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 't is 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 't is 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 § 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 't is needless 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 't is 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 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 'T is 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 began to be a divine truth when it was not so
substance of the Bread and Wine is turn'd into that of Christ's Body and Blood and only the manner of that substantial conversion is in question with him as also with his commentators Scotus Durand and many others mis-quoted Pref. p. 7. of which falsities ignorance if it were in fault cannot excuse him since either the Authors themselves or the Letter printed 1665 discovering these amongst 150 false or wrested quotations in Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive might so easily have informed him As to the irreverent Descants on the Great Council celebrated at Lateran by the most learned and prudent Innocent 3. it is observed That when the deposing Power must be imputed to us as an Article of our Creed then that Council is obligatory and Mr. Dodwel has proved it so but when it defines Transubstantiation then the Canons are surreptitious and a Papal contrivance and Du Pin may be found in the Margen One while that Council enters the Stage conferring power on the Pope to dethrone Kings and on Priests as if there had bin no Priesthood before that Council to make God. Another while all this was forced upon the Fathers of that Synod or publisht as their Act without their privity by a pragmatical and intriguing Pope What would the man be at Is his Arrogance content with no less than confirming and rescinding General Councils arbitrarily Pag. 113. l. 23. As to the point of Antiquity I have already fully discuss'd it above c. I suppose he means from p. 24. to 32 where we may find indeed much passion against Transubstantiation but we are not so short-sighted as to confound it with corporal presence the thing here in discussing And for the Fathers referr'd to by the Discourser where shall we find the Protestant Answers to St. Ambrose de iis qui init Myst c. 9. to St. Hilary St. Cyril Alex Are these spurious too Are not those ascribed to St. Ambrose Eusebius Emisenus sermo de coena Domini the Epist of the Presbyt of Achaia concerning St. Andrew's passion much more ancient than either Paschasius in the West or Anastasius Sinaita in the East Were they ever excepted against as containing Doctrine disagreeable to that of the Church tho thro the negligence of Transcribers the true Authors of them be not very certain It is not a Book 's being attributed by a mistake to a wrong Author but its containing suspicious Doctrine or false Relations and being fathered on eminent Names to pass it with authority in the world that chiefly subjects it to the censure of Apocryphal But why should a doubt concerning the Author of such Books elude the testimony fetcht from them when St. Ambrose in a Book unquestioned and others more ancient coeval or not much juniors to the questioned pieces as St. Gandentius St. Remigius c write as fully for not only a corporal presence but also Transubstantiation Pag. 114 l. 9. This Ground the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time is not certainly true and if it were yet certainly it is nothing to the purpose T is certainly true if the whole may be determined to be on that side where all the members of the Church are for whosoever denied this Faith of a corporal presence was ipso facto an Heretick in opposing an Article so weighty and so solemnly declared and required of all the faithful in at least ten Councils before Zuinglius dreamed But the Apostates from a corporal presence were indeed very few before and of those few scarce one was in being at Luther's revolt he also continuing a bitter enemy to the Sect that soon grew upon him If true t is certainly to the purpose whilst this is true That all Christians to a man cannot miscarry in such a considerable part of Religion as the Eucharist is which they daily frequented and the belief of which real Presence in it was by many ways continually inculcated and confirmed to them Such an unanimous and comprehensive Tradition does at least demonstrate the novelty and falshood of Zuinglianism What Article in our Creed can have a stronger external motive than universal consent And as to the perpetuity of it other Articles have bin sooner and longer and by more numerous Factions opposed than it For of those who have raised debates about the Eucharist the least part are they who denied a substantial Presence the other quarrelling either about Transubstantiation or Communion in both kinds or some other matter yet all the while confessing a real Presence Well to let the Reader understand more fully the seriousness and judgment of this Minister the Argument esteemed impertinent and ridiculed by him here is this The Authority equi-valent to that of any General Council is a solid Ground of Faith but the unanimous profession of all Christians in the last Ages is an Authority equivalent to that of a General Council therefore that unanimous profession is a solid Ground of Faith. The Major is own'd by all such Protestants as submit their judgments to the Authority of such Councils as condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches Origen and the Monothelites assenting to their Definitions as the true sense of Divine Revelations and reciting some of them even in their Creeds The Minor is founded on not only Protestant concessions but also their Definition of a true Church that it has the Word of God rightly preacht and the Sacraments duly administred according to this character then if all preach'd corporal presence it could not be an error in all and so not in any unless there were no true preachers and consequently no Church in some times extant Now if an unanimous profession cannot be erroneous t is doubtless equal to the Authority of any General Council and also very pertinently pleaded as a solid ground of Faith for whatever can declare a Divine Revelation infallibly is so Pag. 115. l. 30. If we did acknowledge this 5th Ground That since Luther's time no small number of Protestants c acknowledge a real and adorable Presence c yet it seems we are mistaken c. It seems rather that you are extremely conceited who contend against as well the first chiefest and best Protestants and the genuine Sons and eminentest Superiors in your own Church as the Catholick Church and all thro that proud pretence that your Sense Reason and expositions of Scripture and Antiquity how wild and unsound soever are absolutely certain and not as we know them to be meer presumptions Is not this an advancing of your self as a standard of truth and science and a requiring what you so vehemently decry in the Catholick Church and shun in your self submission of all judgments to your Fancies The Protestant owning of a substantial Presence is not said to be a ground for our believing Transubstantiation but yet it is an argument against other Protestants for that Faith of a corporal presence which is common to some of their party with us
and also animates us to persist in it since those who have quitted our communion and relinquished our faith in other matters discern so strong Motives to retain this that tho very willing they cannot without violence to their consciences renounce it Pag. 117. l. 20. It is confessed by the greatest men of their Church c. A forgery Our great men make the contrary confession and if any of them seems to speak towards what this Minister feigns it is with respect to Transubstantiation not a corporal presence particularly Scotus misquoted Praef. p. 6. That most subtle Doctor as has bin often answered to this most impudent objection lays it down That the Points discuss'd by him in his 4ti Dist 11. q. 3. do all intend to maintain That the Body of Christ is truly in the Eucharist because to deny that is plainly against Faith for it was expresly from the beginning of the Institution of the truth of Faith that the Body of Christ is contain'd there truly and really And afterwards in his Reply to Objections fixing on Transubstantiation as the manner of the substantial presence he adds And if you demand why the Church chose this so difficult a sense i. e. of Transubstantiation being the manner of this Article when the words of Scripture may be rendred in a sense easy and as to appearance truer concerning this Article To this Objection he returns I say that the Scriptures are expounded by the direction of that Spirit by which they were composed And so it is to be supposed that the Catholick Church hath interpreted by the same Spirit by which the Faith was delivered to us viz. taught by the Spirit of truth and therefore she chose this sense because it is true For it is not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true but of God the Institutor but the Church directed herein as t is believed by the Spirit of truth hath explicated the sense delivered to Her by God. Now t is evident that the Schoolman is here speaking of Transubstantiation not of the corporal presence next that he says not the facility or appearance of a sense to be that designed in Scripture is to be regarded in Faith but the declaration of the Church in whose custody the traditive sense of Scripture i.e. what God intended not what we surmise is deposited and by whose mouth the Holy Spirit speaks Lastly that the Declaration of the Church is for Transubstantiation therefore this must be concluded to be the proper sense of Scripture tho that Scripture sound never so plausibly for some other sense Our Adversaries persevering in an imposture with so much pertinacy and immodesty extorts this tedious Repetition All we shall further remark upon it is that it yeilds this Minister a very wholsom Instruction how to interpret Scripture not by Jewish customs nor Rabbinical Deliriums not by the superficial notices of sense or vain Maxims and cheating suggestions of Science falsly so called but by the Guidance of the Church assisted with the Holy Spirit for of these two Directors in expounding Scripture this Mâ—nister seldom has regard whilst Catholicks enquire of the Church what sense the Holy Spirit chiefly design'd and without hesitancy adhere to that she gives whether it be literal or mystical because our Lord's promise of assisting the Church and leading her into all truth is so absolute that we think we may as justly distrust his being the Messiah as be jealous of his Fidelity or Providence in acquitting himself of this engagement Should we not be suspicious if without apprehension nay with perfect firmness and security we did not acquiesce in her expositions And how many of those who have leap'd from this Rock and committed themselves to the conduct of a Private spirit are now carried away by the wind of Socinianism Judaism Mahomatism or irreligion whilst we that stand on it have not only the same Faith still but cannot possibly fail by misbelief Pag. 118. l. 7. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of those words of Institution destroys the certainty of sense c. If he mean our interpretation of a corporal presence then he contradicts what he thrice told us that the Lutherans do no violence to sense but if he mean the Interpretation of Transubstantiation his observation is wide of the point contested But in both meanings t is false for we derogate from sense not in the least and if we did in one-case in obedience to Faith whereto we think sense may as justly be captivated as the understanding that will not infer we may in another destitute of such a revelation till a particular premise can support an universal conclusion The Fallacy and Ignorance of this importunate Argument so often brought and so often bafled and exposed must certainly be used by these men merely to deceive the People As to the Paradox of Miracles being discoverable by sense only we refer this Minister to Calvin Bishop Forbes and many other Classic Reformers for correction who esteem them stupid that disclaim the Eucharistical Miracles and truly by sense we discern none there How then by your favour came they to discern Miracles in the Eucharist But what Was there no miracle in the conception of our Lord What sense acquaints men with it That he was a Man we might know by sense but that he was miraculously conceived only Revelation not Experience assures all besides his Mother To pass this how comes it to be collected that if one of the evidences of the truth of Christianity cannot be had strait our certainty of the truth of Christianity is destroy'd Tell me I pray were Miracles its sole evidence Were accomplishments of Old Testament-prophecies none or uncertain Had all Believer's miracles before they assented Did none believe with certainty but such as had Miracles to attest what was tendred to them What 's become of the Beatitude Blessed are those that have not seen a miracle Christ risen and yet have believed on the credible relation of others and because it was foretold he should rise c. If the performance of something in Nature otherwise than any created Power uses or can do I say the performance of it by Power Divine be a Miracle and that such a performance may be effected in spiritual as well as sensible affairs the knowledg of which may and must be attain'd if it be had by an information not sensible then the confining of Miracles to be objects of Sense is exploded Having thus overturn'd two of his Observations his Arguings from them vanish as do all other Bubbles Pag. 119. l. 4. No Papist can have any Reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of holy Scripture c. A Papist has the same Reason to believe Transubstantiation tho he cannot read at all as the first Christians had before the Gospels were written or a blind man has now The mistake of Dr. Stillingfleet Tillotson Tenison this
Answerer and others insisting so eagerly and obstinately on the Authority of Sense grows if it be not an Artifice perhaps from their taking the Maxim Nothing is in the Intellect which was not before in the Senses absolutely as if the only Conveyer of Notices to the Mind were the Senses or no thought had its birth there without an external promter whenas to omit the ill consequences c. of the later there are other means of acquainting the Intellect without the concurrence of the Senses as by Good and Bad Spirits c. Now these either convey always the same Notices as the Senses or they do not if they do then the Mind must ever judg with the Senses which is against experience If they do not how comes the Intellect to determine against the Notices of Sense e. g. in the Magnitude of the Sun Surely it neglects the information of Sense either upon some other more powerful motive and overruling remonstrance than Sense has given or arbitrarily but whether way soever it goes the Maxim is rejected and the Mind 't is clear does not find it self obliged to determine in all cases as Sense deposes Sense then is no Judg but only a conveyer of Intelligence to the Judg according to which Intelligence we confess that Judg is to censure and resolve except when better Intelligence from Reason or Revelation be interposed and arrest such a Judgment Now Sense informs a Catholick Mind that hath so much Learning as to read which Protestants think few have they are so ignorantly educated that the words of Institution are in that Book the Church tells him are the Gospels and neither Reason nor Revelation countervening this Notice a Papist judges with certainty according to the deposition of the Senses but when a Papist desires to proceed further and would understand not only that there are such words but also what is that very meaning not which may be put upon them wherein his sense and reason may assist him but which the Holy Ghost intended and the Church holds then he relies not on his senses or reason only because he knows the sentiments of Men to be very different as amongst themselves so from the Church's and Holy Spirit 's and if he might rely on his own so might others and consequently collect opposite truths from their discordant conceptions Wherefore he resorts to that hand which reacht out to him the words of Institution as Gods word to give him also their true meaning which he receives and professes without demur or fear And thus Papists arrive at all saving-truth thus they attain Unanimity and learn not only to think but speak the same thing whilst the minds and language of all Sectaries who pretend to follow sense and reason only in their Interpretation of Scripture are at wars and Babilonish For private Spirits are many and are Dissenters but the Church the Holy Spirit is but One and at Unity with it self And thus I suppose not our but the Minister's culpable ignorance is apparent Ibid. l 28. But let us quit this Reflection c. Content If he would not hasten to new untruths Where is it confess'd that we have neither command nor example in Holy Scripture for Adoring our Lord in the Eucharist If there he any command for Adoring our Lord at all there is for Adoring him in the Eucharist For once Adorable and he is always and every-where Adorable in what condition or circumstances soever and special injunctions or instances are not of necessity to warrant or oblige us to Adore St. Austin knew there was a command or he would not have said in Psal 98. Peccemus non Adorando Again tho we confess that Defects may possibly happen yet who grants them to be infinite or difficultly avoidable Is it not rather difficult considering the Caution of the Church that any defects should chance which are destructive to the Eucharist Can we not have a moral certainty the Priest has the Orders to which he pretends Do not our Senses inform us as to both the matter and Form of the Sacrament and the serious application of the one to the other As to the intention 't is true it is deem'd necessary will the Minister profess that none is needful to the performance of a Religious Action but what degree or sort of intention is a Question in the Schools some Divines requiring more some less Of the later kind if he please the Reader may view what Contenson writes of it Theolog. Mentis Cordis l. 11. p. 1. Diss 2. Append. § 2. c. It is undoubtlingly to be asserted says this Modern Divine that an Intention of seriously performing the External Rites amongst Christians counted Religious suffices for the validity of a Sacrament and that being observed no retention nor perverseness of the Minister's Intention doth void a Sacrament This Position he confirms by many Authorities and concludes them with that of the Council of Trent Sess 14. Cap. 6. Can. 9. where that Holy Synod declares the Sacrament not to be performed if a Priest act in Jest c. inferring thereupon that the Council understood by an Intention of doing what the Church does not as this Minister of doing what the Church intends but a doing with external seriousness what the Church prescribes Which inference he inforces by Cardinal Palavicini's Reflection on that Passage of the Council par 2. l. 12. c. 10. From these last words any one reading them may conjecture that the Opinion of Catherine and other Divines thinking a Will in the Minister to act seriously suffices for and that only Jesting which the Receiver of the Sacrament may discover does obstruct the accomplishment of a Sacrament was not expunged According to this Doctrine then the Consecration of the Eucharist does not depend on the Priest's believing Transubstantiation or secretly intending to Consecrate c. but only on an external intention to do seriously what the Church injoins which is very discernable to the Attendants by the Priest's exterior actions and deportment How many therefore of the Answerer's Dangers and Defects are blown away And if Adoration may at any time be paid to our Lord in the Eucharist it may ordinarily be so without any scruple by Catholicks Appendix II. ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Reply to the two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Holy Eucharist SOME time ago were printed in OXFORD Two Discourses the one concerning the Alterations in the Church-Service of the Church of England the second concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The Design whereof was to shew the incertitude and inconstancy of the Church of England in her Doctrine and Practices Whence it will follow That none can trust or rely upon her Authority nor safely either believe or practise according to her directions Of both these the Author took these two Articles as a manifest and sufficient instance But because there is nothing so true against which
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 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 't is 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 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 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
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 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 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 'T is 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 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
Christ so that neither for her Faith nor the imposition of it was her communion to have bin broken unless it were unlawful for her to impose the worshipping of What is no creature which is God. Ibid. l. 32. I cannot see what his cause would gain by it the certainty of the six Concessions The advantage gain'd by these concessions is considerable because thereby the Dispute is reduced to narrower and certain bounds and so many Objections prevented as also Opponents silenced such as hold a substantial presence surely that I see not what the Conceders have further to alledge against Adoration Can they plead we want a due object occasion precept or president to adore All then but Zuinglians a few of the latter brood of Protestants are on our side and these by the so much greater suffrage of Christendom are convicted of obstinacy in resisting so credible a judgment Pag. 96. l. 14. This t is true the Papists affirm c. In a kind fit we are allowed by this liberal man to affirm a sign to remain in the Eucharist after consecration distinct from the thing signified but then he speedily retracts so much as will make his concession a cypher For tho we affirm That nothing can outwardly and visibly signify in any Sacrament but what is perceivable by some sense or other and next That whatever is perceivable by any sense together with all the natural properties remains unchanged in the Eucharist And 3ly That we consecrate in the same elements wherein our 0203 069 Lord instituted the Sacrament yet because in defiance to Tradition Reason Revelation and the universal profession of all times and Churches till Luther arose we cannot believe that the same thing can be substantially Bread and Flesh and because we cannot think that substance to be there which sense cannot tell us is there and Scripture c assures us is not there therefore this Minister denies ours to be such a symbol as our Lord instituted and to be brief declares it really nothing Thus nothing must be an object of sense and all that is symbolical in the Eucharist must be the substance of the Elements which no sense can immediately perceive Pag. 97. l. 32. This is indeed a sort of new Divinity I always thought c. Alass That People should be so disrespectful as not to conform their Notions to this Answerers and so rude as to write Divinity wherein he is not vers'd But Old Divines reply The incivility or oversight is not in them but in this Minister who mounts the chair when he should be in a lower Form and will needs be scribling controversie before he has stay'd a due season in his Study For to their knowledg the word Sacrament has a manifold sense and is a complex term used therefore variously with respect to the subject of which Authors treat just as they do Christ Emanuel c. sometimes signifying by them God alone sometimes Man sometimes both Whereupon Bishop Bramhall and Mr. Thorndike tho more knowing are less nice than this Minister and without scruple admit the word Sacrament to be capable of more than one sense which might have protected the former part of the Assertion from derision as the 6th Canon of the 13th Sess of the Council of Trent does advance the other part viz. that by worshiping the Sacrament Catholicks understand worshipping Christ in the Sacrament beyond a private which the Man concedes to a Catholick Assertion which he is loath to yeild How shall we assure Protestants concerning our Faith if a Canon of the Council of Trent so sacred and authentick amongst us in matters of Faith be refused Here 's a Canon accurately publishing what all the Members of the Catholick Church must assent-to and profess and yet lest he be depriv'd of the opportunity of slandring us this Minister will not resolve that we believe as it prescribes Hard is our case since neither our selves nor our Divines nor yet our Councils must be regarded but any silly conceited Sectary shall be better able to tell what we believe than we our selves or those that guide our Souls What we do not hold that is our Faith and what we do believe that is not our Faith according to our Adversaries and why so if not that their false Accusations may continue and improve an odium on us and delusion amongst the Multitude Pag. 100. l. 6. I must then deny his Assertion viz. That the ground of our Adoration is Christ present not present after this or that manner The Answerer will have the 3d Assertion capable of being taken two ways passing the one and opposing the other But what if they be coincident If Christ be the object of our worship as seems tho saintly to be granted under the 2d Assertion then a Real presence of him and not the manner of that presence is the ground and occasion of our adoration without any regard whether He be solitary or attended by another substance Christ we say not the manner of existence in the Virgin 's womb in a Manger on the Cross in the Grave in Glory or in the Eucharist is the motive and object of our worship For if any one manner of existence were our inducement to adore when that ceases we should owe no adoration whereupon it must necessarily follow that we should as much adore if Consubstantiation were as now Transubstantiation is the mode of Presence we believe because this is not the presence it self but a circumstance of it not at all considered in the act of adoring neither as object which nor as reason why we adore Or thus to Jesus Christ existing substantially in the Eucharist we direct our adoration without respect to the coexistence or absence of any other substance for if we worship'd him upon the account that another substance is or is not coexistent we must condemn worshiping in either our selves or the Lutherans which we do not they worshiping with a belief that another substance is we that no other is there Whereupon as if no substance of the elements remains after consecration they are only mistaken in their faith not in their worship only misbelieve do not commit Idolatry so if the substance do remain this will only affect our perswasion not impair our adoration we err about a creature we do not idolize it Nay were our worship directed to Jesus Christ as alone and so confusedly or in general to the whole substance of the Eucharist and it should chance to be true that our Lord is not the only substance present under the species yet hence a just charge of Idolatry could not be drawn against us because the precise object of our worship is not any created substance but the divine person of our Redeemer and the other concomitant substance whatever it may by accident does intentionally no more share in the honor we pay than would the Scarlet Robe should our Lord have bin adored instead of derided therein He that adored him at