born of the Virgin by a new and extravagant supposition of the Sacrament being the medium of uniting two real bodies of Christ viz. of his flesh and of his Church and therefore that must be a real body of Christ too which is so remote from justifying Paschasius his doctrine that Cellotius himself is ashamed of him This same doctrine of Rabanus and Ratramnus is expresly owned by the Saxon Homilies which deny the Sacrament to be a meer commemoration according to the opinion of Joh. Erigena but say that after consecration the bread becomes the Body of Christ after a spiritual and mystical manner and in the Saxon Code of Canons it is expresly determined not to be that Body of Christ which suffered on the Cross. And this I assert to be the very same doctrine which the Church of England embraced upon the Reformation as most consonant to Scripture and the Fathers which although it doth declare against the natural Body of Christ being in more places than one even that Body of Christ which is in heaven yet in the Articles it declares that the body of Christ is given taken and eaten so that to the faithful receivers the Bread consecrated and broken becomes the Communion of the Body of Christ and the cup of blessing the communion of the Blood of Christ. And so in the Catechism it is said that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lords Supper i. e. that after consecration such a divine power and efficacy doth accompany the Holy Sacrament as makes the elements to become the Spiritual and mystical Body of Christ as the Church is really but mystically the Body of Christ because of his Spirit dwelling in them So the Apology of our Church saith that in the Lords Supper there is truly exhibited the Body and Blood of Christ because that is the proper food of our souls as Bread and Wine tends to the nourishment of our Bodiess And if the time would permit I could not only more largely prove this to be the sense of our Church but that it is the true and genuine sense of the Fathers both of the Greek and Latine Church And thus I hope I have done that which T. G. thought so impossible a thing viz. to explain this Rubrick so as not to undermine the doctrine of the real presence asserted by the Church of England nor to leave nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it R. P. I was afraid of a Paradox and it appears not without Reason for I never met with any one yet who explained the doctrine of Bertram and the Church of England after this manner and all that attempted it talked so in the clouds that transubstantiation it self did not seem more hard to understand but I remember Pet. de Marca hath proved that the Book of Bertram was the same which was written by Joh. Scotus and therefore your hypothesis is utterly overthrown P. D. I have read and considered that faint attempt of that Great Man which seemed to be designed for no other end but to make us believe that Bertrams Book was burned for heretical at the Synod of Vercelles but if any one will impartially consider the Book of Bertram and compare it with the account given of the opinion of Joh. Scotus by the Writers against Berengarius they will find De Marca's opinion without the least colour of probability R. P. But Card. Perron Mauguin Cellotius and Arnaud all say that Bertram in the First part disputes against the Stercoranists who were a sort of Hereticks who held that the Body of Christ in the Eucharist was passible corruptible and digestible and in all things just as the bread appeared to our senses and asserted that all the accidents of the Bread were founded hypostatically in the Body of Christ and not to have any proper subsistence of their own P. D. These were a notable sort of Hereticks if they could be found but it appears by the enemies of Berengarius that this opprobrious name was fixed by them on all those who asserted the substance of the Bread to remain after consecration and it would be very strange if Bertram should confute that which himself asserts for he saith the Sacramental Elements do pass into the nourishment of our Bodies But if any were lyable to this accusation it must be Paschasius if Pet. de Marca's observation of him be true that he held both substance and quantity of the Bread and Wine to be turned into the Body of Christ from whence it follows that must be the subject of all those accidents which were in the Bread before which is the very sink of Stercoranism Nay I am very much deceived if Pope Nicholas 2. in the recantation prescribed to Berengarius did not fall into the filth of it far more than Rabanus or Heribaldus for he asserts therein that the Body of Christ is truly and sensibly handled and broken by the hands of Priests and ground by the teeth of Believers But what place could be fitter for this Heresie than the Sedes Stercoraria And Guitmundus striving to help Pope Nicholas and his Council out falls into the same Heresie himself for he shews that Christs Body may be handled and chewed in the Sacrament if so it must be the subject of the Accidents of the Bread and Wine Which according to Perron and his followers is plain Stercorâ—nism R. P. But do not you fall into another Heresie viz. of Impanation P. D. A man had need look to his words when Heresies are so common and buz so about a mans ears And some think they confute a man with a vengeance if they can find out some Heresie with a hard name to fasten upon him But if you did know wherein the heresie of Impanation lay you would never charge this doctrine of our Church with it For I find two distinct wayes of Impanation and this doctrine is lyable to neither of them 1. By union of the Bread to the Body of Christ and by that to the Divinity which was the way of Joh. Parisiensis 2. By an immediate conjunction of the Divine Nature to the Bread not meerly by divine efficacy and power but by an Hypostatical Vnion which is the opinion not without ground attributed to Rupertus Tuitiensis and is lyable to this great absurdity that all that befals the Bread may be attributed to the person of Christ which Bellarmine saith it is blasphemy to imagine And then it might be said that the bread is God that the Word is made Bread and that God is both bread and wine But all which the doctrine of our Church implyes is only a real presence of Christs invisible power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men As the Bodies assumed by Angels might be called their Bodies while they assumed them or rather as the
as the younger sister to the Whore of Babylon never a barrel the better herring only we can have liberty of Conscience with one and not with the other It is all one to me to bow to an Image and to bow to the Altar to worship Images and to kneel at the Sacrament P. D. I am in hopes you are now coming to the point I pray keep there without any farther rambling F. C. Call you this rambling You know Amesius saith even in controverted points much respect ought to be had to the experience of Gods people I tell you I have found it thus with me and you ought rather to hear me teach you than dispute with me P. D. All this shall not serve I must have your arguments since you urge me thus F. C. Why look ye now d' ye see how petulant and malapert these Divines of the Church of England are But since nothing will satisfie you but arguing I have an argument ready for you will do your business To Worship the Bread is Idolatry But to kneel at the Sacrament is to Worship the Bread Ergo. P. D. I am glad to find you come to any kind of Reasoning I deny that in kneeling at the Sacrament we do worship the Bread for our Church expresly declares the contrary in this Rubrick F. C. What do I care for your Church or her Rubricks I say you do worship the Bread and prove it too That which you kneel before and look towards when you worship you do give the worship to But you kneel before and look towards the bread when you worship Ergo. P. D. I begin to be afraid of you now for you do not only prove by this argument kneeling at the Sacrament but reading the Common Prayer to be Idolatry For if that which we kneel before and look towards when we worship must be the object of our worship it is plain we must indeed make an Idol of the Common Prayer for every time we read it we kneel before it and looks towards it when we worship F. C. Look you to that I alwayes took the Common Prayer for an Idol but I did not think I had proved it now P. D. I shall endeavour to undeceive you in this matter Since we are not pure spirits but must worship God with our bodies by kneeling and looking towards something in our Acts of Worship we must not determine that to be the object of our Worship which our bodies are bended towards or we look upon in our worship unless there be some other reason for it for then Idolatry would be necessary and unavoidable For we cannot kneel with our eyes open but we must look upon some creature which according to your way of arguing must be the object of our Worship I pray Sir without being angry give me leave to ask you whether a man kneeling in the Fields and praying with his eyes lifted up to Heaven be an Idolater or not F. C. I think not P. D. Yet he kneels towards some creature and looks upon some creature when he worships therefore you must prove by some other way that we do make the bread the Object of our Worship But this we utterly deny and say the doing it is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians And will you make us worship it whether we will or no F. C. But you use the same postures which the Papists do and yet you charge them with Idolatry P. D. Because this is a thing many of you stumble at I will make the difference of our case and theirs plain to you In all moral Acts we are to have a great great regard to their circumstances from whence they take a different denomination He that kills a man by accident and he that kills a man out of malice do the very same thing as to the substance of the Act yet no man will say it is the same act upon a moral consideration We kneel and the Papists kneel but we declare when we kneel we intend no adoration to the Elements but the Papists cannot deny that they do give proper adoration to that which is before them which we say is bread and they say the Body of Christ under the species of bread and yet not meerly to the invisible Body of Christ but taking the species of bread as united to that Body of Christ and so directing their worship to these two together as the proper objects of divine adoration And to make this evident to you their adoration is performed at the Elevation of the Host and at the carrying it about in processions and at the exposing it on their Altars and not meerly in the participation of it Whence it is observable that the Church of Rome doth not strictly require kneeling at the participation which it would do if it looked on the kneeling at receiving as a proper Act of Adoration The Rubricks of the Mass do not that I can find require the Priest to kneel in the Act of receiving and the Pope when he celebrates receives sitting Espencaeus saith in the Church of Lions many of the People did not receive kneeling and upon complaint made about it they were by the advice of two Cardinals left to their old custome And I wonder your Brethren have not taken notice of the difference of kneeling at the elevation of the Host and in the Act of receiving it the one was required by the Constitution of Honorius and was intended for an act of adoration to the Host the other was derived from the ancient Church which although it did not alwayes use the same posture of adoration that we do yet it is sufficient for our purpose if they received the Sacrament in the same posture in which they worshipped God And this I could easily prove if this were a place or season for it F. C. Well Sir I do not love disputing I pray go on with your former Adversary R. P. Sir I thank you for the diversion you have given us if you please I will now return to the place where we left I was about to tell you the Answer T. G. gives to Dr. St.'s third Argument from the Rubrick at the end of the Communion The words are It is here declared that by kneeling no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental bread or wine there bodily received or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood For the Sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians and the natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one About which Dr. St. charges T. G. first with Ignorance in saying it was not yet above a douzen years since it was inserted into the Communion Book whereas he might have
found it above a hundred years before in the Liturgie of Edw. 6. To which T. G. answers That the various fate of this Rubrick first in not being annexed till the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. and being cast out again in the year 1562. and then admitted again almost a hundred years after is no eviction to him that the charge of Idolatry is the dogmatical doctrine of the Church of England P. D. If this were all the declaration our Church had made of her sense and the intention of this Rubrick were only to declare this point of Idolatry there were some probability in what T. G. suggests But I have shewed already how fully our Church hath declared her sense about Romish Idolatry by other wayes and the design of this Rubrick was not to express her sense of Idolatry so much as to give satisfaction to those who scrupled the lawfulness of kneeling For which cause it was first put in and afterwards not thought necessary to be continued when persons were better satisfied about the intention of our Church But when after long disuse and violent prejudices the dissenters were grown unacquainted with the design and intention of our Church there was the same reason for inserting it again which held at first for putting it in And what now hath T. G. gained by this observation If it had been as he imagined what he had gotten in one point he had lost in another for then it would appear that there was no such heat in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths dayes if they were willing to leave out such a declaration of the Idolatry of the Church of Rome at that time when Q. Elizabeths Title was the most disputed at Rome so that from hence appears the vanity of T. G.'s former observation and how far they were from taking things into our Liturgie out of spite to the Pope nay so far were they from this that in the first year of Q. Elizabeth that petition in the Letany was left out which had been inserted by Henry 8. and continued in both Liturgies of Edw. 6. From the Tyranny of the Bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities Good Lord And this he might have found in the same Historian And was not the title of Head of the Church taken by her Father and Brother so qualified and explained then as might prevent any occasion of quarreling at it by the most captious persons Do these passages look like doing things on purpose to provoke and exasperate and out of pure spite to the Pope or like putting in things on purpose to heighten the differences when T. G. himself confesses they left out this Rubrick and it is evident they did leave out some of the most provoking expressions R. P. I see you cannot bear the charge of intemperate heat on the beginning of the Reformation P. D. I cannot bear such an unreasonable and unjust imputation as this is and I have a particular esteem for the Wisdom Learning and Piety which was shewed in the Ecclesiastical part of our Reformation But how doth T. G. take off the charge of Idolatry in this Rubrick R. P. He saith he takes the meaning of it not to be the denying adoration to be due in regard of Christs Body being present spiritually but truly in the Sacrament but only that no adoration ought to be done to any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood as the word Corporal is taken to signifie the natural manner of a bodies being present For which he gives these reasons 1. Because those words in the second Liturgie of Edw. 6. No adoration ought to be done to any real or essential being of Christs natural flesh and blood are now changed into any corporal presence of Christ natural flesh and blood 2. Because the Protestant Divines do yield the real presence of Christs Body for which he quotes Bishop Taylor and Bishop Cosins and he desires Dr. St. so to explain these words as not to undermine the constant doctrine of the Church of England concerning the real presence and leave us nothing but pure Zuinglianism in the place of it P. D. I am so much his Friend that at this time I will undertake this task for him First We must consider the words of the Rubrick 2. How this sense of it can be reconciled with the real presence as owned by the Church of England 1. For the meaning of the Rubrick We are to consider that the Rubrick denies adoration to be intended either unto the Sacramental bread and wine or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood And after it gives two distinct reasons for denying adoration to either of these 1. To the Sacramental bread and wine for this reason because they remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians 2. To the corporal presence of Christs natural flesh and blood because the natural body and blood of our Saviour Christ are in heaven and not here it being against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one You see here are two plainly distinct reasons given for denying adoration to the elements and to the Natural Body of Christ. The former is said to be Idolatry the latter to be absurd and unreasonable it being repugnant to the truth of Christs body to be in more places than one at one time So that the sense of the Rubrick lyes in these two propositions 1. That it is Idolatry to give adoration to the elements remaining in their natural substances 2. That it is absurd to believe Christs natural body to be present because then it must be in more places than one which is repugnant to the truth of a body These things to my apprehension are the plain and natural sense of this Rubrick R. P. But we do not give adoration to the Sacramental elements but to the Body of Christ. P. D. I do believe I can prove that you give adoration to the Sacramental Elements as they make up one entire object of adoration with the body of Christ but that is not my present business which is to shew the sense of our Church which lyes in these particulars 1. That the Sacramental Elements do remain in their natural substances after consecration 2. That to adore them so remaining is Idolatry and to be abhorred of all faithful Christians No one questions the former to be the sense of our Church the only question lyes in the later whether that be Idolatry or no It is no question that to give divine adoration to any creature is Idolatry and it is so acknowledged on all sides the only question then can be whether the substance of bread and wine be a creature or not and this is no question with any man in his wits therefore to give adoration to the substance of bread and wine is Idolatry No demonstration
in Euclid is plainer than this R. P. But I tell you we do not worship the creature but the body of Christ. P. D. I tell you again if there be a creature you do worship it for you give adoration to what is before you be it what it will if it be a creature you adore it R. P. But we say it is not a creature we worship P. D. Do not you give adoration to that which is consecrated whether it remains a creature or not after consecration At the elevation of the Host at the carrying it about at the exposing of it on the Altar you worship that which was consecrated do you not R. P. We worship that which was bread before consecration but after is no longer so but the body of Christ. P. D. But if it should remain bread after consecration what do ye adore then is it not the substance of the bread R. P. Yes but we believe it is not the bread P. D. That is not the question what you believe for they that believed God to be the soul of the world worshipped the parts of it upon a supposition which if it had been true would have justified their worship every jot as well as yours can do you and yet they were gross Idolaters for all that Nay I will say more to you there never were Idolaters in the world that did not proceed upon a false supposition and it may be not so unreasonable as yours This cannot therefore excuse you if your supposition proves false as no doubt it is that the substance of the bread doth not remain after consecration But I now ask you what your adoration is in the opinion of those persons who do firmly believe the Sacramental Elements to remain in their natural substances Is it not the giving divine worship to a creature And is not the giving divine worship to a creature Idolatry so that according to the sense of our Church the Worship of the Host must be Idolatry R. P. But what have you got by all this for we confess our selves that if the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration we are as great Idolaters as they that worship a red cloath P. D. Upon my word you had need then to be well assured that the substance of Bread and Wine do not remain and yet I must tell you we can be certain of nothing in the world if we are not certain that the substance of bread and wine do remain after consecration For if we are certain of nothing by our senses but of the outward accidents which is all your best men do say in this case we cannot be certain of any visible substance in the world for no bodily substance can be discerned but by our senses and so all foundation of certainty by sense is destroyed Nay farther it takes away all certainty by reason for it confounds the clearest maxims of it by overthrowing all Mathematical proportions of great and small whole and parts by destroying all notions of distance and place by jumbling the notions of body and Spirit And lastly it takes away all certainty by Revelation which can never come to us but upon the supposition of the certainty of Sense and Reason R. P. O Sir I see what you would be at you would fain draw me into a dispute about transubstantiation upon principles of Reason I beg your pardon Sir This is a matter of faith and must be stoutly believed or else we are gone No more of this Sir to your business of Idolatry I pray P. D. I was only giving you some caution by the by how much you are concerned to look about you but since you are resolved to shut your eyes I return to the sense of our Church about the Idolatry of the Mass and it follows necessarily from our former discourse that since our Church believes the substance of the Elements do remain and that your worship doth really fix upon that substance whatever your intentions be it is really Idolatry R. P. However this only proves it to be material Idolatry and not formal P. D. I have often heard of this distinction but I could never be satisfied with it For what is material and formal Idolatry R. P. Material Idolatry I take to be mistaken worship i. e. I do give divine worship to a false object but I do not intend to give it to a false object of Worship but to a true one P. D. Then Formal Idolatry must be giving divine worship to a false object of Worship knowing it to be a false object And where are there any such Idolaters to be found in the world Did not the Heathens believe that to be God which they worshipped And is not God a true object of worship only they mistook that to be God which was not and so were only material Idolaters Even those that worshipped their Images for Gods were only mistaken for they had a good intention only to worship God but they unhappily took their Images for Gods And I must needs say they who took the Sun Moon and Stars for Gods and worshipped them as such were very excusable in comparison of those who take a piece of bread for God or that which appears like it R. P. You are very severe methinks but do you think there is no difference among Idolaters P. D. Yes I tell you there is but not much to your comfort The grosser mens erour is the more means to convince men of it the more wilful their blindness and continuance in it the more culpable they are in their Idolatry and consequently the less excusable R. P. But may not a man innocently mistake as if in the dark a Child should ask blessing of one that is not his Father would his Father have reason to be angry with him P. D. Not for once or if it were in the dark but if he should see him every day go very formally to a joyn'd Stool in the Hall or to a Brown Loaf in the Buttery and there very solemnly down upon his knees to them and beg their blessing tell me what you think the Father would say to such a mistake Would he excuse him saying Alas poor Child he intended all this to me only he mistook the Brown Loaf or a joyn'd stool for me R. P. Forbear such comparisons for we have divine Revelation This is my Body and we believe his word against all you can say in this matter P. D. But what will you say if by the confession of many of the best and most learned of your own Divines You have not Divine Revelation for it and that those words cannot prove that the substance of Bread doth not remain after consecration which is the thing we now enquire after and if it were not to go off from our present business I would undertake to prove this evidently to you R. P. However we have the Authority of our Church for it P. D. You had as good say you are
resolved to believe it for the Authority of your Church can never perswade any man that is not R. P. When you are gotten to this point of transubstantiation it is hard to get you off It is the sore place of our Church and you are like Flyes in Summer alwayes busie about it I pray return to your Rubrick for you seem to have forgotten it P. D. No I have been pursuing it hitherto R. P. But what say you to T. G.'s reasons why this must be understood of a corporeal presence of Christs natural Body because you else overthrow the doctrine of a real presence which hath been accounted the doctrine of the Church of England P. D. To this I answer 1. The Rubrick saith expresly that it is against the truth of Christs natural Body to be at one time in more places than one It doth not say against the corporeal presence of his natural Body but the truth of it from whence it follows that our Church believes the true natural body of Christ which was born of the Virgin suffered on the Cross and ascended into Heaven can be but in one place which is declared in the foregoing words And the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven and not here i. e. in Heaven exclusively from being in the Sacrament Which are not true if the same natural Body of Christ could be at the same time in Heaven and in the Host. R. P. How then can your Divines hold a real presence of Christs Body as T. G. saith they do P. D. You had heard if you had staid till I came to my second Answer which is that notwithstanding this our Church doth hold that after Consecration the Elements do become the Body and Blood of Christ and so there is a real presence of Christs Body but not of his natural but of a mystical Body I will endeavour to make this out to you because you look strangely upon me as if I were big of some mighty paradox When Paschasius Radbertus did first broach the modern doctrine of the Roman Church about the same body of Christ being in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin in the Western Church he met with great opposition therein from the most learned Divines of that Age among the rest there lived then in the Court of Carolus Calvus a man very eminent for his Learning called Joh. Scotus or Erigena This man at the request of Carolus Calvus delivered his opinion directly contrary to Paschasius for whereas he asserted that the very same Body of Christ which was born of the B. Virgin was invisibly present under the accidents of Bread and Wine Scotus denyed that the Elements were in any real sense after consecration the Body and Blood of Christ the Sacrament being only a bare commemoration or figurative representation of the Body and Blood of Christ. So Hincmarus who lived in that Age delivers his opinion which was afterwards taken up by Berengarius as appears by Lanfrank's answer to him And Ascelinus in his Epistle to Berengarius shews that Joh. Scotus out of opposition to Paschasius set himself to prove from the Fathers that what was consecrated on the Altar was not truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ. These two opposite doctrines being thus dispersed and a Schism being likely to break out upon it as appears both by Ratramnus and the Anonymous Authour published by Cellotius and extant in MS in the Cotton Library Carolus Calvus sends to Ratramnus an eminent Divine of that Age being imployed by the Gallican Church to defend the Latins against the Greeks to know his judgement in this matter He who is better known by the name of Bertram gives in his Preface an Account to his Prince of both these opinions and rejects them both as against the sense of the Fathers and Doctrine of the Church In the first part of his Book he disputes against Scotus who would allow no Mysterie and in the second against Paschasius who contended that the same Body of Christ was in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin this he saith was the state of the second Question whether that very Body of Christ which sits at the right hand of God be reâ—eived by believers in the Sacramental Mysterie And he proves the Negative at large from the Testimonies of the Fathers shewing that they did put a difference between that Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross and that true but mystical body of Christ on the Altar and so from the Testimonies of S. Ambrose S. Augustine S. Hierom Fulgentius from the Scriptures and from the Offices of the Church he concludes point-blank against Paschasius that it was not the same Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was born of the B. Virgin But then against the opinion of Scotus he delivers his mind fully in answer to the first Question saying If there were nothing in the Sacrament but what appeared to the senses it was unfitly called a Mysterie and there would be no exercise for faith no change at all wrought in the Elements the Sacrament would fall short of Baptism and the Manna in the Wilderness and lastly to what purpose did Christ promise his Flesh to be the Food of his People which being not to be understood carnally and literally must have a spiritual signification so that though as to their outward appearance the Sacramental Elements are Figures yet according to the invisible Power and Efficacy they are the Body and Blood of Christ. And this he shews to have been the sense of the Fathers and Christian Church This opinion of Ratramnus Paschasius in his Epistle to Frudegardus calls the doctrine of those who deny the presence of Christs Flesh in the Sacrament but do hold an invisible power and efficacy in and with the Elements because say they there is no body but what is visible and palpable And whoever will read that Epistle of Paschasius will find the expressions he answers the very same that yet occur in the Book of Bertram Of the same opinion with Ratramnus in this matter was Rabanus Maurus the greatest Divine accounted of his Age who wrote his Epistle to Egilo against them who had lately broached that doctrine mark that that the Body of Christ in the Sacrament was the very same which was born of the B. Virgin and suffered on the Cross and rose from the dead And this appears from his Epistle to Heribaldus still extant wherein he saith he declared in what sense the Sacrament was the Body of Christ. Besides the Anonymus Authour published by Cellotius the only person about that time who appeared in behalf of the doctrine of Paschasius and very inconsiderable in comparison of his Adversaries confesseth the opposition made to Paschasius by Rabanus and Ratramnus and endeavours to excuse his simplicity in asserting that the same flesh of Christ was upon the Altar which was
Church is the Body of Christ because of his spirit quickning and enlivening the Souls of Believers so the bread and wine after consecration are the real but the spiritual and Mystical body of Christ. If any one yet thinks that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this let them know it is the Doctrine of our Church I am to defend and not of every particular Divine in it and if any do seem to speak of the presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven I desire them in the first place to reconcile that doctrine with this dogmatical assertion at the end of this Rubrick that it is against the Truth of Christs natural Body not against the corporal presence of it to be at one time in more places than one Let men imagine what kind of presence they please of the same body I only desire to know whether to be in Heaven and to be in the Sacrament be to be in the same or distinct places If the places be distinct as no doubt Heaven and Earth are then our Church declares that it is contrary to the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be in more places than one at one time R. P. But cannot God annihilate that Cylinder of air between the Body of Christ in Heaven and the Sacrament on the Altar and so make them both to be in one place P. D. This is a very idle and extravagant question because if it be granted it only proves that there is nothing between Christs Body in Heaven and the Host but it doth not prove the Host to be that Body of Christ and withal since so many thousand Hosts are consecrated in a Day you must suppose so much air annihilated as lies between Christs Body and all those Hosts but can any man imagine God should annihilate so much air every time a Priest Consecrates and I remember a good saying of Cajetan Non est disputandum de divina potentia ubi de Sacramentis tractatur we must not dispute of Gods absolute power about the matter of Sacraments because these are so often celebrated that we are to suppose no more than an ordinary power to be imployed about them And suppose we should grant a thing possible by Gods absolute power he saith it is folly to assert all that to be in the Sacrament which God can do However this doth not reach this Rubrick which supposes distinct places and saith it is contrary to the truth of Christs natural Body to be in more places than one at one time R. P. But may not all this be understood as T. G. suggests of the natural manner of a bodies being present in more places than one viz. that it is repugnant to the Truth of Christs natural Body to be naturally present or in a corporeal manner in more places than one but it may be naturally present but in one place i. e. by way of extension or quantity but it may be present in more places after another manner P. D. I think you have strained for this and it is your last effort to which I answer 1. It yields no advantage to T. G. for supposing that some of our Divines did hold it possible that the same body might be present in several places after a different manner yet how doth it hence follow that the Rubrick doth not charge them who worship the substance of Bread and Wine with Idolatry 2. Supposing the Church did fix this charge upon those who worship the Body of Christ as present I desire to know whether another kind of presence would excuse from Idolatry i. e. supposing that to worship Christs Body as corporeally present be Idolatry it would not be Idolatry to worship the very same Body as present after another manner Which is all one as to ask whether if it be Idolatry to worship a man with his cloaths on it be likewise Idolatry to worship him with his cloaths off If it be the very same body let the manner of its being present be the same or different it doth not alter the nature or reason of worship Only of the two it seems more unreasonable to worship an invisible Body than a visible one for in a visible body he that worships is sure of something that he sees but when he fancies an invisible Body present he fancies something which if it were must be seen and yet though he cannot see it he resolves to worship it 3. It is altogether as unreasonable to believe that a Body may be present in several places after a different manner as after the same manner For whereever a Body is really present let it be with extension or without it is so in that place as not to be in another i. e. the Body of Christ being in the Host on the Altar is so there as not to be on the floor or any other place about it for otherwise it could not be said to be only under the accidents I then ask on what account the same body cannot be present in two places at once after the same manner and yet may be after a different manner Aquinas saith it doth imply a contradiction for the same Body to be in several places at once after the same manner i. e. by way of extension or quantity because it is necessary for the same thing to be undivided from it self but that which is in several places must be divided from it self But as Conink well observes this argument proves it as impossible for the same body to be in several places after a different manner for it is never the less divided from it self by being in one place after another manner than in the other yea it will be more divided because it will be after two several wayes repugnant to each other And it is much more easie to conceive that a Body should be in two several places after a natural manner than to be so in one place and in another after such a spiritual manner as is very hard to be understood It is much more repugnant saith Maeratius for the same Body to be extended and not extended than to have a double extension If it be repugnant to the finite nature of a body to be in more places than one because then it might be present in all places this saith Lugo will hold against a Sacramental Presence for that comes nearer to a Divine immensity for a Body to be in more places without quantity than with it Suarez and Gamachaeus say this comes nearer to ubiquity because a Sacramental presence supposes the Body to be whole in every part which a natural doth not And they grant that all the contradictions which follow upon being present in several places after a natural manner will hold if the one be natural and the other not i. e. that the same Body may be above it self and below it self within it self and without it self and may move with two contrary motions
be given to God How else can the giving it to a Creature make it Idolatry F. C. I do not well understand you but as far as I can guess you speak of bodily worship but alas we know that God must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth P. D. Who denies that But observe what follows then no man is guilty of Idolatry that doth not worship an Image in Spirit and in Truth but the Law forbids bowing down to them and worshipping of them do you think that bowing down is meant of the Mind or of the Body F. C. What is it you would have by all these Questions P. D. No more but this that it is lawful to give external adoration to the Divine Majesty F. C. And what then P. D. Is it lawful to give God that worship which it is lawful to give absolutely in a place set apart for his Worship F. C. That is a strange question indeed P. D. See now what you have brought your self to to acknowledge that to be lawful which you so rashly called Idolatry F. C. What is that P. D. Bowing in the Church in testimony of our adoration of the Divine Majesty F. C. That is not it but it is bowing to the Altar P. D. Who knows best Those that made the Canon or you They declare they meant nothing else than what I have said and deny any Religious Worship to be given to the Altar And would not you think it hard for us to accuse you for worshipping your Hats in prayer because you put them before your faces when you pray as you do us for worshipping the Altar because we bow towards it F. C. But you look towards the Altar when you bow P. D. And are not your eyes upon your Hats when you pray And is not prayer a part of Gods immediate Worship F. C. But we call it bowing to the Altar P. D. We may as well call yours praying to the Hat F. C. Some do assign the reason of their worship from the Communion Table and we never do from our Hats P. D. They do not assign the reason of their worship but the reason of that circumstance of it why that way rather than another which they parallel with the Jews worshipping of God towards the Ark and the Cherubims which yet were no objects of Divine Worship either by Gods appointment or the Jewish practice or in the opinion of some of the most learned Divines even of the Roman Church who make the most advantage they can of it as Dr. St. hath at large proved in his Answer to T. G. and I do not hear of any Reply T. G. hath made to it R. P. But the Patronus bonae Fidei saith the Papists have more reason to worship Christ on the supposition of Transubstantiation than you have to worship P. D. What Speak out The Altar we deny it to be any Object of Worship to us If he means than to worship God with external adoration towards the Altar let him do that which he never yet did prove what he saith viz. that there is more reason to worship Christ under the bread on supposition of transubstantiation than for our giving external adoration to the Divine Majesty For to give this adoration to God needs no other supposition but of his infinite Majesty and Omnipresence but to worship Christ on the Altar under the species of Bread doth not only suppose the truth of one of the most absurd suppositions in the world that the substance of the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ and the Body of Christ is there invisibly present under the species of Bread but it supposes likewise these things 1. That the Body of Christ as united with the species of Bread is a proper object of Divine Adoration i. e. that these two do make up one entire object of Divine Worship and then it follows that the sacramental species are a partial object of Divine Adoration for whatever goes to make up an object entire must have share with it which is quite another thing from an accidental connexion as of a Princes Robes together with his Person for no man ever said the Princes Garments made up with his Person an Object fit to be kneeled to in token of Subjection But here is an union supposed between Christs Body and the Accidents and such an union by vertue whereof Divine Worship is directed to the species of Bread and consequentially to the Body of Christ as united thereto 2. It supposeth that the Body of Christ being thus united with the species of bread may receive all that worship which is due to God alone Which is not very easie to prove Because it doth not follow that where-ever a Body is there those things must be which do not result by necessary concomitancy from the being of a Body For since it doth not follow by vertue of the Hypostatical union that where-ever the Divinity is the humane nature of Christ must be there also how doth it necessarily follow that where-ever the Body of Christ is the Divinity is so present as to make that Body become an Object of Divine Adoration We say the Foot is united to the Soul as well as the Head but do we therefore say that whatever is in the Soul is equally present in the Foot as in the Head as that the Foot reasons considers directs as the Head doth It is not therefore bare union but the manner of Presence which doth make an Object fit for adoration That Presence ought to be if not glorious and becoming the Divine Majesty in that respect yet so well attested as the Divinity of Christ was in his humane nature by the voice of Angels by Testimony of God himself from Heaven by miracles by Prophecies c. But here is nothing like this no evidence being given of the Divine Presence under the Elements neither from sense nor reason nor Scripture For the Scripture is only pretended to speak of the Body of Christ and not of his Divinity R. P. But by vertue of the hypostatical union where-ever the Body of Christ is his Divine Nature must be present too P. D. That I know very well is commonly said by you but I pray consider these two things 1. If the Body of Christ may be present by reproduction of the same Body as some of your greatest and latest Divines have asserted then there is no such necessity of concomitancy of the Divinity of Christ because they say God may reproduce the same body without all the accidents of it and consequently without the Hypostatical Vnion 2. By the same way of Concomitancy they may hold the Persons of the Father and Holy Ghost to be under the species and to be there worshipped For where the Body of Christ is there the soul is where Soul and Body is there the Divinity is where the Divinity is there the Person of the Son is and where the Person of the Son is there the
in You. I pray shew the difference R. P. You would fain bring me back again to the worship of Images but you shall not For I say their Idolatry lay in worshipping God as united to the parts of the world and giving Divine Worship to them on that Account P. D. Will you stand to this R. P. Why not P. D. Then I will prove worshipping the Host to be Idolatry on the same grounds For in both cases there is a supposition really false but which being true would justifie the Act of Worship and if notwithstanding that supposition that God is the Soul of the world the worshipping of God as so united is Idolatry then the worship of the Host notwithstanding the supposition of Christs Body being united to the species is Idolatry too they being both acts of adoration given to those objects which in themselves deserve no worship but yet are adored upon such a supposition which being true would justifie the performance of them R. P. You are much mistaken in your parallel For as T. G. well observed in the worship of the Host the Act of adoration is not formally terminated upon the bread supposing it to remain but upon God but we conceive the bread not to be there at all but in place thereof the only true and Eternal God And whatever is taken for an object of worship the understanding must affirm either truly or falsly to be but Catholicks whether mistaken or not in the belief of Transubstantiation do not in their minds affirm the bread to be but not to be because they believe it to be converted into the body of Christ. But they who worshipped the parts of the world with a respect to God as the Soul of it did however believe those to have a real Being and not to be turned into the substance of God P. D. All that this proves is that you do not take the Bread it self for God no more did they who worshipped the parts of the world as members of that Body to which God was united as the Soul take those parts for God But in both cases there is a supposition equal to justifie the Worship if true and if notwithstanding this supposition the Heathens were guilty of Idolatry why are not you upon a far more unreasonable supposition than that If Christs Body be present in the Eucharist you say you may worship it as there present so say they if God be the Soul of the world we may lawfully worship the several parts of it But you say whatever is an object of worship must be supposed to be whereas you suppose the bread not to be but to be converted into the Body of Christ which alters not the case for the question is not about the bare being or not being of the thing but of the being or not being of a fit object of worship I will make the matter plain to you by this Instance One of the most common Idolatries of the Heathen world was the worship of the Sun they who did worship it did suppose it to be a fit object for worship but they who looked on the Sun as a meer creature could not think so therefore to make any creature a fit object for worship there must go a farther supposition viz. of the Divinity being in it or united to it Now the main point lyes here whether on supposition that the substance of the Sun doth not remain it would not be Idolatry but on supposition that it doth remain it would be Idolatry I pray then answer me would it be Idolatry or not to worship the Sun suppose a man believed the very substance of the Sun to be turned into the Divinity R. P. No surely For that is our own case P. D. How comes it then to be Idolatry supposing the Divinity united to the substance of the Sun R. P. In one case we may be supposed to worship a thing which is but in the other we cannot be supposed to worship that which at the same time we believe not to be P. D. If it be Idolatry to worship that as God which is not God then the worship of the Host may be Idolatry though you suppose the bread not to be For to suppose that not to be which really is doth no more alter the case than to suppose that to be God which is not for that is to suppose that not to be a Creature which is For the worshippers of any parts of the World might profess as solemnly as you do about the Bread that if they did believe the Sun to be a meer creature they should abhorr the thoughts of worshipping it but believing it either to be God it self or at least that the Godhead is united to it why are not they as excusable as those who declare they abhor the thoughts of worshipping the Bread but they believe it not to be Bread but the Body of the Son of God R. P. But T. G. observes that the formal term of Idolatrous worship is an undue object viz. a Creature instead of the Creator but Catholicks in case of a mistake would have no other formal object in their minds but the Creator himself P. D. As though the nature of Idolatry did consist in the worship of a Creature knowing it to be a meer Creature Might not the Heathens have said they had no other formal object of adoration in their minds but God but supposing him united to the parts of the world they might worship them on his account as well as those of the Church of Rome give adoration to that which appears to be meer bread If they who worship the Sun on the account of the Divinity which is in it or united to it be yet guilty of Idolatry because though on supposition the Divinity were so united the worship would be lawful yet the supposition being false they are guilty of Idolatry why then should not those be equally guilty of it who worship a Divinity as present under the species of bread if the substance of bread doth still remain for then the worship however intended falls upon a meer creature as it did in the former case R. P. Those who worshipped the Sun did suppose the substance of the Sun still to remain but Catholicks do not suppose the substance of bread to continue but in place thereof do worship the only true and Eternal God P. D. It is true they did suppose the substance of the Sun to remain but they did not intend to terminate their worship on that substance but on the Divinity united to it and to suppose that not to be bread which is really bread doth no more excuse from Idolatry than supposing that not to be a meer creature which really is no more But to drive this matter home to you I will ask a farther Question Were those Idolaters who worshipped the parts of the world as a part of the substance of God himself so that he is One and All R.
say If Christ be the Sacrifice he must be slain again at every Mass as he was once on the Cross or you can assign no destruction which you say is necessary to such a true and proper Sacrifice R. P. Do not you observe T. G.'s words that Christ is whole under either species and his Blood separated from his Body not really but Mystically only and in representation P. D. How is that Whole Christ under the bread and whole Christ under the wine and the blood separated from the Body not really but mystically only and by representation This is admirable stuff and true Mystical Divinity If the body of Christ doth remain whole and entire where is the true proper Sacrifice where is the change made if not in the Body of Christ if that be uncapable of a change how can it be a true and proper Sacrifice If the blood be not really separated from the Body where is the mactation which must be in a propitiatory Sacrifice If Christ do remain whole and entire after all the Sacrificial Acts where I say is the true and proper Sacrifice T. G. had far better said and more agreeably to Scripture Antiquity and Reason that there is no real and proper sacrifice on the Altar but only mystical and by representation R. P. But T. G. saith that Religion which admits no external visible Sacrifice must needs be deficient in the most signal part of the publick worship of God P. D. I pray remember it is an external and visible Sacrifice which you contend for and now tell me where it is in your Church Doth it lye in the mimical gestures of the Priest at the Altar in imitation of Christ on the Cross If that be it the necessary consumption of the Sacrifice will be no comfortable doctrine to the Priest Doth it lye in the consecration of the Elements which are visible But you say the essence of the Sacrifice consists in the change and we can see no visible change made in them and therefore there is no external and visible Sacrifice Besides if the Sacrifice did lye in the change of the Elements after Consecration into the Body of Christ then the Elements are the thing sacrificed and not the Body of Christ for the destructive change is as to the elements and not as to the Body of Christ. Or doth it lye in the swallowing down and consumption of the species after Consecration by the Priest But here likewise the change is in the accidents and not in the Body of Christ which remains whole and entire though the species be consumed and I think there is some difference between changing ones seat and being sacrificed For all that the Body of Christ is pretended to be changed in is only its being no longer under the species but T. G. I suppose will allow it to be whole and entire still Doth it then lye in pronouncing the words of consecration upon which the Body of Christ is under the species of Bread and the Blood under that of Wine and so separated from the Body But this can least of all be since T. G. assures us that whole Christ is under the Bread as well as under the Wine and so there cannot be so much as a moment of real separation between them and we know how necessary for other purposes the doctrine of Concomitancy is Tell me then where is your external and visible Sacrifice which you boast so much of since according to your own principles there is nothing that belongs to the essence of a sacrifice is external and visible and consequently your own Church labours under the defect T. G. complains of R. P. But what makes Dr. St. so bitter against the Sacrifice of the Altar since the most true and genuine Sons of the Church of England do allow it as Mr. Thorndike Dr. Heylin and Bishop Andrews and doth not this rather look like betraying the Church of England than defending it P. D. I see now you are wheeling about to your first Post and therefore it is time to give you a space of breathing Your great business is to set us at variance among our selves but you have hitherto failed in your attempts and I hope will do I do not think any two or three men though never so learned make the Church of England her sense is to be seen in the Publick Acts and Offices belonging to it And in the Articles to which T. G. sometimes appeals your Sacrifices on the Altar are called blasphemous Figments and dangerous Impostures But as to these three persons I answer thus 1. Mr. Thorndike as I have shewed already declares against the true proper Sacrifice defined by the Council of Trent as an innovation and a contradiction And that which he pleads for is that the Eucharist is a commemorative and representative Sacrifice about which Dr. St. would never contend with him or any one else and immediately after the words cited by T. G. he adds these It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross as the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross is represented renewed revived and restored by it and as every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth 2. Pet. Heylins words are expresly only for a commemorative Sacrifice as T. G. himself produces them and therefore I wonder what T. G. meant in citing them at large For he quotes the English Liturgie for the Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving and S. Chrysostom calling it the remembrance of a Sacrifice and many of our learned Writers a Commemorative sacrifice What is there in all this in the least repugnant to what Dr. St. had delivered R. P. But he quotes Bishop Andrews saying Take from the Mass your Transubstantiation and we will have no difference with you about the sacrfiice P. D. Bishop Andrews calls the Eucharist a commemorative sacrifice and he saith it was properly Eucharistical or of the nature of peace-offerings concerning which the Law was that he that offered should partake of them and a little after follow those words you mention to which he adds We yield you that there is a remembrance of Christs sacrifice but we shall never yield that your Christ being made of Bread is there sacrificed Which is the very thing that T. G. is so angry with Dr. St. about And have not you bravely proved that Dr. St. hath herein gone against the sense of the genuine Sons of the Church of England If you have any thing yet left which you think material I pray let us have it now for fear lest T. G. make use of it to stuff out another Book R. P. I think we are near the Bottom P. D. So I imagine by the dregs which came last R. P. There is one thing yet left for a close which is Dr. St. saith supposing this sacrifice were allowed yet this doth not prove that we reserve any
external Act of worship belonging to all Christians because this sacrifice belongs to the Priests only to offer P. D. And what answer doth T. G. give to that R. P. He saith that nothing is more notorious than that those of the Church of Rome are bound on every Sunday and Holy Day to hear Mass. P. D. To hear Mass A very Christian duty no doubt especially if they understand never a word of it and as Diana saith a man is not bound to hear a word that is said But what then R. P. By this external Act he saith they testifie the uniting their intention with the Priest as the publick Officer of the Church in the Oblation of the sacrifice P. D. I have often heard of the skill you have of directing intentions but I never knew of this knack of uniting Intentions before I know how necessary the Priests intention is in your Church but what if the People should fail of uniting their intention with his as they often think and talk of other things at hearing Mass would it not be a sacrifice without the Vnion of their Intentions Suppose the Priests Intention should wander what would the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie towards the Sacrifice You will not say they have any power to offer the sacrifice therefore the Act of sacrificing belongs only to the Priest whether the Peoples intentions be united or not If the People first offered that which was to be sacrificed to the Priest and then he sacrificed it in their name as among the Jews they might be said to have a share in the sacrifice but when the sacrifice is supposed to come down from Heaven upon the Priests words and he doth not represent the People but Christ in the Act of sacrificing What doth the Peoples uniting their intentions signifie to the sacrifice I pray tell me in whose name doth the Priest pretend to the power of offering up the Body of Christ in Sacrifice on the Altar the Peoples or Christs R. P. In the name of Christ doubtless for the People have no power to do it P. D. If they have no power to do it and all the Authority be supposed to be derived from Christ for doing it what doth the uniting the Peoples intentions with the Priests signifie as to the offering up the sacrifice You might as well say that the Jews under the Cross might unite their intentions to Christs in offering himself on the Cross to the Father and so it might become their Act as well as Christ's But in my mind your phrase of hearing and seeing Mass is much more proper if men were bound either to hear or see which your Casuists say they are not than this of uniting their intentions with the Priest which is absurd and ridiculous Doth T. G. so little consider the honour of the Priestly Office as to talk of the Peoples uniting their intentions with the Priests in the oblation of the Sacrifice The next step may be that the sacrificing may depend on the Peoples Intentions as well as the Priests and what a case are you in then Aquinas and Cajetan were much wiser than T. G. in this matter for they both declare that this sacrifice belongs only to the Priests and not to the People as Dr. St. told T. G. R. P. T. G. saith he cannot find the Citation in the place quoted by him but he dares affirm that Cajetan was not so silly a Divine as to deny it to belong to the People to offer the sacrifice by and with the Priest P. D. And I dare affirm Cajetan was much wiser than to say that the offering the sacrifice did in any sense belong to the People and so much T. G. might have found in the place cited by the Doctour only qu. 86. was put for q. 85. and not as Cajetans bare opinion but as the judgement of Aquinas too He saith indeed that the Priests do offer the sacrifice for themselves and others but he was not so silly to imagine that they were to unite their intentions with the Priests in the oblation but that expression only shews for whose sake and not in whose name the sacrifice was offered For there are other sacrifices saith he which every one may offer for himself and those saith Cajetan are spiritual sacrifices of Devotion and Vertue but for the sacrifice of the Altar that belongs only to the Priests and Officers of the Church R. P. But the very Mass-Book calls it meum ac vestrum sacrificium and desires God to accept it for all those pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium P. D. I will tell you the mysterie of this business and so put an end to this long Conference It was the ancient custom of the Roman Church as well as others for the Communicants to make an oblation of the Bread and Wine at the Altar of which they were afterwards to partake This I prove from the Sacramentary of S. Gregory published by Pamelius where it is said while the Offertory is singing i. e. the Anthem then used the oblations are made by the People and laid upon the Altar that they might be consecrated And the Ordo Romanus declares these oblations to be the Bread and Wine of which it adds that the Arch-deacon took as much and laid upon the Altar as would serve for the people that were to communicate These oblations continued in the Church a long time and were inforced by Canons and Constitutions when the people began to slacken in their devotion Upon which the Church of Rome thought fit to bring in the use of Wafers instead of common bread and so these oblations grew into disuse or were turned into offerings of money instead of them Sirmondus and Card. Bona have proved beyond all dispute that the ancient Latin Church did use common and leavened Bread in the Eucharist that was offered by the people till a thousand years after Christ. But then the doctrine of Transubstantiation coming into the Roman Church it was no longer thought fit that the Bread which was to be turned into the Son of God should be made after a common manner or with the unsanctified hands of the Laity but by those who did attend upon the Altar remembring what the good woman told Gregory I. that she wondred that the Bread which she made with her own hands should be called the Body of Jesus Christ which the people had more reason to do when they came to define the manner of the presence as they did about this time although it were not made an Article of Faith till afterwards From hence the dispute began between the Greeks and Latins about unleavened bread and from henceforward the custom of oblations for the service of the Altar declined and is only kept up on some particular solemnities as Canonization of Saints Inauguration of Princes Consecration of Bishops Marriages and Funerals however the
same form of words continues still in the Offices as if the oblations of Bread and Wine were still made by the People and so Sirmondus and Bona both say those expressions of the Mass-Book you mention are to be understood of these oblations of the People and not of the Sacrifice of Christs Body And that these oblations were called sacrifices appears by the known passages of S. Cyprian Locuples dives es Dominicum celebrare te credis quae in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis quae partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit sumis In which he blames the rich women that came without an Oblation which he calls a sacrifice and did partake of that which the poor offered which S. Augustin calls de aliena oblatione communicare and therefore he bids all Communicants to make their own oblations at the Altar But suppose these expressions were not to be understood of the oblations of the people as it is certain the prayers called Secretae and the first part of the Canon of the Mass are yet it was not fairly done of T. G. to leave out a very significant word which immediately followed viz. laudis qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis If the People be allowed their share in the Eucharistical Sacrifice of Praise and Thanksgiving what is this to their offering up the proper propitiatory sacrifice of the Body of Christ I do not deny that the People had a share in the sacrifice according to the sense of Antiquity not only from their oblations but because as Cassander well observes the Ancients did call the whole Eucharistical Office as it took in the Peoples part as well as the Priests by the name of a sacrifice and so the Oblations Prayers Thanksgivings Consecration Commemoration Distribution Participation did all belong to the sacrifice But since you restrain the true and proper sacrifice to the oblation of the Body of Christ to God by the Priest Dr. St. had reason to say that the sacrifice among you belongs to the Priests and is not an external Act of Worship common to all And so according to the sense you put on the Mass-Book you leave no one Act of peculiar external worship appropriated to God which is to be performed by all Christians which was the thing to be proved THE END Books Printed for and Sold by Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-yard and at the White Hart in Westminster-Hall A Rational account of the grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord-Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. C. Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the true reasons of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius's Answer to Grotius is considered Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches wounds in Quarto Origines Sacrae or a Rational Account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Scriptures and matters therein contained Quarto A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a revolred Protestant wherein a particular account is given of the Fanaticisms and Divisions of that Church Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it the first Part Octovo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressey's Epistle Apologetical to a person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters all written by Edward Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The Rule of faith or an Answer to the Treatise of Mr. I. S. Entituled Sure Footing c. by John Tillotson D. D. Preacher to the Honourable Society of Lincolns-Inn To which is adjoyned a Reply to Mr. I. S. his third Appendix c. by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty The Antiquities of Nottinghamshire Extracted out of Records Original Evidences Lieger Books other Manuscripts and Authentick Authorities beautified with Maps Prospects and Portraictures by Robert Thoroton Dr. of Physick Folio FINIS Dial p. 13. p. 10. Cath. no Idol p. 197. Dial. p. 62. Preface to Cath. no Idol Dial. p. 9. Dial. p. 15. Dial. p. 17. Cypr. Anglic p 364. 1 Ed. P. 3â— Necessary Introd to the History of B. Laud. p. 14. Conference with Fisher. p. 277. History of his Tryal p. 472. Cypr. Angl. p. 435· Dial. p. 28. Dial. p. 19. Cypr. Angl. p. 418. Dial. p. 21. Hincmar de praedest c. 31. Lanfranc de Corp. Sang. Christ. c. 4. Guitm de sacr l. 1. Cajet in Aquin. 3. p. q. 75. art 1. 2. â— Aq. 4. dist 44. q. 2. ar 2. Conink de sacr qu. 75. art 3. Maerat de sacr disp 24. sect 1. Lugo de Sacram. disp 5. §. 1. Suarez in 3. p. disp 48. art 1 §. 4. Gamach iâ— 3. p. qu. 76. c. 4. Ysambert qu. 75. disp 3. art 8. Vasq. in 3. p. disp 109. c. 4. art 6. p. 28. Dial. p. 25 27. Cypr. Angl. p. 48.1 ed. P. 66. Dial. p. 30. to 33. Laws of the Ch. Ch. 4. p. 30. Dial. p. 42. c. Cypr. Angl. p. 62. Cypr. Angl. p. 189. Dial. p. 46 47 c. Dial. p. â—7 Dial. p. 49. Prodr p. 76. B. Andrews Resp. ad Apolog. Bell. p. 37. compared with Burâ—â—il Deâ—ens Respons ad Apolog. c. 6. q. 21. B. Sanders Preface to his Serm. §. 15. De obligat cons. prael 4. §. 33. Dial. p. 51 c. P. 63. Dial. p. 52. P. 160. P. 162. Dial. p. 59 60 61. Dial. p. 53 54. P. 56. Defence p. 581. Joh. Rosin vit â—â—ed sapient Dial. p. 141 c. Dial. p. 132. Dial. p. 133 134. Pontificale Rom. de ordinat Presbyt Concil Trident. Sess. 23. c. 4. Dial. p. 143. Dial. p. 151 c. P. 155. P. 157. Scot. in sâ—nt l. 4. dist 4. q. 9. Biel. in Sâ—nt q. 2. Cajet in 3. p. q. 63. art 1. Morin de Ordin part 3. Exercit. 3. c. 1. â— 4. Alex. Al. 4. p. q. 8. memb 5. art 1. §. 6. ad 2. Scot. in 4. dist 25. q. 1. resp ad 3. Morin ib. exerc 5. c. 9. n. 12 13. Grat. 1. q. 1. post can 97. Gul. Paâ—is de Sacr. Ord. c. 7. Morin de Ord. Sacr. p.