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 2d 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 3ly 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 manner than they imagined See the argument of Barnesius a Roman Writer apud Forbes l. 2. c. 2. § 12. Corpus Christi est cum pane vel permanente vel transeunte uno vel alio modo per consequens non est idololatria adorare Christum ibi in Euchristia realiter praesentem See in Conc. Trid. 13. § c. 5. the reason immediately following the requiring of Adoration Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo i. e. Sacramento adesse credimus quem Pater introducens in orbem terrarum dicit Et adorent eum c. If therefore the Roman Church enjoyns these three 1. To believe Christ's Corporal presence in the Sacrament 2. To believe such presence by way of Transubstantiation 3. To adore Christ as being there present It follows not that she enjoyns the third in order to the second but may only in order to the first as the first being without the second a sufficient ground thereof Neither can I disbelieving the second yet believing the first refuse obedience to the third that is to worship the same object in the same place as those do who also believe the second and in my believing both the first and the second yet may I nevertheless ground the third only on that which is by Christians more generally agreed on and still worship out of no other intention after Transubstantiation believed than I did before I believed it when only I held in general a corporal presence or than others do who believing a Real presence do not yet believe Transubstantiation § 18 4. Let us then not granting it suppose Transubstantiation an error yet if the tenent of Corporal or Real presence as held by the Lutherans or others be true Catholicks plead their Adoration is no way frustrated but still warrantable and to be continued § 19 5ly Suppose not only Transubstantiation but Real presence an error and the Lutheran and the Roman Catholick both mistaken yet there can be no pretence why these later in such Adoration grounded by both on Real presence with the Symbols will not be as excusable from Idolatry as the other For thus far these two Parties agree 1. That Christ is corporally present 2. That he may be worshipped 3. That no other there but He may be worshipped not Bread nor any other meer creature 4. That nothing visible in the Sacrament is He or his Body which is present only invisibly without any thing visible inhering or appertaining to it as the subject thereof They differ only about the manner of the presence of this invisible Substance The one saith it is there together with the Bread the other saith there instead of the Bread and the Bread away a thing also to God possible for any thing we know The one saith he is there both under the substance and accidents of Bread the other there under the accidents only of the bread Now whilst both worship the same Object in the same place and veiled with the same sensible accidents if the one adoring him as being under the substance of bread he not being there are freed from any Idolatry in such worship the other adoring him as being under the accidents of bread he not being there cannot be made hereby Idolaters since they say and freely profess that if his body be not there under those appearances but the same substance still under them which was formerly then they confess it a creature and renounce all adoration of it Whereas therefore it is objected That the substance of bread only being in that place where they suppose Christ's Body and not any Bread to be therefore in worshipping the thing in that place they worship bread this were a right charge if they affirmed that they worshipped the substance that is in that place under such accidents whatever it be but this none say but that they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body and not bread and that for this supposition they have a rational ground of which by and by Now saying they worship it because it is so is saying if it be not so they intend no worship to it He that saith I give divine Adoration to that which is under the species of Bread because believed by me or if you will certainly known by me but he indeed mistaking to be Christ's Body and so Christ present is yet far from saying I worship whatever is under the species of Bread whether it be Christ's Body or no. And he that saith the later of these if bread happen to be there is willingly granted an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but not so the former Daille as it much concerns him excuseth a Lutheran adoring upon a falsly supposed real or corporal presence of our Lord from any Idolatry for this reason Because saith he * 1. Reply to Chaumont p. 63. such adoration is mistaken not in this that it addresseth it self to an Object not adorable but only that by error it seeks and thinks to enjoy it in a place where it is not
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
thrown out again and so the Common-Prayer Books ever since have been cleared of it till the alterations therein made after the King's return in A. D. 1661. at which time it was reinserted The same Q. Elizabeth's Divines in their Review of these Articles also as they cast the Declaration out of the Liturgy so did they expunge this passage likewise being of the same temper as the Declaration out of the Article which hath been omitted ever since § 2 Again whereas King Edward's former Common-Prayer Book useth these words as they have descended from Antiquity in delivering the Eucharist The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy Body and Soul to everlasting life the Composers of the second in the fifth year of that King's Reign suitable to their Declaration which denies any Real or Essential Presence of this Body in the Eucharist thought fit to remove this Form and put instead thereof only these words Take and eat this left without any substantive in remembrance that Christ died for thee and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving leaving out these words also of the former Consecration-Prayer And with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctifie these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ They omit also the Priest's touching or handling the Patin or Chalice in the Prayer of Consecration required in the former Book done according to Bucer's directions in his Censura p. 468. whereby seems to be avoided the acknowledging of any Presence of Christ's Body and Blood with the Symbols of which also Bucer saith * Censura p. 476. Antichristianum est affirmare quidquam his elementis adesse Christi extrausum praebitionis receptionis For the same reason it seems to be that the Glory be to God on high c. and the Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini after the Sursum corda the one is transferred till after the Communion and the other omitted differently from King Edward's first Form likewise whereas it is said in the former Liturgy in the Prayer of Humble access Grant us so to eat the Flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ and to drink his Blood in these holy mysteries the 2d omits these words in these holy mysteries But the Divines of Qu. Elizabeth in their Review §. 3. n. 1. as they nulled the Declaration in the Common-Prayer Book and purged the 28th Article of the forementioned explication so they thought fit to restore the former ejected Form in the administring of the Sacrament The Body of our Lord c. preserve thy body and soul putting after it the later Form Take and eat this in remembrance c. and feed on him in thy heart with Faith and Thanksgiving But then the new Liturgy prepared for Scotland and published A. D. 1637. rectifies and reduces many of the former things again to the first mode first restores those words in the Consecration with thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless c. that They may be unto us the Body c. ordering again the Presbyter that officiates to take the Patin and Chalice in his hands and then takes quite away the words added in King Edward's second Form in the delivering of the Mysteries Take and eat this c. and instead thereof adds after the former words The Body of our Lord c. the People's Response Amen according to the custom of Antiquity See Dionys Alexandr apud Euseb Hist 7. l. 8. c. Leo Serm. 6. de jejunio 7 mi mensis Augustin ad Orosium quaest 49. spoken as a Confession of their Faith that they acknowledged that which they received to be Corpus Domini Of all which Laudensium Autocatacrisis heavily complains observing That in the Consecration-Prayer are restored the words of the Mass whereby God is besought by his Omnipotent Spirit so to Sanctifie the oblation of Bread and Wine that they may become to us Christ's Body and Blood From which words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation Wherefore the English Reformers i. e. the latter in King Edward's days scraped them out of their Books but our Men put them fairly in And good reason have they so to do For long ago they professed that about the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament after Consecration they are fully agreed with Lutherans and Papists except only about the formality and mode of Presence here quoting Montague's Appeal p. 289. Lastly when the late Clergy A. D. 1661. being upon I know not what inducements §. 3. n. 2. solicited to receive the foremention'd Declaration rejeded in Q. Elizabeth's days came to examine it they judged meet not to publish it entire as it ran before but these words It is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood they cancelled and instead of them inserted these It is here declared that no Adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any Corporal Presence of Christ's natural fâ—â—sh and Blood as we find them in the present Rubrick § 4 Having exhibited this general view of the Mutations which have been made in this Church in several times according as different Judgments had the power somewhat waveringly it see as in the things relating to so great an Article of Faith I think fit now more particularly to resume the consideration of the Declaration about Adoration In which are contained these three Observables 1. That here the present Clergy do profess expresly 1. Observ that the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are not in the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist § 5 2. That they urge for this Non-presence there this reason or ground out of Natural Philosophy 2. Observ That it is against the truth of a Natural body to be in more places than one at one time here seeming to found their Faith in this matter on the truth of this position in Nature § 6 3. In consequence of these they declare that kneeling in receiving the Eucharist so much excepted against by the Presbyterian is meant for a signification of our humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ therein given to all worthy receivers 3. Observ and for the avoiding of such prophanation and disorder in the Holy Communion as might otherwise ensue but that hereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done unto any corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood where they either leave this undetermined whether there be not another presence of Christ's flesh and blood as real and true as is the corporal to which an adoration is at this time due or else do determine as seems concludable from their former Proposition viz. That the natural Body of Christ is not there that there is not any such real
may so say of its essence between these ubi's as do follow from a body so qualified being in two circumscriptive places without the like continuation as you may see in perusing the common objections that are made against plurality of places For as Cardinal Bellarmin presseth well to this purpose De Euchar l. 3. c. 3. Si quis objiciat aliam esse rationem corporum aliam spirituum is facile refelli potest Nam ratio cur corpora non videantur posse esse in pluribus locis non tam est moles quam unitas Ideo autem non videtur posse esse quia non potest divilli a seipso videtur necessario debere divilli ac distrahi a se si ponatur in variis locis Porro ista repugnantia quae sumitur ab unitate rei non minus invenitur in spiritu quam in corpore utrumque enim est unum a se dividi non potest Quare perinde est in hac quaestione sive de Corpore sive de Spiritu probetur and I add sive de corpore essentiali sive de naturali The like things he saith of a Sacramental presence and not per occupationem loci so this presence be real Quae realis praesentia saith he in tot Altaribus non in locis intermediis non minus tollere videtur indivisionem rei quam repletio plurium locorum § 28 This being said from § 22. That in my apprehension either these our English Divines must affirm this Proposition of one body at the same time being in more places than one or some other equivalent to it to be true or must cease to assert any real essential or substantial presence of Christs body in the Eucharist contradistinct to the Sense of the Zuinglians 4. In seems to me that some of the more judicious amongst them heretofore have not laid so great weight on this Philosophical position as wholly to support and regulate their faith in this matter by it as it stands in opposition not only to nature's but the divine power because they pretend not any such certainly thereof but that if any divine revelation of the contrary can be shewed they profess a readiness to believe it § 29 See the quotations out of Dr. Taylor before § 20. n. 3. And thus Bishop White against Fisher p. 179. much-what to the same purpose We cannot grant saith he that one Individual body may be in many distant places at one and the same instant until the Papist demonstrate the possibility hereof by testimony of Sacred Scripture or the antient Tradition of the Primitive Church or by apparent reason And p. 446. We dispute not what God is able to effect by his absolute power neither is this question of any use in the matter non in hand That God changeth the Ordinance which himself hath fixed no divine testimony or revelation affirmeth or teacheth There is a Twofold power in God ordinata and absoluta One according to the order which himself hath fixed by his Word and Will the other according to the infiniteness of his essence Now according to the power measured and regulated by his Word and Will all things are impossible which God will not have to be and p. 182. Except God himself had expresly revealed and testified in his Word that the contrary i. e. to the common ordinance of the Creator should be found in the humane body of Christ c. a Christian cannot be compelled to believe this Doctrine as an Article of his Creed upon the sole voice and authority of the Lateran or Tridentine Council But if they were certain of such contradiction then are they certain that there neither is nor can be such contrary revelation and when any revelation tho' never so plain is brought they are bound to interpret it so as not to affirm a certainly known impossibility § 30 Again thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 1. § censures those other Protestants who peremptorily maintain that there is such a real certain contradiction Admodum periculose nimis audacter negant multi Protestantes Deum posse panem substantialiter in corpus Domini convertere which conversion involves the putting idem corpus simul in diversis locis Multa enim potest Deus omnipotens facere supra captum omnium hominum imo Angelorum Id quidem quod implicet contradictionem non posse fieri concedunt omnes sed quia in particulari nemini evidenter constat quae sit uniuscujusque rei essentia ac proinde quid implicet quid non implicet contradictionem magnae profecto temeritatis est propter caecae mentis nostrae imbecillitatem Deo limites praescribere praefracte negare omnipotentia sua illum hoc vel illud facere posse Placet nobis judicium Theologorum Wirtenbergicorum in Confessione sua Anno 1552. Concilio Tridentino proposita cap. de Eucharistia vide Harmon Confes Credimus inquiunt omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse ut possit in Eucharistia substantiam panis vini vel annihilare vel in corpus sanguinem Christi mutare Sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam omnipotentiam in Eucharistia exerceat non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum After which the same Bishop goes on to shew the moderation also of some foreign reformed Divines herein tho' much opposing the Lutheran and Roman opinion Zuinglius Oecolampadius saith he aliquoties ut constat concesserunt Luthero illius sequacibus ac proinde Romanensibus ut qui idem non minore contentione urgent in Transubstantiatione sua defendenda quam illi in Consubstantiatione sua Deum quidem hoc posse efficere ut unum corpus sit indiversis locis sed quod idem in Eucharistia fieret quod Deus id fieri vellet id vero sibi probari postularunt Vtinam hic pedem fixissent nec ulterius progressi fuissent discipuli In Coll. Malbrunnensi actione 8. Jacobo Andreae Lutherano objicienti Calvinistas negare Christi corpus coelesti modo pluribus in locis esse posse ita respondet Zach. Ursinus Theol. Heidelburgensis Non negamus eum ex Dei omnipotentia pluribus in locis esse posse hoc in controversiam non venit sed an hoc velle Christum ex verbis ejus probari possit Itaque hoc te velle existimavimus Christi corpus non tantum posse sed etiam reipsa oportere in S. Coena praesens esse c. v. Vrs c. p. 155. Idem Vrsinus Action ead p. 153. Conaberis etiam ostendere alloquitur Jacobum Andream elevari imminui a nobis omnipotentiam Dei cum dicamus Deum non posse facere ut corpus in pluribus sit locis aut ut Christi corpus per lapidem penetret the like contradictions seeming to Vrsin to urge both plurality of places to one Body and plurality of Bodies to one place De quo responsum est non
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 adorarijubet 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 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 Discussionis 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 nist 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
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 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