the Ark to adore the Lord there where the Divine Service was particularly joyned to the place where the Ark was Dr. Taylor saith * Real presence §. 13. n. 5. Concerning the action of Adoration it is a fit address in the day of Solemnity with a sursum corda with our hearts lift up to Heaven where Christ sits we are sure at the right hand of the Father For nemo digne manducat nisi prius adoraverit c. which rightly understood means illud quod manducat Here the Doctor allows adoring in the the Sacrament Christ as in Heaven But if Christ's Body and so himself in a special manner be substantially present in the Eucharist here on Earth why not adore him not only as in Heaven but as present here See elsewhere Real Pres p. 144. where he saith We worship the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our Souls See Spalatensis de rep Eccles l. 7. c. 11. § 7. c. §. 6. n. 3. Si secundum veritatem qui digne sumit sacramenta corporis sanguinis Christi ille vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen quodam spirituali miraculoso imperceptibili sumit omnis digne communicans adorare potest debet corpus Christi quod recipit Is then the worthy Communicant to worship but not the unworthy because Christ's Body is there present to the one but not to the other Non quod lateat corporaliter in pane aut sub pane aut sub speciebus accidentibus panis sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesâ—ns Thus Spalatensis And so Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 2. l. 2. c. 9. § An Christus in ustia sit adorandus Protestantes saniores non dubitant In sumptione enim Eucharistiae ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalatensis adorandus est Christus vera latria siquidem corpus ejus vivum ac gloriosum miraculo quodam ineffabili digne sumenti praesens adest haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni sed ipsi Corpori immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur perficitur Thus then Protestants allow Adoration to Christ's Body and Blood as substantially present in the Eucharist if not to the Symbols yet to the worthy receiver § 7 5ly Yet further It is affirmed by another party of Protestants the Lutherans more expresly that Christ's body and blood are present not only to the worthy Communicant but to the consecrated Symbols and whilst so present which is during the action of the Lord's Supper i. e. as I conceive them from the Consecration till the end of the Communion are to be adored Of which thus Chemnitius Exam. Conc. Trid. part 2. sess 13. c. 5. Deum Hominem in Divina humana natura in actione Coenae Dominicae vere substantialiter praesentem in spiritu veritate adorandum nemo negat nisi qui cum Sacramentariis vel negat vel dubitat de praesentia Christi in coena Ibid. Et quidem humanam etiam ejus naturam propter unionem cum Divinitate esse adorandam nemo nisi Nestorianus in dubium vocat Ita Jacob Gen. 28. Moses Exod. 34. Elias 3 Reg. 19. non habebant sane peculiare mandatum ut in illis locis Deum adorarent sed quia habebant generale mandatum ut Deum ubique adorarent certi erant Deum sub externis visibilibus illis symbolis vere adesse peculiari modo gratiae se ibi patefacere certe Deum ipsum quem ibi presentem esse credebant adorabant Nec vero Deum illi procul in coelo Empyraeo a se remotum absentem sed vere praesentem quidem peculiari modo gratiae praesentem adorarunt Thus he Nor do I know that the Calvinists have at any time accused their brethren the Lutherans of Idolatry in such a practice I find also Mr. Thorndike in the like manner clearly maintaining 1. A presence of Christ's Body with the symbols immediately upon Consecration and 2. An Adoration due to it See the former in Epilog l. 3. c. 2. and 3. where p. 17. I have said enough saith he to evidence the mystical and spiritual presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the same before any Man can suppose that spiritual presence of them to the soul which the eating and drinking Christ's flesh and blood spiritually by living Faith importeth And see the latter ib. c. 30. p. 350. I suppose saith he that the Body and Blood of Christ may be adored where-ever they are and must be adored by a good Christian where the custom of the Church which a Christian is obliged to communicate with requires it This honour i. e. of worshipping the Body and Blood of Christ being the duty of an affirmative precept which according to the received rule tyes always tho' it cannot tye a Man to do the duty always because he then should do nothing else what remains but a just occasion to make it requisite and presently to take hold and oblige And is not the presence thereof in the Sacrament of the Eucharist a just occasion presently to express by the bodily act of Adoration that inward honour which we always carry toward our Lord Christ as God Again p. 351. Not to balk that freedom saith he which hath carried me to publish all this I do believe that it was so practised and done i. e. our Lord Christ really worshipped in the Eucharist in the ancient Church and in the symbols before receiving which I maintain from the beginning to have been the true Church of Christ obliging all to conform to it in all things within the power of it I know the consequence to be this That there is no just cause why it should not be done at present but that cause which justifies the reforming of some part of the Church without the whole which were it taken away that it this adoration might be done again and ought not to be of it self alone any cause of Distance i. e. between the Churches of Christ 6. It is granted by Daille in his Apology c. 11. and in his defence of it against Chaumont 1. That altho' the Reformed of his party do not believe the presence of Christ's body in the Signs yet they esteem not the belief of it so criminal that it obligeth them to break off communion with all those that hold it So that had the Roman Church no other error save this they freely confess it had given them no sufficient cause of separating from it as saith he appears in this that we tolerate and bear with it in the Lutherans And again * Reply to Chaumont p. 63. for the adoration of this Body as so present with the signs when indeed it is not so
10. who in pitching especially on this point Adoration of the Eucharist as hindring the Protestants longer stay in the Roman Communion hath in this Discourse and in two Replies to Chaumont made afterward in defence of it discussed it more particularly than many others in answer to S. Ambrose and S. Austin their adoring the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries The Humanity of Jesus Christ saith he personally united to the Divinity is by consequence truly and properly adorable And again They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament which is the thing we agree to And ibid. p. 29. We do willingly adore Jesus Christ who is present in the Sacrament namely by Faith in the heart of the Communicants c. And see Dr. Stillingfleet in his Roman Idol c. 2. p. 114. The Question saith he between us is not whether the person of Christ is to be worshipped with Divine worship for that we freely acknowledge And altho' the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration he must mean Divine yet being considered as united to the Divine Nature that cannot hinder the same Divine worship being given to his Person which belongs to his Divine Nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him Tho' how well that which he saith before ibid. § 2. as it seems against worshipping Christ supposed present in the Eucharist without a special command to do it consists with what he saith here and with what follows let him look to it 4. It is affirmed by many Protestants §. 5. n. 1. especially those of the Church of England that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present not only in virtue but in substance in the Eucharist either with the Symbols immediately upon the Consecration or at least so as to be received in the Eucharist together with the Symbols by every worthy Communicant and that this Body and Blood of our Lord which is not severed from his Person is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration See 1. for a substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist I mean at least to the worthy Receiver contradistinct to a Presence by effect only Influence Virtue Grace or the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ's Body in Heaven Dr. Taylor of Real Presence p. 12. When the word Real saith he is denied i. e. by Protestants as it was in King Edward's time the word Real is taken for Natural i. e. as he explains it p. 5. including not only the nature of the Body for that is the substance but the corporal and natural manner of its existence he goes on But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantia sua nobis adest in substance but after a Sacramental manner See the Confession of Beza and the French Protestants related by Hosp Hist. Sacram. part ult p. 251. Fatemur in coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam ipsam inquam veram â—arnem verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice vel figurate proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo repraesentari exhiberi applicanda osserri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Again Beza Epist 68. speaking against Alemannus and some others who opposed a substantial presence Volunt saith he ex-Gallica Confessione Art. 36. Liturgia Catech. Din. 53. expungi substantiae vocem idcirco de industria passim a Calvino a me usurpatam ut eorum calumniae occurreremus qui nos clamitant prore Sacramenti non ipsum Christum sed ejus duntaxat dona energiam ponere And Epist. 5. he argues thus against the same Alemannus Velim igitur te imprimis intueri Christi verba Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis traditur Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis funditur Age pro his vocibus Corpus Sanguis dicamus Hoc est efficacia mortis meae quae pro vobis traditur Hic est Spiritus meus qui pro vobis effunditur Quid ineptius est hac oratione Nam certe verba illa Quod pro vobis traditur Qui pro vobis funditur necessario huc te adigunt ut de ipsamet Corporis Sanguinis substantia hoc intelligere cogaris See Hooker Eccles Pol. 5. l. 67. § p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversy saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very consecrated Elements themselves But a great Controversy surely there would be beside this if the one party held Christ's Body substantially and the other virtually present Again p. 360. All three opinions do thus far accord in one c. That these holy mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of that body and blood which were given for the life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in true and real tho' mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Thus also Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell. 1. cap. p. 11. Nobis vobiscum de Objecto convenit de modo lis omnis est But there would be a lis concerning the Object if one affirmed the substance of the body there the other only the virtue or efficacy See Bishop Cosins his late Historia Transubstantiationis tit cap. 2. Protestantium omnium consensus de reali §. 5. n. 2. id est vera sed non carnali Praesentia Christi in Eucharistia manifeste constat And in proof of this p. 10. he quotes Poinet Bishop of Winchester his Dialacticon de veritate natura atque substantia Corporis Sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia Quod saith he non alio consilio edidit quam ut fidem doctrinam Ecclesiae Anglicanae illustraret Et primo ostendit Eucharistiam non solum figuram esse Corporis Domini sed etiam ipsam veritatem naturam atque substantiam in se comprehendere idcirco nec has voces Naturae Substantiae fugiendas esse Veteres enimde hoc Sacramento disserentes ita locutos fuisse Secundo quaerit an voces illae Veritas Natura Substantia communi more in hoc mysterio a veteribus intelligebantur an peculiari Sacramentis magis accommodata ratione Neque enim observandum esse solum
quibus verbis olim Patres usi sunt sed quid istis significare ac docere voluerint Et licet discrimen ipse cum Patribus agnoscat inter Corpus Christi formam humani corporis naturalem habens quod in Sacramento est Corpus mysticum maluit tamen discrimen illud ad modum praesentiae exhibitionis quam ad ipsam rem hoc est Corpus Christi verum accommodari cum certissimum sit non aliud Corpus in Sacramento fidelibus dari nisi quod a Christo pro fidelium salute in mortem traditum fuit Thus he justifying Poinet's expressions speaking in the language of the Fathers p. 43. Non dicimus saith he in hac sacra Coena nos tantum esse participes fructus mortis passionis Christi sed fundum ipsum cum fructibus qui ab ipso ad nos redeant conjungimus asserentes cum Apostolo 1 Cor. 10.16 Panem quam frangimus esse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Corporis Christi Poculum Sanguinis ejus communicationem imo in eadem illa substantia quam accepit in utero Virginis quam sursum in coelos invexit in hoc tantum a Pontisiciis dissidentes quod illi manducationem hanc conjunctionem corporaliter fieri credunt nos non naturali aliqua ratione aut modo corporali sed tamen tam vere quam si naturaliter aut corporaliter Christo conjungeremur Here I understand his non modo corporali not to exclude Corpus Domini or non ratione naturali to exclude natura rei or the thing it self but only to signify that the Body is present not after a corporal manner or with the dimensions and other common qualities of a Body which thing indeed Catholicks also affirm He seems also to grant §. 5. n. 3. this substantial Presence to be with the Symbols after Consecration on the Table and before communicating For p. 65. for this he quotes the Conc. Nicaen Sublata in altum mente per fidem consideremus proponi in sacra illa mensa Agnum Dei tollentem peccata mundi And p. 43. Quoniam saith he res significata nobis offertur exhibetur tam vere quam signa ipsa ea ratione signorum cum Corpore Sanguine Domini conjunctionem agnoscimus mutata esse elementa dicimus in usum alium ab eo quem prius habuerunt i. e. to be now conjoyned with and to exhibit to us this Body of our Lord which conjunction he saith p. 45. is made per omnipotentiam Dei. So he saith ibid. Non quaeritur An Corpus Christi a Sacramento suo juxta mandatum ejus instituto ac usurpato absit quod nos Protestantes Reformati nequaquam dicimus aut credimus Nam cum ibi detur sumatur omnino oportet ut adsit licet Sacramento suo quasi contectum sit ibi ut in se est conspici nequeat And p. 125. Fieri enim saith he de Elemento Sacramentum which surely is done in the Consecration nec consistere Sacramentum sine Re Sacramenti firmiter tenent And this conjunctio Corporis Christi p. 35. he affirms to be made in receiving the Sacrament not only cum anima sed etiam cum corpore nostro Lastly §. 5. n. 4. the modus of this true Presence of the Body of our Lord with the Signs or Symbols in the Sacrament when as it remains in Heaven till our Lord's second coming he makes as others to be ineffabilis imperscrutabilis non ratione inquirendus aut indagandus p. 36. Nos vero hunc modum praesentiae Christi in Eucharistia fatemur cum Patribus esse ineffabilem atque imperscrutabilem hoc est non ratione inquirendum aut indagandum sed sola fide credendum Etsi enim videtur incredibile in tanta locorum distantia penetrare ad nos Christi carnem ut nobis sit in cibum meminisse tamen oportet quantum supra sensus nostros emineat Spiritus Sancti virtus quam stultum sit ejus immensitatem modo nostro metiri velle Quod ergo mens nostra non comprehendit concipiat fides The like to which esse ineffabilem supra sensus Catholicks say of the same presence of our Lord in the Eucharist in tanta locorum distantia whilst also at the very same time it is in Heaven And thus Lanfrank long ago in his answer to Berengarius who contended that Christi Corpus coelo devocari non poterit quoting the words of St. Andrew a little before his Passion Cum vero in terris carnes ejus sunt comestae vere sanguis ejus sit bibitus ipse tamen usque in tempora restitutionis omnium in coelestibus ad dextram Patris integer semper perseverat vivat Si quaeris saith he modum quo id fieri possit breviter ad praesens respondeo Mysterium est fidei credi salubriter potest vestigari utiliter 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 vivificans nos Corporis Sanguinis sui substantia i. e. in the Sacrament that Hoc mysterium nostrae 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
comparing the Chapters with the Canons Franciscus a sancta Clara Enchiridion of Faith Dial. 3. § 18. judiciously observes That altho' Catholick faith as to the substance is declared in the Chapters as indeed it is yet according to this we are obliged only sub anathemate to that form of expression which is defined in the Canons 1. Because the Chapters are not framed in the stile of Conciliary Definitions with Anathema 's and the like 2. Because the Canons where the very form is exceeding exact sometimes differ from the manner of expression in the Chapters in order to the same matter As sess 6. of Justification Canon 11. and Chapter 7. also sess 13. of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Canon 6. Chapter 5. and elsewhere yet sub anathemate all must stand to the Canons and therefore must expound the Chapters by them See more in the Author Soave also l. 4. p. 343. in his censure of this 13th Session tho' he saith magisterially enough in opposition to a Council That the manner of speech used in the 5th point of Doctrine saying That divine worship was due to the Sacrament was noted also for improper since it is certain that the thing signifyed or contained is not meant by the Sacrament but the thing signifying or containing But what Catholick will grant him this that Sacrament includes not both or of the two not more principally the thing contained in or joined with the Symbols Yet he observes That it was well corrected in the 6th Canon which said That the Son of God ought to be worshipped in the Sacrament See the same observed also by Grotius in Apolog. Rivet Discuss p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's forequoted passage That the Controversy between Catholicks and Lutherans in their saying The Sacrament or Christ in the Sacrament was to be worshipped was only in modo loquendi To which nothing is replied by Rivet in Dialysi Discassionis but the matter there as also in his Apologetic passed over in silence Add to Grotius what Mr. Thorndike discourseth in defence of the expression of worshipping the Sacrament Epilog 3. l. 30. c. p. 352. I confess it is not necessarily the same thing to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist as to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist Yet in that sense which reason of it self justifies it is For the Sacrament of the Eucharist by reason of the nature thereof is neither the visible species nor the invisible Grace of Christ's body and blood but the union of both by virtue of the promise in regard whereof both concur to that which we call the Sacrament of the Eucharist by the promise which the Institution thereof containeth If this be rightly understood then to worship the Sacrament of the Eucharist is to worship Christ in the Sacrament of the Eucharist Thus he § 14 This in vindication of the Council And Bellarmine explains himself in the same manner as the Council in his Apology to King James Inter nupera dogmata ponit Rex adorationem Sacramenti Eucharistiae i. e. as Catholicks understand and explain it adorationem Christi Domini miro sed vero modo praesentis To which Bishop Andrews replies Quis ei hoc dederit Sacramento i. e. Christi in Sacramento Imo Christus ipse Sacramenti res in Sacramento adorandus est Rex autem Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit Thus far then the King Bishop and Cardinal are agreed Again de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi status Quaestionis non est nisi An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae And as it were to avoid offence when he comes to treat on this subject de Euchar. 4. l. c. 29. he prefixeth the Title to it not De adoratione but De veneratione hujus Sacramenti And in it saith that Nullus Catholicus est qui doceat Ipsa symbola externa per se proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minore Of this Doctrine of Catholicks Bishop Forbes gives this testimony l. 2. c. 2.9 § In Eucharistia mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae c. neque satis est i. e. to give them divine worship quod Christus sub illis sit quia etiam Deus est in Anima tanquam in Templo suo tamen adoratur Deus non Anima ut ait Suares 3. Tom. 79. quaest 8. art disp 65. § 1. And so Spalatensis l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri i. e. Catholicks dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda sed dicunt corpus Christi verum reale quod sub illis speciebus latet debere adorari When then the Roman Church speaking of supreme Adoration explains her language of adoring the Sacrament to mean only adoring Christ's Body and so Christ as present there and not adoring any other thing whatever substance or accident that is present there or that is also included in the word Sacrament that accusation which her using such language of adoring the Sacrament can seemingly expose her to is at the most not of an error but an improper expression But the propriety of language dutiful Sons ought to learn from not teach their Mother who also speaks that which hath descended to her from former times Neither will it follow from Catholicks using the word Sacrament precisely in this sense exclusively to any other matter save Christ's Body that therefore one may use the word Sacrament promiscuously for Christ's Body in what respect soever we speak of it and as well or as properly say that the Sacrament meaning Christ's Body is in the Heavens at God's right hand or was on the Cross or the like For tho' Sacrament thus applied involves no other subject or thing at all but Christ's Body yet it connotes besides it the place or manner of its presence signifying this Body only as present in the Mysteries not as a term adequate to and convertible with it being in whatever time and place § 15 I think these Testimonies produced both out of the Council of Trent and other Catholick Authors and also out of Protestants confessing so much of them do show sufficiently the great extravagancy of those Protestant Authors who tell their Readers that the state of this controversy is not Whether Christ's Body and so Christ in the Sacrament be adorable with supreme Honours but whether the Sacrament and then by Sacrament are pleased to understand the Symbols and then to confute the Doctrine of Rome argue that no Creature as the Symbols are is capable of Divine Honour The state of the Controversy saith a late Writer of theirs * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 117. is Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be