The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 7 · Controversy 11 · Chapter 20
CHAP. XX. Of the adoration of the Sacrament: weakneſs of the Cardinals proofs: how he falſifieth Scripture. Examination of his allegations.
THE form after which the Lord Jeſus celebrated his holy Supper among his Diſciples, ſheweth evidently, that the Apoſtles did not worſhip the Sacrament; for they were ſitting [or rather leaning] at the table, and did not riſe from the table till the whole action of the Sacrament was done. For in all the narratives of the inſtitution of the Sacrament, there is no command for worſhipping the Sacrament, nor any trace of adoration, no more then of that elevation whereby the people is invited to worſhip.
(a)Againſt du Pleſſis of the Euchariſt book 3. ch. 11The Cardinal anſwereth, that one may adore ſitting; That the Virgin Mary holding Chriſt in her boſom, did nevertheleſs worſhip him. That Numa had commanded that adoration ſhould be performed ſitting. That Pibrac ſaid in his Moral verſes,(b)Quatrains de Pibrac. Adore affis comme le Grec ordonne. Adore ſitting as the Grecian preſcribes.
To this I anſwer, that if the Virgin Mary holding the Lord Jeſus in her boſom, adored him, ſhe did it with her heart and thought, not with the geſture of her body, or with an outward adoration, the adoration which is here in queſtion. For in the ſacrifices they were bound to proſtrate their bodies; how much more then in a ſacrifice where the body of the eternal Son of God was ſacrificed? That which he ſaith of Numa and Pibrac, is a boyiſh conceit; For the Apoſtles were Jews, and were not ruled by Numa's Conſtitutions, nor by Pibrac's moral verſes. Their cuſtom in the adoration was to kneel down, yea many times to proſtrate their whole body.
The Cardinal makes a doubt whether the Apoſtles received the Euchariſt ſitting.Againſt du Pleſſis, book 3. ch. 11. p. 871. For (ſaith he) the gesture and poſture of the Communicants is not expreſt; as likewiſe it is not expreſt whether they ſtood up to eat the Paſſeover according to the inſtitution of the Law. Had this Prelat read attentively the text of the Goſpel, he would not have doubted of a thing ſo clearly expreſt in it. For in the 13. ch. of S. Johns Goſpel, ver. 4. it is ſaid, that Jeſus aroſe from Supper to waſh his Apoſtles feet; and after he had waſhed their feet, we read in verſe 12. that he ſate down again. In the ſame chapter S: John ſpeaks of a Diſciple, which is S. John himſelf, who ſitting at the table, was in the boſome of Jeſus, that is, he laid his head on his lap, which he could not have done if Jeſus had ſtood up. The tables of the Grecians and Romans were ſo diſpoſed, that they were half ſitting, half lying down: and that he that was in the ſecond place ſitting lower, could reſt his head on him that was ſitting above him. This Cardinal ignorant in the good letters, knew nothing of theſe things, or if he knew them, he purpoſely diſſembled them. That cuſtom of ſitting at the Lords Supper was yet in faſhion in the Apoſtles time. This appeareth by the Church of the Corinthians, which celebrated the Lords Supper in the form of a feaſt, where exceſſes were committed. To which the word of foreign and Coena are ſuitable, which all the antient Churches uſed to expreſs Chriſts action celebrating this Sacrament with his Diſciples. For the word Coena ſignifieth a common ſupper, not an oblation importing adoration.
Others ſay,(c)Du Perron againſt du Pleſſis of the Euchariſt, p. 863. and the Cardinal after them, that the Apoſtles did not worſhip the body of Chriſt in the Euchariſt, becauſe they had Chriſt every day with them; wherein they deceive themſelves purpoſely; for they know, that before that action the Apoſtles had never eaten Chriſt, and never been preſent at the ſacrifice of his body; and that ſuch a manducation had deſerved an extraordinary devotion; and that there was never a ſacrifice in the Church without adoration. Much leſs then ſhould the ſacrifice of the natural body of the Son of God have wanted adoration, eſpecially the firſt inſtitution of that ſacrifice, which muſt be a perpetual pattern and rule.
Upon our queſtion to our adverſaries, where they can ſhew us, that ever God commanded us to worſhip the Sacrament, and to yeild to it a ſervice of latria (as they ſpeak, which is the adoration due to God alone) we cannot fetch any anſwer from them, nor one word to the purpoſe. M. du Perron (d)Of Euchariſt. lib. 3. ch. 8.laboureth hard about that, and is put to his ſhifts: he ſaith, that no more have we any command to worſhip the Holy Ghoſt. I anſwer, that whoſoever worſhippeth God, worſhippeth the Holy Ghoſt, ſince the Holy Ghoſt is God, for ſo he is called Act. 5.3. The Apoſtle 1 Cor. 6.19. ſaith that our bodies are the Temples of the Holy Ghoſt: now Temples muſt be conſecrated to none but God. And Jeſus commanded that we ſhould be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoſt. Now we are not baptized in the name of the creature.
If the body of Chriſt which is given in the Euchariſt were the natural body of Chriſt, as our adverſaries will have it, not the Sacramental body as we affirm, the Apoſtles would have worſhipped it. Eſpecially in the firſt celebration of this Sacrament, which muſt be a rule unto the Church; the command of worſhipping the Sacrament ſhould have been clearly expreſt, or at leaſt the practice.
(e)Pag. 863.He adds, that when the Father ſaith, This is my ſon in whom I am well pleaſed, hear ye him; he ſaith not Worſhip ye him; but in that indicative propoſition, This is my Son, this imperative propoſition, Worſhip ye him, was virtually and implicitly contained. Likewiſe he will have theſe words, This is my body, to contain implicitly the command of worſhipping him.
I anſwer, that thoſe words, This is my Son, are proper, not Sacramental or typical words, like theſe, This is my body, as we have proved it. Now from ſimple words one may draw conſequences, but from Sacramental words no conſequence can be drawn, till they be reduced to ſimple and not typical words. Beſides, theſe words, This is my Son, contain indeed a command to worſhip Chriſt, but not to worſhip him in ſuch a place or in ſuch an action. Whereas from theſe words, This is my body, they will infer a conſequence, that this body muſt be worſhipped under the ſpecies of bread, which is an inconſequent conſequence and without any colour.
The Cardinal adds, Though the bread of the Euchariſt ſhould remain truly bread in its inward and inviſible ſubſtance, was there not a far greater diſtance between the Ark and God, the Ark being but the ſimple legal and ceremonial ſign of his preſence, then between the Euchariſt and Chriſt? which Ark nevertheleſs Joſhuah and all the people of Iſrael worſhipped; And David in his Pſalms exhorts every one to worſhip it.
I anſwer, that it is falſe that ever Joſhuah or the people of Iſrael worſhipped the Ark. We find indeed, Joſh. 7.6. That Joſhuah rent his garments and fell on his face to the ground before the Ark of the Lord. And that not only according to the Hebrew, but according to the Vulgate verſion authorized by the Council of Trent. The words in that verſion are theſe, Joſue pronus cecidit in terram coram Arca Domini uſque ad vesperam, tam ipſe quam ſeniores Iſrael. The verſions of Sanctes Pagninus and of Arias Montanus ſay the ſame. The licenciouſneſs of forgery is notorious in this Cardinal.
With the like depravation of Scripture, he ſaith in the ſame place, that David in his Pſalms exhorteth every one to worſhip the Ark, and he alledgeth, without quoting, a text of the 98. Pſ. which in the Hebrew Bible is the 99. where David ſaith, Exalt ye the Lord our God and worſhip at his footſtool. But the vulgar verſion ſaith, Worſhip his footſtool. Here the Cardinal will play the Grammarian, but acteth that part but poorly. All the good verſions of our adverſaries tranſlate as we do, that of Pagninus a Monk of Luca, and that of Arias Montanus a Spaniard. So doth alſo the Chaldean Paraphraſt. The Septuagint tranſlate foreign, not foreign. But this removeth all doubt, that in the ſame Pſalm after foreign Adorate ad ſcabellum, it is added foreign Adorate ad montem. If in the firſt, we muſt tranſlate Adore the footſtool, we muſt tranſlate in the ſecond, Adore the mountain, which the Cardinal would not like; for it would be a mad idolatry to worſhip a mountain. It is not credible that David worſhipped before the Ark otherwiſe then Joſhua; Now it is expreſsly ſaid of Joſhua, Joh. 7.6.that he fell to the earth upon his face before the Ark of the Lord, not that he worſhipped the Ark. Who will believe that God, who in his Law did ſo expreſsly prohibit worſhipping any other but God, would allow the worſhipping of a wodden cheſt? I confeſs, that worſhipping God, and worſhipping before God, are the ſame thing. But when it is queſtion of inanimate things, worſhipping before the Temple, and worſhipping the Temple, are things far different.
Two things deſerve to be obſerved by the way. Firſt, theſe words of the Cardinal, Though the bread ſhould remain in his inward and inviſible ſubſtance, &c. This is ſaying tacitely, that there is an outward ſubſtance, and putting two ſubſtances in the bread, the one inward and inviſible, the other outward and viſible, which is a meer abuſe. By affecting ſubtility he betrayeth his ignorance.
Secondly, obſerve to what exceſs Idolatry is grown in the Roman Church, in which they worſhip not only the body of Chriſt which they affirm to be covered with the species, but alſo the ſpecies, that is the ſigns and accidents.
(f)Bellar. l. 4. de Euchar. c. 29. ſect. Sed haec. Proprie Chriſtum eſſe adorandum, & eam adorationem etiam ad ſymbola panis & vini pertinere, quatenus apprehenduntur ut quid unum cum ipſo Chriſto quem continent.Bellarmin teacheth that doctrine, ſaying that the adoration belongeth to the ſigns of bread and wine, in as much as they are conſidered as the ſame thing with Chriſt whom they contain; as when they worſhipped, they worſhipped his garment alſo. So then Chriſtians are brought to worſhip the colour and the figure of bread, and a whole object is worſhipped, of which Chriſt makes but the one half. Wherefore the Council of Trent commandeth that the Sacrament be worſhipped. Now the Sacrament of Chriſt is not Chriſt.