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. §. 6. n. 3. Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta 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 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 tunc etiam 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 ustia 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 the 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 affirmative precept which according to the received rule tyes 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 the bodily act of Adoration that inward honour which we always carry toward our Lord Christ as God Again p. 351. Not to balk that freedom saith he which hath carried me to publish all this I do believe that it was so practised and done i. e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eucharist in the ancient Church and in the symbols before receiving which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this That there is no just cause why it should not be done at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole which were it taken away that it this adoration might be done again and ought not to be of it self alone any cause of Distance i. e. between the Churches of Christ 6. It is granted by Daille in his Apology c. 11. and in his defence of it against Chaumont 1. That altho' the Reformed of his party do not believe the presence of Christ's body in the Signs yet they esteem not the belief of it so criminal that it obligeth them to break off communion with all those that hold it So that had the Roman Church no other error save this they freely confess it had given them no sufficient cause of separating from it as saith he appears in this that we tolerate and bear with it in the Lutherans And again * Reply to Chaumont p. 63. for the adoration of this Body as so present with the signs when indeed it is not so
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 so vast 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 Diviâ—itas 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 upon it This for Vasquez And as for Bellarmin's adoration improprie and per accidens Bishop Forbes tells us l. 2. c. 2. § 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet And Bellarmin himself as appears by the former citations waving these School disputes tells us Status Quaestionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus i. e. no more is defined decided imposed on Christians faith by the Church than this nor more needs be desputed with or maintained against Protestants than this This in the 2 d. place from § 11. Of Catholicks professing their Adoration with divine worship of Christ only present in the Sacrament with the Symbols not of the Symbols or not of the Sacrament if taken for the Symbols § 17 3 ly Therefore also Catholicks ground their Adoration a thing Cardinal Perron much insists upon in his Reply to King James not on Transubstantiation tho' both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation involve it so that either of these maintained Adoration necessarily follows as if Transubstantiation defeated Adoration is so too but on a Real Presence with the Symbols which in general is agreed on by the Lutheran together with them Which Adoration they affirm due with all the same circumstances wherewith it is now performed tho' Christ's Body were present with the Symbols neither as under the accidents of Bread as they say nor under the substance of Bread as the Lutheran saith but tho' after some other unknown manner distinct from both and if they were convinced of the error of Transubstantiation and of the truth of the presence of the substance of the Bread unchanged yet as long as not confuted in the point of Real Presence they would never the less for this continue to adore the self same Object as now in the self same place namely the Body of Christ still present there with the Symbols and therefore there adorable tho' present after another
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 Consecration 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 Consubstantiation 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 § 17. 4. Supposing not granting Transubstantiation an error yet if Corporal or Real Presence held 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 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 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 this 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 Apol. des Eglis Reform c. 10. Thus also Daillé Apol. des Eglis Reform c.
Eucharistia prolata sunt Et quae nisi dextre capiantur incautos homines facile in errores abducent And below Sanctissimi Patres quo haec auditorum animis vehementius efficacius 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 countenance 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. 12◠hath mentioned that passage of the ancient Author de Coena Domini in S. Cyprian's Works the words are these Panis iste quem Dominus discipulis 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 Lord's Body and Blood there but also to the transmutation of the Elements there whilst the exteriors of them still remain But now in the last place supposing the natura panis to remain which the Father saith is changed yet so long as these Divines maintain according to the Doctrine of the Fathers a substantial presence of our Lord's Body in the Eucharist and that with the Symbols as he saith p. 45. Sacramento suo quasi contectum tho' they will not admit such a Symbol as the 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 0139 0979 V 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 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. 0139 0979 V 3 2. in his second Reply to Chaumont p. 29. There is a vast difference between to adore the Sacrament and 013 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 afterwards 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 Thatthe faithful cast down themselves before
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 veneratione 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 they urge That the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take of the common objection That we ought not to give divine worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements Thus argues he When as he might know that the Fathers of Trent who said this do hold the chief thing instituted and exhibited in the Sacrament to be not the Elements but Christ's Body and ipsum corpus Domini to be also orally both taken and eaten tho' not modo naturali carnis or corporis as well as the Elements according to our Lord 's express words Accipite Manducate Hoc est Corpus meum i. e. quod manducatis and when-as he might know also that the occasion of adding this clause was in opposition to a party of Luther's followers who granting Christ's Body present with the Symbols and yet denying Adoration said for it that our Lord's Body not the Symbol was present there non ut adoretur sed ut sumatur And Calvin also saith some such thing Institut l. 4. c. 17. § 35. urging there was no such mandate for Adoration i. e. of Christ's Body of which he was formerly speaking but that our Lord commanded only accipite manducate bibite quo saith he accipi or sumi if you will Sacramentum non adorari jubet 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 Discassionis 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 nisi 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
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 docent 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 Mire 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 as much as he and doth not himself say several times That Catholicks condemn the worshipping of a mere creature for Idolatry See § 4. p. 120. If saith he it should be but a mere creature that I adore all the World cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church he means the Roman condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry Again p. 119. It is saith he a principle indisputable among them i. e. Catholicks that to give proper divine honour to a creature is Idolatry Again p. 126. he saith he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church that the Humane Nature of Christ considered alone i. e. without an Hypostatical union to the Divinity ought not to have divine honour given to it and therefore neither any other creature whatever that is not Hypostatically united as none besides It is All these I say faulty and mistaken in charging the Church of Rome with this species of Idolatry of worshipping a creature the Bread instead of Christ from which the other Protestants clear it § 32 Lastly Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry § 64. upon supposition that the ignorance or error of Catholicks is grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture I add so expounded to them by the supreme Church-Authority seems to charge them rather with a material than a formal Idolatry which material Idolatry in many cases is or may be committed without sin as also material Adultery and the like His words are That if it be demanded Whether in this case that their ignorance or error be grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture this so simple and not gross ignornace may serve for a sufficient antidote to ally the poison of such a sin of material tho' perhaps in them not formal Idolatry c. because if they were not verily perswaded that it were God they profess they would never think of
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 â—arnem 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 osserri 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. expungi substantiae vocem idcirco de industria passim a Calvino a me usurpatam ut eorum calumniae occurreremus qui nos clamitant prore 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 tit cap. 2. Protestantium omnium consensus de reali §. 5. n. 2. 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 enimde 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
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 concernment §. 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 that interpretation thereof which the Supremest Authority in the Church that hath been heretofore convened about such matters hath so often and always in the same manner decided to him and so to act according to its Injunctions § 26 III. But if these Councils be declined as not being so ancient as some may expect i. e. not held before some controversy hapned in the Church touching the point they decided Catholicks still have another very Rational ground of such a sense of the Divine Writ viz. the evident testimony of the more Primitive times Which that they have conveyed the Tradition of such a sense to the present Church and to these former Councils to repeat what hath been said already in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 1. because perhaps by scarcity of copies that Book may come to few hands I think will be clear to any one not much interessed that shall at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by quoted parcels the discourses on this Subject Of St. Ambros de Myster init cap. 9. the Author de Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father 4. l. 4 and 5. Chapters Cyril Hierosol Cateches Mystagog 4 5. Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 83. In Act. Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Greg. Nissen Orat. Catechet ch 36 37. Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatensis de Paschate Serm. 5. Hilarius Pictav de Trinitate the former part of the 8th Book Cyril Alexand. in Evangel Joan. l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the authenticalness of which pieces enough also hath been said elsewhere § 27 IV. In a consequence of and succession from this doctrine of those Primitive times and of the later Councils of the Church when this Point was brought into some Dispute and Controversie a Catholick hath for a Rational ground of his Faith and practice the universal doctrine and practice of the later
both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time and at the present also excepting his followers For the Eastern Churches disputed by some Protestants both their belief of a corporal presence with the Symbols and practice of Adoration see what hath been said at large in the Guide in Controversy disc 3. c. 8. where also are exhibited the testimonies of many learned Protestants freely conceding it and again in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 22. p. 313. and n. 9. p. 294. See also the late eminent evidences of the Faith and Practice of these Eastern Churches at this day collected by Monsieur Arnaud in his two replies to Claude a brief account whereof also is given in the Guide Disc 3. § 81. n. 2 c. In which matter whereas one of the chiefest and commonest Pleas of Protestants is the Greek and Eastern Churches their according with them whereby they seem to out-number the Roman if any will but take the courage notwithstanding his secular Interest candidly to examin it I doubt not he will receive a full Satisfaction Lastly see D. Blondel one much esteemed by Protestants for his knowledge in ancient Church-History granting an alteration in the Doctrine concerning our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist an Alteration he means from that which is now maintained by Protestants and was by the former Antiquity begun in the Greek Church after A. D. 754. * Esclaireissements sur L' Eucharistie c. 15. i. e. begun so soon as any dispute hapned in the Eastern Church concerning this Presence which dispute was first occasion'd there upon an Argument which was taken from the Eucharist and urged against Images by the Council of Constantinople under Constantius Copronymus and was contradicted by Damascen and shortly by the 2d Nicene Council In which opinion of the 2d Nicene Council and Damascen Blondel freely acknowledgeth the Greek Churches to have continued to this day See c. 16. p. 399. Again granting an Alteration in the same Doctrine as is said before begun in the Western Church A. D. 818. * See. Ibid. c. 18. i. e. as soon as the like dispute hapned about this Point in the Western Parts which dispute there was occasioned by the Council held at Frankfort under Charles the Great opposing the expressions of the foresaid Constantinopolitan Council in like manner as the 2d Nicene Council had done before Lastly if we ask him what this Alteration in the East first and afterward in the West was 1. He maketh it much-what the same in both And then he explains it to be a kind of Impanation or Consubstantiation or Assumption of the Bread by our Lord Christ His words c. 19. are these Des l' An. 818. c. Some among the Latins did as it were in imitation of the Greek conceive a kind of Consubstantiation partly like partly unlike to what many Germains he means Lutherans now maintain which to speak properly ought to be called Impanation or Assumption of the Bread by the Word of God. And c. 20. he goes on The opinion of Paschasius whom he makes Leader in the Western as Damascen in the Greek Church had advanced before A. D. 900. an Impanation of the Word fortified and getting credit by degrees the establishment of which saith he p. 440. both Damascen and Paschasius designed Wherein he saith p. 441. they supposed a kind of Identity between the Sacrament and the Natural Body of Christ founded upon the inhabitation of the Deity in them which at last produced he saith the establishment of Transubstantiation under Pope Innocent the Third Here then 1. We see granted both of the Greek and Latin Church the same Tenent 2. We may observed that this Tenent of Impanation he imposeth on them when well examined is found much more gross and absurd than that of Transubstantiation For which see what is said in Bellarmin de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. 15. Or in Suarez de Sacrament Disp 49. But 3. see in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 13. and n. 16. c. that this Doctrine of Damascen and the Greek Church and afterwards of Paschasius and the Latin before Innocent the Third's time was plain Transubstantiation and is misrepresented by Blondel for Impanation and therefore never hath the Greek Church hitherto had any contest or clashing with the Roman concerning this point And see the concessions also of other Protestants very frequent and more candid of Transubstantiation held by the Greek Churches of later times as well as by the Roman produced in the Rational Account concerning the Guide in Controversies Disc 3. c. 8. 4 ly Lastly these Churches in which he saith such an Alteration was made from the former Doctrine of Antiquity deny it at all so to be and affirm that when some new opinions appeared they maintained and vindicated it as the Doctrine of the Fathers their Proofs of it being also extracted out of the Fathers Testimonies Now then to stand against such a strong stream of both East and West running constantly in this course seems 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 sect 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 t he 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