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.

Concerning the RUBRICK of the English LITƲRGY.

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

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

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

There were also certain Articles of Religion composed under King Edward, about the same time as the second Common Prayer Book was. In one of which (the Article concerning the Lord's-Supper) is found this explicatory Paragraph. —For as much as

the truth of Man's Nature requireth, that the Body of one and the self same Man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in one certain place; therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places: and because, as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the World; a faithful Man ought not either to believe, or to confess, the Real and Bodily Presence, as they term it, of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

But in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign (who is observed by Dr. Heylin* 1.1, and others, to have been a zealous Propugner of the Real Presence) upon a second Review by her Divines of the same Common-Prayer Book it was thought meet, that this Declara∣tion should be thrown out again, and so the Common-Prayer Books ever since have been cleared of it till the alterations therein made after the King's return in A. D. 1661. at which time it was reinserted.

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

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

They omit also the Priest's touching or handling the Patin or Chalice in the Prayer of Consecration, required in the former Book, done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. where∣by seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols: of which also Bucer saith* 1.2, Antichristianum est affirmare quidquam his elementis adesse Christi, extrausum praebitionis & receptionis. For the same reason

it seems to be, that the Glory be to God on high, &c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, after the Sursum corda, the one is trans∣ferred till after the Communion; and the other omitted, differently from King Edward's first Form: likewise whereas it is said in the former Liturgy in the Prayer of Humble access, — Grant us so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood in these holy mysteries; the 2^d omits these words [in these holy mysteries.]

But the Divines of Qu. Elizabeth in their Review,* 1.3 as they nulled the Declaration in the Common-Prayer Book, and purged the 28th Article of the forementioned explication; so they thought fit to restore the former ejected Form in the administring of the Sacra∣ment. [The Body of our Lord, &c. preserve thy body and soul,] put∣ting after it the later Form, — [Take and eat this in remembrance, &c. and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving.] But then, the new Liturgy prepared for Scotland, and published A. D. 1637. rectifies and reduces many of the former things again to the first mode; first restores those words in the Consecration [with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless, &c. that They may be un∣to us the Body, &c.] ordering (again) the Presbyter that officiates, to take the Patin and Chalice in his hands; and then takes quite a∣way the words added in King Edward's second Form in the deli∣vering of the Mysteries [Take and eat this, &c.] and instead there∣of adds after the former words [The Body of our Lord, &c.] the Peo∣ple's Response [Amen,] according to the custom of Antiquity. (See Dionys. Alexandr. apud Euseb. Hist. 7. l. 8. c. — Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7^mi mensis. — Augustin. ad Orosium quaest. 49.) spoken as a Confession of their Faith, that they acknowledged that, which they received, to be Corpus Domini. [Of all which Laudensium Autocata∣crisis heavily complains; observing — That in the Consecration-Prayer are restored the words of the Mass, whereby God is besought by his Omnipotent Spirit so to Sanctifie the oblation of Bread and Wine, that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood. From which words (saith he) all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transub∣stantiation. Wherefore the English Reformers [i. e. the latter in King Edward's days] scraped them out of their Books; but our Men put them fairly in. And good reason have they so to do. For long ago they professed that, about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration, they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists, except only about the formality and mode of Presence, [here quoting Montague's Appeal, p. 289.]

Lastly; when the late Clergy A. D. 1661. being upon I know not what inducements,* 1.4 solicited to receive the foremention'd De∣claration

rejeded in Q. Elizabeth's days, came to examine it, they judged meet not to publish it entire, as it ran before, but these words [It is here declared, that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood] they cancelled; and instead of them inserted these, [It is here declared, that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural f••••sh and Blood,] as we find them in the present Rubrick.

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

1. That here the present Clergy do profess expresly,* 1.5 that the natu∣ral Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, are not in the blessed Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist.

[§. 5] 2. That they urge, for this Non-presence there, this reason or ground out of Natural Philosophy,* 1.6 That it is against the truth of a Natural body, to be in more places than one at one time; here seeming to found their Faith in this matter on the truth of this position in Nature.

[§. 6] 3. In consequence of these, they declare; that kneeling in re∣ceiving the Eucharist (so much excepted against by the Presbyte∣rian) is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknow∣ledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers,* 1.7 and for the avoiding of such prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue, but that hereby no adoration is intended, or ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natu∣ral flesh and blood; where they either leave this undetermined, whether there be not another presence of Christ's flesh and blood, as real and true as is the corporal to which an adoration is at this time due: or else do determine as seems concludable from their former Proposition, [viz. That the natural Body of Christ is not there] that there is not any such real presence of the Body at all, and so no adoration due in any such respect.

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

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

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

[§. 9] And, to strengthen further this assertion of Calvin, may be ad∣ded the Confession of Beza, and others of the same sect, related by Hospinian, hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251. — Fatemur in Coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii ho∣minis substantiam, ipsam, inquam, veram carnem, & verum illum sanguinem, quem fudit pro nobis, non significari duntaxat, aut sym∣bolice, typice, vel figurate proponi, tanquam absentis memoriam: sed

vere ac certo repraesentari, exhiberi, & applicanda offerri, adjunctis symbolis minime nudis, sed quae (quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem & offerentem attinet) semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant, sive fidelibus, sive insidelibus proponantur. Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i. e. verum corpus, & verus sanguis Domini, cum symbolis copulatur, dicimus esse Symbolicum, sive Sacramentalem: Sacramentalem autem modum vocamus, non qui sit figurativus dun∣taxat, 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 ip∣sius corporis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam in Coena retinere & de∣fendere; & si quid nobis cum vere piis & doctis fratribus controver∣siae est, non de re ipsa, sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat, qui soli Deo cognitus est, & a nobis creditur, disceptari. [Here they say, rem ipsam, i. e. verum corpus & verum sanguinem Domini cum sym∣bolis copulari in Coena Domini, modum vero esse symbolicum, &c.]

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

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

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

2. Thus Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage,* 1.8 Resp. ad Apoll. Bell. 1. c. p. 11. — Quod Cardinalem non latet, nisi volentem & ultro, dixit Christus, Hoc est corpus meum; non, Hoc modo hoc est corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit, de modo lis omnis est. De hoc est, fide firma tenemus, quod sit: de, hoc modo est (nempe transubstantiato in corpus pane) de modo, quo fi∣at, ut sit Per, sive In, sive Cum, sive Sub, sive Trans, nullum ini∣bi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul: inter scita Scholae fortasse, inter Fidei articalos non, ponimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus, neutiquam nobis displicet, Verbum au∣dimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. Praesentiam, inquam, credimus, nec minus, quam vos, veram, De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus, addo, nec anxie inquiramus; non magis quam in baptismo nostro, quomodo abluat nos sanguis Chri∣sti: non magis quam in Christi incarnatione, quomodo naturae divinae humana in eandem hypostasin uniatur. Inter mysteria ducimus (& quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa) cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi, id est, ut eleganter in primis Patres, fide adorari, non ratione discuti. — Again, Ib. 8. c. p. 194. speaking of the Con∣junction of Christ's Body with the symbols, he saith, — Ea nempe conjunctio est inter Sacramentum visibile, & rem Sacramenti invisi∣bilem; quae inter humanitatem & divinitatem Christi, ubi nisi Euty∣chen s••pere vultis, humanitas in divinitatem non transubstantiatur. — And a little farther, — Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere praesen∣tem, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 & adorandum statuit. And —Nos vero in mysteriis car∣rem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio, &c. [Here is such a pre∣sence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist acknowledged, as is to be a∣dored; and this it seems no less the Bishop's Religion, than King James's.]

Add to this, that passage in Is. Causabon's Letter,* 1.9 written by the King's command to Card. Perron; who, when the Cardinal would have joined issue with the King, for trying the verity of the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist, in the King's name declines any such Controversy, and saying that the contest was not about rei veritatem, but only modum, returns this reply p. 50. —Miratur vero serenisimus Rex, cum fateatur tua illustris Dig∣nitas, non 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quaerere vos, ut credatur Transubstantiatio, sed ut de praesentiae veritate ne dubitetur, Ecclesiam Anglicanam, quae toties id se credere publicis scriptis est testata, nec dum vobis fecisse satis: and then, for explication of the Doctrine of the English Church in this matter, recites the forementioned words of Bishop Andrews, — Quod Cardinalem non latet, &c.

[§. 12] 3. Thus Bishop Hall in his Treatise De pace Ecclesiastica for re∣conciling the Calvinist and Lutheran (which Lutherans undoubted∣ly hold the same natural body of Christ that is in Heaven to be also in the Eucharist,) p. 78. — Res apud utrosque eadem, rei tantum ra∣tio diversa. Tantulum dissidium falemur quidem non esse nullius mo∣menti; tanti esse, ut tam necessariam orbi Christiano fratrum gratiam tam mirabiliter planeque divinitus coeuntem abrumpere debeat; id vero est, quod constantissime negamus. Neque nos soli sumus in ea sententia, Mitto Fratres Polonos, Germanos, nostrarum partium, &c. Then at last he brings in the decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton, in which the Lutherans are received to their commu∣nion, as agreeing with them in omnibus verae religionis principiis, ar∣ticulisque fundamentalibus.

[§. 13] 4. Thus Bishop Montague, Appeal p. 289. — Concerning this point of Real Presence, I say, that, if Men were disposed as they ought, to peace, there need be no difference: for the disagreement is only de modo praesentiae: the thing is yielded-to on either side, that there is in the Holy Eucharist a Real Presence. God forbid, saith Bishop Bilson, we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present, and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's Ta∣ble. It is the Doctrine that we teach others, and comfort our selves withal. p. 779. Of true Subject: And the Reverend and Learn∣ed Answerer unto Bellarmine's Apology, cometh home to the Faith (or Popery if you will) condemned in Mr. Montague, who learned it of him, and such as he is. Nobis vobis-cum de objecto con∣venit, &c. — [He, you see, represents the difference between par∣ties in the same manner as Mr. Hooker; i. e. none as to the point of the presence of the same body here in the Eucharist, as it is at the same time above in Heaven.]

[§. 14] 5. Thus Archbishop Lawd, Confer. with Fisher, §. 35. n. 3. — The worthy Receiver is, by his Faith, made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ, truly and really, and of all the benefits of his Passion. Yon Roman Catholicks add a man∣ner of this his presence (Transubstantiation) which many deny; and the Lutherans a manner (Consubstantiation) which more deny. — And upon [truly and really] he notes in the Margin Calvin's saying in 1 Cor. 11.24. Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus, ipsum, in quo passus est & resurrexit.

Ib. n. 7. Punct. 3. I hope A. C. dare not say, that to believe the true substantial presence of Christ is either known, or damnable Schism or Heresie. Now as many and as Learned Protestants be∣lieve

and maintain this, as do believe possibility of salvation in the Roman Church, &c. and Ib. n. 3. upon Bellarmin's words — Con∣versionem Paris & Vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi esse sub∣stantialem, sed arcanam & ineffabilem, he saith; That if the Cardi∣nal had left out Conversion, and affirmed only Christs Real [by this he means Substantial, as also is affirmed by the Cardinal] presence there, after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner, no Man could have spoken better. And — §. 35.6. n. Punct. 4. quotes also Bi∣shop Ridley's Confession set down in Fox, p. 1598.) whose words are these: —You [the Transubstantialists] and I agree in this, that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Ma∣ry, which ascended into Heaven, which sits on the right hand of God the Father, &c. only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being there.

[§. 15] 6. Thus Dr. Taylor, one of the last who hath written a just Treatise on this subject, 1. §. 11. n. p. 18. It is enquired whether, when we say we believe Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament, we mean that body, that flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead and buried? I answer: I know none else that he had, or hath; there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified: but he that saith that body is glorified, which was crucified, says it is the same body, but not after the same manner; and so it is in the Sacrament, we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth; for there is no other body, no other blood of Christ: but tho' it is the same we eat and drink, yet it is in ano∣ther manner. And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fathers deny, that body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, to be eaten in the Sacrament, as Bertram, as S. Hierom, as Clemens Alexandrinus expresly affirm; the mean∣ing is easie, they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense: and then calling Corpus spirituale, the word spirituale is not a substantial predication, but is an affirmation of the manner; tho' in disputation it be made the Predicate of a Proposition, and the opposite member of a Distinction. That Body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament, if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being; but that body which was crucified, the same body we do eat, if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating; and this I no∣ted, that we may not be prejudiced by words, when the notion is cer∣tain and easie. And thus far is the sense of our Doctrine in this Ar∣ticle. [Here we see this Doctor becomes such a zealous advocate

of this Cause, as to frame an answer to all such sayings in the Fathers, as may seem by the expression to import; as if the same body that was crucified were not eaten here by us in the Sacrament; and de∣fends the contrary.] — Again §. 12. p. 288. They that do not con∣fess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us, let them be Anathema. But quo modo is the question, &c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence [his Book bearing this Title The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ, &c.] under∣stood to be particular in nothing, but that it excludes the corpo∣ral and natural manner, [not spiritual presence therefore, so as to exclude Corpus Domini, but only the corporal or natural manner of that body:] now by exclusion of the natural manner is not meant (surely) the exclusion of nature, or of the thing it self, (for, then, to say a thing is there, after a natural manner, were as much as to say, the thing is not there:) but the exclusion of those properties which usually accompany nature, or the thing. —See p. 12. where he allows of the term substantialiter; and of that expression of Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest. —and in the same page he saith, when the word Real presence is denied by some Protestants, it is taken for natural, and not for in rei veritate.

[§. 16] 7. Thus Bishop Forbes de Eucharistia, 2. l. 2. c. 9. §. — An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus, Protestantes saniores non dubi∣tant. In sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis) adorandus est Christus vera latria, siquidem corpus ejus vivum & gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti prae∣sens adest, & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni, sed ipsi corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucha∣ristiae exhibito, debetur & perfcitur. — And Ib. §. 8. — Imma∣nis est rigidorum Protestantium error, qui negant Christum in Eucha∣ristia esse adorandum, nisi adoratione interna & mentali, non autem externa aliquo ritu adorativo, ut in geniculatione aut aliquo alio consi∣mili corporis situ; hi fere omnes male de praesentia Christi Domini in Sacramento, miro sed vero modo praesentis, sentiunt. — Again 3. l. 1. c. §. 10. — Dicunt etiam saepissime sancti Patres in Euha∣ristia offerri & sacrificari ipsum Christi Corpus, ut ex innumeris pene locis constat, sed non proprie & realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietati∣bus servatis; sed per commemorationem & repraesentationem ejus quod semel in unico illo sacrificio Crucis, quo alia omnia sacrifcia con∣summavit Christus summus Sacerdos noster, est peractum; & per piam supplicationem, qua Ecclesia ministri propter unici illius sacri∣ficii perpetuam victimam, 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 cerporis & animae necessitates efficacem & salutarem esse velit. [Here is acknowledg'd, 1. Christi corpus in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesens. 2. Hoc corpus oblatum in Eucharistia ut sacrificium Deo Patri. 3. Ipsi corpori Christi ut praesenti in Eucha∣ristia miraculo quodam ineffabili, immediate debita adoratio varae Latriae.]

[§. 17] 8. Thus the Archbishop of Spalato much-what to the same purpose, de Rep. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. 7. §. Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Christi, ille vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi, in se corporaliter, modo tamen quodam spirituali, miraculoso & impereeptibili sumit; omnis digne communicans adorare potest & debet corpus Christi quod reci∣pit; non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub spe∣ciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis Sacramentalis, tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens.

[§. 18] 8. And thus Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy, 3. l. 3. c. p. 17. — That which I have already said is enough to evi∣dence the mystical and spiritual presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements, as the Sacrament of the same, before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the Soul, which the eating and drinking Christ's Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth. —and Ib. 2. c. p. 10. when it follows, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to him∣self, not discerning the Lord's Body; unless a Man discern the Lord's Body where it is not, of necessity it must there be where it is dis∣cerned to be, &c. and 3. l. 23. c. p. 225. he saith, — That ancient∣ly there was a reservation from Communion to Communion: and —that he who carried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home, drinking the Blood at present, might reasonably be said to commu∣nicate in both kinds. Neither can (faith he) that Sacramental change which the Consecration works in the Elements be limited to the Instant of the Assembly: tho' it take effect only in order to that Communion, unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth. — and 3. l. 5. c. p. 44. — Having maintained that the Elements are re∣ally changed, from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament, and that in virtue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that receives; I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth: name∣ly, that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ

upon the Cross, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are con∣tained in them, &c. —and then p. 46. he farther collecteth thus. —And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and im∣petratory both, it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucha∣rist, in as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, —is also both propitiatory and impetratory. — and 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. — I suppose (saith he) that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are, and must be adored by a good Christian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obli∣ged to communicate with, requires it. — And p. 351. —Not to balk the freedom which hath carried me to publish all this; I do believe, that it was practised and done [i.e. our Lord Christ really worship∣ped in the Eucharist] in the ancient Church, which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ, obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it: I know the conse∣quence to be this, That there is no just cause why it shou'd not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole. [Here is acknowledg'd, 1. Pre∣sently upon Consecration a presence of Christ's Body and Blood with, or in, the Elements, before any presence of them to the Soul by a living Faith; of which body becoming here present, the un∣worthy Receivers are said to be guilty, 1 Cor. 11.22. 2. A per∣manency of this Body and Blood with these Symbols in the reser∣vation of them, after the assembly had communicated. 3. The Elements consecrated, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ is contained in them, affirmed to be truly the sacrifice on the Cross. 4. Adoration of this Body and Blood as so present, to be a duty, and antiently practised.]

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

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

1. Here also, first, I find Protestants,* 1.10 and especially our English Divines generally to confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eu∣charist to be an ineffable mystery, (which I conceive is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to, and there∣fore incomprehensible and ineffable by, humane reason.) For this thus Calvin himself long ago, in the beginning of the Reformation, Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 24. §. Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior, vel naturae legibus subjicio. — Humanae rationi minime placebit [that which he affirms] penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit alimentum. —Dicimus Christumtam externo symbolo, quam spiritu suo ad nos descendere, ut vere substantia carnis suae animas no∣stras vivificet. —In his paucis verbis qui non sentit multa subesse mi∣racula, plusquam stupidus est: quando nihil magis incredibile, quam res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas, in tanta locorum distan∣tia, non tantum conjungi, sed uniri; ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi: [Nihil magis incredibile; therefore not this more incredible, that Idem Corpus potest esse in diversis locis si∣mul.] —And §.31. — Porro de modo siquis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat. — And §. 25. Captivas tenemus mentes no∣stras ne verbulo duntaxat obstrepere, ac humiliamus ne insurgere, au∣deant. —Nec vero nefas nobis esse ducimus, sanctae Virginis exemplo, in re ardua sciscitari, quomodo ••••ri possit? See more Ibid. §. 7. [Na∣turae legibus non subjicio, — humanae rationi minime placet, —quomodo fieri potest] — Surely these argue something in

it seemingly contradictory to nature and humane reason.

Thus King James of the Eucharist in his answer to Cardinal Per∣ron by Causabon.* 1.11 —Mysterium istud magnum esse humano ingenio incomprehensibile, ac multo magis inenarrabile, Eccl. sia Anglicana fa∣tetur & docet.

And thus speaks Dr. Taylor in Real presence,* 1.12 §. 11 n. 28. after that he had numbred up many apparent contradictions, not only in respect of a natural, but, as he faiths of an alsolute, possibility of Transubstantiation, (from p. 207. to p. 337.) Tet (saith he) let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it, and wake publick amends: [all my arguments, i. e. of apparent Contradictions and absolute Impos∣sibilities.] And n. 28. To this objection. That we believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, of our Saviour's being born of a pure Virgin, &c. clauso utero, and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies (in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions) notwithstanding seeming impossibilities; and therefore why not Tran∣substantiation? He answers, That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation, as of the other, then this Argument were good: and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation, [of which ten thousand then sup∣pose that this be one, That Idem corpus non potest esse simul in duo∣bus locis] yet we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all. [Now none can believe a thing true, upon what motive soever, which he first knows certainly to be false, or, which is all one, cer∣tainly to contradict. For these, we say, are not verifiable by di∣vine power, and ergo here, I may say, should Divine Power de∣clare a truth, it would transcend it self.] —Again, in Liberty of Prophecy, 20. §. 16. n. he saith, Those who believe the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School, and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church, believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation. Yet I suppose himself denies no such doctrine about the Trinity, that is commonly delivered in the Schools.

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

several al places, yet by the divine power (I say not is, for the know∣ledge of this depends on Revelation, but) may be, so verified.

[§. 22] 3. I cannot apprehend but that these Writers must hold this particular seeming contradiction, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; so long as they do affirm a real and substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant here on earth, contradistinct to any such other real presence, as implies only a presence of Christ's Body in its virtue, efficacy, benefits, spirit, &c. which is the Zuinglian real presence. For suppose our Savi∣tour's Body to be (as they will have it) only naturally or locally in heaven; yet if the substance, the essence, the reality of this Body (however stript of its natural properties, all such as being not the very essence of it, are removeable from it per potentiam divinam) be here on earth in the Eucharist, when it is also in Heaven, (be it here present to the symbols, or to the receiver, or to any thing else, it matters not:) we must affirm that this essence or substance of the same body at least is at the same time in divers places; or (if we will have this essence to be in heaven only, as in a place) in divers ubi's, which is every whit as seeming contradictory as the other. And whoever will grant, that an Angel by divine power may be at the same time in two several ubi's, cannot reasonably deny, that a body may be so, in several places; or in one place, and in another ubi. I say then, that this Proposition, [That the same Body is at the same time in divers places,] or another equivalent to it, must be conceded to be true, so long as we affirm the essence of our Saviour's body to be here on Earth in the Eucharist at the same time, as it is also in Heaven; unless we defend one of these two things; either,

[§. 23] 1. That this Body is both here and there by an incomprehensible conti∣nuation, as it were, thereof, (which sounds somewhat like the ubi∣quity of some Lutherans) for which see the words of Calvin quoted before, §. 8. Res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas conjungi & uniri, &c. words usher'd in by him with a nihil magis incredibile. [But then, as some seem thus to make Christ's Body that is in Hea∣ven, by a certain prolonging or continuation incomprehensible (as their expressions seem to import) to be joyned, upon an act of faith, to the Soul of the worthy Receiver here on Earthy, whilst yet the same body is still only in Heaven, and there no way at all enlarged in its dimensions; so why may mot others as probably make the same body that is in Heaven, by a certain discontinuation ineffable, to be present here on Earth, upon the act of Consecration, to the symbols or receiver, tho' it be in both these places only the same body still, and not multiplied in its essence? As the same Soul is

totally in the Head and the Foot; yet this Soul not continued in these two places or Ʋbi's, neither by its parts, since it hath none; nor by two totals, since in both it is but one: and suppose one foot of this body doth stand in the water, the other on the land; the same Soul being totally in both these feet, consequently, will be to∣tally in the water, and totally not in the water, but on the land. And suppose again the two feet cut off from the body, and yet pre∣served still alive, i. e. the soul, that did before, still informing them per potentiam divinam, (which we see naturally done in many In∣sects:) the same Soul will be now, totally in the water, and to∣tally on the land, without continuation (if I may so say) of it self. And suppose again this body, which it informs, to increase to a much greater bulk; and the same Soul will be now in many more places than formerly without any augmentation of it self. And why the same things may not be said of Bodies, when stript of quan∣titative dimensions; or how far some properties of Spirits may be communicated to them, (salva essentia corporis) who can say? What our Saviour said to the Sadduces relucting to believe a revela∣tion concerning the resurrection of the same numerical body,* 1.13 be∣cause involving in it very many seeming contradictions, Erratis, nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem Dei, may as well be said in this great mystery of the Eucharist.]

Or 2ly,* 1.14 unless we will explain our selves, that, by the essential, real, substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, me mean only the presence of the true and real effect, blessing, virtues, of this Body, (as Dr. Taylor sometimes seems to do,) but this is, after pro∣fessing with the highest in our words, a relapsing into Zuinglianism in our sense. [I will set you down the Doctor's words, (Real Pre∣sence §. 11. n. 17.) where, after he hath said, That there is not in all School-Divinity, nor in the old Philosophy, nor in nature, any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place, circum∣scriptive, definitive, repletive, and that the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament any of these three ways, (quoting Turrecremata for it) he replies thus to those Schoolmen, that rejecting these three ways, do say, that Christs Body is in a fourth way, viz. Sacramen∣tally in more places than one. —This, saith he, is very true; that is, that the Sacrament of Christ's body is [in more places than one]; and so is his Body [in more places than one] figuratively, tropically, representatively in being [or essence,] and really in ef∣fect and blessing. But this is not a natural real being in a place, but a relation to a person. Thus he. But if thus Christ's Body be held by us, as to its essence, only figuratively, tropically, and re∣presentatively

in more places than one; and really in those places only in its effect and blessing, what will become of our —praesen∣tiam non minus quam illi veram, (see before, §. 11.) if others hold the presence of Christ's very essence and substance in the Eucharist, we only the presence thereof its effect and blessing?

Now as to the proper mode (which the Dr. here agitates) of Christ's Body being substantially in the Sacrament, whether it is circumscriptive, definitive, or some other way; it is true, that the Schoolmen do not all agree on one and the same. S. Thomas, Durand, and several others, deny the Body of Christ to be either cir∣cumscriptive, or definitive in this Sacrament, and proceed to affirm, That Idem Corpus non potest, per miraculum, or potentiam divinam, esse in pluribus locis simul, i. e. localiter, or, in the forementioned ways, Circumscriptively or Definitively.

But you may note, 1. That they take circumscriptive,* 1.15 and defi∣nitive, in such a sense, as that these two do exclude, not only such a bodies being, ubique, every where; but absolutely its being alibi, any where else; and that these modes of Presence would infer, That the same individual is divided from it self, (contrary to the nature of individuum, or unum,) if such body should at that time be any where else. See S. Thom. Suppl. q. 83. Art. 5. ad 4^um—and 3^a q. 76. Art. 5. where he saith, That that is circumscriptive in loco, quod nec excedit, nec exceditur. —And see Durand, his follower, in 4. sent. 44. d. q. 6. where he argueth very clearly thus: — Exi∣stentia unius corporis simul in pluribus locis implitat expresse contradi∣ctionem; quia illud quod est circumscriptive in distantibus locis, oporter quod sit distinctum distinctione locorum; quia quicquid est circum∣scriptive in loco aliquo, totum continetur ab ipso, it a quod nihil con∣tenti est circumscriptive extra continentem. Propter quod illa quae sunt in distinctis locis circumscriptive, necessario distincla sunt; &, quia est contra rationem unius quod sit distinctum, ideo si unum cor∣pus esset in pluribus locis circumscriptive, esset unum & non unum seu indistinctum; quod implicat contradictionem.

2. That they put a third way of presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, real and true, and tho' not per modum quantitatis di∣mensive,* 1.16 yet per modum substantiae* 1.17, which they say is a mode pro∣per to this Sacrament, and such as hinders not the same body at the same time to be alibi, elsewhere, and yet to remain, tho' it be elsewhere, indivisum in se: which the other Presences, in their ac∣ception of them, do hinder. Of which thing thus Durand con∣tends* 1.18, That Christ's Body is present in the Sacrament ratione so∣lius praesentiae ad locum, not ratione continentiae either circumscriptive

or definitive; — and that Quod est praesens loco hoc modo, potest esse si∣mul praesens in pluribus locis; sicut Angelus, saith he, est praesens omnibus corporibus quae potest movere.

* 1.19Mean-while other Schoolmen and Controvertists take liberty to dissent from these. See Scotus in 4. sent. dist. 10. q. 2. and Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 3. c. and it seems not without reason. For, why should this their Substantial or Sacramental way (as real and true as any of the other) of Christ's Body being at the same time in Hea∣ven and in the Eucharist, consist with this Body's remaining indi∣visum in se; more than the circumscriptive or definitive way, rightly understood, and freed of their limitations; or, why impose they such a notion on these two ways, that they must imply an exact adequation of the place and the placed, or exclude it from being at all any where else; any more than the other Substantial or Sa∣cramental way (which they maintain) doth?

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

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

[§. 26] Indeed the present Rubrick hath only these words, [That no adoration ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natu∣ral flesh and blood,] whereas that in King Edward's time hath these,

[That no adoration ought to be done unto any real and essential pre∣sence of Christ's natural flesh and blood,] the words Real and essenti∣al then, being now changed into Corporal; and this seems to be done with some caution for the present Church her maintaining still a real and essential presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist; whereas those in the later time of King Edward seem to have denied it. [For as the first days of this Prince seem to have been more ad∣dicted to Lutheranism, so the latter days to Zuinglianism; as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley, (see his last examination in Fox p. 1598. and his stating the first Question disputed at Ox∣ford about the Real Presence,) and of Peter Martyr.* 1.20 When also this Question, An Corpus Christi realiter vel substantialiter adsit in Eucharistia, in Oxford, was held negatively; and when all those alterations were made in the Form of the Service of our Lord's Sup∣per (mentioned before in the beginning of this Discourse) that might seem to favour any presence of Christ's Body in relation to the Symbols.] But here I say, if the words of the former Ru∣brick, real and essential, were by the late Clergy changed into corporal on any such design, that so the real and essential presence might be still by them maintained; then I ask here, how can the same reason be still retained in their opinion thus altered? For, this reason, [that the same body cannot be at one in several places] as I have said, combats as well a real and essential presence, which they now would seem to allow, as a corporal, which they reject.

[§. 27] 2. I infer; that let them express this essential or substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, still defended by them, how they please, by calling in Mystica, Spiritualis, Symbolica, Sacra∣mentalis, or the like; yet if the presence of the Essence or Sub∣stance be still retained, they are eased no more thus, from main∣taining, that Idem corpus potest esse in duobus locis (or ubi) simul, than any other party, which hold any grosser presence there. And therefore suppose, if you will, a body cloath'd with all its usual ac∣cidents of quantity and dimensions, and of quality (except you will number also this amongst them, to possess but one place, and except you will annex to circumscriptive or definitive the restri∣ctions mentioned before §. 24. n. 2.) and it may no less (when such is the divine pleasure) be, thus, at the same time in many places, than when stript of them: for the same seeming absurdities and contradictions follow, from an Angel's, or Soul's being at the same time in two distinct definitive ubi's; without any continuation (if I may so say) of its essence between these ubi's; as do follow from a body so qualified being in two circumscriptive places, without the

like continuation; as you may see in perusing the common ob∣jections that are made against plurality of places.

For as Cardinal Bellarmin presseth well to this purpose:* 1.21 —Si quis objiciat aliam esse rationem corporum, aliam spirituum, is facile refelli potest. Nam ratio cur corpora non videantur posse esse in plu∣ribus locis non tam est moles quam unitas. —Ideo autem non vi∣detur posse esse, quia non potest divilli a seipso: & videtur necessario debere divilli ac distrahi a se, si ponatur in variis locis. Porro ista repugnantia quae sumitur ab unitate rei non minus invenitur in spiritu quam in corpore: utrumque enim est unum, & a se dividi non potest. Quare perinde est in hac quaestione sive de Corpore sive de Spiritu pro∣betur, [and I add, sive de corpore essentiali, sive de naturali.] The like things he saith of a Sacramental presence, and not per occupati∣onem loci; so this presence be real. Quae realis praesentia, saith he, in tot Altaribus & non in locis intermediis non minus tollere videtur indivisionem rei, quam repletio plurium locorum.

[§. 28] This being said from §. 22. That, in my apprehension either these our English Divines must affirm this Proposition of one body at the same time being in more places than one, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; or must cease to assert any real, essential, or sub∣stantial presence of Christs body in the Eucharist, contradistinct to the Sense of the Zuinglians.

4. In seems to me, that some of the more judicious amongst them heretofore have not laid so great weight on this Philosophi∣cal position, as wholly to support and regulate their faith in this matter by it, as it stands in opposition not only to nature's, but the divine power: because they pretend not any such certainly there∣of; but that, if any divine revelation of the contrary can be shew∣ed, they profess a readiness to believe it.

[§. 29] See the quotations out of Dr. Taylor before § 20. n. 3. And thus Bishop White against Fisher p. 179. much-what to the same pur∣pose. —We cannot grant (saith he) that one Individual body may be in many distant places at one and the same instant, until the Papist demonstrate the possibility hereof by testimony of Sacred Scri∣pture, or the antient Tradition of the Primitive Church, or by appa∣rent reason. And p. 446. —We dispute not what God is able to ef∣fect by his absolute power, neither is this question of any use in the mat∣ter non in hand. —That God changeth the Ordinance which himself hath fixed, no divine testimony or revelation affirmeth or teacheth. There is a Twofold power in God, ordinata, and absoluta. One ac∣cording to the order which himself hath fixed by his Word and Will, the other according to the infiniteness of his essence. Now according to

the power measured and regulated by his Word and Will, all things are impossible which God will not have to be. — and p. 182. — Ex∣cept God himself had expresly revealed and testified in his Word, that the contrary [i. e. to the common ordinance of the Creator] should be found in the humane body of Christ, &c. a Christian cannot be com∣pelled to believe this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed upon the sole voice and authority of the Lateran or Tridentine Council. [But if they were certain of such contradiction, then are they certain that there neither is nor can be such contrary revelation; and when any revelation, tho' never so plain, is brought, they are bound to in∣terpret it so, as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility.]

[§. 30] Again, thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 1. §. censures those other Protestants, who peremptorily maintain that there is such a real certain contradiction. — Admodum periculose & nimis au∣dacter negant multi Protestantes, Deum posse panem substantialiter in corpus Domini convertere, [which conversion involves the putting idem corpus simul in diversis locis.] Multa enim potest Deus om∣nipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum, imo & Angelorum. Id quidem quod implicet contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt om∣nes: sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat, quae sit uniuscu∣jusque rei essentia, ac proinde quid implicet, & quid non implicet con∣tradictionem; magnae profecto temeritatis est, propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem, Deo limites praescribere, & praefracte negare om∣nipotentia sua illum hoc vel illud facere posse: Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtenbergicorum in Confessione sua, Anno 1552. Concilio Tridentino proposita, cap. de Eucharistia, (vide Harmon. Confes.) Credimus, inquiunt, omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse, ut possit in Eucharistia substantiam panis & vini vel annihilare, vel in corpus & sanguinem Christi mutare. Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam omnipotentiam in Eucharistia exerceat, non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum, & apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum. After which the same Bishop goes on to shew the moderation also of some foreign reformed Divines herein, tho' much opposing the Lutheran and Roman opinion. Zuinglius & Oecolampadius, (saith he) aliquoties, ut constat, concesserunt Luthero & illius sequacibus, ac pro∣inde Romanensibus, (ut qui idem non minore contentione urgent in Transubstantiatione sua defendenda, quam illi in Consubstantiatione sua) Deum quidem hoc posse efficere, ut unum corpus sit indiversis locis; sed quod idem in Eucharistia fieret, & quod Deus id fieri vellet, id vero sibi probari postularunt. Ʋtinam hic pedem fixissent, nec ulteri∣us progressi fuissent discipuli. In Coll. Malbrunnensi actione 8. Ja∣cobo Andreae Lutherano objicienti Calvinistas negare Christi corpus

coelesti modo pluribus in locis esse posse, ita respondet Zach. Ursinus Theol. Heidelburgensis: Non negamus eum ex Dei omnipotentia plu∣ribus in locis esse posse; hoc in controversiam non venit, sed an hoc velle Christum ex verbis ejus probari possit? Itaque hoc te velle existi∣mavimus Christi corpus non tantum posse, sed etiam reipsa oportere in S. Coena praesens esse, &c. v. Ʋrs. &c. p. 155. Idem Ʋrsinus Action. ead. p. 153. Conaberis etiam ostendere (alloquitur Jacobum An∣dream) elevari & imminui a nobis omnipotentiam Dei, cum dicamus Deum non posse facere, ut corpus in pluribus sit locis, aut ut Christi corpus per lapidem penetret [the like contradictions seeming to Ʋr∣sin to urge, both plurality of places to one Body, and plurality of Bodies to one place:] De quo responsum est, non semel nunquam quaesitum esse aut disputatum, an possit. Deus hoc aut illud efficere; sed hoc tantum, an ita velit. — See more in the Author. To which I may add S. Austin's saying, Cura pro mortuis, c. 16. Ista Quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincit, quemadmodum opitulentur Mar∣tyres iis, quos per eos certum est adjuvari: utrum ipsi per seipso adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis & tanta inter se longinquitate discretis, &c. or whether this was done per Angelica ministeria usquequaque diffusa, shew this Father believed no impossibility of a Martyrs be∣ing uno tempore in diversis locis.

[§. 31] And from this reason of their uncertainty of such contradiction, whether it is real in respect of the divine power, it seems to be, that the Convocation of the Clergy in the beginning of Q. Eli∣zabeth's days, both cast out of the 28 of the former Articles of Re∣ligion, made in the end of King Edward's Reign, these words fol∣lowing: [—Cum naturae humanae veritas requirat, ut unius ejusdem∣que hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit, sed in uno ali∣quo & definito loco esse oporteat; idcirco Christi corpus in multis & diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tra∣dunt sacrae literae, Christus in coelum fuit sublatus, & ibi usque ad fi∣nem saeculi est permansurus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus & sanguinis realem praesentiam & corporalem (ut loquuntur) praesenti∣am in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri.] And also cast out this very Rubrick or Declaration out of the then Common-prayer book; and also restored again the former Form in administring the Com∣munion; [The Body of our Lord, &c. preserve thy body and soul,] and all this (saith Dr. Heylin)* 1.22 lest under colour of rejecting a Car∣nal, they might be though also to deny such a Real presence, as was de∣fended in the writings of the ancient Fathers.

[§. 32] And lastly, the late Clergy also in 1661, in that part of this re∣ceived Rubrick or Declaration wherein they reject the words of

the former, [real and essential presence,] as is said before, §. 3. n. 4. seem to disallow the opinion of K. Edward's latter Clergy, and to vindicate still the real presence: but then, they retaining still un∣changed the last expressions of the former Rubrick, which affirm Christ's natural Body not to be in the Eucharist, and that upon such a ground as is there given, seem again to disclaim it; unless they will justifie as seeming a contradiction as that is of idem in pluribus locis simul; which they condemn. A contradiction, I say; for I cannot discern, how this [Christ's natural body is here, and is in Heaven, and yet but one body,] can be pronounced a contradiction: and this [Christ's natural body is not here, but only in Heaven, and yet this natural body is here most certainly received] can be pronoun∣ced none. For if this can be justified to be part of their Faith, that the natural body of Christ is not here in the Eucharist, but only in Heaven; yet this is another part thereof, (see the former Testimo∣nies §. 8. &c.) that the natural body of Christ is here in the Eucha∣rist received. It, the body that was born of the B. Virgin, not a grace only, not a spirit only, but it it self, for both Hoc est corpus meum, and the general Tradition of the ancient Church, seems to have ne∣cessitated these Divines to this expression, and —facti participes sub∣stantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium com∣municatione, saith Calvin, quoted before, §. 8. —Now if these things be so, then this expressing only is one part of their faith in this Rubrick, viz. that the natural body is not here, and the not mentioning the other part with it, viz. that the naturul body not∣withstanding is here received by every worthy Communicant, (it mat∣ters not after what manner received, so this manner deny not the presence of this body) seems at least to betray their Faith to a dan∣gerous misconstruction, and to precipitate him, who hears such a confession, into Zuinglianism. But if we would express our whole and entire Faith here concerning this matter, it cannot be, but that he, who hears it, (observing that both Christ's body is here, for he really receives it; and not here, for it is only in Heaven; in that it is both within him, and at the same time many millions of miles from him, and yet cannot possibly be at two places at one;) will presently say with Calvin,* 1.23 S. Virginis exemplo, Quomodo fieri possit? — & — Nihil magis incredibile, —and then I see not what they have to answer him, but —Mysterium, —Arca∣num, —Miraculum, —Ineffabile. And then how can they urge others (as they do here) with contradictions and impossibilities, who go about to explain this ineffable mystery by Idem corpus in pluribus locis; and mean while maintain the like contradictions

themselves, desiring to have their contradiction passed and currant; the others supporessed?

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

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

[§. 35] Again, if they say really and essentially there present, but not lo∣cally; so say the Lutheran, and Roman Doctors, i. e. circumscriptive, or by such commensuration to place, as bodies use to have in their natural condition: but if they will extend locally so far, as that they understand Christ's Body to be there by no manner of ubi at all, not so much as ubi definitive, or so that they may truly say 'tis hic, so, as not ubique, or not alibi, where no Communion is cele∣brated; what is this, but to affirm, 'tis there so, as that it is not at all there?

[§. 36] If they say really and essentially present, by reason of the same Spi∣rit uniting us here on Earth, as members to it in Heaven: besides that

thus Christ's Body is no more present in the Eucharist, that in any other Ordinance or Sacrament, wherein the Spirit is conferred; such presence is properly of the Spirit, not of the Body; and ad∣vanceth us not beyond Zuinglianism.

[§. 37] But if at last they plainly interpret real and essential presence, by Christ's being present (in corporal absence) to the worthy Receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof; Thus also they slide back into Zuinglianism. Concerning which opinion the Remonstrants well discerning the difficulties, into which the affirming of a Real pre∣sence doth cast other Protestant parties, in the Apol. pro Confessione sua, p. 256. said; the Zuinglian opinion was, simplicissima, & ad idololatriam omnem evitandam in hac materia in primis necessaria, —& quae a Calvino & illius sequacibus dicuntur, manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem, tum absurditatem; & ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam, &c. And upon the same terms the So∣cinians reject Calvin's Doctrine; See Volkelius 4. l. 22. c. p. 316. —Tertius error eorum est, qui Christi corpus sanguinemque re-vera quidem in sacra coena a nobis comedi bibique existimant: verum non corporali, sed spirituali ratione hoc a nobis fieri affirmant. Cujus qui∣dem opinionis falsitas vel hoc uno convincitur, quod non solum Christi verbis nequaquam continetur; sed etiam cum sanae mentis ratione pug∣nat: quae dictat, fieri non posse, ut Christi corpus tanto intervallo a nobis disjunctum in coena re-vera comedamus. Idcirco & ille ipse [Calvinus] qui sententiae istius author est, fatetur, se hoc mysterium nec mente percipere, nec lingua explicare posse.

[§. 38] I find also a late Writer replying on this manner to his Adver∣sary W. H. urging,* 1.24 —That some of the Learned'st of the English Clergy confess the Holly Eucharist, after Consecration, to be really and truly our Saviour's Body; and therefore adore it; and for this cause disown the New Rubrick, which saith, Our Lord's Body is in Heaven, and not on the Altar; telling us, that they acknowledge the Thing, only dare not be so bold as the Romanists to determine the Man∣ner, [a thing said by Bishop Andrews and others, in the former Testi∣monies.] I find him, I say, returning this answer, 1. To the Rubrick. —That this new Rubrick is but the old one restored; [where he might have done well to have considered by whom in was also ejected, be∣fore its late restorement in A. D. 1661. viz. by the English Clergy; and that within a year or two after it first appeared a New Additi∣onal in King Edward's second Common-Prayer Book.] 2. To the Persons. —If (saith he) you speak true of them, what regard should we have of the judgment of such Clergy-men, as declare their assent and con∣sent to all things contained in, and prescribed by, the Book of Common-Brayer,

Prayer, and Articles of Religion; and yet disown the Rubrick, and be∣lieve Transubstantiation, and adore the Eucharist as Christ's Body? Why do not you call such the Roman Clergy rather than the English, if they differ from you but only in a want of boldness to determine the Manner, whilst they acknowledge the Thing? What if a Bishop Bram∣hall will have the Pope to be Principium Unitatis, and take Grotius to be of the mind of the Church of England; (who would have Rome to be the Mistress-Church, and the Pope to be the Ʋniversal Gover∣nor, according to the Canons of Councils, even the Council of Trent;) must we therefore stoop to such mens judgments? Or might you not as well tell us, That Cassander or Militier, yea or Bellarmine, were of your mind? Thus he. But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body, or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary, in the Eucharist, and with the Symbols, tho' the manner not prescribed, doth Romanize this Clergy; Bishop Cousins is one of those number.* 1.25 And it is much, that this person, having read his Book, (who also, which I much wonder at, makes this his own opinion of an Essential presence that of all Protestants) did not discern this; but hath in his Post∣script recommended for the satisfaction of others, one so much differing from his own Judgment; who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop, in this manner. p. 14. —That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative; and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified, [which he denies to be flesh and blood,] but such as was truly flesh and blood, which he once offered; the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in, and by, the Eucharist. And p. 15. —That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood, [i. e. in the words, Hoc est Corpus meum,] when his real Body was not broken nor slain; nor his bloodshed, till after. And —I can scarce believe (saith he) that man, that saith he believeth, that they [the Apostles] believed, that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood.* 1.26, to St. Cyril's words, [Do not look on it as bare bread, and bare wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. For tho' thy sense suggects this to thee, yet let Faith confirm thee.] he answers, The Bread and Wine are not bare or meer Bread and Wine, but Christ's Body and Blood; as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass. In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood, and of his Sacrifice on the Cross, really given to us in the Eucharist; but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there; a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins.

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

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

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

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

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

Of this then first thus Bishop Andrews in answer to Bellarmine; [§. 42] where, the Cardinal collecting from K. James's alledging the Ado∣ration of the Sacrament in the Church of Rome for a Novelty, that the King disallowed adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento miro, sed vero modo praesentis, the learned Bishop (Resp. ad Apol. 8. c. p. 195.) goes on thus, Apage vero, Quis ei hoc dederit? Sacramenti, id est, Christi in Sacramento. Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res, in, & cum Sacramento, extra & sine Sacramento, ubi ubi est, ado∣randus

est: Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere & adorandum statuit; rem scilicet Sacramenti, at non Sacramentum; terrenam scilicet partem, ut Iraeneus; visibilem, ut Augustinus. [Which Father the Bishop had quoted a little before, saying, Sa∣crificium Eucharistiae duobus confici, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Christi carne & sanguine; sicut Christi persona constat ex Deo & homine, cum ipse verus sit Deus, & verus homo.] Nos vero & in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio; & non id, sed eum qui super altare colitur. Male enim, quid ibi colatur, quaerit Cardinalis, cum quis, debuit; cum Nazianzenus eum dicat, non id. Nec carnem manducamus, quin adoremus prius, cum Augu∣stino: & Sacramentum tamens nulli adoramus.

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

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

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

[§. 46] And lastly, thus Mr. Thorndyke argues for it, Epil. 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. —I suppose (saith he) that the body and blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are, and must be adored by a good Chris∣tian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obliged to

communicate with, requires it. —This honour [i. e. of worshipping the body and blood of Christ] being the duty of an affirmative pre∣cept, (which according to the received rule, ties always, tho' it cannot tye a Man to do the duty always; because he then should do nothing else:) what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite, and presently to take hold and oblige? And is not the presence thereof in the Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to express, by that bodily act of Adoration, that inward honour, which we always carry towards our Lord Christ as God?

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

CHAP. V. Some Replies to the former Discourse.

TO conclude. Some Replies I can imagine to this former Dis∣course. Such as these. 1. To the first Observable abovesaid, [§. 48] * 1.27 §. 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] * 1.28 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,* 1.29 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.

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Hist. of Q. Eliz. p. 124.
• * 1.2

  Censura p. 476.
• * 1.3

  §. 3. n. 1.
• * 1.4

  §. 3. n. 2.
• * 1.5

  1. Observ.
• * 1.6

  2. Observ.
• * 1.7

  3. Observ.
• * 1.8

  §. 11. n. 1.
• * 1.9

  §. 11. n. 2.
• * 1.10

  §. 20. n. 1.
• * 1.11

  §. 20. n. 2.
• * 1.12

  §. 20. n. 3.
• * 1.13

  Matth. 22.29.
• * 1.14

  §. 24. n. 1.
• * 1.15

  §. 24. n. 2.
• * 1.16

  §. 24. n. 3.
• * 1.17

  Aqui. n. 3.76. q. 3. art.
• * 1.18

  In 4 sent. 11. d. q. 1.
• * 1.19

  §. 24. n. 4.
• * 1.20

  See Dis∣put. Oxon. 1549. fol. 18, 67, & 88.
• * 1.21

  De Eu∣char. l. 3. c. 3.
• * 1.22

  Hist. Reform. Q. Eliz. p. 11.
• * 1.23

  See be∣fore §. 20.
• * 1.24

  Roman Tradition examined, p. 12.
• * 1.25

  See the former Discourse concern∣ing the Eucharist. § 5. n. 2. &c.
• * 1.26

  p. 57.
• * 1.27

  The First Limitation; The Natu∣ral Body of our Lord not in the Eucharist modo na∣turali.
• * 1.28

  The 2d. Li∣mitation; A natural Body not in many places at one modo na∣turali.
• * 1.29

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