conc tho speaking somewhat more diminutively of the Eucharist than the other yet seems to say more than any Protestant will allow as is shewed before 2ly That it was an Assembly of Bishops called together by that Emperour that caused the Patriarch of Constantinople to be scourged assented to by no Patriarch which thing is objected against it by the Conc. Nice Act. 6. tom 1. in these words Quomodo autem magna universalis in quam neque omnes consenserunt reliquarum Ecclesiarum praefecti non admiserunt sed anathemate eam devoverunt Non habuit cooperarium ut haec quae nunc celebratur Romanum Papam neque illius Sacerdotes neque per Vicarios neque per provinciales literas quemadmodum fieri in Synodis debet Quinetiam neque concordantes habuit Orientis Patriarchas Alexandrinum inquam Antiochenum urbis sanctae suminos Pontifices neque cum illis etiam inystas sacerdotes Thus Conc. Nice But the same things are affirmed by the historians of those times as also that this Copronymus was opposed for demolishing images in Churches by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch whom he shamefully abused and his Father Leo Isaurus excommunicated for the same cause by Gregory the 3d Bishop of Rome Besides this to lessen the esteem which may be had of it by the reformed I might name the 15. and 17. Canons thereof Whereof the 15th runs thus Si quis non confitetur sanctam semper Virginem Mariam quavis visibili invisibili creatura superiorem cum sincera fide ejus intercessiones tanquam quae libertatem apud eum qui ex se genitus est Deum habeat non postulaverit Anathema And the 17th Canon not unlike Si quis sanctorum c. intercessiones non petierit utpote qui libertatem apud Deum habeant secundum Ecclesiasticam Traditionem pro mundo intervenire Anathema Which Canon tho 't is noted by the Second Nicene Council Act. 6. Tom. 6. post hanc editionem suam c. to have been left out in some later Copies of the Acts of this Council those times growing on after this Synod from opposing of Images to destroying of Reliques and denying of Saints Intercessions a thing not disallow'd by the Reform'd and of calling them also by the name of Saints See the Authors quoted by Mr. Mede Apostasie of later times p. 131 135 c. tho the Council is clear'd from any such Decrees both by Mr. Mede p. 137 and by the whole Body of their Acts examined by the Second Nicene Council their severe Antagonists Yet it is clear that it was one of the ultimate Definitions of that Council since it is found not in the first framing only as Mr. Mede would have it p. 135. but in that first Edition of their Acts which was subscribed by all the Council as appears in the Conclusion of Act. 6. Tom. 6. of the Second Conc. Nic. and which accordingly the Nicene Council undertook to refute as not the first Draughts but the Ratified Acts of that Synod 3. That the Council which revers'd its Doctrine of the Eucharist was General and Confirm'd by all the Patriarchs 4. And lastly That the Council of Francfort also tho it might in something mistake the meaning of the Council of Constantinople for which I will not contend with Mr. Blondel for so perhaps did they of Nice too misunderstand it yet perusing the Doctrine of Nice Censures not it at all a far greater if an error but almost in the same phrase with it Blameth the other of Constantinople saying The mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord was not now to be call'd Imago but Veritas not Umbra but Corpus Which word and other expressions that they imported not less than those of Nice may be shrewdly presum'd from Mr Blondel's Concession c. 18. p. 415. That within a few years after this Council follow'd a Change in the Eucharist-Doctrine in the West a change i. e. to this Tenent of Corporal presence Now all those things well weigh'd let any one judg between the Constantinopolitan Council and those two that follow'd who are more likely to be the Innovators or whose Determination a good Subject of the Church not so able in such high Mysteries to guide himself ought rather to adhere and submit to § XL Now to go on This opinion of Damascen and the Council of Nice The state of the Greek Church since these Councils hath been owned and embraced ever since even to this day by the Greek Church without any opposition to it and that not only as being theirs but the Tenent also of all the Greek Fathers before this Councll which also are frequently by them quoted for it See this confess'd by Mr. Blondel c. 16. p. 399 400. Le Concile de Nice 2. a imposê une tacite loy aux Grecs posterieurs Their adherence ever since to the Doctrine of Nic. Conc. 2 qui ont jusques a nos jours reverê ses decrets de parler a sa mode de renoucer so he is pleased to say but they pretend the contrary en imitant ses fautes au style de la plus venerable antiquité And then he reckons up their Writers since both ancienter and more modern concurring in this opinion naming amongst the ancienter Theophylact and Euthymius See Sandys West Relig. p. 233 234. who confesseth the Greeks to agree with the Romanists in Transubstantiation Sacrifice and the whole Body of the Mass See Dr. Potter Char. Mist sect 7. p. 225. where he saith In the opinion of Transubstantiation the later Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists and justifieth what he saith by many quotations in the Margent See Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s 2. who himself opposing Transubstantiation yet after many Authorities given concludes that Section Certum est recentiores Graecos a Transubstantiationis opinione non fuisse neque etiamnum esse omnino alienos hosce autem omnes Christianae pietatis cultores haereseos aut erroris exitialis damnare magnae profecto audaciae temeritatis esset So l. 2. c. 2. s 14. Graeci Venetiis viventes reliqui omnes Graeci etiam adorant Christum in Eucharistia quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere damnare To give you some of the Graecian expressions since this Council See Theophylact who liv'd in the Ninth Age in Mat. 26. Non enim dixit Hoc est Figura sed hoc est Corpus ineffabili enim operatione transformatur etiamsi nobis videatur panis And in 1 Cor. 11. expounding those words non dijudicans Corpus Domini he saith Si certiores essemus quisnam quantus sit ille qui nobis in conspectu adjacet i. e. in Altari nulla ferme rei alterius ope indigeremus c. So speaks Oecumenius on the same place Euthymius in Mat. 26. Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit si ita loqui liceat ita haec ineffabiliter transmutat
Christ so that neither for her Faith nor the imposition of it was her communion to have bin broken unless it were unlawful for her to impose the worshipping of What is no creature which is God. Ibid. l. 32. I cannot see what his cause would gain by it the certainty of the six Concessions The advantage gain'd by these concessions is considerable because thereby the Dispute is reduced to narrower and certain bounds and so many Objections prevented as also Opponents silenced such as hold a substantial presence surely that I see not what the Conceders have further to alledge against Adoration Can they plead we want a due object occasion precept or president to adore All then but Zuinglians a few of the latter brood of Protestants are on our side and these by the so much greater suffrage of Christendom are convicted of obstinacy in resisting so credible a judgment Pag. 96. l. 14. This t is true the Papists affirm c. In a kind fit we are allowed by this liberal man to affirm a sign to remain in the Eucharist after consecration distinct from the thing signified but then he speedily retracts so much as will make his concession a cypher For tho we affirm That nothing can outwardly and visibly signify in any Sacrament but what is perceivable by some sense or other and next That whatever is perceivable by any sense together with all the natural properties remains unchanged in the Eucharist And 3ly That we consecrate in the same elements wherein our 0203 069 Lord instituted the Sacrament yet because in defiance to Tradition Reason Revelation and the universal profession of all times and Churches till Luther arose we cannot believe that the same thing can be substantially Bread and Flesh and because we cannot think that substance to be there which sense cannot tell us is there and Scripture c assures us is not there therefore this Minister denies ours to be such a symbol as our Lord instituted and to be brief declares it really nothing Thus nothing must be an object of sense and all that is symbolical in the Eucharist must be the substance of the Elements which no sense can immediately perceive Pag. 97. l. 32. This is indeed a sort of new Divinity I always thought c. Alass That People should be so disrespectful as not to conform their Notions to this Answerers and so rude as to write Divinity wherein he is not vers'd But Old Divines reply The incivility or oversight is not in them but in this Minister who mounts the chair when he should be in a lower Form and will needs be scribling controversie before he has stay'd a due season in his Study For to their knowledg the word Sacrament has a manifold sense and is a complex term used therefore variously with respect to the subject of which Authors treat just as they do Christ Emanuel c. sometimes signifying by them God alone sometimes Man sometimes both Whereupon Bishop Bramhall and Mr. Thorndike tho more knowing are less nice than this Minister and without scruple admit the word Sacrament to be capable of more than one sense which might have protected the former part of the Assertion from derision as the 6th Canon of the 13th Sess of the Council of Trent does advance the other part viz. that by worshiping the Sacrament Catholicks understand worshipping Christ in the Sacrament beyond a private which the Man concedes to a Catholick Assertion which he is loath to yeild How shall we assure Protestants concerning our Faith if a Canon of the Council of Trent so sacred and authentick amongst us in matters of Faith be refused Here 's a Canon accurately publishing what all the Members of the Catholick Church must assent-to and profess and yet lest he be depriv'd of the opportunity of slandring us this Minister will not resolve that we believe as it prescribes Hard is our case since neither our selves nor our Divines nor yet our Councils must be regarded but any silly conceited Sectary shall be better able to tell what we believe than we our selves or those that guide our Souls What we do not hold that is our Faith and what we do believe that is not our Faith according to our Adversaries and why so if not that their false Accusations may continue and improve an odium on us and delusion amongst the Multitude Pag. 100. l. 6. I must then deny his Assertion viz. That the ground of our Adoration is Christ present not present after this or that manner The Answerer will have the 3d Assertion capable of being taken two ways passing the one and opposing the other But what if they be coincident If Christ be the object of our worship as seems tho saintly to be granted under the 2d Assertion then a Real presence of him and not the manner of that presence is the ground and occasion of our adoration without any regard whether He be solitary or attended by another substance Christ we say not the manner of existence in the Virgin 's womb in a Manger on the Cross in the Grave in Glory or in the Eucharist is the motive and object of our worship For if any one manner of existence were our inducement to adore when that ceases we should owe no adoration whereupon it must necessarily follow that we should as much adore if Consubstantiation were as now Transubstantiation is the mode of Presence we believe because this is not the presence it self but a circumstance of it not at all considered in the act of adoring neither as object which nor as reason why we adore Or thus to Jesus Christ existing substantially in the Eucharist we direct our adoration without respect to the coexistence or absence of any other substance for if we worship'd him upon the account that another substance is or is not coexistent we must condemn worshiping in either our selves or the Lutherans which we do not they worshiping with a belief that another substance is we that no other is there Whereupon as if no substance of the elements remains after consecration they are only mistaken in their faith not in their worship only misbelieve do not commit Idolatry so if the substance do remain this will only affect our perswasion not impair our adoration we err about a creature we do not idolize it Nay were our worship directed to Jesus Christ as alone and so confusedly or in general to the whole substance of the Eucharist and it should chance to be true that our Lord is not the only substance present under the species yet hence a just charge of Idolatry could not be drawn against us because the precise object of our worship is not any created substance but the divine person of our Redeemer and the other concomitant substance whatever it may by accident does intentionally no more share in the honor we pay than would the Scarlet Robe should our Lord have bin adored instead of derided therein He that adored him at
is so § XXXV To conclude this point If we look upon the judgment of some Reformed writers concerning this Transubstantiatory idolatry it is either not at all or but faintly asserted by them See Dr. Hammond of Idol sect 64 65 66. where tho he doth not excuse it from being material tho perhaps not in them formal idolatry yet he grants it to come much short of the Idolatry of the Heathen contrary to the quotations he makes out of Costerus sect 62. and how far excusable ignorance and that founding it self upon the word of God mistaken may make it he saith he will not determine and that he will hope that it may be far from being irremissible to him who hath reformed his other known sins and for all known and unknown is truly humbled And indeed those writers must either allow it to be such a gentle Idolatry as that the practice thereof died in and it neither particularly confessed nor repented of yet excludes not from salvation or else they must damn all those who lived in the visible communion of the Church Catholick for five or six hundred years by their own confession Here the same Dr. Tailor that speaks so vehemently against it in Real Presence p. 341. parallelling there tho not proving it the grosness and culpableness of the Roman with that of the Heathen idolaters Yet in his lib. of Prophecy 20. s. 16 17 18. n. speaking on this manner That the Romanist giving worship to no undue object as the Heathen did and if they thought Christ not present being so far from worshiping Bread in this case that themselves profess it idolatry to do so this is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical That idolatry hath so great a tincture and residency in the will that from thence only it hath its being criminal I suppose he means from the will as by its perverseness someway against reason blinding the judgment That the will of the Transubstantialist hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to idolatry and nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas That a divine worship is given also by them only to Christ but they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence Whilst all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of divine adoration incommunicable to any creature whatsoever and they before they venture to pass an act of adoration believe the bread to be annihilated or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshiped and that they who have such thoughts are as much enemies of idolatry as they who understand better c. For their motives to such opinion that they have a divine revelation whose literal and grammatical sence if that sence were intended he omits that they also gather this sence from Church Tradition would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the circle that Transubstantiation being openly and violently against natural reason is no argument to make them disbelieve the Trinity c with as much violence to the principles of natural and suparnatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation See Spalato Rep. Eccles 7. l. 11. c. Respondeo saith he me nullum idololatricum crimen adoratione Eucharistiae si recte dirigatur intentio agnoscere Qui enim docent panem non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi illi profecto panem non adorant sed solum ex suppositione i.e. that his Body is under the species instead of the bréad licet falsa Bishop Forbes adds 2. l. 2. c. 9. s. non tamen haeretica aut impia vel directe pugnante cum fide Christi corpus vere adorabile adorant See Bishop Forbes 14. sect where shewing the Greek and Eastern Church as well as the Roman to use it he concludes Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere damnare As for the concessions of Roman writers of the grosness of their idolatry beyond any heathen that is further than any of their adversaries will charge it upon them if the bread should happen to remain if this be their meaning and not rather that if they ex professo worship bread they labour to advance it the higher the more to shew the impossiblity that such an error for so many hundred years in the universal Church of Christ assisted by our Saviour to the end of the world and the pillar of truth should be entertained thinking the greatness of this if a crime a good argument of the Christians innocence therein whilst perhaps in some smaller matter she might be liable to a mistake § XXXVI An account of the variance in the doctrine of the Eucharist in latter times Thus much in answer to the former replies Now to shew you yet more fully the reasonable motives a Christian may have of submission to the doctrine decided by Councils concerning Transubstantiation or corporal presence of Christ's Body with the symbols and consequently to the practice of Adoration which Daille grants du droit to follow from the other so that that tenent being excusable this practice is nay the omission of the second in one perswaded of the first would not be blameless I will in the last place give you a short account of the progress of the doctrine of the Eucharist after the more primitive times and so conclude this Discourse § XXXVII 1. T is granted by Mr. Blondel that there was no difference in nor any alteration of this doctrine till in the Eastern Church after 700. A. D. in the Latin Church after 800. See 15. c. and 18. c. Therefore in Gregory the Great 's time who flourished Ann. 600. there was yet no change Now he it was that put the last hand to the Canon of the Mass which is now used in the Roman Church See Chemnit exam 2. part p. 828 and see Dr. Field of the Church Append. to 3. lib. p. 188. where out of Durand's Rationale he saith That Ambrose out of the ancienter Liturgies having in some things enlarged and perfected a form called afterward The Ambrosian Service and Gelasius Bishop of Rome likewise composed another Gregory and the Church of Rome entertained Gelasius his form Gregory having first added detracted changed some things therein where note that Bellarmin de Missa 2. l. 19.20 c. tells the story a little otherwise and saith out of Diaconus That Gregory Gelasianum codicem coarctavit and out of Gregory himself Ep. 73. lib. 7. se restituisse in Missa antiquas consuctudines sustulisse quaedam quae postea irrepserant but then he is noted by Diaconus and others to have added de novo to the Canon only those words diesque nostros in pace tua disponas and the other Western Churches still continued to use the Ambrosian Service that Charles the Great afterward forced these Churches to leave off the Ambrosian Service tho in
this is to be worshiped with Divine worship 2. For the signs species or visible accidents to which no other worship is due besides that reverence which belongs to the instruments of holy worship 3. For both the sign and thing signified together and thus understood the Sacrament is not properly said to be worshiped tho improperly it may because part of it the res Sacramenti is to be worshiped and that which belongs to the principal part is ordinarily attributed to the whole as a man understands thinks argues c tho these be only the actions of the Soul. The like distinction serves also for the word Hoast Hostia which these writers seem to lay as a stumbling-block before the ignorant For it is sometimes used for the outward signs species or whatever is visible before consecration and is not to be worshiped sometimes for the Lord himself as in Eph. 5.2 who alone in proper speaking is to be worshiped But having occasion by God's blessing in convenient time to speak more copiously upon this subject we shall here add no more § 5 Thus have we briefly set down what we conceive necessary to explicate the Doctrine of the Catholick Church in this great mystery sufficiently also we hope to instruct them who intend their salvation who are not desirous a lye should be the truth nor prefer their own uncertain conjectures against God's Church Whom also we seriously admonish to beware of those teachers who debase and lower the great grace and mercy of God communicated to us by our Lord who is made unto us wisdom as well as justice and sanctification by debasing it to their own fancies which they call reason as did all the ancient Hereticks and Mahomet himself that great false Prophet To take away all mystery out of Christian Religion is to vilify it and to abolish the virtue of faith and advancement of the understanding and thereby also of piety and devotion For it is no wonder that those sublime and holy passions or operations experienced by devout persons are by such people ridiculed to say no worse For if the Heroical acts of Faith are denied and despised it must needs follow that those great favours bestowed by God upon his best servants must neither be enjoyed nor credited But omitting these matters let us proceed to examin some such few particulars in the Replier's Discourse as seem to contain something considerable For it would be too much abusing the Reader 's time and patience to discover or reprehend all the errors of that Pamphlet wherein I know not if there be any one period that is not obnoxious § 6 To omit the first Chap. containing nothing of consequence we will take notice of the second which seems to be to purpose Our Author 's chief design was to shew the Alterations of the Church of England after her departure from the Church Catholick both in Doctrine and Practice taking this one Article as an instance in both In this chapter the Replier takes notice of these alterations and tho he would gladly deny them yet is it a thing so manifest that he rather thinks fitting to diminish them and notwithstanding the alterations to affirm that the Church of England never changed Little alterations he calls them and yet saith they are the terms of her communion Nothing certainly is little in the Church'es forms especially in our most venerable and solemn worship and the very chiefest and most important service of God even the only holy sacrifice of our Religion and admitting us to and feeding us at his own Table not little that Article upon which they chiefly justify their departure from the Church and by which they continually keep their subjects in disobedience unto and alienation from Her not little which contains the terms of the Church'es communion so that he who assents not to these however differing in their several seasons i.e. he that did not believe the Real presence at the first setting forth the Common Prayer-book and he that did believe it at the second was holden as excommunicate Not little to the disobedience whereof such severe Penalties were imposed both by Acts of Parliament and Canons of 1603. Again if so little why would they for them change those of the Ancient Church except it were for an extreme itch of separating from God's Church the formality and essence of Schism Ib. This design is impertinent No it was the very primary intention of the Author as is plain enough But admit the Church of England hath wavered in her Doctrines as our Author proves irrefragably it follows that she disclaims the authoritative conduct of her subjects by whose doctrines except they submit to so many changes they can never be secure and they who do change cannot keep the unity of the faith which themselves alter but are more like to children unconstant uncertain hurried about with every new blast of doctrine as a powerful person of a different perswasion or interest pleaseth to command This is not the end for which our Good Lord ordained the Clergy his Successors In the beginning of King Edward VI. Reign at the framing of a new Common prayer-book was asserted the Real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist as hath already and by God's assistance shall be more shew'd by and by In his latter end this doctrine was changed to Zuinglianism In Q. Elizabeths time both were joyned in the form of the Liturgy but the declaration against Real presence was omitted which in the Rubric in 1661 was lick'd up again Likewise also the Catechism was changed In King Edward's time the Eucharist was expressed in Zuinglius's notions which in Q. Elizabth's time were omitted and in King James's time those for a Real presence inserted The Articles also were new modell'd the first that I can find were towards the later end of King Edward against the Real presence Q. Elizabeth altered them again leaving out those things seeming to her scandalous and against the Real presence And indeed the Articles were not framed to declare the true doctrine of Religion according to the word of God interpreted by the Catholick Church but for avoiding diversities of opinions amongst themselves establishing some sort of consent and healing the increasing ulcers amongst the teachers of the newly changed Religion Again why doth she punish Dissenters since her self dissents frequently from her self and consequently hath taught that which is false So who can have confidence that in believing her faith or obedience to her commands he endangereth not his salvation Even at this day the Replier and his party teach contrary to the former learned men of their own Church and by their own practice confirm this accusation against their Church Adore the Elements Either the Replier knows that all Catholicks declare which none but God and themselves can disprove that they detest the adoration of any creature and of the Elements in the Eucharist and then he voluntarily calumniates
or what was the little further than was fit that they were forced to strain Next here 's another retreat to the Pacifick Humor to evade passages out of these Authors not proposed as terms of agreement or abatements to be yeilded or winkt at in order to an union but as certain truths justly maintain'd by the one side and perversly denied by the other the Quotations are true and they are conclusive but now the end and so the authority of the Authors must come into contempt and their design overthrow their evidence But what Is committing and defending Idolatry as they do if this man be in the right in them but straining a little more than is fit and in us a crime never to be sufficiently aggravated Pag. 91. l. 1. Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine c. The Discourser allows that to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church which she not which any private Doctor without her allowance declares to be so and supposes tho not Bishop Taylor yet Bishop Andrews and King James to be of like authority with the genuine Sons of the Church of England as a Council is with us The reason is because the Head of the English Church hath all that Spiritual Power any Ecclesiastical person or persons ever challenged or exercised in England and may delegate it as the King did to Bishop Andrews in this case If the Minister had told us where St. Thomas Paludanus and Catherine assure him 't is Idolatry to Adore an unconsecrated Host thro mistake we might have understood what species of Idolatry they had esteem'd it since Protestants have lately discover'd a damnable and a saving sort of Idolatry for if of the later kind the danger incurr'd by an invincible mistake is inconsiderable However this we may learn thence That those Doctors did not hold either the substance or accidents of the Host unconsecrated Adorable nor did Adore either of them in an Host consecrated but something else that by Consecration became present in the Eucharist unless we can imagine they had there two objects adorable or made Christ and what remain'd after Consecration but one thing The Minister had dealt more ingenuously too if he had nam'd the several of our Writers that make our Adoration a worse Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty-of because the Person to whom that is imputed is abus'd if all be true the Answer to Dr. More tells us p. 47. viz. That the Doctor mistook Costerus his Ground of confessing at such a rate and moreover foisted in Transubstantiation which is not there Costerus arguing only thus If the true Body of Christ be not in the Eucharist Christ has dealt unworthily with his Church fail'd of his engagements to lead her into all truth and holiness and on the contrary seduc'd her by his own words to a fundamental impiety whereupon he could not be a true Christ and she must have worshipt not only a true object where it is not but an Impostor also and an object absolutely incapable of such Honour because Christ must then be not only a meer Creature but as Mahomet or Satan one of the worst of Creatures Ibid. l. 8. For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I find it thus clearly set down in the Council of Trent c. We understand why he chuses to give our Doctrine out of the Chapter rather than out of the Canon It is not his way to represent our Points with the right side outward but if He will be so equal as to accept of such answers as himself hath often give the mist he raises before his Reader 's Eyes will be quickly dispell'd For if the sixth Canon of the same Session may interpret the fifth Chapter the illusion is escap'd if it may not why has he so often vexed us with Replies of the same nature which he despises His translation too of the Chapter is not accurate and tho I discern no great advantage got by this ill version yet his whole carriage in this controversie is so unhandsom that I fear I ought to complain rather of his sincerity than Learning Is quin exhibeant render'd well ought to give Or Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo D. ut sumatur institutum done rightly into for it is nevertheless to be adored because it was instituted by our Lord Christ that it might be receiv'd This is not the sense of that Clause but rather thus It is not the less to be Adored tho it were instituted by our Lord Christ to be Received This to shew the Minister's Translating Talent Now for his Arguing That according to this Council is to be worshipp'd which Christ instituted to be receiv'd Right He instituted that his Body Sacramentally existing should be received and this the Council says may be worshipped And in which they believe Christ to be present False Not it wherein Christ is present but Christ present in it is that the Council says may be Ador'd But Sir to expostulate with you a while for your treacherous method Why did you pick out the chapter and not the canon to shew our undoubted Doctrine Were you not aware there was such a canon wherein our Faith was contain'd as undoubtedly and more precisely even above the cavil and misunderstanding of either the Malignant or those they seduce Was it because you would have been depriv'd of a convenience to delude your People the complex and ambiguous terms Sacrament or Host as you fondly express our Doctrine there affording you no fallacies The canon does exclude all your pretences that we Adore the symbols or species with Divine worship which you would insinuate by your calling our Adoration an Adoration of the Sacrament or Host Tho these terms as Mr. Thorndike observes suggest to such as make not cavilling their business no other than the adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament Did you not peruse what is written from § 11. to § 17. in the 2d Treatise on purpose to vindicate our Doctrine from Dr. Taylor 's and Dr. Stilling feeet's comments and prevent such tricks as you now play Will no Answers satisfy you no cautions retrench your exorbitances but still such wild and malicious and seigned notions must be repeated by every little smatterer in Theology as if never exposed by us and all this to ingratiate with the vulgar grow famous and obtain pluralities Sine-cures and Dignities for such service against Popery Are you ignorant that a Council may express it self less or more distinctly or obscurely concerning a point without derogating from either its authority or infallibility as serving in the one and failing in the other unless whatever is determined by authority or infallibility must be equally perspicuous is Scripture so and all their chapters as exact as their creeds When you remember the Canon are you remorseless for writing that this Assertion by adoring the Sacrament no more nor other is intended than adoring Christ
in the Sacrament must pass for a private opinion not a Catholick assertion Where does the Discourser seem to grant the Church's expression improper Does he not on the contrary tell you that Soave and all humble Sons of the Church are obliged to take Ecclesiastical language as well as Christian sense from her i. e. that her expressions with her interpretations are proper tho in your mouth attended with your perversions they become a snare How many Ecclesiastical phrases has the Church bin constrain'd to proscribe thro this pravity of seducers that imploy her orthodox terms to maintain or convey their impieties That the Word is of like substance to his Father that our B. Lady is the Mother of Christ are sentences capable of a sound sense and might be used without suspicion or offence till the Arians and Nestorians mis-imploy'd them Thus it is with adoring the Sacrament or Host the Church and Catholick Doctors have rightly used these expressions and we all understand them accordingly but in England where they are wrested to purposes the Church never dream't of we justly except against them and choose to deliver our selves so as shall be most secure from calumny When therefore you contest with us either take our terms in our sense or you beat the air As to Cardinal Palavicini's words they amount to this only that we are not to withold Adoration to a while whereof onely out part is sovereignly adorable till the several parts exist separately for if so we shall never adore our Lord they do not import that in adoring the whole we give sovereign worship to the species or own them to have any motive for or to be the end of such Adoration for we do not allow so much to our Lord's Humanity abstractedly considered much less to his Garments or the Sacramental veils Wherefore if by Sacrament and Host this Answerer would mean what the Church does the res Sacramenti our Lord sacramentally existing we joyn issue with him that t is our undoubted Doctrine That the Sacrament or Host is adorable but if he intends otherwise as we have too much occasion to conclude he does the Council in the very chapter cited by him corrects his corruption of our Doctrine in adding to this purpose for her reason of adoring the Sacrament in the Sacrament That is adored wherein there is an innate motive or excellence why we should worship it and which therefore alone can be the object and end of our worship for at this it aims in adding For we believe the very same God present in the Sacrament of whom at his introducing into the world the Father saith Let all the Angels adore him So that this wise and ever to be received Synod as it were foreseeing that men would arise speaking perverse things prudently acquaints us with its sense of adoring the Sacrament as soon as it had declared that it may be done strait pointing to whom the worship is directed and on whom terminated on him that is in it non on it that signifies and conceals him Pag. 93. l. 28. I have fully shewn this new fancy to be neither the Doctrine of the Church of England nor c. Having granted the first three Protestant concessions he stands at the fourth upon a pretence that he has already refuted the Authorities whereon it is founded which is untrue as is manifest above where this Champion's atchievements are displayed and revers'd and besides to back this fourth Proposition new Authorities are annex'd from Bishop Cosins Archbishop Bramhal and Monsieur Daille to which he is mute retiring from them without the least notice or reflection Pag. 94. l. 32. So that then with this limitation his 5th Proposition that the Lutherans adore I presume may be admitted c. If the Answerer adhere to what he concedes p. 87.93 i.e. in the first Supposition and third Protestant concession in consequence of their opinion they all ought to adore if they do not and Chemnitius agrees as much saying No man denies it adoration but such as with the Sacramentaries deny or doubt of the Presence of Christ in the Supper Pag. 95. l. 12. We are ready to admit it the 6th Concession That the belief of a Real presence is not so criminal as to oblige them to break communion always supposing that the belief of it had not bin pressed c. Then the Protestants have generally mistaken their business in spending their raillery hitherto not on the mischief of imposition but chiefly on the erroneousness of our tenets and enormity of our practices as both very destructive to salvation and Dissenters do well to insist on the heinousness of injoyning as a term of communion what they can discern to be no better than humane inventions If the belief of a Real presence be no such pernicious corruption neither can Adoration that follows upon it how then can the imposition of such inconsiderable things outweigh in guilt a rupture of Catholick communion and a violation of charity together with all the deadly sins of Fanaticisin and enmity springing from division and loosness The points are almost harmless and indifferent our Adversaries confess but if imposed as a necessary Article of communion and the disobedient anathematized then the Church may be defied and the belief and practice become so criminal as to justify a separation suppose of one Minister from all Christians So that when the Faith and customs of the Catholick Church give no colour for a Schism the exercise of her Authority may and she becomes as an heathen or a publican for requiring such to hear her whom our Lord hath declared shall be accounted so for not hearing her and she must either relax her Discipline enlarge or contract the conditions of her Society as every individual shall demand tho they neither think nor live as she prescribes or become schismatical If private Christians must be Arbiters what shall or shall not be terms of Catholick communion why may not some as justly recede from the Church because she does not as others because she does impose terms whereat these have a pique and wherewith those are pleased the Novatian Donatist and Luciferian charge against the Church was That its communion was promiscuous and Latitudinarian The Accusation was false yet they were right in this that there are certain terms of Christian communion which are indispensably to be submitted to by all that will be members of the Catholick Church tho all the terms they accounted such were not so and not themselves but the Church was to distinguish But here the strictness of communion is our sault and comprehension would make either no Sectaries or them mexcusable However from Daille's granting that if the Church of Rome had obliged her children to worship Christ in the Sacrament she had not obliged them to worship a creature we conclude she did not impose Idolatry because t is certain she never obliged them to worship any thing in the Sacrament but