven and in the place where the Communion is celebrated, with which they afflict the others for making it present with the signs, return upon themselves, for making it present with the receivers? 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, so may it under, or with the bread; unless we say, that we affirm not that real presence to the soul, which they do to the bread. But then our writers must not say, that we differ only about the manner, or the subject of his Presence, but the Presence it self also.

5. If they say, substantially present; but they mean spiritual­ly, not naturally, or not corporally, so saith the Romanist, i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities always accompanying (where 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, substantially or really, yet not quoad naturam or essentiam suam, or not quoad corpus, this is by a di­stinction to destroy their thesis.

[Page 29]6. Again, if they say, substantially there present, but not lo­cally, so saith the Lutheran and Romanist, i. e. circumscriptive, or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have; 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, (see Dr. Tailor p. 218.) not so much as ubi definitive, so that we may truly say tis hic, so as not ubique, or alibi where no communion; what is this but to affirm, tis there so, as that it is not there?

7. If they say substantially present, by reason of the same Spi­rit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven; besides that thus Christ's body is no more present in the Eucharist, than in any other ordinance or sacrament, wherein the Spirit is con­ferr'd; such presence is properly of the Spirit, not of the body; unless that which (being finite) is only in heaven (as they af­firm) may not rightly be said to be really and substantially ab­sent from what is on earth. Now if these seeming-impossibilities and contradictions we acknowledge, and fly to the incompre­hensibility and inexplicableness of the mystery; all that I reply is, that we must indulge the same priviledge to others, allow­ing that a thousand contradictions of theirs may be as soon true, as only one of ours.

8. But if at last we plainly interpret our real and substantial presence by Christ's being present (in corporal absence) to the worthy receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof, we slide back into the first opinion, differing only from them in expres­sion; and then what need we speak any more of omnipotency for such presence, or make any thing miraculous in the Sacrament? what incomprehensibleness in this, when (as Bellarmin ex­presseth it) all that we say is, That per fidem apprehendentem Christum in coelo & manducantem sacramentum or signum corporis sui, participamus omnia bona Christi? What mean (then) those gradations of reception, not only of bare signs, nor of the signs and the benefits applied by faith; but also of the very body and blood of Christ? In tanta locorum distantia penetrat ad nos Chri­sti caro, saith Calvin, ut nobis sit in cibum. Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 10. s.

§ XV Therefore the Remonstrants, discerning the difficulties as are above named, into which the affirming of real Presence cast some of the Reformed (Apol. pro confessione sua, p. 256.) said the Zu­inglian opinion was simplicissima, & ad idololatriam omnemevitandam in hac materia inprimis necessaria: & quae a Calvino & illius [...] ­quacibu [...] [Page 30]dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem, tum absurditatem; & ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatri­am &c. [...] The same say the Socinians. See Volkelius.

And I think Rive [...], in his controversies with Grotius, is of the same opinion with the Remonstrants, at least much differing from Dr. Tailor's; for that saying of the Conc. Trid. [Sacramenta­liter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest], allowed in some sense by the Doctor, he maintains to contradict. Quia quod sacramentaliter praesens est, saith he, non est substantia sua prae­sens, nec contra. Animad. p. 85. And again, (Examen: p. 45.) Si cor­pus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitative (i. e.) corporally, or secundum modum corporis, non est omnino; quia corpus Christi ubi­cunque est quantum est, aut non est corpus. Indeed I have often wondred, seeing that something more than they willingly grant, seems necessarily to follow upon it, why so many of the reformed writers remain not content with a virtual presence, which is main­tained by them to be sufficient for salvation, but concur so much in asserting a real and substantial. I guess; not only the pun­ctual and fixed expressions of the Scriptures, (as the words of In­stitution, in so many relations thereof, not only in the Gospels, but in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, being so unvariably ob­served; besides the expressions 1 Cor. 11.27, 29.) and the autho­rity of the Fathers (who so often call it tremendum mysteri­um,) and the stream of Tradition, to have as it were necessi­tated them to it; but also the authority of Calvin not a little to have moved them, who was a great Leader to our reforming Fore-fathers.

Again, him I suppose to be induced to it, as from the former reasons, so from a desire to reconcile several parties of the then early begun Reformation, and to moderate and temper the for­mer, Lutheran and Zuinglian, quarrel. Of whom therefore Bi­shop Forbes observes; Quod sua doctrina super hac re (as it seems here also of the doctrine of others of this second opinion) erat maxime incerta, & dubia, atque lubrica. —Et dum nunc his, nunc illis gratificari studuit, haud pauca male sibi cohaerentia scripsit. de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 6. sect.

§. XVI Now to come to the second thing; its affirming; or denying, the real or substantial presence of Christ's body with the signs, and that, ante usum. And this I think to be generally denied by the 2d. opinion, (tho I see not with what reason they can deny a possi­bility thereof, since they grant such a presence with the worthy [Page 31]receiver.) See Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. s. p. 359, ‘The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament. —The Bread and the Cup are his Body and Blood, because they are causes instrumental, upon the receit whereof the participa­tion of his Body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect, is not vainly or improperly said to be that ve­ry effect, whereunto it tendeth.’ This he speaks in behalf of the Scripture-expression, saying of the elements, This is my body and my blood: because we receive by these instruments that which they are termed. See Dr. Tailor, p. 14. ‘By spiritual we mean, present to our Spirits only: that is, saith he, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith, or Spiritual susception.’ Where (to digress a little) I wonder why he and some others (so Dr. Hammond saith, [for our souls to be strength­ened &c] quoted before) do not say; that Christ's body is substan­tially present to the bodies of worthy receivers, as well as to the souls, (yet perhaps they deny it not); for tho the body of Christ be only spiritually there, yet may a spirit be present to a body, for our souls (spirits) are so. And we say in the Liturgy, The Body of Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life: And, Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed thro his most precious blood &c. And the Fathers therefore called the consecrated elements, from their vivifical influence on the body, according to Jo. 6. symbola resurrectionis. See Grot. Annot. ad Cassand: p. 21. Sic & corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia, sed spem resurrectionis habentia. Irenaeus. Neither see I any reason for Rivet's expression: Corpus Christi affi [...]it corpus per animam. Nor for that of Dr. Tailor, p. 131. if he means, that the Soul receives Christ's body more immediately than the Body doth. For tho without faith, which is an act of the soul, Christ's body is not received, at least, received, profiteth not; yet where faith is, Christ's body is received as well, and as immediately by our body, as by our soul, and nourisheth and vivifieth equally (but spiritu­ally) both. See what Bishop Forbes saith, Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 27. s. Verum Christi corpus non tantum animae, sed etiam corpori nostr [...], spiritualiter tamen, hoc est, non corporaliter, exhibetur, & sane al [...]o ac diverso nobis & propinquiori modo, licet occulto, quam per solam fi­dem. —Fides, qua proprie Christi caro in Eucharistia spiritualiter, [Page 32]hoc est, incorporaliter manducatur, non est ea sola, qua Christus creditur mortuus pro peccatis nostris &c, ea enim fides praesupponi­tur &c. sed ea fides est, qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis, Hoc est corpus meum. Credere enim Christum ibi esse praesentem etiam car­ne vivificatrice, & desiderare eam sumere; nimirum hoc est spiri­tualiter & recte eam manducare in Eucharistia. Sect. 25. Proinde male docetur a multis Protestantibus, hanc praesentiam & communi­cationem per fidem effici. —Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere & apprehendere, quam praestare. Verbum Dei & promissio, cui fides nostra nititur, praesentia reddit quae promittit, non nostra fides. Tis not faith that confers Christ's body, tho by the faithful it is only worthily, or (as they say) only received, but received equal­ly, and immediately both by the soul and body: whether this body of Christ be disjoined from, as they think, or conjoined with the elements, yet, whilst this second opinion seems to hold no presence at all, to, or with, the signs; but to the receiver, they only making the signs to be (as well as I can understand them) after consecration sanctified instruments, upon receit of which by those who believe, God gives the other, the body and blood of his Son; as also in Baptism upon receiving the water, God gives the Spirit; yet I say, some other expressions of theirs seem not so suitable to such a meaning, and may easily cause a mistake in the unwary reader; and why they use them I cannot tell, unless it be to imitate the phrase of the words of Institution, and also of the Fathers. See Dr. Tailor, p. 7. ‘After the Minister hath con­secrated the bread and the wine, the Symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ in a Spiritual, real manner.’ May we then say, that the Baptismal water after prayers &c is changed into the Spirit, in a spiritual real manner, because that is an instrument, upon using of which the Holy Spirit is confer­red? So p. 21. ‘The question is not, whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood or no, for it is granted; but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative, or natural and bodily, &c.’ So p. 265.266. ‘Before consecration it is meer bread, but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ, truly his flesh, and truly his blood.’ Yet if we enquire, how he means that the bread is so, surely he means only this; that upon receiving, or at the same time that we receive the bread, suffering only an accidental mutation (as he calls it) of con­dition, of sanctification, and usage, at the same time Christ's real body is received, but not in, or joyned with, the bread at all, by [Page 33]the faithful. The expression is strangely differing, methinks, from the meaning thereof.

But especially see such full expressions in his Great Exemplar, 3d. part. disc— 18. p. 109. in the former Edition, sect. 3. where amongst other things he saith, ‘It is hard to do so much vio­lence to our sense, as not to think it bread; but it is more un­safe, to do so much violence to our faith, as not to believe it to be Christ's body—’ (Again.) ‘He that believes it to be bread, and yet verily to be Christ's body, is only tied also by implica­tion to believe God's omnipotence, that he who affirmed it, can also verify it. And if we profess we understand not the manner of this Mystery, we say no more, but that it is a mystery &c.’ (See the place.) Strange expressions! when the thing required to be believed is this: That Christ's body is no way present to the bread, neither by the bread being any way changed into it, nor joyned with it; but only it given and present to the faithful, upon the receit of this sanctified bread.

Now would any discourse of the waters of Baptism, by which the Spirit is received, on this manner; It is hard to do so much violence to the sense, as not to think it water, but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith, as not to believe it to be the Spirit, &c. Would not he rather explain himself, that the one is not the other; but the one received, by God's free gift, upon the receiving of the other?

§. XVII After the real or substantial presence of Christ's body thus grant­ed (if I well understand them) by the second opinion to the wor­thy receiver, but denied to the symbols, or signs: Whether Anti­quity affirmed Corporeal Pre­sence, and whether this, to the worthy Receiver only; or also to the Symbols upon consecration. let our next Quaere be; what may be the opinion of Antiquity (which is of great moment with all obedient Sons of the Church) in this mat­ter. Where, supposing it granted by all, that the Fathers also held the real presence as much as those of the second opinion do: it remains only to be examined, whether they held this real pre­sence not only to the worthy receiver, but also to the Symbols, and that, ante usum: which if they did, if their judgment is not to be submitted to, at least their followers are to be excused.§. XVIII

1. And note here, first, before I proceed further, That the a [...]gu­ments usually urged out of the Fathers, for their not holding T [...]ansubsta [...]tiation, disprove not the [...] ho [...]ding of a Corporal Presence (at least after some other manner) with the Symbols. that I en­quire here only after the tenent of the Ancients, concerning a [Page 34] real or substantial Presence of Christ's body with the outward signs: but whether they maintain it cum pane remanente or transeunte; whether by Con— or Tran-substantiation; or whether some of them affirmed the one, some the other, (for tis not necessary that, either in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, they must all go one way,) or some also a several way from both, I meddle not. And indeed I am apt to believe, in so high and difficult a mystery, be­fore such particular manners so punctually discussed, and before the determination of any Council concerning them, a likelihood of some variance in their opinions.

2. And therefore when as some of their Testimonies affirm the nature of the Bread after Consecration to be chang'd, Ambr. de Myst. init. c. 9. speaking of this Sacrament, Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur (i. e.) miraculously; Others, the nature of the Bread after Consecration to remain still; I can neither altoge­ther embrace the Answer (for making Antiquity unanimous) of some Protestants to the first, That by the change of Nature, &c. is meant only an accidental change of its now sanctified condition and usage, for so we say (urges Dr. Taylor, p. 271.) a man of a good nature (i. e.) disposition, and that it is against our nature, (i. e.) our custom and affection: &c. See the like concerning the word [substance] in Blondel, in answer to a Latin Father, p. 179. notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 324. nor the answers of some Romanists to the second, that by the nature of Bread remaining, is meant only the remaining of the natural accidents, or the properties of Nature, or species, or natura exterior, not in­terior substantia, (tho 'tis always to be remember'd, that the fourth Opinion, in holding not only the outward appearance, colour, and figure, of the Bread to remain, but all other properties and sen­sibles thereof; and besides these, all the operations whatsoever, which agree to the substance, as corporally nourishing, &c. by mi­racle to remain to these accidents, and that without any commu­nication unto, or dependance upon the Body of Christ, but existent by themselves; do indeed tantum non hold also the substance it self to remain, (see Obs. 3. p. 24.) and methinks differ too little from the third Opinion, to make such an abhorrence as some Protestants entertain of the one, in comparison of the other). Neither will I justifie that Apology made by Bellarmin for such a forc'd interpretation (see de Euch. l. 3. c. 24.) concerning St. Austin, and (c. 27.) concerning Theodoret, namely, because other­wise [Page 35]such a Father will be made repugnare apertissime Cyrillo, Ambrosio, Nysseno, Epiphanio, Chrysostomo, &c. his Cotemporaries, or also his Masters. For why may not some of them differ in something concerning the manner of so high a Mystery (of which some of the acutest of the Roman Writers confess, there was no manifest evidence either from Scripture or Reason) be­fore things were yet fully discuss'd and determin'd by the Church? Therefore neither need I undertake here a Confutation of those Arguments, that are brought out of Fathers or ancient Lytur­gies against Transubstantiation, in which the Bread is affirm'd to remain after Consecration, if these also be not against (or do establish) Consubstantiation; or at least a substantial presence some other way of Christ's Body to the symbols (either Bread, or the species of Bread) presently upon Prayer or Consecration of these Elements. Which thing, were it once granted by the second Opinion, the necessary consequents thereof with reference to practice (of which more anon) are such, that the contests be­tween Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation would quickly va­nish.

Now I think it will appear, that many of those most evident authorities that are urg'd against Transubstantiation, yet confirm Consubstantiation: and so destroy as well the Tenent as of the fourth, so of those of the first and second Opinion, who use them against the fourth. As for example; The comparing of the Incarna­tion and the Eucharist, (i.e.) the being of the Bread together with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, as of the Humane Nature with the Divine in the Incarnation, against Eutyches about the time of Conc. Chalcedon: (tho the same comparison be­fore Eutyches is made by Justin Martyr, and that in confession of this great mystery to a Heathen Emperor,) as it seems to make against a change of the Bread, so, to confirm the substantial and real presence of Christ's Body with the Bread.

§. XIX To name some particulars: 1. That noted place of Theodoret in Eranist. Dial. 2. p. 87. not fully set down by Dr. Taylor, 1 p. 321. runs thus, as you fin it also quoted fully in Blondel, esclair­cissement sur l' Eucharistie, p. 59.—Eran. (the Eutychian) Qui ap­pellas donum quod offertur ante sacerdotis invocationem? Orthod.— Cibum ex talibus seminibus—Eran. post sanctificationem vero quomodo haec apellas? Orthod. Corpus Christi & sanguinem Christi: Eran. Et credis te corpus Christi & sanguinem percipere? Orthod. Ita [Page 36]credo. Eran. Sicut ergo symbola Dominici corporis & sanguinis alia sunt ante sacerdotis invocationem, post invocationem vero mu­tantur, & alia funt; ita Dominicum corpus post ascensionem in Di­vinam substantiam mutatum est. Orth. Retibus quae ipse texuisti captus es. Neque enim signa mystica per sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura; manent enim in priori substantia & figura & forma, & videri & tangi possunt sicut prius. Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & creduntur, & adorantur, ut quae illa sint quae creduntur. Confer igitur imaginem cum archetypo, & videbis simil tudinem. Illud enim corpus [i. e. post ascensionem] priorem habet formam & circumscriptionem, & ut semel dicam, corporis substantiam. Immor­tale autem post resurrectionem, & immune a corruptione factum est, sedemque a dextris adeptum; & ab omni creatura adoratur, quia Domini-naturae corpus appellatur. Here the later part (which is omitted by Dr. Taylor) shews Theodoret to believe, the consecra­ted Elements to contain, and someway to be made Christ's Body, as well as to remain what they were formerly; and to be ador'd, as being indeed, what they are believ'd to be. Which adoration, I hope, cannot be due to Bread. Theodoret therefore, at the least, held Consubstantiation. But had Theodoret not held Christ's Body present with the Bread, instead of the later part [intelliguntur &c.] he might more readily have destroy'd the Supposition of the Eutychians (namely, the mutation of Bread into the Body of Christ) in denying Christ's Body to be there at all, either with or instead of the Bread. Besides this, the Doctor joins another place, out of Dial. 1. p. 18. On which (having not quoted the words perfectly) he descants thus [the words are not capable of an an­swer, if we observe that, he saith, there is no change made, but only Grace superadded, in all things else the things are the same. Thus he]. But the passage in the Author is this: Orthod. Sal­vator noster nomina permutavit, & corpori quidem, id quod erat symboli nomen, imposuit: symbolo vero quod erat corporis.—Eran. Vel­lem permutationis nominum causam ediscere. Orthod. Manifestus est scopus iis, qui Divinis mysteriis sunt initiati. Volebat enim eos qui Divinis mysteriis participant, non attendere naturam eorum quae cernuntur; sed, per nominum mutationem, mutationi, quae ex gratia facta est, fidem adhibere. Qui enim corpus naturale frumentum Jo. 12.24. & panem Jo. 6. apellavit, & vitem rursus seipsum nomina­vit, is visibilia symbola corporis & sanguinis appellatione honoravit; non naturam mutans, sed naturae gratiam addens. Where the Au­thor plainly affirms a change (tho not of the nature of the Bread, [Page 37]yet) in the Sacrament, upon Consecration [mutationi fidem adhibere] namely, by Christ's Body then being there, and, as there, Ador'd. And for his not speaking more plainly of the man­ner thereof; in the first Dialogue, he saith, Mystice mystica dicta sunt.—And in the second, Aperte dicendum non est; veri simile est enim adesse aliquos mysteriis non initiatos. All therefore that Theo­doret saith consists well with Consubstantiation, and necessarily in­cludes a real presence. But neither do I see that which Dr. Tay­lor much presseth, p. 322. That Theodoret's answer, suppos'd to speak in the sense of the Transubstantialists of the properties only, would have been insufficient; since they also affirm, na­turam symbolorum externorum panis non mutari, & eo modo in Eu­charistia esse duas naturas impermixtas: Whereas the Eutychian asserted our Saviour to have Flesh only in Apparition, and de­void of all the properties thereof: Nasci enim & pati, & mori indignum esse Deo.

But suppose the Eutychian still press'd the substance of the Flesh, at least, to be chang'd, as that of Bread in the Eucharist; yet if there were a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist, I hope it will not follow necessarily, that there must be one too in the Incarnation (as Dr. Taylor p. 320. would make men afraid) un­less there be also Revelation of the one, as well as of the other; for a potentia ad actum, is no good arguing: And for the potentia too, it follows not, If that one Creature may be chang'd into another, therefore a Creature may be chang'd into the Creator; or e contra, (i. e.) Christ's Humanity into his Divinity. Thus much for Theodoret.

2. Concerning that of Gelasius, quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 324. [That the Sacraments of the Body, &c. are a Divine-thing, yet cease not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine] In the same place the same Author saith, mutari Panem Spiritu Sancto perficiente in substantiam Divinam. And see him by Blondel. p. 70. rec­kon'd amongst the Authors that hold the Elements to be chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ, in his sixth Proposition. This therefore at the least will amount to Consubstantiation, like Theodoret's.

3. Concerning that noted place of St. Ambrose, De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 306. the words are these, Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut ea incipiant esse quae non erant (he refers to Ipse dixit & facta sunt) quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur. Here the true [Page 38]natural meaning seems to be (as Bellarmin observes) ut quae e­rant sint, answering to the former [quae non erant incipiant esse] (i. e.) ut quae erant maneant quamvis mutata. As in another Treatise, De Myster. init. c. 9. he saith, non minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare naturas. And in the same Chapter, out of which the former Testimony is taken, are also these words, Panis iste panis est ante verba consecrationis: ubi accesserit consecratio de pane sit caro Christi. But suppose him to hold no change here of the substance of the Bread, yet must he mean some real change effected by God's Omnipotence, beyond the Bread's being chang'd from common to a sacred use; and this such, as puts the substantial presence of Christ's Body at least with the Bread; since he sup­poseth a miraculous operation some-way upon Nature. But this shall be clear'd more anon.

4 That Saying of St. Austin's Sermon to the New-Baptiz'd, recited by Fulgentius, Baptism. Aethiop. lat. cap. and Bede in 1 Cor. 10. Quod vidistis panis est & calix, quod nobis etiam oculi renun­ciant; quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, & calix est sanguis. In this later clause, that at least the Body of Christ is affirm'd substantially present with the Bread; see what I have said Observ. 2. And consider also his moving the doubt in the same place, since Christ was now ascended in Body into Heaven, quomodo est panis corpus ejus; & calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis ejus? where he answers, —ista fra­tres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in illis aliud videtur, aliud in­telligitur. Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem; quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem. By which [aliud intelligitur] if he meant only the benefits of Christ's Body and Blood shed upon the Cross, which are receiv'd in the Sacrament, surely he would have said [est fructus spiritualis, and not habet fructum, &c.] but this word intelligitur & non videtur is frequently used by him, concerning Christ's Body, tho present with the Sacrament; be­cause the symbols only, and not It, are present there to the sight or senses. Tho we are to understand It to be there also, as ap­pears out of many other places of St. Austin, quoted before.

5 Let there be added to these, those many quotations in Blon­del (c. 4. prop. 1, 2, 3.) out of the Fathers, and (c. 21.) out of the ancient Lyturgies and Missals, of the Eucharist after Conse­cration call'd Bread; and of something said of the signs or sym­bols, [Page 39]not agreeable to Christ's Body. As for this later, since the Transubstantialists, as well as the rest, affirm symbols after Conse­cration, distinct from the Body (see Obs. 2.) I see not how it makes against any Opinion. As for the former, as long as it can be shew'd, that the Fathers with that they call'd Bread hold a substantial presence (some way or other) of our Saviour's Body, if the Answer of the Transubstantialists (set down before) mis­interpret their meaning, yet at the most, such a term will but prove Consubstantiation, which opposeth not our Position.

6 As for that Proposition, so usual in the Fathers, that the Bread is Christs Body, [press'd by some Protestants, as inconsistent not only with Trans— but Con-substantiation, and the words of Bellarmin, quoted in this behalf by them, Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Si Dominus ait, hic panis est corpus meum, necessario sequitur, ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia, si nimirum proprte panis materialis di­catur esse corpus Domini, quod aperte implicat contradictionem; aut panis sit corpus non proprie, sed figurate, quod volunt Calvinistae; aut denique panis, non manens panis, sed benedictione mutatus, sit corpus Domini, quae est sententia Ecclesiae Catholicae. Whereby it seems to follow, That if the Fathers accord not in the sense of it with the Transubstantialist, they must with the Calvinist; and the Schoolmen also brought in to oppose it, see Blondel p. 155.] I answer, this Proposition, Hic panis est corpus meum, as it is di­versly explain'd, seems proper enough to be used by any of the Three Opinions. First, by those who hold a substantial conversion (for indeed at least some of those Fathers who use this phrase, yet seem clearly to hold a substantial conversion (as I shall shew anon); and the same Fathers, who say, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, say the Bread is so by a change) for it may be interpreted thus; Hic panis consecratus (i. e.) mutatus per con­secrationem est Corpus Domini. Panis denoting the former mat­ter, or the terminus a quo. Such a Speech is not unordinary upon a sudden change, see Exod. 7.12. where Aaron's Rod is said to devour the Magicians Rods: Aaron's Rod (i. e.) turn'd into a Ser­pent, devour'd, &c. See somewhat like this, ver. 19, 20, 21. where the Water already turn'd into Blood, ver. 20. notwithstanding is call'd Water afterward, ver. 21. And they could not drink of the Water of the River; the Water (i. e.) now turn'd into Blood. See the like Joh. 2.9. [And when the Ruler of the Feast-had tasted the Water that was made Wine] (i. e.) had tasted the Wine made of the Water. But more especially here may such a denomina­tion [Page 40]be made, than after other changes, because there remains, even in the Transubstantialists opinion, still something (namely, all that which is any way sensible) of the former substance.

But 2ly, the same proposition may as well be used by those who hold a Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread still re­maining: not taken in such a sense, whereof Bellarmin and the Schoolmen say, that it plainly contradicts; but in the more qualified and moderate sense, set down §. 3. As pointing at vessels filled with several liquors, we ordinarily say, This vessel is wine, that beer &c. or, hic purpuratus est Rex; So the pro­position, Sub hoc pane est corpus Christi, into which the Lutheran resolves it, is as remote from contradiction as the proposition, sub specie hujus panis est &c, the resolution of the Transubstantia­list.

3ly. The same proposition may bear only a figurative sense, like that, I am the vine, or, I am the door; and this in relation to some real effect, which it signifies to be produced by it. So we may say, This bread is my body, (i. e.) a figure, sign, representative thereof, but not only so: But, this bread is my body, (i. e.) by, or with, or upon the receit of this bread, by his mouth, to the worthy communicant in his soul is exhibited or given at the same time my true and real body: or in Dr. Tailor's words, p. 266. After consecration and blessing (i.e. of the bread &c,) it is really Christ's body, which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lord's supper. Thus he. The words are ambiguous, but I guess by the rest of his book, that he means by [it is] not the bread is, for he holds Christ's real body not present to the bread or symbols, but only to the spirit of the worthy receiver of the sanctified bread, (see p. 65.) but that which the souls of the faithful receive, whilst with their mouths they receive the hal­lowed bread, is Christ's real body. Which sense of the proposi­tion, this bread is my body, doth not seem to conform so strictly to the words, as either of the former do; because the body, in this 3d. sense, hath not so near a relation to the bread, as in the other.

This last interpretation is granted by all the other, as Hooker observes; for all grant a presence of Christ's real body to the soul: but more also is affirmed by them, as the other expressions of the Fathers will clearly evince, who make (whether by Consubstanti­ation, or Transubstantiation, or some other way) some miraculous effect upon consecration of the elements, whereby Christ's body be­comes [Page 41]really and substantially present together with the substance, or at least with the properties, of the bread; with which miraculous effect either of the former interpretations well consists, but not the third; since they utterly deny either any substantial or any o­ther way miraculous change about the symbols.

7. So for the quotations made by Blondel, cap. 12. and by Dr. Tailor, p. 104. of many Schoolmen and Doctors of the Church of Rome, even since the decision of Councils confessing Transub­stantiation not clearly provable from Scripture or reason; amongst which see the concession of Bellarmin himself in his Answer to a Lutheran urging these Schoolmen as on his side, de Euch. 3. l. 23. c. Tho all these affirm the same Transubstantiation clear from Fa­thers and Tradition; yet for this also, if you will, I will sup­pose it not clear from an unanimous consent of Antiquity, i. e. in such a manner that none of them held rather Consubstantiation. Perhaps the quotations in Dr. Tailor p. 285. may have something in them to this purpose, but for want of books I cannot examin in what sense they are spoken, excepting that of. P. Lombard. Of whom tis not amiss to give you some account: because, as Dr. Tailor truly saith, it was his design to collect the sentences of the Fathers in certain heads or articles. He therefore, after many sentences of the Fathers recited to that purpose, concludeth the 10. dist. (immediately precedent to the words quoted by the Dr.) thus; Ex his aliisque pluribus constat, verum corpus Christi & san­guinem in altari esse; imo integrum Christum ibi sub utraque spe­cie; & substantiam panis in corpus (i. e. some way or other) vi­nique substantiam in sanguinem converti. (The like is said before 9. dist. li. B. A malis sub Sacramento (sci. sub specie visibili) caro Christi de Virgine sumpta & sanguis pro nobis fusus sumitur.) Af­ter this follow the words quoted by Dr. Tailor: wherein he doubts of the manner of the conversion of the bread, whereof he names three several ways; One, ibi substantiam panis & vini remanere, & ibidem corpus Christi esse; & hac ratione dici, illam substantiam (i.e.) panis, fieri istam (i.e.) corporis; quia ubi est haec, & est illa. This opinion he rejects, saying, sed quod non sit ibi substantia, nisi corpus & sanguis Christi, ex praedictis & subditis aperte ostenditur. Yet note that he writ before Conc. Lateran. A second way he names is, sic substantiam converti in substantiam, ut haec (i. e.) pa­nis essentialiter fiat illa (i. e.) corporis Christi; i. e. that that, which was the substance of the bread, is afterward not annihi­lated, but becoming the substance of Christ's body: of this he [Page 42]discourseth B. C. and answers an objection against it. The 3d. way he mentions (litera D.) is, panem sic transire in corpus Chri­sti, ut ubi erat panis nunc est corpus Christi, & substantia panis & vini redigitur in nihilum: and of these two last he saith, definire non sufficio; and see him, notwithstanding this [definire non suffi­cio] numbred by Blondel among the first Transubstantiators, p. 212. and see what Calvin saith of him, Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 13. s. Judge then whether the second opinion had any reason to make use of such a quotation; and if I may advise you, trust not me, nor others, in our citations, but, if you can, consult the authors, and see the context. Yet in general I answer. All this makes nothing for the first or second opinion, or against our present proposition: be­cause what those Roman Doctors say, is spoken of Transubstantia­tion only in comparison to the third opinion, which they supposed might contest with it for Scripture-evidence, not to the first or second, (by the third I mean, the remaining after consecration with Christ's true body not only the properties, but the substance of the bread,) whilst mean while they affirm, against the first and second opinion, the true substance of Christ's body (some way or other) with the elements, from Scripture it self to be most clear and evi­dent. Therefore Mr. Blondel's saying in the title of that chap­ter, that they confessed the expositions of Protestants compatible with the words of the Gospel, and St. Paul, is true indeed; but it is only of some Protestants (namely the Lutherans) of another perswa­sion than he, or Dr. Tailor. See Dr. Tailor p. 104. where he con­fesseth these Authors to be for Consubstantiation only, and the being of Christ's natural body (tho they deny the body to be in the Eucharist modo naturali, as Dr. Tailor cannot but know) toge­ther with natural bread. Yet indeed they cannot be said to be for consubstantiation neither, since transubstantiation is their te­nent also, whilst they profess themselves to acquiesce in the Church'es determination, but this not from conviction of Scrip­ture or reason, but evidence of tradition.

§. XX Having premised thus much, to shew that any arguments from Antiquity,Arguments that they held corporal presence with the symbols. tho supposed to against. Transubstantiation, yet if they put Consubstantiation, or some other manner of Substantial Presence of Christ's Body with the consecrated elements, pre­judice not at all our present proposal set down p. 33. I pro­ceed to confirm it. And this,

[Page 43] 1. Their firming change of elements to Christ body.First, from that usual prayer in the consecration of these elements in all Liturgies and Missals, (of the antiquity of which anon,) ut Deus Spiritu suo dona sanctificet, faciatque ea corpus & sanguinem Filii sui. Blondel p. 469 confesseth this phrase not only in the modern forms, but in all the other ancient Liturgies, c. 21. yet is this phrase laid aside in the forms of the Reforma­tion. Instead of which our English hath these words: Hear us O Merciful Father, and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour's holy Institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood &c. but no prayer that those elements may be made his body and blood.

And from those ordinary expressions in the Fathers, whereby is signified not only the real body and blood of Christ to be receiv­ed in the action or communication of the Sacrament; but the bread and wine to be, to be made, to be changed into; of them to be made Christ's body and blood, not by the virtue of worthy receiving, but by the virtue of the consecration (preceding the receiving,) quae fit Dominicis verbis, (therefore these in no Li­turgy omitted,) & invocatione Divini nominis. See many of these expressions in Blondel, 4. c. 4, 5, 6, 7, propos. and Cassand. consult. art. 10. The Fathers calling the Eucharist Christ's body when in altari, when in manibus Sacerdotis, (hoc ipsum corpus Magi habuerunt in praesepi, nos in altari; illi in ulnis Mulieris, nos in manibus Sacerdotis, &c. Chrysost.) which shews, that what presence they held of Christ's body in the Sacrament, they held it ante usum, with the consecrated elements, and not only with the worthy receiver. These two expressions, to be reverenced for antiquity, I find in S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch An. Dom. 71. his Epistles, (I mean those Epistles free from the paraphrase allowed by Archbishop Usher and Dr. Hammond, (one in Ep. ad Philadelphicos. Si quis schisma facientem sequitur, regnum Dei non haereditat.—Stude igitur una Eucharistia uti; una enim curo Domini nostri Jesu Christi, & unus calix in unionem sanguinis ip­sius, unum altare, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyteris &c. the other in Ep. ad Smyrnaeos: Quid enim juvat me quis, si me laudat, Do­minum antem meum blasphemat, non confitens ipsum carniferum (who said also, secundum videri ipsum passum esse before this) afterward it follows; ab Eucharistia & oratione recedunt (Theo­doret dial. 3. quotes it, oblatione recedunt) propter non confiteri Eucharistiam carnem esse Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi pro peccatis [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44]nostris passam, quam benignitate Pater resuscitavit. Contradicentes ergo huic dono Dei, perscrutantes moriuntur; conferens autem esset ipsis diligere, ut resurgant.

Secondly, From their affirming such a change of the elements, as was miraculous; miraculous in such a manner, as that, after the words of Consecration, with, made of, or instead of, the substance of the Bread, &c. is the substance of the Body of Christ; that Body which was born of the B. Virgin: Some of them at least affirming it such a change, as that the substance or nature of Bread ceaseth to be; and saying, that our senses, for this matter, were not to be trusted; in whom are found also some of the modern phrases of the Catholicks and Schoolmen. I will set you down some of them: Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum, &c. & non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit? Quare cum omni certitudine corpus & sanguinem Christi sumamus, Nam sub specie panis datur ibi corpus, & sub specie vini datur sanguis. Cyril. Hieros. Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur (natura, i.e. of the Bread and Wine)—sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere, quod non erat; non potest is, quae sunt, in id mutare, quod non erant? Non minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare, naturas. Ambr.—Sermo Christi immutat quando vult instituta naturae, ap­plied to the Eucharist, as if something in Nature is there chang'd, Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4. —Haec tribuit, virtute benedictionis in cor­pus suum, rerum, quae videntur, i.e. panis & vini naturam mutans. Greg. Nyss.—Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis & sanguinis verbo suo secreta potestate immutat.—Ante quam invocatione sui nominis consecretur, substantia illic est panis & vini, post verbum autem Christi corpus & sanguis est Christi. Quid mi­rum autem si ea quae verbo creare potuit, possit creata convertere? &c.—Caesarius Arelat. quoted by Blondel p. 69.—Ne ergo conside­res tanquam nudum panem & nudum vinum; est enim corpus & sanguis Christi, secundum ipsius Domini verba; quamvis enim sen­sus hoc tibi suggerit, tamen fides te confirmet, ne ex gustu rem ju­dices. Hoc sciens & pro certissimo habens, panem hunc, qui vide­tur a nobis, non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat, sed esse corpus Christi, &c. Cyr. Hier. Carech. 4. Mystag. Here ob­serve, that the presence of Christ's Body is applied not only to the Receiver, but to the Elements; else why should the Fathers press the mistakes and errors of sense about the Elements? For what Protestant warns his Scholars of a fallacy of their senses [Page 45]in the Eucharist?—Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 83. Credamus ubique Deo, nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui & cogitationi nostrae absur­dum esse videatur quod dicit—quoniam ergo ille dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, &c. Num vides panem? num vinum? num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? absit, ne cogites: quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit; sic & hic puta, mysteria consumi corporis substantia, Chrys. Hom. de Euch. in Encoeniis.—Forte dicas, aliud video, quomodo tu mihi asseris, quod Christi corpus accipiam; quantis probamus exemplis, &c.—Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Ambr. Besides these, methinks two passages in Dr. Taylors Book (tho not urg'd by him to such a purpose) one p. 320. of the Eutychians, using this principle or argument (now all proof proceeds a notiori ad minus notum) that in the Sacrament the Bread was changed into Christ's Body, to prove that so the Human Nature might be into the Divine; And another p. 343. of Averroes his saying, That the Christians Eat their God: Do shew, that a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body, was not so rare an Opinion in the Church in ancient times. They also use words very emphatical for to express such a change of the Bread; see them set down in Blond. p. 156. in Dr. Taylor p. 267. The Greek Fathers, [...]. The La­tins, conversio mutatio, transitio, migratio, transfiguratio. And they prove the possibility of such a change (as they suppose) made in the Elements, from God's Omnipotency; and from several in­stances of other changes; but all such, as they conceive miracu­lous, done by the Power of God in the Old Testament, and by our Saviour in the New. Among which instances these are very usual, The Creation, with a Word, of all things at first out of Nothing; Than which how much easier to change the Nature of things already in being? The Rod of Moses chang'd into a Serpent. The Water of Nile into Blood. The fetching Water out of the Rock. The dividing of the Red Sea, and of Jordan. Eliah 's word bringing Fire from Heaven. Elisha 's making the Iron to swim. Our Saviours changing Water into Wine (a frequent instance.) Our Saviour's preternatural Conception of a pure Virgin; comparing this union of Christ and the symbols (for the fourth Opinion also holds something of the Bread remaining with Christ's Body) with the Incarnation, with the change of the Bread that our Sa­viour eat into his Body by Nutrition; with Angels appear­ing [Page 46]to men in bodily shapes; with man's being regenerate, made a new creature, partaker of the Divine Nature, Flesh of Christ's Flesh, and Bone of his Bone, by the Spirit. Which last, tho some Wri­ters (Blond. c. 4. s. 8. prop. 17.) bring in as a Diminutive of the pretended change of the Sacramental elements, yet St. Paul calls it a great mystery Eph. 5. and St. Austin, a greater effect of Gods power than the Creation; and Chrysostom (in Joh. c. 3. v. 6. that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit) saith, Formatio primi ho­minis & mulieris ex latere ejus; Helisaei preterea miraculum, qui ex sundo ferrum revocavit; transitus Judaeorum per rubrum mare, piscin [...]e ab Angelo commotio; mundatio Naaman Syri a lepra in Jor­danc; haec omnia generationem & purgationem futuram, tanquam in fi­gura, permoustrarunt. Lastly, with the change of our Bodies that shall be at the Resurrection.

They urge some difficulties about it, not incident to a change only of sanctification, as for example; Nyssen. Catech. Orat. c. 37. Cum solum illud corpus, quod Deum suscepit, hanc gratiam acce­perit —ut per communionem immortalis nostrum factum sit par­ticeps incorruptionis, oportet considerare, quomodo fieri queat, ut cum unum illud corpus assidue per totum orbem tot fidelium milli­bus impertiatur, totum cujusque per partes evadat, & in seipso to­tum permaneat. Chrys. l. 3. de Sacerdotio, speaking of the Sacra­ment, O miraculum—qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus illum accipere. They forbid enquiring after the quomodo (nun­quam in tam sublimibus rebus (quomodo) aut cogitemus aut profe­ramus. Cyr. Alexand.) and frequently exhort the people to a firm belief, without any doubting of the truth thereof. Epiphan. Anchorat. p. 60. (bringing it in for a simile, How Man may be Gods Image) saith of the Eucharist, Videmus aequale illud non esse, nec simile, non susceptae carnis imagini, non divinitati ipsi, quae vi­deri non possit, non membrorum lineamentis ac notis. Illud enim ro­tundum est & sensus expers; & nihilominus ex gratia pronunciare voluit; Hoc meum est, hoc. Neque quisquam est, qui ei sermoni fi­dem non adhibeat (for so in their giving It, the Priest anciently said Corpus Christi, and the Communicant answer'd Amen. Ambr. de Sac. l. 4. c. 4. Apost. Const. l. 8. c. 20.) Nam qui verum illum, (i.e.) sermonem, or Christum, esse non credit, a gratia & salute prorsus excidit, verum quodcunque tandem audierimus, aut credide­rimus, ipsius esse credimus, &c.— As B. Forbes also notes de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s. 27. That the Faith more properly requir'd [Page 47]at the receiving the Sacrament, is, ea fides qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis, Hoc est corpus meum: credere Christum esse ibi etiam carne-vivificatrice praesentem. Of which S. Austin saith, Crede & manducasti.

Considering the foresaid passages in the Fathers, methinks I miss some candor in Mr. Blondel, (if perhaps he intended to make a history of the Fathers opinions in this matter,) that whereas he is so punctual in the 8th. propos. of the 4th. cap. he is so re­miss in the 6th. especially in not taking notice of the miracu­lousness the Fathers held in the change, and their recourse to om­nipotency for it; as likewise of some other things I shall mention anon. See for the truth of the things I have said in this Se­ction, the authorities quoted by Blond. 4. c. 6. prop. and more at large in Bellarmin's whole 2d. book de Euch. or in 4. sent. 11. dist. 1. & 3. sect. But if you desire more perfectly to inform your self, (be­cause quotations are but short pieces dismembred from the context, and glosses are made upon them according to the interest of the writer that selects them;) spend an hour or two in a publick li­brary, and read more specially these, Ambros de myst. initiand. 9. c. —De Sacr. 4. l. 4. and 5. c. where also you shall find the Canon of the Mass not differing from the present, in any thing of those which the Reformed dislike in the present Mass, save in one, where the elements, but before consecration, are called figura corporis Christi. See Cyril Hieros. catech. mystag. 4. Chrysost. Hom. 83. in Matt. —Greg. Nyss. orat. catech. 36, 37. c.—Euseb. Emyssen. or the supposed author quoted in Blond. p. 69. serm. 5. de Paschate, de corpore Domini. Now that you need not fear lest you should take in the testimonies of some age by the Reformed disallow'd; know that Mr. Blondel holds no doctrine of Transubstantiation to be maintained till after the 10th. age; no alteration of doctrine a­bout the Eucharist till after (in the Eastern Church) the 7th; in the Western Church, the 8th. age; no change of language and expression, till, in the Eastern Church, the 6th; in the Western, the 7th. So that any author for the first 600 years may be se­curely quoted; and therefore in the present Canon of the Mass, which is granted by Protestants to be the same as in Gregory the Great's time, all things are acknowledged conformable to the doctrine of uncorrupted Antiquity. And whatsoever expressions concerning the Eucharist are made by that Constantinopolitan Coun­cil under Constantine Copronymus in the East, and by that of Francfort under Carolus M. in the West, are by Mr. Blondel held [Page 48] orthodox. See therefore those passages in the one, Blond. p. 38. Ainsi l'image d'icelui (i.e. the Eucharist) est sainte, come estant deifée per certaine sanctification de grace: and —ainsi son bon plai­sir a este, que par l'entremise du sacrificateur, qui fait l'offrand en transportant ce qui est commune a ce qui est saint, le pain de l' Eu­charistie come image non mensongere de sa chair naturelle sainctifiée par l'anvenement du Saint Esprit, devinst corps divin— And in the other, Blond. p. 411. Car le mystere du sang & du corps du Seignieur ne doit pas maintenant estre dit image, mais verite &c. and p. 412. Christ n'a pas dit ceste est l'image de mon corps; mais cecy est mon corps &c. whether they do not argue such a change of the elements, as the Reformed will not assent to, and the pre­sence of Christ's body (whatever it is in the Eucharist) to be with the Symbols.

3. Offering the body of Christ as a Sacrifice be­fore commu­nicating.3. From their offering to God the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, be­fore their communicating it as a Sacrament, with giving such attributes, and imputing such operations unto it, as seem plainly to evince, that whatever presence of Christ's body there is (and real the second opinion saith it is) in receiving the Sacrament, to the worthy communicant, the same the Ancients conceiv'd to be to the signs, when offered to God as a Sacrifice; neither, supposing Christ's body not accompanying the symbols, do such attributes seem agreeable to Symbols. See those Epithets in the ordina­ry Canon of the Mass, (allow'd by Blondel to have nothing in it, qui ne s' accorde a l' Escriture, au sens, a la raison, & au tes-moig­nage de l'antiquité: p. 453.) In S. Ambr. de Sacr. 4. l. 4. c. &c. In Cyril. Hieros. catech. mystag. Hostia pura, sancta, illibata, imma­culata, panis sanctus vitae aeternae, calix salutis perpetuae, &c. called by Chrysostom, Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. and others, Sacrificium terri­bile & plenum horroris, tremenda mysteria. The author Eccl. Hi­erarch. 3. c. 3. p. Pontifex, quod hostiam salutarem, quae supra ipsum est, litet, se excusat, exclamans, Tu dixisti, Hoc facite &c. S. Aust. Conf. 9. l. 12. c. Cum tibi offerretur pro ea [matre] sacrificium pre­tii nostri, juxta sepulchrum posito cadavere. Idem, de Spiritu & li­tera 11. c. Dei cultus in hoc maxime constitutus est, ut anima non sit ei ingrata. Unde & in ipso verissimo & in singulari sacrificio Do­mino Deo nostro agere gratias admonemur. &c. This is in those words where the Priest saith, Let us give thanks to our Lord God, and the people answer, It is meet and right so to do. De civ. Dei. 10. l. 20. c. Cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae Sacrificium. Contra Faust. 20. l. 18. c. Christiani jam peracti Sacri­ficii [Page 49]memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione & participatione cor­poris Christi. Where is affirm'd an oblation of the same body, of which there is participation. See the expressions of the Fa­thers in the same manner, of the very body of Christ offered in the Eucharist as received, quoted in the Controvertists. See Bell. de Missa 1. l. 15. c. sect. S. Andreas. —Ambr. Christus of­fertur in terris, cum corpus ejus offertur. —And in 1. c Lucae Cum sacrificamus Christus adest, Christus immolatur. Chrysost. 24. Hom. in 1. ad Cor. Pro victimarum & pecorum caede seipsum offe­rendum praecepit. In Ep. Heb. 17. Hom. In multis locis offertur, non plures Christi, sed unus ubique Christus, hic & illic plenus ex­istens; unum corpus, non multa corpora. Conc. Nic. (which Protestants pretend all obedience to) 14. can. Pervenit ad S. Concilium, quod in locis quibusdam Presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant. Hoc neque regula, neque consuetudo tradidit, ut hi qui offerendi Sacrificii non habent potestatem, his, qui offerunt corpus Christi, porrigant. And in the Acts of that Council there is a notable passage also, part of which Calvin hath urged, as making for his cause; Inst. 4. l. 1 [...]. c. 36. s. Huic malo (i.e. prosternere sese homines coram pane, ut Chri­stum illic adorent) proculdubio voluit obviare Nicaena Synodus, cum vetuit nos humiliter attentos esse ad proposita Symbola. Thus much only he. But I will give you the place more full, as I find it quoted in others. Ita etiam hic in divina mensa ne humiliter in­tenti simus ad propositum panem & calicem, sed attollentes men­tem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruente a Sacerdotibus immolatum, & pretiosum ipsius corpus & sanguinem vere nos sumentes credere haec esse nostrae resurrectionis Symbola &c. Observe, situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei. See likewise their expressions, as of the body of Christ as received as a Sacrament, so offered as a Sacrifice for salvation and remission of sins for the living, and for the dead, in Bell. de Miss. 2. l. 2. c. sect. Secundo. Justin. in dial. cum Try­phone dicit Sacrificium vaccae quod offerrebatur pro elephantiacis fu­isse figuram Eucharistiae, quae offertur pro expiatione peccatorum. Hieron. in comment. in Tit. 1. c. Si Laicis imperatur, ut propter orationem abstineant se ab uxorum coitu, quid de Episcopo sentien­dum est, qui quotidie prosuis populique peccatis illibatas Deo obla­turus est, victimas? Aug. Civ. Dei, 20. l. 25. c. saith, Sacrificium pro peccato offerri in Ecclesia usque ad diem Judicii, sed non ulterius. Chrys. in Act. Hom. 21. Non frustra oblationes p [...]o defunctis fiunt, &c. —Non simpliciter (i.e. to no purpose) Minister clamat pro [Page 50]his qui defuncti sunt in Christo, & pro his qui illorum memoriam faciunt. Quid dicis? In manibus est hostia, & omnia proposita sunt bene ordinata; adsunt Angeli, adsunt Archangeli, adest filius Dei; cum tanto borrore astant omnes; astant illi (i e. ministri) claman­tes (as before, offerimus pro his qui defuncti &c) omnibus silentibus; & putas simpliciter haec fieri? (i. e. pro defunctis.) Igitur & alia simpliciter, & quae pro Ecclesia & quae pro Sacerdotibus offe­runtur, & quae pro ubertate ac multitudine? absit. I have writ­ten this at large, that you may see the custom of St. Chrysostom's times concerning the oblation of this Sacrifice, the Prayers &c attending it, not to be varying from those we find in the Missals or Liturgies, either the pretended-ancient, or modern.

And see Bloudel, p. 378. the Conc. Constant. using the same ex­pression, offrent pour le salut du corps & de l'ame la vray image de Christ.— And the Conc. Franckfort, p 407. Qu'elle est faite invi­siblement par l'esprit de Dieu; consacree par le Prestre invoquant dieu, portee par les mains Angeliques sule haut Autel de dieu. (the words in the Mass) & que par elle les peches sont remis, qu' elle ne peut ni accroistre ni diminuer: (as Images are &c.) For these things, Calvin (Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 11. s.) after he had as much as might be mitigated the sence of Antiquity, confesseth, veteres quoque illos alio hanc memoriam detorsisse, quam institutioni Domini conveniebat; quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae im­molationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferebat, & excusari non posse, quin aliquid in actionis modo peccaverint. Imitati sunt enim propius Judaticum Sacrificandi morem, quam aut ordinaverat Christus, aut Evangelii ratio ferebat. And indeed it is somewhat strange, that the Fathers are made in the matter still not to differ from the Reformed; but in their language, in their ceremonies confessed to concur with the Catholicks. This using by the Ancients of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice before communicating, I find not Dr. Tailor to take any notice of, which yet methinks makes much for their conceiving a real presence with the signs; concerning which is our present discourse.

4. From their Adoration and also Invocation of the body of Christ on the Altar, 4. Using ad­oration be­fore commu­nicating. or with the Symbols; I say, not adoration of Christ's body, or Christ as in Heaven in the act of communi­cating, (which is all owned by those of the first and second opi­nions, tho I think only practised by the Church of England) but adoration of Christ's body as present with the Symbols, before com­municating: And such to have bin the practice of Antiquity, [Page 51]I think will appear from many passages in the Fathers.

See Clem. Apost. Const. l. 2. c. 61. Diaconi absoluta oratione, alli oblationi Eucharistiae sint intenti, ministrantes corpori Domini cum timore, alii &c. And afterwards, accipiant Dominicum corpus, & preciosum sanguinem, gradatim cum pudore ac timore tanquam ad Regis Corpus accedentes.—Nazianz. Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae, speak­ing of his sick Sister in the Night-time going to Church, and praying before the Altar, to be cured, he saith, Ad Altare cum fide procumbit, eumque qui super illud colitur magno cum clamore obtestans, &c. After these, I pray you read over again those quotations, about Adoration, of St. Austin and St. Ambrose Obs. 2. Chrys. Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Hoc corpus etiam jacens in praesepi reve­riti sunt Magi—& cum multo metu ac tremore adorarunt. Imitemar ergo vel barbaros nos coelorum cives, &c.—Tu autem non in praesepi vides, sed in Altari non foeminam eum tenentem; sed sacerdotem vides astantem, & spiritum cum magna copia (perabunde) proposita supervolantem, &c. (greater excitations of Reverence) nos ergo ipsos excitemus, & formidemus, & longe majorem quam illi barbari ostendamus reverentiam, &c.—Non enim Angelos, nec Archang elos, neque Coelos, sed ipsum eorum ostendo Dominum. Vidisti quemad­modum quod est omnium praestantissimum & maxime honorandum, vides interra: neque solum vides, sed etiam tangis, sed etiam com­medis, &c. Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antiochen. Si pura sunt vestimenta adora & communica.—In Ephes. Hom. 3. he calls it sacrificium quod illi stupent & venerantur Angeli.— So Hom. 83. in Mat. Angeli videntes horrescunt, neque libere audent intueri propter emi­cantem inde splendorem.

Se the former Quotation, p. 98. The places are frequent in Chrysostom, where he speaks of the presence, and adoration, and trembling of Angels, at these Sacred Mysteries. This for Adora­tion; but see him also for Invocation: Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. Non sunt enim haec temere excogitata (he speaks of Praying and Of­fering the Eucharist for the Dead) neque frustra corum, qui de­cesserunt, in divinis mysteriis meminimus, Et pro ipsis accedimus, rogantes agnum propositum qui mundi peccatum tulit; sed ut inde eis aliqua sit consolatio, &c. And see Hom. 21. in Acta Apostol. where he makes this special presence of our Lord a time of more acceptable audience, —Domino praesenti dum mors illa p [...]rs [...]itur & horrendum Sacrificium, Et ineffabilia Sacramenta. Nam quasi se­dente Roge quicunque voluerit perficit, ut autem surrexit quicunque dicit frustra dicit. Ita & nunc, quamdiu proposita fuerint mysteria, &c. [Page 52]See the place,— and afterward, sicut quando Regum trophaea sta­tuuntur, —dimittuntur qui sunt in vinculis per illud tempus, ubi autem transierit hoc tempus qui nihil assequutus est nihil obtinet, ita sane & hic. A place I think much worth the noting, why at the time chiefly of the celebration of the Mysteries all manner of In­vocations were made. See a kind of Invocation, Dionys. Areop. or the Author Eccl. Hierarch. c. 3. par. 3 O divinissimum & sacro­sanctum Sacramentum dignanter aperis obducta tibi operimenta sig­nificantium signorum, & perspicue nobis fac appareas, &c. And see for Adoration what Mr. Blondel quotes of the same Chapter for his calling them symbols, Blond. p. 88. le president de choses sacrees sétient debout devant les tressaintes symboles—& tout le Clerge se leve devant les tressaints symboles, comme devant Christ.

See Theodoret in the place quoted before, p. 74. You may find it likewise in Blondel p. 59. Signa mystica intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt, (i. e. by Consecration) & creduntur & adorantur, ut quae illa sint quae creduntur. See that place of St. Hierom. in his Preface to Theophilus Alexand. upon the Translation of his Epi­stle quoted Blond. p. 56. where speaking of the Utensils of the Altar, the Chalices, &c. he saith, que ne peuvent estre dits n' avoir point de sainteté, mais que par la societe du corps & du sang du Seigneur ils doivent estre venerez de mesme necessite, que le corps & le sang.

Lastly, See that Constantinopolitan Council under Constantine Copronymus, quoted by Blondel for Orthodox in the matter of the Eucharist, yet held they Worship due to the Eucharist (which they call'd the only true Image of Christ) because this by Divine Con­secration is Deificatum, and made Divinum Corpus; tho they affirm'd any Worship given to any Artificial Image of our Saviour, or to any Human Form, to be Idolatry. I will set you down the words somewhat higher than where Blondel begins them.—In talem igitur blasphemiam & impietatem cadentes pudore suffundan­tur, atque aversentur seipsos & talia facere (i. e.) depingere Chri­stum desinant; Neque hi solum qui faciunt, verum etiam qui falso nomine factam & dictam ab ipsis Christi imaginem veneratur. See for what follows Blond. p. 378. Exultent & laetentur, Et libertate linguae fruentur, quicunque veram Christi imaginem sincerissima mente sacientes desiderant & venerantur & ad salutem animi corporisque adferunt, quam (imaginem) ipse Dominus noster Deus summus sa­cerdos tradidit suis sacerdotibus, &c. 'Tis probable, that the used [...]en [...]ration of the consecrated symbols was urg'd before this Coun­cil [Page 53]to countenance that given to Images. And the Council saith something afterwards, that the Eucharist had no humane shape, lest Idolatry to other humane shapes of Christ might have been countenanc'd by it.

But the Assembly in the West at Franckfort, opposing the wor­ship of Images, and practising that to the Eucharist, together with the Conc. Nic. 2 dum. affirmed the Eucharist to be not an Image of Christ's body, but his true body. See Dr. Tailor p. 316; ‘The words of type and image in the question of the Holy Sacrament were disliked by the Assembly at Franckfort; because, if the Sacrament were an image, as they of Constantinople said, then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images.’ Thus he. Whence it follows, that all the three Councils agreed in this, the veneration of the Eucharist. Add to this, what is said by the Doctor p. 343. that in Averroes's time, who lived about A. Christi 1000. Christiani adorabant quod comedebant, (tho not in such a gross sense as the Philosopher understood those words,) which Adoration what reason the Doctor hath to restrain to some mistaken souls of Averroes's acquaintance only, I know not. See likewise Tail. p. 279. where that of St. Austin, contra Faustum 20. l. 13. c. Propter Panem & Calicem nonnulli nos Cererem & Liberum colere existimabant, argues the Christians worshipping of the Eucharist. Neither doth St. Austin's, ritu nostro amplecti­mur, say any thing contradictory to it: only if not to the Cate­chumeni, much less to the Heathen, did the Fathers use full ex­planations of this ineffable mystery.

August. in Psalm. 33. concione 1. Nondum enim erat sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Domini, quod norunt fideles, quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum. Conc. 2. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus ejus? quia cum commendarit ipsum corpus suum & sangui­nem suum, (i.e. in his last Supper,) accepit in manus suas, quod norunt fideles &c. See the quotation out of Epiphanius, p. 93. Where he saith, Hoc meum est, but names not corpus. This frequent in St. Austin, and others. But what need of such dis­guising the business, if all the catechumeni, fideles, or unbelie­vers were to know, was only in plain language, that the conse­crated Bread was signum corporis sui, to the worthy receivers of which sign God communicated all the benefits of his Passion. Thus much of their adoration of Christ in the Symbols, of which Mr. Bloudel in his fourth chap. which gives a history of the Fa­thers doctrine, takes no notice.

[Page 54]5. From their holding not only a Spiritual, 5. Holding an oral man­ducation of Christ's bo­dy &c. but an oral man­ducation of the body and blood of Christ, and it to be received not only by the good but wicked; which necessarily infers its pre­sence with the Symbols. Austin mentioned before p. 123. Cum dantem carnem suam manducandam sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus. Cyprian 5. serm. de lapsis. speaking of those, who after having denied Christ come to the Sacrament, saith; Vis infertur corpori ejus & sanguini; & plus modo in Do­mini manibus atque ore delinquunt (i. e. in receiving,) quam cum Dommum negaverunt. Chrysostom. Hom. 83. in Matt. Quare non oportet esse puriorem, tali fruentem sacrificio? Quo Solari radio non splendidiorem manum carnem hanc dividentem; os, quod igni Spi­rituali repletur; linguam, quae tremendo nimis sanguine rubescit! And in 1 Cor. 11.17. Reus erit corporis.— he saith, Risus intem­pestivus, urbanitas, & facetiae exitio plenae, feastings, &c, & haec facis Christi mensa exceptus, illo die quo dignus es habitus, qui ejus carnes lingua tangeres. —Manum tuam expurga, & castiga linguam & labra, quae ingressus Christi fuere vestibula, &c. S. Gregory in 4. lib. Dialog. (in whose time Mr. Blondel cap. 17. grants there was yet no alteration concerning the doctrine of this Sacrament,) Est quidem in peccatoribus & indigne sumentibus vera Christi caro, & verus sanguis, sed essentia, non salubri efficientia: See concerning S. Austin's opinion p. 132.

From Christ's body and blood being held in the hands of the Priest of the communicants, (for the use of putting into their mouths is, tho ancient, yet somewhat later than the times of those Fathers we mention) from their exceeding care, that no part thereof should fall to the ground &c. that it should not be seen by the heathen, or the catechumeni, I suppose lest their weakness should have some disesteem thereof. Basil. de Spiritu Sancto 27. c. speaking of many Traditions not published in writ­ing from the founders of Christianity, but secretly conveyed, saith, Pulchre quidem illi, nimirum docti, arcanorum venerationem silen­tio conservari, Num quae nee intueri fas est non initiatis. Qui con­veni [...]bat horum doctrinam publicitus circumserri scripto, Horum do­ctrinam (i. e.) the Consecration, Prayers, &c. in the celebration of the Eucharist.

Add to these, the same honour and reverence continued to the Eucharist, as to the body of Christ, in their reposition and reserva­tion of some part thereof after the communion ended, to be di­stributed, when need was, to the sick &c, (or also to be commu­nicated [Page 55] another day (as in some time of Lent) even in the Church. See Conc. Const. 6. in Trullo Can. 52.) See for this reservation the Testimonies of Antiquity gather'd in the Controvertists; as in Bell. de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 3. See S. Austin's Sermon to the new-Baptiz'd. In Fulgent. Bapt. Aethiop. ult. cap. and Daille on it Answ. to Chaumont p. 42. and the confession of Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. s. 39. Sed enim qui sic faciunt (i. e. Sacramentum repnunt) habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor verum in re tanta & in qua non sine magno periculo erratur, nihil tutius, quam ipsam veri­tatem sequi. True, if we certainly knew it: But when every Writer pretends his Doctrine to be the Truth (For who tells us, that himself lies?) nihil tutius quam Ecclesiae consuetudinem sequi, that so we may not forsake the Truth.

§. XXI To some of these five Considerations from which we gather the Fathers to have held a substantial presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols, Answers of the Reform­ed to these Arguments. 1. Concern­ing the change of the Ele­ments into Christs Bo­dy. something is said both by Mr. Blondel and Dr. Tay­lor, and others; but what seems to me no ways satisfactory.

To the first, second, and third, they say, (but I would wish you to peruse their own Books, lest their Answers may receive some wrong by my relation, or something in them more consi­derable be omitted by me,) they say then, that where the Fathers say, 1. That the Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ. 2. That of the Bread by Consecration it made the Body of Christ. 3. That after Consecration it ceaseth to be Bread. 4. Or, That it is not only Bread. 5. That the Nature and Substance of Bread by Consecration is chang'd into Christs Body, &c. they mean α only: 1. Is a sign or Sacrament of Christ's Body; or his Body in Sacra­ment; or (as Dr. Taylor p. 266) the Bread is verily the Body of Christ, truly his Flesh, and the Wine truly his Blood] (How?) by a change of condition, of sanctification, and usage. 2. That of Bread is made [the Sacrament] of his Body. 3. That it ceaseth to be Bread, i. e. common Bread. 4. That it is not only Bread, by reason of the Grace of Consecration added to its nature. 5. That the nature of it is chang'd from simple Bread to pain benit, or Sacramental Bread; and that it acquires a new essence, i.e. the essence of a Sacrament.

See such solutions in Blondel, p. 64. &c. in his Margin, and p. 222, 224. So in his Explication of the Canon of the Mass, p. 452. See likewise p. 470. where it petitions, ut (oblatio) fiat [Page 56]nobis corpus & sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi, he expoundeth Corps &c. en Sacrement. Again where it, ut quot­quot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, &c. he interprets prendrons [le Sacra­ment du] sacro-sainct corps de ton fils, qui est ce mesme sacro-sainct corps en representation & signification, (where note also, that he holds not any substantial presence of Christ's Body to the worthy Receiver, in which thing those of the se­cond Opinion I think will not consent to him.) Lastly, they say, That, by change of the Elements, the Fathers mean no more than an accidental Sacramental conversion; a change of condition, of san­ctification and usage, and efficacy; as a Table (by consecration) is chang'd into an Altar; a House into a Church; a Man into a Priest; as the Water of the River into the Laver of Regene­ration. See this in Dr. Taylor p. 270. and the like in Blondel, p. 472. Bref par tout ce pain est apellê sainct de mesme que le calice, la table, la palatine, sont apeller saincts, Ascavoir entant qu'ils servent a une usage sainct, &c. without any presence of Christs Body either to them or instead of them. See Blond. p. 156, 157, 174, &c. Tay­lor p. 266. Now tho (as it appears I think above) the expres­sions of the Fathers, for such a change of the symbols, as that, after Consecration, the substance of Christs Body is there with them, are so full, as 'tis hard to say such a thing more plainly than they do: Yet that they are not in such a sense to be under­stood, they urge many things.

B First, That we must not interpret them so as to make them contradict themselves, or one another. See Blond. p. 158, 232. Then they shew, that the same Fathers, that use these high ex­pressions, yet cease not to call the Elements, even after Conse­cration, images, figures, types, similitudes, signs, sacraments of the Body, &c. representations, memorials, exemplars, symbols, Corpus­typicum, & symbolicum, & mysticum. See many more Blond. c. 4. prop. 8. and Taylor p. 313. & p. 290. where that expression of Tertullian is much stood upon (adv. Marcion. l. 4. c. 40.— Pro­fessus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum (in­dignum enim fuit ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum pa­nem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est cor­pus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phan­tasma (as Marcion contended Christs Body was) figuram capere non posset; and say, that they are Christs Body, not proprie, but [Page 57] aliquo modo &c. γ Now, idem non est simile: the sign can't be the very thing signified by the sign; nor the type (figure) the prototype, or the truth. See Tayl. p. 318. Blond. 207.210. δ Especially these places of S. Austin are much insisted on by them, 23. Ep. ad. Bonifacium. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, Sacramentum san­guinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita Sacramentum fidei (i. e. Bap­tism) fides est.—Sicut de ipso Baptismo Apostolus, Consepulti, in­quit, sumus Christo per Baptismum in mortem; non ait, sepulturam significamus; sed prorsus ait, consepalti sumus: Sacramentum ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupatur. So in Psal. 33. Concio. 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo, cum diceret, Hoc est corpus meum. ζ. In Psal. 98. upon those words in St. John, Verba quae locutus sum vobis spiritus est & vita. —Spiritualiter in­telligite, quod locutus sum; non hoc corpus quod videtis manducatis­ri estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt, qui me cru­cifigent; Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter in­tellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. De doctrina Christiana 3. l. 16. c. —Si praeceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata; si autem sla­gitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem & beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii homi­nis, & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Flagiti­um vel facinus videtur jubere, figura est ergo praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata sit.

η To these they add some other places of St. Austin, wherein he saith the unworthy Communicants receive the Sacrament of Christ's body, but not his Body; which argues the body at least not present with the Symbols. Such that tract 26. in Johan: Qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio n [...]c manducat (Spiritualiter in my book) carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramen­tum corporis & sanguinis Christi; sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat. And tract. 59. where he saith of the Apostles and Judas: Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille pa­nem Domini, contra Dominum. I find likewise urged by some, two [Page 58]places out of Chrysostom: One out of 20. Hom. in 2. Corinth. that he there prefers the poor as being reipsa or ipsummet corpus Christi, before the Sacrament, or corpus Christi in Altari: but searching the place, I find (and so may any that please to peruse it) the comparison not to be at all between the poor and corpus Christi in altari, but between the poor and altare, quia capit corpus Christi. Another, out of 11. Hom. in Matth. of the opus imperfectum; where it is said, vasa sanctificata &c, in quibus non verum corpus Chri­sti, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur. Words plain enough, but none of S. Chrysostom's. See Bell de Euch. 2. l. 22. c. and Erasmus his Preface to that work. To which Dr. Tailor's reply, p. 308. no way satisfies me, it not following, that because they happen to be inserted among S. Chrysostom's works, therefore he must be esteem­ed a good Catholick that writ them: which rule should it gene­rally pass, the Protestants would have much the worse by it.

There are urged also by them two places out of the same book of S. Ambrose, which here we have made much use of against their tenent. The one place, de Sacr. 4. l. 4. c. Vinum & aqua in calicem mit­titur, sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi coelestis, (i.e. by the words, Hoc est corpus meum, pronounced by the Priest.) Sed forte dices, Spe­ciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, (i. e. in not seeing any crucifixion of him in the Sacrament,) ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis, ut nullus horror cruoris sit, & pretium tamen operetur redemptionis. The other places, 6. l. 1. c. where the Father makes a recapitula­tion of things formerly said. Sicut verus est Dei Filius, —ita ve­ra caro, quam accepimus. —Forte dicas, quomodo vera? qui simili­tudinem video, non video sanguinis veritatem. Primo dixi tibi de sermone Christi, (i. e. the words of Consecration, Hoc est &c.) qui operatur, ut possit mutare & convertere generalia instituta naturae. Deinde, ubi non tulerunt sermonem Christi discipuli ejus, (Jo. 6.52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?) ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia re­demptionis: ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis Sacramenta, sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris.

ϑ. These things they strengthen with the Conc. Constant. un­der Constant. Copronymus calling the Eucharist the Image of Christ's Body; and Christ's Body [...], not [...], see Tail. p. 313. Blond. p. 378. &c. and with the inference of the 2. Conc. Nice, in their refuting the Constant. Conc. where they say, Demitten­tes quidem mendacium quadantenus veritatem contingunt confessi divinum fieri corpus panem.

[Page 59] [...] At si imago corporis est, non potest sane fieri divinum Corpus, urged by Mr. Blondel p. 385. therefore, The Fathers likewise making it imago, figura, &c. by this deny it to be Corpus Di­vinum.

λ Again, with the Form of the Canon of the Mass, which they say plainly makes for them against substantial Conver­sion.

μ For in it both before the words of Consecration, there is an Oblation made of the Elements, and that pro Ecclesia Catholica; & pro peccatis, &c. See that Prayer; Suscipe sacrosancte Pater, and—Te igitur clementissime Pater—both before the Consecration (not to be denied saith Bellarmine, & veteres Patres passim idem tradunt, saith he, i. e. that the Creatures of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are offer'd to God: see him de Missa l. 1. c. 27.) and there they are call'd dona sancta, sacrificia illibata, &c.

[...] And likewise some of those Expressions and Forms of Ob­lation, which are made after Consecration in the Roman Canon, are put before it in some other Liturgies.

ξ Again, after the Consecration many expressions are found in the Roman Canon no way suting to the presence of Christs real Body: As the praying, that God would accept these Offerings, i. e. accept of his Son, say the Romanists, (as if he were at any time not acceptable,) accept them as he did that of Abel's, Abra­ham's, Melchisedech's Sacrifices, (saith Blond.) on bruts, on inani­mez; a fit comparison to Christ his Son! That God would com­mand them perferri per manus St. Angeli tui in sublime Altare suum, in conspectu, &c. i. e. the Body of our Saviour to Heaven; where it is continually. And in other Liturgies, as that of St. James, they being call'd Bread and Wine, and the Fruits of the Earth, after Consecration; and particularly, in that Form set down in the Apost. Const. l. 8. c. 17. where after the words of Institution rehears'd (by which words they are suppos'd to be Consecrated) it follows—Rogamusque Te ut benigne respicere dig­neris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo, & complaceas tibi in ipsis in honorem Christi tui; Et mittas S. Spiritum super hoc sacrifici­um testem passionis Domini Jesu, ut ostendat hunc Panem Cor­pus Christi Tui, & hunc Calicem Sanguinem Christi Tui, ut qui eum percipiunt, &c. See much more to this purpose in Blondel, from p. 454, to 467.

[Page 60] §. XXII Secondly, For the miraculous instances by which the Fathers use to illustrate the change of the Bread into the Body of Christ, Mr. Blondel p. 315,Concerning the miracu­lousness of changes. seems to deny the Fathers to have acknow­ledg'd any miracle at all in the Eucharist, saying, ou est le Pere, qui dit que les symboles soyent changes miraculeusement? (which I am astonisht at, and the rather, when presently after he saith, that Chrysostom and others ont considerê l' Eucharistie comme un object plein des merveilles,) and then he urgeth Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10. as if that he denied all miracle in the Eucharist. I look'd diligently upon the place; and I found nothing at all there advantageous for Mr. Blondel to this purpose. St. Austin falls into a discourse there, that there are several things de materia corporali, quae tamen ad aliquid divinitus annuntiandum nostris sen­sibus admoventur: And these, either natural; where, amongst o­thers, he instances in Jacob's Stone, which he Consecrated. Or, which are made by Men, and these, vel aliquantulum mansura, si­cut potuit Serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in Eremo; vel peracto mini­sterio transitura; sicut panis ad hoc factus, in accipiendo sacramento consumitur. Then adds he—sed quia haec omnibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt (as the brazen Serpent and the Bread used in the Sacrament are things made by Man) honorem tanquam reli­giosa possunt habere, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt; he goes on, itaque illa quae per Angelos fiunt, quo ignotiora, eo mirabiliora sunt nobis, &c. All he saith then is, That the Bread, or brazen Serpent, have no wonder in the substance or matter of them, for men make them both. Now who affirms any miracle in any thing that is visible in the Eucharist? The miracle is in that which is invisible, the presence of Christ's Body with the signs.

But could any justly argue from hence, That the Cure of the Man by looking on the Serpentine figure of Brass was not miracu­lous; because St. Austin says, the Brass or Figure shapen by Man had nothing miraculous in it, but was known and ordinary?

Having clear'd this passage of Mr. Blondels, now to go on: I say, for those miraculous instances, they endeavour to qualifie the matter, in saying;

[...] That some of them are only accidental mutations, not sub­stantial; as, the bringing Water out of the Rock by Moses; Fire from Heaven by Elijah; Iron made to Swim on the Wa­ter by Elisha, &c. See Mr. Blondel p. 165.

[Page 61]ρ Or becoming new creatures and members of Christ by Re­generation, (a comparison in the Fathers which the Reformed make much use of, see Blond. p. 100.) But if you still press up­on them the miraculousness of these mutations, tho accidental, they answer;

σ That some of those instances argue another or greater change, than any party will allow of, in the Eucharist, and what proves too much proves nothing. See Taylor p. 347. 274. 278.

τ That the effect produced by the instrumency or upon the receipt of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist is miracu­lous, and no way proportioned to the natural qualities of them; as also the efficacy of the water of Baptism, and the real mutation which it causeth in the soul, is supernatural.

ν And lastly, that some of the same miraculous mutations are applied to Baptism, (for which chiefly a passage in Ambrose de Sacram. 2. l. 3. c. is quoted,) and other sacramentals or rituals of the Church: which Sacramentals the Fathers also illustrate by the change made in the Eucharist, and affirm such change to be in the one as in the other. See for this Blond. p. 165. 316. 101. &c. Tail. p. 276. See Calvin Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 14. s Patres hic quoque (i.e. in Baptism) mirificam conversionem statuunt, cum dicunt ex corrup­tibili elemento fieri spirituale animae lavacrum. See Daille's first Reply to Chaumont p. 30. &c.

ρ Add to these that it may be said, that the second Opinion, in affirming the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body to every worthy receiver, affirms a most miraculous effect in the Eucharist, (tho this not having any reference to the signs,) and therefore seems to concur with these testimonies of the Fathers, as profes­sing in the Eucharist a work of God's Omnipotency.

χ. As to the third, that of the Fathers using and offering the Eucharist before communicating as a Sacrifice &c.§. XXIII I do not re­member that Dr. Tailor takes much notice of it,Concerning a Sacrifice. but Mr. Blondel saith 4. c. 9. prop. that they celebrated or offered it only as a me­morial, image, representation, antitype of the Sacrifice upon the Cross; and then heaps up many testimonies, where the Fathers call it by these and the like names.

§. XXIV To the 4th, Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, and that before communicating, Concerning Adoration. (which seems to pinch closer than any of the rest,) I find them to say little or nothing with any close ap­plication [Page 62]to the testimonies brought out of the ancients.

1. In general they say; Christ may be worshipped when we receive the Eucharist or Symbols of his Body, (for which practice Daille (in the Reply to Chaumont) quotes and allows of the Church of England,) but Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in Hea­ven, not as in his body there present. See Calvin, de Christianae pacificationis ratione p. 50. Fateor certe Christum, ubicunque simus, esse adorandum, in coena vero cum se nobis fruendum offerat, rite ali­ter recipi nequit, quam si adoretur. Sed hoc quaeritur, sursumne an deorsum respiciat nostra adoratio? Quum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus, quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa, ab ipso disce­dit. And Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 37. s. In coena adoratio ea est legitima, quae non in signo residet, sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur.

To the same purpose writes Dr. Taylor p. 343. and quotes St. Austin as speaking of such Adoration. So Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry, 67.s. ‘Our Church adores Christ in the Sa­crament, (as it signifies an action, in which certainly Christ is) not Christ's body locally present under the shape of the Elements.’ Thus he. But this worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament, as it signifies an action, in the end of the Section is explained to be only this: That we in that time and place, when and where he is eminently represented by the Priest, and offered to God for us (i.e. re­representatively,) do worship him, (i. e. as being according to his humane nature only in heaven. See 66. s.)

But I find some expressions in some of them, when shaping an­swers to the Fathers, (tho I do not well understand them, there­fore I shall set you down their own words,) as if they did allow of something more, namely of adoring Christ as someway there pre­sent; present both to the worthy receiver, and to the Mysteries or Symbols. Of which Dr. Taylor thus-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 soul the flesh and blood of Christ. So that we worship it [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.’ And thus Daille (2d. Reply to Chaumont p. 29.) in answer to the places of the Fathers: Il' y a une enorme diffe­rence entre [adorer le Sacrament] & [adorer Jesus Christ au Sa­crament, [Page 63]ou es mysteres] Le second signifie ou Adorer Jesus Christ, en communiant a son Sacrement (ce que nous faisons volontiers, piusque nous le croions Dieu) ou Adorer Jesus Christ, qui est pre­sent au Sacrement, ascavoir par foi dans le coeur des communi­ans; & en mystere dans les signes, come la chose signifiée est presente en celle qui la signifie. Les Peres ne disent & ne font que le second; & ceux de Rome commandent & pratiquent le premier.

And thus Rivet (Annot. & Animadv. p. 92.) in answer to the same Father: —Propriam adorationem deberi vero Christi corpori, quod nobis est nunc [...] & sola mente percipiendum, nemo pius ne­gabit. So in Bishop Andrews Resp. ad Bellarm. Apolog. 8. c. I find in Answer to the Fathers sayings urged by the Cardinal, this: —Recipe Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere & a­dorandum statuit: rem sc. Sacramenti; at non. Sacramentum; ter­renam sc. partem, (ut Irenaeus,) visibilem, (ut Augustinus.) —Nos vero & in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio; & (non id, sed) eum, qui super altare colitur. Nazianzen's saying: —Nec carnem manducamus, quin adoremus prius, cum Augustino. Et Sa­cramentum tamen nulli adoramus. But here I am left in the dark, whether Christ may be adored as corporally present with the Sym­bols (the res visibilis) and that before communicating. See what he saith concerning this Presence, in what is quoted out of his first cap. before.

Lastly, I will set down what AP. Spalato, and Bishop Forbes say, who speak plainly, and I suppose in this are allowed by the Church of England; since they seem here to maintain only her opinion of the real presence of Christ's very body, not to the signs, but to the worthy receiver only: tho of Bishop Forbes his opinion see more hereafter. Thus therefore they: see Forb. de Eu­charist. 2. l. 2. c. 8. & 9. s. Quod ad adorationem hujus Sacramenti attinet: quum qui digne sumit S. Symbola, vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter (modo tamen spirituali, mi­raculoso, & imperceptibili) omnis digne communicans, (is the worthy communicant to worship, but not the unworthy, because Christ's body is there present to the one, but not to the other?) 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 communicationi reali­ter praesens; ut inquit Archiep. Spalat. Repub. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. A­gain: An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus, Protestantes sanio­res [Page 64]non dubitant; in sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalat.) adorandus est Christus vera Latria: siquidem corpus ejus vivum & gloriosum, miraculo quodam inexplicabili, digne sumenti praesens adest; & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sump­tioni, non Comestioni, non signis, sed ipsi Corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur & perficitur.] Here these seem to allow an Adoration of Christ, as present in the Sumption of the Sacrament; but not of him before, as present with the Symbols.

2. Of those of the third Opinion, who hold Christ's Body pre­sent with the Symbols, yet some deny Adoration of this Body so present lawful; upon such grounds as are also urged in subsidiis by Calvin and his Followers, namely, because Corpus non jubet se adorari in Eucharistia. See Calv. Inst. l. 4. c. 17. s. 35, 36. An res erat nullius momenti Deum hac forma adorare, ut nihil nobis prae­scriberetur? Cum de vero cultu ageretur, tanta levitate fuerat tentan­dum, de quo nullum usque verbum legebatur? Qui sacramenti ado­rationem excogitarunt eam a seipsis somniarunt, citra scripturam, ubi nulla illius mentio ostendi potest. So Rivet. Exam. Animad. Grot. Christus nullibi jussit, ut eum in sacramento adoraremus; nec legimus Apostolos, cum eis exhibitum fuit, accubitum. mutasse in adgeniculationem. So others; in Eucharistiam Christum esse non ut adoretur, sed ut manducetur: Others, non esse idem corpus Christi & Christum.

But yet some of them grant Adoration, not of the Sacrament; but of Christ present with it, lawful in usu Coenae; or at such time as they grant him to be present with the symboles. And some of the Calvinists object against the Lutherans, That the lawfulness of Adoration is a necessary Consequent upon their Tenent of Christ's presence with the symbols; see de Pace Eccl. sent. Mort p. 10. And note here, that whereas the Lutherans generally are said to renounce Adoration; 'tis meant, not of the renoun­cing of the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament, which some allow, but of the Worship of the Sacrament.

3. All generally acknowledg, That the consecrated Symbols are to be used with Reverence and Respect, as Holy things. There­fore Rivet saith of the Fathers, and of some Lutherans, Annot. & Animadv. p. 92. Voluerunt (quod & de Theodoreto sentiendum) ad sacra signa percipienda, cum reverentia esse accedendum, propter Dei potentiam.

[Page 65]4. Lastly, They all contend, That the Symbols may not be Worship'd for Christ; or, as being Christ; or, with the Worship due to Christ: And if they be, That it is Idolatry, i. e. Worship­ing a Creature for the Creator: Which Worship of the Symbols for Christ, they object to the Church of Rome. And this is all that I can find said by them concerning the ancient practise of Adoration: The fourth thing we Consider'd.

§. XXV Now (as I said) these their Answers to the former points seem to me (at least the most part of them) very unsatisfactory; and if you please to review them, as I have plac'd the Letters, to avoid Repetition, I shall as briefly as I can propose to you my Reasons.

For these Replies.To that then which is said in their Answer to the first Ar­gument [from the Letter α to β] it may be Reply'd: That taking some other instance by which is signified only a representation or similitude; as this Proposition, when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10. The Rock is Christ: If any one, to explain only this similitude or representation, should make such expressions as the Fathers use concerning [This is my Body;] as [Christ was made of the Rock] or [The Rock was chang'd into Christ, &c.] they would be judg'd very improper and absurd. That, that Party will not ad­mit of such interpretations of the Fathers meaning (so seeming contrary to this expression) in other places quoted by them a­gainst the Romanists Reply to their Answer to the first Argument out of the Fathers, as namely, in that of S. Austin quoted hereafter. Non hoc corpus quod videtis, &c. Where, it being answer'd, that [non hoc] was exclusive to the qualities then accompanying it, not to the substance; Daille (in his second Reply to Chaumont p. 45.) saith, c'est nous tenir pour des Enfans que de nous vouloir payer de telles desfaits.

But especially such interpretations seem more unreasonable from any of the second Opinion, who hold the substantial Body of our Saviour (not altogether absent in the Eucharist, but) most certainly present, tho by a miraculous and ineffable manner, to the worthy Receiver; and therefore hold also a possibility of its being present with the Symbols; and yet will force these plain expressions of the Fathers, that de facto it is so, to another sense.

[Page 66]But (of whatever constructions these Speeches may be thought capable) I think the miraculousness of the change of the Ele­ments alledg'd by them, and the Adoration of Christ, as being with the Signs, before Communicating, practis'd (of which more by and by) will put the meaning of those phrases of the Ancients out of doubt.

In Answer to what is said from [β] (meaning of those phrases of the Ancients) to [δ] as a necessary reason of such interpreta­tions, I must intreat you to read over again what I have writ­ten in the second Observation, p. 6, 7, 8, &c. Where I have shew'd, what little reason those of the second Opinion, who hold a real presence, have to move such an Objection, p. 8. But se­condly, I think there it is sufficiently clear'd also, that the ex­pressions of the Symbols, being a sign, image, type, figure, &c. of the Body, as then present with them; or of the Symbols or Body it self then Sacramentally present, being a type, figure, &c. of the Body as it once suffer'd on the Cross, do well consist with the sub­stantial presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, with the Sym­bols; and with the miraculous and supernatural mutation (which is affirm'd by the Fathers) of those Symbols in part into that very Body. In part, I say; for a total change, of all that is vi­sible or sensible of the Elements into the Body of Christ, none affirm; but that after Consecration still a sign remains distinct from the thing signified. For this is willingly yeilded, that what is chang'd into the Body can be said no longer a sign or symbol of it. But yet, supposing a total change, two other Propositions may still be true:

1. That those symbols, after Consecration or that change, are figures, &c. of Christ's Body.

2. That after Consecration, that body into which they are chang'd, in that manner in which it is there existent, is a fi­gure, &c. of it self, as after another manner once existent upon the Cross. Hence, take any of those Fathers who use the high­est expressions concerning this mutation, as, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Greg. Nyssen, &c. yet do they as familiarly use the words also of sign, sacrament, figure, &c. in some of those senses above, as any other.

Now since both these; That of the Elements being chang'd into Christ's Body, and that of their remaining signs, as properly understood, are no way incompatible: The excuse of using some violence upon the one phrase, namely that of mutation (which [Page 67]Mr. Blondel confesseth p. 155, in appearance plus favorable a l'opi­nion de Rome) to accord it with the other, namely that of type and figure, &c. is taken away. For to be figure or sign, in respect of what remains unchang'd, whether it be the substance of the Elements, or only their properties or species, well consists with a true change of the rest into Christ's Body, if the species only re­main; or with a miraculous change of Christ's Body to be join'd with, or contain'd in, the Elements, if the substance of them still remain. But such a miraculous change into Christ's Body no way consists with the Elements being only a Sacrament or sign there­of, without any real presence with them of that Body into which they are said by Omnipotency to be chang'd. For now where is there any such miracle shew'd about the Symbols? Where any mistake or mis-information of the sense beholding them? And if any contend, that they are call'd figures, &c. in some Texts of the Fathers, with exclusion to the presence of Christ's Body; Resp. 'Tis with exclusion not to any real presence of this Body, (as the second Opinion will grant, who affirm it really present to the worthy Receiver,) nor to any real presence with the sym­bols; but only to some manner of the presence thereof; namely, as It was when Crucified.

That this Answer may seem the more warrantable, I refer you to Dr. Taylor, p. 20. who there us'd it in another matter. This of the Father's Language: But the next Ages after the Fa­thers (the Seventh and Eighth Age) proceeded contrary to the Reformed, in their judgment of the sence of Antiquity; rejecting the words of Figure and Image (as oppos'd to a real presence,) and abetting the miraculous change. See Anastasius, Damascen, the Second Nicene Council in the East, that of Francfort in the West, following the former expressions of Nice, as quoted in Blondel, p. 365. Tho I suppose they deny'd not, Figure, and Image, and real Presence, taken in several respects well to con­sist together. And indeed, supposing that the Fathers were all of one mind in this obscure mystery, and that they held all what the third or fourth Opinion pretends they did; yet so many se­veral things consider'd in the Sacrament [Christ's Passion, or his Body as on the Cross, commemorated; Christ's Body, as present with the Signs, offer'd as a Socrifice to the Father; and then sed upon by the Communicants: The Symbols mean-while only visible, and nothing besides; used in this sacred action as Signs, Figures, and Similitudes, not only of Christ's Body as present in one manner, [Page 68]but of It not present in another, (namely, as it convers'd in the World, and suffer'd for us); these Symbols Offer'd likewise, and Eaten, as well as the Body] must needs produce diversity of Ex­pressions; now looking one way, now another, according to the thing to which they relate; the like variety to which I know not whether any other subject in the world is capable of.

In that place of Tertullian, Figura corporis (according to what is said before, and in Obs. 2.) argues not, that Tertullian held not verum corpus to be together with panis, the Figure. Which seems to be his opinion, by his saying before [fecit panem cor­pus suum]; which panis was in the Old Testament (tho this much oppos'd by Marcion, who deny'd the Old Testament, and all the types and relations thereof to the New) also (as Tertul­lian shews presently after this) a Figure of Christ's Body; and by that phrase after [non capit figuram], and by his expressions else­where concerning it, That, ad uxorem l. 2. c. 5. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto, (i. e. the Eucharist) ante omnem cibum gustes? & si sciverit, panem, non illum, credit, esse, qui dicitur. [If this be an assertion, and not (as Junius thinks it is) an interrogation ra­ther, referring to Infanticidium Apol. c. 7.] And that de Idol. c. 7. Semel Judaei Christo manus intulerunt, isti quotidie corpus ejus laces­sunt; speaking of the Eucharist. And that adv. Marcion. l. 1. c. 14. At ille quidem (i. e. Christus) nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, &c. —nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat, (i. e. praesentem reddit, if we may interpret it by the same sense of the word in l. 4. c. 22. Itaque jam repraesentans eum, i. e. Deus Christum) Hic est Filius meus; utique subauditur, quem repromisi repraesentans, (i. e. praesentans).

To γ]. How the same in some sense may be said, to be like or unlike it self, see before. But, there being two things in the Sa­crament; and something remaining after Consecration, which is not the Body of Christ, but the Symbol thereof, &c. None say, that Christ's Body in the Eucharist is the Image, or sign, figure, or similitude of it self, as in the Eucharist: But either, that the Symbols are signs, figures, &c. of the Body; or, the Body, as in the Eucharist, a figure, &c. of the same Body as Crucified.

To [δ] that S. Austin held a real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, those of the second opinion I think will not deny. That he held this its presence in the Eucharist to be with the symbols also before communicating, I think is clear from his other sayings quoted p. 38, &c. The words, immediately before those [Page 69]here quoted, are, Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso, & tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur, nec ubique menti­tur qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramen­ta &c. From this it seems plain, that St. Austin speaks of the Eucharist, as signifying Christ's immolation on the Cross, and so tis rightly said, not properly, but secundum quendam modum, or quodammodo, the Body of Christ as the Body was in that manner existent. And thus Paschasius answered this place above 800 years ago.

But it is capable also of another answer, (and so some other places like it,) That by Sacramentum S. Austin (there) means the symbols: That corpus Christi may be predicated quodammodo of the sign thereof, (whether it be the substance or only the spe­cies of the bread,) namely, after such a manner as the Consub­stantialists say, Hic panis est corpus meum. And thus Algerus answered this place against Berengarius, before any Council had decreed Transubstantiation. Lastly, S. Austin instanceth in Bap­tism; that the Apostle saith in it, consepulti sumus, because Baptismus sepulturam significabat: but none may lawfully con­clude from hence, that S. Austin held Baptism only to signifie grace, and not to confer it; neither therefore may he, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist only signified Christ's Body.

To [ζ] 1. The place in Psalm 98. Since S. Austin speaks here of eating it; 1 all those who hold the worthy receiver to par­take and eat that very substantial body which suffered for them up­on the cross, can make no use of this place. Now for this I must remember you again of Calvin's expression: —Neque enim mor­tis suae tantum beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est. And see what Dr. Tailor saith p. 20. 2. Note,2 that S. Austin elsewhere (as in Psalm. 33. upon those words, Ac­cedite ad eum & illuminemmi; and contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c.) saith as plainly the seeming-contrary to this: Judaei de cruci­fixo tenebrati sunt, nos manducando & bibendo crucifixum illumi­namur. —Et nunc bibimus quod de Christi latere manavit. 3.3 In the very same 98. Psal. are those words quoted before. Nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, which shews either Christ's very flesh in the Eucharist, or adoration of ano­ther creature for the flesh of Christ. 4.4 I see no reason why that old answer may not pass, given long since against Beren­garius, quoting this place, Non idem corpus, (i.e.) in propria sua specie, accompanied with the natural qualities of flesh and blood; [Page 70] Non in specie mortali & visibili, ut aderat tunc praesens discipulis suis, sed alio modo impassibiliter & invisibiliter se habens. ‘Neither doth Daille's Reply (in his 2d. answer to Chaumont p. 45.) move me, [that when corn is first sown, and cared, and threshed, and so ground, and moulded into bread, we may with the same reason maintain, that the eater of this bread eats not the same corn that was threshed &c, because its now changed in its qualities,] because this alteration about our Saviour's body, as it is invisible, impassible, &c in the Eucharist, is much more strange than that he instanceth in.’ But that all such expressions, as we make this to be, are not improper, see the Apostles 1 Cor. 15.37. Thou sowest not that body that shall be, i. e. with such and such qualities and ornaments as it shall come up, tho it shall be idem numero corpus in the resurrection; and so flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, tho flesh otherwise qualified shall inherit it: for our Saviour's glorified body had flesh and bone. Luk-24.39. And see St. Austin's discourse upon these places, Ep. 146. where, to reconcile caro possidebit, and caro non possidebit &c, he saith, caro secundum substantiam possidebit, caro autem, cum secundum corruptionem intelligitur, non possidebit. And so for the wheat sown: Non quod triticum, saith he, non erit ex tritico; sed quod nemo seminat herbam, stipulam, &c, cum quibus ista semina exurgunt.

5. Lastly, the same phrases are found in other Fathers, whose opinion perhaps is more clear than S. Austins, that the same bo­dy that was crucified is in the Sacrament received: as in S. Am­brose comment in Luc. l. 8. urged by Daille 2d. Rep. to Chaum. p. 331. and in S. Hierom. in Ephes. 1. cap. where he thus on 7. verse. Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi & caro intelligitur: Spiri­tualis illa atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, & sanguis meus vere est potus: & nisi manducaveritis carnem me­am, & sanguinem biberitis, non babebitis vitam aeternam; vel caro & sanguis, quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lancea. Juxta hanc divisionem, & in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis & carnis ac­cipitur; ut alia sit caro, quae visura est salutare Dei, alia caro & sanguis, quae regnum Dei non queant possidere. But here he means [alia] in quality only, as is shewed before. This distinction of Christ's flesh in S. Hierom Dr. Tailor qualifies thus, p. 10. That Body which was crucified is not that Body which 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 is the same we do eat] if the intention be, to speak of [Page 71]the same thing in several manners of being and operating; the same answer the Doctor gives here I conceive fits this place of S. Austin. To the place (de doct. Christiana) flagitium or facinus can appear only in the Capernaitan conceit of eating it (as I men­tioned but now in the answer given to the last place urged by Berengarius) in propriasua specie as accompanied &c. see p.

Therefore the Father meaneth only that the text was not so to be understood. But supposing that it is indeed Christ's very body we receive in the Eucharist, yet what flagitium, what horror, can any apprehend in it, as he receives it after another manner of being, impassibiliter, invisibiliter se habens, under the visible species only of bread and wine? As for that the Father saith afterward, that the locution is figurata, and inculcates only a memorial of the Passion &c. it is very true, tho Christ's very Body that suffered on the Cross be granted to be present also in the Eucharist; because it is not in the same manner present, and in its Eucharistical pre­sence relates to the other: for which see what is said (that I may not often repeat the same things) before, in the 2d. Observation. p. [...] — and below [of the sacrifice of the Eucharist being a representative or commemorative in respect of that of the Cross] p. [...] yet in this place S. Austin seems to speak, not of the man­ducation of Christ's body made more particularly in the Eucha­rist, but extrasacramental and in general; as by faith it may, and is to be done at all times by us in a spiritual manner; and as our Saviour's auditors might have eaten it at that very time, when he made this Sermon to them. Therefore it is worth the mark­ing that what in some verses of this Chapter he expresseth by feeding, in others he promiscuously denoteth by believing, on him. See Jo. 6.35, 40, 47, 64, compared with 50, 53, 54, 57.

To these places that follow quoted out of S. Ambrose, I answer to the first. That there are two ways to understand similitudo sanguinis or cruoris; either similitudo, non cruor (or veritas cruo­ris) or similitudo, non species (or exterior apparentia cruoris), lest there should so arise some horror from it. Now that the Father opposeth not the similitudo to exclude cruor or veritatem cruoris, his assertion before puts out of doubt, vinum & aqua fit sanguis Christi, and sanguis not in figura or sacramento, but verus sanguis, as appears in the latter place quoted. Which assertion occasi­ons the objection. His meaning therefore is, Bibimus similitudi­nem &c, ne sit horror, sed sub qua similitudine continetur, licet non videatur, veritas. To the 2d. place, vere naturae gratia & vir­tus [Page]may be understood either virtus & gratia sanguinis, either si­mul cum natura sanguinis or sine natura sanguinis. But if it be taken this latter way, then the Father after such high expressi­ons will be made to assert in earnest no more than a Zuinglian, and this interpretation will never consist with what goes before, [vera caro & veritas sanguinis sicut verus Filius & sermo Christi mutans generalia Instituta naturae,] upon which an objection being raised [non video sanguinis veritatem, therefore there seems to be there in the Cup no such thing,] he that makes the Fa­ther to deny, under similitudo, veritatem sanguinis, makes him in his answer to grant the objection, and reverse his former posi­tions.

To [η] I will first set you down for an allay some other places in S. Austin, expressing carnem & sanguinem Domini to be received by the unworthy: and then you will better digest the common answer to these places. Contra Donatistas 5. l. 8. c. To illustrate (against them) that —Is nullo modo facit, ut Baptismus bonus non sit, aut ut omnino Baptismus non sit, quisquis eo sive quia in haeresi, sive quia in pessimis moribus vivit, non legitime utitur, he brings in a simile from the Eucharist. Indigne quisque sumens Dominicum Sacramentum non efficit, ut quia ipse malus est, malum sit; aut, quia non ad salutem accipit nihil acceperit. Corpus enim Do­mini & sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis, quibus dicebat Apostolus; Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat & bibit. In Matt. 11. Sermon upon those words, [Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum, non habebit remissionem in aeternum,] to il­lustrate Christum non intendisse omnem sed quendam blasphemantis in Sp. S. reatum, he brings that saying Jo. 6. Qui manducat meam carnem &c. in me manet. Upon which, Nunquid (saith he) etiam illos hic poterimus accipere, de quibus dicit Apostolus, quod judicium sibi manducent & bibant, cum ipsam carnem manducent, & ipsum sanguinem bibant? &c. —Sed profecto est quidam modus mandu­candi illam carnem &c. quomodo qui manducaverit in Christo ma­net: —quem modum utique ipse Christus videbat, quando ista di­cebat. Sic igitur & in eo quod ait, Qui blasphemaverit— 162. Epist. against the Donatists; Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam: sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos, quod fideles noverunt, pretium nostrum. Et. 163. Traditorem suum, qui jam pretium ejus acceperat, usque ad ultimum pacis osculum inter innocentes secum esse perpessus est. Last­ly, see those quotations p. 10, 11, and especially that, where he saith, [...]ivites terrae (i.e. superbos) accipere de corpore & sanguine Christi, [Page 73]adorare, manducare, &c and this [adorare] is such, as he allows to no (other] creature, as you may see in his discourse upon adorate scabellum: which adoration also being before manduca­rion, it sufficiently inferreth S. Austin's belief of the presence of Christ's body with the symbols before communicated.

This qualification premised; the common distinction in answer (which was given of old, before any Conciliary decree concerning Transubstantiation, and also is set down in Conc. Trid. 13. Sess. 8. c.) is this. Quosdam accipere Christi corpus Sacramentaliter tantum, as the unworthy receivers; yet in which Sacramental sumption is the true body of Christ, tho not the fruit and efficacy, and benefit there­of, as to them that received, but hurt and judgment; (as the same good nourishment is received by the sick and healthful stomach, but as the one is fed, the other is damag'd by it;) quos­dam Spiritualiter tantum, qui voto illum coelestem panem edentes, fide viva (quae per dilectionem operatur) fructum ejus & utilita­tem sentiunt; quosdam Sacramentaliter simul & Spiritualiter; as the worthy receivers of it who, by the Sacramental reception, as well as Spiritual, partake more the virtue thereof, than the only Spiritual receivers, (but of this more anon,) as also the wicked incur more judgment by their unworthy reception of it, than were it only of the bare representative thereof, they thus being in a higher manner rei corporis Christi in the Apostle's ex­pression 1 Cor. 9. Now S. Austin means, non manducant corpus Domini Spiritualiter.

But if it seem still to some S. Austin's opinion, that the wicked do no way at all receive the very body, but only the sacrament thereof, as understood only as representing it: Yet I see not (with submission to better judgments) that it must necessarily infer, that he held not Christ's true body's being before present with the symbols, and offered to the wicked, but only it, by ceas­ing to be there, (for his body is only voluntarily present, and perhaps only in such cases as this may desinere ibi esse, sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat,) not to be received at all by the wick­ed, as many hold it not to be devoured together with the conse­crated elements by beasts &c, neither in specie propria, nor aliena. See before. And Estius gives it the place of an argument, 4. sent. 9. distinct. 3. sect. Peccator magis est Deo abominabilis quam ani­mal brutum, multo minus igitur peccator sumit Christi corpus. To answer which he holds the opinion contrary to the others; namely, that a brutis animalibus etiam sumitur non secundum pro­priam [Page 74]speciem, sed secundum species Sacramentales.

And see Dr. Field, Append. to the 3d. book 17, 18. c. quoting out of Waldensis Tom. 2. de Euchar. 19. c. That many, who af­firmed the bread to be changed into Christ's body, yet held, when unworthy men came to communicate, the body and blood of Christ to cease to be present; and when a wicked man is to receive it the substances of bread and wine to return &c, why might not S. Au­stin's conceit be the same?

To [ϑ], besides that two Councils not long after (one in the East, another in the West) opposed that of Constantinople in this matter of the Sacrament, (see hereafter:)

I can say only this, that [...] as opposed to [...] must not be taken in such a sense, as that upon consecration the elements are not made divinum corpus, or adoration not due to it. For these two things that Council affirms, as well as image and corpus [...] not [...]; and for this the Council of Nice that followed, said of those Fathers of Constantinople, that huc illucque se ja­ctantes, inconstantia & minime firma omnia sua dogmata asserunt. But why may not Image here, and [...] be opposed, not to the verity of Christ's body in the Eucharist after some manner, but only to its being there as formerly on earth, that is, after a natural manner? for it is not in the Eucharist [...]; and the Eucharist so (by other Fathers) is called only an Image of it. And why might not the Council of Nice mistake the sense of this Council in one point, as well as Mr. Blond: p. 411, grants that of Franckfort did misunderstand it in another?

To [μ], see what is said to [γ]. —To [λ] (which seems more material than the rest,) with which I shall consider also [χ] their Reply to the 3d Consideration about Sacrifice:

First I say, if there be found so much, not only in the an­cient Missals but those now used,Concerning the Sacrifice of the Eu­charist. that makes against any sub­stantial conversion of the elements into Christ's body; and if the offering the Eucharist therein as a Sacrifice, is only commemora­tive of that upon the Cross, (in which sense the Reformed also allow a Sacrifice,) without involving any special presence of Christ's body with the elements; how comes it to pass, that on­ly the fourth opinion retains still the same forms (for the things which are here objected) that were used in St. Ambrose's days? (or if only used in the time of Gregory the Great, yet then they grant there was yet no corruption in the doctrine concerning the [Page 75] Sacrament) against whose modern tenents these formes make so much, and that all the other three opinions have made new formes to themselves, and rejected the old? which they plead are so favourable unto them? In doing which things Luther is said in the beginning of his book de abroganda Missa to object to himself; Magnum est certe tot saeculorum consuetudini, tantae multitudinis sensui, tantorumque Authoritati reluctari. —Tu solus sapis? totne errant universi? tanta saecula erraverunt? Again, how can we more justifie their reverence to Antiquity than in this thing, that they have not taken the boldness to correct, or change, or note in the daily and Publick Service, what makes so much against their present opinions?

Now to come closer to the matter, and to speak a little more fully, 1. (in answer to χ) in what sense the Eucharist is now or was anciently used as a Sacrifice; that that which follows may be more cleared by it, and that you may see whether there may be so just cause for that clamor that is made against it, as injuri­ous and derogating from the Sacrifice upon the Cross:

§. XXVI 1 First, 'Tis confess'd, as by the Fathers, The opinion of the Fa­thers con­cerning it. so by those of the fourth Opinion, That the Sacrifice made on the Cross is the only Sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away Sins; and that there is no need of any more Sacrifice for Sin; i. e. for making full satisfaction, and paying the due debt for Sin; that therefore the Sacrifice cannot, nor need not, to be iterated in this respect, for then must Christ often have suffer'd, &c. see Heb. 9.25, 26, 28. see Heb. 10.10, 12, 14, 18. That therefore the Sacrifice of the Eucha­rist is no new or divers Sacrifice from that of the Cross, no suple­ment or completement of it, but only representative or commemo­rative of it; applying (see the manner more explain'd hereafter) unto particular men the remission purchas'd thereby, as also all other fruits and benefits thereof. Which application, as it is said to be obtain'd by Christ's present intercession now in Heaven, by Faith, by Prayer, by the Sacraments, &c. (in a several way) with­out any suspition of a diminution or injury done thereby to the merits of the Passion; so may it as safely be attributed to this continual Sacrifice of Christians, the Eucharist. For this, see Conc. Trid. s. 22. c. 1. Dominum nostrum in coena novissima Dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibili (sicut hominum natura exigit) reliquisse sacri­ficium, quo cruentum illud semel in cruce peragendum repraesenta­retur, ejusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret, atque il­lius [Page 76](i. e. of the Sacrifice of the Cross) salutaris virtus in remis­sionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur, peccatorum appli­caretur. And so ch. 2. Cujus oblationis cruentae fructus per hanc uberrime percipiuntur. See Estius sent. 4. d. 12. s. 12, 13. Dum pa­tres sacrificium crucis unicum & singulare sacrificium Christianorune esse dicunt, intelligunt quod propria virtute Deum placat, quale non est sacrificium missae, utpote habens vim suam omnem ex sacrificio in cruce peracto.—Nam incruenta seu mystica oblatione corporis & san­guinis Christi (ex doctrina Ecclesiae) non hoc agitur ut per eam paretur precium, quo redimantur peccata; sed ut applicetur pretium unico illo crucis sacrificio comparatum nobis ad remissionem peccato­rum & ad caetera salutaria dona consequenda. Quare sicut unicum illud sacrificium crucis non tollit vim baptismi & altorum sacramen­torum quibus renovamur, sanctificamur, a peccatis purgamur; imo si [...]ut non derogat efficaciae illius oblationis & orationis, qua adhuc Christus in coe [...]is continuo semetipsum pro nobis sistit, & offert pa­tri & continuo pro nobis interpellat; ita nec tollit incruentam ob­lationem sacrificii missae aut quicquid derogat ejus virtuti. See the like said in Bellarm, de Missa l. primo, c. 25. Fatemur sacrificium crucis vim sempiternam habere ad sanctificandum, &c. atque inde non esse opus alio sacrificio crucis, aut ejusdem sacrificii crucis repetitione. —Negamus autem inde sequi, non posse sine crucis Christi injuria multiplicari sacrificia repraesentantia sacrificium crucis, & ejus fru­ctum nobis applicantia. Nam si ita esset—Efficeremus omnia sacrifi­cia testamenti veteris fuisse peracta in injuriam crucis Christi.—In hoc est totus error adversariorum, quod sibi falso persuaserint, nos tri­buere missae vim remittendi peccata sine ullo ordine ad sacrificium crucis, —Or, quod Missa vim habeat expiandi peccata sine crucis sa­crificio, —sed sacrificium missae applicat fructum sacrificii crucis. See Dr. Holden de Resol. Fid. l. 2. c. 4. Propitiatorium quidem est hoc sacrificium; sed non eo modo quo sacrificium crucis; puta in re­demptionem generis humani: sacrificium enim crucis adeo suf­ficiens est & abundans, ut nec altero, nec hujus iteratione nobis ul­latenus opus sit, in ratione redemptionis. Quapropter vi solius missae sacrifien nihil meretur nobis Christus, sed per illud nobis applicantur (sicut & per sacramenta) fructus meritorum Christi per immolatio­nem suam sanguineam acquisiti. Haud igitur docet nos divina & ca­tholica fides sanctum hoc sacrificium missae, ut distinctum (si tamen absolute distinctum) a sacrificio cru is, de se peccata remittere, gra­tiam augere, justificationem afferre, &c. An autem sit hoc sacrifici­um absolutum an relativum solummodo (nempe commemorativum, representativum, significativum,) est Theologicarum litigationum ma­teria.

[Page 77]See Cassand. Consult. de Sac. Corp. & Sang. Chr. & de iteratione per totum. Some places of which you may find quoted by Bishop Forb. l. 3. c. 1. s. 21. and many of the like out of other Authors, set down in that Chapter to which I refer you for them.

Non igitur hic novum est sacrificium; nam & eadem hic est hostia quae in cruce oblata fuit, (i. e. the Body and Blood of Christ) & commemoratio in mysterio sacrificii illius in cruce peracti, & con­tinuati in coelis sacerdotii & sacrificii Christi in imagine representa­tio; quo (sacrificio) non efficitur nova propitiatio & remissio pecca­torum, sed ea, quae semel sufficienter in cruce facta est, nobis quoque efficax esse postulatur. Christ making such an Offering unto the same purposes of his Body here on the Altar by his Substitutes, as is by Himself now in Heaven made of the same Body: It be­ing victima perennis & perpetua quae semel oblata consumi non po­test. So de iterat.—in sacra hac actione pro vivis & mortuis, &c. offerri dicitur quando non solum pro iis oblata commemoratur, ve­rum etiam solenni prece pro iis omnibus efficax & salutaris esse postulatur,— And after, sacrificium non modo Eucharisticum, sed etiam propitiatorium dici posset, non quidem ut efficiens propitiatio­nem (quod sacrificio crucis proprium est) sed ut eam jam factam im­petrans, quomodo Oratio propitiatoria dici potest. See Fr. a Sanctae Clara on the XXXI. Article of the Church of England, [sacrifi­cium Missae] non est propitiatorium primo, quia hoc competit sacri­ficio in cruce, licet bene per se, & quasi secundo per applicationem sacrificii cruenti & per commemorationem ejus; adeo ut ratio propi­tiationis originaliter sacrificio in cruce competat, & illinc seu illius virtute huic. Ut etiam recte notavit Canus in locis l. 12. c. 12. ubi dicit; Satis esse ut vere & proprie sit sacrificium, quod mors ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur ac si Christus nunc morere­tur; ubi rationem propitiationis applicationi mortis Christi tribuit. Et ad eundem sensum citat Gregorium [in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur:] mors igitur incruenta in altari vir­tutem suam derivat a morte cru [...]nta in cruce—& in hoc sensu hoe sacrificium est imago & exemplar alterius in cruce, unde omnis salus radicaliter emanavit. Nulla prorsus hic erit difficultas cum doctio­ribus Protestantibus, &c. Thus he; where also he saith, that in the later words of the Article (sufficiently vehement) s [...]sobrie intelligantur nihil agitur contra sacrificia missae in se, sed contra vulgarem vel vulgatam opinionem de ipsis; scilicet quod sacerdotes in sacrificiis offerient Christum pro vivis & defunctis in remissionem paenae & culpae, adeo (i. e. in such a manner) ut virtute hujus sa­crificii [Page 78]ab iis oblati, independenter a crucis sacrificio, mererentur populo remissionem, &c. But this vulgata opinio, as no Church main­tains, so neither can it (without a high breach of Christian cha­rity) on any Church be charg'd. See Champney de Vocat. Minist. against Mason, cap. 17. pag. 704, &c. of whom only delivering the common Doctrine of the Roman Church Dr. Fern acknow­ledgeth, That he makes wide difference between the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and that of the Cross; and indeed comes to that which we allow in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament (see his Exam. of Champney p. 324.) but yet (p. 346.) he grants the Fa­thers to have Offer'd the Sacrifice of the Altar (as they call'd it) which was the representation of Christ's Sacrifice, for the Dead, for an Impetration of all that Mercy, Redemption, and Glory for them, which was yet behind. And (p. 354.) he saith, we have Christ's warrant and appointment—sacramentally here below to re­present his own Oblation upon the Cross, and by it to beg and im­petrate what we or the Church stand in need of. Where, in the Celebration of the Eucharist, he plainly involves, not only a communication of Christ's Body and Blood, but also a Representa­tion of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and this Impetratory of Blessings for our Brethren absent, and not only for our selves Communicants. —See Bishop Forbes, l. 3. de Eucharistia c. 2. s. 2, 3, 4, 5.— Missam —Sacrificium propitiatorium sano sensu dici posse, recte affirmant Romanenses moderatiores, Non quidem ut efficiens propitiationem & remissionem peccatorum, quod sacrificio crucis proprium est, sed ut eam jam factam impetrans— And s. 5. —omnes saniores Roma­nenses, quicunque tueantur sententiam de modo verae & realis prae­sentiae corporis Christi in Eucharistia, agnoscunt oblationem sacrificii missae incruentam ab illa una cruenta quae facta est in cruce, omnem suam vim & efficaciam haurire proinde ut Sacramenta novi Testa­menti. Which may also, I conceive, in some manner be said of the Oblation of Himself by our High-Priest now in Heaven, Heb. 8.3, 4, he not paying the price of our Redemption there now, but formerly upon the Cross.

See in Blondel c. 4. prop. 9. the Testimonies of Eulogius Alex. and of Chrysostom in Heb. Hom. 17. The later (not fully set down by him) I will transcribe you, —upon Heb. 9.25. Quid ve­ [...]o? nos enim quotidie offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ejus mor­ [...]em revocamus in memoriam; & ipsa una est non multae. Quomodo una est non multae? quoniam semel fuit oblata, illa illata fuit in San­cta Sanctorum. Hoc est figura illius, & ipsa illius; eundem enim [Page 79]semper offerimus; non nunc quidem alium sed semper eundem; quamobrem unum est sacrificium Propter hanc rationem quoniam mul­tis in locis offertur, multine sunt Christi? nequaquam. Sed unus ubi­que Christus, qui & hic est plenus & illic plenus, unum corpus. Quo­modo ergo multis in locis oblatus unum est corpus & non multa corpora, ita etiam unum est sacrificium. Pontifex noster ille est qur illam Obtulit hostiam quae nos mundat. Illam nunc quoque offeri­mus quae tunc fuit oblata, quae non potest consumi, hoc fit in recorda­tionem ejus quod tunc factum est; hoc enim facite inquit in mei recordationem: non aliam hostiam, sicut Pontifex (i. e. the Leviti­cal High-Priest) sed eandem semper facimus, vel potius hostiae sen sacrificii facimus recordationem.

2. Yet do they both affirm the Eucharist to be a true and proper Sacrifice; (see quotations hereafter.) In ipso verissimo & sin­gulari sacrificio, spoken of the Eucharist by St. Austin. True and proper, not as it denies, or is oppos'd to Sacrifice relative to, or commemorative or representative of, another Sacrifice; namely, the Sacrifice of the Cross. For the same Sacrifice may be truly such, and yet commemorative. For saith Bellarmin, Sacrificia ve­teris Testamenti fuere commemorationes postea futuri, & tamen fuerunt illa vetera in severe & proprie dicta Sacrificia, de Missa, l. 1. c. 15. sec. quod autem; (and so St. Austin in the saying quoted hereafter, Christiani jam, &c.) joins oblatio corporis Christi with cele­bratio memoriae sacrificii peracti. And those among the Romanists; who hold it not sacrificium aliquod absolutum, but relativum, or commemorativum; yet affirmed to be verum & proprium. See Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s. 12, 13, &c. See Mede Diatr. on Mal. Its one thing to say, that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice (i. e. a proper one,) and another to say, Christ is properly sacrificed therein. For there may be a Sacrifice which is the representation of another, and yet a Sacrifice too. And that not in a metaphorical but a proper sense, sect. 5.

Again, true and proper; not as if there were exactly found in it all the properties of other Sacrifices, as the word Sacrifice is taken more strictly for a Slaughter-Offering; for the mactation or occision of some thing that hath life, whereby it is put to some pain and suffering. To this saith Estius, sent. 4. d. 12. s. 12. Non sequitur Christum non immolari in altari quia nihil patitur. Est enim haec immolatio mystica, & talis qualis Christo nunc Com­petere potest. And again, s. 13. hoc sensu (i. e. as immolatio was taken by the Fathers for mactatio offerendi causa facta) non vera [Page 80]sed mystica tantum ab iis agnoscitur immolatio in altari, quam vo­cant immolationem incruentam. Or, for the destruction and con­sumption of any thing at all tho inanimate (about which are many curious disputes touching the consumption of the elements or of Christ's Sacramental being, &c, to make this of the Eu­charist bear the more resemblance to other Sacrifices, methinks to little purpose, since in some thing (i. e. in some mactation) they grant a difference in it from them all, therefore why not here also say, est immolatio mystica, & talis qualis Christo nunc competere potest: See Bishop Forbes his censure of such con­tests, 3. l. 1. c. 12. s.) Nor yet true and proper, as if it had all other properties of that of the Cross besides mactation, or were propitiatory even in the same manner as it, as is shewn before; for, that only, not this, propria virtute Deum placat.

But true and proper, in as much as it, by commemorating, and representing again to God that bloody Sacrifice on the Cross, and of­fering to God the very same Sacrifice taken passive, (i.e.) the same body of Christ that was once sacrificed and slain on the Cross, procureth (by way of impetration, as other Sacrifices also anci­ently did, not by any new merit or satisfaction) from God grace, and repentance, and remission of sin, (by the merits of the passion which are then applied to us,) and other blessings Spiritual or temporal, to those who come to God cum vero corde & recta fide, cum metu & reverentia &c: coming short therefore in nothing of the true and proper Sacrifices of the Old Testament, but that, as to the visible Symbols, it is an oblation of things inanimate; but in this also it resembled of old by the Sacrifice of a perfecter Priesthood, i.e. of Melchisedech, offered unto God. See Bishop For bes 3. l. 1. c. 4. sect. Patres magno consensu (qui non est spernen­dus) affirmant Melchisedech panem & vinum non tantum protulisse & exbibuisse Abrahamo ad alendum exercitum, sed Deo primum, quem praeclarissimae victoriae authorem agnoscebat, usitato modo ob­tulisse & libasse: ac proinde & Christum, eujus ille figura fuit, in institutione Eucharistiae ut Sacerdotem idem egisse, i. e. of Melchi­sedech. Which, that the Fathers generally held to have bin a true and proper Sacrifice, and to have bin by Melchisedech offered to God; See Bishop Forbes 3. l. 1. c. 4. sect. Patres magno consensu &c. where also 6, 7, sect. he urgeth the concessions of Mason de minist. Ang. 5. libro 3. c. —and of Bishop Morton, de Euchar. 6. l. 3. c. 1. s. Note that I said, this Sacrifice procureth or obtaineth from God remission of sin &c by way of impetration, as also our Prayers do, not by an immediate conferring of it, as it is in the Sacraments.

[Page 81]For, as Cassander saith, Sacrificium species est orationis, quare non inepte &c. p. 199. Et hoc modo sacrificare, est preces & gra­tiarum actiones ad impetrandam virtutem illius perennis victimae propositae (i. e. on the Altar) Deo Patri offerre. p. 198. and p. 208. Hic offertur in imagine & mysterio; cum extermis precibus & interna fide, & devotione, Sacerdos hostiam illam unicam nomine totius Ecclesiae Deo Patri sistit, & per eam—Sacrificium hoc laudis, & fidei & devotionis gratum & acceptum esse postulat.

3. And so Bellarm. de Missa 2. l. 4. c. Sacrificium proprie orantis & supplicantis est, & ad orationem juvandam adhibetur. —Again, Sacrificium, quod est quaedam oratio (ut sic dicam) realis, non ver­balis, proprie impetratorium est. Thus much that the Eucharist was counted a proper and true Sacrifice. Which also the Coun­cil of Trent affirmeth, but this in general only, not applying this notion any way to the particular fancies of controvertists. And tho as it is thus described, to some the name of Oblation may seem more fit for it, yet besides the style of Sacrificium, and immolation in all antiquity, and the lively representation that is here made of the Sacrifice on the Cross, it differs much from all other, called Oblations, in this; That it is (in the judgment of the Fathers, and those of the fourth opinion) that ever remain­ing victime of that which was once sacrificed by a mactation, and the very same with it, which can be said of no other oblation whatsoever. — I would intreat you to read Mr. Mede's dis­course on Malach. 1. and 11. wholly tending to shew the Eu­charist to be now the Christian Sacrifice; and that not in a me­taphorical, but a proper sense, p. 513 where he sheweth also that according to the true nature of a Sacrifice, it is oblatio & epu­lum foederale; such as were of old (not every offering conse­crated to God, but) the burnt-sin-peace-offerings; and that the difference of the matter and manner of offering &c hinders not, that these now should be truly a Sacrifice, no more than the differing of the Christian Sacraments from theirs of old (in which was effusion of blood, as that of the Circumcision, or of the Passe­over) hinders, that these now should be true Sacraments. p. 505, 506. That the viands also of the Christian Feast even in the Primitive times were (as it is in other Federal Sacrifices) made God's by Oblation; and so eaten of, not as of mans, but of God's, provision. That Malach. 1.11. is alledged to this by those in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, after them by Tertullian, Cyprian, &c. p. 472. [Page 82]That mention of [...] Oblation and Altar, is made by two that lived before the Age of the Apostles was quite expired, (when they speak of the Christian Service) Clemens and Ignatius. See Clem. ad Cor. p. 52. & debemus omnia rite & ordine facere quae Dominus prae­stitutis temporibus peragere nos jussit (oblatione scilicet,) & alia mu­nia obire, (and that he speaks of this oblation done in the Eucharist by the Priest, may probably be gathered from what follows,) neque te­mere vel mordinate voluit ista fieri, sed statutis temporibus & horis; ubi etiam & a quibus peragi vult ipse, excellentissima sua voluntate definivit, ut religiose omnia &c. —Qui igitur praefinitis tempori­bus oblationes suas faciunt, accepti & beati sunt, Domini enim mandata sequentes non oberrant—Summo quippe Sacerdoti sua mu­nera tributa sunt, Sacerdotibus locus proprius assignatus est, &c. —Laicus praeceptis laicis constringitur, —unusquisque vestrum—cum decore intra praescriptum ministerii sui canonem se contineat —Sic D. Ignatius ad Smyrn. Eucharistias & oblationes non admit­tunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse caruem Servatoris nostri &c. And —Nullus sine Episcopo aliquid operetur eorum quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent. Firma Eucharistia reputetur, quae sub ip­so est &c. Non licitum est sine Episcopo neque Baptizare, neque agapen facere. And Epistola ad Eph. Vos beatifico conjunctos (Epi­scopo) sic ut Ecclesia Jesu Christo, Jesus Christus Patri —Nullus erret, si quis non sit intra Altare, privatur pane Dei. Si enim unius & alterius oratio tantam vim habet, quanto magis ea quae Episcopi & omnis Ecclesiae? Which words imply (saith Mr. Mede, p. 494.) that the Altar was the place as of the bread of God, so of the publick Prayers of the Church: —That the Anci­ents believed our Blessed Saviour himself to have made such an oblation at the Institution of this holy rite, when he took the Bread and Cup into his sacred hands, and looking up to hea­ven gave thanks and blessed: p. 514. —And to have done the same in this his new Passeover, which the Jews did in theirs, who made such an oblation to God of it first as being a Sacrifice. —That some such thing may be gathered from many Scriptures: From Luk. 22.20. evidently implying, that the bloody Sacrifices of the Law, which with their meat— and drink-offerings were rites of an old Covenant, and that this succeeded them as the rite of the new: p. 513. From Matt. 5.4.23. which precepts the Church ab initio applied to the Eucharist; not thinking that our Saviour would enact a new law concerning Legal Sacrifices, as which he was presently to abolish. p. 520.

[Page 83]From Act. 2.42. where Prayers and [...] are join'd with the Eucharist, or fraction of Bread; and which shews, that the joining of the solemn Prayers of the Church with the mystical Commemoration of Christ in the Sacrament, took its original from the Apostles times; [...] signifying the Communication of the Eucharist, as the Vulgar and Syriack Transtation haue it. But for this, see Dr. Hammond on this Verse, who makes [...] here to be the People's bringing and presenting of the Bread and Wine, and Fruits of the Earth, &c. Part of it to be Eaten in Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice; and the rest to be di­stributed amongst the Poor. See Ver. 44, 45, 46. p. 493, 494. Yet more plainly from 1 Cor. 10.21. You cannot be partakers, &c. where these two Tables imply contrary Covenants: now here the Table of Devils is so call'd, because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to Devils, see ver. 20. whereby those, that Eat thereof, Eat of the Devil's Meat: Therefore the Table of the Lord is likewise call'd his Table, not because, the Lord ordain'd it, but because it consisted of Viands Offer'd to him; in the same man­ner as the other of those Offer'd to the Devil, p. 519.— And therefore that he knows not, why St. Paul Heb. 13.15. and St. Peter 1 Epist. 2.5. in the Sacrifices mention'd there, may not be understood to speak of the solemn and publick Service of Christians, wherein the Passion of Christ was Commemorated, p. 487.

4. Lastly, He allows all the benefits and effects, whether propitiatory or impetratory, by the Ancients attributed to this Sacrifice; grant­ing the Prayers of the Church to have been Offer'd to the Divine Majesty through Christ, Commemorated in the Symbols of Bread and Wine, as by a medium, whereby to find acceptance: —and the repre­sentation of the Body of Christ in this Christian Service to have been rightly us'd, as a Rite, whereby to find Grace and Favour with God. Only the presence of Christ's real Body with the symbols in it, he acknowledges not. See p. 499, 500, 501.

5 The Fathers also affirm'd it to be, and Offer'd it as a Sa [...]ri­fice, not only Eucharistical, or Latrentical, but also Expiatory or Propitiatory (in the sense abovesaid) for the Remission of Sins; and Impetratory of all sorts of Benefits, not only Spiritual, but Temporal; and both these, for all persons (according to their several capacities) not only for those present receiving the Sacra­ment, but for all those for whom this Oblation is made, tho ab­sent, tho deceas'd. In Euchristia sacramenti susceptio soli sumenti [Page 84]prodest, ut autem est sacrificii consummatio, prodest illis omnibus pro quibus oblatum est sacrificium. For wherever they held Prayers beneficial, they held this Oblation or Presentation to the Father of the Body and Blood, and this solemn commemoration (and re­petition as it were) of the precious Death, of his dear Son, for such persons; much more, as being the most effectual and moving kind of Petition that can be made to him. And therefore re­membrance of the absent, or deceas'd, at the Altar, namely, when this Sacrifice was Offer'd, was more especially desir'd than in other ordinary Devotions. Non ista mandavit nobis (saith St. Austin of his Mother) sed tantunmodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit. (Confess. l. 9. c. 13.)

For this, see (if you please) the Collections of Places in the Fathers, in the Controvertists. See Bellarm. de Missa, l. 2. c. 2, 3. See the quotations set down before. See all the Liturgies una­nimously according in this Form: Offerimus tibi pro peccatis, pro omnibus Fidelibus, vivis atque defunctis, pro Ecclesia Catholica, &c. pro pace, pro copia fructuum, &c. See Bishop Forb. de Euch. l. 3. c. 2. s. 12. Sacrificium autem hoc coenae non solum propitiatorium esse pro peccatorum, quae nobis quotidie committuntur, remissione, &c. sed etiam impetratorium omnis generis beneficiorum, &c. licet scripturae diserte & expresse non dicant. Patres tamen unanimi consensu scrip­turas sic intellexerunt, &c. & Liturgiae omnes veteres, &c. & s. 15. Nos inre certa & clara diutius immorari nolumus.

6 Lastly, See Dr. Taylor in his Great Exemplar, p. 3. dise. 18. on the Sacrament, sect. 7. There he says,—The Eucharist is a com­memorative Sacrifice, as well as a Sacrament; in both capacities the benefit next to infinite.—Whatsoever Christ did at the Institution, the same he commanded the Church to do, &c. and Himself also doth the same things in Heaven for us, &c. There he sits an High-Priest continually, and Offers still the same One perfect Sacri­fice (i. e. still represents it, as having been once finish'd and con­summate) in order to perpetual and never-failing events, And this also his Ministers do on Earth—as all the effects of Grace— were purchas'd for us on the Cross, but are apply'd to us—by Christ's intercession in Heaven; so also they are promoted by acts of Duty, &c. that we, by representing that Sacrifice, may send up, together with our Prayers, an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation.—As Christ is a Priest in Heaven for ever, and yet doth not Sacrifice himself afresh; (nor yet without a Sacri­fice could he be a Priest;) but by a daily ministration and inter­cession [Page 85]represents his Sacrifice to God, and offers himself as Sa­crificed; so he doth upon Earth by the Ministery of his Servants. He is Offer'd to God, i. e. he is by Prayers and the Sacrament represented, or offer'd up to God, as Sacrificed; which in effect is applying of his Death to the present and future necessi­ties of the Church, &c.— It follows then, that the Celebration of this Sacrifice be in its proportion an Instrument of applying of the proper Sacrifice to all the purposes which it first design'd. It is ministerially and by application an instrument propitiatory, it is Eucharistical, it is an act of Homage and Adoration, it is impetratory, obtaining for the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice which is now apply'd, &c.— And its profit is en­larg'd, not only to the persons Celebrating, but to all to whom they design it, according to the nature of Sacrifices and Prayers, and all such solemn Actions of Religion. Thus much Dr. Tay­lor, conformably to the judgment of the Church in all Ages, and practice in her publick Liturgies. See the same in Medes Diatrib. upon Mal. 1.11. And 'tis worth your labour to see the Altera­tions concerning this matter which have been lately made (I suppose by some of the most prudent and learned Fathers of the English Church) in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland, tend­ing much to the vindication of the use of the Eucharist by way of Sacrifice. In the Prayer for the whole State of Christ's Church are put in these words [We commend especially unto thy merciful Goodness the Congregation which is here Assembled in thy Name to Celebrate the Commemoration of the most. precious Death and Sacrifice of thy Son, &c.] Where [and Sacrifice] is added de novo. But the rest of the words are found in the former Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. Again, in the Prayer of Consecration, whereas 'tis said in all the former Liturgies [to continue a perpetual me­mory of that his precious Death until his coming again.] 'tis added here [Death and Sacrifice until &c.] But chiefly after the Prayer of Consecration, and before the administring of the Sacrament to the Communicants, you may find interpos'd (after the manner of the first Books of Edw. VI.) a Prayer (as it is there call'd) of Oblation (in which Prayer of the Missal which follows the Consecration,) the beginning of which Prayer is left out by our later Liturgies, and the rest transported to after the Sacrament receiv'd (beginning thus, O Lord, our Heavenly Father, We thy humble Servants, &c.) perhaps on purpose lest it might bear any [Page 86]shew of the former solemn offerings of the Eucharist (before com­municating it) to God as a Sacrifice in those words (which are not found in the common Liturgies) in the beginning of the Prayer [We thy humble Servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy Gifts, the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed Passion, mighty Resurrection, and glorious Ascension, &c.—And we entirely desire thy Fatherly Goodness, mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of Praise, &c. Beseeching, &c. that we and all thy whole Church may obtain Remission of our Sins, and all other benefits of his Passion.]—The Rom. Miss. hath it: Unde & memores, Domine, nos servi tui ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tum beatae Passionis, nec non ab inferis resurrectionis, sed & in coelos gloriosae ascensionis offe­rimus praeclarae majestati tu [...]e de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, &c. See, if you please, these pru­dent reformations, or perfectings of the former English Liturgy (i.e. that prepar'd for Scotland,) and many more (which I omit) noted in a Scotch Book call'd Laudensium autocatacrisis (from p. 100 to 114,) and censur'd for their agreement with Popery, i. e. Indeed for their conformity with the former practice of the Church Catholick.

§. XXVII And here I cannot but with grief complain, That the Oblation of this Christian Sacrifice is confess'd to have always been part of the publick Service of the Church (contain'd in the Second Service thereof,The Onassi­on of the Daily Obla­tion in the Reformed Churches.) and to have been daily, or at least at all times of solemn Prayers, and on the days of God's publick Worship, every-where made and celebrated (tho there were few or no Communicants, except him who Officiated,) for those many be­neficial ends above-mention'd, which the Church conceiv'd non­communicants also to receive from this precious Offering. See the proofs in Medes Diatrib. upon Mal. 1.11. p. 484, 493. That the publick Prayers of the Church were always join'd with the mystical Commemoration of Christ, in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: And that this was no after-invention of the Fathers, but took its original from the Apostles times, and the very begin­ning of Christianity. See the like Testimonies in Mr. Thorndyke of Christian Assemblies. See Calvin's expression to the same pur­pose, Instit. lib. 4. c. 17. s. 44. Quae de Sacramento hoc hactenus dis­seruimus abunde ostendunt, non institutum ideo fuisse, ut semel quo­tannis acciperetur, idque persunctorie (ut nune communiter moris est) verum quo fiequenti in usu Christianis omnibus esset, ut fre­quenti memoria passionem Christi repeterent, &c.— Talem fuisse [Page 87]Ecclesiae Apostolicae usum, Lucas in Actis commemorat; quum fideles ait perseverantes fuisse in doctrina Apostolorum, communicatione, fractione panis, & orationibus; sic agendum omnino erat, ut nullus Ecclesiae conventus fieret, sine verbo, orationibus, participatione coenae, & eleemosynis. Hunc & apud Corinthios fuisse institutum ordinem, satis ex Paulo conspicere licet; & multis postea saeculis in usu fuisse constat &c. This he speaks indeed with reference to the peoples daily or frequent communicating; but if this will not be had, what excuse is there in the meanwhile of the Priests omitting the daily or frequent oblation thereof, useful for so many purposes, besides that of the communion; used in all former times even where the people were negligent to re­ceive? See S. Chrysostom's saying, p. 78. Quid vero? nos non quo­tidie offerimus? and Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes. Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, cum nemo sit, qui simul participet. Frustra, i.e. comparatively, non tam fructuose. Hieronym. in Tit. 1. c. saith; Sacerdotes —quotidie pro peccatis populi ac suis sacrificare. August. contra adversar. leg. 1. l. 20. c. Ecclesia immolat in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, ex quo Deus Deorum locutus vocavit ter­ram a Solis ortu usque ad occasum. —Ep. 86. Sacrificium laudis (meaning the Eucharist) ab Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa diebus omni­bus immolatur. —Ep. 23. Christus semel in cruce immolatus om­ni die in Sacramento populis immolatur. See the quotation p. Quotidianum esse voluit sacrificium. Ep. ad Januar. quoted by Calvin. ib. alibi —Nullus dies intermittitur, quo non offeratur; alibi Sab­bato tantum & Dominico; where it appears this oblation at least, tho people more seldom communicated it, was made once a week every Lord's day; (used still to this day by all other modern Churches. Eastern and Western:) How cometh it to pass then, I say it with grief, that such a sacrifice for such precious ends is ceased only to be continually offered in the Churches Reformed? If they agree also in the same notion of sacrifice with antiquity, why have not their publick prayers and intercessions, after the con­fess'd manner of all the ancient and modern Churches of God, the efficacious assistance of this sacrifice? I desire it may be se­riously considered, whether this be not a defect in their publick Service much to be laid to heart (in the daily loss of such an al­lowed-most-effectual means of Address to God Almighty) by all the followers of the Reformation. You will pardon me this di­gression.

[Page 88] §. XXVIII 4. The Fathers held; That in this Sacrifice, (the representation of that of the Cross, The Fathers say that it is an oblation of the same body which was crucifi­ed. and beneficial to us only by its vertue,) is an oblation made of the very same Body and Blood of Christ, which our High Priest also himself now offers in Heaven, (which is pre­valent with his Father also in reference to his former sufferings, neither that oblation in heaven, nor this upon the Altar paying the price of our Redemption; but used for an application of the price payed for several sinners for the actual remission of sins daily committed.) Again, the same body now offered that was offered upon the Cross, tho not in the same manner, (i.e.) by mactation; and therefore being in such respect more properly Sacrificium (as one expresseth it) passive sumptum pro sacrificato noviter nobis ap­plicato, quia in illo continetur Corpus Christi quod fuit vere sacrifica­tum in unico illo sacrificio crucis, yet with a representation also of that sacrificing of it, in the blood being here severed and offered apart from the body. So that I may say, a little alter­ing Cassander's words, Consult. de sacrificio corp. p. 196. Veteres in hoc mystico sacrificio (Cassand. [non tam]) tum peractae semel in cruce oblationis, cujus hic memoria celebratur [quam] tum perpe­tui sacerdotii, & jugis sacrificii, quod quotidie in coelis sempiternus Sacerdos offert, rationem habuerant, cujus hic imago per solennes ministrorum preces exprimitur. Neither is there any more in­congruity that Christ's true body and blood be here offered, and yet this be done also in commemoration of his body offered upon the cross, than that his real body (which those of the second opinion maintain) be here partaken of by the worthy receiver, and yet this also done in commemoration of the same body given for us upon the cross. See for the Fathers holding an oblation in the Eucharist of the true and real body of Christ, the places quoted out of them, before. See likewise Bishop Forbes 3. l. 1. c. 10. s. Dicunt etiam saepissime Sancti Patres in Eucharistia offerri & sacrifi­carripsum Christi corpus, ut ex innumeris pene locis constat; sed non pro­prie & realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietatibus servatis, sed per com­memorationem sacrificii (crucis.) —Et per piam supplicationem qua Ecclesiae ministri, propter unius illius sacrificii perpetuam victi­mam (so they call Christ's body remaining still after sacrificed) in coelis ad dextram Patris assistentem, & in sacra mensa modo ineffa­bili praesentem Deum Patrem humillime rogant, ut virtutem & gratiam hujus perennis victimae, Ecclesiae suae, ad omnes corporis & animi necessitates efficacem & salutarem esse velit. Where note also, that either Bishop Forbes his opinion (tho he opposeth [Page 89] Transubstantiation) is, That Christ's body is present with the sym­bols before communicating, (tho this is not so clearly professed by him in 1. l. 1. c. see the 7. sect. there, and rather the contrary intimated in 2. l. 2. c. 8, & 9. sect.) or else here he seems to con­tradict himself, in these words especially, in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem; for this ceremony of oblation upon the table is before communicating. To which add those words of his 3d. Book 2. c. 13. sect. where Bishop White, shewing how the Eu­charist might be said to be a sacrifice here, non solum ratione pre­cum & actionis gratiarum, (which is the common solution,) sed & ratione Eucharistiae ipsius, both quia elementa externa panis & vini consecrantur & ad Dommi cultum deputantur &c, and also quia corpus & sanguis Christi praesentia animae fide & pietate pastoris & populi, qui haec mysteria percipiunt, Deo offeruntur & sistuntur. Bishop Forbes censures that expression with a nimis jejune hoc dictum; but who will say more, must affirm a presence of it with the symbols. See likewise his quotation out of Nazianzen 2. l. 2. c. 8. s. See 1, book. 1. c. 26. s. Christi corpus reale nobis cum pane exhibetur.

Fifthly, tho the oblation of the body and blood of this Son of God in the Eucharist was always presumed to be in its self most acceptable unto the Father; yet in respect of those who or for whom it is offered, the same thing by the Ancients was con­ceived of it, as of all other prayers, that it is sometimes accep­ted by God for them, sometimes again not; namely, if they be such as are otherwise unreformed in their lives, and unworthy of God's favours. Again, that sometimes more, sometimes less benefit is received by it, according to the several preparation or indi­gence of the Suppliants, or also the good pleasure of the divine dispensation; as also that of the cross, tho infinite in its value, and offered for all, is beneficial for some, not others; and as Christ's intercession in heaven is still continued for our several necessities, though one single act thereof (had it so seem'd good to the divine ordination) had bin supersufficient for the obtaining for all, for ever, all benefits whatsoever. Hence are those Prayers in the Liturgies con­cerning this oblation after the words of Institution pronounced: supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel &c. & jube haec perferri per manus S. Angeli tui in sublime Altare tuum: and in some Liturgies after the words of Institution pronounced, Fac Domine panem istum corpus Filii tui, or something to this purpose.

[Page 90]All which Petitions (if they are not to be thought part of the Consecration of these Elements) are to be understood to be made, with reference not so much to the thing Offer'd, as to the Offe­rers; That God would accept it from them, for them, them for it; and confer on them the benefits and fruits thereof. As if I said; Respice pro nobis,—fac nobis,—Jube proferri pro nobis, &c. Cassan. in Consult. art. 24. p. 208. Haec non ad ipsam hostiam corporis Christi in se, sed ad offerendi modum qui prece, fide, devotione con­stat, referenda sunt; videlicet quia sacrificio omnia non dignitate rei oblatae, sed offerentis animo, aestimantur.

These five things well consider'd, I think first an Answer to (χ) is sufficiently made; it appearing, that as the Fathers in this Sacrament held a Commemoration in this Sacrifice of that upon the Cross, so an Oblation nevertheless of the real Body and Blood of Christ; which two are shew'd before well to coexist.

To (Μ); To Μ Concerning the Form of the Mass First, This Objection methinks presseth also the Ob­jectors (and therefore they must help to answer it,) for they do not allow it a commemorative Sacrifice before, but only after Consecration and Sanctification of the Elements: Which Consecra­tion therefore they neglect not; neither I think will they grant those Epithets, that in this first Oblation are given, any way to belong to simple and common Bread.

Secondly, That the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist is Offer'd to God, none deny; even none of those who hold a real presence of Christ's Body: nor that the Symbols after Consecration remain with, and are Offer'd with the Body of Christ, else there could be no visible Sacrifice at all there; nor that many things are and may be said in Liturgies (after Consecration) of the Symbols as well as of the Body; and that also they are call'd by the name of Bread, Gods Creatures, &c. See what is said of this before.

Thirdly, That in the primitive times, (at least when at this So­lemnity by much people much provision was brought in for the relief of the Poor,) an Oblation in the first place might be made to God of them, as of the People's Alms and Thanksgivings for his Blessings, it is very probable, (which Offertory before the Com­munion is retain'd also in the English Liturgy, and in that pre­par'd for Scotland;) also many new Texts added to those formerly read, in the time of the Offering, that are very expressive to this purpose. Which addition is taken notice of, and censur'd, in the Book call'd Laudensium Autocatacrisis (p. 101.) as directly (saith [Page 91]it) in a literal sense carrying to a Jewish Oblation. Likewise, whereas the Rubrick of the former Common-Prayer-Book order­eth only, that such Alms be put in the Poor Man's-Box, this new one enjoineth, that the Deacon shall reverently bring the said Ba­son with the Oblations therein, and deliver it to the Presbyter, who shall humbly present it before the Lord, and set it Upon the Holy Table. See Cassand. Consult. art. 24. p. 194. who ranks the se­veral Offices in the Canon thus: Symbolorum consecrandorum ob­latio; oblatorum consecratio; mortis Domini commemoratio; gratia­rum actio; pro communi omnium salute supplicatio; (which last St. Ambrose and St. Austin were of opinion was a prescribed Form left by St. Paul to all Churches, in the Celebration of this Sa­crament, according to what is said in 1 Tim. 2.1.) Sacramento­rum distributio & participatio. And p. 202. Primum populi oblatio­nes Deo commendantur; Der nomen invocatur; symbola oblata verbis Domini consecrantur; mors Domini commendatur; vivorum & mortuorum memoria agitur; pro tota Ecclesia & totius orbis incolu­mitate Deo preces offeruntur. This is the Order, he saith, of the present Roman Service. Again p. 207, of the same Service he saith, Primum sacrificii & doni nomine intelligitur sacrificium po­puli quod consistit in pane & vino,—deinde est sacrificium corporis Christi, &c. And see Bishop Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s. 9. Panis Eucha­risticus Deo consecratur; quia de profano seu non sacro sacer fit; Deo specialiter dedicatur (ut constat ex rebus factis & verbis dictis circa ipsum) ideo negari non potest quin Deo specialiter offeratur; fit igitur ibi quodammodo sacrificium panis, &c. This Offering up of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament is also expresly appointed in the new English Liturgy; where, after the Oblation made of the Alms, the Rubrick saith, and the Presbyter shall then (i. e. together with the Alms) Offer up, &c. the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table, &c.—Thus the Bread may be said to be Offer'd as a Sacrifice of Alms, and Praise, and Thanksgiving for God's good Creatures, &c. or as some portion of it is then Dedicated. Bellarm. de Missa, l. 1. c. 27. In omni­bus Liturgiis, seu Graecis seu Latinis, quantumvis antiquis, pars actionis est oblatio rerum consecrandarum. This being, as I con­ceive, for the intentions but now mention'd.

But Fourthly, To go a little further; since it must be granted from what is said above, That the Fathers in some part or other of this Service make an Oblation of the real Body of our Lord; and since (again) its manifest, that the same expressions are used in [Page 92]the Oblations made before, as in those after the words of Institu­tion pronounc'd; and the Offering mention'd in these there is tend­ing to all the same ends and purposes, whether Propitiatory, Impe­tratory, or Eucharistical (as you may see by comparing the Pray­ers before, Suscipe Sancte Pater, &c. and Te igitur Clementissime Pater, &c. with the Prayer after the words of Institution—unde & memores Domine, &c.) From these two things therefore I think it follows, That all these Prayers and Service (before as well as after) refer to the same Sacrifice and Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord: It being most improbable, that the same or the like expressions would be used of that which they conceiv'd only Bread, and (afterward) of that which they conceiv'd to be Christ's real Body, if the former was us'd as a distinct Oblation without relation to the later. The action therefore of this Ob­lation is only preparatory in the precedent Prayers, according to that expression in one of them, Benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto nomine praeparatum; consummate in that following—unde & me­mores &c. offerimus, &c. Offertur panis non ut sacrificium perfectum, sed ut inchoatum & perficiendum, saith Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. Therefore the chief purpose of the Prayers before seems to be Consecratory and Benedictive of the Symbols, rather than Oblatory, tho in them the Oblation is mention'd. So they begin with Pe­tition, Suscipe hanc hostiam, &c. quam offero, i. e. quam oblaturus sum pro &c. or cujus oblationem praepare; according to which is that following offerimus deprecantes &c. after which is said Veni sanctificator benedic hoc sacrificium praeparatum &c.— and —Te igitur clementissime Pater rogamus uti accepta habeas & bene­dicas haec dona, haec sancta sacrificia illibata; Sancta illibala, i. e. post benedictionem; and after this, quam oblationem tu Deus bene­dictam facere digneris, &c. But after the Institution, follows a consummated Oblation. And indeed in some Liturgies we find no Oblation at all made. I mean in this kind, pro peccatis, pro Ecclesia, &c. till after the words of Institution and Consecration compleated; see Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 17, 18. See Chrysost. Liturg▪ offerimus tibi &c. pro requiescentibus in fide &c.—super oblatis & sanctificatis pretiosis donis Dominum rogemus ut benignus Deus noster dimittat nobis divinam gratiam &c. after the Consecration finish'd. And, there being no controuersie amongst them about the matter of the Sacrament we cannot doubt the intentions in all the Litur­gies are the same. Then therefore follows a consummated Obla­tion in a more singular manner,—unde & memores Domine, nos [Page 93]servi offerimus Majestati tuae de tuis donis hostiam puram &c. and the prayers following are for God's acceptation of their Oblation, not for benediction; not benedicta facere, but accepta habere, & jube perferri per manus &c. And then, lastly, follow other pray­ers, with reference to the worthy communicating of his Body. For note, that as some petitions (first for benediction, and then for acceptation) there are with respect to the Eucharist as an obla­tion; (which oblation is joyned also with those prayers;) so other prayers there are with respect to it as a sacrament, and the com­munication to us of Christs Body to be performed afterwards. And to this may aptly be applied that Prayer made in some Li­turgies after the words of Institution, Fiat nobis corpus Christi tui, i. e. to us communicating thereof to all the spiritual effects and benefits thereof.

5. But fifthly, one thing ordinarily taken for granted [That our Saviour's words of Institution are (I do not say the chiefest part of, but) the whole and only consecration; so that this is nei­ther begun by any Prayers before these, nor continued by any after them,] is a thing very disputable; Whether in the opinion of the Ancients, from whom we have received these Liturgies, they were so thought to be: and it hath bin a contest between the Greek and Roman Church of later times. See Bishop Forbes his discourse about it de Eucharistia 2. l. 2. c. 1, 2, 3. sect. and Cassand. consult. art. 24. de iteratione, p. 202 Both who say, that it is the safer opinion to place it in both, and that veteres Latini utriusque pariter & invocationis sive precis & Dominicorum verborum men­tionem faciunt in consecrandis mysteriis.

And that passage of Damascene and of Epiphanius in 2. Ni­cen. Conc. act. 6. tom. 3. that Basil called the Symbols antitypa only before, not after consecration, whereas he calls them so after the words of Institution, but before Fac istum panem corpus &c. shews, that they in those times conceived the consecration partly at least to be in these following words. And Basil himself saith Invocation was used by the Church as well after as before the Evan­gelical words, tanquam multum habens momenti ad mysterium. See Basil. de Spiritu S. 27. c. where speaking of the authority of unwritten Traditions, amongst many others, he names the formes of the Liturgies; Invocationis verba cum conficitur panis Eucha­ristiae & poculum benedictionis, quis sanctorum (i. e. of the Apo­stles) in scripto nobis reliquit? Nec enim his contenti sumus quae commemorat Apostolus aut Evangelium; verum alia quoque & ante, [Page 94]& post, dicimus, tanquam multum habentia momenti ad mysterium, quae ex traditione, citra scriptum, accepimus. Consecramus autem aquam Baptismatis, & ex quibus scriptis? nonne a tacita secre­taque traditione? &c.

Now this being supposed, that other prayers besides our Lords words bear some part in the consecration, many of the objections made will be of no force: some of which also may be and are used as arguments to confirm this tenent.

1. To [ν] tis answered, To ν. first, that this matters not, if true; because as much, tho not the same, is said in the Roman form, before the words of Institution. Therefore to no purpose were it, to alter some and not the rest which is as opposite to their opinion.

2. That no alteration is made of the ancient form for the things objected, they being found placed in the same order in the Ambrosian Liturgy, de sacram. 4. l. 4. c. by which unquestioned-an­cient form you may find Bellarmin to defend the Roman Missal in all the chief objections made against it, in his 2. l. de Miss. 24. cap.

To [ξ] an answer may be collected out of what is said above in the 5th consideration, To ξ. and out of what was but now said to [α.]

Now to their Answer to the second argument of the Fathers. To [τ] I say:To τ. Reply to their answer to the 2d. ar­gument out of the Fathers. but the Reformed deny the change of any accident at all in the bread, (of the change of which bread in something or other the Fathers speak, and that before communicating,) and all the change they allow (save only relative) is in the commu­nicant ex pacto or promissione divina upon receit of the bread.

To [ρ], see the answer which is made p. And we not unu­sually compare things, when (not only in some other things they are incomparable,To ρ σ. but) in the reason of the comparison one far transeends, or is transcended by the other. Which may be said also to [σ].

To [τ] I grant both in Baptism and the Eucharist to be a miraculous or supernatural effect wrought upon the soul of the worthy receiver; To τ. to which such miraculous instances wrought by God's omnipotency may be not unfitly applied. But besides this effect acknowledged in general; first, in Baptism it hath bin a question, (and undecided for any thing I know by any Council,) Whether the Baptismal water contineat aut conferat gratiam, per virtutem aliquam creatam (i.e. upon the benediction thereof) quae [Page 95]illi insit, & qua effectum gratiae operetur; or, quia divina virtus illi ad producendum gratiae effectum certo & infallibiliter ex Christi pro­missione assistit, ut habeat rationem causae sine qua non: (i. e.) that God immediately by himself and not by the water gives such grace, whenever the water washeth a sinner. Now tho the la­ter opinion is the more common, yet some of the Fathers at least are thought to incline to the former, which makes a great miracle wrought not upon the Baptized only, but upon the water. See Chrysost. (who is quoted by them for his high expressions concern­ing Baptism as well as concerning the Eucharist) in Johan. Hom. 25. Ex quo Jordanis alveum ingressus est Christus non amplius rep­tilia animarum viventium, sed animas rationales & spirituales aqua producit. And Hom. 24. upon c. 3. —Unless a man be born of water—Si quis interroget, quomodo ex aqua? rursus ego illud, quo­modo ex terra, (i.e. in man's first generation?) nam quemadmodum terra inanimata &c divina voluntate ad tanta miracula producenda vires accepit; ita spiritu & sensibili aqua omnia haec admirabilia & humanam cogitationem excedentia facile exoriuntur. —Nunquam aqua Baptismi purgare peccata credentium posset, nisi tactu Dominici corporis fuisset sanctificata. And Cyril. Alexand. in Joann. 2. l. 42. c. Sicut viribus ignis intensius aqua calefacta non aliter quam virtute ignis urit; sic aqua virtute Spiritus sancti in se suscepta abstergit peccata. And Estius 4. sent. 1. d. 5. s. Haec sententia est probabilior si nudas quasdam Patrum sententias, ut sonant, attendamus. Now, suppose the Fathers to be of this opinion, they might well apply the same instances and expressions to Baptism for this su­pernatural infused virtue into the water, as they do to the Eu­charist for the supernatural mutation of the elements, without any diminution at all to the miraculousness of this effect. This for Baptism.

2. In the Eucharist there is pretended to be, besides the super­natural effect wrought upon the communicant by Christ's body, a miraculous conversion also of the elements into that his body▪ Now that the Fathers used those miraculous instances of God's omnipotency, to illustrate a miraculous change made not in the communicant, but also in the elements, and to prove not a presence of Christ's body simply in the Eucharist, but a supernatural muta­tion of the bread (some way or other) into it, I think is both plain (if you please to review the places I quoted out of them) from their clear language, applied to the elements, not to the communicants; and very consonant to the other arguments which [Page 96]are drawn out of them, to shew their Tenent of the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist before communicating.

Again to [υ] that they held this change in the elements of the Eucharist much otherwise than that in the Waters of Bap­tism,To υ. tho both some way miraculous, seems plain; in that, tho in Baptism Grace and the Spirit is bestow'd, and then we are also incorporated into Christ, &c. yet say they not of the Wa­ter of Baptism from this effect thereof, that it is the Spirit; or is turn'd into the Spirit; neither saith the Apostle, that in un­worthy receiving it, we are guilty of the Spirit; as in the other he saith, guilty of the Body. Neither was there ever such a ve­neration, or reservation of it, such a care that none should be spilt, or fall to the ground, as of the consecrated Elements; which shews, that tho they imagine some miracle in both, yet a much different and transcendent one in the second.

§. XXIX The same Answer may serve to [φ] where, To φ. Reply to their Answ. to the 3d Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Sacrifice. since the real presence of Christ's Body, that now is in Heaven, with the wor­thy Receiver, is as great a Miracle, as that other with the Sym­bols; 'tis strange, why those allowing the one so strongly oppose the other; unless perhaps this be to avoid Adoration.—Concern­ing the Reply which may be made to their Answer to the third Argument out of the Fathers, see (before) the Reply to [λ]

§. XXX Lastly, Concerning the fourth Argument out of the Fathers, Adoration: Reply to their Answ. to the 4th Arg. out of the Fathers concerning Adoration. The heads of what they say (see before) as well as I can understand them are these; α That the Symbols are to be used with a due reverence and respect, as things consecrated to a sacred use. β That Christ may be worshipped also in receiving of the Eucharist, as he is now in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God. γ But not as present in the Eucharist, because no Divine command for any such thing, and because he is there ut manducetur non ut adoretur; he saying there, Take eat, not take worship. α. Or yet further, That he may be worshipped as present (or who is present) by Faith in the hearts of the Com­municants;β. or also really present, γ. as others say, to the worthy Receiver; and who is present also in the Symbols after that man­ner as the thing signified or represented may be said to be present in that thing which signifies it. δ. δ That the Fathers, in the places quoted out of them, speak either of a reverence due to the consecrated Symbols of our Saviour's Body, or also of Adoration [Page 97]of our Saviour, or of his Body in some of the foresaid manners or intentions, but not as really present with the Symbols.

ζ That these may not be worshipped for Christ's Body, ζ &c. That if they be, 'tis flat Idolatry [η].η. That those of the fourth Opinion do worship them for Christ, or for his Body.

Of these [α] and [β] are granted. To [γ] First, Reply to α. β. To γ. I suppose a Precept in general, to worship Christ; and the whole Christ to be there wherever his Body is; it being never sever'd, not when it lay in the Grave, from the Divinity.

And therefore (as Daille grants out of St. Austin's Apology, c. 10.) l'humanite de Jesus Christ est vrayement & proprement, adorable. I find Calvin indeed somewhat boggle at it, Inst. l. 4. c. 17. s. 35. where bringing in this arguing, Si corpus est & anima & divinitas sint una cum corpore, quae jam divelli non possunt, igitur illic adorandus Christus, he saith, Primum si sua illa, quam obtendunt, concomi­tantia ipsis negetur quid facient?—Quis sanus & sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat? But there is no Body that saith, that Christ's Body is Christ; but that it being no more since his Passion (for Christ dyeth no more, Rom. 6.) a dead Bo­dy, but having the Soul join'd with it, as likewise ever since the Incarnation having its Hypostasie, or subsistence from the Deity joined with it, therefore where the Body is, there is totus Chri­stus. But yet suppose Christ's true Body in the Sacrament apart, I hope Calvin will allow a superior worship to be given to it, properly due to no other Creature. Let then such be the wor­ship we here speak off.

2. Next; Affirmative precepts (such as this is of worshipping Christ) do not oblige to every time and place; but if they are un­limited and general, they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place. Nor is there need of any parti­ticular command in respect of these (i. e. places or times) with­out which we may not obey them. See Discourse concerning Ado­ration, &c. p. 1.

[Page 98]3. But then again: This is seriously to be consider'd, concern­ing affirmative precepts; That they do oblige for some time and places, positis debitis circumstantiis; else they would not oblige at all. Now, Suppose Christ's Body really present in the Eucha­rist, and that with the Symbols, (as the Lutheran believes,) what fitter time to Adore, than when we receive from him the great­est Love and Mercy that can be shew'd to Mankind, the Com­munion of his own Flesh and Blood to us? And what fitter place than in a Church, wherein usually we receive it? and when, and where no impediant circumstances can be alledged? Let therefore the omission of such worship be lawful, with Daille's qualifications, (Reply to Chaumont p. 66.) Purveuque cette omission ne procede ni de haine ni de mespris ni de non chalance ni d'aucune autre mau-vaise disposition de esprit: Yet how the Lutheran (con­sidering his perswasion) is acquitted from some of these in his omission (at such time) of Adoration, I see not. And Daille him­self, in his Apology, c. 9. p. 66. seems to maintain the necessity, in such time of this Duty, supposing a real presence. Si le Sacrament —est en sa substance le corps de Christ, &c. il est evident qu' on le peut & qu'. on le doit adorer; attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet ado­rable.

Now, if the Body of Christ be a subject adorable to the Roma­nists, so it is to the Lutherans. And see St. Austin's saying to this purpose before: Non solum non peccamus adorando, sed non adorando peccamus. And what man is excus'd from blame, who appearing in the presence of his Prince, to receive from him the Donation of his Lise or Liberty, &c doth not at such time give unto him his due Honour, tho by no Law oblig'd at all times to do it?

To [δ] First, its plain from the places quoted, That by the Fathers in the Eucharist not only an inferior reverence was given to the Symbols, but also a divine worship to Christ. Else St. Au­stin, if speaking of an inferior reverence, would not have ask'd the question,To δ. Quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra? since the Creature is well capable of some inferior veneration. Nor would S. Am­brose say; adoramus illam carnem, quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt: nor S. Chrysostom, quam in praesepi adorarunt Magi, &c. [Page 99]hence is that answer excluded, that they speak of, A reverent usage of the Symbols.

2ly. Tis plain, that they worshipped not only the omnipotent Deity of Christ, but his Humane nature or substance as there present.

3ly. Present not only to the worthy receiver, but on the Table, on the Altar; which they worshipped as there, before their re­ceiving it. As appears by —Illum, quisuper Altare colitur. —Ad­ducti sunt ad mensam Domini, & accipiunt de corpore & sanguine, sed adorant tantum &c. —Imitemur vel barbaros &c. Tu non in praesepi vides, sed in altari. —Non Angelos, sed Dominum ostendo. —Si pura sunt vestimenta, adora & manduca. —Rogantes Agnum propositum (i. e.) on the Altar, &c. see the former quotations. Therefore those answers serve not, of worshipping him as really present to the receiver, or present in mens hearts by faith.

Neither doth that help any thing (which I do not well under­stand) of worshiping Christ (which must be with divine worship) and that before receiving, as representatively present in the sym­bols, (he in reality not being there.) Which thing (first whe­ther it may, or may not be done) is unappliable to the Fathers, who express themselves, to adore the very flesh (not its figure or representation) as present on the Altar; that flesh as now on the Altar, which the Apostles adored in Domino Jesu, and the wise men in the Babe, in praesepi; and non Angelos, saith Chrysostom, neque Archangelos, neque Coelos, sed ipsum eorum ostendo Dominum. Is signum corporis Domini, which thing, only, they say, he shew­ed, above Angels?

Now to examin the answer it self a little; whether such a thing may lawfully be done. And here I will first set you down Bellarmin's reply to such an answer, given by Pet. Martyr to that place of Nazianzen, [eumque qui super altare colitur magno cum clamore obtestans] who said, Coli quidem Christum super alta­re, sed coli in symbolo, sicut in symbolo significatur. To which the Cardinal; vel est ipse revera in symbolo illo, vel non est; si est &c. si non est; ergo licet saltem coram symbolis procumbere, & ibi Christum licet absentem adorare; ergo licet imagines Christi venerari, &c. or rather Christum in imagine ipsius adorare. And doth, not this war­rant divine adoration of Christ's Body and Blood as some way pre­sent there, and that before communicating, to be lawful, and [Page 100]that to all opinions whatsoever, if only they hold the Sacrament a sign of Christ's Body? And then why saith Daille, (who gives this answer for the Fathers adoration,) that the Lutherans wor­ship of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, if there it be not, is vain, & inutile & tombe par maniere de dire dans le neant? Reply to Chaumont p. 63. Would it be in vain in a Lutheran, and was it not so in the Fathers? And is it without reason then that which Calvin saith, de Christiana pacificatione 11. c. Cum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus, quisquis alio se convertit ejus adoran­di causa, ab ipso discedit? which is most true, if Christ be only in heaven: he that worships Christ or his Body there where he confesseth it is not, nor any thing else (relating to it) that is capable of such a worship as he gives, seems to me to have no object at all of his worship. For divine worship sutes not to the sign; and there is nothing else there (in his opinion) to give it to. To worship Christ as there, must be to worship something there as him: we worship Christ upon the Altar, i. e. we wor­ship Christ in Heaven, upon the motive of something representing him upon the Altar, is too sorc'd a paraphrase of the Fathers ex­pressions.

To [ζ] it is granted. To ζ. To [η] namely, that those of the fourth opinion,To η. Concerning ido­latry imputed to the Roman Church, Whe­ther the Roman Church worship not Christ as corporally pre­sent in the Sa­crament, but (by holding Tran­substantiation) the Sacrament instead of Christ: and whether all such worship however qualified be ido­latry? contrary to the practice of the Fathers, worship not on­ly Christ that is present, corporally present, with the symbols, but (by holding Transubstantiation) the very substance of bread in stead of Christ, and that all such worship (however qualified) is idolatry; much is to be said, and rather because Monsieur Daille an eminent man (in his Apology for the Reformed Churches, late­ly published in English) hath singled out this point from all the rest, upon which chiefly to ground a necessity of separation from former Church, and of excusing the separaters from Schism.

Now to make way for what I have to say; first I will premise some concessions of Monsieur Daille's, who hath very diligently argued this point, and then some concessions (on the other side) or qualifications (in their adoration) of the Transubstantialists; by both which I conceive the heavy imputation of committing ido­latry, that is laid upon them, may be much lightned.

[Page 101]1. First therefore Daille grants (which yet I do not press so much, because he saith such things,Mr. Daille's Concessions. as because in reason no man can say otherwise) an enorme difference (as he calls it) between worshiping Christ or the body of Christ in the Sacrament, and worshipping the Sacrament; (see 2d. Reply to Chaumont, p. 29.) and this, tho we mean the first of worshiping his Body as really present in, or with, the Symbols.

2. Of which worship of Christ as present, he holds that it is not idolatrous at all, because it hath no direction to any object now-adorable; but (to use his own words) seulement vaine & iuutile & tombant par maniere de dire dans le neant, s'abusant en ceci seulement que par erreur elle cherche cet objet & pense l'em­brasser la, ou il n' est point. 1. Reply to Chaumont, p. 63. See likewise 12. c. of his Apology, where he saith, "Had the Church of Rome obliged us only to adore Christ in the Sacrament, they had not by this tied us to worship any creature. So he saith 1. Reply. p. 20. Bienque nous ne croions pas cette presence du corps de Christ dans les signes, neant-moins nous n' estimons pas, que la creance en soit si criminelle, qu' elle nous oblige a rompre avec tous iceux, qui la tiennent—de façon que si l'eglise Romain n' eust en aucune autre erreurque celle la, nous accordons volontiers qu' elle ne nous eust pas donné un suffisant suiet de nous separer d'auec elle, come il par­oist de ce que nous la supportons es Lutheriens. Quell est donc la cause de nostre separation d'auec elle? l'adoration de l' hostie &c.

3. He holds, that Adoration follows necessarily the tenent of the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist. Quant au droit; & qu' on le peut & qu' on le doit adorer, attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable. Which shews Adoration to be rightly ground­ed on Christ's corporal presence, be it after what manner soever, that of the Romanist, or that of the Lutheran; for le corps de Christ est suiet adorable. Apol. 9. c.

4. He resolveth Apol. 10. c. the Jews worshipping before the Ark or footstool Psal. 99.5. and Psal. 132.7. into worshiping God as especially present there upon the Ark; symbolum praesen­tiae Dei, as Rivet calls it, or between the Cherubims ver. 1. And if we compare [adorate scabellum] there, as the Vulgar read it, with [adorarunt vitulum,] Exod. 32.8; to worship the true God of Israel in the Calf is judged idolatry, to worship the same God before the Ark or between the Cherubims, none.

5. So he grants Apol 11. c. That when our Saviour was on [...]arth, a Disciple's giving divine honour upon mistake to another [Page 102]person much resembling him, would be no idolatry; so supposing the consecrated Host truly adorable, should one see one exposed on the Altar that hapned not to be consecrated and worshiped, nei­ther would such a person be guilty of idolatry. So he pronounceth him blameless, that should give the honour and service due to his true Prince to a subject, whom being very like he took for his Prince. See concerning Adoration, p. 11.

The same thing I conceive it is in apparitions. Had S, John Rev. 22.28. taken the Angel for God appearing, (as some think he did, but the Angel quickly rectified his mistake,) and so given him divine honours, such as Abraham and many other Saints in the Old Testament gave to the Lord appearing, this had bin far from an act of idolatry in him. So had Mary Magdalen, as she took our Saviour for a Gardiner, worshiped a Gardiner like apparrelled &c for our Saviour, it had bin no idolatry.

But saith Daille, should any worship the Sun for Jesus Christ, as S. Austin mentions some that did, or the Virgin Mary for a Goddess, as the Collyridians are said to have done, these will be guilty of high Idolatry. I add further; Should any worship not only an image, but (which Dr. Hammond hath observed in his Treatise of Idolatry, sect. 47.) any glorified Saint or Angel, by giving any of God's attributes to them; as, the knowledge of the se­crets of mens hearts, and of all other passages in this lower world, and the ability likewise of working miraculous effects as they please; and both these, not from God's communicated, but their own original, power; and should address his prayers to them, as fancied such by him; this man will certainly be an idolater.

Now the reason Daille gives in the same 11. chapter Apol. why in this worshiping the creature for God or Christ, some are idolaters, some not, [by Idolaters, I mean sinful and formal idolaters, as some call them; for note, that it is no otherwise in idolatry than in other sins, there may be a material act or real adultery without fault; suppose another man's wife conveyed into the husbands bed instead of his own, as Leah was once into Jacobs: so the real killing of his neighbour without any guilt; suppose by the mis­carrying of some instrument a man is using in his vocation: and here an ignorance of such a fact, without any faulty error in the judgment, or obliquity of the intention, excuseth the sin:] Daille's reason therefore for distinguishing guilty idolatry from that which materially may also be called so, is, not the good intention to wor­ship only him who is truly God or Christ, or the opinion and be­lief [Page 103]they have, that the subject they worship is truly such, (for this (as he in that Chapter, and other Writers copiously ex­press) is common to the worst of Idolaters;) but the error or ig­norance of the judgment, from which flows this mistaking. pra­ctise, as that is only affected and culpable, or innocent and ex­cusable. Of which thus he, in that Chapter, J' avoue, que l'ig­norance excuse la (i. e. in this very matter of Idolatry) ou elle est involuntaire, quand le suiet, que nous mesconoissons, est tellenent cachê &c. mais la, ou l'ignorance d'un objet procede non de l'obscu­rite & difficulté de la chose, mais de la malice, ou de la negligence de l' homme, alors tant. s'en faut, qu'elle excuse, &c. So he saith, those that worshipp'd the Sun for Christ were unexcusable, be­cause l'ignorance de tous ces gens estoit visiblement affectes & vo­luntaire, née de leur vice seulement, & non de l'obscuritê des choses qu' ils ignoroient. Therefore also afterward upon this reason as he excuseth him, that should have worshipp'd one resembling our Saviour, or an unconsecrated Host, &c. because non sa passion ou sa non chalance avoit cause cette mesprise, &c. So he blameth the Romanist, mistaking and worshipping the Sacrament for Christ, because l'erreur vient tout enliere de leur passion, & non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux.

6. Mr. Daille grants (which I have touch'd before,) That as we may not reject the Communion of any, for every erroneous Tenent, when it offends against no principal or fundamental point of Religion, see Apol. c. 7. so we may not reject it for Er­rors, tho destructive of a Principle, (see Apol. c. 9.) if it do this, not immediately and directly, but by some consequences thereof which consequences also are renounc'd, and the Principle still maintain'd by those who hold the error. [Tho if you desire my opinion of this: First, I see not how any can hold a Prin­ciple, and yet hold a contrary Tenent that directly and imme­diately opposeth it; for no man is so sottish, as to hold two things directly contradictory the one to the other: See what he saith for this, when press'd by Chaumont, in his second Reply, p. 81. So then, when any one's Tenent opposeth the Principle (which also he holds) by some consequence it must be, and not be, point blank; Secondly, I see not, but that if one holding the Principle hold also another Tenent, which by a consequence clear and manifest to others; tho not to him, ruineth the Prin­ciple, such an one is to be rejected &c. as if he denied the Principle. And thirdly, The judgment of the clearness of such con­sequences, [Page 104]private men must leave to the Church and her Councils: Esse two men, as interessed and prepossessed, ordinarily pretend contradictories both to be clear. For example: If the Lutheran Tenent of the ubiquity of Christ's humanity, or the Greek Te­nent of the Holy Ghost not proceeding from the Son, should seem to a General Council, the one, by a clear consequence, tho not ac­knowledg'd by the Party, to ruine Christ's true humane nature; the other, to destroy the Trinity: Such ought to be separated from as men not discerning this consequence, only from a some way culpable and affected ignorance. See what Daille saith of this, Rep. 2. p. 82, 83.] But (to return to Daille) therefore (saith he) tho Adoration should follow upon the Lutheran Te­nent of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, yet if they acknow­ledg no such consequence, or practise no such thing, we may not for their error abhor their Communion. In which I may ad­vance one step farther (with Daille's good leave,) that, should the Lutherans also acknowledg the consequence, and practise such a thing as Adoration of Christ as corporally present in the Eucha­rist; yet for this neither is their Communion refusable: Because such Adoration opposeth no Principle; but is at the most but vain and inutile, according to Daille's own judgment, quoted before.

Observe here also from this Proposition of Daille's, That he holds a duty of separation from the Communion of the Church of Rome, because of their worshipping the Eucharist, tho they should not enjoin it to any; because we ought not to Commu­nicate with any such, who acknowledg and profess a Doctrine or Practise clearly repugnant to a Principle, as he contends the Roman Adoration is. As for the other cause of Separation, the enjoining this Practise upon men contrarily perswaded, we shall speak to it anon. Thus much for Daille.

§. XXXI The Roman Qualificati­ons concern­ing Adoration. Next, To see what qualifications the Transubstantialists make concerning their Adoration.

1. First, After Consecration, they affirm not Christ's Body to be there alone; but the Symbols also to remain with it. This is shew'd before.

2. They affirm the Symbols capable of some reverence, as be­ing holy things; but not at all of divine worship, as being Christ's Body, for they are distinct from it. See Cassand. Consult. de Ador. Euch.—Quae adoratio non ad ipsum signum quod exterius videtur, [Page 105]sed ad ipsam rem & veritatem, quae interius creditur, referenda est; quamvis & ipsi signo, cujus jam virtus intelligitur, tanquam reli­gioso & sacro, sua veneratio debeatur. See Forbes his Testimony of them, l. 2. c. 2. s. 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 quod Christus sub illis sit, quia etiam Deus est in anima tanquam in Templo suo, & tamen adoratur Deus non anima; ut ait Suarez Tom. 3. Qu. 79. Art, 8. disp. 65. sect. 1. See Spalat. l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri (i. e. Romanists) di­cunt species panis & vini, hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda, sed dicunt corpus Christi verum & reale, quod sub illis speciebus latet, deberi adorari.

Lastly, See Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 6. Species illae neque excel­lunt aliis sacramentis, imo sunt inferiores omnibus, cum sint pura accidentia, neque adorari possunt. Again, c. 29. Neque ullus Ca­tholicus est qui doceat ipsa Symbola externa per se & proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae, sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minori qui omnibus sacramentis convenit. Where also he saith, those Luthe­rans, that hold Christ adorable in the Sacrament, only modo lo­quendi a Catholicis dissentire. And whereas many are offended, see Taylor, p. 366. that he puts in [per se & proprie] and holds the Adoration of Christ aliquo modo pertinere ad Symbola: Yet 1. This is no stating of the Church in any Council. 2. Nor an universal Doctrine of the Roman Doctors; see Forbes l. 2. c. 2. s. 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet. 3. He doth afterwards such up again, or suspend what he had said before, in the conclusion, where he saith, Quicquid sit de modo loquendi, status quaestionis non est nisi, an Christus in Eu­charistia sit adorandus cultu latriae. 4. Lastly, If examin'd close, the matter is not great, for he saith only, that we worship Christ in the Eucharist, vested with the Symbols, as a Disciple worship­ed him on Earth, his Divinity clothed with Humanity, and that again clothed with Garments, without making in the act of his Worship a mental separation of his Humanity from his Clothes, or of his Deity from his Humanity. When yet, saith he, ratio adorandi (i. e. with supreme Adoration) non erant vestes, imo nec ipsa humanitas, sed solum divinitas. So then; at the worst he affirms no more Worship due to the Symbols in the Eucharist, than to Christs Garments, when he was on the Earth.

[Page 106]3. They deny also any Divine Worship due to the substance of the Bread, as well as to its species, or symbols: which substance of Bread many of them at least hold, to be chang'd, both for form, and also matter; that is, to be annihilated, and nothing at all thereof to remain. Catholici cum negent, saith Bellarmin, panem in Sacramento remanere, quomodo possunt asserere [...] De Euch. l. 4. c. 29. Perperam [...] (i. e. the Tenent of it, saith Forbes) Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur, & illi idolatriae crassissimae &c. insimulantur; cum credant panem con­secratum non esse amplius panem &c. l. 2. c. 2. s. 9. —Tilenus there quoted s. 10. Tametsi hi panem (ex sententia Protestantium) ado­rant, non tamen panem adorandum esse dictitant. They deny any Divine Worship due to Bread; i. e. to any thing which whilst they affirm to be Christ's Body, they acknowledg also to be Bread (as those, who worshipped the Sun for Christ, or the Molten Calf for the God that brought them out of Egypt, affirming these still to be the Sun, and a Molten Calf) for they hold it impossible, and involving contradiction, That the Bread, remaining Bread, should also be the Body of Christ; and much urge the Lutherans for saying, Hic Panis est Corpus meum.

Therefore also they say, That should they worship Bread for the Body of Christ, they should be the greatest Idolaters in the World. But yet this, I conceive, they say not; That should they worship Christ's Body as being under the accidents of Bread, and yet indeed not his Body, but the Bread it self be still under those accidents; that so also they should be the greatest Idolaters that ever were. For this their very Adversaries, less partial to their cause, yet will not say of them. Nor do they say it of them­selves; for Bellarmin, speaking of one mistakingly Adoring an unconsecrated Host, saith, Adoratio ex intentione potissimum pen­det: Quare qui [talem] panem adorat, quod certo credat non esse pa [...]m, sed Christum, is proprie & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem, de Euch. l 4. c. 30. Thus much that [...] taken in this sense, not that de facto they do worship, but that also they hold a worship of the Bread, cannot justly be objected to them.

4. They use the phrase indeed of worshipping the Sacrament, and that speaking of Divine Worship (which phrase also is us'd by the Ancients,) 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 veneratione ex­hibeant. But by it they mean, the worshipping, not of any thing [Page 107] visible or sensible in the Sacrament, nor of any substance invisible, that is not Christ, (for these they expresly make uncapable of any such worship,) but only the body of Christ present invisibly, impassibly, &c, after the manner described before, not of the Sa­crament as it implies the signum, but only the significatum, then there also really present.

See therefore that expression of Conc. Trid. (now quoted) ex­plained, both by the reason immediately following, Nam illum eundem praesentem in eo adesse credimus, quem Pater aeternus intro­ducens &c dicit, Et adorent cum omnes Angeli, Heb. 1. and most clearly in the following Canon, to which the Anathema is affixed, for those who denied such adoration to be due, Can. 6. which runs thus; Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae sacramento Chri­stum unigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo ado­randum &c, Anathema sit. This is observed by Father Paul, in his history of that Council, 4. l. pag. 343. ‘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 signified or contemed is not meant by the Sacrament, but the thing signifying or containing; and there­fore it [i.e. the manner of speech] was well corrected in the 6th Canon, which said, that the Son of God ought to be worshiped in the Sacrament: Observed also and pressed by F. Sancta Clara, (Enchiridion of Faith, Dial. 13.) "Its true (saith he) that in the 5th chap. the Fathers say, that the Sacrament is to be adored; but here in the Canon they speak more strictly, and the reason in the Chapter is the same, nam illum eundem Deum &c.’ And else­where (3d. dialogue) he shews where the expressions differ (for which he names, besides this place, the 2d. Canon of 6. Sess. com­pared with 7. chapter,) ‘Our obligation to be to the Canon not the Chapter; * because the chapter rather declares the doctrine to be defined, than contains the definition it self, neither is framed in the stile of Conciliary definitions with Anathema's; and * because the Council of Trent it self doth seem to put a difference between these two, (Sess. 14. c. 3. of Extr. Unction, haec sint quae &c.) in making a further Commination for violation of the doctrines of the Canons than of the Chapters.’ Observed also by Grot. in his Apolog. Rivet. discussio p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's fore­quoted passage, that the controversy between the Catholicks and Lutherans was only in modo loquendi, in saying, the Sacrament, or Christ in the Sacrament, was to be worshiped; and to this nothing [Page 108]is replied by Rivet, and it appears that that indeed is said by them which Daille wisheth. Apol. 12. c.

See Dr. Holden de resol. fidei 2. l. 4. c. In hoc sacrosancto Eucha­ristiae sacramento Christus unigenitus Dei filius cultu latriae adorandus est, and this is all (saith he) that in this matter is fide Catholica credendam. See Dr. Tailor, Liberty of Prophecy, 20. s. 16. n. ‘Now it is evident that the object of their Adoration (i.e. the Romanists) that which is represented to them in their thoughts, their minds, their purposes, (by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of humane actions) in the Blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joined with his holy Humanity, which Humanity they believe actually present, under the veil of the Sacramental signs.’

Add to this, that the same argument Daille, Apol. 9. c. urg­eth to prove, that we may not worship the Sacrament because Christ is in it; namely this, that Christ is in the faithful as in his Temple, yet may we not adore the faithful: the same they urge to the same purpose. See the former quotations out of Suarez, p. 200. Now if Mr Daille say, that the word Sacrament cannot pro­perly be applied to only Christ's Body, or the thing signified, ab­stracted from the Sign, I shall accord willingly; but then we must accuse the Church of Rome, not of an erroneous tenent for this, if she expound to us her orthodox meaning, but of an improper ex­pression.

And for that which he saith 1, Reply. p. 22. That if the word Sacrament in the Council of Trent signified nothing besides Jesus Christ formally and precisely, then we might affirm que le sacra­ment est la aut haux cieux a la dextre de Dieu; I answer that [pre­cisely] is to be taken, as, tho not involving besides Christ any other subject, yet including besides Christ the manner of his presence, which is not natural in the Sacrament as it is in the Hea­vens.

5. Therefore also they ground adoration (a thing Card. Peron much insisteth upon in his reply to King James) not on Transub­stantiation, (tho both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation in­volveth it, so that either of these posita ponitur adoratio,) as if sub­lata [Page 109]Transubstantiatione tollitur Adoratio, but on real presence; 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 Luthe­rans say; but, 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 sabstance of the bread unchanged; yet, as long as not confuted in the point of real presence, would they nevertheless 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 arguing of Barnesius a Romanist, Forbes 2. l. 2. c. 12. s. Corpus Christi ibi est cum pane vel permanente vel transeunte, uno vel alio modo &c, per consequens non est idololatria adorare Christum ibi in Eucharistia realiter praesentem. See in Conc. Trid. 13. s. 5. c. the reason immediately following the requiring of adoration: Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo (sacramento] adesse credimus, quem Pater introducens &c.

If therefore the Church enjoyns these three 1. to believe Christ's corporal presence in the Sacrament, 2. to believe Transub­stantiation, for the manner of that presence, 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 it being (without the second) a sufficient ground thereof. As is ob­serv'd in the former Discourse of the Eucharist.

§. XXXII S [...]ose Tran­substantiation to be an error, [...]e [...] Adoration lawful, if cor­poral presence true. These considerations premised, 1. Therefore now suppose Tran­substantiation an error; yet if the tenent of corporal or real presence (as held by the Lutherans or others) be true, the same adoration is no way frustrated, but still warrantable, and to be continued.

Suppose Corno­ral presence an error, yet their Adoration no Idolatry. 2. Suppose not only Transubstantiation, but real presence an error; suppose the Bread after consecration to remain in sub­stance. [Page 110]unchanged, and our Saviour after no manner at all present corporally; yet I do not see (after the foregoing concessions and qualifications well weighed, especially that wherein they profess adoration not of the Sacrament, or any part thereof, but of Christ in the Sacrament) how the adoration of Christ, as present there and that as under the accidents, and in the room of the substance of the bread, (tho I have shewed that such a quatenus is required of none in their adoration) can amount to idolatry; which to shew

1. First, compare this mistaking worship of the Transubstantia­lists with any other granted idolatries of the Heathens, Jews, or Christians; and we shall find no instance of any, the subtlest ido­latry, that ever was, but in its guilt or error much differing from this. The most subtil of Idolatry Heathen, I think is that, (as it is expounded by Maximus Tyrius, dial. 39. mentioned in Dr. Ham. Idol. 17. s.) that they bestowed their worship only on the Gods to humane eyes invisible, and used Images only as signs and tokens of their honouring them, and helps of their infirmity to remember them &c. Of Jewish Idolatry, was that of worshiping the true God in the golden Calf, and those other set up afterward in 'Dan and Bethel. Of Christian Idolatry, I find these mentioned: that of worshiping the B. Virgin for a Goddess, of the Sun as being Christ, of Saints or Angels, (if ever any such worship were, for I find only such a case put in Dr. Hammond, Idol. 47. s.) communicating God's attributes unto them, (as is expressed above p.) of Omni­science, Omnipotence, which thing makes indeed not one but many Gods.

But as for the first of these, the Heathens, whatever respect they gave to the Images, it's certain the Gods they worshiped were, not one and the true, but many and false; whilst they gros­ly and stupidly erred (even Tyrius amongst the rest) in many of the Divine Attributes; tho also, as Dr. Hammond saith, the acti­ons of the many were very unlike. Tyrius his speculations. As for that of the Jews, Dr. Hammond's opinion is, sect. 34, 35, 36. that they worshiped not God only, but the Idol-calf also, as, upon Aaron's Consecration animated and inspirited by God, (as the Hea­then also conceited of their Idols,) and so fitted to supply Moses's place, and go before them and be their Conductor; and the same is to be thought of Jeroboam's Calves, see 1 Reg. 12.28. As for that of the Christians, those who worshiped the Sun for Christ were not excused by their good intentions, because most wilfully and groundlesly mistaken in their judgments; in which I shall shew [Page 111]the Transubstantialists not to run parallel with them. The wor­shippers of Angels, as such, err also grosly in the Divine Attri­butes; but no such thing is imputed to the Transubstantialists.

2. Again, These Idolaters generally in their worshipping, when they took such a visible thing to be God, they deny'd it not to be the thing still. They affirm'd the Images, the Calves, the Sun they worshipped, to be Calves, and Gold, to be the Sun and Images still, without supposing them to be annihilated, and God (not misunderstood by them in any of his Attributes) to be instead thereof. An Error therefore only like theirs would it be, If any in the Eucharist should acknowledg the Bread to remain, and worship that Bread, no way supposed alter'd, for his Christ: Which none do; or if they do, they are confess'd by all to be Idola­ters.

3. But yet further; These Idolaters in worshipping a Creature for the Creator, grosly imagined in their blind Judgments a thing no way possible: And God not only was not, but could not be, such a thing as they supposed; but a Creature may be the Body of our Lord; and many of those, who deny Transubstantiation, yet grant a possibility thereof: And when we worship the true Body of our Lord, it is a Creature we Adore, tho by the Hy­postatical Union to the Deity, it is capable of such Honour. So that in all the Idolatrous Worships that can be nam'd, tho their intentions might be good, in directing their Adorations only to what they thought the true God; yet were their Judgments in­comparably beyond the Transubstantialists culpably and stupidly (Rom. 1.22, 23.) erroneous to think so. And extremely were they also mistaken (from which the Transubstantialists are granted most clear) in many of the Divine Attributes and Proper­ties.

4. But now in the last place: Suppose that the Israelites did in no manner direct their worship to the Calf, but only to the God of Israel, as suppos'd by them, after some peculiar manner, there present; or suppose, that they held the Calf no more to be there at all, but the God of Israel under the outward appearance thereof: So likewise, That the Christians worshipping the Sun, held first a Transubstantiation thereof into the Body of our Lord: Yet will it not follow, That if their worship thus qualified would still be Idolatry, therefore the Transubstantialists Adoration is so, because (according to Mr. Daille's fifth Concession), from the [Page 112] probability or unreasonableness of the grounds and motives of our perswasion, the like practice is, or is not Idolatry.

For, as the Israelites Adoring God as present after a peculiar manner in the Golden Calf was Idolatry; So the Israelites Adoring God as after a peculiar manner present or dwelling between the Cherubims, or upon the Ark (call'd his Footstool) was not so. Or, to instance in mistaking worships: Tho the Israelites wor­shipping God as peculiarly present in the Calf, when as there was no such matter, was Idolatry; yet the Lutherans worshipping Christ (suppose they did it) as present after a peculiar manner in the Eucharist, tho indeed he be not there, is not so; but only an Adoration vaine & inutile tombant en neant. Again, tho the Christians worshipping the Sun for Christ, tho suppos'd by them not the Sun, but Christ, were Idolatry; yet when our Saviour was on Earth, a Disciple's worshipping a meer man, very like him, for him, would not be so. See Daille's reason for it in his fifth Concess. Why then is the Transubstantialist an Idolater in his Account? See c. 11. of his Apol. because l'erreur de ceux &c. vient tout entiere de leur passion, & non d'aucune chose, qui soit hors d'eux. Here therefore lies all the trial of their Idolatry; Let this be disputed, this judged of by indifferent persons. For this, let what is said before in this Paper be well consider'd; and what shall be said by and by.

§. XXXIII 1. For First: Suppose they ground Adoration on real presence (whatever becomes of Transubstantiation,) the mistake of this ground (i. e. of real presence) will be excusable in them; for, in the Lutherans it is so. But suppose the ground of their Adora­tion be the Tenent of Transubstantiation; yet after a granted pos­sibility thereof, the Tradition of Antiquity, in Exposition of the Scriptures concerning the Eucharist, so much favouring (some way or other) a substantial conversion; and in after times, when this point grew to a debate, the Decision of Councils (the first of which was before A.D. 800. Conc. Nic. 2.) for such a conversion; if in some of them, not the same Transubstantiation, yet as strange; the reception of such Decisions by the succeeding Ages of the Church Universal (Eastern, Western,) till Luther's time, (and since his time the affirming still in general of a Corporal presence with the Symbols, by a considerable Party of the Reform­ed, I mean the Lutheran) (of the reasonable obligation of private Judgments to which Determinations and Practices of the Church [Page 113]in matters divine, I have discoursed elsewhere.) These motives; I say, (however Daille passeth over them in that 11. cap. with a light foot, reducing all to a laseule authoritê du Pape & de son Con­cile, and Dr. Tailor the like p. 346.) will sufficiently shew, that their mistake is not un erreur, qui vient tout entiere de leur passion, & non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux. Surely no practice can be idolatry, where is no malignant or heretical opinion of God or our Saviour: but such corporal presence is not in Daille's, nor Tran­substantiation in many other Protestants opinion. See before.

2. Compare we this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialist with those mistakes mentioned in Daille's 5th. concession, which, tho worshiping of the meer creature for Christ, yet are excused by him from idolatry; and we may find it no less excusable than they.

For tho this hath not the same reason drawn from sense, i. e. a corporal similitude; yet it hath another (supposed) strong enough to ground such practice upon, i.e. divine revelation, as interpreted by Ecclesiastical authority. Tho indeed the mistake of the Transub­stantialist is not so much as ones mistaking of a thing like Christ for Christ, because he worships nothing visible at all, nor any thing invisible wherein those accidents which he seeth do inhere; but only supposeth Christ's body present, where his sense can no way sufficiently inform him (since salvis phaenomenis this presence is possible) when it is absent.

3. Lastly, compare we this mistaking worship of the Transub­stantialists with that of the Consubstantialists, and I think we shall find no reason to accuse the one of flat idolatry, whilst the other of inutility or vanity only; or to charge the one with a bad consequent (which they renounce) of their erroneous tenent, (as that consequent is, [that they adore a piece of bread,] from that te­nent of theirs, that the bread is annihilated and Christ's Body instead thereof, notwithstanding they hold the principle, that no meer crea­ture may be worshiped) whilst we absolve the other from them, as long as they cease to own them, and hold the principle they op­pose. See Daille's 6th. concession.

§. XXXIV Thus far these two parties, the Transubstantialist and Lutheran, agree. 1. That Christ is corporally present. 2. That he may be worshiped. 3. That no other object there but He may be wor­shiped; not bread, nor any other meer creature. 4. That no­thing visible in the Sacrament is He, or his Body; which is pre­sent [Page 114]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 possible, for any thing we know. The one saith, he is there under both the substance and accidents of the 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; yet 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) are made idolaters. Why so? since they say and profess, that if his Body be not there under those appearances, but the same substance still under them which was formerly, 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 wor­shiping the thing in that place, they worship bread; this were a right charge, if they affirmed that they worshiped 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 Christs Body and not bread, and that for this supposition they have rational grounds. Now saying that they worship it, because it is so; is saying, if it be not so they intend no worship to it. And this worship is like theirs, which Bishop Andrews saith was rendred by some formerly out of fear of a some-way de­fective consecration, Si es Christus, te adoro; Resp. ad Apol. Bell. 1. c. Again, whereas it is objected, that a good intention excuseth not idolatry, for so the Sun-worshippers, suppose they held a Tran­substantiation, and thought Christ to be instead of the Sun, and should say, Si es Christus te adoro, would be no idolaters: this would be true, were their good intention founded upon an excus­able and unaffected ignorance. But notwithstanding their inten­tion and supposition it remains idolatry still: not because whilst thinking to worship Christ there, they de facto worship only what is the Sun; but because they have no reasonable motive to imagin such a thing, as that Christ is there, and by consequence so to act upon it; which the Transubstantialist pleads he hath. This clear­ly appears, in that, should Christ be worshiped by them, not, as [Page 115]being instead of the substance, but as being under the substance of the Sun, idolaters still they would be; yet none argue thence, that the Lutheran, in adoring Christ under the substance of the bread, is so.

§. XXXV To conclude this point; If we look upon the judgment of some Reformed writers concerning this Transubstantiatory idola­try, it is either not at all, or but faintly asserted by them. See Dr. Hammond of Idol. sect. 64, 65, 66. where tho he doth not ex­cuse it from being material (tho perhaps not in them formal) idola­try, yet he grants it to come much short of the Idolatry of the Heathen, (contrary to the quotations he makes out of Costerus, sect. 62.) and how far excusable, ignorance, and that founding it self upon the word of God mistaken, may make it, he saith he will not determine; and that he will hope, that it may be far from being ir­remissible to him, who hath reformed his other known sins, and for all known and unknown is truly humbled. And indeed those writers must either allow it to be such a gentle Idolatry, 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.

Here the same Dr. Tailor, that speaks so vehemently against it, in Real Presence p. 341. parallelling there (tho not proving it) the grosness and culpableness of the Roman, with that of the Heathen idolaters: Yet in his lib. of Prophecy 20. s. 16, 17, 18. n. speaking on this manner; ‘That the Romanist giving worship to no undue object, as the Heathen did, and if they thought Christ not pre­sent, being so far from worshiping Bread in this case, that them­selves profess it idolatry to do so; this is a demonstration, that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical. — That ido­latry hath so great a tincture and residency in the will, that from thence only it hath its being criminal, [I suppose he means, from the will, as by its perverseness someway against reason, blind­ing the judgment.]’ ‘That the will of the Transubstantialist hath nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to idolatry: and nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas. — That a divine worship is given also by them only to Christ; but they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence. — Whilst all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of divine adoration, incommunicable to any [Page 116]creature whatsoever; and they, before they venture to pass an act of adoration, believe the bread to be annihilated, or turned in­to his substance who may lawfully be worshiped: and that they who have such thoughts, are as much enemies of idolatry, as they who understand better &c. —For their motives to such opinion, that they have a divine revelation; whose literal and grammatical sence, if that sence were intended, (he omits, that they also gather this sence from Church Tradition,) would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the circle; that Tran­substantiation being openly and violently against natural reason, is no argument to make them disbelieve the Trinity &c, with as much violence to the principles of natural and suparnatural Phi­losophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstanti­ation.’

See Spalato Rep. Eccles. 7. l. 11. c. Respondeo (saith he) me nul­lum idololatricum crimen 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 (i.e. that his Body is under the species instead of the bréad) licet falsa, (Bishop Forbes adds 2. l. 2. c. 9. s. non tamen haere­tica, aut impia, vel directe pugnante cum fide) Christi corpus vere a­dorabile adorant. See Bishop Forbes 14. sect. where shewing the Greek and Eastern Church, as well as the Roman, to use it, he con­cludes; Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere & dam­nare? As for the concessions of Roman writers, of the grosness of their idolatry beyond any heathen, (that is, further than any of their adversaries will charge it upon them,) if the bread should happen to remain, (if this be their meaning, and not rather, that [if they ex professo worship bread]), they labour to advance it the higher, the more to shew the impossiblity that such an error, for so many hundred years, in the universal Church of Christ, assisted by our Saviour to the end of the world, and the pillar of truth, should be entertained; thinking the greatness of this, if a crime, a good argument of the Christians innocence therein: whilst perhaps in some smaller matter she might be liable to a mistake.§. XXXVI

An account of the variance in the doctrine of the Eucharist in latter times.Thus much in answer to the former replies. Now to shew you yet more fully the reasonable motives a Christian may have, of sub­mission to the doctrine decided by Councils concerning Transub­stantiation, or corporal presence of Christ's Body with the symbols, [Page 117]and consequently to the practice of Adoration, which Daille grants du droit to follow from the other; (so that that tenent be­ing excusable, this practice is: nay, the omission of the second in one perswaded of the first, would not be blameless:) I will in the last place give you a short account of the progress of the doctrine of the Eucharist, after the more primitive times, and so conclude this Discourse.

§. XXXVII 1. Tis granted by Mr. Blondel, that there was no difference in, nor any alteration of, this doctrine, till in the Eastern Church after 700. A. D. —in the Latin Church after 800. See 15. c. and 18. c. Therefore in Gregory the Great's time, who flourished Ann. 600. there was yet no change. Now he it was, that put the last hand to the Canon of the Mass, which is now used in the Ro­man Church. See Chemnit. exam. 2. part. p. 828; and see Dr. Field of the Church, Append. to 3. lib. p. 188. where out of Durand's Ra­tionale he saith; That Ambrose out of the ancienter Liturgies hav­ing in some things enlarged and perfected a form, called afterward The Ambrosian Service, and Gelasius Bishop of Rome likewise com­posed another, Gregory and the Church of Rome entertained Gelasius his form, Gregory having first added, detracted, changed, some things therein; (where note, that Bellarmin de Missa 2. l. 19.20. c. tells the story a little otherwise, and saith, out of Diaconus, That Gregory Gelasianum codicem coarctavit, —and out of Grego­ry himself, Ep. 73. lib. 7. se restituisse in Missa antiquas consuctudi­nes, & sustulisse quaedam quae postea irrepserant; but then he is noted by Diaconus and others, to have added de novo to the Canon on­ly those words, [diesque nostros in pace tua disponas;]) and the o­ther Western Churches still continued to use the Ambrosian Ser­vice: that Charles the Great afterward forced these Churches to leave off the Ambrosian Service, (tho in Millain it is used to this day,) and to use all one form, that of Gregory.

Now this Gregorian form, imposed for uniformity by Charl. M. is verbatim the same with that now in use; as Bellarmin proves ibid. from Alcuinus. And others, who living before 800. and in Charles the Great's time, writ Expositions on the Canon of the Mass, as now it is. But no alteration of the doctrine (Daille saith) was before 800. and Charles the Great and his Council at Franck­fort assembled 794, who used this form, are reckoned by him or­thodox; therefore also if any change were made by Gregory, or the times after him, before Charles, (of which for the Canon, I find none alledged,) yet those times being orthodox, it could be no change prejudicial to truth.

[Page 118]Again: The Gregorian Form, as now, agrees in the chief mat­ters with that form set down by S. Ambrose, de sacram. 4. l. 5, 6. c. expressed also by Mr. Blond. in the Margent 21. c. Therefore Bel­larmin in 2. de Missa 23, 24. c. justifies many things objected against the modern Canon, by shewing them to be in that set down by S. Ambrose 200 years before Gregory: and this form again S. Am­brose alledgeth ex antiquo ritu Ecclesiae. Accordingly these men also seem to justify the present Canon of the Mass, if it be rightly understood. See Mr. Blondel's conclusion, after he hath com­mented on the meaning of the modern Canon, Qu' y at'-il (saith he) en tout cela, qui ne s' accorde, a l'escriture, au sens, a la raison, & au tesmonaige de l' Antiquitê, cap. 21. p. 453. And p. 457. he saith S. Gregory's Liturgy is en substance une mesme formulaire avec celuy, qui est en usage entr' eux.

So Dr. Field being engaged in the maintaining that Proposition, [That the Church before Luther, tho of the Roman profession, were of the Protestant Religion] (excepting some only, that then main­tained the modern Popery) justifies the Canon also, then and now used: even those passages thereof; of praying for the dead; and those words in this prayer, des illis locum refrigerii, lucis, & pacis: and, of the commemoration of Saints, and that clause in it, quorum meritis, precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae munia­mur auxilio, (which merits, methinks, he interprets very well and orthodoxly,) and thus concludes his discourse concerning it: ‘It ap­peareth by that which hath bin said, that the Canon of the Mass, rightly understood, hath not, includeth not in it, any such points of Romish religion, as some imagin; but in sundry, yea in all the capital differences between us and them of the Roman faction, wit­nesseth for us, and against them.’ Append. to 3. l. 220, 221. &c. Is it not lawful then, now as heretofore, for a Protestant in opinion to frequent the Roman Service; especially the Mass, and then to adore &c, for so did their Ancestor—Protestants before Luther's time? for all did so. And if it be said, that so we must now live under an obligation also to the Conc. Trident. so did they to the Lateran &c, after the four first Councils; or if not they to those, why we more to this?

§. XXXVIII By this I think a Christian may take the doctrines about this subject, which he finds in the Fathers before 700, or in the Canon of the Mass, for authentical, and may rationally adhere to them; and that this Canon much favours the Roman opinion, we have [Page 119]some prejudice, in that whilst others urge many arguments out of it, for their own side, against the other; yet, they only, whom we say it confutes, retain it entire: and those, whom, as they plead, it favours so much, have rejected it.

§. XXXIX Now let us come to the time, when, after long peace in the Church about this matter, controversy began first to appear in the world, concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist; which by all, both Romanists and Protestants, is agreed to be after A. D. 750. in the time of the Council of Constantinople assembled by Constantinus Copronymus, and of the 2d. Nicene Council that follow­ed after Copronymus's decease. At that time, the contest about the lawfulness of Images in Churches &c (which were then very fre­quent) being on foot, this Constantinopolitan Council called toge­ther by the Emperour, who vehemently opposed Images, amongst other things, declared; That they acknowledged only one true ve­nerable Image of Christ, chosen by him to perpetuate his memory amongst us &c, namely, that of the Eucharist. See 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 6. tom. 3. and what I have said of it before.

These expressions falling from this Council concerning the Eu­charist, were presently resented and opposed, first by Damascen, then by 2. Coucil. Nice, called the 7th General Council, assembled not long after the other (Copronymus being now dead) under the Empress Irene: who; against the other, urged, That our Saviour said not, Sumite, edite imaginem corporis mei, but, Accipite, edi­te, Hoc est corpus meum; and affirmed, neque Dominum, neque Apostolos, neque Patres, incruentum illud Sacrificium, quod a Sacer­dote offertur, imaginem dixisse, post sanctificationis consecrationem, (but the consecration by them probably is imagined to extend be­yond the words of Institution, see before.) verùm ipsum cor­pus & sanguinem: and accused the former Council of contradict­ing it self; nunc quidem sanctum & notabile nostrum sacrificium imaginem sacri corporis Christi, nunc autem sacrum & divinum cor­pus asserentes.

This Council in the East, was then opposed again by the Council at Franckfort assembled by Charles the Great in the West; which Council mainly disliking Images, and seeing (as Dr. Tailor conje­ctures) that if the Sacrament were an Image then it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images, (which argues [Page 120]the practice then of worshiping the Sacrament) took part in this thing with the Conc. Nic. tho in other things they opposed it, and censured the Constantinopolitan expressions of the Eucharist, much what in the same language, as that of Nice did. See Blondel 17. c. pag. 411.

Here you see the first controversy; and it, not so much about sub­stantial conversion of the elements, as about the real or substantial pre­sence of Christ's very body; denied by the Constantinopolitan Coun­cil, (if that of Nice perhaps mis-understood them not;) affirm'd by Nice and Franckfort. The innovation of Doctrine, * saith the Roma­nist, began in the Const. Council: (Primi (saith Bellarm.) qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vocabant erant iconoma­chi &c. de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c.) * saith the Protestant, began in 2. Conc. Nic. by Damascen, and others; see Blondel 15. c. But as for the Conc. Francf. he contends, that tho it was dangerous in its expressions, yet, was in its opinions orthodox; and inveighed against that of Constant. upon a mis-understanding of their meaning. To reflect a little upon this matter; you may observe, 1. First, that the Constant. conc. tho speaking somewhat more diminutively of the Eucharist than the other, yet seems to say more than any Prote­stant will allow, as is shewed before.

2ly. That it was an Assembly of Bishops, called together by that Emperour that caused the Patriarch of Constantinople to be scourged; assented to by no Patriarch: which thing is objected against it by the Conc. Nice, Act. 6. tom. 1. in these words; Quomo­do autem magna & universalis, in quam neque omnes consenserunt, & reliquarum Ecclesiarum praefecti non admiserunt, sed anathemate eam devoverunt? Non habuit cooperarium (ut haec quae nunc celebra­tur) Romanum Papam, neque illius Sacerdotes, neque per Vicarios, neque per provinciales literas, quemadmodum fieri in Synodis debet. Quinetiam neque concordantes habuit Orientis Patriarchas; Alexan­drinum, inquam, Antiochenum, & urbis sanctae suminos Pontifices, neque cum illis etiam inystas & sacerdotes.

Thus Conc. Nice. But the same things are affirmed by the histo­rians of those times; as also, that this Copronymus was opposed for demolishing images in Churches by the Constantinopolitan Pa­triarch, whom he shamefully abused; and his Father Leo Isaurus excommunicated for the same cause by Gregory the 3d, Bishop of Rome. Besides this, to lessen the esteem which may be had of it by the reformed, I might name the 15. and 17. Canons thereof. [Page 121]Whereof the 15th runs thus, Si quis non confitetur sanctam sem­per Virginem Mariam quavis visibili & invisibili creatura superio­rem, & cum sincera fide ejus intercessiones, tanquam quae libertatem apud eum, qui ex se genitus est, Deum habeat, non postulaverit; Ana­thema. And the 17th Canon not unlike, Si quis sanctorum &c. —intercessiones non petierit, utpote qui libertatem apud Deum ha­beant, secundum Ecclesiasticam Traditionem, pro mundo intervenire; Anathema. Which Canon, tho 'tis noted by the Second Nicene Council (Act. 6. Tom. 6. post hanc editionem suam, &c.) to have been left out in some later Copies of the Acts of this Council (those times growing on after this Synod from opposing of Images to destroying of Reliques, and denying of Saints Intercessions (a thing not disallow'd by the Reform'd,) and of calling them also by the name of Saints [See the Authors quoted by Mr. Mede, Apo­stasie of later times, p. 131, 135, &c.]) tho the Council is clear'd from any such Decrees, both by Mr. Mede, p. 137, and by the whole Body of their Acts examined by the Second Nicene Coun­cil, their severe Antagonists; Yet it is clear, that it was one of the ultimate Definitions of that Council, since it is found, not in the first framing only (as Mr. Mede would have it, p. 135.) but in that first Edition of their Acts, which was subscribed by all the Council (as appears in the Conclusion of Act. 6. Tom. 6. of the Second Conc. Nic.) and which accordingly the Nicene Council undertook to refute, as not the first Draughts, but the Ratified Acts of that Synod.

3. That the Council which revers'd its Doctrine of the Eu­charist, was General, and Confirm'd by all the Patriarchs.

4. And lastly, That the Council of Francfort also, tho it might in something mistake the meaning of the Council of Constanti­nople (for which I will not contend with Mr. Blondel; for so perhaps did they of Nice too misunderstand it,) yet perusing the Doctrine of Nice, Censures not it at all, a far greater (if an) error; but almost in the same phrase with it, Blameth the other of Constantinople, saying; The mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord was not now to be call'd Imago, but Veritas; not Um­bra, but Corpus.

Which word, and other expressions, that they imported not less than those of Nice, may be shrewdly presum'd from Mr Blondel's Concession (c. 18. p. 415.) That within a few years after this Council follow'd a Change in the Eucharist-Doctrine in the West; a change, i. e. to this Tenent of Corporal presence. [Page 122]Now all those things well weigh'd, let any one judg between the Constantinopolitan Council, and those two that follow'd, who are more likely to be the Innovators: or whose Determination a good Subject of the Church, not so able in such high Mysteries to guide himself, ought rather to adhere and submit to.

§. XL Now to go on: This opinion of Damascen and the Council of Nice, The state of the Greek Church since these Coun­cils. hath been owned, and embraced ever since, even to this day, by the Greek Church, without any opposition to it; and that not only as being theirs, but the Tenent also of all the Greek Fathers before this Councll, which also are frequently by them quoted for it. See this confess'd by Mr. Blondel c. 16. p. 399, 400. Le Concile de Nice 2. a imposê une tacite loy aux Grecs po­sterieurs; Their adhe­rence ever since to the Doctrine of Nic. Conc. 2 qui ont jusques a nos jours reverê ses decrets de parler a sa mode; & de renoucer (so he is pleased to say, but they pretend the contrary) en imitant ses fautes, au style de la plus venerable antiquité. And then he reckons up their Writers since (both an­cienter, and more modern) concurring in this opinion; naming amongst the ancienter, Theophylact and Euthymius. See Sandys West. Relig. p. 233, 234. who confesseth the Greeks to agree with the Romanists in Transubstantiation, Sacrifice, and the whole Body of the Mass.

See Dr. Potter, Char. Mist. sect. 7. p. 225. where he saith, In the opinion of Transubstantiation, the later Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists; and justifieth what he saith by many quo­tations in the Margent. See Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s. 2. who himself opposing Transubstantiation, yet, after many Authorities given, concludes that Section, Certum est recentiores Graecos a Transub­stantiationis opinione non fuisse, neque etiamnum esse, omnino alienos; hosce autem omnes Christianae pietatis cultores, haereseos aut erroris exitialis damnare, magnae profecto audaciae & temeritatis esset. So l. 2. c. 2. s. 14. Graeci Venetiis viventes & reliqui omnes Graeci, etiam adorant Christum in Eucharistia, & quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere & damnare?

To give you some of the Graecian expressions since this Coun­cil. See Theophylact, (who liv'd in the Ninth Age) in Mat. 26. Non enim dixit, Hoc est Figura, sed hoc est Corpus, ineffabili enim operatione transformatur, etiamsi nobis videatur panis. And in 1 Cor. 11. expounding those words, non dijudicans Corpus Domini, he saith, Si certiores essemus quisnam & quantus sit ille qui nobis in conspectu adjacet, i. e. in Altari, nulla ferme rei alterius ope indige­remus, &c. So speaks Oecumenius on the same place.

[Page 123] Euthymius in Mat. 26. Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit, si ita loqui liceat; ita & haec ineffabiliter transmu­tat in ipsum vivificum corpus suum. —See the Answer of the Gre­cians to the Cardinal of Guise, quoted before, and by Blondel p. 400. and the Answer of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Lutherans (who in their beginnings sought the support of the Grecian Communion, c 10.) which Answer also may shew them, in the manner of Christ's presence to differ, as from the Calvinistical, so also from the Lutheran Tenent; Multa in hac parte de nobis referuntur, quae nobis nullo pacto probari possunt. Ec­clesiae igitur sanctae illud judicium est, in sacra coena, post consecratio­nem, panem in illud ipsum corpus Jesu Christi, vinum in illum sangui­nem virtute Spiritus sancti transire & immutari. —Non tanquam cor­pus illud sursum translatum de coelo iterum descendat (blasphemum enim hoc est,) sed —transformatis & transmutatis gratia Spiritus sancti & ejusdem invocatione speciebus, —ipso quidem pane in verum corpus Domini, vino autem in verum sanguinem transeunte & immu­tato. Again, —illud ipsum verum corpus Christi sub speciebus fer­mentati panis continetur. 'Tis plain here, that as they hold cor­poral presence, so not by way of Consubstantiation, but Transmuta­tion.

As for those passages in the Florentine Council, between the Greeks and Latins about this point, as it is there nam'd, de divina panis transmutatione, (which the Pope was so earnest to have had then accorded between them; but the Graecians, much worsted in the Controversie concerning A Filioque, had no mind to enter into any further Disputes,) it was not whether this Transmutation was, or after what manner it was, but by what words, or in what place of the Prayers it was made; as appears by those words in that Council, following the Pope's proposal, —de Panis autem trans­mutatione Latinis quaerentibus cur Graeci post Dominica verba— Acci­pite & manducate &c. quibus verbis Sacramentum confici dicitur, hac etiam utuntur oratione—& fac panem quidem hunc Honorabile corpus Christi tui &c. ex sancto tuo Spiritu transmutante: Respon­derunt Graeci &c. After which it follows, quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis; therefore that which was proposed in the fourth Question, was in this their Answer spoken to; but they only answer'd concerning this matter of the words of Consecra­tion; afterward the same Questions being repropounded, its said, they answer'd to the fourth as before. Yet this answer being given only by some particular persons sent to the Pope, 'tis said, that [Page 124]after this their answer, Summus Pontifex petiit, ut de divina panis transmutatione, quae quidem quarta quaestio fuit, in Synodo ageretur; as likewise he desired afterwards that they would treat of the three rest, and leave out that, calling it amongst the rest quaestiuncula, which he would not have said, had the Greeks denied transmutation. I have insisted the longer on this passage, because some have so mis­taken it, as to think transmutation, as affirmed by the Romanists, so denied by the Greeks; whenas amongst many errors by the Greeks imputed to the Roman Church, yet none about the Eucha­rist was ever objected.

Now consider, if Transubstantiation, or substantial conversion, were an innovation brought into the Church about the Conc. La­teran, under Innocent 3d. or, as some say, later; How comes it to pass, that we find the same opinion, or, if any difference, an opi­nion seemingly as much or more absurd, in the Greek Church al­so, who are not discovered to have had any controversy about the Eucharist amongst themselves, since that 7th, which was the last General Council that they allow of. See Conc. Flor. 6. sess. Nor could receive any infection from the Western Church, after the breach made between the two Churches; which began not long after the 2. Nic. Conc. in the 9th age, and was at its height in the 11th. age, long before the Lateran Council.

§. XLI The Agita­tions in the Western Church af­ter these Councils.Thus much of the Greek; now to see what was done in the Western Church. Here, after the first agitation and stirring of the doctrine of the Eucharist by the Councils of Constantinople, Nice, and Franckfort, a rose some questions and doubts about it, and began a more curious and particular inquisition to be made into it; as (amongst other things) Whether that which was received in the Eucharist, was, or was not, that very Body of our Saviour, which was born of the Vngin Mary, and which suffered on the Cross? some then moving questions about it, and doubting of, or also denying it.

For setling mens minds: the first that I can find to have writ­ten more punctually on this subject, for the corporal presence, is Pas­chasius, (of whom Bellarm. saith, (de scriptor. Ecclesiasticis,) Hic author primus fuit, qui serio & copiose scripsit de veritate corporis & sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia, contra eos qui eam in dubium revo­carunt; but of whom Blondel 18. c. saith, he was the first in the Western Church that altered the doctrine of the former times.) [Page 125]Against him, and on the other side, writ (saith Blondel ibid. and Dr. Tailor, p. 328.) Amalarius, and Rabanus, and Johannes Scotus, Erigena, and Bertram: but the Romanists, I think, acknowledge only Johan. Erig. (of whom Bellarm. saith, primus in Ecclesia La­tina de hac re dubius scribere coepit, whose writings were afterwards condemned in Conc. Vercellensi, A Dom. 1050, 165 years before that of the Lateran,) and Bertram, (of whom Estius saith, tecte admodum atque id sine successu contra doctrinam Catholicam scribere coepit.) As for Amalarius and Rabanus, you may inform your self out of their writings (one writing de officiis Ecclesiasticis, the other de institutione Clericorum,) concerning their opinion.

Out of Amalarius de Ecclesiast. offic. l. 3.34. c. I find Bellarmin quoting these words for his side: Hic credimus naturam sim­plicem panis & vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem, sc. cor­poris & sanguinis Christi: And Archb. Usher in Jes Challenge p. 75. making him by his doting questions (what, after the eating there­of, should become of Christ's Body,) the first occasioner of the inno­vation (as he calls it) in the doctrine of the Eucharist. Mean­while his questions shew what opinion men had then, that they received the very Body of Christ.

But the two chief it seems are Paschasius and Bertram, which Bertram also had some followers, as elsewhere, so here, in Eng­land; as appears by what Osbert saith, (who in Lanfranck's time writ the life of Odo, who lived in the 10th Age); Hoc fere tem­pore, i.e. in Odo's, quidam Clericorum maligno errore seducti asseve­rare conabantur, panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur post con­secrationem, in priori substantia manere, & figuram tantummodo esse corporis & sanguinis Christi: and by the Saxon writings of Ael­frick, who flourished in the latter end of the 10th Age; which writings you may see at large in Foxes Martyrol, Henr. 8.1540, quoted by Dr. Tailor p. 330. and by Archbishop Usher, Jes. chall. p. 77. who there shews many passages of his to be verbatim trans­lated out of Bertram, whose expressions methinks are somewhat obscure, of the bread being truly after its hallowing turned into Christ's Body ghostly or spiritual, not into that in which he suffered.

Afterward in the 11th. Age, when the opinion opposing corpo­ral presence, as it was never very openly maintained, so now was almost laid aside, and sunk of it self, without the interdict of any Council, appeared Berengarius, a stout reviver and open abetter of it; who at first is said to have held the Lord's Body present in [Page 126]the Eucharist, only ut res significata in suo signo, but pressed by many adversaries, and much persecuted for his doctrine, was af­terwards brought to recant it, and to acknowledge a real corporal presence. But then presently began to be agitated new controver­sies about this real presence; whether it was together with the bread also remaining entire and unchanged? and what mutation the Elements underwent by consecration? When arose some who main­tained only a conjunction of Christ's body with the bread; others a kind of Impanation of Christ, of which something is said before; non quia panis vertatur in carnem Domini, sed quia assumatur a ver­bo; ex quo sequitur panem esse corpus Christi, sed non humanum, neque carneum, sed panaceum, & longe diversum ab illo quod de Virgine sumptum est. Haec duo corpora posse tamen dici unum, quia unus Christus est qui utrumque assumpsit. Others there were, that held a mutation only of part of the bread into Christ's body, namely that portion received by the worthy communicant, not the rest, lest the wicked also might seem to partake of it, which they thought most improbable.

Of some of these opinions are named to be Berengarius him­self, after his first recantation, or at least some of his followers; of such also Rupertus, and others; and perhaps Aelfrick (mentioned before) might have such conceit of Impanation. And Mr. Blon­del (in his 16. and 19. chapters) would perswade us, that this also was partly the opinion both of Damascen and Paschasius, and o­thers of the former times.

§. XLII Opposites to all these tenents, and to the maintainers of them, were Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury, Guitmundus, Algerus, and generally the writers following those times, Anselm, Peter Lombard, Bernard, Hugo, and Richardus de Sancto Victore, &c, who all writ before the Council of Lateran. By these opposit Authors above-named is every corner of the ancient Fathers writings sought into; the same places then quoted, as now they are by the Romanists and Protestants; one side pressing much their words of miraculous change &c. The other, those of image, type, figure, &c, and the same answers as now, returned then by both sides. If you please to look into Bellarmin's 2d. book de Eucharist. he often makes use of the answers of these ancient Authors, to what is urg­ed by the Protestants: and saith, if they bring the arguments of their Forefathers, Bertram, Berengarius, &c, we return the an­swers of ours, Paschasius, Algerus, &c. Amongst these disputes a [Page 127] corporal presence, and also a substantial conversion of the elements, prevailing; yet some (again) there were also that allowed such a conversion in the form of bread only, not the matter: Du­rand's opinion, and some others, affirmed e contra a change of the matter, but not of the form; which opinions were opposed by the ordinary stream of writers.

Now as these controversies arose, or grew to any height, so seve­ral Councils since Nicen. 2. for the setling and preserving of the Churches peace and quiet, have bin in several Ages assem­bled. The corporal presence was decided against Berengarius by five several Councils (see Blond. 20. c.) before that of Lateran un­der Innocent 3. A substantial conversion of the elements determined by the Lateran (whether also by those before it, more anon,) and many others following it: A conversion of the whole substance of them stated more expresly in the Tridentine Council. Notwith­standing which Synodal determinations from time to time, there have not wanted those successively, who have taught contrary to their decrees. See Blond. 20. c. p. 441. as Petrus Bruise, and Hen­ricus his disciple, Petrus Waldo from whom the Waldenses and Albigenses, John Wicklif, (whom John Hus his disciple followed not in this point,) &c: but these very rare; and their disciples most what some vulgar, not the learned, until the times of Luther.

§. XLIII Reflections upon the for­mer narra­tion.Now concerning this narration of the passages of the times after 2. Conc. Nice, and that of Franckfort, observe

1. That tho the other doctrine was much easilier credible, as more agreeing to humane reason, yet that, that of Paschasius and his followers was the common, and the most prevalent, not only in the Eastern (shewed before,) but also in the Western Church: 1. Corporal presence then the common opinion. and this not only after, but before, and when Paschasius writ; See what he saith lib. de verb. instit. Sacramenti. —Quamvis ex hoc qui­dam de ignorantia errent, nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto qui hoc (i.e. Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist) ita esse contradicat, quod totus orbis credit & confitetur.

For Paschasius writ before either Johan: Erigena, or Bertram: and when Bertram writ otherwise, it was tecte admodum & sine successu, as Estius notes of him. And Osbert (quoted before) saith only, Quidam Clericorum seducti &c. And this more appears, in that, when Berengarius afterward shewed himself afresh for that [Page 128]opinion, all the Church-governours unanimously resisted him; so that there is not one Bishop found to have consented to his opi­nion, and the Authors who oppose him much object the singulari­ty of his tenent to him. Guitmund. 3. l. Notissimum est hoc tem­pore, priusquam Berengarius insaniisset, hujusmodi vesanias nus­quam fuisse. —And Laufranck in his last Book against him: Inter­roga universos, qui Latinae linguae nostrarumve literarum notitiam perceperunt; interroga Graecos, Armenios, seu cujuslibet nationis quos­cunque Christianos, uno ore hanc fidem (which he maintained against Berengarius) se testabuntur habere: and he himself (as Lanfranck reports of him) called the opinion opposed by him, sententiam vulgi.

The Historians likewise of those times relate Berengarius his, as a new and singular tenent. See W. Malmsbury, 3. l. de gestis An­glorum. Observe likewise, that no Councils, after Nice and Franckfort, determining any thing in this point, for the space of about 300 years before the times of Berengarius, argues the Church not much afflicted with open contentions in this matter: that when they did determine any thing, it was not before that the Fathers, by several writers pro and con, had bin much searched and examined: that tho many Councils called about it, yet they differed not in their judgments, but exactly agreed one with ano­ther, and still condemned the same side, without its finding a par­ty (tho smaller) in any of them to patronize it.

§. XLIV 2. Observe; that there is granted a substantial presence of Christ's body with the symbols (which (as I have often said) is the main business to be agreed upon by all these Authors and Councils, All Councils since the 2d. of Nice una­nimously de­ciding corpo­ral presence with the symbols.) before the Lateran Council: so that tho some contest there may be between the Lutheran and Catholick about the perswasions of these times concerning Impanation, and the remaining of bread in part at least after consecration; yet none can there be between the Calvinist and Catholick concerning those times holding corpo­ral presence with the symbols, and consequently concerning Ado­ration; for this the Calvinist must grant to be the judgment of these Writers and Councils above-named, beginning at Nice un­til the Lateran.

[Page 129] XLV 3. Observe, that whereas Mr. Blondel in c. 16, 19, 20. p. 397, 431, 441, affirms both Damascen and Paschasius, And that not by way of Impana­tion, as Blon. affirms of the former part of those times. and the other Authors, that held corporal presence till the beginning of the 12th Age, and Councils, till the Lateran, not to have held Tran­substantiation, or substantial conversion of the elements, but only a certain union or identity between them remaining still in their former substance, and the natural body of Christ, by the inhabita­tion of the Deity in, or its assumption of them, which he calls impanation: There are many things which to this may be re­plied.

1. If it were as he saith, yet since it warrants the main bu­siness of corporal presence with the Symbols, and Adoration, what relief can Mr. Blondel's or the Protestant-cause receive thereby? Again, since such impanation differs very much from the Luthe­ran Consubstantiation; (see what Blondel confesseth to this pur­pose p. 436, and 400. And it is clear enough also from Pascha­sius his assertions set down by Blondel p. 423, which no Luthe­ran will subscribe to;) and it is a tenent, if well consider'd, much more absurd than that of substantial conversion, or Transubstantia­tion, (which he saith succeeded it in these later times;) as it making Christ to have two bodies by union hypostatical; one Car­neum, in his assuming humanity; and another Panaceum, in the Sacrament: And these two bodies again identified by the same Person of the Deity present to both, &c. (see it examin'd by Bel­larmine, as one Rupertus his opinion in the 12th Age, and the absurdities thereof display'd in l. 3. de Euch. c. 11, 15.) I say, that to prove such to have been the opinion of Antiquity, which makes as much against Protestants as the present doth, and is more incommodious than the present, doth not only no way pa­tronize their cause, but also help to excuse their Adversary.

2. Algerus, one of Berengarius his Opposites (in his first Book de Sacr. c. 6.) calling it novam haeresin suo tempore exortam & ab­surdissimam, and there confessing it: This argues it very unlikely to have been the common opinion until his Age, as is affirm'd; unless we will make him mistake the opinion of those Writers and Councils immediately before him.

3. Tho Mr. Blondel doth not, yet Dr. Taylor acknowledgeth concerning Paschasius in particular, that he held and writ for a substantial change; see p. 328. And comparing Mr. Blondel's quo­tations out of Paschasius p. 423, with those p. 432, I see not any thing brought to prove the contrary. Bishop Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s. 1. [Page 130]saith, Bertram in his Preface clearly affirms, that some in his time held that which is since call'd Transubstantiation. Who could this be, but Paschasius, and others, whom he opposed?

4. Again, The expressions of these Authors, who are said to hold no substantial conversion of the bread, &c. are ordinarily such as these: Damascen. Panis vinumque per invocationem & adventum Spiritus sancti supernaturaliter transmutantur in corpus & sangui­nem Christi, & non sunt duo, sed unum & idem. —Pasch. Licet fi­gura panis & vini hic sit, omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi & sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt, (see many more ga­ther'd by Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. which it will be tedious here to set down.) Now these expressions shew them to have held a conversion or transmutation, beyond Consubstantiation, wherein the element becomes not locally join'd, but the same with Christ's body; and if perhaps they (or some of them) by such expressions should not have intended such a conversion of the bread, as that nothing thereof should afterwards remain, but a conversion into Christ's body only in Rupertus his sense, quia per hypostaticam unionem fit corpus Christi, as Bellarmin interprets him in his Re­cognitions; yet it seems plain, that they held (beyond the tenent of the Lutherans) such a physical change in the substance and nature thereof, as that it could not afterward be truly call'd bread; tho some diversity of phrase there might be, in what no Council had yet so punctually decided.

5. And this is more confirm'd by the Opinion of the Greek Church; who, if Damascen and the Nicene Council, whom they follow, held no conversion of the Bread in its nature or substance, how come they to hold it? and about Transubstantiation, to nourish no difference at all with the Latins? See the quotations before. Surely, in that Answer they gave to the Cardinal of Guise (quo­ted in Blondel p. 400.) where they say, neither substance nor accidents of Bread to remain, but all to be transelemented into the substance Divine, some change they would intimate much divers from the Lutheran (with whom they could not agree in this point) and not much abhoring from the Roman Opinion: ex­cepting only that the Roman is the more moderate.

§ XLVI As for comparison of Christ's presence in the Eucharist with that of the Incarnation, and of the Divinity, in such manner in­fusing it self into the Bread, as once into our Nature, found in these Authors, as likewise in the Fathers; either they meant only, that the Bread in this infusion was turn'd by the Divine [Page 131]Omnipotence into the Lord's Body (as the Catholick's say) or something more gross; if they held the Deity thus to con­tract a new hypostatical union with the Bread, whereby it pro­perly becomes his Body: So that the crime, that their posterity in this is accused of, will be only, that they are less absurd than their Ancestors. Thus much for those Authors before the 12th Age.

§ XLVII Now, that the Councils (which were before the Lateran) wherein Berengarius was Condemn'd, understood a substantial conversion of the Bread in the Eucharist, notwithstanding what Blondel saith (c. 29. p. 439, &c.) I think is also plain enough. In the Roman Council Assembled an. 1078. wherein Berengarius last recanted, the words are these: Ego Berengarius corde credo panem &c. —substantialiter converti in veram & propriam & vivi­ficatricem carnem Domini, &c. In the former Roman Council, an. 1060. tho the words of the Recantation are, Ego Berengarius anathematizo eam haeresin, quae astruere conatur panem post conse­crationem solummodo Sacramentum & non verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse: Yet, that the Council meant the Bread to be Christ's Body, not whilst being, but by ceasing to be Bread, methinks is sufficiently vindicated by what Lanfranck (one of it,) and Guitmund, and Anselm (contemporaries,) say of this Council, as I find them quoted by Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 21. —Lanfran. de Corpore Domini to Berengarius, —Nicolaus Papa com­periens te docere panem vinumque altaris post consecrationem sine materiali mutatione in pristinis essentiis remanere &c. praecepti tradi scripturam tibi; i. e. the Recantation nam'd before. Guitmund l. 3. De Corpore Domini, speaking of the same Council saith, Panem in corpus Christi substantialiter converti, non sicut delirat Berengarius corporis Domini figuras tantum esse & umbras, aut intra se latentem Christum tegere, universalis Ecclesiae consensione roboratum est. Anselm (tho I grant, 'tis not necessary to understand this to be spoken of the former Council, notwithstanding semper abhorruit some way involves it) Panis substantiam post consecrationem in altari superesse semper abhorruit pietas Christiana, nuperque dam­navit in Berengario, &. But Anselm dyed an hundred years be­fore the Lateran Council.

Besides the force of these Testimonies; 'tis not probable, that in the eighteen years space that interceded between these two Councils, the Judgment of the Church in the later should be so much alter'd, and that without any noise or opposition from the former.

[Page 132] §. XLVIII 4. Concerning these Councils, that have so strictly determin'd the manner of corporal presence; Councils ex­cusable in determina­tion of the manner of Christ's pre­sence in the Eucharist. which many pious men have wished that the Church had rather left undefin'd; permitting to every one the liberty of their private conjecture; and only imposing silence on all to forbear curious disputes: Yet we may consider, That the same we say concerning this point of the Eu­charist, is said by Sectaries concerning Decisions of Councils in any other point, wherein they differ from her Judgment. So she is (by several) complain'd of, for her too much curiosity and punctuality in the mystery of the Trinity; in her addition a Filioque; in concluding that hard and long-disputed point of Rebaptization, &c.

That not private men, but the Church her self, is meetest to judg what is fit to be determin'd or not determin'd by her. That curious disputes may indeed easily be prohibited, but once on foot, will never be actually laid, but still multiply into new controver­sies, till something (most probable) is setled by just Authority. That as there were then on foot some opinions very destructive and diminutive to this ineffable Mystery, (as Berengarius his first Doctrine); so others again very extravagant, (as that of Hyposta­tical union of the Deity to a new Breaden Body.) That these Councils did no more in this, than other Councils from time to time have done in very subtle (only if much controverted) mat­ters; in not silencing the Disputants, but (as became a Judg con­fiding in the Holy Spirit's assistance) determining the point as seem'd to them truest.

That these Councils in this point (after all things had been for a long time more exactly debated, and sifted, than in former Ages, before giving any sentence thereon) in their decision fol­low'd the words of our Saviour, Mat. 26.26. in their simplest meaning, and the commonest phrase of the Writings of Anti­quity (tho some Fathers in their judgment perhaps differ'd from the rest) i. e. conversion, or transmutation, taken in the strictest sense. That, if we restrain the Church from determining any thing, where Scripture seems ambiguous (tho the testimony and exposition of Antiquity perhaps in the same point is not so) her decisive Authority, in matters once controverted, will be made void; because so often is Scripture ambiguous, i.e. (by several men severally understood:) And in matters not controverted, 'tis need­less.

[Page 133] That there comes [...] more Peace to the Church by such a de­finition; and no danger to Christians from this thing defined, if an Error: [supposing still corporal presence a truth, from which also follows Adoration;] because 'tis only a purely speculative mi­stake, and no point of practice depending on it. Lastly, That in the general acknowledgment of so much obscurity and uncompre­hensibleness of this mystery, as the Church hath less light to judg of the exact manner thereof, &c. so have others less grounds to contradict her Judgment.

XLIX As for her making it an Article of Faith now, which was not so heretofore; which is much objected by some Reformed; In what sence they impose it as an Article of Faith. (see Chemnitius quoted before. Sed quia transubstantiatio (saith he) pro articulo fidei sub paena anathematis proponitur necessario contra­dicendum est, &c. See Dr. Taylor p. 331. Before the Lateran Coun­cil, saith he, Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei, as Scotus saith; and how it can be afterward, since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our Faith, and therefore all Faith was deliver'd from the beginning, is a matter of highest danger and consideration. Thus he.) I think it is sufficiently answer'd, and the offence thereof taken away, in my notes of Infallibility; so that I need say little here.

Only this. First, They make this point of Transubstantiation no more an Article of Faith, than their other Decrees; to which they require assent under Anathema, as they do to this. For ex­ample: 'Tis made no more an Article of Faith by them, than this is, De Bapt. Can. 1. Baptismum Johannis non habere eandem vim cum baptismo Christi. But if the Church may not be per­mitted to make (thus) new Articles of Faith, she may not, to make any new determination not formerly made; nor to enjoin people to believe or assent to any thing which formerly was not enjoin'd nor believ'd.

But to explain the business a little: We must know; That all Divine Revelation, any thing in God's Word, whatever, is eo nomine an Article or point of Faith; and that as Article of Faith is taken for dogma verum, and so credible, for a divine truth which is creditable, or which may be most surely believ'd. So what Dr. Taylor saith is most true; such it is, not only after Decreed by a Council, but at least from the time of our Saviour and the Apostles; and nothing at any time (thus) an Article of Faith, which is not so always. And thus, far doubtless was it from Scotus his thought, That Transubstantiation at the Lateran Coun­cil [Page 134] began to be a divine truth, when it was not so before. But, as Article of Faith is taken for dogma necessario credendum, for a di­vine truth necessary, when known to be so, to be believ'd, or not oppos'd: So a divine truth may be an article or object of my Faith to day, which was not yesterday. So he, who (by what means soever) knows that something is said in Scripture, which he knew not yesterday, may be said to have to day a new article of his Faith, or a new point no way to be opposed or denied, but assented to, and believ'd by him.

§. L When therefore a thing is said to be no dogma fidei before, and at such a time to begin to be so, the meaning is, That is is now a dogma fidei, or object of Faith necessary to be believ'd, which it was not before [necessary to be believ'd;] not for the matter thereof; as if the actual knowledg and faith thereof were abso­lutely necessary to Salvation; thus a few points only (some think not all those of the Creed) are necessary; and nothing thus ne­cessary at any time, that is not always so; but necessary ex acciden­ti, because we have a sufficient proposal thereof, that it is a divine truth. Not that the error in, or ignorance of, such a point, even after such proposal, doth derogate from our having absolutely ne­cessary faith, any more than it did before; nor that, in disbelieving or dissenting from it, we are more defective in the necessarily salvifi­cal principles of divine truth; but that we are defective in our obe­dience to and acceptance of divine truths made known to us by the Church, as some way conducible to Christian edification, to the peace of the Church, or to some other good end.

Therefore the duty she requires to many of her decisions, is not so much an actual knowing of them, as the not denying, opposing, con­tradicting them, when made known to us. Therefore, for exam­ple, should any one, after the definition of the Tridentine Council, thereupon, hold John's and our Saviour's Baptism to have in every thing the same virtue and effect; such a one, whilst not knowing this definition of the Council, is excusable in his error, supposing it be not contracted from any careless neglect: or if it be so con­tracted, yet he is not guilty thereby of a point of infidelity, as con­cerning necessary faith, but only of the sin of negligence.

Neither when the Church requires the belief of Transubstan­tiation, hence doth it follow, that she saith, the belief thereof is necessary to salvation; but that she thinks it fit, for some good ends of Christian edification, not to be opposed: and therefore Suarez his confessing, that to believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary [Page 135]to salvation, quoted by Archbishop Laud p. 287. methinks well consists with the Church's determining it, tho the Archbishop, there, thinks according to the Roman principles it is otherwise. And, as Bellarmin saith, there are many things in Scripture, which tho they are necessario credenda quia scripta sunt, yet are not scripta quia necessario credenda; so may I say of Church-de­finitions.

Neither upon this may we collect, that she is tyrannical in a­bridging the liberty of mens judgments, if the belief of the points she determins be not necessary for salvation; but only, if no way at all beneficial to be known. For the wilful opposing of which, if we afterwards incur her Anathema's which exclude from heaven, thus we miss of salvation, not for want of necessary faith, but obedi­ence; she Anathematizing us not for an error, but a vice, (i. e.) a causlesly disturbing her peace, and resisting her authority.

Should any one, after the Apostolical Synod and Decrees, Act. 15. (some of which were about matter of small account, yet not without good reason commanded, for a season at least to be observ­ed,) have resisted their Injunctions in the matter of blood and things strangled, holding it still lawful, notwithstanding such pro­hibition, to eat those things; such an one doubtless, notwith­standing the levity of the matter, would justly have incurred the Church'es censure, and without repentance bin liable to damnation; not for want of any faith necessary thereto, but of due submission and obedience to the decrees of a just Authority.

§ LI 5. Lastly, concerning our obedience to these Councils in such their decisions, Obedience due to such decisions. see what I have said in my Notes concerning that subject; and in those, of the obligation of not acting against con­science; where I think tis sufficiently evidenced, that we are bound to submit at least to all such points, where we are not certain of the contrary, as especially in this by most-confessed-ineffable mystery we can little pretend to it, considering what hath bin said in this paper. But indeed such a submission will be found either a duty to all the Churches decisions, or to none. For if we obey only so many of her Canons as we in our judgment think truth, rejecting the rest; our submission is not to her authority deciding, but a yeilding to the verisimility of the thing decided.

Again; such a submission, is either a duty to all Councils, (I mean, which are in their authority equal,) or to none; upon the same reason. For, for us to judge first of the orthodoxness of a [Page 136]Council, which is appointed to direct us what is orthodox, what a preposterous thing is it? And if we go to this play once, to receive only so many Councils, as we like of their doctrines; then, as the Lutheran only admits of six Councils, the Calvinist of only four; so the Eutychians now in Asia, upon as good grounds, (I mean as to any obligation to their Authority,) do admit only of three Coun­cils. Again, the modern Nestorian of two only; lastly, the mo­dern Socinian of none at all.

LII The Objection that may be made here; What if a man's consci­ence be perswaded that the contrary to the Councils decree is evi­dent in the Scriptures? The objecti­on of contra­ry perswa­sion of Con­science con­sidered. [as what if one think, that the Church in the Tridentine Council enjoyns adoration, not to Christ, but to the Symbols; or, that the worshiping of Christ, as corporally present in the Sacrament, is flat idolatry; which is much urged by Daille as a suffi­cient ground for a discession from the former Church; see the latter part of 8. c. of his Apology, p. 55.] I have answered in those Notes before-named. I will only here retort it:

Suppose an Eutychian, Nestorian, Ariam, plead the same ex­cuse for dissenting from the ancient Councils, (for, I hope, he will grant some of them may be perswaded in conscience as they pro­fess.) If he answer, such perswasion of a conscience wilfully mis­informed, and refusing the guides God hath appointed to instruct it better, excuseth them not from the guilt of heresy: I reply, neither will it in this point excuse the other, especially for the business of corporal presence, if they be found to go against the stream of present and former Church, (from whom we ought in all humility to receive the exposition of ambiguous Scripture,) and to make therefrom a causless division. If the Church may enjoyn men nothing that is against their conscience, and nor in these ex­act obedience; all heresy must be tolerated, and the Nicene Creed is a tyranny. But if you say, they may use their Anathema's in greater matters, but in these smaller niceties may not thus domi­neer over mens consciences, (a thing Daille accuseth the Triden­tine Council of, 7. c. 40. p.) I answer: Who shall judge, what is small, what is great, but those who decide also the matters both small and great? But let him search Antiquity, and see if small matters have not also undergone their Anathema's. He confes­seth they have, and therefore is liberal to blame both. 7. c. 38. p.

[Page 137] §. LIII But I find this objection advanced yet higher; That men may not obey such a decree, not only when it is against conscience, Objection of non-certain­ty consider­ed. but when they have thereof so much as a doubting conscience, especi­ally in a matter of such high consequence, as Adoration is, (which follows upon holding a corporal presence) which to give to any object, without certainty that it is adorable, they say is utterly inexcu­sable. Ce n' est pas assez d'en auoir quelque opinion. Il' en fault estre certain. Daille 11. c. 94. p. Upon these premises no man can chuse but doubt, & quod dubitas, ne feceris. Tail. p. 340.

1. In answer to this also, see what I have said at large in those notes. Indeed the rule is good, where doubt of sinning is only on one side, not on both; only on the side of doing, but not on the side of omttting also: and when we are certain in omitting the thing, we sin not. But the case is otherwise, where-ever our Mother the Church enjoyns us the doing of a thing; for here is no secu­rity of not sinning, if we do it not. Again, if Christ be there cor­porally present, as she saith He is, Daille saith, 'Tis our duty to a­dore him: and, as to give adoration to an object not adorable; so to deny it to one adorable, is both, sin. I may retort then with more reason, quod dubitas (if you doubt only, and are not certain of the contrary) ne omittas, where the Church and your lawful Superiors enjoin you to do it. For, as reasonable as this proposition is, quod du­bitas ne faciendo pecces, ne feceris; so reasonable is the other, quod dubitas, ne omittendo pecces, ne omittas.

2. Again, Mr. Hooker's reason methinks hath as little force as any of these, to encourage any in a non-submission to the Church's judgment; who, in his 5. l. 67. sect. 363. p. discourseth thus. That, "there being three several opinions in the matter of the Eucharist, (he joyning the Two first in this Paper in one) "we may safeliest cleave unto that, which hath nothing in it but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true. But you may find the Archbishop Laud sect. 35. p. 286. in his refutation of a like argument brought by the Romanist, [namely, that it is better to be of that Church, in which all Churches agree salvation may be had,] mentioning this very argument about the Eucharist, and rejecting it as insufficient. And indeed were it any way valid, it would fol­low; when, of divers opinions, some affirm less, some more; a prudent man ought always to side with the least, because this is affirmed by all: which I think is a dangerous assertion, especially in Religion, To believe, and do still with the least.

[Page 138] §. LIV 3. Lastly, neither do I think that a sufficient lett to keep any from assenting to a corporal presence, Obj. of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal pre­sence consi­der'd. or substantial conversion; because such Presence (if it be) is pretended to be utterly un­beneficial and fruitless, and since Nature doth nothing in vain, much less doth the Author of it. See Mr. Blondel (in his 10. c.) and Dr. Tailor, (sect. 3. p. 28 &c. and p. 46.) much pressing this upon these three reasons. 1. Because any pretended effects of the Eucharist must be granted to be attainable without it, by a spiritual reception of Christ &c. (See their writings.) 2. Because the unworthy receiver must be granted to be partaker of it (the substance of Christ's Body) as well as the worthy; and this with­out enjoying the least benefit thereof. 3. Because our Saviour hath decided this point, John 6.63. declaring to the Capernaites (mistaking his sayings, as if he meant to feed them with his flesh, by virtue of which once eaten by them they should afterward live for ever) That his flesh, if they should eat a piece thereof, would profit them nothing for any such purpose.

1. First note, concerning this Objection, in respect of the former reason; that it presseth as much the second as the third and fourth opinion, who affirm the worthy receiver to partake not only virtu­ally, (as the first saith,) but really also Christ's Body; but to what end this? since the other, i. e. Christ received by faith, sup­plieth all the effect desired or pretended, according to John 6.40, 47. and St. Austin's saying, crede & manducasti?

2. Now for an Answer to it in reference to both the reasons, I might transcribe you Bellarmin's, in Eucharist. 3. l. 9. c. which to me seems very satisfactory. Read it at your leisure. The effects of the Eucharist, such as are alledged by Blondel out of Peron, Namely, a more strict and entire union and conjunction of us to God; the increase of grace and charity in us; the sowing in us the seed of immortality, and a resurrection of our decaying bo­dies, &c. are not affirm'd to be wrought in us by the corporal presence of our Saviour, as after a physical or irresistible manner, but as by a proper instrument appointed by God for such effects upon such a disposition of the receiver. Therefore neither are these effects necessary to corporal presence, i. e. that corporal presence can­not be without them; for so it is in the unworthy communicant: neither again is corporal presence absolutely necessary to such effects, i. e. that they cannot be at all without corporal presence; for so they are in the faithful before communicating, at least in some imperfecter degree.