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 ignorance may serve for a sufficient antidote to allay 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 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 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
Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential into No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence 1. Yet methinks here also first they should have more clearly expressed this to prevent such a misapprehension 2. Adoration being granted due in one way as not due in another § 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way as not present in another methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more than the latter and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus according to the true meaning of those who received it viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored yet ought to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven but also truly in the Eucharist it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body if not after a natural manner yet in its true reality and essence after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power to be at one time in more places than one § 55 Lastly in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here produced perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Authors that seem to qualifie these here set down and better to suit with the expressions of this Declaration But neither will this afford any relief For to free them from a real contradiction the sense of the others reduced to those here cited with leave all things in the same state or else the sense of these accommodated to others will appear to abett no more than bare Zuinglianism i. e. an absolute non-presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist save only in its vertue and effects and the presence of his Spirit c. and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers FINIS THE CATHOLICKS DEFENCE FOR THEIR ADORATION OF THE Body and Blood OF OUR LORD As believed Really and Substantially present IN THE Holy SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST At OXFORD Printed Anno 1687. THESES of Adoration of the EVCHARIST CONTENTS 1. PRotestant-Concessions § 1. 2. Catholick-Assertions § 1. Presuppositions § 1. 1. Of a Precept of giving Divine Worship to our Lord. § 1. 2. Of our Lord's whole Person its being where his Body is § 2. 3. Of this Divine Person being supremely adorable wherever his Body is Granted by Protestants § 3. Not only in Virtue but Substance § 5. 4. That this Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood is by Protestants affirmed in the Eucharist and that this Body is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration § 5. 5. Further affirmed That Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant but to the Symbols and whilst present are to be adored § 7. 6. Granted by Daille That tho' he and his believe not Christ's Body present in the signs yet they for this break not Communion with those that hold it § 8. Catholick Assertions 1. A Sign or Symbol to remain after Consecoration distinct from the thing signified § 9. This external Sign to be all that which is perceptible by the senses of the Bread and Wine tho' not their Substance § 10. 2. The word Sacrament to be taken not always in the same sense but sometimes for the Sign or Symbol sometimes for the thing signified § 11. 3. Catholicks ground Adoration not on Transubstantiation which as also Consubstantiantion involves it but on Real Presence with the Symbols maintaining Adoration due tho' Christ's Body were present neither under the Accidents of Bread as Catholicks say nor under the Substance of Bread as Lutherans say but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § § â—7 4. Supposing not grantâ—â—g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bstantiation an error yet if Corporal or Real Presâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the Lutherans be true Catholicks plead their Adoration warrantable § 18. 5. Supposing Real Presence an Error and the Lutheran and Roman Church both mistaken yet these latter in such Adoration as excusable from Idolatry as the other § 19. 6. Supposing both the former Opinions Errors and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all yet such Adoration by the one or the other of Christ who is a true object of supreme Adoration and only mistaken by them to be where he is not cannot be termed such Idolatry as is the professed worshipping of an Object not at all adorable § 21. 7. Whatever Idolatry it is called in a Manichean worshipping Christ in the Sun or in an Israelite worshipping God in the Calves at Dan and Bethel because adoring a fancy of their own and a good intention grounded on a culpable ignorance excuseth none from Idolatry yet since Daille and perhaps others allows a reasonable tho' mistaken ground of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry hence if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry on the same terms § 22. Catholicks Grounds for their Belief 1. Divine Revelation § 24. 2. The Declaration thereof by the supremest Church-Authority in Councils § 25. 3. The Testimony of Primitive Times § 26. 4. The Vniversal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches § 27. 5. Protestant Concessions § 28. 8. For these Grounds given by Catholicks Idolatry by many Protestants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome § 30. 9. Catholicks grant That to adore what is believed to be Bread or perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there where the Worshipper believes he is not is unlawful to be done by any whilst so perswaded § 33. CATHOLICK Theses Concerning the ADORATION of Christ's Body and Blood IN THE EUCHARIST § 1 COncerning the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood and so of his Divine Person as present in the Eucharist 1. I shall shew what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants 2. Examine what Catholicks maintain 1. I suppose a general precept of giving supreme and divine adoration to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ And Suppositions that as Affirmative precepts such as this is do not oblige to every time and place so if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place nor is there any need of any particular divine command in respect of these i. e. places and times without which command we may not obey them For what absurdities would follow hence For Was our Saviour when on Earth never lawfully worshipped but in place or time first commanded Nor then when he shewed and presented himself to them for some other purpose
manducatis and when-as he might know also that the occasion of adding this clause was in opposition to a party of Luther's followers who granting Christ's Body present with the Symbols and yet denying Adoration said for it that our Lord's Body not the Symbol was present there non ut adoretur sed ut sumatur And Calvin also saith some such thing Institut l. 4. c. 17. § 35. urging there was no such mandate for Adoration i. e. of Christ's Body of which he was formerly speaking but that our Lord commanded only accipite manducate bibite quo saith he accipi or sumi if you will Sacramentum non adorarijubet meaning Sacramentum in relation to Corpus Domini else he said nothing to the purpose of his former Discourse And it may be consider'd here also that not only the Council of Trent but no Schoolman at all some of which are thought uncautious in their expressions about Adoration of Images and consequently of the holy Symbols in the Eucharist nor is any Catholick accountable for them takes the boldness to give cultus latriae qui vero Deo debetur as the Council saith here to the Elements without annexing some qualification of a coadoratio per accidens improprie sicut vestes Regis adorantur cum Rege or ut Rex vestitus adoratur yet without our mental notion at such a time stripping him of his Garments Therefore neither can the Council here be rationally presumed to speak of the Symbols when it useth no such qualifications § 13 But to put this matter out of all doubt the Definition of this Council in the 6th Canon more than which is not required to be professed by any Son of the Roman Church is this Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum ejus Adoratores esse Idololatras Anathema sit Concerning which and some other passages in this Council in comparing the Chapters with the Canons Franciscus a sancta Clara Enchiridion of Faith Dial. 3. § 18. judiciously observes That altho' Catholick faith as to the substance is declared in the Chapters as indeed it is yet according to this we are obliged only sub anathemate to that form of expression which is defined in the Canons 1. Because the Chapters are not framed in the stile of Conciliary Definitions with Anathema 's and the like 2. Because the Canons where the very form is exceeding exact sometimes differ from the manner of expression in the Chapters in order to the same matter As sess 6. of Justification Canon 11. and Chapter 7. also sess 13. of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Canon 6. Chapter 5. and elsewhere yet sub anathemate all must stand to the Canons and therefore must expound the Chapters by them See more in the Author Soave also l. 4. p. 343. in his censure of this 13th Session tho' he saith magisterially enough in opposition to a Council That the manner of speech used in the 5th point of Doctrine saying That divine worship was due to the Sacrament was noted also for improper since it is certain that the thing signifyed or contained is not meant by the Sacrament but the thing signifying or containing But what Catholick will grant him this that Sacrament includes not both or of the two not more principally the thing contained in or joined with the Symbols Yet he observes That it was well corrected in the 6th Canon which said That the Son of God ought to be worshipped in the Sacrament See the same observed also by Grotius in Apolog. Rivet Discuss p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's forequoted passage That the Controversy between Catholicks and Lutherans in their saying The Sacrament or Christ in the Sacrament was to be worshipped was only in modo loquendi To which nothing is replied by Rivet in Dialysi Discussionis but the matter there as also in his Apologetic passed over in silence Add to Grotius what Mr. Thorndike discourseth in defence of the expression of worshipping the Sacrament Epilog 3. l. 30. c. p. 352. I confess it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it self justifies it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible species nor the invisible Grace of Christ's body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise in regard whereof both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the promise which the Institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood then to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thus he § 14 This in vindication of the Council And Bellarmine explains himself in the same manner as the Council in his Apology to King James Inter nupera dogmata ponit Rex adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistiae i. e. as Catholicks understand and explain it adorationem Christi Domini miro sed vero modo praesentis To which Bishop Andrews replies Quis ei hoc dederit Sacramento i. e. Christi in Sacramento Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res in Sacramento adorandus est Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit Thus far then the King Bishop and Cardinal are agreed Again de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status Quaestionis non est nist An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae And as it were to avoid offence when he comes to treat on this subject de Euchar. 4. l. c. 29. he prefixeth the Title to it not De adoratione but De veneratione hujus Sacramenti And in it saith that Nullus Catholicus est qui doceat Ipsa symbola externa per se proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minore Of this Doctrine of Catholicks Bishop Forbes gives this testimony l. 2. c. 2.9 § In Eucharistia mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae c. neque satis est i. e. to give them divine worship quod Christus sub illis sit quia etiam Deus est in Anima tanquam in Templo suo tamen adoratur Deus non Anima ut ait Suares 3. Tom. 79. quaest 8. art disp 65. § 1. And so Spalatensis l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri i. e. Catholicks dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda sed dicunt corpus Christi verum reale quod sub illis speciebus latet debere adorari When then the Roman Church speaking of supreme Adoration explains her language of adoring the Sacrament to mean only adoring Christ's
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 observe that this Tenent of Impanation he imposeth on them when well examined is found much more gross and absurd than that of Transubstantiation For which see what is said in Bellarmin de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. 15. Or in Suarez de Sacrament Disp 49. But 3. see in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 13. and n. 16. 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. 4ly Lastly these Churches in which he saith such an Alteration was made from the former Doctrine of Antiquity deny it at all so to be and affirm that when some new opinions appeared they maintained and vindicated it as the Doctrine of the Fathers their Proofs of it being also extracted out of the 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 § 28 V. Lastly besides this great Body Catholicks have since Luther's time in the Reformation no small number of Protestants I mean such as are the genuine Sons of the Church of England proceeding thus far as to confess both a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist and Adoration of it as present there a real presence of it to each worthy Receiver tho' not to the Elements And Hooker if he mistook not the Doctrine of the Church of England in his time saith Eccles Pol. l. 5. § 67. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so many manifold Contentions when there remaineth now no Controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves So that if Hooker and his party are in the right Catholicks do not mistake Christ's Body as present in a place where it is not but only in thinking it in that present to one thing the Elements when it is so only to another the Receiver of them But then the same Catholicks have another half of the Reformation viz. all the Lutheran Protestants that affirm with the Roman Church Christ's Body present also to the Elements or Symbols And see Mr. Thorndike also Epilog l. 3. c. 3. much for this presence of Christ's Body to be in with or under the Elements immediately upon and by the consecration of them which consecration also he placeth l. 3.4 c. p. 24. in the blessing of the Elements before the breaking c. mentioned before § 7. Look back now upon all these Pleas of Catholicks and see if they will not make up at least a reasonable ground or motive of their Adoration A reasonable ground I say not here what I might sufficient to secure their faith from all suspicion of error but which serves my purpose to secure them from Idolatry in their Adoration tho' they should be mistaken when as other persons because proceeding on like reasonable motives are by Protestants in their Adoration of a mistaken Presence or Object excused from it See before § 8. As for example the Lutheran the Adorer of one much resembling our Lord here on Earth the Adorer of an unconsecrated Host or Wafer placed on the Altar c. especially when Catholicks in crediting such divine Revelation of Christ's Presence and so for their Adoration receive no contradiction as it is pretended they do from their senses because they adore I mean with divine Adoration nothing visible or sensible at all nor any substance invisible wherein any thing that occurs to their senses inheres but only understand Christ's Body present there where their senses can no way certainly and against any pretended divine Revelation inform them either when it is present or not since salvis omnibus phaenomenis all appearances granted most true such a Presence is possible § 29 These rational Grounds of Catholicks for Adoration which we expected should have been most strictly examined by those who conclude the Roman practice herein Idolatry are slightly passed over by Daille in pronouncing that this error of Catholicks vient toute entiere de leur passion Apolog. des Eglis Reform c. 11. p. 90. And after in reducing all their ground thereof to a la seule authorite du Pape de son Concile and by Dr. Taylor Real Pres § 13. p. 346. in calling them some trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers Elsewhere indeed when he was in a more charitable temper Liberty of Prophes p. 258. he saith That for a motive to such an opinion Roman Catholicks have a divine Revelation whose literal and grammatical Sense if that Sense was intended would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle but prudently there omits their Plea of Catholick Tradition securing to them such a literal sense of the Text. Dr. Stilling-fleet Rom Idol c. 2. § 7. saith first That if a mistake in this case will excuse the Romanist it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the World And in comparing two persons one worshipping Christ as really present in the Sun another Christ as really present in the Sacrament he saith as inconsiderately as magisterially That supposing a mistake in both we are not to enquire into the reasons of the mistake i. e. as he saith before concerning the probability of the one mistake more than of the other but the influence it hath upon our actions So he But what is more manifest than that the influence which a mistake hath upon our actions as to making them culpable or innocent is not always the same but very various and often contrary rendring them sometimes blameless sometimes faulty according as the mistake is ex â—r in-excusable Next he grants Ibid. § 5. a Catholick Tradition of Transubstantiation to be a sufficient ground for Adoration But the Cacholick Tradition that is pleaded here necessary for Adoration is only that of a corporal Presence Now for a sufficient evidence of such a Tradition I refer the consciencious Reader to what hath been said before waving that of Transubstantiation as to this Controversy tho' the same Catholick Tradition authorizeth both namely a corporal Presence by a mutation of the Elements into our Lord's Body This from § 24. Of the Rational grounds Catholicks have for their Adoration § 30 8ly For such Rational grounds therefore of their worship as are here given and not from any excess of Charity or from the singular Fancies of some few tho' learned men as Dr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to Roman Idolatry would insinuate Idolatry is by many Protestants of late either not at all or but faintly charged on the Church of Rome For first see Mr. Thorndike in his Epilogue 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. I say first saith he that the Adoration of the Eucharist which the Church of Rome prescribeth is not necessarily Idolatry I say not what it may be accidentally by that intention which some men may conceal and may make it Idolatry as to God but I speak upon supposition of that intention which the profession of the Church formeth And in his Just Weights c. 19. p. 125. They who give the honour proper to God to his Creature are Idolaters they that worship the Host give the honour due to God to his Creature this is taken for a Demonstration that the worship of the Host
is Idolatry But will any Papist acknowledge that he honours the Elements of the Eucharist or as he thinks the Accidents of them for God Will common Reason charge him to honour that which he believes not to be there If they were there they would not take them for God and therefore they would not honour them for God And that is it not saying that they should be Idolaters if the Elements did remain that must make them Idolaters And Epilogue p. 357. in general he saith Whoso admits Idolatry i. e. in any point whatever to be taught by the Roman Church can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the worship of one God exclusive to any thing else The Roman Church then must either be freed from the imputation of commanding any thing that is Idolatry i. e. adoration of a creature for God or we must affirm there to be and to have been no true Church of Christ never since such command of that which they say is Idolatry went forth which no judicious Protestant I think hath or dare say of the Roman Church since the beginning of the Adoration of the Eucharist For what Church or Sect of Religion can be Apostate at all if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry even the worshipping of a piece of Bread which themselves made for that God which made them and Heaven and Earth And thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur illi Idololatriae crassissimae gravissimae ab his insimulantur damnantur cum plerique Romanenses ut alii fideles credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi unde illi non panem adorant sed tantum ex suppositione licet falsa non-tamen haeretica aut impia vel cum fide directe pugnante ut superiore libro ostensum est Christi corpus quod vere adorandum est adorant In Eucharistia enim mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo decent ipsi Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae inanimes consequenter incapaces adorationis And Ibid. shewing the Greek and Eastern Church as well as the Roman to use it he concludes Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere damnare After the same manner the Archbishop of Spalato de Repub. Eccles 7. l. 11. c. n. 6. Respondeo saith he me nullum idololatricum crimen in adoratione Eucharistiae si recte dirigatur intentio agnoscere Qui enim docent panem non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi illi profecto panem non adorant sed solum ex suppositione licet falsa Christi corpus vere adorabile adorant Non enim nostri dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda Bishop Bramhal cited before § 6. The Sacrament is to be adored said the Council of Trent The Sacrament i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ say some of your Authors we say the same The Sacrament i. e. the species of Bread and Wine say others that we deny Thus he D. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying p. 258. confesseth the Subjects of the Church of Rome no Idolaters in this kind at least so as to worship Bread or any creature with Divine Worship and as God For It is evident saith he that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their minds their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the Blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy Humanity which Humanity they believe actually under the veil of the Sacramental signs And if they thought Him not present they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical i. e. as to the directing this their divine worship to an undue object § 31 Which things if said right by him and the others the same Dr. Taylor is faulty in his charge in Real Presence p. 334. Faulty I say in charging on the Church of Rome not their worship of a right Object in a some-way unlawful and prohibited manner this we are not here examining but their worship of an undue Object of Adoration of a creature instead of God for so he chargeth them there If saith he there they be deceived in their own strict Article he means of Transubstantiation then it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a mere creature the image the Sacrament and representment of the Body of Christ. Thus he When it is evident that the Object c. is the only true and eternal God c. as he said before in the place cited and must say if he will say truth So faulty is also Daille Reply to Chaumont p. 63. in his charging the Church of Rome to worship Bread upon this arguing Catholicks adore that substance that is veiled with the accidents of Bread and Wine but this substance is Bread Ergo they adore Bread By which arguing he may as well prove the Lutherans in the Eucharist to adore a Worm or a Mite thus The Lutherans adore that substance which is joyned with the Bread but that substance is a Worm or Mite for such thing may be there with the Bread at such time of Adoration Ergo they adore a Worm Whereas both the Catholick and Lutheran explain the indefinite term that which used in the major Proposition restrictively to the Body of Christ and exclusively to any other substance whatever that is or may be there either with the Bread or under its accidents Faulty also is Dr. Stillingfleet Rom. Idol c. 2. in saying the Protestants controversie with Catholicks is Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal Presence under them p. 117. And as for the passage in the Council of Trent sess 13. c. 5. urged by him there for it his mistake is shewed before § 12. And so faulty in his concluding p. 118. That the immediate term of that Divine Worship given by Catholicks is the external and visible signs or elements And again p. 124. That upon the principles of the Roman Church no Man can be satisfied that he worships not a mere creature with divine honour when he gives Adoration to the Host whenas Catholicks expound themselves to mean by Host in their Adoration not the Symbols or Sacramentum but rem Sacramenti Again p. 125 127 129. That supposing the Divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein it is present Catholicks grant this