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
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
assisted by our Saviour to the end of the World and the Pillar of Truth and thinking the greatness of this crime a good argument of the Churches innocency therein whilst perhaps in some smaller matters she might be liable to a mistake I do believe saith Mr. Thorndike Epilog 3. l. 30. c. p. 353. that it hath been said by great Doctors of the Church of Rome that they must needs think themselves flat Idolaters if they could think that the Elements are not abolished That shews with what confidence they would have the World apprehend that they hold their opinion but not that the consequence is true unless that which I have said be reprovable And again in Just weights c. 19. When they say they must be flat Idolaters if the Elements be there zeal to their opinion makes them say more than they should say Lastly If Costerus saith that Transubstantiation failing Catholicks do worship the bread Bellarmin de Eucha l. 4. c. 30. and others say just the contrary arguing thus concerning a Catholick's worshipping an unconsecrated Host which is nothing but bread Adoratio ex intentione i. e. such as is rationally grounded potissimum pendet Quare qui talem panem adorat quod certo credat non esse panem sed Christum is proprie formaliter Christum adorat non panem Which may as well be said of an Host consecrated that is not Transubstantiated when the adorer upon probable grounds believes it to be so but remains still bread Qui hunt panem adorat quod certo credat non esse panem sed Christum is proprie formaliter Christum adorat non panem And the same much-what as by Bellarmin is said by Dr. Hammond Disc of Idolatry § 64. That supposing their error be grounded on an honest and blameless misunderstanding of Scripture it is tho' material yet perhaps in them not formal Idolatry because if they were not verily perswaded that it were God they profess they would never think of worshipping it Thus he This in the 5th place of not only Transubstantiation but Real Presence being supposed an error yet that the Roman practice or error compared with the Lutheran the first is no more peccant than the later and therefore that the Lutheran by Protestants being excused from Idolatry so ought the Roman Catholick too § 21 6. Both these being supposed errors and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all as is by them both imagined there yet such Adoration by the one or the other of Christ who is a true object of supreme Adoration and only by them mistaken to be in some place where he is not cannot be termed any such Idolatry as is the worshipping of an object not at all adorable So for example If we suppose a Heathen worshipping a Heathen-God as having some particular residence in an Image or an Israelite worshipping the true God of Israel as having a special residence in the Calf at Sinai or in Jeroboam's Calves called also by him Cherubims or lastly a Manichean mistaking nothing in the Nature or Attributes of our Lord Christ save that he thinks him to have some particular residence in the Sun and so worshipping him as present there None of these would be any such Idolatry or parallel to it as that of another Heathen worshipping the very Molten Image or Israelite worshipping the very Calf for his God or Manichean worshipping the Sun it self for Christ Again neither can any of these that adore only God or Christ as specially present where indeed he is not e. g. as fancied God so present in the Calf or Christ in the Sun if we suppose something else invisibly and undiscerned by him to be there present as if we imagine an Angel in the Sun or a Serpent within the Calf therefore be said to adore such Angel or Serpent and whatever fault may be in such worship yet it would be great injustice to accuse such Israelite or Manichean of adoring such Angel or Serpent upon this indefinite Proposition that he professeth to worship that which he believes to be present there especially if such person do also declare against the adoration of any such particular things if contrary to his belief there present Neither then can it be justly deduced from a Lutheran's or Catholick's adoring Christ as under the substance or species of Bread that therefore these adore the thing it self that is present under them § 22 7. Whatever fault or also Idolatry it may be called tho' not so gross as the former in a Manichean that worships Christ in the Sun or in an Israelite that worships God as specially present or resident in the Calves of Dan and Bethel or that at Sinai because it is adoring a fancy of their own without any rational ground or pretence thereof and however meerly a good intention grounded upon a culpable ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry or any other fault which as it is often pressed by Protestants is freely granted by Catholicks Yet since Daille and I suppose other Protestants with him doth allow not an absolutely certain but a reasonable tho' mistaken ground or motive of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry upon which account a Disciple adoring with divine worship a person very much resembling our Saviour when he was upon Earth or supposing a consecrated Host truly adorable one who adores an Host placed on the Altar and by some deficiency in the Priest not truly consecrated is freely absolved by them herein from committing any Idolatry See before § 8. Hence therefore if 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
worshipping it he had no necessity to define and satisfie it being only to consider what Idolatry is and not how excusable ignorance or mistake can make it And indeed Protestant Writers that will have it to be Idolatry are concerned to make it such a gentle one as that the practice thereof died in and it neither particularly confessed nor repented of yet excludes not from Salvation or else they must damn all those who lived in the visible communion of the Church Catholick for five or six hundred years by their own confession § 33 9. Mean-while Catholicks willingly grant to Protestants that for which Daille's Apology of the Reformed Churches c. 2. p. 98. much contendeth in their behalf That to Adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord but Bread or to perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there where the worshipper believes he is not is unlawful to be done by any so long as the person continues so perswaded For Conscientia erronea obligat But then if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord neither will the same person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his conscience and in his not adoring disobedience to the Churches just commands being no light offence Neither for the yielding such obedience in general is it necessary that the Churches Subjects be absolutely certain of the rightness or lawfulness of the Churches Decrees or Commands For thus the more ignorant in spiritual matters and the things commanded that any person is the more free and released should he be from all obedience the contrary of which is true But sufficient it is even in the stating of judicious Protestant Divines when writing against Puritans see Considerations on the Council of Trent § 295. n. 3 4. that such persons be not absolutely certain that the Churches commands are unjust and that they do in something demonstratively contradict God's Law which plain contradiction if a private person can see it 't is strange the Church should not And as to this particular matter after the Churches motives of Adoration that are delivered before § 24 c. well considered I leave the Reader to judge whether such a pretended certainty can have any solid ground It is better indeed to forbear an action when we are not certain of the lawfulness thereof provided that we are certain that in such forbearance we do not sin But thus certain of our not sinning in such forbearance we cannot be concerning any thing that is enjoyned us by our lawful and Canonical Superiors whom we are obliged to obey unless as hath been said we are first certain that such their command is unlawful § 34 And hitherto of this Controversie where the Two main things that seem worthy to be examined by any Christian who in this point seeks satisfaction are 1. Whether the Roman Catholick's grounds of believing Christ's Corporal Presence in the Eucharist with the Symbols are solid and true 2. And next Whether this Church for any ones enjoying her Communion exacts more of him than the confessing that Christ as present there is also there to be adored whilst mean-while such person renounceth and declares against any adoration or if you will co-adoration of the species or any other thing whatever there present with any Latria or supreme worship proper or improper or with any other honour or reverence save only such an inferior veneration as is exhibited by us to other Holy Things FINIS