BY M. D. TALBOT.
"Heshusius," says Calvin, " cannot deny that adoration is due to Christ either in or under the elements; as to my part, I have ever reasoned thus: If Christ be under the bread, he is to be adored therein."
"I am astonished," says Beza, writing against the same Lutheran, " how you can possibly leave adoration free, to be paid or not, confessing, as you do, a real presence in the Eucharist; for my part, did I believe him really present, I would not only consider adoration proper, but indispensable."
"If the true body of Christ be present on the altar, as the Church of Rome asserts, he should there receive the most profound adoration possible."
"I am decidedly of the opinion of both Calvin and Beza," says Dr. Drelincourt, "did I believe the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I would unquestionably adore him therein." And lest the reader might consider these foreign writers as singular in their opinions, let him recollect the words already cited from Bishop Andrews, viz., " The king adores Christ truly present in the Eucharist, and I do with St. Ambrose ' adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries.' "
"The corporal presence once established, both the popish mass and the adoration of Christ therein follow of course."
"Adoration of the Eucharist is a natural consequence of the Roman doctrine jure et facto, because if the Eucharist be in substance not bread, as we say, but the body of Christ, as they affirm, it is evident that it not only may be, but should be adored, as Christ's body is in every place an object of adoration." Your Lordship, I presume, need not be told that Mr. Daille was one of the most learned Protestant ministers of France.
"The sounder Protestants, Protestantes saniores, have no doubt," says Bishop Forbes, "of the propriety of adoring Christ in the reception of the Eucharist with true sovereign worship."
"Heshusius," says Calvin, " cannot deny that adoration is due to Christ either in or under the elements; as to my part, I have ever reasoned thus: If Christ be under the bread, he is to be adored therein."
"I am astonished," says Beza, writing against the same Lutheran, " how you can possibly leave adoration free, to be paid or not, confessing, as you do, a real presence in the Eucharist; for my part, did I believe him really present, I would not only consider adoration proper, but indispensable."
"If the true body of Christ be present on the altar, as the Church of Rome asserts, he should there receive the most profound adoration possible."
"I am decidedly of the opinion of both Calvin and Beza," says Dr. Drelincourt, "did I believe the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, I would unquestionably adore him therein." And lest the reader might consider these foreign writers as singular in their opinions, let him recollect the words already cited from Bishop Andrews, viz., " The king adores Christ truly present in the Eucharist, and I do with St. Ambrose ' adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries.' "
"The corporal presence once established, both the popish mass and the adoration of Christ therein follow of course."
"Adoration of the Eucharist is a natural consequence of the Roman doctrine jure et facto, because if the Eucharist be in substance not bread, as we say, but the body of Christ, as they affirm, it is evident that it not only may be, but should be adored, as Christ's body is in every place an object of adoration." Your Lordship, I presume, need not be told that Mr. Daille was one of the most learned Protestant ministers of France.
"The sounder Protestants, Protestantes saniores, have no doubt," says Bishop Forbes, "of the propriety of adoring Christ in the reception of the Eucharist with true sovereign worship."
