at Prayers upon their Knees or that the Papists worship the Priest himself before whom they Kneel in their Confessions or that on Ashwednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them and on Palm-sunday the holy Boughs which they do not pretend to do because they Kneel when they are given them as well as that we Worship the Eucharist or the Mystical Elements when we receive them Kneeling and disavow any such thing and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christians But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ Or to Worship the Body of Christ tho not for it self yet for the sake of the Divine Nature to which it is always hypostatically united No by no means I know no Hereticks tho they denied Christs Divinity but yet were for Worshipping him the old Arrians and the late Socinians but how justifiably when they believe him but a meer man or only a more excellent Creature they and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend and to clear it if they can of Idolatry As to the Worship of the Flesh tho Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles as St. Cyrill and the Council of Ephesus argue against him nor could the Ebionites nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of old yet I know none but some of their School-men dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ which however it be in our minds is never in truth abstracted from his Divinity But we will not at all trouble our selves with those parts of the Science of controversie nor shall we stand upon any of those things Well then why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament if they are proper Objects of Adorations No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacrament in the Sacrament of Baptism too and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion wherein we pray to Christ and Kneel before him and exercise the devout acts of the mind toward him put our trust and hope in him and expect Salvation from him and devote our selves in all Subjection to him and bow both our Souls and our Bodies and give all both internal and external Worship to him this Adoration we give to Christ who is God blessed for ever and who sits at the right hand of God the Father And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament to the Host and the consecrated Elements the most Sovereign and Absolute and highest Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God whose creatures those Elements are or to Christ himself who commanded us to receive them in remembrance of him But it is only Christ say they whom we Worship in the Sacrament whom we adore as being present there with his Body in the Host and not the Host or the Sacrament it self so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter or at least colour and disguise it Bellarmine a Lib. 4. de Eucharist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status quaestionis non est nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae when he had entangled himself with the distinctions of Worshipping the Sacrament whether formally or materially would extricate himself by thus stating the matter and reducing it to this question Whether Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist And St. Clara b St. Clara Deus Natura Gratia p. 308. Nota bene non dicit Concilium Tridentinum Sacramentum sed Christum in Sacramento latria adorandum would reconcile the dispute with this Observation Nota benè Mark this the Council of Trent does not say that the Sacrament is to be adored but Christ in the Sacrament I wonder so great a man as Cassander c Adoratio non ad exterius signune quod exterius videtur sed ad ipsam rem veritatem quae interius creditur referenda Cassand Consult de Adorat Euchar. should say Unless with a design to condemn the thing That the Adoration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen but is to be referr'd to the thing it self and to that which is truly and inwardly believed But Reconcilers who will attempt the vain project of Accommodation must do with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as Apelles did with Antigonus his face they must draw but one part but half of it that so they may Artificially conceal its deformed and its blind side That all these do so I shall show by stating the Controversie carefully and truly which is the chiefest thing in this dispute for they love to hide their own Doctrines as much as they can and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door to slip out at privately and upon occasion The Council of Trent has in this as in other things used art and not spoke out in one place as it does in another that so we may mistake half its words for its full meaning as Bellarmine and others were willing to do or at least to have others do so In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only says a Concil Trident. Can. 6. De Euchar. si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum Vnigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu Latriae etiam externo adorandum anathema sit If any one shall say that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist let him be accursed Who will not say in those general words that Christ is to be adored with outward and inward Worship both not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist but of Baptism too and in every Christian Office and in every Prayer and solemn Invocation of him either publick or private But they mean a great deal more than all this by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament and in as plain words they say b Ib. 13. Sess c. 5. That the Sacrament it self is to be adored that whatever it be which is something besides Christ even according to them which is placed in the Patin and upon the Altar which the Priest holds in his hands and lifts up to be seen this very thing is to be adored There is no doubt says the Council c Ib. Nullus dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae custum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhibeant neque enim minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum but that all faithful Christians according to the custom always received in the Catholick Church ought to give Supreme and Sovereign Worship which is due to God himself to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it for it is never the less to be adored tho it was instituted of Christ to be received That which is to be received which is to
as Gregory de Valentia owns they must This Worship saies he belongs after a certain manner to the species as when the Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is worshipt in the humanity which he assumed the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity Pertinet per accidens suo quodam modo ea veneratio ad Species quemadmodum suo modo etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus cultus ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario neque in hoc est aliqua Idololatria must be also united to Christ Valentia Disput 6. Quaest 11. de ritu oblat Eucharist the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity so as to become with that one entire object of Worship as the Species are according to them with Christ in the Eucharist that is they must become one suppositum or one Person with Christ This is so weighty a difficulty as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not only sweat but sink under it Valentia a De Idol l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjunction the Species have with Christ but denies their being hypostatically united to him but then how are they to be worshipt Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Creatures yet they are not to be worshipt notwithstanding that presence because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him or are not hypostatically united to him Bellarmine being pincht on this side removes the burden to t'other that is as sore and can as little bear it Christ says he b Longe aliter est Christus in Eucharistia in aliis rebus Deus Nam in Eucharistia unum tantum Suppositum est idque Divinum caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent cum illo unum quid faciunt licet non eodem modo Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist than God is in other things for in the Eucharist there is but one only suppositum and that Divine all other things there present belong to and make one thing with that If they do so then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ as T. G's learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place if they make but one suppositum with him and but one with him let it be in what manner it will they must be hypostatically united to him Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo tho not after the same manner is both unintelligible and will not at all help the matter 't is only a Confession from him that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ and make one suppositum with him and one object of Worship that he does not know how this can be and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so for this is no way imposed upon him as T. G. saies notwithstanding his non eodem modo If in the Incarnation of Christ one should say That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity but that both were not united after the same manner but the Soul in such a manner as being a Spirit and the Body in another yet so that both made but one Suppositum with it and that Divine and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that and made one with that tho not after the same manner would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Divinity and his Soul and Body and so must the other be between Christs Divinity and his Body and the Species if they make one Suppositum and are as they hold to be worshipt as such Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine and state the Case with some exactness tho I am sensible with too much length but that is the way to shorten the Controversie and by this means I have cut off their common retreats and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to and in which they are wont to Earth themselves As that they worship only Christ in the Sacrament or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine and that 't is only Christ or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament and that their Worship is given to that and not to the consecrated Elements or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise and if we take them at their own words they are sufficient to bear witness against them and condemn them of Idolatry but this will be found to be much greater and grosser when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host proves upon Examination to be false and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World to wit the belief of Transubstantiation or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine If this Doctrine be true it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species which how thin and ghostly soever they be yet are Creatures together with Christ as one Object of Worship and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point from what it is now I see not how they can justifie their worshipping with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Worship due only to God not only the adorable substance of Christs Body but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye and yet when they teach as they do the adoring of the Sacrament they must adore the visible and outward part of it as well as the invisible Body of Christ for without the remaining Species it would not according to them be a Sacrament and they have not gone so far yet I think as to deny that there are any remaining Species and that our senses do so far wholly deceive us that when we see something there is really nothing of a visible Object And the same Object which is visible is adorable too according to them If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacrament tho it were lawful to adore it as there present but by no means either the substance or Species of Bread with it yet it is much to be doubted whether it were a duty or necessary to do so It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito
substance of Christs Body is plain from what immediately goes before and utterly destroys what they would catch from half his words for he says That the Elements or the mystical Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own but remain in their former substance w 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. Thus their best Witness that seems to speak the most for them yet speaks that against them which destroys their whole cause as he must own whoever reads the Dialogue and considers the design of it which was to answer the pretence of those who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension turned into a Divine substance and lost the true nature of Body x 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are changed say those Hereticks into what they were not before Yes saies he Now ye are taken in your own net for they remain in their former nature and substance afterwards and so does Christs Body If then the change of these sacred Elements be only as to their use and vertue but not as to their substance according to Theodoret then he could not mean that they should be adored but only reverenced by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 just as the Holy Bible y 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Liturg. Chrysost 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Acta Concil Ephes is said to be reverenced and the Priest themselves by the very same word z. 4. Some of the Fathers words imply that when we come to the Sacrament it should be with the greatest lowliness both of Body and Mind and as the Primitive Church used to do and as the Church of England does in a posture of Worship and Adoration in the form and manner of Worship as St. Cyril of Hieros speaks a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catech Myst 5. or as St. Chrysostome In the form of Supplicants and Worshippers b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Homil. 7. in Matth. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. de Phil. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Homil. in c. 10. Ep. 1. ad Cor. of Christ as the Magi were when they came to bring their presents to him do thou then present him with humility and a lowly and submissive heart and be not like Herod who pretended he would come to worship him but it was to murder him but rather imitate the Magi and come with greater fear and reverence to thy Saviour than they did This is the whole design and substance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom c Boil c. 7. l 1. And this is the plain meaning of Origen d Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum ingreditur tu ergo humilians teipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum menm that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament we should do it with all Humility for consider says he That then the Lord enters under thy roof do thou therefore humble thy self and imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence looking upon and e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysostom in Serm. 31. in natal Dom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Johan Hieros apud Chrysost apud Boil p. 44. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Chrysost Ibid. adoring his Saviour who died for him upon the Cross prostrating his Soul and his Body before him and exercising the highest acts of Devotion to him and with Tears in his Eyes and Sorrow in his heart standing like a Penitent before him trembling and afraid as sensible of his own guilt with his Eyes cast down and with dejected Looks considering that he is but Dust and Ashes who is vouchsafed to this Honour and inwardly Groaning and Sighing and Panting in his Soul saying Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof and the like And thus they may find all devout Communicants in our Church behaving themselves during the whole Solemnity and Celebration of that blessed Sacrament in which Mystery they always adore Christ and that Flesh of Christ which was crucified for then as St. Ambrose and St. Austin speak when their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout Affections and they are performing all the inward and outward Acts of the highest Devotion to God and their Saviour then they are upon their Knees offering up most ardent Prayers and Thanksgivings but not to the sacred Symbols which are before them or the Sacrament it self as the object to which but as the Circumstance at and in which all this Devotion and Worship is performed And there is a great deal of difference from all this in the Church of Rome when they direct all this to the Sacrament it self and to the consecrated Elements when they terminate their Worship upon what is before them and direct their Intentions to that as an Object and therefore whenever they have this Object appear to them they immediately fall down and worship it not only in the time of the Communion when it finds them at their Devotion but at all other times when they are standing or walking in the Streets and are in no present Temper or Posture of Devotion yet all of a sudden as soon as they see the Host coming by they must put themselves into one and Adore that very Object that appears to them The Fathers always speak of Persons as coming to the Sacrament and partaking of it and worshipping Christ and the Body of Christ in the Celebration of those Divine Mysteries but it never enter'd into their minds or thoughts to perswade or encourage their hearers in their most devout Discourses to Adore the Host as the Church of Rome does either in or especially out of the time of that sacred Solemnity and tho it be very easie to make a Book out of the Fathers and to heap Authorities out of them to little purpose yet it is imposible to prove by all the places produced out of them by T. G. f Chap. 1. Of the Adoration of the blessed Sacrament or more largely by Boileau that they meant any more than what we are very willing to joyn with them in that Christ is to be worshipt in the Sacrament as in Baptism and the other Offices of our Religion and that his Body and Flesh which he offered for us and by which we expect Salvation is also to be adored as being always united to his Divine Nature and that the Sacrament it self as representing the great Mystery of our Redemption is to be highly reverenced by us and that we should come to receive it with all Humility and in the most decent Posture of Worship and Adoration as the Primitive Christians did But that the Sacrament it self is to be adored as
be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest for since they have made a God of the Sacrament they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it nor take it into their hands and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament this is now to serve for another use to be adored as a God and it would be as true heresie in the Church of Rome not to say that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored as not to say that Christ himself is to be adored But what according to them is this Sacrament It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine and the natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration which they call Sacramentum for Christs body without those Species and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine would not according to them be a Sacrament they being the outward and visible part are according to their Schoolmen properly and strictly called the Sacramentum and the other the res Sacramenti Lombard sentâ—li 4. dist 19. and to this external part of the Sacrament as well as to the internal they give 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Adoration to these remaining Species which be they what they will are but Creatures religious Worship is given together with Christs Body and they with that are the whole formal Object of their Adoration Non solum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adorari says Suarez a In Th. Quaest 79. disp quia est unum constans ex Christo Speciebus Not only Christ but the whole visible Sacrament which must be something besides Christs invisible Body is to be adored with one and the same Worship because it is one thing or one Object consisting of Christ and the Species So another of their learned men b Henriquez Moral l. 8. c. 32. Speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist because of Christ whom they contain Now Christ whom they contain must be something else than the Species that contain him Let him be present never so truly and substantially in the Sacrament or under the Species he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present and as subtil as they are and as thin and subtil as these Species are they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them and they can never be left out but must be part of the whole which is to be adored totum illud quod simul adoratur de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. as Bellarmine calls it must include these as well as Christs Body Adorationem saies Bellarmine a Bellarmine de Euch. l. 4. c. 29. ad Symbola etiam panis vini pertinere ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent Adoration belongs even to the Symbols of Bread and Wine as they are apprehended to be one with Christ whom they contain and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him and may be Worshipt together with Christ as T. G. c Cathol no Idolaters p. 268. owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary and are the very term of Adoration as Gregory de Valentia d De Idol l. 2. c. 5. says who further adds that they who think this Worship does not at all belong to the Species in that heretically oppose the perpetual customand fence of the Church Qui censeunt nullo modo ad Species ipsus eam Venerationem pertinere in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum sensum Ecclesiae de Venerati one Sacram. ad Artic. Thom. 5. Indeed they say That these Species or Accidents are not to be Worshipt for themselves or upon their own account but because Christ is present in them and under them and so they may be Worshipt as T. G. says d Ib. with Christ in like manner as his Garments were Worshipt together with him upon Earth which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine the Magazine not only of Arguments and Authorities but of Similitudes too it seems which are to Defend that Church Quemadmodum saies he e de Euch. Venerat qui Christum in terris vestitum adorabant non ipsum solum sed etiam vestes quodam modo adorabant And are Christs Garments then to be Worshipt with Latria as well as Christ himself or as the Sacrament I think they will not say this of any of the Relicks they have of Christ or his clothes Did they who Worshipt Christ when he was upon the Earth worship his clothes too Did the Wise men worship the blankets the clouts and the swadling-cloths as well as the blessed Babe lying in the Manger Might it not as well be supposed that the People worshipt the Ass upon which Christ rode not for himself but for the sake and upon the account of Christ who was upon him as that they worshipt his clothes or his Sandals on which he trod or the Garments which he wore Bellarmines quodammodo adorabant shews his heart misgave him and that he was sensible the Similitude would not do when he used it but T. G. is a man of more heart and courage or front at least and he found the cause was in great need of it and so he saies boldly without any trembling quodammodo that they worshipt his Garments The humane Nature it self of Christ considered alone and being a meer Creature is not an object of Worship as St. Augustin saies a St. Aug. Serm. 58. De verbis Dom. Si natura Deus non est filius sed Creatura nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus Adorandus Ego Dominicam carnem imo perfectam in Christo humanitatem propterea adoro quod a divinitate suscepta atque Deitati unita est Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo ut Photinus vel Paulus Samosatenus illi ego nunquam credo nec servio but only as it is hypostatically united to the Divine Nature i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it as to make one Person with it with God himself one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so one Object of Worship and if the Sacramental Symbols or Species are to be adored with true latria not per se or upon their own account but by reason of the intimate Union and Conjunction which they have with Christ as they say not only with Christs body for that alone is not to be worshipt much less another thing that is united to it but with Christs Person and then there must be as many Persons of Christ as there are consecrated Wafers then these Species being thus worshipt upon the same account that Christs humanity is
Homage that was due to him to a Rebel or fellow Subject standing by him but they did this because they mistook the person and thought this to be the Prince that was not or that he was there where he was not or that that which was there ought to be worshipt for his sake still falsly supposing that they ought to worship that wrong Object which they took to be right or in that false manner which they took to be true for if a mistake will excuse it will excuse in one as well as another 2. Tho they do not only think and believe that which they worship to be a true Divine Object but it really be so in it self and that which they have in their Thoughts and intentions to worship be right yet they may still be guilty of Idolatry for so were the Jews in the Idolatry of the golden Calf whereby they intended not to throw off the Worship of the true God The God of Israel Exod. 32.4 5. who brought them out of the land of Egypt for they appointed the Feast to him under that Title and under the Name of Jehovah at the same time and so in the Idolatry of the Calves set up by Jeroboam 1 K. 12.27 28. they were not designed to draw off the people from worshipping the same God who was worshipt at Hierusalem but only to do it in another place and after another manner but still as T. G. a Cath. no Idol p. 330. says of the Roman Idolaters so it may be said of these Jewish That what they had in their Minds and Intentions to Worship was the true God and whatever was the material object of their Worship he was the formal for they did no more think the Gold than the Papists think the Bread to be God. So the Manichees in their Idolatry which St. Austin often mentions b Contra Faustum Manicheum l. 1. c. 3. Tom. 1. de Genesi contra Manich. l. 2. c. 25. Tom. 2. Epist 74. ad Deuterium Solem etiam Lunam adorant colunt of adoring the Sun and Moon the Object which they had in their Minds and Thoughts and Purposes to Worship was Christ as much as the Papists have him in the Eucharist I would only ask if a persons having a right Object in his mind in his thoughts and purposes to adore which T. G. c Catholicks no Idolaters p. 329 330. so often pretends would excuse him from Idolatry then suppose a person should before Consecration Worship the Sacramental Elements to prevent which they generally keep them from being seen yet in the Thoughts and Intentions and Purposes of his mind design to worship Christ then supposed tho falsly to be there as they Worship him afterwards whether this would be Idolatry in him or no If not then they may worship the unconsecrated Elements as well as consecrated even whilst they believe they are Bread if it be then having a right Object in our Thoughts and Purposes and Intentions will not excuse from Idolatry 3. Whatever was the material Object of Idolatrous worship it was not worshipt for it self no more than the Bread or its Accidents are by the Papists in the Eucharist but as they say of the Host because they believed that the true Object of worship was really present in it or in an extraordinary manner united to it a Deos relictis sedibus propriis non recusare nec fugere habitaculainire terrena quinimo jure dedicationis impulsos simulachrorum coalescere inunctioni Arnob. contra gent. l. 6. so did the Gentiles who thought the Gods themselves or at least a Divine Power was brought into their Images by their Consecrations and that it resided and dwelt there and they worshipped their Images only upon this account b Deos per simulachra Veneramur Ib. Now if they had thought this of the true God himself that it was he and not any false God that was thus present in their Images this would have been nevertheless Idolatry Thus the Manichees who worshipt the Sun did not worship it for it self but because they believed Christ had placed his Tabernacle in the Sun so the more Philosophical Idolaters among the Heathens See Voss de Idolol l. 8. c. 1. who worshipt the several Things of Nature as parts they thought of the Great and Omnipresent God they did not worship them purely for themselves but as God was in them and they were as St. Austin speaks Aut partes ejus aut membra ejus aut aliquid substantiae ipsius c August l. 24. contra Faustum Either parts of him or Members of him or something of his substance as the Papists believe the Sacrament to be his Body Thus they deified the things of Nature tho they thought there was but one Supreme God whom they worshipt in them as Eusebius says of them they believe a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb Praepar Evangel l. 3. c. 13. That one God fills all things with his various power and pervades all things and that he is to be worshipped in and by all visible things but yet they denied that those visible things were to be worshipt for themselves but for the sake of God and those invisible Powers of God which were in them as appears from the same place b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They do not they say make Gods of the visible Bodies of the Sun Moon and Stars or the other sensible parts of the World but they worship those invisible Powers that are in them of that God who is God over all Nay the Egyptians themselves did not as Celsus pleads even for those Idolaters worship their brute Animals but only as they were Spmbols of God c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig. contra Cel. l. 3. 4. Yet notwithstanding this Plea of Idolaters they may justly be charged with worshipping those material Objects which they say as the Papists when we charge them with Bread worship that they do not Worship So the Egyptians might be charged with brute worship the Heathens with the Worship of the Sun and Moon and the Scripture d Isa 44.17 expresly Reproaches and Accuses the Idolaters with worshipping a Stock or Stone or a piece of Wood tho it was the constant Plea and Pretence of the Heathens that they did no more worship those material Objects than the Papists do Bread. e Non ego illum lapidem colo nec illud simulachrum quod est sine sensu Aug. in Psal 69. I do not Worship the senseless Stone or Image which has Eyes and sees not Ears and hears not saies the Heathen in St. Austin and in Arnobius We do not worship the Brass or the Gold or Silver or any of the matter of which our Images are made a Nos nequeaera neque auri argentique materias neque alias quibus signa consiciunt eas esse per se Religiosa decernâ—mus numina sed eos in his colimus
believe that the Wine was truly consecrated this way for so says expresly the Ordo Romanus the ancient Ceremonial as he calls it of that Church the Wine is sanctified and there is no difference between that and consecrated that I know of and it is plain they both mean the same thing there for it calls the consecrated Body the sanctified Body †Sanctificatur vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem and I know not what Sanctification of another nature that can be which is not Consecration or Sanctifing it to a holy and Sacramental use indeed this may not so well agree with the Doctrine and Opinion of Transubstantiation which requires the powerful and almighty words of This is my Body this is my Bloud to be pronounced over the Elements to convert them into Christ's natural Flesh and Blood but it agrees as well with the true notion of the Sacrament and the Primitive Christians no doubt had as truely the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Sacrament though they used not those words of Consecration which the Latines now do and the Latines had them both as truly in the Missa Parascues in which as Strabo says they used the old simple manner of Communion as much as on any other days De Meaux must either deny that Consecration of the Elements may be truly performed by that simple and ancient way which will be to deny the Apostolic and first Ages to have had any true Consecration or else he must own this to be a true one The Roman Order says not onely the Wine is Consecrated which it does in more places then one but that it is fully and wholly Consecrated so that the people may be confirmed by it ‖ Vt ex eadem sacro vase confirmetur populus quia vinum etiam non consecratum sed sanguine Domini commixtum sanctificatur per omnem modum Ord. Rom. a phrase often used in Ecclesiastical Writers for partaking of the Cup and entire Sacrament Amalarius thinks this to be so true a Consecration that he says * Qui juxta ordinem libelli per commixtionem panis vini consecrat vinum non observat traditionem Ecclesiae de quâ dicit Innocentius isto biduo Sacramenta penitùs non celebrari Amalar. Fortunat. de Eccles Offic. l. 1. c. 15. Edit Hittorp He who according to the order of that Book Consecrates the Wine by the commixtion of the Bread and Wine does not observe the Tradition of the Church of which Innocent speaks that on these two days Friday and Saturday before Easter no Sacraments at all should be Celebrated So that he complains of it because such a Consecration is used on that day The Author of the Book of Divine Offices under the name of Alcuinus †De hâc autem Communicatione utrum debeat fieri suprà relatum est Sanctificatur autem vinum non consecratum per sanctificatum panem Alcuini lib. de Off. div p. 253. Ib. makes a question whether there ought to be such a Communion but says expresly that the Vnconsecrated Wine is sanctified by the sanctified Bread. Micrologus says the same in the place produced before that it is Consecrated by Prayer as well as mixture with the Body and he gives this as a reason against Intinction in that Chapter ‖ C. 19. In parascene vinum non consecratum cum Dominicâ oratione Dominici corporis immissione jubet consecrare ut populus plenè possit communicare quod utique superflao praeciperet si intinctum Dominicum à priore die corpus servaretur ita intinctum populo ad Communicandum sufficere videretur that the Wine is Consecrated on that day so that the people might fully Communicate to shew that it would not have been sufficient as he thinks to have had the Bread dipt in the Wine the day before and so kept and I suppose he was of de Meaux's mind that the Wine was not so fit to be kept for fear of that change which might happen to it even from one day to the next but he is so far from Communion in one kind that in that very Chapter against Intinction he mentions Pope Julius his Decree * Julias Papa huiusmodi intinctionem penitus probibet seorsùm panem seorsùm calicem juxta Dominicam institutionem sumenda docet which forbids that and commands the Bread to be given by it self and the Wine by it self according to Christ's Institution and likewise the Decree of Gelasius †Vnde beatus Gelasius excommunicari illos praecepit quicunque sumpto corpore Dominico à calicis participatione se abstinerent nam ipse in eodem decreto asserit hujusmodi Sacramentorum divisio sine grandi sacrilegio provenire non potest Ib. Microlog in these words He commanded those to be Excommunicated who taking the Lord's Body abstained from the participation of the Cup And he asserts says he in the same Decree that this division of the Sacraments could not be without great Sacriledge So that this man could not be a favourer of Communion in one kind or an asserter that the Good Friday Communion was such When ever this Communion came into the Latine Church for it was not ancient to have any Communion on those two days on which Christ died and was buried yet it will by no means serve the purpose of de Meaux for Communion in the Church in one kind for it is plain this Communion was in both and it was the belief of the Church and of all those who writ upon the Roman Order except Hugo de St. Victore who is very late and no older than the twelfth Century when Corruptions were come to a great height that the Communion on that day was full and entire as well with the Bread which was reserved the day before as with the Wine which was truly Consecrated on that and held to be so by the opinion of them all The Lyturgy of the Presanctified in the Greek Church Of the Office of the Presanctified in the Greek Church will afford as little assistance if not much less to de Meaux's Opinion of Public Communion in one kind then the Missa Parasceues we see has done in the Latine the Greeks do not think fit solemnly to Consecrate the Eucharist which is a Religious Feast of Joy upon those days which they appoint to Fasting Mortification and Sadness and therefore during the whole time of Lent they Consecrate onely upon Saturdays and Sundays on which they do not fast and all the other five days of the Week they receive the Communion in those Elements which are Consecrated upon those two days which they therefore call the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Presanctified The antiquity of this observation cannot be contested as de Meaux says seeing it appears not in the sixth Age as he would have it but in the seventh whereas the beginning of the Latin Office on Good-Friday is very
separated from them and it makes us not to partake of Christ's Body as crucified upon the Cross but as glorified in Heaven as it is so indeed Christ's body cannot be divided from his bloud and his whole humanity soul and body are always united with his Divinity but we do not take it as such in the Sacrament but as his body was sacrificed and slain and wounded and his bloud as shed and separated from it They who can think of a crucified Saviour may think of receiving him thus in the Sacrament without horrour de Meaux owns That this mystical separation of Christ's body and bloud ought to be in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrifice †P. 180 181. And why not then as it is a Sacrament is there any more horror to have Christ's body thus consecrated then thus eaten and received The words of consecration he says do renew mystically as by a spiritual Sword together with all the wounds he received in his body the total effusion of his blood ‖ Ib. Why may we not then receive Christ's body as thus wounded and his bloud as thus poured out in this mystical Table and why must Concomitancy joyn those together which Consecration has thus separated and divided Christ's body and bloud we say ought to be thus mystically separated in the Sacramental reception of them and so ought to be taken separately and distinctly they own they ought to be thus mystically separated in the consecration though how that consists with Concomitancy is hard to understand but whatever they have to say against the separating them in the Reception may be as well said against their separating them in the Consecration Is Christ then divided P. 310. is his body then despoiled of bloud and blood actually separated from the body ought Christ to die often and often to shed his blood A thing unworthy the glorious state of his Resurrection where he ought to conserve eternally humane nature as entire as he had at first assumed it Why do they then make this separation of his body and bloud when they consecrate it if that be onely mystical and representative so is it in our reception much better for we do not pretend to receive Christ's natural body and bloud as they do to consecrate them but onely his mystical body and bloud which is always to conserve this figure of Death and the character of a Victim not onely when it is consecrated but when it is eaten and drunk which it cannot otherwise be 'T is this errour of receiving Christ's natural body in the Sacrament which has led men into all those dark Mazes and Labyrinths wherein they have bewildred and entangled themselves in this matter and so by applying all the properties of Christ's natural body to his mystical body in the Sacrament they have run themselves into endless difficulties and destroyed the very notion as well as the nature of the Sacrament The third Principle of Monsieur de Meaux is this That the Law ought to be explained by constant and perpetual practice But cannot then a Law of God be so plain and clear as to be very well known and understood by all those to whom it is given without being thus explained Surely so wise a Law-Giver as our blessed Saviour would not give a Law to all Christians that was not easie to be understood by them it cannot be said without great reflection upon his infinite Wisdom that his Laws are so obscure and dark as they are delivered by himself and as they are necessary to be observed by us that we cannot know the meaning of them without a further explication If constant and perpetual practice be necessary to explain the Law how could they know it or understand it to whom it was first given and who were first to observe it before there was any such practice to explain it by This practice must begin some where and the Law of Christ must be known to those who begun it antecedent to their own practice There may be great danger if we make Practice to be the Rule of the Law and not the Law the Rule of Practice and God's Laws may be very fairly explained away if they are left wholly to the mercy of men to explain them For thus it was the Pharisees who were the great men of old for Tradition did thereby reject and lay aside the Commandment of God by making Tradition explain it contrary to its true sense and meaning This Principle therefore of Monsieur de Meaux's must not be admitted without some caution and though we are well assured of constant and perpetual practice for Communion in one kind yet the Law of Christ is so clear as not to need that to explain it and we may know what appertains or does not appertain to the substance of the Sacraments from the Law it self and from the divine Institution of them as I have all along shewn in this Treatise It would have been a great reflection upon the Church if its Practice had not agreed with the Law of Christ though so plain and express a Law ought neither to loose its force nor its meaning by any subsequent practice I have so great a regard and honour for the Catholic Church that I do not believe it can be guilty of any Practice so contrary to the Law of Christ as Communion in one kind and I have therefore fully shewn that its Practice has always agreed with this Law in opposition to de Meaux who falsely reproaches the Church with a practice contrary to it his design was to destroy the Law of Christ by the Practice of the Church mine is to defend the Practice of the Church as agreeable to and founded upon the Law of Christ but the Law of Christ ought to take place and is antecedent both to the Churches Practice and the Churches Authority As to Tradition which was the main thing which de Meaux appealed to I have joyned issue with him in that point and must leave it to those who are able to judge which of us have given in the better evidence and I do not doubt but we may venture the Cause upon the strength of that but there is another more considerable plea which is prior to Tradition and which as de Meaux owns †P. 201. Is the necessary ground work of it and that is Scripture or the Command and Institution of Christ contained in Scripture which is so plain and manifest that it may be very well understood by all without the help of Tradition I do not therefore make any manner of exceptions to Tradition in this case onely I would set it in its right place and not found the Law of Christ upon Tradition but Tradition upon the Law of Christ and I am willing to admit it as far as de Meaux pleases with this reasonable Proviso That it does not interprete us out of a plain Law nor make void any Command of God that may be known
bread and Wine they have no subject matter for a sacrifice for 't is not the bread and wine which they pretend to offer nor the bare species and accidents of those nor can they call them a proper propitiatory sacrifice but 't is the very natural body and blood of Christ under the species of bread and wine or together with them for they with the species make one entire subject for sacrifice and one entire object for Adoration as they are forced to confess †Panis corpus Domini Vinum sanguis Domini non sunt duo sacrificia sed unum neque enim offerimus corpus Domini absolutè sed offerimus corpus Domini in specie panis Bellarm de Miss l. 1. c. 37. So that according to their own principles they must both sacrifice and adore something in the Eucharist besides the very body and blood of Christ which is a difficulty they will never get off but I design not to press them with that now but Transubstantiation upon which their sacrifice of the Mass is founded is so great a difficulty that it bears down before it all sense and reason and only makes way for Church Authority to tryumph over both Their wisest men have given up Scripture for it and frankly confest it were not necessary to believe it without the determination of the Church and if so then without the Churches determination there had been no foundation it seems for the sacrifice of the Mass for there can be none for that without Transubstantiation and 't is very strange that a sacrifice should be thus founded not upon Scripture or a Divine institution but only in effect upon the Churches declaration and should have no true bottom without that as according to those men it really has not But Transubstantiation is a Monster that startles and affrights the boldest Faith if the Church be not by to encourage and support it 't is too terrible to be looked upon in its self without having a thick mist of Church Authority and Infallibility first cast before a mans eyes and then if there were not a strange and almost fascinating power in such principles one would think it impossible that any man who has both eyes and brains in his head should believe a Wafer were the body of a man or that a crum of bread were a fleshly substance they do not indeed believe them to be both but they believe one to be the other which is the same thing there is nothing can expose such a doctrine for nothing can be more uncouth and extravagant then itsself it not only takes away all evidence of sense upon which all truth of miracles and so of all Revelation does depend but it destroys all manner of certainty and all the principles of truth and knowledge it makes one body be a thousand or at least be at the same time in a thousand places by which means the least atome may fill the whole World Again it makes the parts of a body to penetrate one another by which means all the matter of the whole World may be brought to a single point it makes the whole to be no greater then a part and one part to be as great as the whole thus it destroys the nature of things and makes a body to be a spirit and an accident to be a substance and renders every thing we see or taste to be only phantasm and appearance and though the World seems crouded with solids yet according to that it may be all but species and shadow and superficies So big is this opinion with absurdities and inconsistencies and contradictions and yet these must all go down and pass into an Article of Faith before there can be any foundation for the sacrifice of the Mass and let any one judge that has not lost his judgment by believing Transubstantiation what a strange production that must be which is to be the genuine of-spring of such a doctrine It is not my province nor must it be my present task to discourse at large of that or to confute the little sophistries with which it is thought necessary to make it outface the common reason of mankind There never was any paradox needed more straining to defend it nor any Sceptical principle but would bear as fair a wrangle on its behalf there is a known Treatise has so laid this cause on its back that it can never be able to rise again and though after a long time it endeavours a little to stir and heave and sruggle yet if it thereby provokes another blow from the same hand it must expect nothing less then its mortal wound I pass to the next Error and Mistake upon which the sacrifice of the Mass is founded and that is this that our blessed Saviour did at his last Supper when he celebrated the Communion with his Disciples offer up his body and blood to his Father as a true propitiatory sacrifice before he offered it as such upon the Cross This they pretend and are forced to do so to establish their sacrificing in the Mass for they are only to do that in the Sacrament they own which Christ himself did and which he commanded his Apostles to doe and if this sacrifice had not its institution and appointment at that time it never had any at all as they cannot but grant Let us then enquire whether Christ did thus sacrifice himself and offer up his body and blood to God at his last Supper Is there any the least colour or shadow of any such thing in any of the accounts that is given of this in the three Evangelists or in St. Paul The Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and gave thanks or blessed it and brake it and gave it to his Disciples saying take eat this is my Body which is given for you this do in remembrance of me after the same manner also he took the Cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying drink ye all of this for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins Is here any mention or any intimation of offering up any thing to God Was not the bread and the cup and what he called his body and his blood given to his Disciples to be eaten and drank by them and was any thing else done with them is there any thing like an offering or a sacrificing of them yes say they Christ there calls it his body which is broken and his blood which is shed in the present tense therefore the one must be then broken and the other shed So indeed it is in the Original Greek though in the Vulgar Latin it is in the future tense and so it is also put in their Missal sanguis qui effundetur this is my Blood which shall be shed and is it not usual to put the present tense instead of the future when that is so near
upon his servant chosen into the Presbytery by the vote and judgment of all the Clergy and fill him with the spirit of Grace and Wisdom to help and govern the people with a pure heart that he may be filled with healing operations and instructive discourse and may teach the people with all meekness and may serve God sincerely with a pure understanding and a willing Soul and may perform the sacred and pure Offices for the people through Jesus Christ And this with laying on of hands is all the Form of Ordination which is so anciently prescribed St. Denis who is falsly called the Areopagite but was a Writer probably of the fifth Century before the Council of Calcedon he has acquainted us with much the like manner of Ordination in that time * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dionys Hierarch Eccles c. 5. The Priest kneeling before the Altar with the Holy Bible and the Bishops hand over his head was consecrated with holy Prayers Only there was then added the sign of the cross and the kiss of peace but no such thing as the receiving of power to offer sacrifice and to celebrate Masses for the living and the dead This was a thing unheard of in the ancient Church either Greek or Latin neither was it brought into the Latin till about the year 1000 as is confest by Morinus * de sacris Ordinat pars 3. c. 6. nor is it to this day used in the Greek In that age of Ignorance and Superstition when Transubstantiation and a great many other Errors and Corruptions crept into the Latin Church this new Form of Ordination was set up and the Priests had a new power given them and a new work put upon them which was to sacrifice and say Masses for the quick and dead which had it been agreeable to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church and had there been any such opinion then of the Mass-sacrifice as there is now in the Roman Church there would no doubt have been the same forme of Ordination or something like this would have been specified in the consecration of a priest They now make this the great and proper office of the priest and these words with the delivery of the holy Vessels or sacred Instruments is made the very matter and form of the Sacrament of Orders and it is made a charge by them against our Ordinations that we want this essential part of priesthood which is to offer sacrifice but since the primitive Church had no such Form as is fully made out by Morinus a man of great Learning and Credit among themselves who has made a great collection of the most antient Ordinale's to show this and there is no such thing now in the Greek Churches as appears from Habertus on the Greek Pontifical we have hereby not only a full defence of our own Orders without any such Form but a plain demonstration of the novelty of that in the Roman Church and consequently of that Doctrine which is brought in by it or perhaps was the occasion of it of the sacrifice of the Mass 4. It is in it self unreasonable and absurd and has a great many gross Errors involved in it As 1. It makes an external visible sacrifice of a thing that is perfectly invisible so that the very matter and substance of the sacrifice which they pretend to offer is not seen or perceived by any of the senses for 't is Christs body and not the Bread and Wine which is the subject-matter and the sacrifice it self Now this is the strangest sacrifice that ever was in the World a visible oblation of an invisible thing had the Jews offered their sacrifices in this manner they had offered nothing at all and had Christ thus offered himself to God upon the cross only in phantasm and appearance as some Hereticks would have had him and not in the visible substance of his body it would have been only a phantastick sacrifice and we had been redeemed by a shadow 'T is contrary to the nature of all proper sacrifices to have the thing offered not to be seen and not visibly presented to God an invisible sacrifice may as well have an invisible Altar and an invisible Oblation and an invisible Priest for why the one should be more visible then the other I cannot imagine Bellarmines definition of a sacrifice is this which we are very willing to allow of but how it agrees to the sacrifice of the mass I cannot see * Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Deo quâ ad agnitionem bumanae insirmitatis professionem divinae Majestatis à legitimo Ministro res aliqua sensibilis permanens ritu mystico consecratur transmutatur Bellarm. de Miss l. 1. c. 2. A sacrifice is an external Oblation made to God alone whereby for the acknowledging of humane infirmity and owning of the Divine Majesty some sensible and permanent thing is by a lawful Minister and by a Mastic Rite consecrated and changed Now Christs Body and Blood being the res sacrificii the matter of the sacrifice and that being offered to God I cannot understand how that is a res sensibilis a sensible thing in the Eucharist and therefore how according to him it is a sacrifice so necessary is it for a great man to blunder in a bad cause when he must either weigh in a false ballance or whatever he says will quickly be found light 2. It makes a proper sacrifice without a proper sacrificing Act the Consumption and Destruction of the sacrifice was always necessary as well as the offering and bringing it to the Altar and without this it was not properly given to God but kept to themselves as much as it was before if it were not either poured out or burnt or slain which was parting with the thing and transferring it wholly to God this consumption is so Essential to all sacrifices that Bellarmine puts it into the definition of a sacrifice * ut supra and says †ad verum sacrificium requâ—ritur ut id quod offertur Deo in sacrificium plane destruatur Id. de Miss l. 1 c. â— that to a true sacrifice it is required that that which is offered to God in sacrifice be plainly destroyed But how will this now belong to Christs body in the sacrifice of the Mass Is that destroyed there is not that the sacrifice and is not that now in a Glorious impassible State that can suffer no destruction Bellarmine is in a sad plunge to get out here and let us see how he throws himself about but sticks fast still in the mire By consecration says he the thing which is offered is ordained to a true real and outward change and desiruction which was necessary to the being of a sacrifice for by consecration the Body of Christ receives the Form of food but food is for eating and by this it is ordained for change and destruction Is the Body of Christ then