Two Discourses CONCERNING the ADORATION OF OUR B. SAVIOUR IN THE H. EUCHARIST.  
The FIRST: ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Alterations of the RUBRIC in the Communion-Service, in the Common-Prayer-Book of the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
The SECOND: The Catholics DEFENCE for their Adoration of our LORD, as believed Really and Substantially present in the Holy Sacrament of the EUCHARIST.  
At OXFORD Printed, Anno 1687.   

ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ALTERATIONS of the RUBRIC in the COMMUNION-SERVICE, etc.  
CONTENTS.  

A Brief Narration of the Alterations made in the English Reformed Service of the Eucharist by K. Edw. VI and Qu. Elizabeth. § 1, 2, 3.  
Three Observables concerning K. Edward's Declaration. §. 4, 5, 6. 

1. Contrary to the first Observable the Presence of our Lord's Natural Body and Blood in the Eucharist maintained by Calvin, Beza, and English Divines. §. 8, 9, 10, etc. to §. 18.  
2. Contrary to the second Observable, the Reason given of our Lord's not being present; namely, because a Body cannot be in two places at once, discussed. Where; 

1. Protestants are shown confessing the Presence of our Lord an ineffable Mystery.  
2. That any one seeming contradiction can no more be effected by Divine Power, than another, or than many other the like may; and therefore this, of the same Bodies being at the same time in several places, cannot by these Writers be denied a possibility of being by the Divine power so verified. §. 21.  
3. That these Writers must hold this seeming contradiction true, or some other equivalent thereto, so long as holding a real substantial Presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy Communicant here on Earth, contradistinct to any such other Real Presence as implies only a presence thereof in its virtue, efficacy, benefits, spirit. §. 23. 

The difference of Schoolmen concerning the Mode of Presence in the Eucharist. §. 24.    
4. This Proposition, of a Bodies not being in several places at once, by the more judicious Protestants formerly not allowed to regulate their Faith, but only Divine Revelation. §. 28.    
3. Contrary to the third Observable, That no Adoration is intended, or due to any Corporal Presence, shown. 

1. That, all granting Kneeling and Adoration due to God the Father and the Son; not likely, that the Clergy will deny, That were there a Corporal Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, than such Kneeling and Adoration to be due. §. 39  
2. Corporal Presence denied (that is with the ordinary properties of a Body) yet if any other Presence (whatever name be given it) as Real as one Corporal, be assigned from Divine Revelation, Adoration, thus, no less due. §. 40.  
3. That the Church of England hath heretofore believed, and maintained such Presence, as they allowed, adorable. §. 41.    
Some Replies that may be returned to this Discourse, considered. 

1. That not the Essence of the Body of our Lord is denied in the Eucharist, but its corporal manner of Essence. §. 48. This granted by all.  
2. That, naturally, Christ's Body cannot be at once in many places, tho' supernaturally it may; and therefore is here denied to be in the Eucharist. 

1. The truth of such Exception is denied; since, if God can make the Essence, or Substance of a Body to be in more places or ubi's than one at once; he can make all the properties or qualities thereof to be so too. §. 51.  
2. Admitting this Exception for true, as also the first, yet hence no foundation of denying Adoration due to Christ's natural Body as being in the Eucharist: which being granted by these Replies to be there, tho' not after a natural manner, can be no less, for this an object of Adoration. §. 52.    
3. That, Adoration to Christ's Body as really present in the Eucharist is not denied, but only to any corporal Presence there. 

1. If so; the Adoration ought to have been expressed how due, as well as a Presence denied. §. 54.      
Opposite Protestant Testimonies produced from the same Authors afford us no relief: since to free them from contradicting, either these here cited for Real Presence must stand; or, those alleged for Zuinglianism in opposition to the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers. §. 55.      

Concerning the RUBRIC of the English LITURGY.  

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 purged, 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, enjoining kneeling at the receiving of the Communion, was the novo inserted into it.  
Whereas it is ordained in this Office of the Administration of the Lord's Supper, that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling, (which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers, and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue,) yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, either out of Ignorance and Infirmity, or out of Malice and Obstinacy, be misconstrued and depraved; it is here declared, that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood. For the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural Substances, and therefore may not be adored, (for that were Idolatry to be abhorred by all faithful Christians.) And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here; it being against the truth of Christ's natural Body, to be at one time in more places than one.  
There were also certain Articles of Religion composed under King Edward, about the same time as the second Common Prayer Book was. In one of which (the Article concerning the Lord's-Supper) is found this explicatory Paragraph.— For as much as the truth of Man's Nature requireth, that the Body of one and the self same Man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in one certain place; therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places: and because, as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the World; a faithful Man ought not either to believe, or to confess, the Real and Bodily Presence, as they term it, of Christ's Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.  
But in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign (who is observed by Dr. Heylin 
* Hist. of Q. Eliz. p. 124. , and others, to have been a zealous Propugner of the Real Presence) upon a second Review by her Divines of the same Common-Prayer Book it was thought meet, that this Declaration should be thrown out again, and so the Common-Prayer Books ever since have been cleared of it till the alterations therein made after the King's return in A. D. 1661. at which time it was reinserted.  
The same Q. Elizabeth's Divines, in their Review of these Articles also, as they cast the Declaration out of the Liturgy, so did they expunge this passage likewise, being of the same temper as the Declaration, out of the Article; which hath been omitted ever since.  
§. 2 Again; whereas King Edward's former Common-Prayer Book useth these words, (as they have descended from Antiquity) in delivering the Eucharist, [The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life,] the Composers of the second in the fifth year of that King's Reign, suitable to their Declaration, which denies any Real or Essential Presence of this Body in the Eucharist, thought fit to remove this Form, and put instead thereof only these words, [Take and eat this (left without any substantive) in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving,] leaving out these words also of the former Consecration-Prayer, [And with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ.]  
They omit also the Priest's touching or handling the Patin or Chalice in the Prayer of Consecration, required in the former Book, done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols: of which also Bucer saith 
* Censura p. 476. , Antichristianum est affirmare quidquam his elementis adesse Christi, extrausum praebitionis & receptionis. For the same reason it seems to be, that the Glory be to God on high, etc. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini, after the Sursum corda, the one is transferred till after the Communion; and the other omitted, differently from King Edward's first Form: likewise whereas it is said in the former Liturgy in the Prayer of Humble access,— Grant us so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his Blood in these holy mysteries; the 2d omits these words [in these holy mysteries.]  
But the Divines of Qu. Elizabeth in their Review, 
§. 3. n. 1.  as they nulled the Declaration in the Common-Prayer Book, and purged the 28th Article of the forementioned explication; so they thought fit to restore the former ejected Form in the administering of the Sacrament. [The Body of our Lord, etc. preserve thy body and soul,] putting after it the later Form,— [Take and eat this in remembrance, etc. 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, etc. that They may be unto us the Body, etc.] ordering (again) the Presbyter that officiates, to take the Patin and Chalice in his hands; and then takes quite away the words added in King Edward's second Form in the delivering of the Mysteries [Take and eat this, etc.] and instead thereof adds after the former words [The Body of our Lord, etc.] the People's Response [Amen,] according to the custom of Antiquity. (See Dionys. Alexandr. apud Euseb. Hist. 7. l. 8. c.— Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7 mi mensis.— Augustin. ad Orosium quaest. 49.) spoken as a Confession of their Faith, that they acknowledged that, which they received, to be Corpus Domini. [Of all which Laudensium Autocatacrisis heavily complains; observing— That in the Consecration-Prayer are restored the words of the Mass, whereby God is besought by his Omnipotent Spirit so to Sanctify the oblation of Bread and Wine, that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood. From which words (saith he) all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation. Wherefore the English Reformers [i. e. the latter in King Edward's days] scraped them out of their Books; but our Men put them fairly in. And good reason have they so to do. For long ago they professed that, about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration, they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists, except only about the formality and mode of Presence, [hear quoting Montague's Appeal, p. 289.]  
last; when the late Clergy A. D. 1661. being upon I know not what inducements, 
§. 3. n. 2.  solicited to receive the forementioned Declaration 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 canceled; 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 Rubric.  
§. 4 Having exhibited this general view of the Mutations, which have been made in this Church in several times (according as different Judgements had the power) somewhat waveringly, it see as, in the things relating to so great an Article of Faith; I think fit now more particularly to resume the consideration of the Declaration about Adoration. In which are contained these three Observables.  
1. That here the present Clergy do profess expressly, 
1. Observe.  that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, are not in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.  
§. 5 2. That they urge, for this Non-presence there, this reason or ground out of Natural Philosophy, 
2. Observe.  That it is against the truth of a Natural body, to be in more places than one at one time; here seeming to found their Faith in this matter on the truth of this position in Nature.  
§. 6 3. In consequence of these, they declare; that kneeling in receiving the Eucharist (so much excepted against by the Presbyterian) is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers, 
3. Observe.  and for the avoiding of such profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might otherwise ensue, but that hereby no adoration is intended, or aught to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood; where they either leave this undetermined, whether there be not another presence of Christ's flesh and blood, as real and true as is the corporal to which an adoration is at this time due: or else do determine as seems concludable from their former Proposition, [viz. That the natural Body of Christ is not there] that there is not any such real presence of the Body at all, and so no adoration due in any such respect.   

CHAP. II. Considerations on the first observable; The Natural Body and Blood of our Lord not present in the Eucharist.  
§. 7 NOW to represent to you, as clearly as I can, the doubts and difficulties, concerning all these three Observables in their order. As to the first of these; the Learned Protestant Writers seem to me, at least in their most usual expressions, to have heretofore delivered the contrary; viz. That the very substance of Christ's Body, that his natural Body, that that very body that was born of the B. Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, etc. is present, as in Heaven, so here in this Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy Receiver, or to the Symbols.  
§. 8 For which, First see Calvin, whose Doctrine amongst all the rest (the Roman, Lutheran, or Zuinglian) the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with, especially since the beginning of the Reformation of Q. Elizabeth. Thus therefore He, in 1 Cor. 11.24. [Take eat, this is my Body.] Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est & resurrexit, [Corpus ipsum in quo passus est, that is surely his natural Body.]— Again. Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 11. §.— Facti participes substantiae ejus, virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium commnnicatione. [Facti participes substantiae ejus, i. e. of his natural substance, for no other humane substance he had, spiritual or corporal, than that only, which was born of the B. Virgin, and that is his natural substance.]— and Ib. §. 19— His absurditatibus sublatis, quicquid ad exprimendam veram substantialemque Corporis ac sanguinis Domini Communicationem, quae sub sacris coenae symbolis fidelibus exhibetur, facere potest, libenter recipio.— Ibid. §. 16.— Of the Lutherans he saith:— Si ita sensum suum explicarent, dum panis porrigitur, annexam esse exhibitionem corporis, quia inseparabilis est a signo suo veritas, non valde pugnarem.  
§. 9 And, to strengthen further this assertion of Calvin, may be added the Confession of Beza, and others of the same sect, related by Hospinian, hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251.— Fatemur in Coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam, ipsam, inquam, veram carnem, & verum illum sanguinem, quem fudit pro nobis, non significari duntaxat, aut symbolice, typice, vel figurate proponi, tanquam absentis memoriam: sed vere ac certo repraesentari, exhiberi, & applicanda offerri, adjunctis symbolis minime nudis, sed quae (quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem & offerentem attinet) semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant, sive fidelibus, sive insidelibus proponantur. Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa i. e. verum corpus, & verus sanguis Domini, cum symbolis copulatur, dicimus esse Symbolicum, sive Sacramentalem: Sacramentalem autem modum vocamus, non qui sit figurativus duntaxat, sed qui vere & certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet, quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet & offered, nempe (quod paulo ante diximus) verum corpus & sanguinem Christi; ut appareat, nos ipsius corporis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam in Coena retinere & defendere; & si quid nobis cum vere piis & doctis fratribus controversiae est, non de re ipsa, sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat, qui soli Deo cognitus est, & a nobis creditur, disceptari. [Here they say, rem ipsam, i. e. verum corpus & verum sanguinem Domini cum symbolis copulari in Coena Domini, modum vero esse symbolicum, etc.]  
§. 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 rend with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no controversy, saving only about the subject, where Christ is:— nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this; but whether, when the Sacrament is Administered, 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 Judgement; Whether Christ's natural body was only in Heaven, or both in Heaven and also in the Eucharist. (for if otherwise) this so main a doubt that he ought not to have dissembled it.]  
— Again p. 360.— All three Opinions do thus far accord in one,— That these holy Mysteries, received in due manner, do instrumentally both make us partakers of the grace of that body and blood, which were given for the Life of the World; and besides also impart unto us, even in true and real, tho' mystical, manner, the very person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire.— and p. 359.— His body and his blood are in that very subject, whereunto they administer Life, not only by effect, or operation, even as the influence of the Heavens is in Plants, Beasts, Men, and in every thing which they quicken; but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of Union, which maketh us one with him, even as he and the Father are one.  
2. Thus Bishop Andrews in that much noted passage, 
§. 11. n. 1.  Resp. ad Apoll. Bell. 1. c. p. 11.— Quod Cardinalem non latet, nisi volentem & ultro, dixit Christus, Hoc est corpus meum; non, Hoc modo hoc est corpus meum. Nobis autem vobiscum de objecto convenit, de modo lis omnis est. De hoc est, fide firma tenemus, quod sit: de, hoc modo est (nempe transubstantiato in corpus pane) de modo, quo fiat, ut sit Per, sive In, sive Cum, sive Sub, sive Trans, nullum inibi verbum est. Et quia verbum nullum, merito a fide ablegamus procul: inter scita Scholae fortasse, inter Fidei articalos non, ponimus. Quod dixisse olim fertur Durandus, neutiquam nobis displicet, Verbum audimus, motum sentimus, modum nescimus, praesentiam credimus. Praesentiam, inquam, credimus, nec minus, quam vos, veram, De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus, addo, nec anxie inquiramus; non magis quam in baptismo nostro, quomodo abluat nos sanguis Christi: non magis quam in Christi incarnatione, quomodo naturae divinae humana in eandem hypostasin uniatur. Inter mysteria ducimus (& quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa) cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi, id est, ut eleganter in primis Patres, fide adorari, non ratione discuti.— Again, Ib. 8. c. p. 194. speaking of the Conjunction of Christ's Body with the symbols, he saith,— Ea nempe conjunctio est inter Sacramentum visibile, & rem Sacramenti invisibilem; quae inter humanitatem & divinitatem Christi, ubi nisi Eutychen s●pere vultis, humanitas in divinitatem non transubstantiatur.— And a little farther,— Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, 〈◊〉 & adorandum statuit. And— Nos vero in mysteriis carrem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio, etc. [Here is such a presence of Christ's flesh in the Eucharist acknowledged, as is to be adored; and this it seems no less the Bishop's Religion, than King James ' s.]  
Add to this, that passage in Is. Causabon 's Letter, 
§. 11. n. 2.  written by the King's command to Card. Perron; who, when the Cardinal would have joined issue with the King, for trying the verity of the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, in the King's name declines any such Controversy, and saying that the contest was not about rei veritatem, but only modum, returns this reply p. 50.— Miratur vero serenisimus Rex, cum fateatur tua illustris Dignitas, non 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quaerere vos, ut credatur Transubstantiatio, sed ut de praesentiae veritate ne dubitetur, Ecclesiam Anglicanam, quae toties id se credere publicis scriptis est testata, nec dum vobis fecisse satis: and then, for explication of the Doctrine of the English Church in this matter, recites the forementioned words of Bishop Andrews,— Quod Cardinalem non latet, etc.  
§. 12 3. Thus Bishop Hall in his Treatise De pace Ecclesiastica for reconciling the Calvinist and Lutheran (which Lutherans undoubtedly hold the same natural body of Christ that is in Heaven to be also in the Eucharist,) p. 78.— Res apud utrosque eadem, rei tantum ratio diversa. Tantulum dissidium falemur quidem non esse nullius momenti; tanti esse, ut tam necessariam orbi Christiano fratrum gratiam tam mirabiliter planeque divinitus coeuntem abrumpere debeat; id vero est, quod constantissime negamus. Neque nos soli sumus in ea sententia, Mitto Fratres Polonos, Germanos, nostrarum partium, etc. Then at last he brings in the decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton, in which the Lutherans are received to their communion, as agreeing with them in omnibus verae religionis principiis, articulisque fundamentalibus.  
§. 13 4. Thus Bishop Montague, Appeal p. 289.— Concerning this point of Real Presence, I say, that, if Men were disposed as they ought, to peace, there need be no difference: for the disagreement is only de modo praesentiae: the thing is yielded-to on either side, that there is in the Holy Eucharist a Real Presence. God forbidden, saith Bishop Bilson, we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present, and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's Table. It is the Doctrine that we teach others, and comfort ourselves withal. p. 779. Of true Subject: And the Reverend and Learned Answerer unto Bellarmine 's Apology, cometh home to the Faith (or Popery if you will) condemned in Mr. Montague, who learned it of him, and such as he is. Nobis vobis-cum de objecto convenit, etc.— [He, you see, represents the difference between parties in the same manner as Mr. Hooker; i. e. none as to the point of the presence of the same body here in the Eucharist, as it is at the same time above in Heaven.]  
§. 14 5. Thus Archbishop Lawd, Confer. with Fisher, §. 35. n. 3.— The worthy Receiver is, by his Faith, made spiritually partaker of the true and real body and blood of Christ, truly and really, and of all the benefits of his Passion. Yond Roman Catholics add a manner of this his presence (Transubstantiation) which many deny; and the Lutherans a manner (Consubstantiation) which more deny.— And upon [truly and really] he notes in the Margin Calvin 's saying in 1 Cor. 11.24. Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus, ipsum, in quo passus est & resurrexit.  
Ib. n. 7. Punct. 3. I hope A. C. dare not say, that to believe the true substantial presence of Christ is either known, or damnable Schism or Heresy. Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this, as do believe possibility of salvation in the Roman Church, etc. and Ib. n. 3. upon Bellarmin 's words— Conversionem Paris & Vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi esse substantialem, sed arcanam & ineffabilem, he saith; That if the Cardinal had left out Conversion, and affirmed only Christ's Real [by this he means Substantial, as also is affirmed by the Cardinal] presence there, after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner, no Man could have spoken better. And— §. 35.6. n. Punct. 4. quotes also Bishop Ridley 's Confession set down in Fox, p. 1598.) whose words are these:— You [the Transubstantialists] and I agree in this, that in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into Heaven, which sits on the right hand of God the Father, etc. only we differ in modo, in the way and manner of being there.  
§. 15 6. Thus Dr. Taylor, one of the last who hath written a just Treatise on this subject, 1. §. 11. n. p. 18. It is enquired whether, when we say we believe Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament, we mean that body, that flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, dead and buried? I answer: I know none else that he had, or hath; there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified: but he that saith that body is glorified, which was crucified, says it is the same body, but not after the same manner; and so it is in the Sacrament, we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth; for there is no other body, no other blood of Christ: but tho' it is the same we eat and drink, yet it is in another manner. And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fathers deny, that body which was born of the Virgin Mary, that was crucified, to be eaten in the Sacrament, as Bertram, as S. Hierom, as Clemens Alexandrinus expressly affirm; the meaning is easy, they intent that it is not eaten in a natural sense: and then calling Corpus spirituale, the word spirituale is not a substantial predication, but is an affirmation of the manner; tho' in disputation it be made the Predicate of a Proposition, and the opposite member of a Distinction. That Body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament, if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being; but that body which was crucified, the same body we do eat, if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating; and this I noted, that we may not be prejudiced by words, when the notion is certain and easy. And thus far is the sense of our Doctrine in this Article. [Here we see this Doctor becomes such a zealous advocate of this Cause, as to frame an answer to all such say in the Fathers, as may seem by the expression to import; as if the same body that was crucified were not eaten here by us in the Sacrament; and defends the contrary.]— Again §. 12. p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour, which flesh suffered for us, let them be Anathema. But quo modo is the question, etc. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence [his Book bearing this Title The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ, etc.] understood to be particular in nothing, but that it excludes the corporal and natural manner, [not spiritual presence therefore, so as to exclude Corpus Domini, but only the corporal or natural manner of that body:] now by exclusion of the natural manner is not meant (surely) the exclusion of nature, or of the thing itself, (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, Protestants saniores non dubitant. In sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis) adorandus est Christus vera latria, siquidem corpus ejus vivum & gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest, & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni, sed ipsi corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito, debetur & perfcitur.— And Ib. §. 8.— Immanis est rigidorum Protestantium error, qui negant Christum in Eucharistia esse adorandum, nisi adoratione interna & mentali, non autem externa aliquo ritu adorativo, ut in geniculatione aut aliquo alio consimili corporis situ; high fere omnes male de praesentia Christi Domini in Sacramento, miro sed vero modo praesentis, sentiunt.— Again 3. l. 1. c. §. 10.— Dicunt etiam saepissime sancti Patres in Euharistia offerri & sacrificari ipsum Christi Corpus, ut ex innumeris pene locis constat, sed non proprie & realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietatibus servatis; sed per commemorationem & repraesentationem ejus quod semel in unico illo sacrificio Crucis, quo alia omnia sacrifcia consummavit Christus summus Sacerdos noster, est peractum; & per piam supplicationem, qua Ecclesia ministri propter unici illius sacrificii perpetuam victimam, in Coelis ad dextram Patris assistentem, & 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 acknowledged, 1. Christi corpus in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesens. 2. Hoc corpus oblatum in Eucharistia ut sacrificium Deo Patri. 3. Ipsi corpori Christi ut praesenti in Eucharistia miraculo quodam ineffabili, immediate debita adoratio varae Latriae.]  
§. 17 8. Thus the Archbishop of Spalleto much-what to the same purpose, de Rep. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. 7. §. Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Christi, ille vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi, in se corporaliter, modo tamen quodam spirituali, miraculoso & impereeptibili sumit; omnis digne communicans adorare potest & debet corpus Christi quod recipit; non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub speciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis Sacramentalis, tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens.  
§. 18 8. And thus Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy, 3. l. 3. c. p. 17.— That which I have already said is enough to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements, as the Sacrament of the same, before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the Soul, which the eating and drinking Christ's Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth.— and Ib. 2. c. p. 10. when it follows, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's Body; unless a Man discern the Lord's Body where it is not, of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be, etc. and 3. l. 23. c. p. 225. he saith,— That anciently there was a reservation from Communion to Communion: and— that he who carried away the Body of our Lord to eat it at home, drinking the Blood at present, might reasonably be said to communicate in both kinds. Neither can (faith he) that Sacramental change which the Consecration works in the Elements be limited to the Instant of the Assembly: tho' it take effect only in order to that Communion, unto which the Church designeth that which it consecrateth.— and 3. l. 5. c. p. 44.— Having maintained that the Elements are really changed, from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament, and that in virtue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that receives; I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth: namely, that the Elements so consecrated are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them, etc.— and then p. 46. he farther collecteth thus.— And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in as much as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross,— is also both propitiatory and impetratory.— and 3. l. 30. c. p. 350.— I suppose (saith he) that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are, and must be adored by a good Christian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obliged to communicate with, requires it.— And p. 351.— Not to balk the freedom which hath carried me to publish all this; I do believe, that it was practised and done [i.e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eucharist] in the ancient Church, which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ, obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it: I know the consequence to be this, That there is no just cause why it should not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole. [Here is acknowledged, 1. Presently upon Consecration a presence of Christ's Body and Blood with, or in, the Elements, before any presence of them to the Soul by a living Faith; of which body becoming here present, the unworthy Receivers are said to be guilty, 1 Cor. 11.22. 2. A permanency of this Body and Blood with these Symbols in the reservation of them, after the assembly had communicated. 3. The Elements consecrated, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ is contained in them, affirmed to be truly the sacrifice on the Cross. 4. Adoration of this Body and Blood as so present, to be a duty, and anciently practised.]   

CHAP. III. Considerations on the second Observable, That a natural Body cannot be in many places at once.  
§. 19 THis I had to represent, and these witnesses to produce against the first Observable; the profession made in this Declaration, That the natural Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist. It were an easy task here to back the testimony of these Writers with those of the Fathers to the same purpose; but I conceive it needless, since the same Protestant Writers here cited urge the authority of Antiquity, as a chief inducement and motive of this their Assertion. Now then to consider the second, the urging for such Non-presence, this reason; because it is against the truth of a natural Body to be, or because a natural Body cannot truly be, in more places than one, at one time.  
1. Here also, first, I find Protestants, 
§. 20. n. 1.  and especially our English Divines generally to confess the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery, (which I conceive is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to, and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by, humane reason.) For this thus Calvin himself long ago, in the beginning of the Reformation, Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 24. §. Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior, vel naturae legibus subjicio.— Humanae rationi minime placebit [that which he affirms] penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit alimentum.— Dicimus Christumtam externo symbolo, quam spiritu suo ad nos descendere, ut vere substantia carnis suae animas nostras vivificet.— In his paucis verbis qui non sentit multa subesse miracula, plusquam stupidus est: quando nihil magis incredibile, quam res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas, in tanta locorum distantia, non tantum conjungi, sed uniri; ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi: [Nihil magis incredibile; therefore not this more incredible, that Idem Corpus potest esse in diversis locis simul.]— And §. 31.— Porro de modo siquis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat.— And §. 25. Captivas tenemus mentes nostras ne verbulo duntaxat obstrepere, ac humiliamus ne insurgere, audeant.— Nec vero nefas nobis esse ducimus, sanctae Virginis exemplo, in re ardua sciscitari, quomodo ●●ri possit? See more Ibid. §. 7. [Naturae legibus non subjicio,— humanae rationi minime placet,— quomodo fieri potest]— Surely these argue something in it seemingly contradictory to nature and humane reason.  
Thus King James of the Eucharist in his answer to Cardinal Perron by Causabon. 
§. 20. n. 2. — Mysterium istud magnum esse humano ingenio incomprehensibile, ac multo magis inenarrabile, Eccl. sia Anglicana fatetur & docet.  
And thus speaks Dr. Taylor in Real presence, 
§. 20. n. 3.  §. 11 n. 28. after that he had numbered 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 public amends: [all my arguments, i. e. of apparent Contradictions and absolute Impossibilities.] And n. 28. To this objection. That we believe the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the Incarnation, of our Saviour's being born of a pure Virgin, etc. clauso utero, and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies (in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions) notwithstanding seeming impossibilities; and therefore why not Transubstantiation? He answers, That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation, as of the other, than this Argument were good: and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation, [of which ten thousand then suppose that this be one, That Idem corpus non potest esse simul in duobus locis] yet we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all. [Now none can believe a thing true, upon what motive soever, which he first knows certainly to be false, or, which is all one, certainly to contradict. For these, we say, are not verifiable by divine power, and ergo here, I may say, should Divine Power declare a truth, it would transcend itself.]— Again, in Liberty of Prophecy, 20. §. 16. n. he saith, Those who believe the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School, and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church, believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation. Yet I suppose himself denies no such doctrine about the Trinity, that is commonly delivered in the Schools.  
§. 21 2. I conceive, that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a perfect contradiction, can no more be effected by divine power, than another, or than many other the like may: therefore if these men do admit once, that some seeming contradiction to reason may yet be verified in this Sacrament, for which they call it an ineffable mystery; I see not why they should deny, that this particular seeming contradiction, among the rest, of the same body being at the same time in several all places, yet by the divine power (I say not is, for the knowledge of this depends on Revelation, but) may be, so verified.  
§. 22 3. I cannot apprehend but that these Writers must hold this particular seeming contradiction, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; so long as they do affirm a real and substantial presence of the very Body of Christ to the worthy communicant here on earth, contradistinct to any such other real presence, as implies only a presence of Christ's Body in its virtue, efficacy, benefits, spirit, etc. which is the Zuinglian real presence. For suppose our Savitour's Body to be (as they will have it) only naturally or locally in heaven; yet if the substance, the essence, the reality of this Body (however stripped of its natural properties, all such as being not the very essence of it, are removable 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 ubis, 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 ubis, cannot reasonably deny, that a body may be so, in several places; or in one place, and in another ubi. I say then, that this Proposition, [That the same Body is at the same time in divers places,] or another equivalent to it, must be conceded to be true, so long as we affirm the essence of our Saviour's body to be here on Earth in the Eucharist at the same time, as it is also in Heaven; unless we defend one of these two things; either,  
§. 23 1. That this Body is both here and there by an incomprehensible continuation, as it were, thereof, (which sounds somewhat like the ubiquity of some Lutherans) for which see the words of Calvin quoted before, §. 8. Res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac remotas conjungi & uniri, etc. words ushered in by him with a nihil magis incredibile. [But then, as some seem thus to make Christ's Body that is in Heaven, by a certain prolonging or continuation incomprehensible (as their expressions seem to import) to be joined, 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 Vbi's, neither by its parts, since it hath none; nor by two totals, since in both it is but one: and suppose one foot of this body doth stand in the water, the other on the land; the same Soul being totally in both these feet, consequently, will be totally in the water, and totally not in the water, but on the land. And suppose again the two feet cut off from the body, and yet preserved still alive, i. e. the soul, that did before, still informing them per potentiam divinam, (which we see naturally done in many Infects:) the same Soul will be now, totally in the water, and totally on the land, without continuation (if I may so say) of itself. 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 itself. And why the same things may not be said of Bodies, when stripped of quantitative dimensions; or how far some properties of Spirits may be communicated to them, (salva essentia corporis) who can say? What our Saviour said to the Sadduces relucting to believe a revelation concerning the resurrection of the same numerical body, 
Matth. 22.29.  because involving in it very many seeming contradictions, Erratis, nescientes Scripturas, neque virtutem Dei, may as well be said in this great mystery of the Eucharist.]  
Or 2ly, 
§. 24. n. 1.  unless we will explain ourselves, that, by the essential, real, substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, me mean only the presence of the true and real effect, blessing, virtues, of this Body, (as Dr. Taylor sometimes seems to do,) but this is, after professing with the highest in our words, a relapsing into Zuinglianism in our sense. [I will set you down the Doctor's words, (Real Presence §. 11. n. 17.) where, after he hath said, That there is not in all School-Divinity, nor in the old Philosophy, nor in nature, any more than three natural proper ways of being in a place, circumscriptive, definitive, repletive, and that the Body of Christ is not in the Sacrament any of these three ways, (quoting Turrecremata for it) he replies thus to those Schoolmen, that rejecting these three ways, do say, that Christ's Body is in a fourth way, viz. Sacramentally in more places than one.— This, saith he, is very true; that is, that the Sacrament of Christ's body is [in more places than one]; and so is his Body [in more places than one] figuratively, tropically, representatively in being [or essence,] and really in effect and blessing. But this is not a natural real being in a place, but a relation to a person. Thus he. But if thus Christ's Body be held by us, as to its essence, only figuratively, tropically, and representatively in more places than one; and really in those places only in its effect and blessing, what will become of our— praesentiam non minus quam illi veram, (see before, §. 11.) if others hold the presence of Christ's very essence and substance in the Eucharist, we only the presence thereof its effect and blessing?  
Now as to the proper mode (which the Dr. here agitates) of Christ's Body being substantially in the Sacrament, whether it is circumscriptive, definitive, or some other way; it is true, that the Schoolmen do not all agree on one and the same. S. Thomas, Durand, and several others, deny the Body of Christ to be either circumscriptive, or definitive in this Sacrament, and proceed to affirm, That Idem Corpus non potest, per miraculum, or potentiam divinam, esse in pluribus locis simul, i. e. localiter, or, in the forementioned ways, Circumscriptively or Definitively.  
But you may note, 1. That they take circumscriptive, 
§. 24. n. 2.  and definitive, in such a sense, as that these two do exclude, not only such a bodies being, ubique, every where; but absolutely its being alibi, any where else; and that these modes of Presence would infer, That the same individual is divided from itself, (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 4um— and 3ª q. 76. Art. 5. where he saith, That that is circumscriptive in loco, quod nec excedit, nec exceditur.— And see Durand, his follower, in 4. sent. 44. d. q. 6. where he argueth very clearly thus:— Existentia unius corporis simul in pluribus locis implitat expresse contradictionem; quia illud quod est circumscriptive in distantibus locis, oporter quod sit distinctum distinctione locorum; quia quicquid est circumscriptive in loco aliquo, totum continetur ab ipso, it a quod nihil contenti est circumscriptive extra continentem. Propter quod illa quae sunt in distinctis locis circumscriptive, necessario distincla sunt; &, quia est contra rationem unius quod sit distinctum, ideo si unum corpus esset in pluribus locis circumscriptive, esset unum & non unum seu indistinctum; quod implicat contradictionem.  
2. That they put a third way of presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, real and true, and tho' not per modum quantitatis dimensive, 
§. 24. n. 3.  yet per modum substantiae 
* Aqui. n. 3.76. q. 3. art. , which they say is a mode proper to this Sacrament, and such as hinders not the same body at the same time to be alibi, elsewhere, and yet to remain, tho' it be elsewhere, indivisum in se: which the other Presences, in their acception of them, do hinder. Of which thing thus Durand contends 
* In 4 sent. 11. d. q. 1. , That Christ's Body is present in the Sacrament ratione solius praesentiae ad locum, not ratione continentiae either circumscriptive or definitive;— and that Quod est praesens loco hoc modo, potest esse simul praesens in pluribus locis; sicut Angelus, saith he, est praesens omnibus corporibus quae potest movere.  

§. 24. n. 4.  Meanwhile other Schoolmen and Controvertists take liberty to descent from these. See Scotus in 4. sent. didst 10. q. 2. and Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 3. c. and it seems not without reason. For, why should this their Substantial or Sacramental way (as real and true as any of the other) of Christ's Body being at the same time in Heaven and in the Eucharist, consist with this Body's remaining indivisum in se; more than the circumscriptive or definitive way, rightly understood, and freed of their limitations; or, why impose they such a notion on these two ways, that they must imply an exact adequation of the place and the placed, or exclude it from being at all any where else; any more than the other Substantial or Sacramental way (which they maintain) doth?  
Thus far I have stepped aside, to show, that the Doctor receive● 〈◊〉 advantage here, for the denying the Essential or Substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, from the difference in the Schools concerning the Mode thereof, whilst all of them agree both in such Substantial presence, and also in Transubstantiation.  
§. 25 Consequently to what hath been said I gather also, First, That if we do not take praesentia corporalis, or praesentia naturalis in such a sense as they imply the presence of some corporal or natural accidents or properties by divine power separable (as some are, the essence still preserved, and who knows exactly how many: in which respect Christ's Body is denied, as by the English, so by the Roman and Lutheran Churches, to be in the Eucharist modo corporeo, or naturali:) but take them as they imply the corporal or natural presence of the essence or substance of this Body; thus will Real or Essential Presence be the same with corporal and natural. And therefore these words [Real and essential presence] seem as truly denied to be in the Eucharist, by the first composers of the foresaid Declaration in the latter end of K. Edward's days, as the words [Corporal and Natural presence] are in this 2d. Edition thereof in A. D. 1661. I say the one, the essential or substantial, denied to be there, as much as the other, the natural: whenever this reason in both is added for it, viz. because, Idem corpus non potest esse simul in diversis locis. For this reason seems necessarily to exclude the one, as well as the other, the real and essential presence, as well as corporal and natural.  
§. 26 Indeed the present Rubric hath only these words, [That no adoration ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood,] whereas that in King Edward's time hath these, [That no adoration ought to be done unto any real and essential presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood,] the words Real and essential then, being now changed into Corporal; and this seems to be done with some caution for the present Church her maintaining still a real and essential presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist; whereas those in the later time of King Edward seem to have denied it. [For as the first days of this Prince seem to have been more addicted to Lutheranism, so the latter days to Zuinglianism; as appears in several expressions of Bishop Ridley, (see his last examination in Fox p. 1598. and his stating the first Question disputed at Oxford about the Real Presence,) and of Peter Martyr. 
* See Disput. Oxon. 1549. fol. 18, 67, & 88  When also this Question, An Corpus Christi realiter vel substantialiter adsit in Eucharistia, in Oxford, was held negatively; and when all those alterations were made in the Form of the Service of our Lord's Supper (mentioned before in the beginning of this Discourse) that might seem to favour any presence of Christ's Body in relation to the Symbols.] But here I say, if the words of the former Rubric, real and essential, were by the late Clergy changed into corporal on any such design, that so the real and essential presence might be still by them maintained; then I ask here, how can the same reason be still retained in their opinion thus altered? For, this reason, [that the same body cannot be at one in several places] as I have said, combats as well a real and essential presence, which they now would seem to allow, as a corporal, which they reject.  
§. 27 2. I infer; that let them express this essential or substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, still defended by them, how they please, by calling in Mystica, Spiritualis, Symbolica, Sacramentalis, or the like; yet if the presence of the Essence or Substance be still retained, they are eased no more thus, from maintaining, that Idem corpus potest esse in duobus locis (or ubi) simul, than any other party, which hold any grosser presence there. And therefore suppose, if you will, a body clothed with all its usual accidents of quantity and dimensions, and of quality (except you will number also this amongst them, to possess but one place, and except you will annex to circumscriptive or definitive the restrictions mentioned before §. 24. n. 2.) and it may no less (when such is the divine pleasure) be, thus, at the same time in many places, than when stripped of them: for the same seeming absurdities and contradictions follow, from an Angels, or Soul's being at the same time in two distinct definitive ubis; without any continuation (if I may so say) of its essence between these ubis; 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 objections that are made against plurality of places.  
For as Cardinal Bellarmin presseth well to this purpose: 
De Euchar. l. 3. c. 3. — Si quis objiciat aliam esse rationem corporum, aliam spirituum, is facile refelli potest. Nam ratio cur corpora non videantur posse esse in pluribus locis non tam est moles quam unitas.— Ideo autem non videtur posse esse, quia non potest divilli a seipso: & videtur necessario debere divilli ac distrahi a se, si ponatur in variis locis. Porro ista repugnantia quae sumitur ab unitate rei non minus invenitur in spiritu quam in corpore: utrumque enim est unum, & a se dividi non potest. Quare perinde est in hac quaestione sive de Corpore sive de Spiritu probetur, [and I add, sive de corpore essentiali, sive de naturali.] The like things he saith of a Sacramental presence, and not per occupationem loci; so this presence be real. Quae realis praesentia, saith he, in tot Altaribus & non in locis intermediis non minus tollere videtur indivisionem rei, quam repletio plurium locorum.  
§. 28 This being said from §. 22. That, in my apprehension either these our English Divines must affirm this Proposition of one body at the same time being in more places than one, or some other equivalent to it, to be true; or must cease to assert any real, essential, or substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, contradistinct to the Sense of the Zwinglians.  
4. In seems to me, that some of the more judicious amongst them heretofore have not laid so great weight on this Philosophical position, as wholly to support and regulate their faith in this matter by it, as it stands in opposition not only to nature's, but the divine power: because they pretend not any such certainly thereof; but that, if any divine revelation of the contrary can be showed, they profess a readiness to believe it.  
§. 29 See the quotations out of Dr. Taylor before § 20. n. 3. And thus Bishop White against Fisher p. 179. much-what to the same purpose.— We cannot grant (saith he) that one Individual body may be in many distant places at one and the same instant, until the Papist demonstrate the possibility hereof by testimony of Sacred Scripture, or the ancient Tradition of the Primitive Church, or by apparent reason. And p. 446.— We dispute not what God is able to effect by his absolute power, neither is this question of any use in the matter non in hand.— That God changeth the Ordinance which himself hath fixed, no divine testimony or revelation affirmeth or teacheth. There is a Twofold power in God, ordinata, and absoluta. One according to the order which himself hath fixed by his Word and Will, the other according to the infiniteness of his essence. Now according to the power measured and regulated by his Word and Will, all things are impossible which God will not have to be.— and p. 182.— Except God himself had expressly 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, etc. a Christian cannot be compelled to believe this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed upon the sole voice and authority of the Lateran or Tridentine Council. [But if they were certain of such contradiction, then are they certain that there neither is nor can be such contrary revelation; and when any revelation, tho' never so plain, is brought, they are bound to interpret it so, as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility.]  
§. 30 Again, thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 1. §. censures those other Protestants, who peremptorily maintain that there is such a real certain contradiction.— Admodum periculose & nimis audacter negant multi Protestants, Deum posse panem substantialiter in corpus Domini convertere, [which conversion involves the putting idem corpus simul in diversis locis.] Multa enim potest Deus omnipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum, imo & Angelorum. Id quidem quod implicet contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt omnes: sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat, quae sit uniuscujusque rei essentia, ac proinde quid implicet, & quid non implicet contradictionem; magnae profecto temeritatis est, propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem, Deo limites praescribere, & praefracte negare omnipotentia sua illum hoc vel illud facere posse: Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtenbergicorum in Confession sua, Anno 1552. Concilio Tridentino proposita, cap. de Eucharistia, (vide Harmon. Confess.) 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 show the moderation also of some foreign reformed Divines herein, tho' much opposing the Lutheran and Roman opinion. Zuinglius & Oecolampadius, (saith he) aliquoties, ut constat, concesserunt Luthero & illius sequacibus, ac proinde Romanensibus, (ut qui idem non minore contentione urgent in Transubstantiatione sua defendenda, quam illi in Consubstantiatione sua) Deum quidem hoc posse efficere, ut unum corpus sit indiversis locis; sed quod idem in Eucharistia fieret, & quod Deus id fieri vellet, id vero sibi probari postularunt. utinam hic pedem fixissent, nec ulterius progressi fuissent discipuli. In Coll. Malbrunnensi actione 8. Jacobo 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 pluribus in locis esse posse; hoc in controversiam non venit, sed an hoc velle Christum ex verbis ejus probari possit? Itaque hoc te velle existimavimus Christi corpus non tantum posse, sed etiam reipsa oportere in S. Coena praesens esse, etc. v. Urs. etc. p. 155. Idem Vrsinus Action. ead. p. 153. Conaberis etiam ostendere (alloquitur Jacobum Andream) elevari & imminui a nobis omnipotentiam Dei, cum dicamus Deum non posse facere, ut corpus in pluribus sit locis, aut ut Christi corpus per lapidem penetret [the like contradictions seeming to Vrsin to urge, both plurality of places to one Body, and plurality of Bodies to one place:] De quo responsum est, non semel nunquam quaesitum esse aut disputatum, an possit. Deus hoc aut illud efficere; sed hoc tantum, an ita velit.— See more in the Author. To which I may add S. Austin's saying, Cura pro mortuis, c. 16. Ista Quaestio vires intelligentiae meae vincit, quemadmodum opitulentur Martyres iis, quos per eos certum est adjuvari: utrum ipsi per seipso adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis & tanta inter se longinquitate discretis, etc. or whether this was done per Angelica ministeria usquequaque diffusa, show this Father believed no impossibility of a Martyr's being uno tempore in diversis locis.  
§. 31 And from this reason of their uncertainty of such contradiction, whether it is real in respect of the divine power, it seems to be, that the Convocation of the Clergy in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's days, both cast out of the 28 of the former Articles of Religion, made in the end of King Edward's Reign, these words following: [— Cum naturae humanae veritas requirat, ut unius ejusdemque hominis corpus in multis locis simul esse non possit, sed in uno aliquo & definito loco esse oporteat; idcirco Christi corpus in multis & diversis locis eodem tempore praesens esse non potest. Et quoniam, ut tradunt sacrae literae, Christus in coelum fuit sublatus, & ibi usque ad finem saeculi est permansurus, non debet quisquam fidelium carnis ejus & sanguinis realem praesentiam & corporalem (ut loquuntur) praesentiam in Eucharistia vel credere vel profiteri.] And also cast out this very Rubric or Declaration out of the then Common-prayer book; and also restored again the former Form in administering the Communion; [The Body of our Lord, etc. preserve thy body and soul,] and all this (saith Dr. Heylin) 
* Hist. Reform. Q. Eliz. p. 11.  lest under colour of rejecting a Carnal, they might be though also to deny such a Real presence, as was defended in the writings of the ancient Fathers.  
§. 32 And lastly, the late Clergy also in 1661., in that part of this received Rubric 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 unchanged the last expressions of the former Rubric, 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 justify as seeming a contradiction as that is of idem in pluribus locis simul; which they condemn. A contradiction, I say; for I cannot discern, how this [Christ's natural body is here, and is in Heaven, and yet but one body,] can be pronounced a contradiction: and this [Christ's natural body is not here, but only in Heaven, and yet this natural body is here most certainly received] can be pronounced none. For if this can be justified to be part of their Faith, that the natural body of Christ is not here in the Eucharist, but only in Heaven; yet this is another part thereof, (see the former Testimonies §. 8. etc.) that the natural body of Christ is here in the Eucharist received. It, the body that was born of the B. Virgin, not a grace only, not a spirit only, but it itself, for both Hoc est corpus meum, and the general Tradition of the ancient Church, seems to have necessitated these Divines to this expression, and— facti participes substantiae ejus virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione, saith Calvin, quoted before, §. 8.— Now if these things be so, than this expressing only is one part of their faith in this Rubric, viz. that the natural body is not here, and the not mentioning the other part with it, viz. that the naturul body notwithstanding is here received by every worthy Communicant, (it matters not after what manner received, so this manner deny not the presence of this body) seems at least to betray their Faith to a dangerous misconstruction, and to precipitate him, who hears such a confession, into Zuinglianism. But if we would express our whole and entire Faith here concerning this matter, it cannot be, but that he, who hears it, (observing that both Christ's body is here, for he really receives it; and not here, for it is only in Heaven; in that it is both within him, and at the same time many millions of miles from him, and yet cannot possibly be at two places at one;) will presently say with Calvin, 
* See before §. 20.  S. Virgins exemplo, Quomodo fieri possit?— &— Nihil magis incredibile,— and then I see not what they have to answer him, but— Mysterium,— Arcanum,— Miraculum,— Ineffabile. And then how can they urge others (as they do here) with contradictions and impossibilities, who go about to explain this ineffable mystery by Idem corpus in pluribus locis; and mean while maintain the like contradictions themselves, desiring to have their contradiction passed and currant; the others supporessed?  
§. 33 To express my disquisitions yet a little more fully, and to see if they can possibly find and evasion (without retiring to Zuinglianism) from those difficulties themselves, with which here they press others. If they say, that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist, but they mean not to the Elements, but to the Receiver; and that not to his Body, but to his Soul; yet if they affirm it as much, or as far present to the Soul, as others do to the sings, (as Mr. Hooker saith, they differ only about the subject, not the presence:) do not the same objections, absurdities, etc. (concerning Christ's being both really and essentially in Heaven, and in the place where the Communion is celebrated) with which they afflict others for making it present with the signs, return upon themselves, for making it present with the Receiver? For if it be possible, that the Body of Christ, now sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven, can, notwithstanding this, be present in our Soul, or in our Heart in such a place on Earth; so may it under, with, or instead of Bread in the same place; unless we say that they affirm not the real presence to the Soul, which the others do to the Bread. But the these writers must not say, that they differ only about the manner, or the subject of his Presence; but the Presence itself also.  
§. 34 If they say that Christ's Body is really or essentially present in the Eucharist; but they mean spiritually, not naturally, or not corporally; so say others, both Romainst and Lutheran; i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities accompanying (where is no supernatural effect) the nature or essence of a Body: but if they will extend spiritually so far as that it shall imply Christ's Body to be there really and essentially; yet not to be there quoad naturam or essentiam suam; or Christ's Body to be there, not quoad corpus; this is, by a distinction to destroy the thesis.  
§. 35 Again, if they say really and essentially there present, but not locally; so say the Lutheran, and Roman Doctors, i. e. circumscriptive, or by such commensuration to place, as bodies use to have in their natural condition: but if they will extend locally so far, as that they understand Christ's Body to be there by no manner of ubi at all, not so much as ubi definitive, or so that they may truly say 'tis hic, so, as not ubique, or not alibi, where no Communion is celebrated; what is this, but to affirm, 'tis there so, as that it is not at all there?  
§. 36 If they say really and essentially present, by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on Earth, as members to it in Heaven: besides that thus Christ's Body is no more present in the Eucharist, that in any other Ordinance or Sacrament, wherein the Spirit is conferred; such presence is properly of the Spirit, not of the Body; and advanceth us not beyond Zuinglianism.  
§. 37 But if at last they plainly interpret real and essential presence, by Christ's being present (in corporal absence) to the worthy Receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof; Thus also they slide back into Zuinglianism. Concerning which opinion the Remonstrants well discerning the difficulties, into which the affirming of a Real presence doth cast other Protestant parties, in the Apol. pro Confessione sua, p. 256. said; the Zuinglian opinion was, simplicissima, & ad idololatriam omnem evitandam in hac materia in primis necessaria,— & quae a Calvino & illius sequacibus dicuntur, manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem, tum absurditatem; & ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam, etc. And upon the same terms the Socinians reject Calvin's Doctrine; See Volkelius 4. l. 22. c. p. 316.— Tertius error eorum est, qui Christi corpus sanguinemque re-vera quidem in sacra coena a nobis comedi bibique existimant: verum non corporali, sed spirituali ratione hoc a nobis fieri affirmant. Cujus quidem opinionis falsitas vel hoc uno convincitur, quod non solum Christi verbis nequaquam continetur; sed etiam cum sanae mentis ratione pugnat: quae dictat, fieri non posse, ut Christi corpus tanto intervallo a nobis disjunctum in coena re-vera comedamus. Idcirco & ille ipse [Calvinus] qui sententiae istius author est, fatetur, se hoc mysterium nec ment percipere, nec lingua explicare posse.  
§. 38 I find also a late Writer replying on this manner to his Adversary W. H. urging, 
Roman Tradition examined, p. 12. — That some of the Learned'st of the English Clergy confess the Holly Eucharist, after Consecration, to be really and truly our Saviour's Body; and therefore adore it; and for this cause disown the New Rubric, which saith, Our Lord's Body is in Heaven, and not on the Altar; telling us, that they acknowledge the Thing, only dare not be so bold as the Romanists to determine the Manner, [a thing said by Bishop Andrews and others, in the former Testimonies.] I find him, I say, returning this answer, 1. To the Rubric.— That this new Rubric is but the old one restored; [where he might have done well to have considered by whom in was also ejected, before its late restorement in A. D. 1661. viz. by the English Clergy; and that within a year or two after it first appeared a New Additional in King Edward's second Common-Prayer Book.] 2. To the Persons.— If (saith he) you speak true of them, what regard should we have of the judgement of such Clergymen, as declare their assent and consent to all things contained in, and prescribed by, the Book of Common-Brayer, Prayer, and Articles of Religion; and yet disown the Rubric, and believe Transubstantiation, and adore the Eucharist as Christ's Body? Why do not you call such the Roman Clergy rather than the English, if they differ from you but only in a want of boldness to determine the Manner, whilst they acknowledge the Thing? What if a Bishop Bramhall will have the Pope to be Principium Unitatis, and take Grotius to be of the mind of the Church of England; (who would have Rome to be the Mistress-Church, and the Pope to be the Universal Governor, according to the Canons of Councils, even the Council of Trent;) must we therefore stoop to such men's judgements? Or might you not as well tell us, That Cassander or Militier, yea or Bellarmine, were of your mind? Thus he. But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body, or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary, in the Eucharist, and with the Symbols, tho' the manner not prescribed, doth Romanize this Clergy; Bishop Cousins is one of those number. 
* See the former Discourse concerning the Eucharist. § 5. n. 2. etc.  And it is much, that this person, having read his Book, (who also, which I much wonder at, makes this his own opinion of an Essential presence that of all Protestants) did not discern this; but hath in his Postscript recommended for the satisfaction of others, one so much differing from his own Judgement; who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop, in this manner. p. 14.— That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative; and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified, [which he denies to be flesh and blood,] but such as was truly flesh and blood, which he once offered; the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in, and by, the Eucharist. And p. 15.— That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood, [i. e. in the words, Hoc est Corpus meum,] when his real Body was not broken nor slain; nor his bloodshed, till after. And— I can scarce believe (saith he) that man, that saith he believeth, that they [the Apostles] believed, that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood. 
* p. 57 , to St. Cyril's words, [Do not look on it as bare bread, and bare wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ. For tho' thy sense suggects this to thee, yet let Faith confirm thee.] he answers, The Bread and Wine are not bare or mere Bread and Wine, but Christ's Body and Blood; as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass. In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood, and of his Sacrifice on the Cross, really given to us in the Eucharist; but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there; a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins.   

CHAP. IV. Considerations on the third Observation: No Adoration intended or due to any Corporal presence.  
THis from §. 19 I had to present concerning the second Observable in this Declaration; the reason given there, §. 39 Why the Natural Body of Christ is not in the Eucharist. I now proceed to the third Observable, where it is declared, That no Adoration is intended, or aught, to be done unto any Corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood.  
Where First, as I think, that all grant a kneeling and adoration both of soul and body due to God the Father and Son, for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgement of the benefits of Christ, given in this sacred Solemnity to all worthy receivers, as the Declaration hath it: so I suppose the present Clergy will grant, that if there were a Corporal presence of Christ's natural Body in this Holy Sacrament, then Kneeling and Adoration would be here due also upon such an account.  
2. Tho' the Corporal presence of Christ's Body, i. e. of its being there ad modum Corporis, §. 40 or clothed with the ordinary properties of a body, be denied; as it is not only by the English Divines, but by the Lutheran and Roman (see below §. 48.) yet let there be any other manner of Presence (known from divine Revelation) of the very same body and blood, and this is as real and essential (let it be called Spiritual, Mystical, or by what name you please) as if corporal; and then I do not see, but that Adoration will be no less due to it, thus, than so, present.  
3. And thirdly to show that the Church of England hath heretofore believed and affirmed such a Presence to which they thought Adoration due; §. 41 I must here also) set before you what I have met with in such writers of hers, as are of no mean account.  
Of this then first thus Bishop Andrews in answer to Bellarmine; §. 42 where, the Cardinal collecting from K. James' alleging the Adoration of the Sacrament in the Church of Rome for a Novelty, that the King disallowed adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento miro, sed vero modo praesentis, the learned Bishop (Resp. ad Apol. 8. c. p. 195.) goes on thus, Apage vero, Quis ei hoc dederit? Sacramenti, id est, Christi in Sacramento. Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res, in, & cum Sacramento, extra & sine Sacramento, ubi ubi est, adorandus est: Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere & adorandum statuit; rem scilicet Sacramenti, at non Sacramentum; terrenam scilicet partem, ut Iraeneus; visibilem, ut Augustinus. [Which Father the Bishop had quoted a little before, saying, Sacrificium Eucharistiae duobus confici, visibili elementorum specie, & invisibili Christi carne & sanguine; sicut Christi persona constat ex Deo & homine, cum ipse verus sit Deus, & verus homo.] Nos vero & in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio; & non id, sed eum qui super altare colitur. Male enim, quid ibi colatur, quaerit Cardinalis, cum quis, debuit; cum Nazianzenus eum dicat, non id. Nec carnem manducamus, quin adoremus prius, cum Augustino: & Sacramentum tamens nulli adoramus.  
§. 43 Again, thus Dr. Taylor in answer to that saying of Ambrose, [Adorate scabellum, etc. per scabellum, terra intelligitur, per terram caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis, (i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols) adoramus; & quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt.] We worship, etc. (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, Protestants saniores non dubitant. In sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis) adorandus est Christus vera latria; siquidem corpus ejus vivum & gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest: & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni; sed ipsi corpori Christi immediate, per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibita, debetur & perficitur.  
§. 45 Thus also the Archbishop of Spalleto, 7. l. 11. c. 7. §.— Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit Sacrementa corporis & sanguinis Christi, ille vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi, in se corporaliter, modo tamen quodam spirituali, miraculoso, & imperceptibili, sumit; omnis digne communicans adorare potest & debet corpus Christi quod recipit: non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub speciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis, tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens.  
§. 46 And lastly, thus Mr. Thorndyke argues for it, Epilogue. 3. l. 30. c. p. 350.— I suppose (saith he) that the body and blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are, and must be adored by a good Christian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obliged to communicate with, requires it.— This honour [i. e. of worshipping the body and blood of Christ] being the duty of an affirmative precept, (which according to the received rule, ties always, tho' it cannot tie a Man to do the duty always; because he then should do nothing else:) what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite, and presently to take hold and oblige? And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to express, by that bodily act of Adoration, that inward honour, which we always carry towards our Lord Christ as God?  
Now notwithstanding this, §. 47 whereas the late Declaration first saith, That adoration ought not to be done to any corporal presence of our Lord's natural Body, as in the Eucharist; and 2ly, That upon this reason, because the natural Body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist; and 3ly, That again upon this reason, because this Body being in Heaven cannot also be in the Eucharist; i. e. in more places than one at the same time: therefore it seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's Body as any way present in the Eucharist; contrary to the forecited Doctrine, and contrary to the Religion of King James and Bishop Andrews published to the world abroad. Or at least, in thus denying adoration due to a corporal presence, and then not declaring any other presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament that is adorable, when as such a presence they believe: it seems to betray the communicants to a greater miscarriage in their behaviour, as to such our Saviour's presence at the receiving of these dreadful Mysteries; and to abridge this duty of that extent in which it had formerly been recommended by this Church. This briefly on the third Observable.   

CHAP. V Some Replies to the former Discourse.  
TO conclude. Some Replies I can imagine to this former Discourse. Such as these. 1. To the first Observable abovesaid, §. 48 
The First Limitation; The Natural Body of our Lord not in the Eucharist modo naturali.  §. 4. viz. That the natural Body of our Lord is not in the Eucharist, that the meaning is, not, that it is not there in its essence, or substance at all; but only that the natural body, etc. 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, agreeing in it. [For, for the Roman thus speaks the Council of Trent, Sess. 13. 1. c.— Neque enim haec inter se pugnant, juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dextra●● Patris, & nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem Sacramentaliter, ea existendi ratione; quam, etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo cogitatione per sidem illustrata assequi possumus, etc. Thus Bellarmine de Euchar. 1 l. 2. c.— 3, 5. c. 10. c. and elsewhere in that Treatise.— Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco, vel ut in vase, aut sub aliquo velo, sed eo modo ut panis prius; sed non ita, ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi substantiae; non coexistere aut commensurari loco; non esse, ita ut habeat ordinem ullum ad corpora circumstantia; non esse sensibile, visibile, tangibile, extensum; non adesse mobiliter, extensive, corporaliter, [as well understand this word to exclude not naturam, but modum corporis.]  
And thus Dr. Holden, p. 316.— Verum & real 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 real. And as for the Lutheran I find this in the pacific Discourses of Bishop Morton, Bishop Hall, and Bishop Davenant (see the 11th. Chapter of his adhort. ad pacem Ecclesiae) sufficiently taken notice of, and urged for lessening the difference between the several parties of the Reformed.— Christum adesse signis, but invisibiliter, intangibiliter, spiritualiter, ineffabiliter, sacramentaliter, modo supernaturali, rationi humanae incomprehensibili, coelesti, Deo soli noto.— Again, (about oral manducation in this his presence with the signs)— Recipi quidem ore, sed participari modo divino, admirabili, inscrutabili; non atteri dentibus, non dividi, partiri, frangi: per substantialiter, corporaliter, oraliter, nihil aliud significari nisi veram manducationem; non physicum, non esse cibum corruptibilem, sed spiritualem; manducari a fidelibus, non ad corpus nutriendum, [i. e. materially,] sed ad animam sustentandam, etc. 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, etc. sed absque ulla coelorum desertione, sed supernaturalem, etc.  
But then, besides that the Proposition, carrying such a meaning, §. 49 had need to be altered in the expression (these two being very different, the natural body is not here, and the natural body is here, but not after a natural mode:) the Reason which follows, and is given to confirm it, hindereth me from thinking, that the present Clergy so understands it, viz. this Reason giveth, That Christ's natural Body is not there, because it is against the truth of Christ natural Body to be (which seems all one as if it said, Christ's natural Body cannot be) at one time in more places than one. But if they hold the natural Body to be there, as well as in Heaven; this its being there (tho' there modo non naturali) overthrows this Reason, by its being still in two places, the same time, in one, modo naturali; in the other, modo non naturali.  
To the 2d. Observable, the Reason given. It may be said also, §. 50 
The 2d. Limitation; A natural Body not in many places at one modo naturali.  That it is against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be modo naturali, or ad modum corporis naturalis, in more places than one at once; but yet that, modo non naturali, it might by the divine power be rendered in divers places at once: and therefore that this natural Body (absolutely speaking) is not denied to be also in the Eucharist, and not only in Heaven.  
1. But here also first, I do not see any truth in such a gloss, §. 51 for that which hath been said before, §. 27. For if (it not implying a true contradiction) God by his divine power can make the essence or substance of a Body to be in more places or ubi's than one at once; he can make all the same properties or qualities thereof to be so too. For I see not how there can be more difficulty or contradiction, to make one and the same quantity or quality to be in two places at once, than to make one and the same natural substance; nor why more, to make the same natural substance of a body to be circumscri●●● 〈◊〉 two places, than the same Angel definitive; both of these being finite, and having certain limits of their essence, out of which there essence naturally is not.  
2. Admitting this Gloss for true, §. 52 as also that made upon the first Observable, §. 48. yet I see not how these two assertion i● the Declaration (§. 45.) if they be thus understood, can afford any foundation for the 3d. assertion for which they are urged, viz. That no Adoration is due to Christ's natural Body as being in the Eucharist: which natural Body being granted by these glosses to be there, tho' not after a natural manner, yet can be no less, for this, an object of Adoration.  
§. 53 3. To the 3d. Observable concerning Adoration, it may be said; That Adoration to Christ's Body, 
The Third Limitation; Adoration not denied to Ch. Body as really and essentially, but only as corporally present.  as really and essentially present in the Eucharist, is not denied; but only as to any corporal presence of it there, (which seems also to be the cause, that the Revivers of this Rubric changed here the words of the former) [No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential] into [No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence.]  
1. Yet methinks here also first, they should have more clearly expressed this, to prevent such a misapprehension. 2. Adoration being granted due in one way, as not due in another; §. 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way, as not present in another: methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more, than the latter; and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus, according to the true meaning of those who received it; viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done, tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances, and therefore may not be adored; yet aught to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood: because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven, but also truly in the Eucharist; it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body, (if not after a natural manner, yet) in its true reality and essence, after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power, to be at one time in more places than one.  
§. 55 Lastly, in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here produced, perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Authors that seem to qualify these here set down, and better to suit with the expressions of this Declaration. But neither will this afford any relief. For to free them from a real contradiction, the sense of the others reduced to those here cited with leave all things in the same state; or else the sense of these accommodated to others will appear to abett no more than bare Zuinglianism, [i. e. an absolute non-presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, save only in its virtue, and effects, and the presence of his Spirit, etc.] and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers.   
FINIS.   

THE CATHOLICS DEFENCE, FOR THEIR ADORATION OF THE Body and Blood OF OUR LORD, As believed Really and Substantially present IN THE Holy SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST.  
At OXFORD Printed, Anno 1687.   

THESES of Adoration of the EUCHARIST.  
CONTENTS.  

1. PRotestant-Concessions. §. 1.  
2. Catholick-Assertions. § 1. 

Presuppositions. § 1. 

1. Of a Precept of giving Divine Worship to our Lord. § 1.  
2. Of our Lord's whole Person its being where his Body is. §. 2.  
3. Of this Divine Person being supremely adorable wherever his Body is: Granted by Protestants. §. 3. 

Not only in Virtue, but Substance. § 5.    
4. That this Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood is by Protestants affirmed in the Eucharist; and that this Body is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration. §. 5.  
5. Further affirmed; That Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant, but to the Symbols; and whilst present are to be adored. §. 7.  
6. Granted by Daille, That tho' he and his believe not Christ's Body present in the signs, yet they, for this, break not Communion with those that hold it. §. 8.    
Catholic Assertions. 

1. A Sign or Symbol to remain after Consecoration distinct from the thing signified. §. 9 

This external Sign to be all, that which is perceptible by the senses. of the Bread and Wine; tho' not their Substance. §. 10.    
2. The word Sacrament to be taken not always in the same sense, but sometimes for the Sign or Symbol; sometimes for the thing signified. §. 11.  
3. Catholics ground Adoration, not on Transubstantiation, (which, as also Consubstantiantion, involves it) but on Real Presence with the Symbols: maintaining Adoration due, tho' Christ's Body were present, neither under the Accidents of Bread (as Catholics say); nor under the Substance of Bread (as Lutherans say); but after some other unknown manner distinct from both. §. § ●7.  
4. Supposing (not granting 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bstantiation an error, yet if Corporal or Real Pres●●● 〈◊〉 by the Lutherans be true, Catholics plead their Adoration warrantable. §. 18.  
5. Supposing Real Presence an Error, and the Lutheran and Roman Church both mistaken; yet these latter, in such Adoration, as excusable from Idolatry, as the other. §. 19  
6. Supposing both the former Opinions Errors, and (indeed) no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all; yet such Adoration by the one, or the other of Christ (who is a true object of supreme Adoration, and only mistaken by them to be where he is not) cannot be termed such Idolatry, as is the professed worshipping of an Object not at all adorable. §. 21.  
7. Whatever Idolatry it is called in a Manichean worshipping Christ in the Sun, or in an Israelite worshipping God in the Calves at Dan and Bethel, because adoring a fancy of their own, (and a good intention grounded on a culpable ignorance excuseth none from Idolatry;) yet since Daille, and perhaps others, allows a reasonable (tho' mistaken) ground of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry; hence if Catholics can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist, tho' possibly mistaken in it, they are to be excused from Idolatry, on the same terms. §. 22. 

Catholics Grounds for their Belief. 

1. Divine Revelation. §. 24.  
2. The Declaration thereof by the supremest Church-Authority in Councils. §. 25.  
3. The Testimony of Primitive Times. §. 26.  
4. The Universal Doctrine and Practice of the later, both Eastern and Western Churches. §. 27.  
5. Protestant Concessions. §. 28.      
8. For these Grounds given by Catholics, Idolatry by many Protestants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome▪ §. 30.  
9 Catholics grant, That to adore what is believed to be Bread, or perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there, where the Worshipper believes he is not, is unlawful to be done by any whilst so persuaded. §. 33.        

CATHOLIC Theses, Concerning the ADORATION of Christ's Body and Blood IN THE EUCHARIST.  
§. 1 COncerning the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood, and so of his Divine Person, as present in the Eucharist, 1. I shall show, what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants. 2. Examine what Catholics maintain.  
1. I suppose a general precept of giving supreme and divine adoration to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: And, 
Suppositions.  that as Affirmative precepts (such as this is) do not oblige to every time, and place; so, if they are unlimited and general, they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place; nor is there any need of any particular divine command in respect of these (i. e. places and times,) without which command we may not obey them. [For, what absurdities would follow hence? For, Was our Saviour, when on Earth, never lawfully worshipped, but in place, or time, first commanded? Nor then, when he showed and presented himself to them for some other purpose, than for adoration? as to teach them, to suffer for them, etc. Might not the Magis worship him lying in the Cratch, divested of all appearance of Majesty, without a special command from God?] But it is sufficient to warrant our practice of them; if, in respect of such time, and place, there be no express prohibition.  
§. 2 2. I suppose; that, wherever the Body of our Lord is, there is his whole person; it being no more since his Resurrection to be a dead body, (for Christ dieth no more, Rom. 6.9.); but having the Soul joined with it: as likewise, ever since the Incarnation, having also its hypostasis or subsistence from the Divinity joined with it; even when it was in the Grave, and the Soul severed from it.  
§. 3 3. I suppose, it is a thing granted also by learned Protestants, That, where ever this Body of our Lord is present, there this Divine Person is supremely adorable: As the Divinity every where present is every where adorable, and may be so adored in the presence or before any of his Creatures; if such adoration be directed to him, not it, (as, when I see the Sun rising, I may lawfully fall down on my knees, and bless the Omnipotent Creator of it; and see 1 Cor. 14.24, 25.) may be, I say, but not, must: for where there is only such a general presence of the Divinity; as is in every time, place, and thing; here our Adoration may and must be dispensed with, as to some times, and places.  
None likewise can deny, That the Humanity of our Lord also, in a notion abstractive from the Divinity personally united to it, is truly adorable; tho' this with a worship not exceeding that due to a Creature.  
§. 4 [For the lawfulness of Adoration, where ever is such a presence of the person of our Lord, see Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. p. 195. Christus ipse Sacramenti res [sive] in & cum Sacramento, sive extra & sine Sacramento, ubiubi est, adorandus est.  
Thus also Dailié, 
Apol. des ●glis. Reform. c. 10.  Apol. des Eglis. Reform. c. 10. who, in pitching especially on this point, Adoration of the Eucharist, as hindering the Protestants longer stay in the Roman Communion, hath in this Discourse, and in two Replies to Chaumont made afterward in defence of it, discussed it more particularly than many others) in answer to S. Ambrose and S. Austin their adoring the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries.— The Humanity of Jesus Christ (saith he) personally united to the Divinity, is by consequence truly and properly adorable. And again: They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament; which is the thing we agree to. And ibid. p. 29. We do willingly adore Jesus Christ, who is present in the Sacrament, namely by Faith in the heart of the Communicants, etc. And see Dr. Stillingfleet in his Roman. Idol. c. 2. p. 114.— The Question (saith he) between us, is not whether the person of Christ is to be worshipped with Divine worship, for that we freely acknowledge. And altho' the humane nature of Christ, of itself, can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration [he must mean, Divine]: yet being considered as united to the Divine Nature, that cannot hinder, the same Divine worship being given to his Person, which belongs to his Divine Nature; any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him. Tho' how well that which he saith before, ibid. §. 2. (as it seems against worshipping Christ supposed present in the Eucharist, without a special command to do it) consists with what he saith here, and with what follows, let him look to it.]  
4. It is affirmed by many Protestants, 
§. 5. n. 1.  especially those of the Church of England, that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present, not only in virtue, but in substance in the Eucharist, either with the Symbols immediately upon the Consecration; or at least so, as to be received in the Eucharist, together with the Symbols, by every worthy Communicant: and that this Body and Blood of our Lord, which is not severed from his Person, is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration.  
[See 1. for a substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, (I mean at least to the worthy Receiver, contradistinct to a Presence by effect only, Influence, Virtue, Grace, or the Holy Spirit, uniting us to Christ's Body in Heaven) Dr. Tailor of Real Presence, p. 12. When the word Real (saith he) is denied [i. e. by Protestants, as it was in King Edward's time] the word Real is taken for Natural, [i. e. as he explains it p. 5. including not only the nature of the Body, for that is the substance; but the corporal and natural manner of its existence: he goes on,] But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question, which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent; Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantia sua nobis adest; in substance, but after a Sacramental manner. See the Confession of Beza, and the French Protestants (related by Hosp. Hist. Sacram. part. ult. p. 251..) Fatemur in coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam, ipsam, inquam, veram carnem & verum illum sanguinem, quem fudit pro nobis, non significari duntaxat, aut symbolice, typice, vel figurate proponi tanquam absentis memoriam; sed vere ac certo repraesentari, exhiberi, & applicanda offerri, adjunctis symbolis minime nudis, sed quae (quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem & offerentem attinet) semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant; sive fidelibus, sive infidelibus proponantur.  
Again, Beza Epist 68 speaking against Alemannus, and some others, who opposed a substantial presence; Volunt (saith he) ex-Gallica Confession [Art. 36.] & Liturgia [Catech. Din. 53.] ex pungi substantiae vocem, idcirco de industria passim a Calvino & a me usurpatam, ut eorum calumniae occarreremus, qui nos clamitant pro re Sacramenti non ipsum Christum, sed ejus duntaxat dona & energiam, ponere. And Epist. 5. he argues thus against the same Alemannus.— Velim igitur te imprimis intueri Christi verba; Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis traditur, & Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis funditur.— Age pro his vocibus Corpus & Sanguis, dicamus, Hoc est efficacia mortis meae, quae pro vobis traditur; Hic est Spiritus meus qui pro vobis effunditur: Quid ineptius est hac oratione? Nam certe verba illa, Quod pro vobis traditur, & Qui pro vobis funditur, necessario huc te adigunt, ut de ipsamet Corporis & Sanguinis substantia hoc intelligere cogaris.  
See Hooker, Eccles. Pol. 5. l. 67. §. p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rend with so manifold contentions▪ when there remaineth now no Controversy, saving only about the subject where Christ is?— Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this, but whether, when the Sacrament is administered, Christ be whole within Man only; or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves? [But a great Controversy surely there would be beside this, if the one party held Christ's Body substantially, and the other virtually present.] Again, p. 360.— All three opinions do thus far accord in one, etc. That these holy mysteries, received in due manner, do instrumentally both make us partakers of that body, and blood, which were given for the life of the World; and besides also impart unto us, even in true and real, tho' mystical, manner, the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire.  
Thus also Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. Bell, 1. cap. p. 11. Nobis vobiscum de Objecto convenit, de modo lis omnis est. [But there would be a lis concerning the Object, if one affirmed the substance of the body there, the other only the virtue, or efficacy.]  
See Bishop Cousins his late Historia Transubstantiationis, 
§. 5. n. 2.  tit. cap. 2. Protestantium omnium consensus de real, id est, vera, (sed non carnali) Praesentia Christi in Eucharistia manifest constat. And in proof of this p. 10. he quotes Poinet Bishop of Winchester, his Dialacticon de veritate, natura, atque substantia Corporis & Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia; Quoth (saith he) non alio consilio edidit, quam ut fidem & doctrinam Ecclesiae Anglicanae illustraret. Et primo ostendit Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini; sed etiam ipsam veritatem, naturam, atque substantiam in se comprehendere; idcirco nec has voces Naturae & Substantiae fugiendas esse; Veteres enim de hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse. Secundo quaerit, an voces illae, Veritas, Natura, & Substantia, communi more in hoc mysterio a veteribus intelligebantur; an peculiari & Sacramentis magis accommodata ratione? Neque enim observandum esse solum, quibus verbis olim Patres usi sunt, sed quid istis significare ac docere voluerint. Et licet discrimen ipse cum Patribus agnoscat, inter Corpus Christi formam humani corporis naturalem habens, & quoth in Sacramento est Corpus mysticum; maluit tamen discrimen illud ad modum praesentiae & exhibitionis, quam ad ipsam rem, hoc est, Corpus Christi verum accommodari; cum certissimum sit, non aliud Corpus in Sacramento fidelibus dari, nisi quod a Christo pro sidelium salute in mortem traditum fuit. Thus he, justifying Poinet's expressions speaking in the language of the Fathers. p. 43.— Non dicimus (saith he) in hac sacra Coena nos tantum esse participes fructus mortis, & passionis Christi; sed fundum ipsum cum fructibus, qui ab ipso ad nos redeant, conjungimus; asserentes cum Apostolo, 1 Cor. 10.16. Panem quam frangimus esse sCorporis Christi, & Poculum Sanguinis ejus communicationem; imo in eadem illa substantia, quam accepit in utero Virgins, & quam sursum in coelos invexit; in hoc tantum a Pontificiis dissidentes, quod illi manducationem hanc & conjunctionem, corporaliter fieri credunt; nos non naturali aliqua ratione, aut modo corporali; sed tamen tam vere, quam si naturaliter aut corporaliter Christo conjungeremur. [Here I understand his non modo corporali not to exclude Corpus Domini, or non ratione naturali to excude natura rei, or the thing itself; but only to signify, that the Body is present, not after a corporal manner, or with the dimensions and other common qualities of a Body; which thing indeed Catholics also affirm.]  
He seems also to grant, 
§. 5. n. 3.  this substantial Presence to be with the Symbols, after Consecration, on the Table, and before communicating. For p. 65. for this he quotes the Conc. Nicaen. Sublata in altum ment per fidem consideremus, proponi in sacra illa mensa Agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi. And p. 43.— Quoniam (saith he) res significata nobis offertur & exhibetur tam vere quam signa ipsa: ea ratione signorum cum Corpore & Sanguine Domini conjunctionem agnoscimus; & mutata esse elementa dicimus in usum alium ab eo quem prius habuerunt. [i. e. to be now conjoined with, and to exhibit to us this Body of our Lord: which conjunction, he saith p. 45. is made per omnipotentiam Dei.] So he saith ibid.— Non quaeritur, An Corpus Christi a Sacramento suo, juxta mandatum ejus instituto ac usurpato, absit; quod nos Protestants & Reformati nequaquam dicimus aut credimus. Nam cum ibi detur & sumatur, omnino oportet ut adsit; licet Sacramento suo quasi contectum sit, & ibi, ut in se est, conspici nequeat. And p. 125.— Fieri enim (saith he) de Elemento Sacramentum [which surely is done in the Consecration] nec consistere Sacramentum sine Re Sacramenti, firmiter tenent. And this conjunctio Corporis Christi, p. 35. he affirms to be made in receiving the Sacrament, not only cum anima, sedetiam cum corpore nostro.  
Lastly, 
§. 5. n. 4.  the modus of this true Presence of the Body of our Lord with the Signs or Symbols in the Sacrament, when as it remains in Heaven till our Lord's second coming, he makes, as others, to be ineffabilis, imperscrutabilis, non ratione inquirendus aut indagandus. p. 36.— Nos vero hunc modum [praesentiae Christi in Eucharistia] fatemur cum Patribus esse ineffabilem, atque imperscrutabilem, hoc est, non ratione inquirendum, aut indagandum; sed sola fide credendum. Etsi enim videtur incredibile in tanta locorum distantiapenetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit in cibum; meminisse tamen oportet, quantum supra sensus nostros emineat Spiritus Sancti virtus, & quam stultum sit ejus immensitatem modo nostro metiri velle. Quod ergo mens nostra non comprehendit, concipiat fides. [The like to which esse ineffabilem, & supra sensus, Catholics say of the same presence of our Lord in the Eucharist in tanta locorum distantia, whilst also at the very same time it is in Heaven.] And thus Lanfrank long ago in his answer to Berengarius, (who contended that Christi Corpus coelo devocari non poterit,) quoting the words of St. Andrew a little before his Passion:— Cum vero in terris carnes ejus sunt comestae, & vere sanguis ejus sit bibitus; ipse tamen usque in tempora restitutionis omnium in coelestibus ad dextram Patris integer semper perseverat & vivat. Si quaeris (saith he) modum quo id fieri possit; breviter ad praesens respondeo, Mysterium est fidei: credi salubriter potest, vestigari utiliter non potest. See also the Gallican Confession, produced by this Bishop, p. 23. where they say, Christus in coelis mansurus donec veniat; and yet nutriens & vivifica●s nos Corporis & Sanguinis sui substantia, [i. e. in the Sacrament:] that Hoc mysterium nostr●e cum Christo coalitionis tam sublime est, ut omnes nostros sensus, totumque adeo ordinem naturae superat. In all these then doth not the incomprehensibility and supernaturality of this Mystery lie in this, that the one Body of our Lord should be at once in two places, viz. present at the same time in Heaven, and to us here in the Sacrament? And yet this Bishop seems to find some trouble in it, to make any other unexplicable or unintelligible mystery in the Catholics Transubstantiation, save only this. See p. 122. For the ceasing of the substance of the Elements by God's Omnipotency he allows very feisible; and then the Adduction of Christ's Body (pre-existent) in the place of their substance, labours under no other difficulty, save this, this Body its being at once in two places, here and in Heaven: nor, having twice 
* p. 122. & p. 125.  mentioned such a Sacramental Presence of our Lord, hath he replied any thing against it, but that thus the term of Transubstantiation is not rightly applied to such an Adduction; which is a Logomachy. But this seems the difficulty and incomprehensibility that Protestants also confess in their Sacramental Presence of our Lord in tanta locorum distantia pascentis nos in Eucharistia vera Corporis sui praesentia & substantia.  
Lastly, after this Bishop, with others, 
§. 5. n. 5.  hath so far conformed to the Expressions and Language of the Fathers, as to allow an Essential or Substantial presence of Christ's Body, it seems he finds some of these Expressions also so far to advance toward a Substantial transmutation of the Elements, as that he saith, p. 113.— Non abnuimus, nonnulla apud Chrysostomum aliosque Patres inveniri, quae emphatice, immo vero Hyperbolice de Eucharistia prolata sunt▪ Et quae, nisi dextre capiantur, incautos homines facile in errores abducent. And below: Sanctissimi Patres quo haec auditorum animis vehementius & efficacies imprimerent, de Typis, tanquam si essent ipsa Antitypa, Oratorum more multa enunciant. And again, p. 117. Si verba [i. e. of some of the Fathers] nimis rigide urgeantur absque intellectu Sacramentali; nihil aliud ex iis colligi potest, quam Panem & Vinum proprie & realiter ipsum Christi Corpus & Sanguinem esse; quod ne ipsi quidem Transubstantiatores admittunt. Where he granting the expressions of some of the Fathers so high as to transcend the Assertions of Catholics, or Transubstantiators; whose Assertions again transcend those of Protestants in this Mystery: it seems not reasonable, that he should after this depress and extenuate their meanings, to counteance and comply rather with that Opinion that is farther distant from their expressions. Neither will the same Father's calling, in other places, the Elements Symbols and Signs of Christ's Body, (as he pleadeth p. 116.) afford him that relief he seeks for from it. For since the Catholics, as well as Protestants, do firmly maintain and profess an external Symbol, as well as the thing signified in the Eucharist, viz. all that is perceived by our senses, and that is visible, gustable, or tangible, of the Elements; as the Protestants contend this Symbol to be not only these, but the very Substance and nature of the Elements also: here it will be found that these sentences of the Fathers do suffer much less force and torture, if understood according to the Symbol supposed by Catholics, than that by Protestants. For example, the Bishop 
* p. 120.  hath mentioned that passage of the ancient Author de Coena Domini in S. Cyprian's Works: the words are these;— Panis iste quem Dominus discip●lis porrigebat, non effigie sed natura mutatus, Omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro: & sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat, & latebat Divinitas; ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se effudit essentia. Here, I say, if the Sacramentum visibile, and the external Symbol be taken in this Bishop's way, for substantia or natura panis, all is extremely forced, and confounded; and so he is driven to expound it, that by mutatio naturae panis is meant only mutatio usus 
* p. 120.  the change of which use of the Bread also seems no object of God's Omnipotence. But the Symbol or Sacrament being taken for such as the Catholics make it, viz. for the external Effigies or Sensibles of the Bread, all is good sense and coherent, and nothing strained: and the Omnipotentia Verbi rightly applied to the mutatio naturae panis: as God's Omnipotency may be observed in the Fathers to be frequently urged, not only in relation to the presence of our Lord's Body and Blood there, but also to the transmutation of the Elements there, whilst the exteriors of them still remain. But now in the last place, supposing the natura panis to remain, which the Father saith is changed, yet so long as these Divines maintain according to the Doctrine of the Fathers a substantial presence of our Lord's Body in the Eucharist, and that with the Symbols (as he saith p. 45. Sacramento suo quasi contectum); tho' they will not admit such a Symbol as the Catholics, and a Transubstantiation of the Elements: yet they must (if complying with the Fathers) at least confess some kind of Consubstantiation or conjunction of the substances of Christ's Body and of the Elements in the Eucharist; to which opinion the say of the Fathers constrained Luther, as he often professeth. Mean while if it be asked, why such a Consubstantiation is declined by Catholics? their answer is ready; viz. because the greatest Councils that have been held successively in the Church-Catholick, upon and since the agitation of this controversy, have frequently and constantly stated and delivered, That the Scriptures, as understood and expounded by the Fathers and Church-Tradition, declare a Transubstantiation; in the Judgements of which Councils Catholics hold it their Duty to acquiesce. This of a Substantial Presence asserted by Protestants.  
2. Next, 
§. 6. n. 1.  for Adoration too of this Body, as there present either with the Symbols upon their Consecration, or at least to all worthy receivers, see the same Bishop Andrews, ib. c. 8. p. 195; where to what Bellarmin hath said, Inter novitia & nupera dogmata ponit Adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistae, i. e. adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento, miro, sed vero modo praesentis, he answers thus: Sacramenti ait, id est, Christi Domini in Sacramento. Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere & adorandum statuit, rem scil. Sacramenti; at non Sacramentum. And— Nos vero & in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus, cum Ambrosio; & non id [i. e. Sacramentum] sed eum, qui super altare colitur, [i. e. Christum rem Sacramenti.] And is not this res Sacramenti worshipped as upon the Altar too with the Symbols there?  
Since him, Bishop Bramhal to the Bishop of Chalcedon, 
* Rep. to Chalced. 2. c. p. 57  ask, how the Protestants could profess to agree in all essentials of Religion with the Roman Church, which they held to be an idolatrous Church, i. e. in worshipping the Sacrament as their God? thus replies: The Sacrament is to be adored, said the Council of Trent: The Sacrament, i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ, say some of your Authors, [where he quotes Bellarmin de Sacramento, 4. l. 29. c.] we say the same. [So Cardinal Bellarmin and Bishop Bramhal are agreed about this Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist.] The Sacrament, i. e. the species of Bread and Wine, say others: that we deny, and esteem it to be idolatrous. Should we charge the whole Church with Idolatry for the Error of a party?  
The same concession with the same distinction makes the French-Protestant Divine Daille, 
§. 6. n. 2.  in his second Reply to Chaumont, p. 29. There is a vast difference between to adore the Sacrament, and to adore Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, or in the Mysteries.— The later of these we freely do, since we believe him God blessed for ever together with the Father. And afterward, in answer to the Fathers: They speak (saith he) of the Flesh of Jesus Christ in the Mysteries, (of which we do not contest the Adoration) and not of the Eucharist. And again: They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, which is the thing we agree to. And in his Apology, Changed— p— he saith concerning the Body of Christ if in the Sacrament, That it is evident, that one may, and that one ought to worship it; seeing that the Body of Christ is a subject adoreable. And Chap. 10. he grants upon Adorate scabellum,— That the faithful cast down themselves before the Ark to adore the Lord there, where the Divine Service was particularly joined to the place where the Ark was. Dr. Taylor saith 
* Real presence §. 13. n. 5. ,— Concerning the action of Adoration, it is a fit address in the day of Solemnity with a sursum corda, with our hearts lift up to Heaven, where Christ sits (we are sure) at the right hand of the Father. For, nemo digne manducat, nisi prius adoraverit, etc. [which, rightly understood, means illud quod manducat.] Here the Doctor allows adoring in the the Sacrament Christ as in Heaven. But if Christ's Body (and so himself in a special manner) be substantially present in the Eucharist, here on Earth; why not adore him, not only as in Heaven, but as present here? See elsewhere, Real Pres. p. 144. where he saith, We worship the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our Souls.  
See Spalatensis de rep. Eccles. l. 7. c. 11. §. 7. etc.— Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis & sanguinis Christi, 
§. 6. n. 3.  ille vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi, in se corporaliter, modo tamen quodam spirituali, miraculoso, & imperceptibili, sumit; omnis digne communicans adorare potest & debet corpus Christi quod recipit. [Is then the worthy Communicant to worship, but not the unworthy; because Christ's Body is there present to the one, but not to the other?] Non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub speciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis, tuncetiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus real, illi communioni realiter praes●ns. Thus Spalatensis.  
And so Bishop Forbes, de Euchar. 2. l. 2. c. 9 §.— An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus, Protestants saniores non dubitant. In sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis) adorandus est Christus vera latria, siquidem corpus ejus vivum, ac gloriosum, miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest; & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni, sed ipsi Corpori immediate, per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito, debetur, & perficitur. [Thus then Protestants allow Adoration to Christ's Body and Blood, as substantially present in the Eucharist, if not to the Symbols, yet to die worthy receiver.]  
§. 7 5ly. Yet further; It is affirmed by another party of Protestants, the Lutherans, more expressly, that Christ's body and blood are present, not only to the worthy Communicant, but to the consecrated Symbols; and whilst so present, which is during the action of the Lord's Supper, (i. e. as I conceive them, from the Consecration till the end of the Communion) are to be adored.  
[Of which thus Chemnitius, Exam. Conc. Trid. part. 2. sess. 13. c. 5. Deum & Hominem in Divina & humana natura, in actione Coenae Dominicae, vere & substantialiter praesentem, in spiritu & veritate adorandum, nemo negat; nisi qui cum Sacramentariis vel negat, vel dubitat de praesentia Christi in coena. Ibid.— Et quidem humanam etiam ejus naturam, propter unionem cum Divinitate, esse adorandam, nemo nisi Nestorianus in dubium vocat.— Ita Jacob Gen. 28. Moses Exod. 34. Elias 3 Reg. 19 non habebant sane peculiare mandatum, ut in illis locis Deum adorarent: sed quia habebant generale mandatum ut Deum ubique adorarent, & certi erant Deum sub externis & visibilibus illis symbolis vere adesse, & peculiari modo gratiae se ibi patefacere; certe Deum ipsum, quem ibi presentem esse credebant, adorabant. Nec vero Deum illi procul in coelo Empyraeo a se remotum & absentem, sed vere praesentem, & quidem peculiari modo gratiae praesentem, adorarunt.— Thus he. Nor do I know, that the Calvinists have at any time accused their brethren the Lutherans of Idolatry in such a practice. I find also Mr. Thorndike in the like manner clearly maintaining, 1. A presence of Christ's Body with the symbols, immediately upon Consecration: and, 2. An Adoration due to it. See the former, in Epilog. l. 3. c. 2. and, 3. where p. 17. I have said enough (saith he) to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the Elements, as the Sacrament of the same, before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the soul, which the eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood spiritually by living Faith importeth. And see the latter, ib. c. 30. p. 350.— I suppose (saith he) that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored wherever they are; and must be adored by a good Christian, where the custom of the Church, which a Christian is obliged to communicate with, requires it.— This honour [i. e. of worshipping the Body and Blood of Christ] being the duty of an affirmative precept, (which, according to the received rule, ties always; tho' it cannot tie a Man to do the duty always, because he then should do nothing else:) what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite, and presently to take hold and oblige? And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to express by the bodily act of Adoration, that inward honour, which we always carry toward our Lord Christ as God?— Again p. 351. Not to balk that freedom (saith he) which hath carried me to publish all this: I do believe that it was so practised and done [i. e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eucharist] in the ancient Church, and in the symbols before receiving; which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ, obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it. I know the consequence to be this, That there is no just cause why it should not be done at present, but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole: which, were it taken away, that it [this adoration] might be done again, and ought not to be, of itself alone, any cause of Distance [i. e. between the Churches of Christ.]  
6. It is granted by Daille in his Apology, c. 11. and in his defence of it against Chaumont, 1. That altho' the Reformed of his party, do not believe the presence of Christ's body in the Signs, yet they esteem not the belief of it so criminal, that it obligeth them to break off communion with all those that hold it. So that, had the Roman Church no other error, save this, they freely confess, it had given them no sufficient cause of separating from it: as (saith he) appears in this, that we tolerate and bear with it in the Lutherans. And again, 
* Reply to Chaumont, p. 63.  for the adoration of this Body as so present with the signs, (when indeed it is not so,) he saith,— That it is only vain and unprofitable, and that, as one may say, falls to nothing; being deceived not in this, that it makes its addresses to an object not adorable; but in this only, that mistaking it, it seeks it, and thinks to embrace it there where it is not. And c. 12. he also freely confesseth, That had the Church of Rome only obliged them to worship Jesus Christ in the Sacrament, and not used this expression, that the service of Latria ought to be rendered to the Holy Sacrament: 
* Conc. Trid. sess. 13.5.  she had not obliged them by this to adore any Creature. Thus he, as it were constrained thereto by the Lutherans Protestant's Opinion and Practice, for his retaining their Communion, and freeing them from Idolatry. 2. It is granted also, Apol. c. 11.— That when our Lord was on Earth, a Disciple's giving divine honours, upon mistake, to another person much resembling him, would be no Idolatry. So, supposing the Consecrated Host were truly adorable, granted, that should any one see one on the Altar, that happened not to be Consecrated, and Worship it, neither would such a person be guilty of Idolatry. So he pronounces him blameless, that should give the Honour and Service due to his true Prince to a Subject, whom, very like, he took for his Prince. Yet that a Manichean worshipping the Sun, mistaken to be the very substance of Christ, (see S. Austin contra Faustum l. 12. c. 22. l. 20. c. 9) for Christ; or (to represent the opinion more refined) worshipping with divine honours not the Sun, but only Christ in the Sun, he could not in this be excused from Idolatry. And, that that which distinguishes these cases, and renders them so different, is, not a good intention to worship only him that is truly God, or Christ; nor the opinion and belief Men have, that the Object they worship is truly such; for this good intention (as he in that Chapter, and other Reformed Writers, and among others Dr. Stillingfleet, copiously press) is common to the worst of Idolaters, as to the rest: but the error or ignorance of the Judgement, from which flows this mistaking practice; as that is perversely affected and culpable, or innocent and excusable. Of which thus he, Ibid.— I maintain, that ignorance excuseth here when it is involuntary; when the subject [I add, or the presence of it] we mistake in, is so concealed, that whatever desire we have, or pains we take, to find out the truth, it is not possible for us to discover it.— But there, where the ignorance of the Object [or of its presence] proceeds not from the obscurity or difficulty of the thing, but from the malice or negligence of the person; this is so far from excusing, that it aggravates our fault. Thus he excuses one that should have adored a person much resembling our Lord, or an unconsecrated Host,— because no passion or negligence of his caused such a mistake:— but not those who worshipped the Sun for Christ, [or Christ in the Sun;]— because (saith he) the ignorance of such people is visibly affected and voluntary, arising from their fault only, and not from the obscurity of the things they are ignorant in. Nor so Roman Catholics in their worshipping the Sacrament for Christ; because (saith he) the error proceeds entirely from their passion, and not any thing from abroad. [Thus he, clearing such actions from Idolatry, where the error of the judgement is no way perverse, voluntary, and culpable.]  
Having hitherto shown you several Concessions of Protestants, and having urged none here from any of them, but such as I think all will, or in reason ought, to admit; next I proceed to examine, what it is that in this matter Catholics do maintain.  
§. 9 1. And first, Catholics affirm in the Eucharist, 
Assertions.  after the Consecration, a sign or symbol to remain still distinct; and having a divers existence from that of the thing signified, or from Christ's Body contained in, or under it. [See Conc. Trident. sess. 13. c. 3. Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis, ut sit symbolum rei sacrae, & visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae. By which forma visibilis (as Bellarmin expounds it, the Eucharist. 4. l. 6. c.) is meant the species of the Elements, not the Body of Christ.— So Bellarmin, Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species panis & vini sunt signa corporis & sanguinis Christi ibi revera existentium.— And 3. l. 21. c. Accidentia remanent; quia si etiam accidentia abessent, nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile; proinde nullum esset Sacramentum. So Estius in 4. sent. 1. dist. 3. §. Eucharistia constat ex pane, tanquam materia quadam partim transeunte, partim remanente; transeunte quidem secundum substantiam; remanente vero secundum accidentia, in quibus tota substantiae vis & operatio nihilominus perseverat. Hence they allow of that expression of Irenaeus, 4. l. 34. c. where he saith,— Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus, terrena & coelesti, compositam esse. And of S. Gregory, dial. 4. l. 58. c. In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari: terrena exlestibus jungi: unum ex visibilibus ac invisibiltbus fieri.] So that tho' these symbols and Christ's Body may be said to make unum aggregatum; yet, if this be only the species or accidents of die Bread and Wine that remains, these cannot be said to have any inherence in this Body of Christ, (tho' it is true on the other side that, being accidents only, they cannot be said to make a distinct suppositum from it;) or, if a substance remain, this cannot be said to have any hypostatical union (or to make one suppositum) with our Lord's Divinity or Humanity, as our Lord's Humanity hath such an union with his Divinity. From which it is observed by Dr. Taylor (Real Presence, p. 336.) That therefore still there is the less reason for Romanists to give any Divine worship (as he saith they do) to the symbols. Far therefore are Catholics from granting (what a late Author 
* Stilligst Rom. Idol. P. 128.  pretends they do, but that which he allegeth no way shows it) as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Sacrament, as between the Divine and Humane Nature.  
§. 10 This external sign or symbol they also affirm to be all that of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any sense. And tho' after such Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is substance here taken in such a sense, as that neither the hardness nor softness, nor the frangibility, nor the savour, nor the odour, nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread, nor nothing visible, nor tangible, or otherwise perceptible by any sense, are involved in it. Of which signs also they predicate many things, which they will by no means allow to be properly said of, or at least to be received in, or effected by, or upon Christ's Body, now immortal and utterly impassable. So sapere, digeri, nutrire, confortare, corporaliter; and again, frangi dentibus, comburi, rodi a brutis, animalibus, and whatever other things may be named (excepting only those attributes, which in general are necessary to indicate the presence of Christ's Body to us with the species whilst integrae; as the local positions, elevari, recondi, ore recipi, etc.) they apply to these symbols that remain; not to Christ's Body which is indivisibly there.— Christus vere in sacramento existens nullo modo laedi potest; non cadit in terram, [id enim proprie cadit (saith he) quod corporaliter movetur; so also, anima non cadit,] non teritur, non roditur, non putrescit, non crematur: illa enim (saith Bellarmin 
* De Eucharist. 3. l. 10. c. ) in speciebus istis recipiuntur, sed Christum non afficiunt.  
§. 11 2. Concerning Adoration of the Sacrament, they affirm the word Sacrament, not to be taken always in the same sense; but sometimes to be used to signify only the external signs or symbols; sometimes only the res Sacramenti, or the thing contained under them, which is the much more principal part thereof. And, as Protestants much press, so Catholics willingly acknowledge, a great difference between these two, the worshipping of the Sacrament, as this word is taken for the symbols, and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament. Now as the word Sacrament is taken for the Symbols, they acknowledge a certain inferior cult and veneration due thereto, as to other holy things, the holy Chalices, the holy Gospels, the holy Cross, etc. of which Veneration much hath been spoken in the Discourse of Images, §. 42. etc. but they acknowledge no supreme or divine Adoration due to the Sacrament, as taken in this sense for the Symbols; but only to our Lord's Body and Blood, and so to our Lord himself as present in this Sacrament, or with these Symbols. [So that be these Symbols of what latitude you will, either larger, as the Lutheran believes; or straiter, as the Catholics say they are; or be they not only these, but the substance of bread also under them, as Catholics believe it is not: yet neither those species, nor this substance, have any divine Adoration given or acknowledged due to them at all; no more than this substance of bread, believed there by the Lutherans, yet hath from them any such Adoration given to it.]  
§. 12 [That Catholics thus by Adoration of the Sacrament with Latria only understand that of the res Sacramenti, the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, see Conc. Trid. sess. 13. c. 5. Omnes Christi fideles, pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latriae cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sacramento in venerations exhibeant. Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum; nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus, quem Pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit, Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei: quem Magi procidentes adoraverunt. Where, tho' the Council useth the expression of exhibiting latriae cultum Sacramento; yet that this cultus latriae is not applied to the Sacrament, as it implies the Sign or Symbol, but only the thing signified, both the words joined to it, qui vero Deo debetur, (which signifies the Council maintains that to be God they gave this cultus latriae to) and the explication annexed, Nam illum eundem Deum, etc. may sufficiently convince to any not obstinately opposite. Neither do those words interposed,— Neque enim ideo [Sacramentum] minus est adorandum, quod fuerit a Christo Domino, ut sumatur, institutum, any way cross such a sense, as a late Author 
* Stillingfleet, Rom. Idol. c. 2. §. 2. p. 117.  too confidently presseth, saying,— That by Sacrament here the Council must understand the Elements or Accidents as the immediate term of that divine worship, or else the latter words [i. e. quod fuerit a Domino institutum ut sumatur] signify nothing at all. For what (saith he) was that, which was instituted by the Lord as a Sacrament? was it not the external and visible Signs, or Elements? why do thy urge, That the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored, because it was to be taken, but to take of the common objection, That we ought not to give divine worship to that which we eat? And what can this have respect to, but the Elements? Thus argues he. When as he might know, that the Fathers of Trent, who said this, do hold, the chief thing instituted and exhibited in the Sacrament to be, not the Elements, but Christ's Body; and ipsum corpus Domini to be also orally both taken and eaten, (tho' not modo naturali carnis or corporis) as well as the Elements, according to our Lord's express words, Accipite, Manducate, Hoc est Corpus meum, [i. e. quod manducatis:] and when-as he might know also, that the occasion of adding this clause was in opposition to a party of Luther's followers, who, granting Christ's Body present with the Symbols, and yet denying Adoration, said for it, that our Lord's Body [not the Symbol] was present there, non ut adoretur, sed ut sumatur. And Calvin also saith some such thing, Institut. l. 4. c. 17. §. 35. urging, there was no such mandate for Adoration, i. e. of Christ's Body, of which he was formerly speaking; but that our Lord commanded only, accipite, manducate, bibite,— quo (saith he) accipi [or sumi, if you will Sacramentum, non adorarijubet: meaning Sacramentum in relation to Corpus Domini; else he said nothing to the purpose of his former Discourse. And it may be considered here also, that not only the Council of Trent, but no Schoolman at all (some of which are thought uncautious in their expressions about Adoration of Images, and consequently of the holy Symbols in the Eucharist; nor is any Catholic accountable for them) takes the boldness to give cultus latriae (qui vero Deo debetur, as the Council saith here) to the Elements, without annexing some qualification of a coadoratio, per accidens, improprie, sicut vestes Regis adorantur cum Rege, or ut Rex vestitus adoratur, yet without our mental notion at such a time stripping him of his Garments. Therefore neither can the Council here be rationally presumed to speak of the Symbols, when it useth no such qualifications.  
§. 13 But, to put this matter out of all doubt, the Definition of this Council in the 6th. Canon (more than which is not required to be professed by any Son of the Roman Church) is this:— Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum,— & ejus Adoratores esse Idololatras, Anathema sit. Concerning which, and some other passages in this Council, in comparing the Chapters with the Canons, Franciscus a sancta Clara, Enchiridion of Faith Dial. 3. §. 18. judiciously observes,— That altho' Catholic faith, as to the substance, is declared in the Chapters, (as indeed it is,) yet according to this we are obliged only sub anathemate to that form of expression which is defined in the Canons. 1. Because the Chapters are not framed in the stile of Conciliary Definitions, with Anathema 's, and the like. 2. Because the Canons (where the very form is exceeding exact) sometimes differ from the manner of expression in the Chapters, in order to the same matter: As sess. 6. of Justification; Canon 11. and Chapter 7. also sess. 13. of the Sacrament of the Eucharist; Canon 6. Chapter 5. and elsewhere: yet sub anathemate all must stand to the Canons; and therefore must expound the Chapters by them. See more in the Author.  
Soave also, l. 4. p. 343. in his censure of this 13th. Session, tho' he saith magisterially enough in opposition to a Council,— That the manner of speech used in the 5th. point of Doctrine, saying, That divine worship was due to the Sacrament, was noted also for improper; since it is certain, that the thing signified or contained is not meant by the Sacrament, but the thing signifying or containing. [But what Catholic will grant him this, that Sacrament includes not both; or, of the two, not more principally the thing contained in, or joined with the Symbols?] Yet he observes,— That it was well corrected in the 6th. Canon, which said, That the Son of God ought to be worshipped in the Sacrament. See the same observed also by Grotius in Apolog. Rivet Discuss. p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's forequoted passage: That the Controversy between Catholics and Lutherans in their saying, The Sacrament, or Christ in the Sacrament, was to be worshipped, was only in modo loquendi: To which nothing is replied by Rivet in Dialysi Discussionis, but the matter there, as also in his Apologetic, passed over in silence. Add to Grotius what Mr. Thorndike discourseth in defence of the expression of worshipping the Sacrament, Epilog. 3. l. 30. c. p. 352. I confess it is not (necessarily) the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Yet in that sense, which reason of itself justifies, it is. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist, by reason of the nature thereof, is neither the visible species, nor the invisible Grace of Christ's body and blood; but the union of both by virtue of the promise; in regard whereof— both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist,— by the promise which the Institution thereof containeth. If this be rightly understood, then to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist, is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Thus he.  
§. 14 This in vindication of the Council. And Bellarmine explains himself in the same manner as the Council, in his Apology to King James, Inter nupera dogmata ponit [Rex] adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistiae, i. e. [as Catholics understand and explain it] adorationem Christi Domini miro, sed vero, modo praesentis. To which Bishop Andrews replies:— Quis ei hoc dederit? Sacramento i. e. Christi in Sacramento. Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res in Sacramento adorandus est. Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere & adorandum statuit. [Thus far than the King, Bishop, and Cardinal are agreed] Again, de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 29.— Quicquid sit de modo loquendi, status Quaestionis non est, nist, An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae? And, as it were to avoid offence, when he comes to treat on this subject, de Euchar. 4. l. c. 29. he prefixeth the Title to it, not De adoratione, but De veneratione hujus Sacramenti: And in it saith that— Nullus Catholicus est qui doceat, Ipsa symbola externa per se & proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae, sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minore.  
Of this Doctrine of Catholics Bishop Forbes gives this testimony, l. 2. c. 2.9. §. In Eucharistia ment discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses; & Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum: quia species illae sunt res creatae, etc. neque satis est [i. e. to give them divine worship] quod Christus sub illis sit: quia etiam Deus est in Anima tanquam in Templo suo; & tamen adoratur Deus, non Anima; ut ait Suares 3. Tom. 79. quaest. 8. art. disp. 65. §. 1. And so Spalatensis l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri [i. e. Catholics] dicunt species panis & vini, hoc est, accidentia illa esse adoranda: sed dicunt corpus Christi verum & real, quod sub illis speciebus latet, debere adorari. When then the Roman Church, speaking of supreme Adoration, explains her language of adoring the Sacrament, to mean only adoring Christ's Body, and so Christ as present there; and not adoring any other thing whatever (substance, or accident) that is present there, or that is also included in the word Sacrament: that accusation, which her using such language of adoring the Sacrament can seemingly expose her to, is at the most, not of an error, but an improper expression. But the propriety of language dutiful Sons ought to learn from, not teach, their Mother; who also speaks that which hath descended to her from former times. Neither will it follow from Catholics using the word Sacrament precisely in this sense, exclusively to any other matter save Christ's Body, that therefore one may use the word Sacrament promiscuously for Christ's Body, in what respect soever we speak of it; and, as well or as properly say, that the Sacrament, meaning Christ's Body, is in the Heavens at God's right hand, or was on the Cross, or the like. For tho' [Sacrament] thus applied involves no other subject or thing at all but Christ's Body; yet it connotes, besides it, the place or manner of its presence; signifying this Body only as present in the Mysteries; not as a term adequate to, and convertible with it, being in whatever time and place.  
§. 15 I think these Testimonies produced both out of the Council of Trent, and other Catholic Authors, and also out of Protestants confessing so much of them, do show sufficiently the great extravagancy of those Protestant Authors who tell their Readers, that the state of this controversy is not, Whether Christ's Body, and so Christ in the Sacrament be adorable with supreme Honours? but whether the Sacrament, and then by Sacrament are pleased to understand the Symbols? and then, to confute the Doctrine of Rome, argue, that no Creature, as the Symbols are, is capable of Divine Honour. The state of the Controversy (saith a late Writer of theirs 
* Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 117. ) is, Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a Corporal Presence of Christ under them? And against it he affirms,— That supposing the divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein he is present, as I do to Christ himself. So Bishop Andrews, Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere adorandum statuit,— at non Sacramentum, terrenam scilicet partem. And— Nos in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus, Sacramentum [i. e. the Symbols] nulli adoramus. So Dr. Taylor, (Real Presence p. 335.) The Commandment to Worship God alone is so express; the distance between God and Bread dedicated to the service is sovast,— that, if it had been intended that we should have Worshipped the H. Sacrament, the H. Scriptures would have called it God, or Jesus Christ. And Dissuasive §. 5. p. 76. he affirms the Church of Rome to give Divine Honour to the Symbols or Elements, and so to a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God. So they vainly also undertake to show, that the Primitive Church did not terminate their Adoration upon the Elements; that the Fathers, when they speak of worship, speak of worshipping the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries, or Symbols; not of worshipping the Mysteries or Symbols. These, I say, are great extravagances: whilst the Roman Church owns or imposes no such Doctrine of Divine Adoration due to the Elements, and the true Controversy on their side is only this; 1. Whether the Body and Blood of Christ, prescinding from whatever Symbol is or may be there, is adoreable, as being present in the Sacrament with these symbols? (This is affirmed by Catholics: more than this needs not be so;) And, 2. Whether the Adoration of Christ's Body, and so of Christ as present, if it should not be so, will amount to Idolatry?  
§. 16 If we here make a further enquiry into the Schoolmen concerning the Adoration or Veneration due to the Symbols, they state the same toward them as toward Images, the sacred Utensils, the H. name of Jesus, and other Holy things. Omnes (saith Vasquez, in 3. Thom. tom. 1. disp. 108. c. 12.) eodem modo de speciebus Sacramenti, quo de Imaginibus, philosophari debent. And then of Images we know the Definition of the Second Council of Nice referred to by Trent— non latria. And for what they say of Images I refer you to the preceding Discourse on them, §. 42, etc. It is true, that some of the later Schoolmen (to defend the expressions of some of the former) have endeavoured to show how a latrical, qualified, secondary coadoration may improprie or per accidens be said to be given to the symbols also, as sacramentally joined with our Lord's Body, and as this body is as it were vested with them; such as, say they, when Christ was adored here on Earth, was given also to his Garments, i. e. without making in the act of worship a mental separation of his Person from his clothes; as Bellarmin explains it, de Euchar. l. 4. c. 29.— Neque enim (saith he) jubebant Christum vestibus nudari antequam adorarent; aut animo & cogitation separabant a vestibus cum adorarent; sed simpliciter Christum, ut tunc se habebat, adorabant: tametsi ratio adorandi non erant vestes, imo nec ipsa Humanitas, sed sola Divinitas. Or do allow the giving of the external sign of Latria to them: as Bowing to, Kissing, Embracing them; but this without any the least internal act of latria, or any other honour or submission directed to them, which such inanimate things are uncapable of; as Vasquez explains it; who is so prodigal of this external sign of honour, after he hath stripped it of any internal latria, or other worship whatever that may accompany it; that he allows this external sign not only to all Holy things, but to any Creature whatever, (in our inward adoration meanwhile only of God,) upon the general relation they have to him. But indeed such an abstraction of the external sign, from an internal honour or respect (as other Catholics censure his opinion) makes these outward gestures, without any mental intention attending them as to such object, like those of a Puppet or Engine, utterly insignificant: and so Vasquez, instead of communicating the latria, to Images, to the Symbols, to other Holy things, seems, in the judgement of others, to allow them no honour or veneration at all; and so, in seeming to say too much, to say too little; which hath been more largely discoursed before, Of Images §. 42. etc. And a late Author 
* Stillingfleet Rom. Idol. p. 129.  might have done well, in mentioning this Author's Opinion, to have given also a true relation of it, affirming only an external sign of honour given to the creature void of any internal the least respect to them; Ita ut tota mentis intentio in Exemplar, non in Imaginem [or, Deum, non Creaturam] feratur: which would easily have taken away all that malignity he fastens upon it. This for Vasquez. And as for Bellarmin's adoration improprie and per accidens, Bishop Forbes tells us l. 2. c. 2. §. 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet. And Bellarmin himself, as appears by the former citations, waving these School disputes, tells us,— Status Quaestionis non est nisi, An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus? i. e. no more is defined, decided, imposed on Christians faith by the Church, than this: nor more needs be desputed with, or maintained against, Protestants, than this. [This in the 2d. place from §. 11. Of Catholics professing their Adoration with divine worship of Christ, only present in the Sacrament with the Symbols, not of the Symbols; or, not, of the Sacrament, if taken for the Symbols.]  
§. 17 3ly. Therefore also Catholics ground their Adoration (a thing Cardinal Perron much insists upon in his Reply to King James) not on Transubstantiation, (tho' both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation involve it; so that, either of these maintained, Adoration necessarily follows) as if, Transubstantiation defeated, Adoration is so too; but on a Real Presence with the Symbols; which in general is agreed on by the Lutheran together with them. Which Adoration they affirm due, with all the same circumstances wherewith it is now performed, tho' Christ's Body were present with the Symbols, neither as under the accidents of Bread, as they say; nor under the substance of Bread, as the Lutheran saith; but, tho' after some other unknown manner, distinct from both: and if they were convinced of the error of Transubstantiation, and of the truth of the presence of the substance of the Bread unchanged; yet as long as not confuted in the point of Real Presence, they would never the less for this continue to adore the self same Object, as now, in the self same place, namely, the Body of Christ still present there with the Symbols, and therefore there adorable; tho' present after another manner than they imagined. See the argument of Barnesius a Roman Writer apud Forbes. l. 2. c. 2. §. 12. Corpus Christi est cum pane vel permanente, vel transeunte, uno vel alio modo, & per consequens non est idololatria adorare Christum ibi in Euchristia realiter praesentem. See in Conc. Trid. 13. §. c. 5. the reason immediately following the requiring of Adoration,— Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo [i. e. Sacramento] adesse credimus, quem Pater introducens in orbem terrarum dicit, Et adorent eum, etc.  
If therefore the Roman Church enjoins these three: 1. To believe Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament. 2. To believe such presence by way of Transubstantiation. 3. To adore Christ as being there present: It follows not that she enjoins the third in order to the second: but may only, in order to the first; as the first being (without the second) a sufficient ground thereof. Neither can I, disbelieving the second, yet believing the first, refuse obedience to the third, that is, to worship the same object in the same place, as those do who also believe the second; and in my believing both the first and the second, yet may I nevertheless ground the third only on that, which is by Christians more generally agreed on; and still worship out of no other intention, after Transubstantiation believed, than I did before I believed it (when only I held in general a corporal presence) or than others do; who, believing a Real presence, do not yet believe Transubstantiation.  
§. 18 4. Let us, then, not granting it, suppose Transubstantiation an error; yet if the tenant of Corporal or Real presence (as held by the Lutherans, or others) be true, Catholics plead, their Adoration is no way frustrated, but still warrantable, and to be continued.  
§. 19 5ly. Suppose not only Transubstantiation, but Real presence an error, and the Lutheran and the Roman Catholic both mistaken; yet there can be no pretence why these later, in such Adoration, (grounded by both on Real presence with the Symbols) will not be as excusable from Idolatry as the other. For, thus far these two Parties agree: 1. That Christ is corporally present: 2. That he may be worshipped: 3. That no other there but He may be worshipped; not Bread, nor any other mere creature: 4. That nothing visible in the Sacrament is He, or his Body; which is present only invisibly, without any thing visible, inhering, or appertaining to it, as the subject thereof. They differ only about the manner of the presence of this invisible Substance. The one saith, it is there together with the Bread; the other saith there, instead of the Bread, and the Bread away; a thing also to God possible, for any thing we know. The one saith, he is there both under the substance and accidents of Bread; the other, there under the accidents only of the bread. Now, whilst both worship the same Object in the same place, and veiled with the same sensible accidents, if the one adoring him as being under the substance of bread, (he not being there) are freed from any Idolatry in such worship; the other adoring him as being under the accidents of bread, (he not being there) cannot be made hereby Idolaters: since they say, and freely profess, that, if his body be not there, under those appearances, but the same substance still under them which was formerly; then they confess it a creature, and renounce all adoration of it.  
Whereas therefore it is objected, That the substance of bread only being in that place, where they suppose Christ's Body, and not any Bread, to be, therefore in worshipping the thing in that place, they worship bread; this were a right charge, if they affirmed, that they worshipped the substance that is in that place under such accidents whatever it be: but this none say; but, that they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body, and not bread, and that for this supposition they have a rational ground, (of which by and by.) Now, saying they worship it, because it is so, is saying, if it be not so, they intent no worship to it. He that saith, I give divine Adoration to that which is under the species of Bread, because believed by me, or, if you will, certainly known by me (but he, indeed, mistaking) to be Christ's Body, and so Christ present, is yet far from saying, I worship whatever is under the species of Bread, whether it be Christ's Body or no. And he that saith the later of these, if bread happen to be there, is willingly granted an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but not so the former.  
Daille, as it much concerns him, excuseth a Lutheran adoring upon a falsely supposed real or corporal presence of our Lord, from any Idolatry, for this reason: Because, saith he, 
* 1. Reply to Chaumont, p. 63.  such adoration is mistaken not in this,— that it addresseth itself to an Object not adorable, but only that by error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not, and so he saith it becomes only vain and unprofitable, etc. as is said before §. 8. The same therefore must he allow to Catholics, if meaning nothing more by their Language of Adoratio Sacramenti than Christi in Sacramento; as hath been showed before §. 12. etc. that they do not: and that the contention about this is a mere Logomachy; and that they also, as the others, ground their Adoration not on Transubstantiation, but Corporal Presence.  
§. 20 As for Costerus, or perhaps some other Roman Writers, that say, if Transubstantiation [where also they must mean, or a Corporal Presence, some other way] were not true, the Idolatry of Heathens is much more excusable, than of Christians, that worship a bit of bread: they do not, or at least are not necessitated to grant the consequence necessary, that, if Transubstantiation or Corporal Presence fail, than they must adore the bread; which bread mean while they deny also to be there: no more than Protestants do or think themselves necessitated to grant this consequence, That if Consubstantiation or Corporal Presence fail, than the Lutherans do adore the Bread; which bread also tho' the Lutherans affirm to be there, yet do other Protestants deny that the Lutherans worship. But Costerus, and others, only maintain this: That, supposing that which is imposed upon them, viz. that Catholics, if there be no Transubstantiation, do worship a bit of bread; the Heathen Idolatry, in their worshipping a golden or silver Image, or some living creature, etc. would be far more tolerable, and more noble. Showing by this (as Dr. Taylor expresseth it, Liberty of ' Prophesying, p. 258.) That they are so far from worshipping the bread in such case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so; and intending, by advancing this fault the higher, the more to make appear the impossibility of such an error, it's for so many hundred years possessing the Universal Church of Christ, assisted by our Saviour to the end of the World, and the Pillar of Truth: and thinking the greatness of this crime a good argument of the Church's innocency therein; whilst perhaps, in some smaller matters, she might be liable to a mistake. I do believe (saith Mr. Thorndike, Epilog. 3. l. 30. c. p. 353.) that it hath been said by great Doctors of the Church of Rome, that they must needs think themselves flat Idolaters, if they could think that the Elements are not abolished: That shows with what confidence they would have the World apprehend, that they hold their opinion; but not, that the consequence is true; unless that which I have said be reprovable. And again, in Just weights c. 19— When they say they must be flat Idolaters, if the Elements be there, zeal to their opinion makes them say more than they should say.— Lastly, If Costerus saith, that Transubstantiation failing, Catholics do worship the bread, Bellarmin de Eucha. l. 4. c. 30. and others, say just the contrary, arguing thus concerning a Catholicks worshipping an unconsecrated Host, which is nothing but bread,— Adoratio ex intention [i. e. such as is rationally grounded] potissimum pendet. Quare qui [talem] panem adorat, quod certo credat non esse panem sed Christum, is proprie & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem. Which may as well be said of an Host consecrated, that is not Transubstantiated (when the adorer upon probable grounds believes it to be so,) but remains still bread,— Qui hunt panem adorat, quod certo credat non esse panem, sed Christum, is proprie & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem. And the same, much-what, as by Bellarmin, is said by Dr. Hammond, Disc. of Idolatry, §. 64. That, supposing their error be grounded on an honest and blameless misunderstanding of Scripture, it is, tho' material, yet perhaps in them not formal Idolatry; because, if they were not verily persuaded that it were God, they profess they would never think of worshipping it. Thus he.  
This in the 5th. place of not only Transubstantiation, but Real Presence being supposed an error, yet that the Roman practice, or error, compared with the Lutheran, the first is no more peccant than the later; and therefore that the Lutheran by Protestants being excused from Idolatry, so ought the Roman Catholic too.  
§. 21 6. Both these being supposed errors, and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all, as is by them both imagined there; yet, such Adoration, by the one or the other, of Christ, who is a true object of supreme Adoration, and only by them mistaken to be in some place where he is not, cannot be termed any such Idolatry, as is the worshipping of an object not at all adorable. So, for example, If we suppose a Heathen worshipping a Heathen-God, as having some particular residence in an Image; or an Israelite worshipping the true God of Israel, as having a special residence in the Calf at Sinai; or in Jeroboam's Calves, called also by him Cherubims; or lastly, a Manichean, mistaking nothing in the Nature or Attributes of our Lord Christ, save that he thinks him to have some particular residence in the Sun, and so worshipping him as present there: None of these would be any such Idolatry, or parallel to it, as that of another Heathen worshipping the very Molten Image; or Israelite worshipping the very Calf for his God; or Manichean worshipping the Sun itself for Christ. Again; neither can any of these that adore only God or Christ as specially present where indeed he is not, (e. g. as fancied God so present in the Calf, or Christ in the Sun,) if we suppose something else invisibly and undiscerned by him to be there present, as if we imagine an Angel in the Sun, or a Serpent within the Calf, therefore be said to adore such Angel, or Serpent: and whatever fault may be in such worship, yet it would be great injustice to accuse such Israelite or Manichean, of adoring such Angel or Serpent upon this indefinite Proposition, that he professeth to worship that which he believes to be present there; especially if such person do also declare against the adoration of any such particular things, if, contrary to his belief, there present. Neither then can it be justly deduced from a Lutheran's or Catholick.'s adoring Christ as under the substance or species of Bread, that therefore these adore the thing itself that is present under them.  
§. 22 7. Whatever fault or also Idolatry it may be called (tho' not so gross as the former) in a Manichean that worships Christ in the Sun, or in an Israelite that worships God as specially present or resident in the Calves of Dan and Bethel or that at Sinai, because it is adoring a fancy of their own, without any rational ground or pretence thereof; and however merely a good intention grounded upon a culpable ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry, or any other fault, (which as it is often pressed by Protestants, is freely granted by Catholics.) Yet since Daille (and, I suppose, other Protestants with him) doth allow, not an absolutely certain, but a reasonable, tho' mistaken ground or motive of Adoration, sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry, [upon which account a Disciple adoring with divine worship a person very much resembling our Saviour, when he was upon Earth; or, supposing a consecrated Host truly adorable, one, who adores an Host placed on the Altar, and by some deficiency in the Priest, not truly consecrated, is freely absolved by them herein from committing any Idolatry. See before §. 8.] Hence therefore if Catholics can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist, tho' possibly mistaken in it, they are to be excused from Idolatry, upon the same terms.  
§. 23 (1.) Now here first; the Lutherans being allowed to have such a plausible ground or motive for their Adoration, whereby they become by other Protestants absolved from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there, (only their Adoration inutile (saith Daille) & tombent en neant,) I see not why the ground of Roman Catholics should be any whit less valued than theirs. For, if we compare the one's Con— with the other's Trans— substantiation, the later seems more agreeable to our Lord's words, Hoc est Corpus meum; and to the most plain literal obvious sense thereof, Hoc est Corpus meum, by a change of the Bread, rather than, Hoc est Corpus meum, by a conjunction with the Bread; and therefore is the Roman equalled with, or else preferred before, the Lutheran sense by many Protestants, that are neutral and descent from both. [Longius Consubstantiatorum (saith Bishop Forbes, de Euchar. l. 1. c. 4 §. 5.) quam Transubstantiatorum sententiam a Christi verbis recedere, sive litera spectetur, sive sensus, affirmat R. Hospinianus & caeteri Calviniani communiter. And Hospinian. Histor. Sacram. 2. part. fol. 6. saith of Luther,— Errorem errore commutavit, nec videns suam opinionem non habere plus, imo etiam minus coloris, quam Scholasticorum & Papae. And see the same judgement of the Helvetian Ministers, and Calvin, apud Hospinian. f. 212.] But next; Catholics founding their Adoration not on Transubstantiation, but on Corporal Presence, the same common ground of this they have with Lutherans, viz. our Lord's words implying; and so it must excuse both, or neither.  
§. 24 (2.) Laying aside this comparison, let us view more particularly what rational ground Catholics exhibit of this their belief of a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist, and so of Adoration.  
I. This their Ground then of such a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist (after a possibility thereof, granted also by sober Protestants 
* See Guide in Controversy, Disc. 1. §. 62. ) is pretended to be Divine Revelation, and if it be so as pretended, than no argument from our senses, and against it, valid:) and that (as was said but now) taken in its most plain, literal, natural, and grammatical sense, in the words, Hoc est Corpus meum; so often iterated in the Gospel, and again by S. Paul, without any variation or change, or explication of that which yet is pretended by Calvinists to be a metaphorical expression; and such, if we will believe them, as this, that the Church is his Body, Eph. 1.23. or, He the true Vine, Joh. 15.1. A great argument this, (the Apostles punctual retaining still, in their expressing the Institution thereof, the same language and words) that our Lord intended it literally, as he spoke it. Pretended also to be Divine Revelation from many other Scriptures, (the citing and pressing of which takes up all Bellarmin's first Book de Eucharistia, to which I refer the inquisitive Reader:) but especially from the Discourse Jo. 6. Which Apostle writing his Gospel so late, when the Communion of our Lord's Body and Blood was so much frequented and celebrated in the Church, seems therefore to have omitted the mention of it at all in his story of the Passion, and the time of its first Institution: because he had dilated so much upon it before in relating a Sermon of our Lord's made in Gallilee about the time of the yearly Feast of eating the Paschal Lamb, Jo. 6.4, etc.— The literal and grammatical sense of which Divine Revelation (saith Dr. Taylor, Liberty of Prophesying, §. 20. p. 258.) if that sense were intended, would warrant Catholics too do violence to all the Sciences in the circle, And that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural Reason, would be no argument to make them disbelieve, who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the Schools, (and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church,) [or he might have said, which are in the Athanasian Creed,] with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation. And elsewhere (Real Presence, p. 240.) saith, as who will not say?— That if it appear, that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, he for his part will burn all his Arguments against it, and make public Amends.  
§. 25 II. Again; Catholics have for their Rational ground of following this sense, in opposition to any other given by Sectaries, the Declaration of it by the most Supreme and Universal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former times for the decision of this controversy long before the birth of Protestantism; a brief account of which Councils, to the number of seven or eight (if the 2d. Nicene [Act. 6. tom. 3.] be reckoned with the rest) before that of Trent, all agreeing in the same sentence, see concerning the Guide in Controversy, Disc. 1. §. 57, etc. [Out of the number of which Councils said to establish such a Doctrine, as Bishop Cousins, Hist. Transub. c. 7. p. 149. after many others, hath much laboured to subduct the great Lateran Council under Innocent 3. upon pretence of the reputed Canons thereof their being proposed therein only by the Pope, 
Mr. Dodwel Considerations of present concerument. § 31. p. 165.  but not passed or confirmed by the Council; so another late Protestant Writer upon another Protestant interest, viz. out of the 3d. Canon of the same Council, charging not only the Pope but the Councils themselves, and the Catholic Religion, as invading the Rights of Princes, hath with much diligence very well vindicated these Canons against the others, as the true Acts of this Great Assembly, and not only the designs of the Pope; and copiously shown them (as in truth they were) owned as such, both in the same, and the following times. And thus the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in this Council is firmly established, whilst Catholics contend, in the other Canon concerning Secular Powers, the Sense of the Council is by Protestants mistaken.  
Now upon this, I ask what more reasonable or secure course in matters of Religion, (whether as to Faith or Practice) can a private and truly humble Christian take, than, where the sense of a Divine Revelation is disputed, to submit to that interpretation thereof, which the Supremest Authority in the Church, that hath been heretofore convened about such matters, hath so often and always in the same manner decided to him; and so to act according to its Injunctions?  
§. 26 III. But, if these Councils be declined as not being so ancient as some may expect; i. e. not held before some controversy happened in the Church touching the point they decided, Catholics still have another very Rational ground of such a sense of the Divine Writ, viz. the evident testimony of the more Primitive times. Which that they have conveyed the Tradition of such a sense to the present Church, and to these former Councils, (to repeat what hath been said already in Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 321. n. 1. because perhaps by scarcity of copies that Book may come to few hands) I think will be clear to any one, not much interessed, that shall at his leisure spend a few hours in a public Library to read, entire, and not by quoted parcels, the discourses on this Subject; Of St. Ambros. de Myster. init. cap. 9— the Author de Sacramentis, ascribed to the same Father, 4. l. 4, and 5. Chapters.— Cyril. Hierosol. Cateches. Mystagog. 4, & 5.— Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 83.— In Act. Hom. 21.— In 1 Cor. Hom. 24.— Greg. Nissen. Orat. Catechet. ch. 36, 37.— Euseb. Emissen. or Caesarius Arelatensis de Paschate, Serm. 5.— Hilarius Pictav. de Trinitate, the former part of the 8th. Book.— Cyril. Alexand. in Evangel. Joan. l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the authenticalness of which pieces enough also hath been said elsewhere.  
§. 27 IU. In a consequence of, and succession from, this doctrine of those Primitive times, and of the later Councils of the Church, when this Point was brought into some Dispute and Controversy, a Catholic hath for a Rational ground of his Faith, and practice, the universal doctrine and practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time, and at the present also, excepting his followers. For the Eastern Churches (disputed by some Protestants) both their belief of a corporal presence with the Symbols, and practice of Adoration, see what hath been said at large in the Guide in Controversy, disc. 3. c. 8. (where also are exhibited the testimonies of many learned Protestants freely conceding it) and again, in Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 321. n. 22. p. 313. and n. 9 p. 294. See also the late eminent evidences of the Faith and Practice of these Eastern Churches at this day, collected by Monsieur Arnaud, in his two replies to Claude; a brief account whereof also is given in the Guide, Disc. 3. §. 81. n. 2, etc. In which matter (whereas one of the chiefest and commonest Pleas of Protestants is the Greek and Eastern Churches their according with them, whereby they seem to outnumber the Roman) if any will but take the courage, notwithstanding his secular Interest, candidly to examine it, I doubt not he will receive a full Satisfaction.  
Lastly, see D. Blondel (one much esteemed by Protestants, for his knowledge in ancient Church-History) granting an alteration in the Doctrine concerning our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist (an Alteration he means from that which is now maintained by Protestants, and was by the former Antiquity) begun in the Greek Church after A. D. 754. 
* Esclaireissements sur L' Eucharistie c. 15.  i. e. begun so soon as any dispute happened in the Eastern Church concerning this Presence; which dispute was first occasioned there upon an Argument which was taken from the Eucharist, and urged against Images by the Council of Constantinople, under Constantius Copronymus, and was contradicted by Damascen, and shortly by the 2d. Nicene Council. In which opinion of the 2d. Nicene Council and Damascen, Blondel freely acknowledgeth the Greek Churches to have continued to this day. See c. 16. p. 399. Again, granting an Alteration in the same Doctrine (as is said before) begun in the Western Church A. D. 818. 
* See Ibid. c. 18.  i. e. as soon as the like dispute happened about this Point in the Western Parts: which dispute there was occasioned by the Council held at Frankfort under Charles the Great, opposing the expressions of the foresaid Constantinopolitan Council in like manner as the 2d. Nicene Council had done before. Lastly, if we ask him, what this Alteration in the East first, and afterward in the West, was; 1. He maketh it much-what the same in both. And then he explains it to be a kind of Impanation, or Consubstantiation, or Assumption of the Bread by our Lord Christ. His words, c. 19 are these Des l' An. 818. etc.— Some among the Latins did (as it were in imitation of the Greek) conceive a kind of Consubstantiation, partly like, partly unlike, to what many Germans [he means Lutherans] now maintain; which, to speak properly, aught to be called Impanation, or Assumption of the Bread by the Word of God. And c. 20. he goes on,— The opinion of Paschasius, [whom he makes Leader in the Western, as Damascen in the Greek Church] had advanced before A. D. 900. an Impanation of the Word, fortified and getting credit by degrees; the establishment of which (saith he p. 440.) both Damascen and Paschasius designed. Wherein (he saith p. 441.) they supposed a kind of Identity between the Sacrament and the Natural Body of Christ, founded upon the inhabitation of the Deity in them; which at last produced, he saith, the establishment of Transubstantiation, under Pope Innocent the Third.  
Here then 1. We see granted, both of the Greek and Latin Church, the same Tenent. 2. We may observe, that this Tenent of Impanation he imposeth on them, when well examined, is found much more gross and absurd than that of Transubstantiation: For which see what is said in Bellarmin, de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. & 15. Or in Suarez, de Sacrament. Disp. 49. But 3. see in Considerations on the Council of Trent §. 321. n. 13. and n. 16. etc. that this Doctrine of Damascen and the Greek Church, and afterwards of Paschasius and the Latin, before Innocent the Third's time, was plain Transubstantiation; and is misrepresented by Blondel for Impanation; and therefore never hath the Greek Church hitherto had any contest or clashing with the Roman concerning this point. And see the concessions also of other Protestants very frequent and more candid, of Transubstantiation held by the Greek Churches of later times, as well as by the Roman, produced in the Rational Account concerning the Guide in Controversies, Disc. 3. c. 8. 4ly. Lastly, these Churches, in which, he saith, such an Alteration was made from the former Doctrine of Antiquity, deny it at all so to be; and affirm, that, when some new opinions appeared, they maintained and vindicated it as the Doctrine of the Fathers; their Proofs of it being also extracted out of the Father's Testimonies. Now then to stand against such a strong stream of both East and West running constantly in this course, seems to Catholics, with S. Austin very unreasonable.— Similiter etiam (saith he, Epist. 118. Januario) siquid horum tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia: nam & hinc, quin ita faciendum sit, disputare, insolentissimae insaniae est. And,— Graeci omnes (saith Bishop Forbes, de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2.) [as well as the Roman Church] adorant Christum in Eucharistia: Et quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere & damnare?  
§. 28 V. Lastly; besides this great Body, Catholics have since Luther's time, in the Reformation, no small number of Protestants, I mean such as are the genuine Sons of the Church of England, proceeding thus far, as to confess both a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and Adoration of it as present there; a real presence of it to each worthy Receiver, tho' not to the Elements. And Hooker, if he mistook not the Doctrine of the Church of England in his time, saith, Eccles. Pol. l. 5. §. 67.— Wherefore should the world continue still distracted, and rend with so many manifold Contentions, when there remaineth now no Controversy, saving only about the subject where Christ is?— Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this, but whether, when the Sacrament is administered, Christ be whole within Man only, or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves. So that, if Hooker and his party are in the right, Catholics do not mistake Christ's Body as present in a place where it is not; but only in thinking it in that present to one thing, the Elements, when it is so only to another, the Receiver of them. But then the same Catholics have another half of the Reformation, viz. all the Lutheran Protestant's, that affirm, with the Roman Church, Christ's Body present also to the Elements, or Symbols. And see Mr. Thorndike also, Epilog. l. 3. c. 3. much for this presence of Christ's Body to be in, with, or under the Elements, immediately upon, and by the consecration of them, (which consecration also he placeth (l. 3.4. c. p. 24.) in the blessing of the Elements before the breaking, etc. mentioned before §. 7.). Look back now upon all these Pleas of Catholics, and see if they will not make up at least a reasonable ground or motive of their Adoration. A reasonable ground; I say not here (what I might) sufficient to secure their faith from all suspicion of error, but (which serves my purpose) to secure them from Idolatry in their Adoration, tho' they should be mistaken;. when as other persons, because proceeding on like reasonable motives, are by Protestants, in their Adoration of a mistaken Presence, or Object, excused from it; (See before §. 8.) As, for example, the Lutheran; the Adorer of one much resembling our Lord here on Earth; the Adorer of an unconsecrated Host, or Wafer placed on the Altar, etc. especially when Catholics in crediting such divine Revelation of Christ's Presence, and so for their Adoration, receive no contradiction (as it is pretended they do) from their senses: because they adore, I mean with divine Adoration, nothing visible, or sensible at all, nor any substance invisible wherein any thing that occurs to their senses inheres; but only understand Christ's Body present there, where their senses can no way certainly, and against any pretended divine Revelation, inform them, either when it is present, or not; since salvis omnibus phaenomenis, all appearances granted most true, such a Presence is possible.  
§. 29 These rational Grounds of Catholics for Adoration, which we expected should have been most strictly examined by those who conclude the Roman practice herein Idolatry, are slightly passed over by Daille, in pronouncing that this error of Catholics vient toute entiere de leur passion, Apolog. des Eglis Reform. c. 11. p. 90. And after in reducing all their ground thereof to a— la seule authorite du Pape & de son Concile: and by Dr. Taylor, Real Pres. §. 13. p. 346. in calling them— some trifling pretences made out of some say of the Fathers. Elsewhere indeed, when he was in a more charitable temper (Liberty of Prophes. p. 258.) he saith, That for a motive to such an opinion, Roman Catholics have a divine Revelation, whose literal and grammatical Sense, if that Sense was intended, would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle: but prudently there omits their Plea of Catholic Tradition, securing to them such a literal sense of the Text. Dr. Stilling-fleet (Rom: Idol. c. 2. §. 7.) saith first,— That, if a mistake in this case will excuse the Romanist, it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the World. And in comparing two persons, one worshipping Christ as really present in the Sun, another, Christ as really present in the Sacrament, he saith, as inconsiderately as magisterially,— That supposing a mistake in both, we are not to inquire into the reasons of the mistake, [i. e. as he saith before, concerning the probability of the one mistake, more than of the other] but the influence it hath upon our actions. So he. But, what is more manifest, than that the influence which a mistake hath upon our actions, as to making them culpable or innocent, is not always the same, but very various, and often contrary; rendering them sometimes blameless, sometimes faulty, according as the mistake is ex- ●r in-excusable? Next, he grants Ibid. §. 5. a Catholic Tradition of Transubstantiation to be a sufficient ground for Adoration: But the Cacholick Tradition that is pleaded here necessary for Adoration, is only that of a corporal Presence. Now, for a sufficient evidence of such a Tradition, I refer the conscientious Reader to what hath been said before, waving that of Transubstantiation as to this Controversy, tho' the same Catholic Tradition authorizeth both; namely, a corporal Presence by a mutation of the Elements into our Lord's Body. This from §. 24. Of the Rational grounds Catholics have for their Adoration.  
§. 30 8ly. For such Rational grounds therefore of their worship as are here given (and not from any excess of Charity, or from the singular Fancies of some few, tho' learned men, as Dr. Stillingfleet, in his Preface to Roman Idolatry would insinuate) Idolatry is by many Protestants of late, either not at all, or but faintly charged on the Church of Rome. For first, see Mr. Thorndike in his Epilogue, 3. l. 30. c. p. 350.— I say first (saith he) that the Adoration of the Eucharist, which the Church of Rome prescribeth, is not necessarily Idolatry. I say not, what it may be accidentally by that intention which some men may conceal, and may make it Idolatry as to God: but I speak upon supposition of that intention, which the profession of the Church formeth. And in his Just Weights, c. 19 p. 125.— They who give the honour proper to God to his Creature, are Idolaters; they that worship the Host give the honour due to God to his Creature: this is taken for a Demonstration, that the worship of the Host is Idolatry. But will any Papist acknowledge, that he honours the Elements of the Eucharist, or, as he thinks, the Accidents of them for God? Will common Reason charge him to honour that, which he believes not to be there? If they were there, they would not take them for God; and therefore they would not honour them for God: And that is it (not saying that they should be Idolaters if the Elements did remain) that must make them Idolaters. And Epilogue p. 357. in general he saith;— Whoso admits Idolatry, [i. e. in any point whatever] to be taught by the Roman Church, can by no means grant it to be a Church; the very being whereof supposeth the worship of one God, exclusive to any thing else. The Roman Church, then, must either be freed from the imputation of commanding any thing that is Idolatry, (i. e. adoration of a creature for God): or we must affirm, there to be, and to have been, no true Church of Christ, never since such command of that which they say is Idolatry went forth, (which no judicious Protestant, I think, hath or dare say of the Roman Church, since the beginning of the Adoration of the Eucharist:) For what Church or Sect of Religion can be Apostate at all, if not a Church committing, and commanding Idolatry; even the worshipping of a piece of Bread, which themselves made, for that God which made them and Heaven and Earth.  
And thus Bishop Forbes, de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur, & illi Idololatriae crassissimae & gravissimae ab his insimulantur & damnantur; cum plerique Romanenses, ut & alii fideles, credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem, sed corpus Christi; unde illi non panem adorant: sed tantum ex suppositione, licet falsa, nontamen haeretica, aut impia, vel cum fide directe pugnante, ut superiore libro ostensum est, Christi corpus, quod vere adorandum est, adorant. In Eucharistia enim ment discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo decent ipsi; & Christum quidem adorandum esse, non tamen Sacramentum, quia species illae sunt res creatae & inanimes, & consequenter incapaces adorationis. And Ibid. showing the Greek and Eastern Church, as well as the Roman, to use it, he concludes, Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere & damnare? After the same manner the Archbishop of Spalleto, de Repub. Eccles. 7. l. 11. c. n. 6.— Respondeo (saith he) me nullum idololatricum crimen in adoratione Eucharistiae, si recte dirigatur intentio, agnoscere. Qui enim docent, panem non esse amplius panem, sed corpus Christi, illi profecto panem non adorant: sed solum ex suppositione, licet falsa, Christi corpus vere adorabile adorant. Non enim nostri dicunt species panis & vini, hoc est, accidentia illa, esse adoranda.  
Bishop Bramhal, cited before, §. 6.— The Sacrament is to be adored, said the Council of Trent. The Sacrament, i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ say some of your Authors: we say the same.— The Sacrament, i. e. the species of Bread and Wine say others: that we deny. Thus he.  
D. Tailor, in his Liberty of Prophesying, p. 258. confesseth the Subjects of the Church of Rome no Idolaters in this kind; at least so as to worship Bread or any creature with Divine Worship, and as God: For,— It is evident, saith he, that the Object of their Adoration (that which is represented to them in their minds, their thoughts, and purposes, and by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of humane actions) in the Blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternal God, hypostatically joined with his holy Humanity; which Humanity they believe actually under the veil of the Sacramental signs. And if they thought Him not present, they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so; which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical, [i. e. as to the directing this their divine worship to an undue object.]  
§. 31 Which things if said right by him and the others, the same Dr. Taylor is faulty in his charge in Real Presence, p. 334. Faulty I say, in charging on the Church of Rome, not their worship of a right Object in a someway unlawful and prohibited manner, this we are not here examining; but their worship of an undue Object of Adoration, of a creature instead of God: for so he chargeth them there. If (saith he there) they be deceived in their own strict Article, [he means of Transubstantiation,] than it is certain, they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a mere creature, the image, the Sacrament and representment of the Body of Christ. Thus he. When it is evident that the Object, etc. is the only true and eternal God, etc. as he said before in the place cited, and must say if he will say truth. So, faulty is also Daille, (Reply to Chaumont, p. 63.) in his charging the Church of Rome to worship Bread, upon this arguing: Catholics adore that substance that is veiled with the accidents of Bread and Wine; but this substance is Bread: Ergo they adore Bread. By which arguing he may as well prove the Lutherans in the Eucharist to adore a Worm or a Mite, thus: The Lutherans adore that substance which is joined with the Bread; but that substance is a Worm or Mite: (for such thing may be there with the Bread at such time of Adoration) Ergo, they adore a Worm. Whereas both the Catholic and Lutheran explain the indefinite term [that which,] used in the major Proposition, restrictively to the Body of Christ, and exclusively to any other substance whatever, that is, or may be, there, either with the Bread, or under its accidents. Faulty also is Dr. Stillingfleet, Rom. Idol. c. 2. in saying the Protestants controversy with Catholics is; Whether proper Divine Worship, in the time of receiving the Eucharist, may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal Presence under them, p. 117. And, as for the passage in the Council of Trent, sess. 13. c. 5. urged by him there for it, his mistake is showed before, §. 12. And so, faulty, in his concluding, p. 118.— That the immediate term of that Divine Worship given by Catholics, is the external and visible signs or elements. And again, p. 124. That, upon the principles of the Roman Church, no Man can be satisfied that he worships not a mere creature with divine honour, when he gives Adoration to the Host: [whenas Catholics expound themselves to mean by Host in their Adoration, not the Symbols, or Sacramentum, but rem Sacramenti.] Again, p. 125, 127, 129.— That, supposing the Divine Nature present in any thing, gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein it is present.] [Catholics grant this as much as he: and doth not himself say several times, That Catholics condemn the worshipping of a mere creature for Idolatry?] See §. 4. p. 120.— If (saith he) it should be but a mere creature [that I adore,] all the World cannot excuse me from Idolatry, and my own Church [he means the Roman] condemns me; all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry. Again; p. 119. It is (saith he) a principle indisputable among them, [i. e. Catholics,] that to give proper divine honour to a creature is Idolatry. Again; p. 126. he saith,— he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church, that the Humane Nature of Christ considered alone, [i. e. without an Hypostatical union to the Divinity,] aught not to have divine honour given to it: [and therefore neither any other creature whatever, that is not Hypostatically united, as none besides It is.] All these, I say, faulty and mistaken in charging the Church of Rome with this species of Idolatry, of worshipping a creature [the Bread] instead of Christ; from which the other Protestants clear it.  
§. 32 Lastly, Dr. Hammond, in his Treatise of Idolatry, §. 64. upon supposition that the ignorance or error of Catholics is grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture, [I add, so expounded to them by the supreme Church-Authority,] seems to charge them rather with a material than a formal Idolatry; which material Idolatry in many cases is or may be committed without sin; as also material Adultery, and the like. His words are;— That if it be demanded, Whether in this case, that their ignorance or error be grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture, this so simple and not gross ignorance may serve for a sufficient antidote to allay the poison of such a sin of material, tho' perhaps in them not formal, Idolatry, etc. because if they were not verily persuaded that it were God, they profess they would never think of worshipping it?— he had no necessity to define and satisfy it, being only to consider what Idolatry is; and not how excusable ignorance or mistake can make it. And indeed Protestant Writers, that will have it to be Idolatry, are concerned to make it such a gentle one, as that the practice thereof, died in, and it neither particularly confessed, nor repent of, yet excludes not from Salvation; or else they must damn all those who lived in the visible communion of the Church Catholic for five or six hundred years, by their own confession.  
§. 33 9 Meanwhile Catholics willingly grant to Protestant's that, for which Daille's Apology of the Reformed Churches, c. 2. p. 98. much contendeth in their behalf: That to Adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord, but Bread; or to perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there, where the worshipper believes he is not, is unlawful to be done by any, so long as the person continues so persuaded: For, Conscientia erronea obligat. But then, if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord; neither will the same person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his conscience, and in his not adoring: disobedience to the Churches just commands being no light offence. Neither for the yielding such obedience in general is it necessary that the Church's Subjects be absolutely certain of the rightness or lawfulness of the Church's Decrees or Commands: For, thus, the more ignorant in spiritual matters and the things commanded that any person is, the more free and released should he be from all obedience; the contrary of which is true. But sufficient it is even in the stating of judicious Protestant Divines, when writing against Puritans, (see Considerations on the Council of Trent, §. 295. n. 3, 4.) that such persons be not absolutely certain that the Church's commands are unjust, and that they do in something demonstratively contradict God's Law: which plain contradiction, if a private person can see it, 'tis strange the Church should not. And as to this particular matter, after the Church's motives of Adoration, that are delivered before, §. 24, etc. well considered, I leave the Reader to judge, whether such a pretended certainty can have any solid ground. It is better indeed to forbear an action, when we are not certain of the lawfulness thereof, provided that we are certain, that in such forbearance we do not sin. But thus certain of our not sinning in such forbearance we cannot be, concerning any thing that is enjoined us by our lawful and Canonical Superiors; whom we are obliged to obey: unless (as hath been said) we are first certain that such their command is unlawful.  
And hitherto of this Controversy; where the Two main things that seem worthy to be examined, by any Christian, who in this point seeks satisfaction, are, 1. Whether the Roman Catholick's grounds of believing Christ's Corporal Presence in the Eucharist, with the Symbols, are solid and true. 2. And next; Whether this Church, for any one's enjoying her Communion, exacts more of him, than the confessing that Christ as present there is also there to be adored: whilst meanwhile such person renounceth and declares against any adoration, or, if you will, coadoration of the species, or any other thing whatever there present, with any Latria or supreme worship, proper or improper, or with any other honour or reverence, save only such an inferior veneration as is exhibited by us to other Holy Things.  
FINIS.