Protestants with him doth allow not an absolutely certain but a reasonable tho' mistaken ground or motive of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry upon which account a Disciple adoring with divine worship a person very much resembling our Saviour when he was upon Earth or supposing a consecrated Host truly adorable one who adores an Host placed on the Altar and by some deficiency in the Priest not truly consecrated is freely absolved by them herein from committing any Idolatry See before § 8. Hence therefore if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry upon the same terms § 23 1. Now here first the Lutherans being allowed to have such a plausible ground or motive for their Adoration whereby they become by other Protestants absolved from Idolatry in adoring our Lord as present there only their Adoration inutile saith Daille tombent en neant I see not why the ground of Roman Catholicks should be any whit less valued than theirs For if we compare the one's Con with the other 's Trans substantiation the later seems more agreeable to our Lord's words Hoc est Corpus meum and to the most plain literal obvious sense thereof Hoc est Corpus meum by a change of the Bread rather than Hoc est Corpus meum by a conjunction with the Bread and therefore is the Roman equalled with or else preferred before the Lutheran sense by many Protestants that are neutral and dissent from both Longius Consubstantiatorum saith Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 1. c. 4 § 5. quam Transubstantiatorum sententiam a Christi verbis recedere sive litera spectetur sive sensus affirmat R. Hospinianus caeteri Calviniani communiter And Hospinian Histor Sacram. 2. part fol. 6. saith of Luther Errorem errore commutavit nec videns suam opinionem non habere plus imo etiam minus coloris quam Scholasticorum Papae And see the same judgment of the Helvetian Ministers and Calvin apud Hospinian f. 212. But next Catholicks founding their Adoration not on Transubstantiation but on Corporal Presence the same common ground of this they have with Lutherans viz. our Lord's words implying and so it must excuse both or neither § 24 2. Laying aside this comparison let us view more particularly what rational ground Catholicks exhibit of this their belief of a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist and so of Adoration I. This their Ground then of such a Corporal Presence in the Eucharist after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants * See Guide in Controversy Disc 1. §. 62. is pretended to be Divine Revelation and if it be so as pretended then no argument from our senses and against it valid and that as was said but now taken in its most plain literal natural and grammatical sense in the words Hoc est Corpus meum so often iterated in the Gospel and again by S. Paul without any variation or change or explication of that which yet is pretended by Calvinists to be a metaphorical expression and such if we will believe them as this that the Church is his Body Eph. 1.23 or He the true Vine Joh. 15.1 A great argument this the Apostles punctual retaining still in their expressing the Institution thereof the same language and words that our Lord intended it literally as he spoke it Pretended also to be Divine Revelation from many other Scriptures the citing and pressing of which takes up all Bellarmin's first Book de Eucharistia to which I refer the inquisitive Reader but especially from the Discourse Jo. 6. Which Apostle writing his Gospel so late when the Communion of our Lord's Body and Blood was so much frequented and celebrated in the Church seems therefore to have omitted the mention of it at all in his story of the Passion and the time of its first Institution because he had dilated so much upon it before in relating a Sermon of our Lord 's made in Gallilee about the time of the yearly Feast of eating the Paschal Lamb Jo. 6.4 c. The literal and grammatical sense of which Divine Revelation saith Dr. Taylor Liberty of Prophesying § 20. p. 258. if that sense were intended would warrant Catholicks to do violence to all the Sciences in the circle And that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against natural Reason would be no argument to make them disbelieve who believe the mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of explication which are in the Schools and which now adays pass for the Doctrine of the Church or he might have said which are in the Athanasian Creed with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation And elsewhere Real Presence p. 240. saith as who will not say That if it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation he for his part will burn all his Arguments against it and make publick Amends § 25 II. Again Catholicks have for their Rational ground of following this sense in opposition to any other given by Sectaries the Declaration of it by the most Supreme and Universal Church-Authority that hath been assembled in former times for the decision of this controversie long before the birth of Protestantism a brief account of which Councils to the number of seven or eight if the 2d Nicene Act. 6. tom 3. be reckoned with the rest before that of Trent all agreeing in the same sentence see concerning the Guide in Controversy Disc 1. § 57 c. Out of the number of which Councils said to establish such a Doctrine as Bishop Cosins Hist Transub c. 7. p. 149. after many others hath much laboured to subduct the great Lateran Council under Innocent 3. upon pretence of the reputed Canons thereof their being proposed therein only by the Pope Mr. Dodwel Considerations of present concerument § 31. p. 165. but not passed or confirmed by the Council so another late Protestant Writer upon another Protestant interest viz. out of the 3d. Canon of the same Council charging not only the Pope but the Councils themselves and the Catholick Religion as invading the Rights of Princes hath with much diligence very well vindicated these Canons against the others as the true Acts of this Great Assembly and not only the designs of the Pope and copiously shewed them as in truth they were owned as such both in the same and the following times And thus the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in this Council is firmly established whilst Catholicks contend in the other Canon concerning Secular Powers the Sense of the Council is by Protestants mistaken Now upon this I ask what more reasonable or secure course in matters of Religion whether as to Faith or Practice can a private and truly humble Christian take than where the sense of a Divine Revelation is disputed to submit
to that interpretation thereof which the Supremest Authority in the Church that hath been heretofore convened about such matters hath so often and always in the same manner decided to him and so to act according to its Injunctions § 26 III. But if these Councils be declined as not being so ancient as some may expect i. e. not held before some controversy hapned in the Church touching the point they decided Catholicks still have another very Rational ground of such a sense of the Divine Writ viz. the evident testimony of the more Primitive times Which that they have conveyed the Tradition of such a sense to the present Church and to these former Councils to repeat what hath been said already in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 1. because perhaps by scarcity of copies that Book may come to few hands I think will be clear to any one not much interessed that shall at his leisure spend a few hours in a publick Library to read entire and not by quoted parcels the discourses on this Subject Of St. Ambros de Myster init cap. 9. the Author de Sacramentis ascribed to the same Father 4. l. 4 and 5. Chapters Cyril Hierosol Cateches Mystagog 4 5. Chrysost in Matt. Hom. 83. In Act. Hom. 21. In 1 Cor. Hom. 24. Greg. Nissen Orat. Catechet ch 36 37. Euseb Emissen or Caesarius Arelatensis de Paschate Serm. 5. Hilarius Pictav de Trinitate the former part of the 8th Book Cyril Alexand. in Evangel Joan. l. 10. c. 13. Concerning the authenticalness of which pieces enough also hath been said elsewhere § 27 IV. In a consequence of and succession from this doctrine of those Primitive times and of the later Councils of the Church when this Point was brought into some Dispute and Controversie a Catholick hath for a Rational ground of his Faith and practice the universal doctrine and practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time and at the present also excepting his followers For the Eastern Churches disputed by some Protestants both their belief of a corporal presence with the Symbols and practice of Adoration see what hath been said at large in the Guide in Controversy disc 3. c. 8. where also are exhibited the testimonies of many learned Protestants freely conceding it and again in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 22. p. 313. and n. 9. p. 294. See also the late eminent evidences of the Faith and Practice of these Eastern Churches at this day collected by Monsieur Arnaud in his two replies to Claude a brief account whereof also is given in the Guide Disc 3. § 81. n. 2 c. In which matter whereas one of the chiefest and commonest Pleas of Protestants is the Greek and Eastern Churches their according with them whereby they seem to out-number the Roman if any will but take the courage notwithstanding his secular Interest candidly to examin it I doubt not he will receive a full Satisfaction Lastly see D. Blondel one much esteemed by Protestants for his knowledge in ancient Church-History granting an alteration in the Doctrine concerning our Lord's Presence in the Eucharist an Alteration he means from that which is now maintained by Protestants and was by the former Antiquity begun in the Greek Church after A. D. 754. * Esclaireissements sur L' Eucharistie c. 15. i. e. begun so soon as any dispute hapned in the Eastern Church concerning this Presence which dispute was first occasion'd there upon an Argument which was taken from the Eucharist and urged against Images by the Council of Constantinople under Constantius Copronymus and was contradicted by Damascen and shortly by the 2d Nicene Council In which opinion of the 2d Nicene Council and Damascen Blondel freely acknowledgeth the Greek Churches to have continued to this day See c. 16. p. 399. Again granting an Alteration in the same Doctrine as is said before begun in the Western Church A. D. 818. * See Ibid. c. 18. i. e. as soon as the like dispute hapned about this Point in the Western Parts which dispute there was occasioned by the Council held at Frankfort under Charles the Great opposing the expressions of the foresaid Constantinopolitan Council in like manner as the 2d Nicene Council had done before Lastly if we ask him what this Alteration in the East first and afterward in the West was 1. He maketh it much-what the same in both And then he explains it to be a kind of Impanation or Consubstantiation or Assumption of the Bread by our Lord Christ His words c. 19. are these Des l' An. 818. c. Some among the Latins did as it were in imitation of the Greek conceive a kind of Consubstantiation partly like partly unlike to what many Germains he means Lutherans now maintain which to speak properly ought to be called Impanation or Assumption of the Bread by the Word of God And c. 20. he goes on The opinion of Paschasius whom he makes Leader in the Western as Damascen in the Greek Church had advanced before A. D. 900. an Impanation of the Word fortified and getting credit by degrees the establishment of which saith he p. 440. both Damascen and Paschasius designed Wherein he saith p. 441. they supposed a kind of Identity between the Sacrament and the Natural Body of Christ founded upon the inhabitation of the Deity in them which at last produced he saith the establishment of Transubstantiation under Pope Innocent the Third Here then 1. We see granted both of the Greek and Latin Church the same Tenent 2. We may observe that this Tenent of Impanation he imposeth on them when well examined is found much more gross and absurd than that of Transubstantiation For which see what is said in Bellarmin de Euchar. l. 3. c. 13. 15. Or in Suarez de Sacrament Disp 49. But 3. see in Considerations on the Council of Trent § 321. n. 13. and n. 16. c. that this Doctrine of Damascen and the Greek Church and afterwards of Paschasius and the Latin before Innocent the Third's time was plain Transubstantiation and is misrepresented by Blondel for Impanation and therefore never hath the Greek Church hitherto had any contest or clashing with the Roman concerning this point And see the concessions also of other Protestants very frequent and more candid of Transubstantiation held by the Greek Churches of later times as well as by the Roman produced in the Rational Account concerning the Guide in Controversies Disc 3. c. 8. 4ly Lastly these Churches in which he saith such an Alteration was made from the former Doctrine of Antiquity deny it at all so to be and affirm that when some new opinions appeared they maintained and vindicated it as the Doctrine of the Fathers their Proofs of it being also extracted out of the Fathers Testimonies Now then to stand against such a strong stream of both East and West running constantly in this course seems
Revivers of this Rubrick changed here the words of the former No Adoration ought to be done to the real and essential into No Adoration ought to be done to the corporal presence 1. Yet methinks here also first they should have more clearly expressed this to prevent such a misapprehension 2. Adoration being granted due in one way as not due in another § 54 and Christ's natural Body being granted present one way as not present in another methinks the former should have been expressed as much or more than the latter and the whole frame of the Declaration have been changed thus according to the true meaning of those who received it viz. That Adoration is intended and ought to be done tho' not to the Sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received because the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored yet ought to be done to the real and essential presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood because the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not only in Heaven but also truly in the Eucharist it being not against the truth of Christ's natural Body if not after a natural manner yet in its true reality and essence after some other manner effected supernaturally by divine power to be at one time in more places than one § 55 Lastly in opposition to the Protestant Testimonies here produced perhaps some other may be collected out of the same Authors that seem to qualifie these here set down and better to suit with the expressions of this Declaration But neither will this afford any relief For to free them from a real contradiction the sense of the others reduced to those here cited with leave all things in the same state or else the sense of these accommodated to others will appear to abett no more than bare Zuinglianism i. e. an absolute non-presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist save only in its vertue and effects and the presence of his Spirit c. and to oppose and destroy the general Tradition and Doctrine of the Fathers FINIS THE CATHOLICKS DEFENCE FOR THEIR ADORATION OF THE Body and Blood OF OUR LORD As believed Really and Substantially present IN THE Holy SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST At OXFORD Printed Anno 1687. THESES of Adoration of the EVCHARIST CONTENTS 1. PRotestant-Concessions § 1. 2. Catholick-Assertions § 1. Presuppositions § 1. 1. Of a Precept of giving Divine Worship to our Lord. § 1. 2. Of our Lord's whole Person its being where his Body is § 2. 3. Of this Divine Person being supremely adorable wherever his Body is Granted by Protestants § 3. Not only in Virtue but Substance § 5. 4. That this Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood is by Protestants affirmed in the Eucharist and that this Body is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration § 5. 5. Further affirmed That Christ's Body and Blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant but to the Symbols and whilst present are to be adored § 7. 6. Granted by Daille That tho' he and his believe not Christ's Body present in the signs yet they for this break not Communion with those that hold it § 8. Catholick Assertions 1. A Sign or Symbol to remain after Consecoration distinct from the thing signified § 9. This external Sign to be all that which is perceptible by the senses of the Bread and Wine tho' not their Substance § 10. 2. The word Sacrament to be taken not always in the same sense but sometimes for the Sign or Symbol sometimes for the thing signified § 11. 3. Catholicks ground Adoration not on Transubstantiation which as also Consubstantiantion involves it but on Real Presence with the Symbols maintaining Adoration due tho' Christ's Body were present neither under the Accidents of Bread as Catholicks say nor under the Substance of Bread as Lutherans say but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § § â—7 4. Supposing not grantâ—â—g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bstantiation an error yet if Corporal or Real Presâ—â—◠〈◊〉 by the Lutherans be true Catholicks plead their Adoration warrantable § 18. 5. Supposing Real Presence an Error and the Lutheran and Roman Church both mistaken yet these latter in such Adoration as excusable from Idolatry as the other § 19. 6. Supposing both the former Opinions Errors and indeed no Presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols at all yet such Adoration by the one or the other of Christ who is a true object of supreme Adoration and only mistaken by them to be where he is not cannot be termed such Idolatry as is the professed worshipping of an Object not at all adorable § 21. 7. Whatever Idolatry it is called in a Manichean worshipping Christ in the Sun or in an Israelite worshipping God in the Calves at Dan and Bethel because adoring a fancy of their own and a good intention grounded on a culpable ignorance excuseth none from Idolatry yet since Daille and perhaps others allows a reasonable tho' mistaken ground of Adoration sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry hence if Catholicks can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excused from Idolatry on the same terms § 22. Catholicks Grounds for their Belief 1. Divine Revelation § 24. 2. The Declaration thereof by the supremest Church-Authority in Councils § 25. 3. The Testimony of Primitive Times § 26. 4. The Vniversal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches § 27. 5. Protestant Concessions § 28. 8. For these Grounds given by Catholicks Idolatry by many Protestants of late but faintly charged upon the Church of Rome § 30. 9. Catholicks grant That to adore what is believed to be Bread or perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there where the Worshipper believes he is not is unlawful to be done by any whilst so perswaded § 33. CATHOLICK Theses Concerning the ADORATION of Christ's Body and Blood IN THE EUCHARIST § 1 COncerning the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood and so of his Divine Person as present in the Eucharist 1. I shall shew what in reason is or must be conceded by Protestants 2. Examine what Catholicks maintain 1. I suppose a general precept of giving supreme and divine adoration to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ And Suppositions that as Affirmative precepts such as this is do not oblige to every time and place so if they are unlimited and general they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place nor is there any need of any particular divine command in respect of these i. e. places and times without which command we may not obey them For what absurdities would follow hence For Was our Saviour when on Earth never lawfully worshipped but in place or time first commanded Nor then when he shewed and presented himself to them for some other purpose
non potest See also the Gallican Confession produced by this Bishop p. 23. where they say Christus in coelis mansurus donec veniat and yet nutriens vivificaâ—s nos Corporis Sanguinis sui substantia i. e. in the Sacrament that Hoc mysterium nostrâ—e cum Christo coalitionis tam sublime est ut omnes nostros sensus totumque adeo ordinem naturae superat In all these then doth not the incomprehensibility and supernaturality of this Mystery lie in this that the one Body of our Lord should be at once in two places viz. present at the same time in Heaven and to us here in the Sacrament And yet this Bishop seems to find some trouble in it to make any other unexplicable or unintelligible mystery in the Catholicks Transubstantiation save only this See p. 122. For the ceasing of the substance of the Elements by God's Omnipotency he allows very feisible and then the Adduction of Christ's Body pre-existent in the place of their substance labours under no other difficulty save this this Body its being at once in two places here and in Heaven nor having twice * p. 122. p. 125. mentioned such a Sacramental Presence of our Lord hath he replied any thing against it but that thus the term of Transubstantiation is not rightly applied to such an Adduction which is a Logomachy But this seems the difficulty and incomprehensibility that Protestants also confess in their Sacramental Presence of our Lord in tanta locorum distantia pascentis nos in Eucharistia vera Corporis sui praesentia substantia Lastly after this Bishop with others §. 5. n. 5. hath so far conformed to the Expressions and Language of the Fathers as to allow an Essential or Substantial presence of Christ's Body it seems he finds some of these Expressions also so far to advance toward a Substantial transmutation of the Elements as that he saith p. 113. Non abnuimus nonnulla apud Chrysostomum aliosque Patres inveniri quae emphatice immo vero Hyperbolice de Eucharistia prolata sunt Et quae nisi dextre capiantur incautos homines facile in errores abducent And below Sanctissimi Patres quo haec auditorum animis vehementius efficacies imprimerent de Typis tanquam si essent ipsa Antitypa Oratorum more multa enunciant And again p. 117. Si verba i. e. of some of the Fathers nimis rigide urgeantur absque intellectu Sacramentali nihil aliud ex iis colligi potest quam Panem Vinum proprie realiter ipsum Christi Corpus Sanguinem esse quod ne ipsi quidem Transubstantiatores admittunt Where he granting the expressions of some of the Fathers so high as to transcend the Assertions of Catholicks or Transubstantiators whose Assertions again transcend those of Protestants in this Mystery it seems not reasonable that he should after this depress and extenuate their meanings to counteance and comply rather with that Opinion that is farther distant from their expressions Neither will the same Fathers calling in other places the Elements Symbols and Signs of Christ's Body as he pleadeth p. 116. afford him that relief he seeks for from it For since the Catholicks as well as Protestants do firmly maintain and profess an external Symbol as well as the thing signified in the Eucharist viz. all that is perceived by our senses and that is visible gustable or tangible of the Elements as the Protestants contend this Symbol to be not only these but the very Substance and nature of the Elements also here it will be found that these sentences of the Fathers do suffer much less force and torture if understood according to the Symbol supposed by Catholicks than that by Protestants For example the Bishop * p. 120. hath mentioned that passage of the ancient Author de Coena Domini in S. Cyprian's Works the words are these Panis iste quem Dominus discipâ—lis porrigebat non effigie sed natura mutatus Omnipotentia Verbi factus est caro sicut in persona Christi Humanitas apparebat latebat Divinitas ita Sacramento visibili ineffabiliter divina se effudit essentia Here I say if the Sacramentum visibile and the external Symbol be taken in this Bishops way for substantia or natura panis all is extremely forced and confounded and so he is driven to expound it that by mutatio naturae panis is meant only mutatio usus * p. 120. the change of which use of the Bread also seems no object of God's Omnipotence But the Symbol or Sacrament being taken for such as the Catholicks make it viz. for the external Effigies or Sensibles of the Bread all is good sense and coherent and nothing strained and the Omnipotentia Verbi rightly applied to the mutatio naturae panis as God's Omnipotency may be observed in the Fathers to be frequently urged not only in relation to the presence of our Lords Body and Blood there but also to the transmutation of the Elements there whilst the exteriors of them still remain But now in the last place supposing the natura panis to remain which the Father saith is changed yet so long as these Divines maintain according to the Doctrine of the Fathers a substantial presence of our Lord's Body in the Eucharist and that with the Symbols as he saith p. 45. Sacramento suo quasi contectum tho' they will not admit such a Symbol as the Catholicks and a Transubstantiation of the Elements yet they must if complying with the Fathers at least confess some kind of Consubstantiation or conjunction of the substances of Christ's Body and of the Elements in the Eucharist to which opinion the sayings of the Fathers constrained Luther as he often professeth Mean while if it be asked why such a Consubstantiation is declined by Catholicks their answer is ready viz. because the greatest Councils that have been held successively in the Church-Catholick upon and since the agitation of this controversy have frequently and constantly stated and delivered That the Scriptures as understood and expounded by the Fathers and Church-Tradition declare a Transubstantiation in the Judgments of which Councils Catholicks hold it their Duty to acquiesce This of a Substantial Presence asserted by Protestants 2. Next §. 6. n. 1. for Adoration too of this Body as there present either with the Symbols upon their Consecration or at least to all worthy receivers see the same Bishop Andrews ib. c. 8. p. 195 where to what Bellarmin hath said Inter novitia nupera dogmata ponit Adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistae i. e. adorationem Christi Domini in Sacramento miro sed vero modo praesentis he answers thus Sacramenti ait id est Christi Domini in Sacramento Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit rem scil Sacramenti at non Sacramentum And Nos vero in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio non id
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 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 sovast 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 Divinitas 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
to Catholicks with S. Austin very unreasonable Similiter etiam saith he Epist 118. Januario siquid horum tota per orbem frequentat Ecclesia nam hinc quin ita faciendum sit disputare insolentissimae insaniae est And Graeci omnes saith Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. as well as the Roman Church adorant Christum in Eucharistia Et quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere damnare § 28 V. Lastly besides this great Body Catholicks have since Luther's time in the Reformation no small number of Protestants I mean such as are the genuine Sons of the Church of England proceeding thus far as to confess both a Real Presence of our Lord's Body and Blood in the Eucharist and Adoration of it as present there a real presence of it to each worthy Receiver tho' not to the Elements And Hooker if he mistook not the Doctrine of the Church of England in his time saith Eccles Pol. l. 5. § 67. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so many manifold Contentions when there remaineth now no Controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves So that if Hooker and his party are in the right Catholicks do not mistake Christ's Body as present in a place where it is not but only in thinking it in that present to one thing the Elements when it is so only to another the Receiver of them But then the same Catholicks have another half of the Reformation viz. all the Lutheran Protestants that affirm with the Roman Church Christ's Body present also to the Elements or Symbols And see Mr. Thorndike also Epilog l. 3. c. 3. much for this presence of Christ's Body to be in with or under the Elements immediately upon and by the consecration of them which consecration also he placeth l. 3.4 c. p. 24. in the blessing of the Elements before the breaking c. mentioned before § 7. Look back now upon all these Pleas of Catholicks and see if they will not make up at least a reasonable ground or motive of their Adoration A reasonable ground I say not here what I might sufficient to secure their faith from all suspicion of error but which serves my purpose to secure them from Idolatry in their Adoration tho' they should be mistaken when as other persons because proceeding on like reasonable motives are by Protestants in their Adoration of a mistaken Presence or Object excused from it See before § 8. As for example the Lutheran the Adorer of one much resembling our Lord here on Earth the Adorer of an unconsecrated Host or Wafer placed on the Altar c. especially when Catholicks in crediting such divine Revelation of Christ's Presence and so for their Adoration receive no contradiction as it is pretended they do from their senses because they adore I mean with divine Adoration nothing visible or sensible at all nor any substance invisible wherein any thing that occurs to their senses inheres but only understand Christ's Body present there where their senses can no way certainly and against any pretended divine Revelation inform them either when it is present or not since salvis omnibus phaenomenis all appearances granted most true such a Presence is possible § 29 These rational Grounds of Catholicks for Adoration which we expected should have been most strictly examined by those who conclude the Roman practice herein Idolatry are slightly passed over by Daille in pronouncing that this error of Catholicks vient toute entiere de leur passion Apolog. des Eglis Reform c. 11. p. 90. And after in reducing all their ground thereof to a la seule authorite du Pape de son Concile and by Dr. Taylor Real Pres § 13. p. 346. in calling them some trifling pretences made out of some sayings of the Fathers Elsewhere indeed when he was in a more charitable temper Liberty of Prophes p. 258. he saith That for a motive to such an opinion Roman Catholicks have a divine Revelation whose literal and grammatical Sense if that Sense was intended would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle but prudently there omits their Plea of Catholick Tradition securing to them such a literal sense of the Text. Dr. Stilling-fleet Rom Idol c. 2. § 7. saith first That if a mistake in this case will excuse the Romanist it would excuse the grossest Idolatry in the World And in comparing two persons one worshipping Christ as really present in the Sun another Christ as really present in the Sacrament he saith as inconsiderately as magisterially That supposing a mistake in both we are not to enquire into the reasons of the mistake i. e. as he saith before concerning the probability of the one mistake more than of the other but the influence it hath upon our actions So he But what is more manifest than that the influence which a mistake hath upon our actions as to making them culpable or innocent is not always the same but very various and often contrary rendring them sometimes blameless sometimes faulty according as the mistake is ex â—r in-excusable Next he grants Ibid. § 5. a Catholick Tradition of Transubstantiation to be a sufficient ground for Adoration But the Cacholick Tradition that is pleaded here necessary for Adoration is only that of a corporal Presence Now for a sufficient evidence of such a Tradition I refer the consciencious Reader to what hath been said before waving that of Transubstantiation as to this Controversy tho' the same Catholick Tradition authorizeth both namely a corporal Presence by a mutation of the Elements into our Lord's Body This from § 24. Of the Rational grounds Catholicks have for their Adoration § 30 8ly For such Rational grounds therefore of their worship as are here given and not from any excess of Charity or from the singular Fancies of some few tho' learned men as Dr. Stillingfleet in his Preface to Roman Idolatry would insinuate Idolatry is by many Protestants of late either not at all or but faintly charged on the Church of Rome For first see Mr. Thorndike in his Epilogue 3. l. 30. c. p. 350. I say first saith he that the Adoration of the Eucharist which the Church of Rome prescribeth is not necessarily Idolatry I say not what it may be accidentally by that intention which some men may conceal and may make it Idolatry as to God but I speak upon supposition of that intention which the profession of the Church formeth And in his Just Weights c. 19. p. 125. They who give the honour proper to God to his Creature are Idolaters they that worship the Host give the honour due to God to his Creature this is taken for a Demonstration that the worship of the Host