Two discourses concerning the adoration of a B. Saviour in the H. Eucharist the first: Animadversions upon the alterations of the rubrick in the Communion-Service, in the Common-Prayer-Book of the Church of England : the second: The Catholicks defence for their adoration of our Lord, as believed really and substantially present in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.

CHAP. V. Some Replies to the former Discourse.

TO conclude. Some Replies I can imagine to this former Dis∣course. Such as these. 1. To the first Observable abovesaid, [§. 48] * 1.1 §. 4. viz. That the natural Body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist, that the meaning is, not, that it is not there in its essence, or sub∣stance at all; but only that the natural body, &c. is not there modo naturali, or ad modum corporis naturalis, not there after a natural manner. And if the Declaration means only this, (for which see Dr. Taylor before §. 15. and in the following Discourse concerning the Eucharist §. 6.) I grant it a truth; but find all other parties, the

Lutherans, Calvinists, the Roman as well as the English Church, a∣greeing in it. [For, for the Roman thus speaks the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. 1. c.—Neque enim haec inter se pugnant, juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dex∣tra•••• Patris, & nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem Sacramentaliter, ea existendi ratione; quam, etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possi∣bilem tamen esse Deo cogitatione per sidem illustrata assequi possumus, &c. Thus Bellarmine de Euchar. 1 l. 2. c.—3, 5. c. 10. c. and else∣where in that Treatise.—Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco, vel ut in vase, aut sub aliquo velo, sed eo modo ut panis prius; sed non ita, ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi substantiae; non co∣existere aut commensurari loco; non esse, ita ut habeat ordinem ullum ad corpora circumstantia; non esse sensibile, visibile, tangibile, exten∣sum; non adesse mobiliter, extensive, corporaliter, [as well understand this word to exclude not naturam, but modum corporis.]

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

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

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

To the 2d. Observable, the Reason given. It may be said also, [§. 50] * 1.2 That it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be modo na∣turali, or ad modum corporis naturalis, in more places than one at once; but yet that, modo non naturali, it might by the divine power be rendred in divers places at once: and therefore that this natural Body (absolutely speaking) is not denied to be also in the Eucharist, and not only in Heaven.

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

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

[§. 53] 3. To the 3d. Observable concerning Adoration, it may be said; That Adoration to Christ's Body,* 1.3 as really and essentially present in the Eucharist, is not denied; but only as to any corporal presence of it there, (which seems also to be the cause, that the Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former) [No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential] into [No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence.]

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

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

Notes

• * 1.1

  The First Limitation; The Natu∣ral Body of our Lord not in the Eucharist modo na∣turali.
• * 1.2

  The 2d. Li∣mitation; A natural Body not in many places at one modo na∣turali.
• * 1.3

  The Third Limitati∣on; Adora∣tion not de∣nied to Ch. Body as re∣ally and es∣sentially, but only as corporally present.