Apology for the Reformed Churches, Chapter 9
CHAP. IX. That the opinion of the Lutherans which we bear withall, doth not bring with it the adoration of the Euchariſt, either de jure, or de facto.
BUt becauſe this buſineſſe ſeems to me of very great importance, I am well content for the clearing of it to examine, yet more particularly, all that can be ſaid in favour of this adoration of the Euchariſt, to render it unto us more tolerable then as yet it doth appeare.
Object. Firſt then, ſome men may object, That we ſhould not ſo grievouſly abhorre it, ſeeing that the very Lutherans, with whom we promiſed that we would live in communion, hold opinions about the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, that ſeem to come very neare this. For they believe (as every one knows) that the body of Jeſus Chriſt, is really preſent in the conſecrated bread; which being once preſuppoſed, it ſeems to follow, That we muſt adore the Sacrament. Seeing then we believe this opinion (which ſeems the principle and foundation of adoration of the Sacrament) tolerable; a man may think that we ſhould not ſo fiercely reject the concluſion thence enſueing.
Anſ. This conſideration is but a vain and falſe colour, which doth no way conclude that which it pretendeth. For there are very great and evident differences between the doctrine of ſuch of our brethren as are termed Lutherans, and that of Romaniſts about this point. At this time I ſhall onelyonly take notice of ſo much as concerns our preſent purpoſe. Truly what ever their opinion be in other things, 'tis cleare that they do not practiſe among themſelves, nor enjoyn any others who joyn with them (nor otherwiſe approve) this adoration, and this ſoveraigne latria of the Euchariſt, whereof we now ſpeak. So that my conſcience (which cannot yield for the reaſons above rehearſed to this latria and adoration) findeth nothing in their Communion, which wracketh it or offendeth it in this regard. But for the Church of Rome, 'tis clean otherwiſe there. Becauſe ſhe practiſeth this ſervice very ſcrupulouſly, and cauſeth it to be obſerved by all ſuch as are in her communion, with all circumſpection imaginable; as being in her opinion one of the moſt principall devotions in Chriſtian Religion; and is ſo rigorous in it that where ſhe doth abſolutely beare rule, ſhe conſtraineth all thoſe whoſe hearts ſhe cannot bend, to bow at leaſt their bodies before the Hoſt, as oft as they meet it; whence it appeareth, that it is a very great Paralogiſme and abuſe, to argue from the opinion of Luther to that of the Pope in this point, there being a manifeſt difference between the one and the other. The firſt leaving my conſcience at liberty, without requiring of it any ſervice towards the Sacrament contrary to my belief: and contrarywiſe, the ſecond forcing me extreme violently, to adore that which I firmly believe to be but a mere creature.
And to that which they ſay concerning the opinion of the Lutherans about the H. Sacrament of the Euchariſt, That it follows thence neceſſarily, That we muſt adore it; I anſwer.
1. That it is falſe. For becauſe they think, that our Lord Jeſus is really preſent in the Sacrament, it doth not thence follow that they believe, That the Sacrament is really Jeſus Chriſt. On the contrary, they hold with us, That the Sacrament is true bread in the ſubſtance, the conſecration changing nothing in its nature, but onelyonly cauſing that fleſh of Chriſt, ſignified by the bread, to be there preſent, and to be exhibited to them who communicate. Or ſuppoſe that it were as they hold, it follows not thence, that we muſt adore the Sacrament. For becauſe God is eſſentially preſent in all creatures, will you conclude, That we muſt therefore adore all creatures? Who ſees not, that if a man ſhould under pretence of this adore any one, he would be ſtraight by all Chriſtians held an idolater? The Holy Spirit dwels in the bodies of the faithfull, which have the honour to be His temple, 1 Cor. vi. 19. as S. Paul witneſſeth. Is this to ſay that a man muſt or may adore the bodies of Believers? The Hoſt of the Church of Rome is in the Pix, and in the mouth, and then in the ſtomach of them who receive it in communicating. Will they allow that becauſe of this a man ſhould adore the Pix, and the mouth, and the ſtomach where it entreth? They would certainly hiſſe at a man that ſhould conclude, that we muſt adore theſe things becauſe the hoſt is there preſent.
Since it appears by theſe inductions, that thoſe things, wherein is any ſubject worthy of adoration, ought not thereupon to be adored; 'tis cleare, not onelyonly that a man may hold the reall preſence of our Lord's body in the Sacrament, without being obliged to adore the Sacrament, but alſo ex abundanti, That if a man be preciſely of another opinion, he is obliged not to adore it; whence it follows, that the belief of the Lutherans, which doth onelyonly affirm the reall preſence of our Lords body in the Euchariſt, is ſo farre from inferring the adoration, that on the quite contrary it inferreth, That we muſt not adore it.
2. But then in the ſecond place, I ſay, That though, according to the laws of diſcourſe, it ſhould follow lawfully and neceſſarily from the opinion of the Lutherans, that we muſt adore the Sacrament; yet 'tis enough to keep me from abhorring their communion, To ſee that they hold not this adoration to be the conſequence of that opinion, but on the contrary reject it, as well as I. For a man may hold the principle, who doth not at all believe the concluſion. Poſſibly he never thinks of it, or if he doth think on it, he doth not perceive it to be a conſequence from thoſe premiſes. 'Tis at this day generally received in our ſcholes for a good conſequence, That if the ſoul of man come from the ſubſtance of the Father into the body of the Sonne, it may die and is mortall: for (ſay we) if it depend upon the matter in its original, it depends likewiſe on it in its being. So that when the matter (that is the body) comes to die, the ſoul muſt likewiſe neceſſarily be extinguiſhed, ſeeing the ſubſiſtence of the one depends upon the ſubſiſtence of the other. Will you hereupon ſay, that none ever held the principle of this diſcourſe, viz. that the ſoul is traduced, and paſſeth from the ſubſtance of the Father to the Sonne, who did not likewiſe hold the concluſion, viz. that the ſoul is mortall. With what face dare you venture to aſſert it; ſince Tertullian and many other Authors of very great eſteem were of that opinion, and S. Auguſtine did rather approve it then condemn it? ſince I ſay, they did openly believe the firſt of theſe poſitions, and expreſly deny the ſecond. So S. Hilary, according to the true conſequences of that opinion which he held concerning the impaſſible nature of Chriſts body, ſeems to me to have been obliged to denie the truth and realitie of our redemption. And yet who dare impute ſo grievous an impietie to ſuch a Saint? I ſhould never have done, ſhould I reſolve to ſet down here all the examples that may be alledged to this purpoſe. Theſe two ſuffice to ſhew that whoever maintains an ill opinion, is not therefore to be held guilty of the conſequences of it.
S…ppoſe then it were true, (as it is not) That from the belief of the Lutherans concerning the Euchariſt, it would follow, That we muſt adore the Sacrament; Since they own not this conſequence, nay on the contrary ſtrongly reject it, It would be an extreme injuſtice to aſcribe it to them. And as it would have been a want of charity in the primitive Chriſtians, to have avoided the Communion of Tertullian or S. Hilary, upon protence, that from their opinions, touching the originall of the ſoul of man and the nature of the body of Chriſt, there followed many propoſitions which are impious and contrary to our faith, ſince they rejected and abhorred them: ſo would it be in my mind a great overſight now, to ſeparate from the Lutherans upon this pretended conſequence from their opinion concerning the holy Sacrament, if it could be deduced thence (as it cannot.) Since they themſelves proteſt, that they will not acknowledge it.
But as for them of Rome, 'tis quite otherwiſe. For the adoration of the Euchariſt is a conſequence of their doctrine concerning this point both de jure and de facto, that is, it plainly follows from it, and they expreſly profeſſe and practiſe it.
1. De jure; it follows from it: For if the ſubject which we call the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, be in its ſubſtance not bread (as we believe) but the body of Chriſt (as they hold) 'tis evident that men both may and ought to adore it, ſeeing that the body of Chriſt is a ſubject adorable. And then it follows from it
2. De facto; they practiſe it. For who knows not, that there is not any one Article in all the Romane religion, which is profeſſed more publickly, preſſed more ſeverely, exerciſed more devoutly, then this of adoring the Hoſt?
Since then they hold this article both de jure, according to the plain conſequences of their belief in the point of the Euchariſt: and de facto, in their confeſſions, and practiſes; and That the Lutherans on the contrary hold them not, neither in one manner nor the other, neither in theſi, nor hypotheſi; 'Tis cleare, That our bearing with the latter, without ſeparating from them for the diverſitie that is between them and us about the point of the Euchariſt; doth no way inferre that we ſhould do as much with the former.