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 concernment §. 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
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 thee 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 sect 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. Stillingfleet 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-or in exusable Next he grants Ibid. § 5. a Catholick Tradition of Transubstantiation to be a sufficient ground for Adoration But the Catholick 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 sect 30 8 ly For such Rational grounds thereofre 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 is Idolatry But will any Papist acknowledge that he honours the Elements of the Eucharist or as he thinks the Accidents of them for God Will common Reason charge him to honour that which he believes not to be there If they were there they would not take them for God and therefore they would not honour them for God And that is it not saying that they should be Idolaters if the Elements did remain that must make them Idolaters And Epilogue p. 357. in general he saith Whoso admits Idolatry i. e. in any point whatever to be taught by the Roman Church can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the worship of one God exclusive to any thing else The Roman Church then must either be freed from the imputation of commanding any thing that is Idolatry i. e. adoration of a creature for God or we must affirm there to be and to have been no true Church of Christ never since such command of that which they say is Idolatry went forth which no judicious Protestant I think hath or dare say of the Roman Church since the beginning of the Adoration of the Eucharist For what Church or Sect of Religion can be Apostate at all if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry even the worshipping of a piece of Bread which themselves made for that God which made them and Heaven and Earth And thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur illi Idololatriae crassissimae gravissimae ab his insimulantur damnantur cum plerique Romanenses ut alii fideles credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi unde illi non panem adorant sed tantum ex suppositione licet falsa non tamen haeretica aut impia vel cum
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
utterly impassible So sapere digeri nutrire confortare corporaliter and again frangi dentibus comburi rodi a brutis animalibus and whatever other things may be named excepting only those attributes which in general are necessary to indicate the presence of Christ's Body to us with the species whilst integrae as the local positions elevari recondi ore recipi c. they apply to these symbols that remain not to Christ's Body which is indivisibly there Christus vere in sacramento existens nullo modo laedi potest non cadit in terram id enim proprie cadit saith he quod corporaliter movetur so also anima non cadit non teritur non roditur non putrescit non crematur illa enim saith Bellarmin * De Eucharist 3. l. 10. c. in speciebus istis recipiuntur sed Christum non afficiunt § 11 2. Concerning Adoration of the Sacrament they affirm the word Sacrament not to be taken always in the same sense but sometimes to be used to signify only the external signs or symbols sometimes only the res Sacramenti or the thing contained under them which is the much more principal part thereof And as Protestants much press so Catholicks willingly acknowledge a great difference between these two the worshipping of the Sacrament as this word is taken for the symbols and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament Now as the word Sacrament is taken for the Symbols they acknowledge a certain inferior cult and veneration due thereto as to other holy things the holy Chalices the holy Gospels the holy Cross c. of which Veneration much hath been spoken in the Discourse of Images § 42. c. but they acknowledge no supreme or divine Adoration due to the Sacrament as taken in this sense for the Symbols but only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in this Sacrament or with these Symbols So that be these Symbols of what latitude you will either larger as the Lutheran believes or straiter as the Catholicks say they are or be they not only these but the substance of bread also under them as Catholicks believe it is not yet neither those species nor this substance have any divine Adoration given or acknowledged due to them at all no more than this substance of bread believed there by the Lutherans yet hath from them any such Adoration given to it § 12 That Catholicks thus by Adoration of the Sacrament with Latria only understand that of the res Sacramenti the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament see Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 5. Omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus quem Pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei quem Magi procidentes adoraverunt Where tho' the Council useth the expression of exhibiting latriae cultum Sacramento yet that this cultus latriae is not applied to the Sacrament as it implies the Sign or Symbol but only the thing signified both the words joined to it qui vero Deo debetur which signifies the Council maintains that to be God they gave this cultus latriae to and the explication annexed Nam illum eundem Deum c. may sufficiently convince to any not obstinately opposite Neither do those words interposed Neque enim ideo Sacramentum minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum any way cross such a sense as a late Author * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol c. 2. §. 2. p. 117. too confidently presseth saying That by Sacrament here the Council must understand the Elements or Accidents as the immediate term of that divine worship or else the latter words i. e. quod fuerit a Domino institutum ut sumatur signify nothing at all For what saith he was that which was instituted by the Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible Signs or Elements why do they urge That the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take of the common objection That we ought not to give divine worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements Thus argues he When as he might know that the Fathers of Trent who said this do hold the chief thing instituted and exhibited in the Sacrament to be not the Elements but Christ's Body and ipsum corpus Domini to be also orally both taken and eaten tho' not modo naturali carnis or corporis as well as the Elements according to our Lord 's express words Accipite Manducate Hoc est Corpus meum i. e. quod manducatis and when-as he might know also that the occasion of adding this clause was in opposition to a party of Luther's followers who granting Christ's Body present with the Symbols and yet denying Adoration said for it that our Lord's Body not the Symbol was present there non ut adoretur sed ut sumatur And Calvin also saith some such thing Institut l. 4. c. 17. § 35. urging there was no such mandate for Adoration i. e. of Christ's Body of which he was formerly speaking but that our Lord commanded only accipite manducate bibite quo saith he accipi or sumi if you will Sacramentum non adorari jubet meaning Sacramentum in relation to Corpus Domini else he said nothing to the purpose of his former Discourse And it may be consider'd here also that not only the Council of Trent but no Schoolman at all some of which are thought uncautious in their expressions about Adoration of Images and consequently of the holy Symbols in the Eucharist nor is any Catholick accountable for them takes the boldness to give cultus latriae qui vero Deo debetur as the Council saith here to the Elements without annexing some qualification of a coadoratio per accidens improprie sicut vestes Regis adorantur cum Rege or ut Rex vestitus adoratur yet without our mental notion at such a time stripping him of his Garments Therefore neither can the Council here be rationally presumed to speak of the Symbols when it useth no such qualifications § 13 But to put this matter out of all doubt the Definition of this Council in the 6th Canon more than which is not required to be professed by any Son of the Roman Church is this Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei Filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum ejus Adoratores esse Idololatras Anathema sit Concerning which and some other passages in this Council in