Apology for the Reformed Churches, Chapter 11
CHAP. XI. That the opinion which thoſe of the Romane Church have touching the Euchariſt, excuſeth not ſuch as adore it.
Object. BUt you'l ſay, That ſhe believes the Sacrament which ſhe adoreth is not a creature but Jeſus Chriſt, the Lord of glory; a ſubject really to be adored, becauſe he is God Eternall, of the ſame eſſence with the Father. So that if it be ſuppoſed an errour, 'twill not amount to be criminall, or a mortall ſinne, becauſe the ſubject which the Church of Rome adoreth deſerves, as all Chriſtians confeſſe, to be adored, if it be really (what ſhe thinks it to be) Jeſus Chriſt.
Anſw. But who is there that doth not ſee, if he obſerve, Firſt, That this conſideration is falſe and vain in it ſelf; and Secondly, that though it were true, yet it were nothing to the purpoſe?
Firſt, it is falſe. And 'tis plain that the Romaniſts themſelves think this excuſe a trifle, ſince determining (though very raſhly) that the Euchariſt was in all ages adored by Chriſtians, they ſay, That no man can doubt, but that, if the Euchariſt were bread, all the Church for M D. yeares were idolatrous. And ſo that as many of our Anceſtours as adored the Sacrament were all damned, adoring bread in ſtead of the Creatour. Joh. Fiſher Roff. lib. 1. contra Oecolamp. cap. 2. fol. 3. b. And their argument were good, but that 'tis built on a falſe ſuppoſall, viz. That the Church for the firſt fifteen hundred yeares adored the Euchariſt. For if the eſtimate of a religious worſhip be to be taken from the opinion that thoſe which uſe it have of it, ye ſhall ſcarce find any, which either can be called juſtly an adoration of the creature, or condemned in concluſion, as forbidden by our Lord. The Pagans will by this means preſerve themſelves from that crime, which S. Paul chargeth them with, of having adored the Creature, Rom. i. 25. and ſerved them which by nature are no Gods, Gal. iv. 8. For they will plead, That they believed that Jupiter (to whom they gave ſoveraigne adoration) was the great God, creatour and preſerver of the world, the Father of Gods and men, as their Poets ordinarily term him. And no man can denie, but that a perſon of ſuch a qualitie deſerveth adoration: and ſo, according to theſe principles, no man ſhould accuſe them of idolatry, for giving adoration to a ſubject which they thought deſerved it. And if the Iſraelites believed, that the golden calf was really the God which brought them out of Egypt, Exod. xxxii. (as the moſt part of the Romane Divines ſeem to hold) they might with the ſame colour and ſhift excuſe themſelves, for that worſhip which they did to it in the wilderneſſe, & ſay that they took it for their Lord. They might have affirmed, That it was their ignorance to take their molten image for a God, but not idolatry to adore it, having once impoſed upon it that name. The Collyridians that adored the B. Virgin, as we ſaid even now, would have been able by this means to defend themſelves againſt S. Epiphanius (who taxeth them expreſly of idolatrie) if they did but think, as Card. Baronius ſuppoſeth, that the B. Virgin was really a Deity, and that ſhe had nothing humane in her. For they would have ſaid, ſuppoſe it were an errour to think the Bleſſed Virgin a Goddeſſe; yet the ſervice which We render her, who are of this opinion, cannot be ſo ill interpreted, as to be Idolatry; ſeeing that ſuch a ſervice is due to that nature which they attribute to Her. S. Auguſtine in his preface to his Sermons on the xciii. Pſalme, p. 216. I. Tom. 8. ſpeaks of certain hereticks that honoured the Sun, and ſaid, That it was J. Chriſt. Such may in the ſame manner excuſe the ſervice that they rendred to this great luminarie; and ſay, that they rendred it not to a creature, but that they believed the ſubject to which they rendred it was J. Chriſt. Yet nevertheleſſe we ſee, that the Spirit of God calleth continually the ſervices rendred by Pagans to Jupiter, and by the Iſraelites to the golden calf, Idolatries, and thoſe who rendred them adorers of creatures and idolaters. And Epiphanius following that ſtyle, calleth the Collyridians (as we obſerved even now) a ſect of ſuch as made idols, and their opinion an hereſie. And S. Auguſtine blameth the honour, that ſome whom he ſpeaketh of gave to the Sunne; he eſteeming it a contempt caſt upon the Creatour. And in truth who ſees not, that this errour we now ſpeak of, is but a vain pretence, and ſuch as can no wayes excuſe them that render divine ſervices to creatures? For if it were not, there would be no ſinne, no crime ſo abominable, but it might be committed and excuſed without errour. Rebells having ſhaken off the yoke of their lawfull King, and ſubmitted to a Tyrant, and adhered to his Conſpiracy, might ſay, They thought this was the true Governour of the Nation, and conſequently pretend, That they who called them Rebells and Traitours, did them a deal of wrong. And ſo we may ſay the ſame. I confeſſe, That ignorance excuſeth, where it is againſt a mans will; when the ſubject which we miſconceive is ſo concealed, that whatſoever deſire we have, or pains we take to find out the truth, 'tis not poſſible for us to diſcover it: As if one ſhould ſuppoſe a Subject ſo like his Prince, that 'tis impoſſible to diſtinguiſh one from the other; in this caſe ſuch would be excuſable as ſhould give him the honour and ſervice due to their true Soveraigne. But where the ignorance of the object proceedeth not from the obſcuritie and difficultie of the thing, but from the malice or negligence of the man, 'tis ſo farre from excuſing the fault, that it aggravateth it extremely. Such was the errour of thoſe who during the holy League, took the Cardinal of Bourbon for the true King of France: meerly their paſſion and not any obſcuritie that was in the thing, made them ignorant of that which was as clear as any thing in the world, viz. That Henry the Great was the lawfull King of the Realm. So that this errour, according to all laws divine and humane, hindered not their crime from being great, deſerving the name and puniſhment of a true rebellion. Such, very ſuch, and indeed leſſe tolerable is the errour of thoſe who take a creature for the Creatour, and conſequently adore it, as if it were really He.
For what, I beſeech you, did the Pagans ſee in their Jupiter, or the Iſraelites in their golden calf that obliged them to believe one or t'other to be the Soveraigne God, who made the heavens, and preſerves mankind by his providence. Nay on the contrary, what did they meet with in thoſe objects, that did not in a high and evident manner declare, That they were nothing leſſe then that great Divinitie, whereof theſe mad men gave them onelyonly the name and the ſervice? And what cauſe can the ſuperſtitious Collyridians alledge, why they ſhould be ignorant of that, which reaſon and the H. Scriptures witneſſe ſo clearly, viz. That the holy Virgin is a woman and not a Goddeſſe? or Thoſe that honoured the Sunne, why they eſteemed, J. Chriſt to be truly the Sunne? Take them out of their paſſion, and they had nothing either in the nature of the thing, or in H. Scripture, that could bring them into ſo ridiculous an errour. The ignorance of all theſe things then was viſibly affected and voluntary, bred from their vice onelyonly, and not from any obſcuritie of the things which they were ignorant of: whence it followeth, that 'tis ſo farre from being able to excuſe or diminiſh the impiety of ſuch ſervices; that contrariwiſe 'tis one of their crimes, for which God will enter into judgement with them, and will ask them hereafter, why they were ignorant of that, which was ſo clearly and graciouſly made manifeſt.
Now to apply what hath been ſaid to our preſent purpoſe. If the Sacrament of the Euchariſt be truly bread in ſubſtance (as we firmly believe it to be, upon the credit of our ſenſe, of our reaſon, and of the word of God) I ſay, That the contrary opinion, which thoſe of the Church of Rome hold, thinking it to be not bread, but the Lord of the world; doth not at all hinder that ſervice, which they render to it in the conſequence of their belief, from being truly the adoration of a creature, and deſerving that name and rank which the H. Scriptures give ordinarily to ſuch ſervices. I confeſſe, that while our Lord was upon earth, preſuppoſing that at His being in Judea, ſome perſon had reſembled Him much in vi…age, and coming to one of the Apoſtles had been miſtaken for Him, and ſo one had adored this man in ſtead of our Saviour; In ſuch a caſe, this miſtake might have excuſed the action; and there would have been a deal of rigour in making that paſſe for a criminall ſervice, as adoration of the creature. And if the Hoſt (as they call it) were really to be adored, as they believe it is, I confeſſe, that he, who ſhould adore one not conſecrated, (or conſecrated without intention) ſet before him upon the Altar, could not juſtly be condemned for having adored it: becauſe it was not his paſſion or not heeding, that cauſed this miſtake; but the likeneſſe and extreme uniformitie that was between the one and the other, they being not diſtinguiſhable one from another by any apparent mark. But ſuppoſe that the Euchariſt be not J. Chriſt really; the errour then of them, who take it to be Chriſt, comes all from paſſion, and not from any thing that is without them. For in your conſcience, what ſimilitude can you diſcern between theſe two things, that ſhould make us take them one for the other? or what is there that doth not oblige us moſt firmly to believe, that the one is not the other? The one is a round thing, without ſenſe and motion, and altogether uniform; the other hath a humane body, organized, and furniſhed with ſenſe and other ornaments, even as ours. The one is bread, which we have ſeen kneaded, and made: the other a divine ſubſtance formed of the fleſh of a Virgin, above MDC yeares agoe. One is broken in our hands, and bruiſed between our teeth, and conſumed in our ſtomacks, the other is of an immortall nature, glorious, and impaſſible. I omit other differences.
But if I had nothing elſe but the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and the belief of all Chriſtians, That our Lord is in heaven, whence he ſhall come at the laſt day; and the forewarning that he gave us Himſelf, to beware of being ſurprized, by them that ſay, Lo here is Chriſt, or there, He is in the deſart, or ſecret cloſet, Matth. xxiv. 26. Is not this enough to render all errour inexcuſable in this particular? For what will they be able to anſwer our Lord againſt ſuch cleare marks, and ſuch expreſſe forewarnings; when He ſhall demand of them a reaſon of this great miſtake? To men I wonder not that they alledge, This is my body; but to the Great God, who ſeeth the ſecrets of the hearts (and in ſo glorious and cleare a light) I am confident they will never dare to bring for themſelves ſo weak a defenſe. For ſince they have heard S. Paul ſay oft, that the Church is the body of Chriſt, without believing thereupon that the Church is tranſubſtantiated; or not a creature but God, becauſe 'tis called the body of Chriſt, 1 Cor. xii. 27. Eph. i. 23. And if the honour that the Church hath to be called the body of Chriſt, doth not keep man from believing that it were impietie (and not Religion) to give to the Church the adoration of latria; how will that hold good which they ſay, That they think themſelves neceſſarily obliged to adore the Euchariſt, becauſe it is called the body of Chriſt? If ſuch phraſes of ſpeech be enough to ground that ſervice upon, which they give to the Euchariſt, they muſt then alſo adore the rock, whence Moſes brought water in the wilderneſſe; ſince S. Paul ſaith, That that was Chriſt: And the body of the faithfull; 1 Cor. x. 4. 1 Cor. vi. 15. ſince he ſaith, That they are the members of Chriſt: and thoſe hereticks taxed by S. Auguſtine would be excuſable for having adored the ſunne; ſince the Scripture ſometimes gives that name to the Bleſſed Jeſus. If they'l confeſſe that theſe phraſes of ſpeech did not excuſe that abuſe, they muſt likewiſe confeſſe that the words of our Saviour, This is my body, do not ſuffice to authorize that ſervice which they give to the Euchariſt.
All this they grant ſufficiently, when their great Doctours confeſſe, That they do not build their opinion upon thoſe words: and grant, they ſee no reaſon why they ſhould not take the words in that ſenſe, which we Proteſtants take them in. [Cajet. in 3. Thom. q. 75. art. 1.] From the ſole Authoritie of the Church (that is to ſay, in their language, of the Pope and his Councel) they deduce their tranſubſtantiation. This Authoritie is the onelyonly foundation of the adoration of the Hoſt, which they can no way collect but from the will of the Romane Church. So it appeareth, That laying aſide the paſſion of Rome, there is nothing in heaven, or in earth, or in the ſenſe of men, or in the Scriptures of God, which ſhould (I will not ſay oblige) but any way allure them to be ignorant, that the Euchariſt is bread. So that all ignorance that they can pretend, is purely affected and voluntary; and ſo not able to excuſe the ſervice, which they render to the Hoſt.
To which adde, that it excuſeth them ſo much the leſſe, Becauſe the queſtion here is concerning the higheſt adoration, the moſt holy and ſingular act in all religion, which by conſequence a man ſhould give to none but to Him, whom he knows moſt aſſuredly to be God, and the Saviour of our ſouls. Nor is it enough, to have an opinion or ſuſpicion of this. It muſt be certain. For 'tis juſt as the conjugall bed, to which a woman muſt receive none, but whom ſhe knows very certainly to be her husband. If ſhe have any apparent doubt, that it is not he in realitie, and if notwithſtanding this ſhe receive him, ſhe thereby forfeits her troth. And here I cannot but commend a ſaying I read (in Apothegm. Anachor. Aegypt. lib. 15. cap. 70. Bibl. Patrum tom. 9. p. 286.) of an old Egyptian Monk; who, when one appeared to him in the reſemblance of Chriſt, was ſo farre from adoring what he ſaw, that he would neither view it, nor hearken to it: but ſhutting his eyes, ſaid, I ſhall ſee Chriſt in heaven; 'Tis enough for me to hope and believe, while I am upon earth. But how? Was he not afraid, that this refuſall would offend his Lord, in caſe this had been He indeed, as the light, ſpeech, ſhape, and other circumſtances obliged him to believe? Not a a jot. For he was aſſured, that his Lord ſaw that this refuſall proceeded, not from any want of reſpect toward Him, but from a juſt and rationall fear of giving (through miſtake) that to another, which belonged to Him onelyonly, and which he earneſtly deſired to preſerve inviolably for Him. A qualitie, which is ſo farre from offending our Lord, that it muſt needs be very pleaſing to Him. And in the ſame place (c. 71.) an Anchoret is mentioned, who, when the Devils askt him, whether he would ſee Chriſt; anſwered, Be you, and he whom you would ſhew me, anathema. For my part I give heed to …y Jeſus, who ſaid, If any ſay unto you, here is Chriſt or there, believe him not. And to this purpoſe is that, which the Egyptian Anchorets (c. 69.) are reported oft to have ſaid; If a true Angel appear to thee, be not very ready to entertain him; but humble thy ſelf, ſaying, I am not worthy to ſee an Angel while I live in ſinne. So that though we had ſome reaſon to think Chriſt were preſent; yet 'twere good to refrain, and not adore him, when we are not in all points aſſured that it is He: becauſe this were evidently to profane the act of adoration; which muſt by no means be given to any raſhly, and at adventure. Now our adverſaries find nothing in all this matter, which doth not ſhew clearly, that the Euchariſt is really not the Lord of the world, but bread. And therefore there is farre leſſe reaſon, that the adoration which they give to the Hoſt, ſhould be excuſed by that opinion, which they pretend to have of it.
II. But then ſecondly, Though the opinion of the Romane Church concerning the Euchariſt ſhould (as we have proved it doth not) juſtifie, or at leaſt excuſe that adoration which they give it; yet 'tis cleare, That to alledge that opinion of theirs here as an excuſe, were nothing to the purpoſe. For the queſtion is not concerning the Romaniſts, who profeſſe that they believe that the Euchariſt is really and perſonally the Sonne of God; but concerning us, who are ſo farre from believing it, that we have not the leaſt ſuſpicion of it; being (God be thanked) fully perſwaded, that the Sacrament is truly bread. And why ſhould we not believe it ſo? ſince our ſenſes witneſſe, our reaſon ſheweth, the Scriptures teach, that it is bread; which are the three fountains of all our knowledge; and we cannot be ſure of any thing, but from one of them. Having therefore this belief of the Euchariſt, how can we adore it, without rendring our ſelves guilty of violating all thoſe precepts, wherein God hath forbidden us to adore the creatures, and incurring all thoſe deaths and curſes, which he hath denounced againſt the breach of ſuch precepts?
I meddle not with other mens conſciences, nor will I take upon me to judge their actions. Almighty God will do that one day. And I think I have ſaid enough to ſhew them, that 'Tis their duty in the mean while, to conſider it ſeriouſly. I ſpeak of my ſelf. Since my ſoul is perſwaded, that the Euchariſt is a creature, I cannot adore it without offending the laws of God, and overthrowing the foundations of my own ſalvation. And though my perſwaſion were falſe, yet ſince I believe it (and that upon ſo many, and ſo certain, divine and humane aſſurances) Though the Sacrament were (as it is not) really the Lord of glory; yet 'tis cleare, That if I ſhall adore it believing as aforeſaid; ſuch my ſervice will be falſe and unlawfull, addreſſed not to God, (who is the ſole true and lawfull object) but to a creature, which my imagination ſhall through miſtake have ſubſtituted in His place. Hereupon the Ancient Church hath conſtantly accuſed the Arians of adoring the creature, and continually called the ſervice, which they gave to Chriſt, idolatry and adoration of the creature: and with very good reaſon. For though the Lord Jeſus is the true God, eternall, the Creatour of the world, and Redeemer of the Church, and of the ſame ſubſtance with the Father; and though the adoration which is given to Him by them, who believe Him to be ſuch, be a lawfull worſhip, not condemned, but approved and expreſſely commanded in the Scripture: yet they, who by a deteſtable errour hold Him to be but a mere creature, and think that the Father made Him of nothing (either before or after the Creation of the world) as well as the heaven and the earth; if they give Him the ſame adoration, which is due to the Father, they do evidently beſtow on a creature, that which belongs to the Creatour onelyonly. For they addreſſe this ſervice not to the true Jeſus, coeternall and coeſſentiall with the Father, but to a phantaſme of a creature forged in their own brain: hereby rendring themſelves guilty of a crime, ſo often condemned and deteſted by the Lord in the Scriptures.
Seeing then that the truth of the word of God, and the Authority of the Ancient Church forbids us to adore that which we believe to be but a creature, under peril of incurring the curſes denounced by the laws of God againſt thoſe, who rob Him of His glory and give it to another; We muſt conclude that neither the opinion of the Church of Rome, nor any other conſideration, can exempt us from the anathemaes of Heaven, if we adore (as our Adverſaries do) the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, firmly believing it to be bread in ſubſtance, and not (as they pretend) our B. Saviour really and perſonally.