yet I would not believe that a contradiction could be verifyed but rather that they were deceiv'd who thought that doctrine to imply a contradiction for if it were plainly reveal'd it would be certainly true and if it were true it would not imply a contradiction For a true proposition has a true meaning but a contradiction has no meaning at all 't is an empty sound of words without any res substrata whatever one part of it means the other unmeans again and so the whole means nothing Besides of two contradictories one is always fals so that to assert a contradiction is to affirm a falshood for a truth and this we are sure God cannot do because he has told us he cannot lye To conclude the Author himself seems to own that God cannot verify a contradiction and he gives a very wise and perspicuous reason for it which I leave to the Reader to consider Again Dr. Taylor is Quoted saying Ibid. that the doctrine of the Trinity does as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation And so say I too yet I profess I can easier conceive it then I can Transubstantiation For this supposes that a natural body being unum numero is at the same time fifteen hundred bodies all numerically distinct whereas the Doctrine of the Trinity says the three persons are one God but it does not say they are one person so that here 's no ad Idem as there is in the other case which implyes a manifest contradiction while the Doctrine of the Trinity implyes none at all The Doctrine of the Trinity transcends natural reason Transubstantiation contradicts it in its own sphere both of them do equal i e. both of them do alike so far offer violence to natural reason that it cannot frame an adequate notion of either Yet still it can conceive what obstructs the credibility of both and that more things do so in one case then another it can easily discern that what transcends it may for all that be true but what contradicts it in its own sphere must needs be false And this it can do without Scripture but by Scripture it can further discover that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true and Transubstantiation utterly false These things are so plain and common that it is nauseous to be forced by an unthinking writer to inculcate them Whoever knows any thing of the reason of his Religion knows all this and how to apply it to Dr. Taylor 's words without my telling him and yet if I had trusted to that these Quotations might perhaps have gone for unanswerable In the next Section we come to a point For since all contradictions are equally possible and credible why says he may not this contradiction that Idem corpus potest esse c. Disc 1. §. 21. p. 14. bid as fair for our belief as another No doubt it may and that for this reason that all contradictions are equally i. e. all of them absolutely impossible and incredible we may as well believe this as another because we can beleive none at all Why then says he I cannot apprehend how you believe a real presence If he cannot apprehend it Ibid. §. 22. p. 15. we cannot help it we do all that a reasonable man need desire to make him apprehend it we speak in plain and intelligible terms We tell him that we think it implyes no contradiction to believe God can do things far above our comprehension and therefore when God tells us that the bread which we break is the Communication of Christ 's body tho' we cannot explain this mystery we can believe it without believing a contradiction and granting this communication the Real Presence may be easily understood and explain'd at least it is no contradiction to say that a body thus mystically communicated may be really present when 't is locally absent as was shew'd before But the Author who has a peculiar way of thinking Ibid. and §. 23 24. can think but of two expedients to evade a contradiction in affirming a real and substantial contra distinct to a Zuinglian Real presence one of which is by holding a Zuinglian Real Presence compare § 22. with § 24. n. 1. and so let that pass The other is by an incomprehensible continuation of Christs body Bishop Vsher would have told him a third and other learned Protestants a fourth but the major part of them will * So for instance Bp. Andrews quoted in the Pamphlet pag 7. §. II. n. 1. De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus addo nec anxie inquirimus c. Inter mysteria ducimus quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi i. e. ut eleganter imprimis Patres fide adorari non ratione discuti tell him 't is needless to enquire after any For the Union of Christ's body to the Soul of a worthy communicant being an inexplicable mystery yet plainly affirm'd in Scripture they with the fathers conclude we have all the reason in the world to believe it but none to attemt explaining it and we can certainly believe it without believing a contradiction tho' he that attemts to explain it may chance to run himself into an inconvenience Notwithstanding some Protestants hold that Christ's Body may be present by an ineffable continuation Disc I. § 23. p. 16. and what has he to say to them Why He thinks he may as probably suppose it Present by an ineffable discontinuation Perhaps not for their Opinion may be an Error but his I doubt is a Bull at least if I rightly understand that abstruse notion of Presence by discontinuation which looks so like a contâ—adiction in terms that to me it is almost inconceivable not for the mystery of it but the non-sense Perhaps the example he gives may a little clear this difficulty The Soul he tells us is totally in the head and foot and if a Spirit may be in two Ubies who can tell but a Body may be in two Places Ibid. That 's a Consequence which I leave to shift for it's self among the Freshmen But I would fain know what the Souls Ubiety makes here for if it serve to any purpose in this question 't is to illustrate a Zuinglian Real Presence as he calls it for as the substance of the Soul not being coextended to the dimensions of the Body is lodg'd but in some one part but the virtue informs them all as effectually as if it's proper Vbi were in each of them and in this sense the Soul is said to be tota in toto tota in qualibet parte so to make a just parallel the natural Body of Christ which is Locally only in Heaven does as effectually impart its virtue to every worthy Communicant as if it were Locally present to each of them upon earth and is therefore sayd to be Really Present in the Eucharist But to proceed If this be a true
of them to invoke the Divine Omnipotence when they run their heads against a contradiction But they that pretend to make God when they please may by the same reason make him do what they please This I hope is a sufficient guard against the untoward application of any Protestant writings wherewith the Pamphlet either does or can abuse the common Reader in this matter Disc I. pag. 22. Ibid. §. 19. p. 13. In the end of the thirtieth Section he palms upon us a passage out of S. Austin which is very surprizing He professes to forbear quoting the Fathers because the Protestants have done it for him though we may take leave to suppose another Reason but here when he thought he could delude the Reader with S. Austin's authority he is willing to make his best of him It seems that excellent Father in his * Tom. 6. p. 515. Seqq. Edit nov Paris Cura pro mortuis having prov'd that Martyrs cannot interesse rebus viventium without a Miracle immediately adds that Quemadmodum the modus whereby this Miracle is wrought is beyond his capacity too sublime too abstruse for him he had rather inquire of them that know Vtrum ipsi per seipsos adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis or whether they reliev'd their votaries by the Ministry of Angels or whether it be both these wayes Which shews as the Pamphlet tells us this Father believ'd no impossibility of a Martyrs being uno tempore in diversis locis Would not any man imagin now who knows what point the Author drives at that he would have S. Austin say a a Martyr's Body might be in two places at once and would he not wonder that S. Austin should be quoted for this purpose who is * Epist 57. ad Dardanum carnis forma atque substantia cui profecto immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit Cavendum enim est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis ut veritatem corporis auferamus Una enim pâ—rsona Deus Homo est Utrumque est unus Christus Jesus Ubique per id quod Deus est in Coelo autem per id quod Homo Idem Tract 31. in Joan. Homo enim secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non erit Et Tract 30 in Joan. Corpus enim Domini in uno loco esse oportet so Ivo Gratiam Lombard Aquinas quote it not potest as 't is Printed veritas ubique diffusa est elsewhere so express and peremptory that the Naturall Body of Christ himself cannot be in two places at once But the Author is wary for he knew very well that by ipsi per seipsos S. Austin meant as he explains himself ipsorum animae in figura corporis sui But did not S. Austin then believe that a Spirit might be in two places at once Perhaps not but was therefore at a loss because he knew not how to believe it and this put him upon search of other solutions I will not now inquire whether a Spirit may be sayd to be in two places at once as the Souls of the Martyrs were by some perhaps suppos'd to have been though the affirmative may be explain'd without holding a contradiction but rather observe how S. Austin concludes this point viz. If the man whom he consulted should tell him out of Scripture This thing is above your reach and therefore forbear your enquiry he would thankfully receive this answer and and acquiesce So upon the whole matter S. Austin delivers himself like a true Church-of-England-man Here 's a point started which is past my understanding the difficulties and wayes of solution are these I cannot determine and therefore do not care to dispute I submit to Scripture and content my self with the Certainty of the thing without inquiring into the modus I wish other Writers would follow this example and then perhaps we might keep our Religion without parting with our common sense The thirty first Section containing only old matter has been spoken to before Disc I. pag. 23. I only add that if the Author allow Dr Heylin's reason why does he give a different one of his own if not why does he quote it In the thirty second Section he repeats the old blunder about Real and Corporal Ibid. and adds two or three to keep it company He cannot discern he says why it should not be a contradiction for a Body to be Locally in one place and Really Receiv'd in another He should read Mr. Walker's Logic which will tell him that two contradictories have the same Subject and Predicate He says it is insidious in the Rubrick not to say that the Body Locally Absent is Really Receiv'd and may tempt a man to doubt whether the Church thinks it to be so Now I fancy not because the Catechism is very express He is troubled we refuse other mens contradictions and expect our own should pass currently But we have told him that we neither hold nor meddle that we know of with any contradiction in explaining our own Doctrine and he has not yet vouchsafed to make it appear we doe From hence to the end of the Chapter he is as busy as if he were playing with * Book of Education part 1. chap. 11. pag. 145. printed 1677. Thesauro's Bees Five wayes he has found out of explaining Really and Essentially and no man Living that I know of either sayes or meanes any one of them as they are there deliver'd Disc I. §. 33. He sayes he does this to express his disquisition more fully The three first explications are three such unaccountable Whimsyes as need no other disquisition but whether the words are capable of a rational meaning For example Ibid. If by Really and Essentially be meant such a Presence of Christs body to our souls as the Papists hold there is to the Elements i. e. by abolishing the substance of the Soul and substituting Christ's body in the room of it c. and so for the two next The fourth speaks imperfectly §. 36. pag. 25. Ibid. but seems to say something of truth viz. that the body becomes Really present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven To this he objects that then Christ would be no more present in the Eucharist then in any other Sacrament wherein the Spirit is confer'd In which I see no inconvenience nor do I believe the Fathers did when they said Christ is present in the Eucharist as he is in Baptism He objects farther that such presence is properly of the Spirit Ibid. which I hope for his credit is onely a mistake of the Press and that the written copy had it by the Spirit The fifth explication is likewise imperfect if he apply it to the Church of England which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits but
with whom we have taken sweet councel together and walked in the house of God as friends * Ps LV. 14 15. These are such cutting circumstances as no armor of patience is sufficient proof against For these Reasons and not for any worth in the Book I have ventur'd to answer it and comply'd with the severe task the Author sets me to make brick and find straw too For the Pamphlet duly consider'd will not furnish sufficient matter for a Treatise Strip it of its garniture and it comes to no more then this That the Author supposes the Church of England to hold such a Real Presence of Christ's natural body in the Eucharist as he thinks a sufficient ground to adore the Elements To which we need only reply That as the Church ever held a real so she ever deny'd a corporal i. e. a local presence and for that reason forbid the adoration of the Symbols For to say no more at present the same arguments that will justifie our adoring them upon the score of any but a local presence of Christs natural body will excuse not only the Popish but even the grossest Heathen Idolatry This I take to be a full and sufficient answer to what our Author has spun into two Discourses However that I may leave no room for cavil I shall take a distinct view of the whole Pamphlet and reply particularly to the Chapters and Sections of each Discourse as they lie in order CHAP. II. A Reply to the first Chapter of the first Discourse THIS Chapter is taken up chiefly in recounting some little Alterations that have been made at several times in our Rubricks and Articles from which the Pamphlet would infer that our Church has waver'd in her Doctrine Now to my apprehension this Design let it be executed how it will is very impertinently undertaken For admit that the Church had waver'd as she has not what 's that to his purpose of proving that a Real tho' not Corporal presence is ground enough to adore the Elements in the Eucharist Again admit it were pertinent to prove that the Church had waver'd in her Doctrine how impertinent is it to allege no proof save out of the Rubricks and Articles which contain only terms of her Communion omitting the Homilies and Catechisms set forth by her Authority as a solemn declaration of her Doctrine We grant that the Church having always held a Real Presence so far as a Real Participation imply's one but always deny'd it if by Real we mean Corporal and Local has not always thought it requisite to make the declaration and subscription of this Doctrine a term of her Communion and if the Author has any thing to object to her upon this score it may possibly be to the purpose and then we are ready to answer it Allways provided he forbear that shrewd way of arguing which he gives us a tast of in the second paragraph of his second section for to such kind of sequels as he makes there we shall not think fit to reply but leave 'em to be seen through and despis'd by the Freshmen But a man that is not mov'd by those arguments may perhaps be put in mind by the premisses to enquire why these Alterations were made I answer that 't is easy to assign good reasons * The reasons here assign'd are it may be not the true ones why the changes were made but may serve to make a sober man acquiesce in these alterations nay prefer them now they are made and the Lawfulness not the Prudence of the Churches constitutions is the main point to be consider'd by the members of her communion 'T is no matter what Politick reasons might induce the Government to make these changes as long as in making them it did not deviate from the rule of Scripture But the Reader that is so dispos'd may gratify his curiosity as to this point too by consulting Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation vol. 2 pag. 170.190.392.394.405 Foxes and Firebrands par 2. pag 10.11 12 13. Discourse of the holy Eucharist newly printed at London pag 72 73. c. but for want of the authentick Records we can but guess at the true Perhaps they might be as follows 1. It has ever been the practice of all conformable Church of England-men to handle both the Patin and the Chalice when they Consecrate And indeed the very nature of the action implyes the use of that ceremony so that there seems to be no need of a Rubrick to enjoyn it In K. Edward's first book there was a marginal note to direct the more ignorant and unpractic'd * In the present Liturgy there are divers such marginal notes which are not injunctions to perform but directions when to perform some ceremonies which the Rubrick elswhere enjoyns or the nature of the action supposes As for instance in the office of Baptism Here says the margin the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Childs forehead the Rubrick for this ceremony went before And in the office of the Eucharist Here the Priest is to take the Patin into his hands c. that he should break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands is suppos'd in the precedent Rubrick which only directs his standing that he may do it readily and decently for the very nature of the act of Consecration implyes it But when this note of direction when to take the Patin c. was omitted the practice of takeing it did not cease For Rastall himself takes notice that Jewell usâ—d to take the Bread into his hands and we may better learn the mind of our Church from his Practice then the Pamphlets surmises if there were any thousands as Rastall supposes though I beg his pardon for some of his thousands and without a better reason then his supposal won't suppose one thousand omitted it they were of those half-conformists whom the Church has always complainâ—d of as the most disingenuous and dangerous of all her enemies And for their sake in the review of sixty one it was necessary to restore these directions which were not so necessary when the mangling of the service was less common when to use it which was afterwards omitted when the usage was in all appearance sufficiently secur'd by common practice But when false brethren took advantage from the omission to perform the ceremony awkwardly and lamely the directions were restor'd in the edition of sixty one 2. The Gloria in excelsis is a hymn and therefore most properly put in the Postcommunion because most conformably to our Saviour's own practice who when supper was done * Matt. XXVI 13 Mark XIV 26. sung a hymn with his Disciples 3. The Trisagium as it now lies after Holy thrice repeated in honor of the three Persons of the Trinity concludes very properly and pertinently with Glory be to the O Lord acknowledging the Unity This the Benedictus qui venit does not but is rather lyable to the same
give him satisfaction In the fourth Section he falls on in earnest upon the declaration about adoration as he calls it 〈◊〉 I. §. IV. pag. 4. and from it as it now lyes draws three Observables which are either very dishonestly or else very ignorantly worded They need no other answer then a bare amendment of the expressions which if they were intended to give the sense of the Church of England should have been to this effect 1. Observable That the Clergy do profess and teach that the natural body and blood of Christ are not corporally i. e. locally present in the Eucharist 2. Observable That they have diverse reasons for this assertion one especially wherein Scripture Philosophy and common sense are agreed viz. that a true humane body cannot locally be in two places at once 3. Observable That in consequence hereof they declare that the Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is indeed reall but spirituall and therefore the Elements are not to be ador'd because adoration ought not to be directed to the natural body of Christ but where it is locally present Had our Author had the ingenuity to express himself after this manner he had been no less kind to himself then just to the Church of England for he might have avoided divers errors he commits in the three next Chapters by avoyding the grand impertinence of having written them at all CHAP. III. A Reply to the second chapter of the first Discourse Disc I. §. VII pag. 5. THe design of the second Chapter is to prove by abundance of quotations that Learned Protestants heretofore have held that the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is present as in Heaven so here in the Holy Sacrament either to the worthy receiver or the Symbols By learned Protestants I presume he means those of the Church of England for so he should mean since he draws his Observables from a Rubric in their Liturgie Now he would have told us some news had he mentioned but one of these learned Protestants who pretending to give the sense of the Church of England does not hold that the same numerical body which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is locally present in Heaven and virtually present in the Eucharist not to the Symbols but the Faith of the worthy receiver or if by those words as in heaven so here he means locally in both as indeed he must mean if his next Chapter be at all pertinent he would have told us no less news had he brought but one quotation that could be honestly taken in that sense But if he have any third meaning it would have been a favour to explain himself for we pretend not to any talent in divination Now supposing he designs to combat the Church of England I would gladly know to what purpose he alleges Calvin and Beza Disc I. §. VIII IX for let their doctrine be what it will to quote it to us who are not to be concluded by their authority is very trifling and impertinent When the sense of the Church of England was the question one would have expected to heare what the Church-Catechism says What the Homilies What Nowells Catechism Books allow'd and publish'd by the Churches authority and authentick witnesses of her judgment or if private Doctors were the game what Archbishop Cranmer's book of the Sacraments what Bradford Philpot and the rest of Q. Mary's Martyrs what Bishop Jewell in his Apology and the Defence of it what Bishop Vsher in his Sermon before the House of Commons But instead of these we have only the testimonies of some other eminent but private men all miserably mangled and disjoynted some of them Conciliators too whose very design obliges them to a looser kind of expression then a true and adequate standard of the Churches judgment will allow Now should any of our private writers either in heat of disputation or out of zeal to peace or desire to explain a great mystery a little deviate in their expressions we can easily forgive an error that proceeds from so allowable a cause but still the Church is not bound to justify that error But the quotations in the Pamphlet will not put us upon this Apology Not an author he quotes except only Mr. Thorndike of whom we shall say more by and by but speaks the sense of the Church and industriously drives at a point quite contrary to the Pamphlets design which discovers a great flaw either in the Authors judgment or honesty I grant the authors as he has mangled 'em looke as unlike those worthy champions of our Church as the shape that appear'd to Aenaeas did to the true and whole person of Hector But I desire the Reader neither to trust the Pamphlet nor me but his own eys to consult the quotations as they lye intire in the authors themselves and consider 'em with their several contexts For my own part having taken that pains I profess to find such dealing as I do not care to report because I cannot expect to be believ'd 'T is somewhat unaccountable that a man of sense having read the book of Bishop Taylor 's which the Pamphlet quotes should split upon the very Fallacy which that Bishop spends allmost the whole first Chapter in detecting He makes it his business there to shew that Protestants in explaining the Real Presence may lawfully use the same terms that Papists doe But they neither can nor doe use them in the Papists sense and he that will urge the Protestants with those words must take the Protestants meaning along with him This seems to be a very equitable proposal How far the Pamphlet complyes with it I dare leave to the meanest Reader when he has perus'd this short and plain account of our Churches doctrine in this point The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a twofold consideration in the Eucharist 1. As a body dead under which notion we are said to eat it in the Sacrament and to drink the blood as shed as appears by the words of the Institution Take and eat this is my body which is given or broken for you Drink ye all of this for this is my blood which is shed for you in which words * Acts and Monuments pag. 1611. as Mr. Bradford long agoe observ'd what God has joyn'd we are not to put asunder 2. As a glorify'd body in which condition it now sits at the right hand of God and shall there continue till the restitution of all things imparting Grace Influence and all the benefits purchased by the Sacrifice of the dead body to those that in the holy Eucharist most especially are through Faith and by the marvellous operation of the holy Ghost incorporated into Christ and so united to him that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them they are one with Christ and Christ with them they are made members of his body of his flesh and
whom the Author therefore traduces for slandering the Catholics to which I can only say that he certainly slanders Dr Stillingfleet and I know not how to count him a Papist who will not allow Bellarmin to be one of his Catholics * See Dr. Stillingfleet of the Idolatry of the Ch of Rome cap. 2. § 4. pag. â—25 He adds that his Catholicks affirm this Sign we are speaking of to be all that of the Bread and Wine which is perceptible by any sense and therefore when they tell us that the Substance is done away Disc II. pag. 14. §. 10. they take Substance in such a sense as is non-sense For so he says though in more and other words but 't is good to be as brief as may be when we talk unintelligibly And non-sense is a sort of sense very proper for this subject being the remaining species and accidents of sense when the substance of it is done away Wherefore our Author proceeds in the same strain and tells us that his Catholics allow Local positions to be predicated of Christ's Body indivisibly present but to taste to be digested to nourish to be press'd with the Teeth to be burnt or gnaw'd by brutes these belong only to the Species and not to Christ's Body which is impassible All this is to be understood in the Sense last mention'd wherefore he wisely forbears to give a reason and only quotes Bellarmin who is now become one of his Catholics But Bellarmin at best was but a fallible Cardinal and infallible Pope * See the Preface to Determinatio Jo. Parisiensis lately Printed at London p 5 6. Nicholas II. with his Cardinals made Berengarius tell another tale And though Hildebrand differ'd from Nicholas and Innocent III. from them both yet we must not inquire how all these Popes were Infallible and their several Adherents Orthodox and yet our Authors Doctrine good Catholic Doctrine still For the Book of Education tells us that * Part. I. cap. 9. p 92. Acuteness Sagacity are apt to dispose men to Heresy and 't is certain that no man can become a Thorough Convert of this Authors till his Brains be Case-hardned to be proof against all manner of contradictions In the eleventh Section he says that the word Sacrament is not allways taken in the same sense Disc 2. pag. 14. §. 11. We allow him to take it in any sense provided it be sense that he takes it in Wherefore we except not to his taking Sacramentum for Res Sacramenti when he explains how his Catholics adore the Sacrament It seems that they to the Sacramentum give an inferior cult but Divine adoration which I wonder why he would not call latry to the Res Sacramenti only Ibid viz. only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in the Sacrament for so he says and to him precisely as Really present abstracting both from Transubstantiation and the belief of a Corporal presense for so he explains himselfe afterwards Now if there be no Popery Lurking under that sly word cult I am afraid this Catholic Defender will go for as rank a Heretick as any Calvinist that now rows in the Gallies For to give the Papists sense in the words of * Theol. quaest 79. disp Suarez Non solum Christus sed totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adoratur 'T is not an inferior cult to the Species that will serve the turn nor Duly nor Hyperduly neither but * Moral l. 8 cap. 32. Henriquez says it must be Latry speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent In short * Disc concerning the Adoration of the Host lately reprinted at London the remaining Species of Bread and Wine together with the Natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them make one intire object of the Papists adoration which they call Sacramentum And this they tell us the Councell of Trent means when it requires * Sess 13. cap. 5. Omnes Christi fideles Latriae cultum huic Sanctissimo Sacramento adhibere * Dr. Stillingfleet Idolatry of the Church of Rome cap. 2 pag. 116. Nor is this Deny'd that I know of by any that understand either the Doctrine or the Practice of the Church of Rome So says the Great Learned Dr Stillingfleet in the place here quoted by our Author who should have confuted this passage instead of nibling at an unanswerable argument else the meaning of the Council will allways be judg'd by the Doctrine and Practice of the Church and the most artificial disguise the Defender has in his Wardrobe will never make his Catholics pass currently for true Papists I am not sollicitous what the words of the Council of Trent are nor I think ever shall be till I forget the two famous controversies that * See F. Paul's History lib 2. pag. 216.228 Soto had with Vega and Catharinus Disc 2. pag 15. § 12. For if they who were members of the Council and so eminently concern'd in wording the Decrees were for all this ignorant of the true sense of those Decrees 't is now I doubt too late for a Protestant to give 'em a determinate meaning nor need any man regard 'em any more then those other Oracles that were dictated with the like ambiguity But to guide us in this Labyrinth the Defender gives us a Judicious Observation as he calls it out of Sancta Clara which is this Disc 2. §. 13. p. 17. The substance of the Catholic Faith is declar'd both in the Chapters and Canons but yet the Canons we must stick to where the form is exceeding exact though the manner of expression sometimes different from that in the Chapters How Judicious this remark is and how much for the Council's honor may perhaps be question'd but how well 't is apply'd to the present case where the Canon is more ambiguous and therefore less exact then the Chapter is a thing will admit of no dispute nor will any man contest this Author's title to so Judicious an application After a leafe's insignificant pother he comes to this final Resolution Disc 2. §. 14. p. 18. That to adore the Sacrament is at most but an improper expression And says as magisterially as ever Soave did that dutifull Children ought to learn of their Mother how to speak Disc 2. p. 17. provided always say I that their Mother do not teach them to abuse their Father and if they cannot come at their Mother or cannot understand her language I hope 't is no offence to ask her meaning of their Brethren that know her mind But after all it is not the expression but the practice that we complain of 't is not talking improperly but committing Idolatry that we fear 't is not his inferior cult but Suarez's unico cultu that we cannot digest And if the Defender would not urge us by pardoning an expression