The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, Part 5

The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome · Part 5

p. 43V. Of the Eucharist.

THere are two material Points under this Head which are to be examined, because he endeavours to set them off with all the advantage he can, viz. Adoration of the Host, and Transubstantiation.

I. Of the Adoration of the Host.

1. The Question is far enough from being, Whether it be lawful to commit Idolatry? as our Representer puts p. 44it. For the Misrepresenter saith, That a Papist believes it lawful to commit Idolatry: and to clear this, our Author gravely saith, He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry. Pag. 9. As tho any Men ever owned it to be lawful: Which is, as if the Question were, Whether such a Man committed Adultery, and he should think to clear himself by saying, he believed it unlawful to commit Adultery.

2. The Question is not, Whether Christ may be lawfully adored by us in the Celebration of the Eucharist; which we are so far from denying, that our Church requires our receiving it in the posture of Adoration.

3. The true Question is, Whether the Body of Christ, being supposed to be present in the Host by Transubstantiation, be a sufficient ground to give the same Adoration to the Host, which they would do to the Person of Christ?

And that this is the true state of the Question, will appear by these things.

1. The Council of Trent first defined Transubstantiation, and from thence inferred Adoration of the Host; as is most evident to any one that will read the fourth and fifth Decrees of the 13th Session. Nullus ita que dubitandi locus, &c. i. e. If Transubstantiation be true, then Adoration follows. It's true, the sixth Canon only speaks of Christ being there worshipped; but that ought to be compared with the first, second, and fourth Canons, where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is fully set down, as the Foundation of that Adoration.

2. The Adoration is not fixed on the Person of Christ, as separate from the Host, but as making one Object of Worship together with it. And so the Council of Trent declares in the sixth Decree; when it saith, The Sacrament is never the less to be adored, because it was p. 45instituted to be received. This cannot be otherwise understood, than as relating to the Sacrament: and so that whatever it be, must be granted to be the Object of Adoration. By the Sacrament, saith Cardinal Pallavicini, is understood the Object made up of the Body of Christ, and the Accidents. The Worship then Pallavicin. Hist. Concil. Trident. l. 12. c. 6.being confessed to be Adoration, which is due to God alone, and that Adoration directed to the Sacrament as its proper Object; the Question now is, Whether such a Supposition in the Sacrament, doth justify that Adoration?

Our Author saith, He accounteth it most damnable to worship or adore any Breaden God, or to give Divine Honour to any Elements of Bread and Wine, p. 9.

Then, I say, by his own confession, if it be only Bread, he commits Idolatry; for the Adoration he cannot deny. But our Representer loves ambiguous Expressions, which to the People sound very well, but have no sincere meaning: for what is it he understands by his Breaden God? If it be that he worships a God which himself supposes to be nothing but Bread, we do not charge him with it; but if it be what we believe it to be, the Substance of Bread, but himself believes to be turned into the Body of Christ, then he cannot deny his Adoration to be given to it.

All that can excuse them is, the Supposition; and whether that will or not, is now to be consider'd.

1. If it be not true, themselves grant it to be Idolatry. The Testimonies of Bishop Fisher, and Costerus, Rossens. c. Oecu. lamp. l. 1. c. 2. Coster. Euchi…id. c. 8. n. 10.are so well known to the purpose, that I shall not repeat them. And Catharinus, a Divine of Note in the Council of Trent, confesses it is Idolatry to worship an unconsecrated Host, altho the Person, through a Mistake, believes it Consecrated. And he quotes Catherin. in Cajet. p. 133, &c. Ed. Paris, 1535St. Thomas and Paludanus for his Opinion; and gives p. 46this Reason for it; because Christ is not worshipped simply in the Sacrament, but as he is under the Species; and therefore if he be not so present, a Creature hath Divine Worship given it. As those were guilty of Idolatry, who worshipped any Creatures of old, supposing God to be there, as that he was the Soul of the World. They were not excused, saith he, that they thought they worshipped but one God; because they worshipped him as present in such a manner, as he was not. And this Book of his, he saith, in the I…g…. 1542.Review of it, was seen and approved by the Pope's Order, by their Divines at Paris.

2. If the Bread were taken to be God, our Author doth not deny it would be Idolatry, for that were to worship a breaden God. Yet here would be a Mistake, and a gross one; yet the Mistake would not excuse the Persons committing it from most damnable Idolatry, as he confesses: Why then should the other Mistake excuse them, when they suppose the Substance of the Bread not to be there, but the Body of Christ to be under the Species? Yes, say they, then no Creature is supposed to be the Object of Worship. But when the Bread is supposed to be God, it must be supposed not to be a Creature. There is no Answer to be given in this Case, but that the Bread really is a Creature, whatsoever they imagined; and if this Mistake did not excuse, neither can the other.

2. Of Transubstantiation.

Three Things our Author goes upon, with respect to this.

1. He supposes Christ's words to be clear for it.

p. 472. He shews the possibility of it, from God's Omnipotency.P. 9, 10, 11, 12.

3. He argues against the Testimony or Evidence of Sense or Reason in this Case, from some parallel Instances, as he thinks.

1. He believes Jesus Christ made his words good, pronounced at his last Supper, really giving his Body and Blood to his Apostles; the Substance of Bread and Wine being, by his powerful words, changed into his own Body and Blood; the Species only, or Accidents of the Bread and Wine, remaining as before. The same he believes of the Eucharist consecrated now by Priests.

This is a very easy way, of taking it for granted that the words are clear for Transubstantiation. And from no better Ground, to fly to God's Omnipotency to make it good, is as if one should suppose Christ really to be turned into a Rock, a Vine, a Door; because the words are every jot as clear, and then call in God's Omnipotency, which is as effectual to make them good. I confess, these words are so far from being clear to me for Transubstantiation, that if I had never heard of it, I should never have thought of it, from these or any other words of Scripture, i. e. not barely considering the sound of words, but the Eastern Idioms of speaking; the Circumstances of our Saviour's real Body at that time when he spake them; the uncouth way of feeding on Christ's real Body, without any Objection made against it by his Disciples. The Key our Saviour elsewhere gives for understanding the manner of eating his Flesh; and withal, if these words be literally and strictly understood, they must make the Substance of Bread to be Christ's Body; for that is unavoidably the literal sense of the words. For can any Men take This to be any p. 48thing but this Bread, who attend to the common sense and meaning of Words, and the strict Rules of Interpretation? Yet this sense will by no means be allow'd; for then all that can be infer'd from these words is, that when Christ spake these words, The Bread was his Body. But either Christ meant the Bread by This, or he did not; if he did, the former Proposition is unavoidable in the literal Sense: if he did not, then by virtue of these words, the Bread could never be turned into the Body of Christ. For that only could be made the Body of Christ which was meant, when Christ said, This is my Body. This seems to me to be as plain and convincing as any Demonstration in Euclid. Which hath often made me wonder at those who talk so confidently of the plain Letter of Scripture, being for this Doctrine of Transubstantiation. But several Divines of the Church of Rome, understood themselves better, and have confessed, That this Doctrine could not be drawn out of the literal sense of these words; as it were easy to shew, if it had not been lately done already. It is enough here to observe, that Vasquez confesseth Vasq. in 3 Part. Disc. 180. Q. 75 Art. 2. C. 5.it of Scotus, Durandus, Paludanus, Ockam, Cameracensis; and himself yields that they do not, and cannot signify expresly the Change of the Bread and Wine into the Body of Christ. For how can, This is my Body, literally signify, this is changed into my Body? If that Proposition were literally true, This is my Body, it overthrows the change; For how can a thing be changed into that which it is already?

2. He believes Christ being equal to his Father in Truth and Omnipotency, can make his Words good. We do not in the least dispute Christ's Omnipotency, but we may their familiar way of making use of it to help them out, when Sense and Reason fail them. And therefore Cajetan well said; We ought not to dispute p. 49Cajetan. in 3 Part. Q. 75. Art. 1, 2, 3.about God's Absolute Power in the Doctrine of the Sacraments, being things of such constant use; and that it is a foolish thing to attribute to the Sacrament all that God can do.

But we must consider what he saith against Sense and Reason. For the believing this Mystery, he does not at all think it meet for any Christian to appeal from Christ's Words, to his own Senses or Reason, for the examining the Truth of what he hath said, but rather to submit his Senses and Reason to Christ's Words in the obsequiousness of Faith. What! whether we know this to be the meaning of Christ's Words, or not? And thus we shall be bound to submit to every absurd Interpretation of Scripture, because we must not use our Senses or Reason for examining the Truth of what is said there. Can any thing be plainer said in Scripture, than that God hath Eyes, and Ears, and Hands? Must now every Man yield to this in the obsequiousness of Faith, without examining it by Principles of Common Reason? And we think we are therefore bound to put another Sense upon those Expressions, because they imply a Repugnancy to the Divine Perfections. Why not then where something is implied which is repugnant to the Nature of Christ's Body, as well as to our Senses? But the Question about judging in this Matter by our Senses, is not, as our Author is willing to suppose, viz. Whether our Senses are to be believed, against a clear and express Divine Revelation; but whether the Judgment of our Senses and Reason is not to be made use of for finding out the true sense of this Revelation? And we think there is great reason for it.

(1.) Because we have no more certain way of judging the Substance of a Body, than by our Senses. We do not say our Senses go beyond the Accidents; but we say, our Senses, by those Accidents, do assure us of the p. 50bodily Substance, or else it were impossible for us to know there is any such thing in the World.

(2.) Because Christ did himself appeal to the judgment of his Disciples Senses concerning the Truth of his own Body after the Resurrection; Behold my Hands and my Feet, that it is I my self: handle and see, for a S. Luk. 24. 39.Luke 24:39Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have. Now we think we have Reason to allow the same Criterion which Christ himself did about the very same Body. Unless he had then told his Disciples, that there was to be another supernatural manner of Existence of the same Body, concerning which their Senses were not to be Judges.

(3.) Some of the most important Articles of the Christian Faith do suppose the Judgment of our Senses to be true. As about the Truth of Christ's Body; whether he had really a Body, or only the outward Accidents and Appearance of a Body: if he had not, he did not really suffer upon the Cross, and so the Sacrifice of Propitiation there offered up to the Father for the Sins of Mankind is lost. There was a great Controversy in St. John's Time, and afterwards, Whether Christ had any real Body? Those who denied it, brought Revelation for it; those who asserted it, proved it by their Senses, as S. John himself, That which we have seen, and heard, and our hands have handled; &c. S. Joh. 1. 1, 3.John 1:1John 1:3He doth not tell Men, they must submit their Sense and Reason to the pretence of Revelation; but they ought to adhere to the Judgment of their Senses concerning the Reality of Christ's Body. Since therefore Christ himself appealed to it, the Apostles made use of it, without any Caution or Limitation, we have great reason to rely still on the Judgment of our Senses concerning the same Object, viz. the Body of Christ.

3. But we must now consider his Instances to overthrow p. 51the Judgment of our Senses and Reason in this Point.

1. He believes Christ to be God, though to Senses he seemed nothing but Man. Do we ever pretend to judg of Christ's Divinity by our Senses? How then can this be pertinent, when our only Dispute is about judging his Body, and the Substance of Bread and Wine by them? And yet the Senses were of great use as to the proof of his Divinity by the Miracles which he wrought? which if they had been like the pretended Miracles in Transubstantiation, could have convinced no Man, because they could never see them.

2. He believes the Holy Ghost descended on our Saviour, though Senses or Reason could discover it to be nothing but a Dove. If there were no reason to judg otherwise, the Judgment of Sense were to be followed: but since the Scripture declares it was the Holy Ghost descending as a Dove, we have no reason to question that Revelation. For we do not pretend that our Senses are so far Judges of Divine Appearances, as to exclude the possibility of God's assuming the shape and figure of his Creature when he pleases, by moulding the substance of a real Body into such a Representation. Thus we do not deny the possibility of an appearance of the Holy Ghost under Bread and Wine, if God thought fit, any more than under a Dove; and in this Case we do not pretend that our Senses can exclude the presence of a Spirit under the Elements; but that is very different from the present Case, for here the Substance is supposed to be gone, and nothing but Accidents remaining; and no spiritual Presence of Christ is denied, but that of his Body, the very same Body which suffered on the Cross.

3. He believes the Man who appeared to Joshua, (ch. 5. 13.); and the three Men to Abraham, (Gen. 18.) p. 52were really and substantially no Men, notwithstanding all the Information and Evidence of Sense to the contrary, from their Colour, Features, Proportion, Talking, Eating, and many others. And what follows from hence, but that Spiritual Invisible Substances may be under the appearance of Bodies, and that our Senses cannot be Judges of them? Which is not our Question, but, Whether Bodies can be so present after the manner of Spirits, as to lose all the natural Properties of Bodies? and whether a Material Substance can be lost, under all the Accidents proper to it, so as our Senses cannot be proper Judges of one by the other?

But our Author seems to grant this, in a natural way of the Existence of a Body: but he saith, Christ gives to his Body a supernatural manner of Existence, by which being left without extension of Parts, and rendred independent of Place, it may be one and the same in many Places at once, and whole in every part of the Symbols, and not obnoxious to any corporeal contingencies.

This is to me a Mystery beyond all comprehension by Sense or Reason; and there is certainly a great difference between governing our Understandings, and giving them up, as we must do if this Doctrine hold good; for it overthrows any fixed Principles of Reason in Mankind concerning the Nature and Properties of Bodies.

For, 1. We must still suppose the Body of Christ to be the very same individual Body which suffered upon the Cross; but if it have no extension of Parts, and be reckoned independent upon Place, it ceaseth to be a Body. It is granted, that after a natural way of Existence, a Body cannot be in more Places than one; but let the way of Existence be what it will, if it be a Body, it must be finite; if finite, it must be limited and circumscribed; if it be circumscribed within one place, p. 53it cannot be in more places, for that is to make it circumscribed, and not circumscribed; undivided from it self, and divided from it self at the same time. Which is a manifest Contradiction, which doth not depend only on Quantity or Extension, but upon the essential Unity of a Body.

2. If it be possible for a Body to be in several Places by a Supernatural Existence; why may not the same Body be in several Places by a Natural Existence? Is it not because Extension and Circumscription are so necessary to it, that in a natural Way it can be but in one Place. Then it follows that these are essential Properties of Bodies; so that no true Body can be conceived without them.

3. This Supernatural Existence doth not hinder the Body's being individually present in on Place: My meaning is this; A Priest Consecrates an Host at London, and another at York; is the Body of Christ at London, so present there by virtue of Consecration, as to be present at York too, by this Supernatural Existence: What then doth the Consecration at York produce? If it be not, then its Presence is limited to the Host, where the Consecration is made; and if it be so limited, then this supernatural Existence cannot take off its Relation to Place.

4. The same Body would be liable to the greatest Contradictions imaginable: For the same Body after this supernatural way of Existence, may not only be above and below, within and without, near and far off from it self: but it may be hot and cold, dead and alive; yea, in Heaven and Hell at once.

5. What is it that makes it still a Body after this supernatural way of Existence, &c. if it lose extension and dependency on Place? If it be only an aptitude to extension, when that supernatural Existence is taken off, then it must either be without Quantity, or with p. 54it. If it be without quantity, how can it be a Body? If with quantity, how is it possible to be without Extension?

6. This confounds all the differencs of Greater and Less, as well as of Distance and Nearness. For upon this Supposition, a thing really greater may be contained within a less: for the whole Original Body of Christ, with all its Parts, may be brought within the compass of a Waser; and the whole be in every part without any distance between Head and Feet.

7. This makes Christ to have but one Body, and yet to have as many Bodies as there are consecrated Hosts. No, saith our Author, This supernatural manner of Existence is without danger of multiplying his Body, or making as many Christs as Altars. P. 11. But how this can be, is past all human Understanding: For every Consecration hath its Effect, which is supposed to be the Conversion of the Substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ. Now, when a Priest at London converts the Bread into the Body of Christ there, he doth it not into the Body of Christ at York, but the Priest there doth it; therefore the Body of Christ at London, is different from that at York; or else the Conversion at London would be into the Body, as at York. But if not, what is the substantial Term of this substantial Change, where nothing but an accidental Mode doth follow? If there be any such Term, whether that must not be a Production of something which was not before; and if it be so, Christ must have as many new Bodies, as there are Consecrations.

8. This makes that which hath no particular Subsistence of its own, to be the Subject of a substantial Change; for this is the condition of Christ's Body, whatever its manner of Existence be, after the Hypostatical Union to the Divine Nature. For, when Bellarmin, p. 55Petavius, and others of their greatest Divines, Bellarm. de Incarn. l. 3. c. 8. P…av. de Incarnatione, p. 6. c. 1. §. 3.undertake, against Nestorius, to explain the Hypostatical Union, they tell us it consists in this, that the Human Nature loseth its proper Subsistence, and is assumed into the Subsistence of the Divine Nature. From whence I infer, That the Body of Christ, having no proper Subsistence of its own, there can be no substantial Change into that which hath no proper Subsistence, but into that which hath; and consequently the Change must be into the Divine Nature principally; from whence it will follow, the Elements losing their Subsistence, upon Consecration the Divinity must be united hypostatically to them, as to the Human Nature; and so there will be as many Hypostatical Unions, as there are Consecrations. And so this Doctrine not only confounds Sense and Reason, but the Mysteries of Christ's Incarnation too: Which I think is sufficient for this Head.