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 sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ They omit also the Priest's touching or handling the Patin or Chalice in the Prayer of Consecration required in the former Book done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. 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 c. 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 administring of the Sacrament The Body of our Lord c. preserve thy body and soul putting after it the later Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving But then the new Liturgy prepared for Scotland and published A. D. 1637. rectifies and reduces many of the former things again to the first mode first restores those words in the Consecration with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless c. that They may be unto us the Body c. 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 c. and instead thereof adds after the former words The Body of our Lord c. 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 Sanctifie the oblation of Bread and Wine that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood From which words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their 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 here quoting Montague's Appeal p. 289. Lastly when the late Clergy A. D. 1661. being upon I know not what inducements §. 3. n. 2. solicited to receive the foremention'd 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 cancelled and instead of them inserted these It is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural fâ—â—sh and Blood as we find them in the present Rubrick § 4 Having exhibited this general view of the Mutations which have been made in this Church in several times according as different Judgments had the power somewhat waveringly it see as in the things relating to so great an Article of Faith I think fit now more particularly to resume the consideration of the Declaration about Adoration In which are contained these three Observables 1. That here the present Clergy do profess expresly 1. Observ 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. Observ 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 acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers 3. Observ and for the avoiding of such prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but that hereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's 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
Two Discourses CONCERNING the ADORATION OF OUR B. SAVIOUR IN THE H. EUCHARIST The FIRST ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Alterations of the RVBRICK in the Communion-Service in the Common-Prayer-Book of the CHURCH of ENGLAND The SECOND The Catholicks DEFENCE for their Adoration of our LORD as believed Really and Substantially present in the Holy Sacrament of the EUCHARIST At OXFORD Printed Anno 1687. ANIMADVERSIONS UPON THE ALTERATIONS of the RUBRICK in the COMMVNION-SERVICE c. 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 c. 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 shewn 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 shewn 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 then 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 alledged for Zuinglianism in opposition to the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers § 55. Concerning the RUBRICK of the English LITVRGY CHAP. I. A brief Narration of the Alterations made in the English Reformed Service of the Eucharist § 1 AFter that King Edward's former Liturgy had been censured by many especially foreign Divines as not sufficiently purg'd and removed to a right distance from the former errors and superstitions of Popery in the Fifth year of that King's Reign it suffered a Review and a new Reformation and then amongst other things this following Declaration in the Administration of the Lord's Supper for the explaining of the Intention of the Church of England enjoyning kneeling at the receiving of the Communion was de novo inserted into it Whereas it is ordained in this Office of the Administration of the Lord's Supper that the Communicants should receive the same kneeling which Order is well meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy Receivers and for the avoiding of such profanation and 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
invisibilem quae inter humanitatem divinitatem Christi ubi nisi Eutychen sâ—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 c. 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 Christs Body in the Eucharist in the King's name declines any such Controversy and saying that the contest was not about rei veritatem but only modum returns this reply p. 50. Miratur vero serenisimus Rex cum fateatur tua illustris 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 c. § 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 c. Then at last he brings in the decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton in which the Lutherans are received to their 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 forbid saith Bishop Bilson we should deny that the flesh and blood of Christ are truly present and truly received of the faithful at the Lord's Table It is the Doctrine that we teach others and comfort our selves 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 c. 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 Yon Roman Catholicks 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 Heresie Now as many and as Learned Protestants believe and maintain this as do believe possibility of salvation in the Roman Church c. 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 Christs Real by this he means Substantial as also is affirmed by the Cardinal presence there after a mysterious and indeed an ineffable manner no Man could have spoken better And § 35.6 n. Punct 4. quotes also 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 c. only we differ in modo in the way and manner of being there § 15 6. Thus Dr. Taylor one of the last who hath written a just Treatise on this subject 1. § 11. n. p. 18. It is enquired whether when we say we believe Christ's Body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that body that flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was crucified dead and buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one body of Christ natural and glorified but he that saith that body is glorified which was crucified says it is the same body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the body and blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth for there is no other body no other blood of Christ but tho' it is the same we eat and drink yet it is in 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 expresly affirm the meaning is easie they intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense and then calling Corpus spirituale the word spirituale is not a substantial predication but is an affirmation of the manner tho' in disputation it be made the Predicate of a Proposition and the opposite member of a Distinction That Body which was crucified is not that body that is eaten in the Sacrament if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being but that body which was crucified the same body we do eat if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating and this I noted that we may not be prejudiced by words
when the notion is certain and easie 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 sayings in the Fathers as may seem by the expression to import as if the same body that was crucified were not eaten here by us in the Sacrament and 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 c. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence his Book bearing this Title The Real Presence and Spiritual of Christ c. 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 it self for then to say a thing is there after a natural manner were as much as to say the thing is not there but the exclusion of those properties which usually accompany nature or the thing See p. 12. where he allows of the term substantialiter and of that expression of Conc. Trid. Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest and in the same page he saith when the word Real presence is denied by some Protestants it is taken for natural and not for in rei veritate § 16 7. Thus Bishop Forbes de Eucharistia 2. l. 2. c. 9. § An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus Protestantes saniores non 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 hi fere omnes male de praesentia Christi Domini in Sacramento miro sed vero modo praesentis sentiunt Again 3. l. 1. c. § 10. Dicunt etiam saepissime sancti Patres in 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 acknowledg'd 1. Christi corpus in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesens 2. Hoc corpus oblatum in Eucharistia ut sacrificium Deo Patri 3. Ipsi corpori Christi ut praesenti in Eucharistia miraculo quodam ineffabili immediate debita adoratio varae Latriae § 17 8. Thus the Archbishop of Spalato much-what to the same purpose de Rep. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. 7. § Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis sanguinis Christi ille vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen quodam spirituali miraculoso impereeptibili sumit omnis digne communicans adorare potest debet corpus Christi quod 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 c. 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 c. 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
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 't is hic so as not ubique or not alibi where no Communion is celebrated what is this but to affirm 't is 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 c. 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 mente 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 Rubrick which saith Our Lord's Body is in Heaven and not on the Altar telling us that they acknowledge the Thing only dare not be so bold as the Romanists to determine the Manner a thing said by Bishop Andrews and others in the former Testimonies I find him I say returning this answer 1. To the Rubrick That this new Rubrick is but the old one restored where he might have done well to have considered by whom in was also ejected 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 judgment of such Clergy-men 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 Rubrick 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 Vniversal Governor according to the Canons of Councils even the Council of Trent must we therefore stoop to such mens judgments Or might you not as well tell us That Cassander or Militier yea or Bellarmine were of your mind Thus he But if the acknowledging an essential or substantial presence of Christ's Body or of his Flesh and Blood that was born of the Virgin Mary in the Eucharist and with the Symbols tho' the manner not prescribed doth Romanize this Clergy Bishop Cousins is one of those number * See the former Discourse concerning the Eucharist § 5. n. 2. c. 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 Judgment who speaks of this presence of our Lord much otherwise than the Bishop in this manner p. 14. That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood representative and not of such a Body as he hath now glorified which he denies to be flesh and blood but such as was truly flesh and blood which he once offered the Benefits of which Sacrifice and really given us in and by the Eucharist And p. 15. That our Lord at his last Supper speaketh of a Representative Body and Blood i. e. in the words Hoc est Corpus meum when his real Body was not broken nor slain nor his bloodshed till after And I can scarce believe saith he that man that saith he believeth that they the Apostles believed that then they did eat Christ's very Flesh and Blood * 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 meer Bread and Wine but Christ's Body and Blood as the King's Statue in Brass is not bare brass In all which we hear of the benefits of our Lord's Body and Blood and of his Sacrifice on the Cross really given to us in the Eucharist but nothing of his very Flesh and Blood really and essentially present there a thing professed abundantly by Bishop Cousins CHAP. IV. Considerations on the third Observation No Adoration intended or due to any Corporal presence THis from § 19. I had to present
Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential into No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence 1. Yet methinks here also first they should have more clearly expressed this to prevent such a misapprehension 2. Adoration being granted due in one way as not due in another § 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way as not present in another methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more than the latter and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus according to the true meaning of those who received it viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored yet ought to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven but also truly in the Eucharist it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body if not after a natural manner yet in its true reality and essence after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power to be at one time in more places than one § 55 Lastly in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here produced perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Authors that seem to qualifie 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 vertue and effects and the presence of his Spirit c. and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers FINIS THE CATHOLICKS 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 EVCHARIST 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. Catholick 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. Catholicks 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 Catholicks say nor under the Substance of Bread as Lutherans say but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § § â—7 4. Supposing not grantâ—â—g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bstantiation an error yet if Corporal or Real Presâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the Lutherans be true Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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. Catholicks 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 Vniversal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches § 27. 5. Protestant Concessions § 28. 8. For these Grounds given by Catholicks Idolatry by many Protestants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome § 30. 9. Catholicks 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 perswaded § 33. CATHOLICK 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 shew what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants 2. Examine what Catholicks 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 shewed and presented himself to them for some other purpose
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 vivificaâ—s nos Corporis Sanguinis sui substantia i. e. in the Sacrament that Hoc mysterium nostrâ—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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 Fathers 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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 discipâ—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 Bishops 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 Catholicks 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 Lords 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 Catholicks 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 sayings of the Fathers constrained Luther as he often professeth Mean while if it be asked why such a Consubstantiation is declined by Catholicks 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 Judgments of which Councils Catholicks 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
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 Catholicks from granting what a late Author * Stilligst Rom. Idol P. 128. pretends they do but that which he alledgeth no way shews 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 impassible 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 c. 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 Catholicks 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 c. of which Veneration much hath been spoken in the Discourse of Images § 42. c. 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 Catholicks say they are or be they not only these but the substance of bread also under them as Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 c. 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
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 c. is present as in Heaven so here in this Holy Sacrament either to the worthy Receiver or to the Symbols § 8 For which First see Calvin whose Doctrine amongst all the rest the Roman Lutheran or Zuinglian the Church of England seems rather to have embraced and agreed with especially since the beginning of the Reformation of Q. Elizabeth Thus 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 offert nempe quod paulo ante diximus verum corpus sanguinem Christi ut appareat nos ipsius corporis sanguinis Christi praesentiam in Coena retinere defendere si quid nobis cum vere 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 c. § 10 Next to come to our English Divines First Thus Mr. Hooker Eccl. Polit. 5. l. 67. § p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is Administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his body and blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated elements themselves This therefore was no doubt amongst the divided parties in Mr. Hooker 's Judgment Whether Christ's natural body was only in Heaven or both in Heaven and also in the Eucharist for if 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 Vnion 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
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 shou'd not be done at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole Here is acknowledg'd 1. 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 antiently practised CHAP. III. Considerations on the second Observable That a natural Body cannot be in many places at once § 19 THis I had to represent and these witnesses to produce against the first Observable the profession made in this Declaration That the natural Body and Blood of Christ are not in the Holy 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 â—â—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 numbred up many apparent contradictions not only in respect of a natural but as he faiths of an alsolute possibility of Transubstantiation from p. 207. to p. 337. Tet saith he let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it and wake publick amends all my arguments i. e. of apparent Contradictions and absolute 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 c. clauso utero and of the Resurrection with identity of bodies in which the Socinians find absurdities and contradictions notwithstanding seeming impossibilities and therefore why not Transubstantiation He answers That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation as of the other then this Argument were good and if it were possible for ten thousand times more arguments to be brought against Transubstantiation of which ten thousand then 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 it self Again in Liberty of Prophecy 20. § 16. n. he saith Those who believe the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the School and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation Yet I suppose himself denies no such doctrine about the Trinity that is commonly delivered in the Schools § 21 2. I conceive that any one thing that seemeth to us to include a perfect contradiction can no more be effected by divine power than another or than many other the like may therefore if these men do admit once that some seeming contradiction to reason may yet be verified in this Sacrament for which they call it an ineffable mystery I see not why they should deny that this particular seeming contradiction among the rest of the same body being at the same time in several al places yet by the divine power I say not is for the 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 c. which
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 ought 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 acknowledgment 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 cloathed with the ordinary properties of a body be denied as it is not only by the English Divines but by the Lutheran and Roman see below § 48. yet let there be any other manner of Presence known from divine Revelation of the very same body and blood and this is as real and essential let it be called Spiritual Mystical or by what name you please as if 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 shew 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's alledging 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 c. per scabellum terra intelligitur per terram caro Christi quam hodie quoque in mysteriis i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols adoramus quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt We worship c. saith the Doctor for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our souls the flesh and blood of Christ so that we worship he means the body or the flesh of Christ in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his body but we give no divine honour to the signs § 44 Again thus Bishop Forbes quoted before de Euchar. 2. l. 2. c. 9. § An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus Protestantes saniores non dubitant In sumptione enim Eucharistiae ut utar verbis 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 Spalato 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 Epil 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. I suppose saith he that the body and blood of Christ may be adored wheresoever they are and must be adored by a good 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 tye a Man to do the duty always because he then should do nothing else what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite and presently to take hold and oblige And is not the presence thereof in the 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 fore-cited Doctrine and contrary to the Religion of King James and Bishop Andrews published to the world abroad Or at least in thus denying adoration due to a corporal presence and then not declaring any other presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament that is adorable when as such a presence they believe it seems to betray the communicants to a greater miscarriage in their behaviour as to such our Saviour's presence at the receiving of these dreadful Mysteries and to abridg this duty of that extent in which it had formerly been
than for adoration as to teach them to suffer for them c. Might not the Magi 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 where-ever 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 joyned with it as likewise ever since the Incarnation having also its hypostasis or subsistence from the Divinity joyned 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 ubi-ubi est adorandus est Thus also Dailié Apol. des â—glis Reform c. 10. Apol. des Eglis Reform c. 10. who in pitching especially on this point Adoration of the Eucharist as hindring 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 c. 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 it self 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. Taylor 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 Confessione 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 rent 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 administred 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 c. 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 Cosins his late Historia Transubstantiationis §. 5. n. 2. tit cap. 2. Protestantium omnium consensus de reali id est vera sed non carnali Praesentia Christi in Eucharistia manifeste 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 Quod 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 quod 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 Virginis 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 it self 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 Catholicks 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 mente 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 conjoyned 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 Protestantes 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 Catholicks 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
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. asking 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 Ch 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 joyned 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 c. 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. c. 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 reale illi communioni realiter praesâ—ns Thus Spalatensis And so Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 2. l. 2. c. 9. § An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus Protestantes 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 expresly 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 where-ever 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
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 consider'd 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 Catholick 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' Catholick 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 signifyed or contained is not meant by the Sacrament but the thing signifying or containing But what Catholick 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 Catholicks 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 it self 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 Catholicks 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 then 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 Catholicks Bishop Forbes gives this testimony l. 2. c. 2.9 § In Eucharistia mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae c. neque satis est 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. Catholicks dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda sed dicunt corpus Christi verum reale 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 Catholicks 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 Catholick 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 Commandement 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 Disswasive § 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 shew 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 Catholicks 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 c. 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 co-adoration may improprie or per accidens be said to be given to the symbols also as sacramentally joyned 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 Cloths as Bellarmin explains it de Euchar. l. 4. c. 29. Neque enim saith he jubebant Christum vestibus nudari antequam adorarent aut animo cogitatione 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 stript 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 mean-while 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 Catholicks 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 judgment 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. c. 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
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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 dissent 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 judgment of the Helvetian Ministers and Calvin apud Hospinian f. 212. But next Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 then 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 c. 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 Catholicks to 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 publick Amends § 25 II. Again Catholicks 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 controversie 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 c. Out of the number of which Councils said to establish such a Doctrine as Bishop Cosins 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 Catholick 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 shewed 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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 rent 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 administred 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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks have another half of the Reformation viz. all the Lutheran Protestants 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 c. mentioned before § 7. Look back now upon all these Pleas of Catholicks 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 c. especially when Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 sayings 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 Catholicks 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 Catholick 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 enquire 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 rendring them sometimes blameless sometimes faulty according as the mistake is ex â—r in-excusable Next he grants Ibid. § 5. a Catholick 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 consciencious Reader to what hath been said before waving that of Transubstantiation as to this Controversy tho' the same Catholick 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 Catholicks 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 non-tamen haeretica aut impia vel cum fide directe pugnante ut superiore libro ostensum est Christi corpus quod vere adorandum est adorant In Eucharistia enim mente 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. shewing 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 Spalato 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. Taylor 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 joyned 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 some-way 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 then 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 c. is the only true and eternal God c. 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 Catholicks 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 joyned 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 Catholick 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 controversie with Catholicks 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 shewed before § 12. And so faulty in his concluding p. 118. That the immediate term of that Divine Worship given by Catholicks 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 Catholicks 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 Catholicks grant this