as much as he and doth not himself say several times That Catholicks condemn the worshipping of a mere creature for Idolatry See § 4. p. 120. If saith he it should be but a mere creature that I adore all the World cannot excuse me from Idolatry and my own Church he means the Roman condemns me all agreeing that this is gross Idolatry Again p. 119. It is saith he a principle indisputable among them i. e. Catholicks that to give proper divine honour to a creature is Idolatry Again p. 126. he saith he finds it generally agreed by the Doctors of the Roman Church that the Humane Nature of Christ considered alone i. e. without an Hypostatical union to the Divinity ought not to have divine honour given to it and therefore neither any other creature whatever that is not Hypostatically united as none besides It is All these I say faulty and mistaken in charging the Church of Rome with this species of Idolatry of worshipping a creature the Bread instead of Christ from which the other Protestants clear it § 32 Lastly Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry § 64. upon supposition that the ignorance or error of Catholicks is grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture I add so expounded to them by the supreme Church-Authority seems to charge them rather with a material than a formal Idolatry which material Idolatry in many cases is or may be committed without sin as also material Adultery and the like His words are That if it be demanded Whether in this case that their ignorance or error be grounded on misunderstanding of Scripture this so simple and not gross ignorance may serve for a sufficient antidote to allay the poison of such a sin of material tho' perhaps in them not formal Idolatry c. because if they were not verily perswaded that it were God they profess they would never think of worshipping it he had no necessity to define and satisfie it being only to consider what Idolatry is and not how excusable ignorance or mistake can make it And indeed Protestant Writers that will have it to be Idolatry are concerned to make it such a gentle one 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 § 33 9. Mean-while Catholicks willingly grant to Protestants that for which Daille's Apology of the Reformed Churches c. 2. p. 98. much contendeth in their behalf That to Adore that which the Adorer believes not to be our Lord but Bread or to perform the external signs of Adoration to our Lord as present there where the worshipper believes he is not is unlawful to be done by any so long as the person continues so perswaded For Conscientia erronea obligat But then if we suppose the Church justly requiring such Adoration upon such a true Presence of our Lord neither will the same person be free from sinning greatly in his following such his conscience and in his not adoring disobedience to the Churches just commands being no light offence Neither for the yielding such obedience in general is it necessary that the Churches Subjects be absolutely certain of the rightness or lawfulness of the Churches Decrees or Commands For thus the more ignorant in spiritual matters and the things commanded that any person is the more free and released should he be from all obedience the contrary of which is true But sufficient it is even in the stating of judicious Protestant Divines when writing against Puritans see Considerations on the Council of Trent § 295. n. 3 4. that such persons be not absolutely certain that the Churches commands are unjust and that they do in something demonstratively contradict God's Law which plain contradiction if a private person can see it 't is strange the Church should not And as to this particular matter after the Churches motives of Adoration that are delivered before § 24 c. well considered I leave the Reader to judge whether such a pretended certainty can have any solid ground It is better indeed to forbear an action when we are not certain of the lawfulness thereof provided that we are certain that in such forbearance we do not sin But thus certain of our not sinning in such forbearance we cannot be concerning any thing that is enjoyned us by our lawful and Canonical Superiors whom we are obliged to obey unless as hath been said we are first certain that such their command is unlawful And hitherto of this Controversie where the Two main things that seem worthy to be examined by any Christian who in this point seeks satisfaction are 1. Whether the Roman Catholick's grounds of believing Christ's Corporal Presence in the Eucharist with the Symbols are solid and true 2. And next Whether this Church for any ones enjoying her Communion exacts more of him than the confessing that Christ as present there is also there to be adored whilst mean-while such person renounceth and declares against any adoration or if you will co-adoration of the species or any other thing whatever there present with any Latria or supreme worship proper or improper or with any other honour or reverence save only such an inferior veneration as is exhibited by us to other Holy Things FINIS
than for adoration as to teach them to suffer for them c. Might not the Magi worship him lying in the Cratch divested of all appearance of Majesty without a special command from God But it is sufficient to warrant our practice of them if in respect of such time and place there be no express prohibition § 2 2. I suppose that where-ever the Body of our Lord is there is his whole person it being no more since his Resurrection to be a dead body for Christ dieth no more Rom. 6.9 but having the Soul joyned with it as likewise ever since the Incarnation having also its hypostasis or subsistence from the Divinity joyned with it even when it was in the Grave and the Soul severed from it § 3 3. I suppose it is a thing granted also by learned Protestants That where ever this Body of our Lord is present there this Divine Person is supremely adorable As the Divinity every where present is every where adorable and may be so adored in the presence or before any of his Creatures if such adoration be directed to him not it as when I see the Sun rising I may lawfully fall down on my knees and bless the Omnipotent Creator of it and see 1 Cor. 14.24 25. may be I say but not must for where there is only such a general presence of the Divinity as is in every time place and thing here our Adoration may and must be dispensed with as to some times and places None likewise can deny That the Humanity of our Lord also in a notion abstractive from the Divinity personally united to it is truly adorable tho' this with a worship not exceeding that due to a Creature § 4 For the lawfulness of Adoration where ever is such a presence of the person of our Lord see Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. p. 195. Christus ipse Sacramenti res sive in cum Sacramento sive extra sine Sacramento ubi-ubi est adorandus est Thus also Dailié Apol. des â—glis Reform c. 10. Apol. des Eglis Reform c. 10. who in pitching especially on this point Adoration of the Eucharist as hindring the Protestants longer stay in the Roman Communion hath in this Discourse and in two Replies to Chaumont made afterward in defence of it discussed it more particularly than many others in answer to S. Ambrose and S. Austin their adoring the flesh of Christ in the Mysteries The Humanity of Jesus Christ saith he personally united to the Divinity is by consequence truly and properly adorable And again They only adored Jesus Christ in the Sacrament which is the thing we agree to And ibid. p. 29. We do willingly adore Jesus Christ who is present in the Sacrament namely by Faith in the heart of the Communicants c. And see Dr. Stillingfleet in his Roman Idol c. 2. p. 114. The Question saith he between us is not whether the person of Christ is to be worshipped with Divine worship for that we freely acknowledge And altho' the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason for adoration he must mean Divine yet being considered as united to the Divine Nature that cannot hinder the same Divine worship being given to his Person which belongs to his Divine Nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him Tho' how well that which he saith before ibid. § 2. as it seems against worshipping Christ supposed present in the Eucharist without a special command to do it consists with what he saith here and with what follows let him look to it 4. It is affirmed by many Protestants §. 5. n. 1. especially those of the Church of England that this Body and Blood of our Lord is really present not only in virtue but in substance in the Eucharist either with the Symbols immediately upon the Consecration or at least so as to be received in the Eucharist together with the Symbols by every worthy Communicant and that this Body and Blood of our Lord which is not severed from his Person is then to be worshipped with supreme Adoration See 1. for a substantial presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist I mean at least to the worthy Receiver contradistinct to a Presence by effect only Influence Virtue Grace or the Holy Spirit uniting us to Christ's Body in Heaven Dr. Taylor of Real Presence p. 12. When the word Real saith he is denied i. e. by Protestants as it was in King Edward's time the word Real is taken for Natural i. e. as he explains it p. 5. including not only the nature of the Body for that is the substance but the corporal and natural manner of its existence he goes on But the word substantialiter is also used by Protestants in this question which I suppose may be the same with that which is in the Article of Trent Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator substantia sua nobis adest in substance but after a Sacramental manner See the Confession of Beza and the French Protestants related by Hosp Hist. Sacram. part ult p. 251. Fatemur in coena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia sed ipsam etiam Filii hominis substantiam ipsam inquam veram carnem verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat aut symbolice typice vel figurate proponi tanquam absentis memoriam sed vere ac certo repraesentari exhiberi applicanda offerri adjunctis symbolis minime nudis sed quae quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem offerentem attinet semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant sive fidelibus sive infidelibus proponantur Again Beza Epist 68. speaking against Alemannus and some others who opposed a substantial presence Volunt saith he ex-Gallica Confessione Art 36. Liturgia Catech. Din. 53. ex pungi substantiae vocem idcirco de industria passim a Calvino a me usurpatam ut eorum calumniae occarreremus qui nos clamitant pro re Sacramenti non ipsum Christum sed ejus duntaxat dona energiam ponere And Epist. 5. he argues thus against the same Alemannus Velim igitur te imprimis intueri Christi verba Hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis traditur Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis funditur Age pro his vocibus Corpus Sanguis dicamus Hoc est efficacia mortis meae quae pro vobis traditur Hic est Spiritus meus qui pro vobis effunditur Quid ineptius est hac oratione Nam certe verba illa Quod pro vobis traditur Qui pro vobis funditur necessario huc te adigunt ut de ipsamet Corporis Sanguinis substantia hoc intelligere cogaris See Hooker Eccles Pol. 5. l. 67. § p. 357. Wherefore should the world continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversy saving only
ex duabus rebus terrena coelesti compositam esse And of S. Gregory dial 4. l. 58. c. In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari terrena exlestibus jungi unum ex visibilibus ac invisibiltbus fieri So that tho' these symbols and Christ's Body may be said to make unum aggregatum yet if this be only the species or accidents of die Bread and Wine that remains these cannot be said to have any inherence in this Body of Christ tho' it is true on the other side that being accidents only they cannot be said to make a distinct suppositum from it or if a substance remain this cannot be said to have any hypostatical union or to make one suppositum with our Lord's Divinity or Humanity as our Lord's Humanity hath such an union with his Divinity From which it is observed by Dr. Taylor Real Presence p. 336. That therefore still there is the less reason for Romanists to give any Divine worship as he saith they do to the symbols Far therefore are Catholicks from granting what a late Author * Stilligst Rom. Idol P. 128. pretends they do but that which he alledgeth no way shews it as great an hypostatical union between Christ and the Sacrament as between the Divine and Humane Nature § 10 This external sign or symbol they also affirm to be all that of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any sense And tho' after such Consecration the substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive virtue of the Bread nor nothing visible nor tangible or otherwise perceptible by any sense are involved in it Of which signs also they predicate many things which they will by no means allow to be properly said of or at least to be received in or effected by or upon Christ's Body now immortal and utterly impassible So sapere digeri nutrire confortare corporaliter and again frangi dentibus comburi rodi a brutis animalibus and whatever other things may be named excepting only those attributes which in general are necessary to indicate the presence of Christ's Body to us with the species whilst integrae as the local positions elevari recondi ore recipi c. they apply to these symbols that remain not to Christ's Body which is indivisibly there Christus vere in sacramento existens nullo modo laedi potest non cadit in terram id enim proprie cadit saith he quod corporaliter movetur so also anima non cadit non teritur non roditur non putrescit non crematur illa enim saith Bellarmin * De Eucharist 3. l. 10. c. in speciebus istis recipiuntur sed Christum non afficiunt § 11 2. Concerning Adoration of the Sacrament they affirm the word Sacrament not to be taken always in the same sense but sometimes to be used to signify only the external signs or symbols sometimes only the res Sacramenti or the thing contained under them which is the much more principal part thereof And as Protestants much press so Catholicks willingly acknowledge a great difference between these two the worshipping of the Sacrament as this word is taken for the symbols and the worshipping of Christ's Body in the Sacrament Now as the word Sacrament is taken for the Symbols they acknowledge a certain inferior cult and veneration due thereto as to other holy things the holy Chalices the holy Gospels the holy Cross c. of which Veneration much hath been spoken in the Discourse of Images § 42. c. but they acknowledge no supreme or divine Adoration due to the Sacrament as taken in this sense for the Symbols but only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in this Sacrament or with these Symbols So that be these Symbols of what latitude you will either larger as the Lutheran believes or straiter as the Catholicks say they are or be they not only these but the substance of bread also under them as Catholicks believe it is not yet neither those species nor this substance have any divine Adoration given or acknowledged due to them at all no more than this substance of bread believed there by the Lutherans yet hath from them any such Adoration given to it § 12 That Catholicks thus by Adoration of the Sacrament with Latria only understand that of the res Sacramenti the Adoration of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament see Conc. Trid. sess 13. c. 5. Omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in venerations exhibeant Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus quem Pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit Et adorent eum omnes Angeli Dei quem Magi procidentes adoraverunt Where tho' the Council useth the expression of exhibiting latriae cultum Sacramento yet that this cultus latriae is not applied to the Sacrament as it implies the Sign or Symbol but only the thing signified both the words joined to it qui vero Deo debetur which signifies the Council maintains that to be God they gave this cultus latriae to and the explication annexed Nam illum eundem Deum c. may sufficiently convince to any not obstinately opposite Neither do those words interposed Neque enim ideo Sacramentum minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo Domino ut sumatur institutum any way cross such a sense as a late Author * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol c. 2. §. 2. p. 117. too confidently presseth saying That by Sacrament here the Council must understand the Elements or Accidents as the immediate term of that divine worship or else the latter words i. e. quod fuerit a Domino institutum ut sumatur signify nothing at all For what saith he was that which was instituted by the Lord as a Sacrament was it not the external and visible Signs or Elements why do thy urge That the Sacrament ought not the less to be adored because it was to be taken but to take of the common objection That we ought not to give divine worship to that which we eat And what can this have respect to but the Elements Thus argues he When as he might know that the Fathers of Trent who said this do hold the chief thing instituted and exhibited in the Sacrament to be not the Elements but Christ's Body and ipsum corpus Domini to be also orally both taken and eaten tho' not modo naturali carnis or corporis as well as the Elements according to our Lord 's express words Accipite Manducate Hoc est Corpus meum i. e. quod
Body and so Christ as present there and not adoring any other thing whatever substance or accident that is present there or that is also included in the word Sacrament that accusation which her using such language of adoring the Sacrament can seemingly expose her to is at the most not of an error but an improper expression But the propriety of language dutiful Sons ought to learn from not teach their Mother who also speaks that which hath descended to her from former times Neither will it follow from Catholicks using the word Sacrament precisely in this sense exclusively to any other matter save Christ's Body that therefore one may use the word Sacrament promiscuously for Christ's Body in what respect soever we speak of it and as well or as properly say that the Sacrament meaning Christ's Body is in the Heavens at God's right hand or was on the Cross or the like For tho' Sacrament thus applied involves no other subject or thing at all but Christ's Body yet it connotes besides it the place or manner of its presence signifying this Body only as present in the Mysteries not as a term adequate to and convertible with it being in whatever time and place § 15 I think these Testimonies produced both out of the Council of Trent and other Catholick Authors and also out of Protestants confessing so much of them do show sufficiently the great extravagancy of those Protestant Authors who tell their Readers that the state of this controversy is not Whether Christ's Body and so Christ in the Sacrament be adorable with supreme Honours but whether the Sacrament and then by Sacrament are pleased to understand the Symbols and then to confute the Doctrine of Rome argue that no Creature as the Symbols are is capable of Divine Honour The state of the Controversy saith a late Writer of theirs * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 117. is Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a Corporal Presence of Christ under them And against it he affirms That supposing the divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein he is present as I do to Christ himself So Bishop Andrews Rex Christum in Eucharistia vere adorandum statuit at non Sacramentum terrenam scilicet partem And Nos in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus Sacramentum i. e. the Symbols nulli adoramus So Dr. Taylor Real Presence p. 335. The Commandement to Worship God alone is so express the distance between God and Bread dedicated to the service is sovast that if it had been intended that we should have Worshipped the H. Sacrament the H. Scriptures would have called it God or Jesus Christ And Disswasive § 5. p. 76. he affirms the Church of Rome to give Divine Honour to the Symbols or Elements and so to a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God So they vainly also undertake to shew that the Primitive Church did not terminate their Adoration upon the Elements that the Fathers when they speak of worship speak of worshipping the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries or Symbols not of worshipping the Mysteries or Symbols These I say are great extravagances whilst the Roman Church owns or imposes no such Doctrine of Divine Adoration due to the Elements and the true Controversy on their side is only this 1. Whether the Body and Blood of Christ prescinding from whatever Symbol is or may be there is adoreable as being present in the Sacrament with these symbols This is affirmed by Catholicks more than this needs not be so And 2. Whether the Adoration of Christ's Body and so of Christ as present if it should not be so will amount to Idolatry § 16 If we here make a further enquiry into the Schoolmen concerning the Adoration or Veneration due to the Symbols they state the same toward them as toward Images the sacred Utensils the H. name of Jesus and other Holy things Omnes saith Vasquez in 3. Thom. tom 1. disp 108. c. 12. eodem modo de speciebus Sacramenti quo de Imaginibus philosophari debent And then of Images we know the Definition of the Second Council of Nice referred to by Trent non latria And for what they say of Images I refer you to the preceding Discourse on them § 42 c. It is true that some of the later Schoolmen to defend the expressions of some of the former have endeavoured to show how a latrical qualified secondary co-adoration may improprie or per accidens be said to be given to the symbols also as sacramentally joyned with our Lord's Body and as this body is as it were vested with them such as say they when Christ was adored here on Earth was given also to his Garments i. e. without making in the act of worship a mental separation of his Person from his Cloths as Bellarmin explains it de Euchar. l. 4. c. 29. Neque enim saith he jubebant Christum vestibus nudari antequam adorarent aut animo cogitatione separabant a vestibus cum adorarent sed simpliciter Christum ut tunc se habebat adorabant tametsi ratio adorandi non erant vestes imo nec ipsa Humanitas sed sola Divinitas Or do allow the giving of the external sign of Latria to them as Bowing to Kissing Embracing them but this without any the least internal act of latria or any other honour or submission directed to them which such inanimate things are uncapable of as Vasquez explains it who is so prodigal of this external sign of honour after he hath stript it of any internal latria or other worship whatever that may accompany it that he allows this external sign not only to all Holy things but to any Creature whatever in our inward adoration mean-while only of God upon the general relation they have to him But indeed such an abstraction of the external sign from an internal honour or respect as other Catholicks censure his opinion makes these outward gestures without any mental intention attending them as to such object like those of a Puppet or Engine utterly insignificant and so Vasquez instead of communicating the latria to Images to the Symbols to other Holy things seems in the judgment of others to allow them no honour or veneration at all and so in seeming to say too much to say too little which hath been more largely discoursed before Of Images § 42. c. And a late Author * Stillingfleet Rom. Idol p. 129. might have done well in mentioning this Author's Opinion to have given also a true relation of it affirming only an external sign of honour given to the creature void of any internal the least respect to them Ita ut tota mentis intentio in Exemplar non in Imaginem or Deum non Creaturam feratur which would easily have taken away all that malignity he fastens
is Idolatry But will any Papist acknowledge that he honours the Elements of the Eucharist or as he thinks the Accidents of them for God Will common Reason charge him to honour that which he believes not to be there If they were there they would not take them for God and therefore they would not honour them for God And that is it not saying that they should be Idolaters if the Elements did remain that must make them Idolaters And Epilogue p. 357. in general he saith Whoso admits Idolatry i. e. in any point whatever to be taught by the Roman Church can by no means grant it to be a Church the very being whereof supposeth the worship of one God exclusive to any thing else The Roman Church then must either be freed from the imputation of commanding any thing that is Idolatry i. e. adoration of a creature for God or we must affirm there to be and to have been no true Church of Christ never since such command of that which they say is Idolatry went forth which no judicious Protestant I think hath or dare say of the Roman Church since the beginning of the Adoration of the Eucharist For what Church or Sect of Religion can be Apostate at all if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry even the worshipping of a piece of Bread which themselves made for that God which made them and Heaven and Earth And thus Bishop Forbes de Euchar. l. 2. c. 2. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur illi Idololatriae crassissimae gravissimae ab his insimulantur damnantur cum plerique Romanenses ut alii fideles credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem sed corpus Christi unde illi non panem adorant sed tantum ex suppositione licet falsa non-tamen haeretica aut impia vel cum fide directe pugnante ut superiore libro ostensum est Christi corpus quod vere adorandum est adorant In Eucharistia enim mente discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo decent ipsi Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen Sacramentum quia species illae sunt res creatae inanimes consequenter incapaces adorationis And Ibid. shewing the Greek and Eastern Church as well as the Roman to use it he concludes Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos Idololatriae arcessere damnare After the same manner the Archbishop of Spalato de Repub. Eccles 7. l. 11. c. n. 6. Respondeo saith he me nullum idololatricum crimen in 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 licet falsa Christi corpus vere adorabile adorant Non enim nostri dicunt species panis vini hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda Bishop Bramhal cited before § 6. The Sacrament is to be adored said the Council of Trent The Sacrament i. e. formally the Body and Blood of Christ say some of your Authors we say the same The Sacrament i. e. the species of Bread and Wine say others that we deny Thus he D. Taylor in his Liberty of Prophesying p. 258. confesseth the Subjects of the Church of Rome no Idolaters in this kind at least so as to worship Bread or any creature with Divine Worship and as God For It is evident saith he that the Object of their Adoration that which is represented to them in their minds their thoughts and purposes and by which God principally if not solely takes estimate of humane actions in the Blessed Sacrament is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy Humanity which Humanity they believe actually under the veil of the Sacramental signs And if they thought Him not present they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical i. e. as to the directing this their divine worship to an undue object § 31 Which things if said right by him and the others the same Dr. Taylor is faulty in his charge in Real Presence p. 334. Faulty I say in charging on the Church of Rome not their worship of a right Object in a some-way unlawful and prohibited manner this we are not here examining but their worship of an undue Object of Adoration of a creature instead of God for so he chargeth them there If saith he there they be deceived in their own strict Article he means of Transubstantiation then it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry in giving divine honour to a mere creature the image the Sacrament and representment of the Body of Christ. Thus he When it is evident that the Object c. is the only true and eternal God c. as he said before in the place cited and must say if he will say truth So faulty is also Daille Reply to Chaumont p. 63. in his charging the Church of Rome to worship Bread upon this arguing Catholicks adore that substance that is veiled with the accidents of Bread and Wine but this substance is Bread Ergo they adore Bread By which arguing he may as well prove the Lutherans in the Eucharist to adore a Worm or a Mite thus The Lutherans adore that substance which is joyned with the Bread but that substance is a Worm or Mite for such thing may be there with the Bread at such time of Adoration Ergo they adore a Worm Whereas both the Catholick and Lutheran explain the indefinite term that which used in the major Proposition restrictively to the Body of Christ and exclusively to any other substance whatever that is or may be there either with the Bread or under its accidents Faulty also is Dr. Stillingfleet Rom. Idol c. 2. in saying the Protestants controversie with Catholicks is Whether proper Divine Worship in the time of receiving the Eucharist may be given to the Elements on the account of a corporal Presence under them p. 117. And as for the passage in the Council of Trent sess 13. c. 5. urged by him there for it his mistake is shewed before § 12. And so faulty in his concluding p. 118. That the immediate term of that Divine Worship given by Catholicks is the external and visible signs or elements And again p. 124. That upon the principles of the Roman Church no Man can be satisfied that he worships not a mere creature with divine honour when he gives Adoration to the Host whenas Catholicks expound themselves to mean by Host in their Adoration not the Symbols or Sacramentum but rem Sacramenti Again p. 125 127 129. That supposing the Divine Nature present in any thing gives no ground upon that account to give the same worship to the thing wherein it is present Catholicks grant this