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 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 Valentia Disput 6. Quest 11. de ritu oblat Eucharist must be also united to Christ 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 by 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 a liter est Christus in Eucharistia in aliis rebus Deus Nam in Eucharistia unum tautum Suppofitum 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
our Kneeling at the Sacrament we gave Worship to the Elements and that learned man is willing to have it believed that we do thereby externè Eucharistiam colere b Boil p. 145. outwardly Worship the Sacrament and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds as well as out wardly with our Bodies so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unreasonable Charges against our Church and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause or be made use of to strike at us but it may as well be said that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions or their Seats when they kneel before them the roof of the Church or the crowns of their Hats when they fix their Eyes upon them at the same time they are 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 signum 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 e. 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
is the only invincible thing they have The words of Theodoret are a great deal more plausible and seem at the first glance to look more fairly than any for their purpose The Elements are understood to be what they are made and they are believed and reverenced as those things which they are believed v 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Dialog 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud Boil p. 64. Here our Faith makes the Sacrament to be what it signifies to become to us the res Sacramenti as well as a sign and Representation of it and that thing is to be adored by us in the use of the Sacrament which is the true sense of Theodorets words and that he cannot mean in the Roman sense that the Elements are converted into another substance the 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 reverente 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 in greditur tu ergo humilians teipsum imitare hunc Centurionem dicito Domine non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum 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. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Boilean 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 well as Christ that which the Priest holds in his hands or lies upon the Altar before us that this is to be the Object of our Worship and to have all manner of Latria both of Body and Soul directed to that as to God himself that the consecrated Elements or the sacred Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are to be worshipt by us when we receive them or when without receiving them we see them set upon the Altar or carried about in Procession this which is the Controversie between us not one Father says but above three hundred of them together in a Council say g Concil Sept. Constant Act. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That to prevent Idolatry Christ appointed an excellent Image and Representation of himself in the Sacrament without any manner of humane shape even the plain and simple substance of Bread But they resolve that Idolatry shall not be prevented but they will be so sottish as to commit it with that which was designed to prevent it and which one would think should not in the least tempt any man to it with a bit of Bread The Absurdities of which upon a general view of the whole I shall now for a Conclusion represent and offer as the last Argument against it and tho that alone might be sufficient since God never imposes any thing that is really foolish and ridiculous to be believed or practiced by his Creatures yet I thought it the fittest to be produced after we are well assured that neither Scripture nor Antiquity have required any such thing And however unwilling Bellarmine h Bell de Sacram. Euchar. l. 3. c. 10. is to admit of Arguments of this nature from the Absurdity of the thing as knowing how very liable the Church of Rome was to them and tho 't is the most unjust Reflection upon Christianity to say that any thing that is a part of that is so which they are too ready to insinuate and so bring a reproach upon the common Christianity rather than part with their own ridiculous Opinions yet after we have thoroughly imformed our selves that there is nothing of a Divine Authority as one can hardly think there should be for what is so absurd in it self then an Argument from the folly and unreasonableness of the thing must be allowed to be very proper and till men have lost all their Reason it will always be very cogent and here it is so very strong and presses so hard upon their Adoration of the Host that 't is no wonder that they love to set by and except against reason whenever this matter is to be tryed but it is most sad to consider that they should have so little regard and concern for the Credit and Reputation of the Christian Religion as by this means so shamefully and notoriously to expose it to the Reproach and Contempt of the wisest Men. How must a Jew or a Turk who are great enemies to all Idolatry be prejudiced against Christianity when he sees those who profess it fall down and worship a Wafer and make an Idol of a bit of Bread When he lives in those places where he sees it carried about with Candles and Torches before it in most Solemn and Pompous Processions and all Persons as it goes by falling upon their Knees and saying their prayers and using all acts of Devotion to it would he not wonder what strange and new God that no History ever mention'd the Christians adored Mankind indeed when very ignorant used to worship a great many Creatures that were very useful to them and when they were very hungry if they lighted upon Bread it was no great wonder but sure it can be no more fit to be worshipt by those who better know God than any of his other Creatures or any of the most dumb and senseless and pitiful Images for which the Christians so often and so justly laught at the Idolatrous Heathens especially those of them who were so foolish and such true belly-Gods as to eat and feed upon what they worshipt and deified This the first and most learned Christians charged as the highest degree of folly in the Egyptians to eat the same Animals whom they worshipt i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orig contra â—elsum I. 4 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tatian Orat. contra Graec. A pim bovem adoratis pascitis Minut. Octav. p. 94. And a wise Heathen could not think any would be so mad as to think that to be a God with which he was fed k Ecquem tam amentem esse putas ut illud quo vescatur Denm esse credat Tally de natura Deorum It was the ingenious Opinion of a very learned Father that God made the difference between the clean and unclean Beast to prevent this Egyptian and Brutish folly in the Israelites who lived among them Because saies he by their abominating the unclean they would not deifie them and by eating the clean they would be secured from ever worshipping them for it must be the extreamest madness to worship what they eat l 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theodoret in Quaest in Genes How did the Ancient Apologists for Christianity with great wit and smartness ridicule the other Idols of the Heathens as being the works at first of the Carver or the Painter and particularly for being such Gods as were baked at first in the Furnace m Incoctos fornacibus figulinis Arnob contra Gent. l. 6. of the Potter and it had been much the same had it been in the Oven of the Baker for being Gods of Brass or of Silver n Deus aereus vel argenteus Minut. Octav. p. 74 And yet they counted the Silver or the Brass no more a God o Nos neque aeris neque auri argentique materias Arnob. ut supra than others do the Bread as I have shown above How at other times did they think sit to expose their impotent and senseless Deities because they could not preserve themselves from Thieves p Deos vestros plerumque in praedam furibus cedere Lactant. Institut l. 2. c. 4. nor yet from rotteness but the Worms would still gnaw