Missale romanum vindicatum, or, The mass vindicated from D. Daniel Brevents calumnious and scandalous tract

CHAP. XV. Whether the Sacrifice of the Masse be Idolatry.

THat the Masse hath been held and e∣steemed in all times a divine and holy Sacrifice, is sufficiently proved, so that to question whether it be Idolatry, is in a man∣ner to condemn the whole Christian Church, of which that prudent and gave D. Thorn∣dike in his book of Just weights and measures, chap. 1.

They who professe the only true Christ, and therefore the only true God, do necessarily professe to detest all Idola∣try which the profession of Christianity ef∣fectually rooted out of the world where∣soever it prevailed, and so doth the Church of Rome still as seriously professe; and therefore cannot easily be convinced to pro∣fesse Idolatry: for without expresly re∣nouncing this profession, they cannot ex∣presly be Idolaters, without renouncing it by such consequence, as may convince

common reason, that they contradict them∣selves, and renounce all of them that which all of them professe, they cannot be Idolaters by consequence. And therefore it is not easie to make it appear to common reason that they are Idolaters, because then it must appear to common reason, that so great a part of Christendom doth by their profession contradict that which them∣selves professe.

In the margent he says, They that separate from the Church of Rome as Idolaters, are thereby Schismaticks be∣fore God.

The reason is clear, for the pretence of Idolatry in the Romane Church, is no sufficient ground for any one to separate himself from it.

And that which Dr. Brevent attributes to Idolatry in the Mass, is meerly framed in his own fan∣cy, and it is purely a conceit, or blinde igno∣rance or malice, that imputes Idolatry to that which all Christians have believed to have been the greatest honour that humane nature can give to God.

If Masse be a sacrifice, as is fully proved before, it cannot be called Idolatry; for either the act or object, must make it so; sure not the act, which is approved by Gods word; and to give to God all supreme ho∣nour cannot be reproved, much less the ob∣ject, which is only the true God. S. Au∣gustine said well, that the act of sacrifice, is

given only to the true God, or to an imagi∣ned, or to a feigned God. So that according to the sense of the whole world, sacrifice is only given to God; the sole object of this sacrifice, is the only true God, not to any imagined or false God; both which were true Idolatry; but the sacrifice to the true God, cannot be said to be Idolatry, which according to Its Etymologies, is to give Latria or supreme and soveraign honour to an Idol, which as Saint Paul saith, is nothing but only in the esteem of the Idolater. I think that there is none, who have under∣standing and reason, can or dare say, that the papists in their sacrifice, do give any honour or worship, that is, Latria, or su∣preme honour to any false Imagined God, for they cannot but know that their constant belief is, that there is but one true God, as an absolute article of their faith: their forms of Liturgies or Masses, both in their prayers, rites, ceremonies, and publick belief, are testimonies of the same; and do plainly ma∣nifest, that the whole sacrifice is directed and intended only and soly to the true God.

The Mass, liturgie, or divine service; consisting principally in the oblation made to the true God, cannot be said Idolatrous: whence I have often admired, that men of understanding, learning, or judgment, should so imprudently call it Idolatry; when

the Church of England in imitation of the Roman Church, has framed a form of Com∣munion, which some of them have termed, with the name of Divine service, Liturgy, or sacrifice, and oblation, and has the best part of its Prayers, Prefaces, and such like.

But some will say, that this sacrifice was not instituted by Christ, at least, has no ground in the Scripture. I answer, first, that this may be retorted against their form of Communion, which is but of late Inventi∣on; and has no more ground in Scripture. Secondly, admitting this to be true, yet the Mass cannot be said to be Idolatry, for the Church intends not thereby to give any ho∣nour to any feigned or imagined God: but only to the true God: the worst that can be said is, that the Church erred in exercising that power that she hath not, or was decei∣ved in her decrees, but this will never reach to Idolatry. Thirdly, the Church has al∣ways believed, that Christ himself institu∣ted this sacrifice in his last supper, as it has been clearly proved before, as also that it is grounded in the old and new Testament.

Others object, that the Mass admits of the Adoration of the Host: which is plain I∣dolatry, for such Adoration cannot be said to be exhibited to God, who is not in the Eucharist; whence M. Thorndike in his book above-cited, cap. 19. makes this De∣monstration.

They who give the honour proper to God to his creature, are Idolaters: They that worship the Host give the honour due to God to his creature, the conclusion follows, ergo, they that worship the host are Idolaters: I an∣swer, M. Thorndike calls it a Demonstration as it seemed to others, but not to himself: and therefore says, But will any Papist acknow∣ledg, that he honours the Elements of the Eu∣charist, or, as he thinks the Accident of them, for God? will common reason charge him, to honour that which he believeth not to be there? A little after, He that worships the Host be∣lieves our Lord Christ, to be the only true God hypostatically united to our flesh and bloud, which beiag present in the Eucharist, in such a manner, as it is not present every where, there is due occasion to give it that worship in the Eu∣charist which the Godhead in our Manhood, is to be worshiped upon all occasions. They who know that the Godhead of Christ is the reason, for which his flesh and bloud is worshiped in the Eucharist, cannot take that worship for Ido∣latry, because his flesh and bloud is not present in the Eucharist; as they who worship it there think it is, for they know that the flesh and bloud of Christ is no Idol to Christians, where∣soever it is worshipped,

If Jewes, Mahometans, Infidells; and Ethnicks, and those who deny the Incarnation, should take Christians for Idolaters in wirship∣ing

Christ in the Eucharist, I should not won∣der; for they excluding the true object of such adoration, consequently do reject such adorati∣on; for if Christ be not God, Adoration or Latria is not due to him: But Christians who believe Christ Jesus to be God and man, can∣not, with any reason deny, but that he is ado∣rable, and to be adored in the highest manner, So that all Adoration to him is not only free from Idolatry, but also is the general duty of all Christians; and therefore it is a strange madness to accuse Catholicks of Ido∣latry, when in the Eucharist they only adore with Latria, the flesh and bloud of Christ Je∣sus: for whatsoever our late Advarsaries have foolishly enough invented; Catho∣licks do not so adore the Elements of Bread or wine, or species of them, presence, or circumstances, but only and soly Christ Je∣sus, believing firmly and without the least hesitation that he is really there present: from which belief, as a necessary sequel follows all true Adoration.

Our pretended Reformers will not stick at this: for the first and chief beginner of this Reformation Luther, not only ap∣proved it, but also left it in practise to all his followers; for generally all Lutherans do use it in their dayly practise. the Tiguran Calvinists do affirm, That if the true and na∣tural body of Christ be in the Eucharist, why

should not our Lord be adored there, if we should teach that the Natural body of Christ were tru∣ly there, with the Papists we should also truly and faithfully adore▪ It is certain the same er∣rours do follow from Consubstantiation as from Transubstantiation, to wit, Adoration, cir∣cumgestation, inclusion, and oblation.

Os••ander in Cont. 16. par. 12. alledges the Divines of Wittenberg, saying, If Bread in the Lords supper be the substantial body of Christ, the sacrifice of the Mass and Ado∣ration of the sacrament may be defended. The Divines of Geneva say to the Lutherans, that, Consubstantiation or Transubstantiation being admitted, Adoration necessarily follows. Eu∣sebius Alckercherus affirms, That from this foundation (of the corporal and real presence and eating) we must necessarily grant, that as∣well Adoration, as oblation, do follow in the sacrifice of Christs body and bloud.

Chemnitius in his Examin Con. Trident. par. 12. plainly says, If we believe Christ God and man to be present in a peculiar man∣ner of presence and grace in the action of the supper, so that he doth there exhibite to them who cat truly and substantially his body and bloud, &c. It cannot or ought not to be done, but that faith should worship and adore Christ present in that action so Jacob, Gen. 28. Moy∣ses Exod. 23. Elias 3. Reg. 19. Truly had no command that they should adore in those places,

but because they had a general command, that they should adore God every where; and God was truly present under those extern and visi∣ble symbols, &c. Truly they adore that God whom they believed to be there present, &c. but they did not adore God as far from them, in the Imperial heaven; as remote and absent from them, &c. rightly therefore S. Augustine in Psal. 98. S. Ambrose Nazianzene in the Epi∣taph of his sister, from the sentence of Eusebi∣us Emissenus, and Luther cont. Lovanienses ar. 6. call the Eucharist a venerable Sacra∣ment: whence he makes this Adoration out of all Controversies between him and the Tridentine Councel.

From these learned men of the pretended Reformation we may note, that although they opposed the Catholick Doctrine of the Church, yet they were far from condemning this Adoration, or making it Idolatry, that they plainly confess, that those who believe the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, do constantly affirm, that it is our duty to do it; since the real and only object of such adoration is the body and bloud of Christ Jesus: whence I make this Syllogism.

• 1. They who give the honour due to God, to any creatures, are Idolaters,
• ...But Catholicks give no honour due to God, to any creatures,
• Ergo, Catholicks in this are not Idolaters.

• 2. To adore or worship Christ Jesus in the Eu∣charist, is not Idolatry.
• ...But Catholicks only adore Christ Jesus in the Eucharist,
• Ergo, Catholicks in this are not Idolaters.

• 3. He that believes Christ Jesus in the Eucha∣rist, may lawfully there adore him,
• ...But Catholicks believe that Christ Jesus is in the Eucharist,
• Ergo, they may lawfully adore him there.

The sequel of Adoration to our belief, is no way to be reprehended, and is admitted by most of our Reformers, and only those who deny the Real Presence, can with any reason deny it. Those who admit Consub∣stantiation (whereof many were of our first pretended Reformers) cannot, nor do any way exclude it; and I see not how those who believe the Real presence in what man∣ner they please, can any more; for if Christ be there, sure he is an Object adorable.

Our present Church of England plainly admits the Real presence, as is manifested in its Catechisme before Confirmation; where it is declared, that, The outward part or signe is bread and wine, the inward part is the body and bloud of Christ, which are verily and truly taken and received by the faithful in the Lords Supper; the benefits are the streng∣thening

and refreshing of our souls, by the body and bloud of Christ; and so all ancient protestants in England did believe, and ac∣cordingly did with kneeling and adoration devoutly receive it. The additional note at the end of the form of Communion ex∣pounds it, That the kneeling is but a signifi∣cation of our humble and grateful acknowledg∣ment of the benefits of Christ given to all wor∣thy receivers; pray, what is this but adora∣tion? when the Minister kneels at the Lords table, sure he adores not the table, but the Eucharist which is to be offered and taken thereon.

Nay the peculiar form ordained peculiar∣ly for the Communion: argues some speci∣al honour to the Eucharist, and in words can signify no less, for therein, it is called the sacrament of Christs body and bloud. The spi∣ritual food and sustenance of our Lord, the Communion of the body and bloud of our savi∣our. Grant us gratious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy son, and to drink his bloud, that our sin∣ful bodies may be made clean by his body, and washed through his most pretious bloud. Again, make us partakers of his body and bloud. In the Communion, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life; and the bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto life

everlasting: and after it is called, The spi∣ritual food of the most pretious body and bloud of thy son our Saviour Jesus Christ.

These words and many such like, accor∣ding to vulgar understanding import a Real Presence, and signify no less; and moves the hearers to a devout expression of the ho∣nour they bear to the holy Sacrament; yea, to adore it, which I speak not to condemn them in it, no more then I would condemn Jacob, Gen. 28. who seeing nothing of God but by the effects, which he felt in himself, he gathered, that God in a speciall manner had been in that place; he adored and worshipped God. The Israelites Exod. 35. beholding the pillar of the cloud, which was but a sign of Gods presence, adored God: and 2. Par. 6. the people seeing fire descending, and the glory of our Lord on the temple, falling flat on the earth upon the pavement paved with stone, they adored and praised our Lord: they adored not what they saw, nor any circum∣stance or apparitions of Majesty and glory; which were but external signs of some pecu∣liar presence of God in the temple, but him who was thereby presented, and this with∣out any shew of Idolatry: and in like man∣ner, if we adore Christ as present in the Sa∣cramental signs, presented unto us, we can∣not be said to be Idolaters; when the object of our Adoration is not the sign, or any cre∣ated

thing, but only Christ Jesus God and man: whence learned Erasmus lib. 9. Epist. ad Pelicanum well said, Hitherto with all Christians, I have adored Christ in the Eucha∣rist, neither do I yet see any cause, why I ought to depart from that opinion; I can by no hu∣mane reason be withdrawn from the agreeable judgement of the whole world, which is also in the Liturgical discourse, par. 2. Sect. 3. cap. 12. and cap. 13. in the general consent of the primitive times, as is manifest in all the ho∣ly Liturgies of Gods Church in those times: and proved out of S. Augustine: there also cited concludes, That not only we do not sin in adoring, but we should sin in not adoring, S. Ambrose will have us to adore Christ on the Altar in the Mysteries, that is, in the Mass. S. Prosper lib. sent. We do truly ho∣nour in the forms of Bread and wine, which we see; things invisible, that is to say, Flesh and bloud. S. Augustine Epist. 120. ad Honora∣tum, c. 27. says, The Rich come to our Lords table, and receive of his Body and Bloud, but they adore only, and are not filled, as the poor are, yet notwithstanding they have adored, Theodoret Dial. 2. The Mystical Symbols are adored, as being the same things which they are believed to be. S. Cyril Catech. 2. shew∣ing the manner how we ought to communi∣cate, concludes, that bowing down in man∣ner of Adoration and Veneration, saying, A∣men.

Admirable was the devotion and reve∣rence of S. Gregory Nazianzen his Sister, to the Blessed Sacrament, as that great Saint and Doctor relates, orat. 1. and how mira∣culously she was cured thereby from a di∣sease humanely incurable.

The Jews and Infidels give sufficient testi∣mony of the Christian practise of adoring Christ Jesus in the Eucharist; as is to be seen in all Ecclesiasticall Histories. Aver∣roes acknowledges it in his time; when he said: I have traveled over the world and have found divers Sects, but none so foolish as the sects of Christians; for they devour with their teeth their God whom they adore. S. Augustine, lib. 22. contr. Faust. c. 13. says, that the Heathens did esteem Christians to worship Ceres and Liber, for the Bread and Chalice, and answering, says, we are far different from Ceres and Bacchus the Pagan Gods, al∣though in our Rite we honour the Sacrament of the Bread and Chalice, Maximus manducen∣sis a heathen writer, in his Epistle to S. Au∣gustine, which is extant in 43. Epist. of S. Augustine, demands of him, who is that God which Christians do challenge as proper to them, and fain to see him in secret places?

In the Liturgical Discourse, in the place above-cited, this is more fully declared: It might suffice, that such has been the con∣tinual practise of Gods Church, as is mani∣fest

in all the Liturgies or Masses, which have been since Christs time; so that I may infer, that of all the calumnies that our Ad∣versaries have imposed on Catholicks, none more impertinent and more vain, then this of Idolatry; in regard of the Adoration to the Body and Bloud of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist, unless they could prove Christ Jesus to be an Idol, or not to be adored; for as is fully declared, we in the Eucha∣rist adore nothing but Christ Jesus.