10. who in pitching especially on this point Adoration of the Eucharist as hindring the Protestants longer stay in the Roman Communion hath in this Discourse and in two Replies to Chaumont made afterward in defence of it discussed it more particularly than many others in answer to S. Ambrose and S. Austin their adoring the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries The Humanity of Jesus Christ saith he personally united to the Divinity is by consequence truly and properly adorable And again They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament which is the thing we agree to And ibid. p. 29. We do willingly adore Jesus Christ who is present in the Sacrament namely by Faith in the heart of the Communicants c. And see Dr. Stillingfleet in his Roman Idol c. 2. p. 114. The Question saith he between us is not whether the person of Christ is to be worshipped with Divine worship for that we freely acknowledge And altho' the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration he must mean Divine yet being considered as united to the Divine Nature that cannot hinder the same Divine worship being given to his Person which belongs to his Divine Nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him Tho' how well that which he saith before ibid. § 2. as it seems against worshipping Christ supposed present in the Eucharist without a special command to do it consists with what he saith here and with what follows let him look to it 4. It is affirmed by many Protestants §. 5. n. 1. especially those of the Church of England that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present not only in virtue but in substance in the Eucharist either with the Symbols immediately upon the Consecration or at least so as to be received in the Eucharist together with the Symbols by every worthy Communicant and that this Body and Blood of our Lord which is not severed from his Person is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration See 1. for a substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist I mean at least to the worthy Receiver contradistinct to a Presence by effect only Influence Virtue Grace or the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ's Body in Heaven Dr. Taylor of Real Presence p. 12. When the word Real saith he is denied i. e. by Protestants as it was in King Edward's time the word Real is taken for Natural i. e. as he explains it p. 5. including not only the nature of the Body for that is the substance but the corporal and natural manner of its existence he goes on But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantia sua nobis adest in substance but after a Sacramental manner See the Confession of Beza and the French Protestants related by Hosp Hist. Sacram. part ult p. 251. Fatemur in coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam ipsam inquam veram â—arnem verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice vel figurate proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo repraesentari exhiberi applicanda osserri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Again Beza Epist 68. speaking against Alemannus and some others who opposed a substantial presence Volunt saith he ex-Gallica Confessione Art. 36. Liturgia Catech. Din. 53. expungi substantiae vocem idcirco de industria passim a Calvino a me usurpatam ut eorum calumniae occurreremus qui nos clamitant prore Sacramenti non ipsum Christum sed ejus duntaxat dona energiam ponere And Epist. 5. he argues thus against the same Alemannus Velim igitur te imprimis intueri Christi verba Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis traditur Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis funditur Age pro his vocibus Corpus Sanguis dicamus Hoc est efficacia mortis meae quae pro vobis traditur Hic est Spiritus meus qui pro vobis effunditur Quid ineptius est hac oratione Nam certe verba illa Quod pro vobis traditur Qui pro vobis funditur necessario huc te adigunt ut de ipsamet Corporis Sanguinis substantia hoc intelligere cogaris See Hooker Eccles Pol. 5. l. 67. § p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves But a great Controversy surely there would be beside this if the one party held Christ's Body substantially and the other virtually present Again p. 360. All three opinions do thus far accord in one c. That these holy mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of that body and blood which were given for the life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in true and real tho' mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Thus also Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell. 1. cap. p. 11. Nobis vobiscum de Objecto convenit de modo lis omnis est But there would be a lis concerning the Object if one affirmed the substance of the body there the other only the virtue or efficacy See Bishop Cosins his late Historia Transubstantiationis tit cap. 2. Protestantium omnium consensus de reali §. 5. n. 2. id est vera sed non carnali Praesentia Christi in Eucharistia manifeste constat And in proof of this p. 10. he quotes Poinet Bishop of Winchester his Dialacticon de veritate natura atque substantia Corporis Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Quod saith he non alio consilio edidit quam ut fidem doctrinam Ecclesiae Anglicanae illustraret Et primo ostendit Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini sed etiam ipsam veritatem naturam atque substantiam in se comprehendere idcirco nec has voces Naturae Substantiae fugiendas esse Veteres enimde hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse Secundo quaerit an voces illae Veritas Natura Substantia communi more in hoc mysterio a veteribus intelligebantur an peculiari Sacramentis magis accommodata ratione Neque enim observandum esse solum
fide directe pugnante ut superiore libro ostensum est Christi corpus quod vere adorandum est adorant In Eucharistia enim mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent ipsi Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae inanimes consequenter incapaces adorationis And Ibid. shewing the Greek and Eastern Church as well as the Roman to use it he concludes Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere damnare After the same manner the Archbishop of Spalato de Repub. Eccles 7. l. 11. c. n. 6. Respondeo saith he me nullum idololatricum crimen in adoratione Eucharistiae si recte dirigatur intentio agnoscere Qui enim docent panem non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi illi profecto panem non adorant sed solum ex suppositione licet falsa Christi corpus vere adorabile adorant Non enim nostri dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda Bishop Bramhal cited before § 6. The Sacrament is to be adored said the Council of Trent The Sacrament i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ say some of your Authors we say the same The Sacrament i. e. the species of Bread and Wine say others that we deny Thus he D. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying p. 258. confesseth the Subjects of the Church of Rome no Idolaters in this kind at least so as to worship Bread or any creature with Divine Worship and as God For It is evident saith he that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their minds their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the Blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy Humanity which Humanity they believe actually under the veil of the Sacramental signs And if they thought Him not present they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical i. e. as to the directing this their divine worship to an undue object § 31 Which things if said right by him and the others the same Dr. Taylor is faulty in his charge in Real Presence p. 334. Faulty I say in charging on the Church of Rome not their worship of a right Object in a some-way unlawful and prohibited manner this we are not here examining but their worship of an undue Object of Adoration of a creature instead of God for so he chargeth them there If saith he there they be deceived in their own strict Article he means of Transubstantiation then it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a mere creature the image the Sacrament and representment of the Body of Christ. Thus he When it is evident that the Object c. is the only true and eternal God c. as he said before in the place cited and must say if he will say truth So faulty is also Daille Reply to Chaumont p. 63. in his charging the Church of Rome to worship Bread upon this arguing Catholicks adore that substance that is veiled with the accidents of Bread and Wine but this substance is Bread Ergo they adore Bread. By which arguing he may as well prove the Lutherans in the Eucharist to adore a Worm or a Mire thus The Lutherans adore that substance which is joyned with the Bread but that substance is a Worm or Mite for such thing may be there with the Bread at such time of Adoration Ergo they adore a Worm Whereas both the Catholick and Lutheran explain the indefinite term that which used in the major Proposition restrictively to the Body of Christ and exclusively to any other substance whatever that is or may be there either with the Bread or under its accidents Faulty also is Dr. Stillingfleet Rom. Idol c. 2. in saying the Protestants controversie with Catholicks is Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal Presence under them p. 117. And as for the passage in the Council of Trent sess 13. c. 5. urged by him there for it his mistake is shewed before § 12. And so faulty in his concluding p. 118. That the immediate term of that Divine Worship given by Catholicks is the external and visible signs or elements And again p. 124. That upon the principles of the Roman Church no Man can be satisfied that he worships not a mere creature with divine honour when he gives Adoration to the Host whenas Catholicks expound themselves to mean by Host in their Adoration not the Symbols or Sacramentum but rem Sacramenti Again p. 125 127 129. That supposing the Divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein it is present Catholicks grant this as much as he and doth not himself say several times That Catholicks condemn the worshipping of a mere creature for Idolatry See § 4. p. 120. If saith he it should be but a mere creature that I adore all the World cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church he means the Roman condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry Again p. 119. It is saith he a principle indisputable among them i. e. Catholicks that to give proper divine honour to a creature is Idolatry Again p. 126. he saith he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church that the Humane Nature of Christ considered alone i. e. without an Hypostatical union to the Divinity ought not to have divine honour given to it and therefore neither any other creature whatever that is not Hypostatically united as none besides It is All these I say faulty and mistaken in charging the Church of Rome with this species of Idolatry of worshipping a creature the Bread instead of Christ from which the other Protestants clear it § 32 Lastly Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry § 64. upon supposition that the ignorance or error of Catholicks is grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture I add so expounded to them by the supreme Church-Authority seems to charge them rather with a material than a formal Idolatry which material Idolatry in many cases is or may be committed without sin as also material Adultery and the like His words are That if it be demanded Whether in this case that their ignorance or error be grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture this so simple and not gross ignornace may serve for a sufficient antidote to ally the poison of such a sin of material tho' perhaps in them not formal Idolatry c. because if they were not verily perswaded that it were God they profess they would never think of
he saith That it is only vain and unprofitable and that as one may say falls to nothing being deceived not in this that it makes its addresses to an object not adorable but in this only that mistaking it it seeks it and thinks to embrace it there where it is not And c. 12. he also freely confesseth That had the Church of Rome only obliged them to worship Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and not used this expression that the service of Latria ought to be rendred to the Holy Sacrament * Conc. Trid. sess 13.5 she had not obliged them by this to adore any Creature Thus he as it were constrained thereto by the Lutherans Protestants Opinion and Practice for his retaining their Communion and freeing them from Idolatry 2. It is granted also Apol. c. 11. That when our Lord was on Earth a Disciple's giving divine honours upon mistake to another person much resembling him would be no Idolatry So supposing the Consecrated Host were truly adorable granted that should any one see one on the Altar that hapned not to be Consecrated and Worship it neither would such a person be guilty of Idolatry So he pronounces him blameless that should give the Honour and Service due to his true Prince to a Subject whom very like he took for his Prince Yet that a Manichean worshipping the Sun mistaken to be the very substance of Christ see S. Austin contra Faustum l. 12. c. 22. l. 20. c. 9. for Christ or to represent the opinion more refined worshipping with divine honours not the Sun but only Christ in the Sun he could not in this be excused from Idolatry And that that which distinguishes these cases and renders them so different is not a good intention to worship only him that is truly God or Christ nor the opinion and belief Men have that the Object they worship is truly such for this good intention as he in that Chapter and other Reformed Writers and among others Dr. Stillingfleet copiously press is common to the worst of Idolaters as to the rest but the error or ignorance of the Judgment from which flows this mistaking practice as that is perversly affected and culpable or innocent and excusable Of which thus he Ibid. I maintain that ignorance excuseth here when it is involuntary when the subject I add or the presence of it we mistake in is so concealed that whatever desire we have or pains we take to find out the truth it is not possible for us to discover it But there where the ignorance of the Object or of its presence proceeds not from the obscurity or difficulty of the thing but from the malice or negligence of the person this is so far from excusing that it aggravates our fault Thus he excuses one that should have adored a person much resembling our Lord or an unconsecrated Host because no passion or negligence of his caused such a mistake but not those who worshipped the Sun for Christ or Christ in the Sun because saith he the ignorance of such people is visibly affected and voluntary arising from their fault only and not from the obscurity of the things they are ignorant in Nor so Roman Catholicks in their worshipping the Sacrament for Christ because saith he the error proceeds entirely from their passion and not any thing from abroad Thus he clearing such actions from Idolatry where the error of the judgment is no way perverse voluntary and culpable Having hitherto shewed you several Concessions of Protestants and having urged none here from any of them but such as I think all will or in reason ought to admit next I proceed to examine what it is that in this matter Catholicks do maintain § 9 1. And first Catholicks affirm in the Eucharist after the Consecration a sign or symbol to remain still distinct Assertione and having a diverse existence from that of the thing signified or from Christ's Body contained in or under it See Conc. Trident. sess 13. c. 3. Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis ut sit symbolum rei sacrae visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae By which forma visibilis as Bellarmin expounds it de Eucharist 4. l. 6. c. is meant the species of the Elements not the Body of Christ So Bellarmin Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species panis vini sunt signa corporis sanguinis Christi ibi revera existentium And 3. l. 22. c. Accidentia remanent quia si etiam accidentia abessent nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile proinde nullum esset Sacramentum So Estius in 4. sent 1. dist 3. § Eucharistia constat ex pane tanquam materia quadam partim transeunte partim remanente transeunte quidem secundum substantiam remanente vero secundum accidentia in quibus tota substantiae vis operatio nihilominus perseverat Hence they allow of that expression of Irenaeus 4. l. 34. c. where he saith Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus terrena coelesti compositam esse And of S. Gregory dial 4. l. 58. c. In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari terrena coelestibus jungi unum ex visibilibus ac invisibilibus fieri So that tho' these symbols and Christ's Body may be said to make unum aggregatum yet if this be only the species or accidents of the Bread and Wine that remains these cannot be said to have any inherence in this Body of Christ tho' it is true on the other side that being accidents only they cannot be said to make a distinct suppositum from it or if a substance remain this cannot be said to have any hypostatical union or to make one suppositum with our Lord's Divinity or Humanity as our Lord's Humanity hath such an union with his Divinity From which it is observed by Dr. Taylor Real Presence p. 336. That therefore still there is the less reason for Romanists to give any Divine worship as he saith they do to the symbols Far therefore are Catholicks from granting what a late Author * Stilligfl Rom. Idol p. 128. pretends they do but that which he alledgeth no way shews it as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Sacrament as between the Divine and Humane Nature § 10 This external sign or symbol they also affirm to be all that of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any sense And tho' after such Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread nor nothing visible nor tangible or otherwise perceptible by any sense are involved in it Of which signs also they predicate many things which they will by no means allow to be properly said of or at least to be received in or effected by or upon Christ's Body now immortal and
given to the Elements on the account of a Corporal Presence of Christ under them And against it he affirms That supposing the divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein he is present as I do to Christ himself So Bishop Andrews Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere adorandum statuit at non Sacramentum terrenam scilicet partem And Nos in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus Sacramentum i. e. the Symbols nulli adoramus So Dr. Taylor Real Presence p. 335. The Commandement to Worship God alone is so express the distance between God and Bread dedicated to the service is so vast that if it had been intended that we should have Worshipped the H. Sacrament the H. Scriptures would have called it God or Jesus Christ And Disswasive § 5. p. 76. he affirms the Church of Rome to give Divine Honour to the Symbols or Elements and so to a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God. So they vainly also undertake to shew that the Primitive Church did not terminate their Adoration upon the Elements that the Fathers when they speak of worship speak of worshipping the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries or Symbols not of worshipping the Mysteries or Symbols These I say are great extravagances whilst the Roman Church owns or imposes no such Doctrine of Divine Adoration due to the Elements and the true Controversy on their side is only this 1. Whether the Body and Blood of Christ prescinding from whatever Symbol is or may be there is adoreable as being present in the Sacrament with these symbols This is affirmed by Catholicks more than this needs not be so And 2. Whether the Adoration of Christ's Body and so of Christ as present if it should not be so will amount to Idolatry § 16 If we here make a further enquiry into the Schoolmen concerning the Adoration or Veneration due to the Symbols they state the same toward them as toward Images the sacred Utensils the H. name of Jesus and other Holy things Omnes saith Vasquez in 3. Thom. tom 1. disp 108. c. 12. eodem modo de speciebus Sacramenti quo de Imaginibus philosophari debent And then of Images we know the Definition of the Second Council of Nice referred to by Trent non latria And for what they say of Images I refer you to the preceding Discourse on them § 42 c. It is true that some of the later Schoolmen to defend the expressions of some of the former have endeavoured to show how a latrical qualified secondary co-adoration may improprie or per accidens be said to be given to the symbols also as sacramentally joyned with our Lord's Body and as this body is as it were vested with them such as say they when Christ was adored here on Earth was given also to his Garments i. e. without making in the act of worship a mental separation of his Person from his Cloths as Bellarmin explains it de Euchar. l. 4. c. 29. Neque enim saith he jubebant Christum vestibus nudari antequam adorarent aut animo cogitatione separabant a vestibus cum adorarent sed simpliciter Christum ut tunc se habebat adorabant tametsi ratio adorandi non erant vestes imo nec ipsa Humanitas sed sola Diviâ—itas Or do allow the giving of the external sign of Latria to them as Bowing to Kissing Embracing them but this without any the least internal act of latria or any other honour or submission directed to them which such inanimate things are uncapable of as Vasquez explains it who is so prodigal of this external sign of honour after he hath stript it of any internal latria or other worship whatever that may accompany it that he allows this external sign not only to all Holy things but to any Creature whatever in our inward adoration mean-while only of God upon the general relation they have to him But indeed such an abstraction of the external sign from an internal honour or respect as other Catholicks censure his opinion makes these outward gestures without any mental intention attending them as to such object like those of a Puppet or Engine utterly insignificant and so Vasquez instead of communicating the latria to Images to the Symbols to other Holy things seems in the judgment of others to allow them no honour or veneration at all and so in seeming to say too much to say too little which hath been more largely discoursed before Of Images § 42. c. And a late Author * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 129. might have done well in mentioning this Author's Opinion to have given also a true relation of it affirming only an external sign of honour given to the creature void of any internal the least respect to them Ita ut tota mentis intentio in Exemplar non in Imaginem or Deum non Creaturam feratur which would easily have taken away all that malignity he fastens upon it This for Vasquez And as for Bellarmin's adoration improprie and per accidens Bishop Forbes tells us l. 2. c. 2. § 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet And Bellarmin himself as appears by the former citations waving these School disputes tells us Status Quaestionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus i. e. no more is defined decided imposed on Christians faith by the Church than this nor more needs be desputed with or maintained against Protestants than this This in the 2 d. place from § 11. Of Catholicks professing their Adoration with divine worship of Christ only present in the Sacrament with the Symbols not of the Symbols or not of the Sacrament if taken for the Symbols § 17 3 ly Therefore also Catholicks ground their Adoration a thing Cardinal Perron much insists upon in his Reply to King James not on Transubstantiation tho' both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation involve it so that either of these maintained Adoration necessarily follows as if Transubstantiation defeated Adoration is so too but on a Real Presence with the Symbols which in general is agreed on by the Lutheran together with them Which Adoration they affirm due with all the same circumstances wherewith it is now performed tho' Christ's Body were present with the Symbols neither as under the accidents of Bread as they say nor under the substance of Bread as the Lutheran saith but tho' after some other unknown manner distinct from both and if they were convinced of the error of Transubstantiation and of the truth of the presence of the substance of the Bread unchanged yet as long as not confuted in the point of Real Presence they would never the less for this continue to adore the self same Object as now in the self same place namely the Body of Christ still present there with the Symbols and therefore there adorable tho' present after another
comparing the Chapters with the Canons Franciscus a sancta Clara Enchiridion of Faith Dial. 3. § 18. judiciously observes That altho' Catholick faith as to the substance is declared in the Chapters as indeed it is yet according to this we are obliged only sub anathemate to that form of expression which is defined in the Canons 1. Because the Chapters are not framed in the stile of Conciliary Definitions with Anathema 's and the like 2. Because the Canons where the very form is exceeding exact sometimes differ from the manner of expression in the Chapters in order to the same matter As sess 6. of Justification Canon 11. and Chapter 7. also sess 13. of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Canon 6. Chapter 5. and elsewhere yet sub anathemate all must stand to the Canons and therefore must expound the Chapters by them See more in the Author Soave also l. 4. p. 343. in his censure of this 13th Session tho' he saith magisterially enough in opposition to a Council That the manner of speech used in the 5th point of Doctrine saying That divine worship was due to the Sacrament was noted also for improper since it is certain that the thing signifyed or contained is not meant by the Sacrament but the thing signifying or containing But what Catholick will grant him this that Sacrament includes not both or of the two not more principally the thing contained in or joined with the Symbols Yet he observes That it was well corrected in the 6th Canon which said That the Son of God ought to be worshipped in the Sacrament See the same observed also by Grotius in Apolog. Rivet Discuss p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's forequoted passage That the Controversy between Catholicks and Lutherans in their saying The Sacrament or Christ in the Sacrament was to be worshipped was only in modo loquendi To which nothing is replied by Rivet in Dialysi Discassionis but the matter there as also in his Apologetic passed over in silence Add to Grotius what Mr. Thorndike discourseth in defence of the expression of worshipping the Sacrament Epilog 3. l. 30. c. p. 352. I confess it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it self justifies it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible species nor the invisible Grace of Christ's body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise in regard whereof both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the promise which the Institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood then to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thus he § 14 This in vindication of the Council And Bellarmine explains himself in the same manner as the Council in his Apology to King James Inter nupera dogmata ponit Rex adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistiae i. e. as Catholicks understand and explain it adorationem Christi Domini miro sed vero modo praesentis To which Bishop Andrews replies Quis ei hoc dederit Sacramento i. e. Christi in Sacramento Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res in Sacramento adorandus est Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit Thus far then the King Bishop and Cardinal are agreed Again de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status Quaestionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae And as it were to avoid offence when he comes to treat on this subject de Euchar. 4. l. c. 29. he prefixeth the Title to it not De adoratione but De veneratione hujus Sacramenti And in it saith that Nullus Catholicus est qui doceat Ipsa symbola externa per se proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minore Of this Doctrine of Catholicks Bishop Forbes gives this testimony l. 2. c. 2.9 § In Eucharistia mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae c. neque satis est i. e. to give them divine worship quod Christus sub illis sit quia etiam Deus est in Anima tanquam in Templo suo tamen adoratur Deus non Anima ut ait Suares 3. Tom. 79. quaest 8. art disp 65. § 1. And so Spalatensis l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri i. e. Catholicks dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda sed dicunt corpus Christi verum reale quod sub illis speciebus latet debere adorari When then the Roman Church speaking of supreme Adoration explains her language of adoring the Sacrament to mean only adoring Christ's Body and so Christ as present there and not adoring any other thing whatever substance or accident that is present there or that is also included in the word Sacrament that accusation which her using such language of adoring the Sacrament can seemingly expose her to is at the most not of an error but an improper expression But the propriety of language dutiful Sons ought to learn from not teach their Mother who also speaks that which hath descended to her from former times Neither will it follow from Catholicks using the word Sacrament precisely in this sense exclusively to any other matter save Christ's Body that therefore one may use the word Sacrament promiscuously for Christ's Body in what respect soever we speak of it and as well or as properly say that the Sacrament meaning Christ's Body is in the Heavens at God's right hand or was on the Cross or the like For tho' Sacrament thus applied involves no other subject or thing at all but Christ's Body yet it connotes besides it the place or manner of its presence signifying this Body only as present in the Mysteries not as a term adequate to and convertible with it being in whatever time and place § 15 I think these Testimonies produced both out of the Council of Trent and other Catholick Authors and also out of Protestants confessing so much of them do show sufficiently the great extravagancy of those Protestant Authors who tell their Readers that the state of this controversy is not Whether Christ's Body and so Christ in the Sacrament be adorable with supreme Honours but whether the Sacrament and then by Sacrament are pleased to understand the Symbols and then to confute the Doctrine of Rome argue that no Creature as the Symbols are is capable of Divine Honour The state of the Controversy saith a late Writer of theirs * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 117. is Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be