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
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.
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
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
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