This second is an act says Andrewes avec gestes et adorations externs
. Arguing from how Cyril taught concerning how the Church is to receive the Cup Andrewes explains that they too adore Christ in the gesture of bowing. Touching on how Perron would have the Church receive the Eucharist Andrewes says, “for he would have the party that receiveth it, ku,ptein, that is, to bow himself, and cast his eyes to the ground; that is, in humble and reverent manner to do it. And so do we. And tro,pw proskunh,sewj, after the manner of adoring, amounteth not to adoring: for after the manner, or as men use to do, that adore, is a term qualified, and restrained to the outward manner. In which manner our Church enjoineth it to be received…And we (by the grace of God) hold the Sacrament to be venerable
, and with all due respect to be handled and received.” Having corrected Perron’s citation of Augustine from the XCVIth Psalm to the XCVIIIth he writes, “But upon the 98 Psalm these words are, which (I dare say) he means:, No one sets out to eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshiped, which I trust, no Christian man will ever refuse to do; that is, to adore the flesh of Christ.” He goes on to remind Perron that “for Saint Augustine presently is careful to warn his auditors, that the word manducat
there is to be spiritually understood, and he bringeth in Christ thus speaking. Andrewes was agreeing that there is a proper veneration of the physical Sacrament but not a worshipping of it with divine qualities. Andrewes goes on to turn Perron’s own use of Theodoret against him showing that the Sacramental Symbols, after the consecration, go not from their own nature, but abide in their former substance, shape, and kind. Andrewes concludes his answer saying,
And he gains nothing by it; for proskunei/tai in the Cardinal’s sense, may be taken pour venerer, (that is, to honour and reverence;) and is to be taken in that sense, and cannot, here, be taken in any other. For the Symbols so abiding, it is easily known no divine adoration can be used to them, nor any other than hath been said.
Andrewes’s stance against divine adoration of the Sacrament is tied to his denial of transubstantiation. Having gone to examine Theodoret Dialogue II for myself, I too find that it is strange that Perron would use this passage that speaks against what he is seeking to argue for. Contextually, Andrewes is correct to argue that the sense in which Theodoret is using proskunei/tai is with reference to giving reverence and welcoming respectfully. In that sense, Andrewes agrees with the custom of bowing and venerating (venerationem
) the Sacrament as a symbol of God’s divine presence and worshipping the Christ of the Sacrament.
Andrewes, Lancelot, Two Answers to Cardinal Perron
, (London, Printed by Felix Kyngston for Richard Badger and Andrew Hebb. 1629), LACT Vol. XI, 14. Andrewes, Answers to Perron followed by the page number from here on out.
Andrewes, Answers to Perron, 15, 16.
This reference is from the Latin Vulgate that is in accord with the numbering of the LXX and Psalm XCIX in the English translations.
Andrewes, Answers to Perron, 16, 17. Here Andrewes sets forth a quotation from the Latin text of Augustine’s sermon on Psalm XCVIII (XCIX in English translation) with the words, Nemo autem carnem illam manducat, nisi prius adoraverit
. Andrewes is correct that Augustine goes on in this Psalm to explain the mystery of the spiritual eating of Christ’s Body and Blood to the correction of the disciples who took it as a hard saying.
Andrewes, Answer to Perron, 17.
Andrewes, Answer to Perron, 17.