clear consequence tho not acknowledg'd by the Party to ruine Christ's true humane nature the other to destroy the Trinity Such ought to be separated from as men not discerning this consequence only from a some way culpable and affected ignorance See what Daille saith of this Rep. 2. p. 82 83. But to return to Daille therefore saith he tho Adoration should follow upon the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's presence in the Eucharist yet if they acknowledg no such consequence or practise no such thing we may not for their error abhor their Communion In which I may advance one step farther with Daille's good leave that should the Lutherans also acknowledg the consequence and practise such a thing as Adoration of Christ as corporally present in the Eucharist yet for this neither is their Communion refusable Because such Adoration opposeth no Principle but is at the most but vain and inutile according to Daille's own judgment quoted before Observe here also from this Proposition of Daille's That he holds a duty of separation from the Communion of the Church of Rome because of their worshipping the Eucharist tho they should not enjoin it to any because we ought not to Communicate with any such who acknowledg and profess a Doctrine or Practise clearly repugnant to a Principle as he contends the Roman Adoration is As for the other cause of Separation the enjoining this Practise upon men contrarily perswaded we shall speak to it anon Thus much for Daille § XXXI The Roman Qualifications concerning Adoration Next To see what qualifications the Transubstantialists make concerning their Adoration 1. First After Consecration they affirm not Christ's Body to be there alone but the Symbols also to remain with it This is shew'd before 2. They affirm the Symbols capable of some reverence as being holy things but not at all of divine worship as being Christ's Body for they are distinct from it See Cassand Consult de Ador. Euch. Quae adoratio non ad ipsum signum quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interius creditur referenda est quamvis ipsi signo cujus jam virtus intelligitur tanquam religioso sacro sua veneratio debeatur See Forbes his Testimony of them l. 2. c. 2. s 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 quod Christus sub illis sit quia etiam Deus est in anima tanquam in Templo suo tamen adoratur Deus non anima ut ait Suarez Tom. 3. Qu. 79. Art 8. disp 65. sect 1. See Spalat l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri i. e. Romanists dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda sed dicunt corpus Christi verum reale quod sub illis speciebus latet deberi adorari Lastly See Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 6. Species illae neque excellunt aliis sacramentis imo sunt inferiores omnibus cum sint pura accidentia neque adorari possunt Again c. 29. Neque ullus Catholicus est qui doceat ipsa Symbola externa per se proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minori qui omnibus sacramentis convenit Where also he saith those Lutherans that hold Christ adorable in the Sacrament only modo loquendi a Catholicis dissentire And whereas many are offended see Taylor p. 366. that he puts in per se proprie and holds the Adoration of Christ aliquo modo pertinere ad Symbola Yet 1. This is no stating of the Church in any Council 2. Nor an universal Doctrine of the Roman Doctors see Forbes l. 2. c. 2. s 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet 3. He doth afterwards such up again or suspend what he had said before in the conclusion where he saith Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae 4. Lastly If examin'd close the matter is not great for he saith only that we worship Christ in the Eucharist vested with the Symbols as a Disciple worshiped him on Earth his Divinity clothed with Humanity and that again clothed with Garments without making in the act of his Worship a mental separation of his Humanity from his Clothes or of his Deity from his Humanity When yet saith he ratio adorandi i. e. with supreme Adoration non erant vestes imo nec ipsa humanitas sed solum divinitas So then at the worst he affirms no more Worship due to the Symbols in the Eucharist than to Christs Garments when he was on the Earth 3. They deny also any Divine Worship due to the substance of the Bread as well as to its species or symbols which substance of Bread many of them at least hold to be chang'd both for form and also matter that is to be annihilated and nothing at all thereof to remain Catholici cum negent saith Bellarmin panem in Sacramento remanere quomodo possunt asserere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Euch. l. 4. c. 29. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. the Tenent of it saith Forbes Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur illi idolatriae crassissimae c. insimulantur cum credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem c. l. 2. c. 2. s 9. Tilenus there quoted s 10. Tametsi hi panem ex sententia Protestantium adorant non tamen panem adorandum esse dictitant They deny any Divine Worship due to Bread i. e. to any thing which whilst they affirm to be Christ's Body they acknowledg also to be Bread as those who worshipped the Sun for Christ or the Molten Calf for the God that brought them out of Egypt affirming these still to be the Sun and a Molten Calf for they hold it impossible and involving contradiction That the Bread remaining Bread should also be the Body of Christ and much urge the Lutherans for saying Hic Panis est Corpus meum Therefore also they say That should they worship Bread for the Body of Christ they should be the greatest Idolaters in the World. But yet this I conceive they say not That should they worship Christ's Body as being under the accidents of Bread and yet indeed not his Body but the Bread it self be still under those accidents that so also they should be the greatest Idolaters that ever were For this their very Adversaries less partial to their cause yet will not say of them Nor do they say it of themselves for Bellarmin speaking of one mistakingly Adoring an unconsecrated Host saith Adoratio ex intentione potissimum pendet Quare qui talem panem adorat quod certo credat non esse paâ—â—m sed Christum is
before But as Article of Faith is taken for dogma necessario credendum for a divine truth necessary when known to be so to be believ'd or not oppos'd So a divine truth may be an article or object of my Faith to day which was not yesterday So he who by what means soever knows that something is said in Scripture which he knew not yesterday may be said to have to day a new article of his Faith or a new point no way to be opposed or denied but assented to and believ'd by him § L When therefore a thing is said to be no dogma fidei before and at such a time to begin to be so the meaning is That is is now a dogma fidei or object of Faith necessary to be believ'd which it was not before necessary to be believ'd not for the matter thereof as if the actual knowledg and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to Salvation thus a few points only some think not all those of the Creed are necessary and nothing thus necessary at any time that is not always so but necessary ex accidenti because we have a sufficient proposal thereof that it is a divine truth Not that the error in or ignorance of such a point even after such proposal doth derogate from our having absolutely necessary faith any more than it did before nor that in disbelieving or dissenting from it we are more defective in the necessarily salvifical principles of divine truth but that we are defective in our obedience to and acceptance of divine truths made known to us by the Church as some way conducible to Christian edification to the peace of the Church or to some other good end Therefore the duty she requires to many of her decisions is not so much an actual knowing of them as the not denying opposing contradicting them when made known to us Therefore for example should any one after the definition of the Tridentine Council thereupon hold John's and our Saviour's Baptism to have in every thing the same virtue and effect such a one whilst not knowing this definition of the Council is excusable in his error supposing it be not contracted from any careless neglect or if it be so contracted yet he is not guilty thereby of a point of infidelity as concerning necessary faith but only of the sin of negligence Neither when the Church requires the belief of Transubstantiation hence doth it follow that she saith the belief thereof is necessary to salvation but that she thinks it fit for some good ends of Christian edification not to be opposed and therefore Suarez his confessing that to believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to salvation quoted by Archbishop Laud p. 287. methinks well consists with the Church's determining it tho the Archbishop there thinks according to the Roman principles it is otherwise And as Bellarmin saith there are many things in Scripture which tho they are necessario credenda quia scripta sunt yet are not scripta quia necessario credenda so may I say of Church definitions Neither upon this may we collect that she is tyrannical in abridging the liberty of mens judgments if the belief of the points she determins be not necessary for salvation but only if no way at all beneficial to be known For the wilful opposing of which if we afterwards incur her Anathema's which exclude from heaven thus we miss of salvation not for want of necessary faith but obedience she Anathematizing us not for an error but a vice i. e. a causlesly disturbing her peace and resisting her authority Should any one after the Apostolical Synod and Decrees Act. 15. some of which were about matter of small account yet not without good reason commanded for a season at least to be observed have resisted their Injunctions in the matter of blood and things strangled holding it still lawful notwithstanding such prohibition to eat those things such an one doubtless notwithstanding the levity of the matter would justly have incurred the Church'es censure and without repentance bin liable to damnation not for want of any faith necessary thereto but of due submission and obedience to the decrees of a just Authority § LI 5. Lastly concerning our obedience to these Councils in such their decisions Obedience due to such decisions see what I have said in my Notes concerning that subject and in those of the obligation of not acting against conscience where I think t is sufficiently evidenced that we are bound to submit at least to all such points where we are not certain of the contrary as especially in this by most-confessed ineffable mystery we can little pretend to it considering what hath bin said in this paper But indeed such a submission will be found either a duty to all the Churches decisions or to none For if we obey only so many of her Canons as we in our judgment think truth rejecting the rest our submission is not to her authority deciding but a yeilding to the verisimility of the thing decided Again such a submission is either a duty to all Councils I mean which are in their authority equal or to none upon the same reason For for us to judge first of the orthodoxness of a Council which is appointed to direct us what is orthodox what a preposterous thing is it And if we go to this play once to receive only so many Councils as we like of their doctrines then as the Lutheran only admits of six Councils the Calvinist of only four so the Eutychians now in Asia upon as good grounds I mean as to any obligation to their Authority do admit only of three Councils Again the modern Nestorian of two only lastly the modern Socinian of none at all The Objection that may be made here What if a man's conscience be perswaded that the contrary to the Councils decree is evident in the Scriptures The objection of contrary perswasion of Conscience considered as what if one think that the Church in the Tridentine Council enjoyns adoration not to Christ but to the Symbols or that the worshiping of Christ as corporally present in the Sacrament is flat idolatry which is much urged by Daille as a sufficient ground for a discession from the former Church see the latter part of 8. c. of his Apology p. 55. I have answered in those Notes before-named I will only here retort it Suppose an Eutychian Nestorian Ariam plead the same excuse for dissenting from the ancient Councils for I hope he will grant some of them may be perswaded in conscience as they profess If he answer such perswasion of a conscience wilfully misinformed and refusing the guides God hath appointed to instruct it better excuseth them not from the guilt of heresy I reply neither will it in this point excuse the other especially for the business of corporal presence if they be found to go against the stream of present and former Church from whom we ought in all
humility to receive the exposition of ambiguous Scripture and to make therefrom a causless division If the Church may enjoyn men nothing that is against their conscience and nor in these exact obedience all heresy must be tolerated and the Nicene Creed is a tyranny But if you say they may use their Anathema's in greater matters but in these smaller niceties may not thus domineer over mens consciences a thing Daille accuseth the Tridentine Council of 7. c. 40. p. I answer Who shall judge what is small what is great but those who decide also the matters both small and great But let him search Antiquity and see if small matters have not also undergone their Anathema's He confesseth they have and therefore is liberal to blame both 7. c. 38. p. § LIII But I find this objection advanced yet higher That men may not obey such a decree not only when it is against conscience Objection of non-certainty considered but when they have thereof so much as a doubting conscience especially in a matter of such high consequence as Adoration is which follows upon holding a corporal presence which to give to any object without certainty that it is adorable they say is utterly inexcusable Ce n' est pas assez d'en auoir quelque opinion Il ' en fault estre certain Daille 11. c. 94. p. Upon these premises no man can chuse but doubt quod dubitas ne feceris Tail. p. 340. 1. In answer to this also see what I have said at large in those notes Indeed the rule is good where doubt of sinning is only on one side not on both only on the side of doing but not on the side of omttting also and when we are certain in omitting the thing we sin not But the case is otherwise where-ever our Mother the Church enjoyns us the doing of a thing for here is no security of not sinning if we do it not Again if Christ be there corporally present as she saith He is Daille saith 'T is our duty to adore him and as to give adoration to an object not adorable so to deny it to one adorable is both sin I may retort then with more reason quod dubitas if you doubt only and are not certain of the contrary ne omittas where the Church and your lawful Superiors enjoin you to do it For as reasonable as this proposition is quod dubitas ne faciendo pecces ne feceris so reasonable is the other quod dubitas ne omittendo pecces ne omittas 2. Again Mr. Hooker's reason methinks hath as little force as any of these to encourage any in a non-submission to the Church's judgment who in his 5. l. 67. sect 363. p. discourseth thus That there being three several opinions in the matter of the Eucharist he joyning the Two first in this Paper in one we may safeliest cleave unto that which hath nothing in it but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true But you may find the Archbishop Laud sect 35. p. 286. in his refutation of a like argument brought by the Romanist namely that it is better to be of that Church in which all Churches agree salvation may be had mentioning this very argument about the Eucharist and rejecting it as insufficient And indeed were it any way valid it would follow when of divers opinions some affirm less some more a prudent man ought always to side with the least because this is affirmed by all which I think is a dangerous assertion especially in Religion To believe and do still with the least § LIV 3. Lastly neither do I think that a sufficient lett to keep any from assenting to a corporal presence Obj. of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal presence consider'd or substantial conversion because such Presence if it be is pretended to be utterly unbeneficial and fruitless and since Nature doth nothing in vain much less doth the Author of it See Mr. Blondel in his 10. c. and Dr. Tailor sect 3. p. 28 c. and p. 46. much pressing this upon these three reasons 1. Because any pretended effects of the Eucharist must be granted to be attainable without it by a spiritual reception of Christ c. See their writings 2. Because the unworthy receiver must be granted to be partaker of it the substance of Christ's Body as well as the worthy and this without enjoying the least benefit thereof 3. Because our Saviour hath decided this point John 6.63 declaring to the Capernaites mistaking his sayings as if he meant to feed them with his flesh by virtue of which once eaten by them they should afterward live for ever That his flesh if they should eat a piece thereof would profit them nothing for any such purpose 1. First note concerning this Objection in respect of the former reason that it presseth as much the second as the third and fourth opinion who affirm the worthy receiver to partake not only virtually as the first saith but really also Christ's Body but to what end this since the other i. e. Christ received by faith supplieth all the effect desired or pretended according to John 6.40 47. and St. Austin's saying crede manducasti 2. Now for an Answer to it in reference to both the reasons I might transcribe you Bellarmin's in Eucharist 3. l. 9. c. which to me seems very satisfactory Read it at your leisure The effects of the Eucharist such as are alledged by Blondel out of Peron Namely a more strict and entire union and conjunction of us to God the increase of grace and charity in us the sowing in us the seed of immortality and a resurrection of our decaying bodies c. are not affirm'd to be wrought in us by the corporal presence of our Saviour as after a physical or irresistible manner but as by a proper instrument appointed by God for such effects upon such a disposition of the receiver Therefore neither are these effects necessary to corporal presence i. e. that corporal presence cannot be without them for so it is in the unworthy communicant neither again is corporal presence absolutely necessary to such effects i. e. that they cannot be at all without corporal presence for so they are in the faithful before communicating at least in some imperfecter degree 3 But these concessions we have now made if this be all they contend will never argue the substantial or corporal presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist to be a thing superfluous or void of effect 1. Because in God's appointing several instruments for conveying the like benefits to us the arguing that one doth will never prove the other doth not the like 2. In the like effect being wrought by several means the one may produce it in a far more advanc'd degree than the other So Aquinas p. 3. q. 80. art 1. saith Plenius inducit effectum sacramenti ipsa sacramenti susceptio quam solum desiderium Yet sometimes the desiderium