safe way to salsation Is it safe to venture in a leaky Ship upon a stormy Sea But what saies he to the streams of learned Authors of the Protestant Church which Dr. Stillingfleet relates and of the very learned Book he wrote himself proving with irresistible Arguments that the Romish Church in several of her present Tenets and Practices is guilty of Idolatry Is Idolatry of those pious opinions which matter not for salvation And let Mr. I.S. know that I considered long and examined throughly the doctrine of the Church of England before I declared for it and he may spare his labour of catechizing me in the Tenets of it CHAP. X. A check to Mr. I. S. his insolent Thesis prefixed for title to the eighth Chapter of his Book That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it That they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets And his own Argument retorted to prove that the Roman Church is not the Church of Christ UNder so pregnant and big promising a title as this That the Protestant Church is not the Church of Christ nor any part of it that they cannot without Blasphemy alledg Scripture for their Tenets c. and that in a Book presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland the Earl of Essex under so magnificent a title I say exposed to the view of so great and judicious a person who would not expect a very exquisite discourse to go through so stout an undertaking And behold Reader what Mr. I. S. presents to his Excellency for that purpose For a Foundation of his discourse he will have us premise that Protestants do allow Papists not to err in points Fundamental to Salvation that our differences with them are about points not Fundamental He do's not seem to regard or know which be these points call'd Fundamental or not Fundamental which is a bad beginning to be clear and exact in the present Engagement But he is to suppose with Dr. Stillingfleet Dr. Potter and other learned Writers of both Churches * See Chillingworth his Answer to the Book intitled Charity maintained c. c. 4. And Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Fundamentals c. 2. Stillingfleet in his Rational Account Part. 1. cap. 2. B. Laud p. 42. following therein the common opinion of Fathers and Scholemen that the points Fundamental or of necessary belief to Salvation and to the constitution of a true Christian Church are those contained in the Apostles Creed which is a system or summary of Articles which those sacred Founders of Christianity thought fit and sufficient to be proposed to all men where the Gospel was preached and necessary to be explicitly believed So as the Council of Trent calls it Fundamentum firmum unicum Sess 3. not the firm alone but the only Foundation Points not Fundamental or inferior truths are all other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or delivered to us by Apostolical Universal Tradition implicitly contained in the Creed where we profess to believe in God and in the Catholic Church and explicitly to be believed when we should be ascertained that they are contained in those Oracles of God called inferior truths not that they are of less certainty and objective Infallibility in themselves then the other called Fundamental but because the explicit knowledg of them is not so necessary or obvious to all men and consequently are more capable of inculpable ignorance of them and errors about them in many men And because the Roman Church do's agree with us in the explicit confession of this Creed it is said not to err in Fundamental points tho found guilty of pernicious errors touching other points not Fundamental And with this Supposition I am confident my Antagonist will not quarrel if you take him here before he sees my reflexions upon his unwary Argument Upon the foresaid Foundation Mr. I. S. builds this Thesis That the Protestant Church as it is condistinct from the Popish Church is not the Church of Christ because saies he it do's not teach the doctrine of Christ and no Church can be called of Christ further then it teacheth his doctrine That Protestancy or the doctrine of Protestants as opposite to the Popish is not the doctrine of Christ he undertakes to prove with this Syllogism No fallible doctrine is the doctrine of Christ but Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine Therefore Protestancy as it is properly the doctrine of the Protestant Church is not the doctrine of Christ This Syllogism he chalks out to us in a different Character for remarkable as indeed it is and for unanswerable for it is in Ferio saies he pag. 142. The Major Proposition we allow willingly the Minor to wit that Protestancy is altogether fallible doctrine he saies is manifest by virtue of this other no less remarkable Syllogism Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of points not Fundamental but the doctrine of points not Fundamental or inferior truths is fallible doctrine therefore Protestancy is but fallible doctrine and therefore no doctrine of Christ He concludes with these words I confess ingenuously I think this Argument cannot be solidly answer'd If his confession herein be ingenuous indeed let him take in return this other ingenuous confession from me that I think seriously he is a very weak man If he be sensible himself of the fallacy and falsehood of his Argument he is unworthy in beguiling his Reader and unwise in exposing it to a polemical strict debate and thinking we should want a solid Answer to so silly a Sophism not to give it yet a more severe check haply he has that poor excuse in his favor that he knows not what he saies To see whether my Answer be solid let us examine how solid his Argument is The stress of it lies in his latter Syllogism whose major Proposition is That Protestancy or the doctrine wherein Protestants do differ from Papists is altogether of Points not Fundamental This we allow him to take for granted Let us proceed to the Minor But the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths saies he is fallible doctrine Stop here Sir and if Justice were don to you a perpetual stop should be put to your tongue for blasphemons from speaking any more It is a formal Blasphemy and a horrid one to say that the doctrine of Points not Fundamental or inferior Truths in general is fallible doctrine It is to say that the Word of God is fallible Remember what is premis'd a little before and supposed by your self in many places of your present discourse that the Points called not Fundamental are all those other divine Verities contained in the Word of God whether written in Canonical Scripture or deliver'd to us by Apostolical Tradition besides the Points contained in the Creed of equal objective certainty and truth with the other Points They are of a size as
alledg that that he did not mean he could carry so much alone but he and a Horse with him Such quibbles as these are more becoming Mr. S. then S. Paul and so he may keep them for himself and not father them upon the great Apostle Further he proceeds to oppose St Paul saying that when he wrot that Epistle to Timothy the whole Canon of Scripture was not completed and only the whole Canon and no part of it can be sufficient means for our instruction therefore the Scripture that S. Paul spoke of cannot be a sufficient means for instructing us to Salvation Herein our Sophister is twice impious first in taxing the great Apostles assertion with untruth next that the Oracle of God delivered to men in each time for their instruction to Salvation should not be complete and sufficient By this it appears well how much a stranger this man is to the common Doctrine of Divines who affirm that in the Apostles Creed are contained all necessary verities to be believed for Salvation and in the Ten Commanâ—ments all duties to be performed of necessity to the same end And may not the Creed and Ten Commandments be known without a knowledg of the whole Canon of Scripture His boldness is prodigious in asserting extravagances without exhibiting any proof but his bare ipse dixit Pythagoras-wise Finding me say I was not fit for Pâ—thagoras his Schole where ipse dixit was the rule and men will not give reason for what they teach he opposes that if I am to expect reason for what I believe I am not fit for Christs Schole nor learning from Scripture which affords nothing but a bare ipse dixit But if the Man had any ingenuity in him he would spare this Objection seeing it prevented in the 18. page of my discourse where I acknowledg with thanksgiving to God that I never doubted of the Truth of Holy Scriptures nor of the Creed proposed to us by the Catholic Apostolic Church and dictated by God Almighty worthy to be believed without examen not so Pythagoras nor the Pope CHAP. V. Mr. S. his prolixe excursion about the Popes Authority requisite to know which is the true Scripture declared to be Impertinent and the state of the Question cleared from the confusion he puts upon it OUR Adversary finding the Popes Infallibility to be an expression odious and ridiâ—ulous to all knowing men and whereof even the sober part of * Vid. Cress in exomologesi cap 4. Sect. 3. Romanists grow ashamed endeavours to serve us up the same Dish under another dress calling it the Autority of the Church Universal And if therein he did speak properly or sincerely he would have less opposition from us But if you do enquire what he means by Church Universal he tells you it is the Congregation Subject to the Pope of Rome excluding all other men and particularly the Church of England from being any part of that his Universal Church The said Congregation subject to the Pope whether diffusive or representative in a general Council depending upon the Pope and confirmed by him he pretends to be Infallible And whatever I alledge against the Infallibility of the Roman Church he thinks to elude by pretending I speak of the particular Diocese of Rome a gross misunderstanding or willful misrepresentation of my meaning for which I never gave any ground in my writing or discourses He is to know I speak in proper terms as used among Learned men speaking upon this Subject taking the Roman Church for the party following the Popes faction wheresoever extant whether congregated or dispersed prescinding from his Altercations with the rest or any they have among themselves for both he and the rest agreeing in making that Infallibility depending ultimately upon the Popes Autority we may well represent their assertion as opposite to the sentiment of all other Christians under the notion of the Popes infallibility * That all is bottomed upon the Popes Authority Bellarmin declares saying totam firmitatem conciliorum legitimorum esse á Pontifice non-partim à Pontifice partim à concilio lib. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 3. sect at contra The terms and state of the Question being thus cleared it follows to declare how impertinent his prolixe excursion and vain ostentation is in telling us the diversity of Opinions that were in different times about Canonical Scripture and the difficulty of ascertaining us which is the true one This is an old device of those of his faction to decline the main controversy in hand wherein they still betray the weakness of their Cause They and he should remember the points controverted are among parties that agree in reverencing the Bible for the infallible Word of God And if he thinks the part of it received for Canonical by common consent will not suffice for ending our Controversies we admit willingly St. Augustins rule for clearing the difficulties touching particular Books the Authority of the Church and the Tradition of it as described by Lirinensis Quod semper quod ubique quod apud omnes What was in all time in all places and by all Christians delivered that we take for a true Apostolic Tradition and to it we resolve to stand or fall as well for discerning Canonical Scripture as for understanding the true meaning of it If Mr. S. did take Church and Tradiâ—ion in the sense that the Holy Fathers did and the Learned Men of the Church of England do he would find in us all due reverence to those sacred Fountains of Christian verities But to call Church Universal the faction adhering to the Pope of Rome in opposition to the rest of Christians is a presumtion like that of the Turk in calling himself King of Kings and Emperor of all the World such as are Vassals to him may revere that calling others do laugh at it But we do not find the Turk to have plaâ—'d the sool so far as to take that his assumed title as granted by other Princes independing upon him or to alledg it for ground of his pretentions with them This is Mr. S. his folly in taking for granted in his debates with us that the Romish faction is the Catholic Universal Church So great an Intruder upon disputes should learn that rule of Disputants Quod gratis dicitur gratis negatur what is barely said without proof is sufficiently refuted with a bare denial This alone well considered will suffice to overthrow man Chapters of Mr. S. his Book What makes him spend time in telling us of the difficulty of finding out which is true Scripture the rule truly infallible of our belief when he sees us thus ascertain'd of it why do's he trouble us with speaking of a Criterion or beam of light pretended by Fanatics confessing at the same time that to be exploded by Protestants is it to make his Book swell But finding he cannot hide Scripture from us he will have us to be beholden to the Pope for the true
perspicacity in striking the nail in the head This indeed is that stumbling stone and Rock of offence This is the chief and I may say the only cause of that irreconcileable disunion of the Roman Church with us We know by certain and well authorized * Tortura torti Pag. 152. records that Pope Paul the Fourth offered Queen Elizabeth to approve of the Reformation if the Queen would acknowledg his Primacy and the Reformation from him and he being dead his Successor Plus the 4. prosecuted the same as appears by his letters written the 5 * Cambden Anno 1560. of * Twisden H. Vind. Cap. IX n. 5. May 1560. and sent by Vincentius Parpalia offering to confirm the Liturgy of the English Church if she would acknowledg his Supremacy This being told by Sir Roger Twisden as he relates himself to an Italian Gentleman versed in public affairs together with the grounds on which he spake it well said the Gentleman if this were heard in Rome among religious Men it would never gain credit but with such as have in their hands the maneggi della corte the management of the court affairs it may be held true And indeed suâ—h as know the spirit of that Court may easily believe that if this great point of the Supremacy the foundation of their power and grandeur were agreed upon they would easily wink at other dissentions Whereof we have a pregnant testimony from Bellarmin Lib. 3. de Ecclesia Cap. 20. asserting that even such as have no interiour Faith nor any Christian vertue are to be taken for members of the Catholic Church provided they do but outwardly profess the Faith of the Roman Church and subjection to the Pope tho it be only for some temporal interest So ready they are in Rome to embrace all sorts of men provided they acknowledg the Popes Supremacy This being established all is well being denyed the best of Men and soundest Believers in Christ must be damned Heretics by sentence of that Court. But I shall declare sufficiently in the 15. Chapter of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain the pretence of Suarez and his party is to make the Popes Supremacy an article of saving Faith how unjust and tyrannical an usurpation it is how far the best Popes in the Primitive Church were from pretending to it and more from pressing it upon Christians as an article of saving Faith And indeed it must appear strange to any impartial judgment that the System of articles contained in the three Creeds and four first general Councels which gained the name of Catholic to the Church first called so should not suffice to make a Church Catholic in all times Therefore the Church of England professing all those Articles is to be taken for truly Catholic tho denying the Popes Supremacy not contained in the foresaid System nor ever own'd by the Church first called Catholic as hereafter will be proved As to the second sort of Universality consisting in taking the Word of God for a common reason or rule of belief how can any pretend the Church of England to be deficient herein having ever protested that the Word of God contained in Canonical Scripture is the prime and only rule of its belief while the Roman Church denies to stand to this rule as unable to make out all the belief it would force upon us What Suarez pretends that the Church of England wants a rule infallible for knowing which is true Scripture and the true meaning of it which they conceive to have themselves in the Popes infallibility I shall declare in the eighth Chap. of the 2d part of this Treatise how vain it is we having in universal tradition and in the Writings of the Holy Fathers means sufficiently certain for knowing which is the true Scripture and which the true meaning of it in points necessary to Salvation As for others less necessary if there be obscurity and diversity of opinions among our Writers so is there among theirs nor could their pretended Infallibility ever make them agree Nay among the best and wisest Fathers of the Church there was alwaies a great diversity of opinions in points not fundamental without breach of Catholic and Christian union Now concerning the third kind of union or universality consisting in a hierarchical order of Bishops Priests and Deacons c. Suarez is much mistaken in saying that we have them not true and legal I will declare at large from the fifth Chapter following that we have all the security they have of a legal sucession and true ordination of Bishops Priests and Deacons It s their concern we should not be found deficient herein for any defect conceived in our hierachy will reflect upon theirs Finally touching the fourth manner of Universality signified by the name Catholic that a Church or Faith so called should be extended over all the Earth Suarez exceeds much in denying this property to the Church of England or Faith professed in it saying it passes not the bounds of Brittish land To which is contrary that grave and modest testimony of King James related by Suarez in the same place chapter xv n 6. Nos Dei benesicio nec numero nec dignitate ita sumus contemnendi qui â—â—ono vicinis nostris exemplo praeire possimis quandoquidem Christiani orbis omniumque in eo ordinum inde à Regibus liberisque Principibus usque ad insimae conditionis homines pars propè media in nostram Religionem consensit We by the grace of God are not so despicable either for number or dignity that we may not be a good example to our Neighbours whereas neer the one half of the Christian World and all orders of People in it from Kings and Soverain Princes to the meanest sort of persons have already embraced our Religion I shall declare hereafter from the XIX Chapter descending to particulars that this saying of King James was both true and modest and that more then the one half of the Christian World agrees with the Church of England in unity of Faith sufficient to render them Catholic and that the Church of Rome may cease bragging of her extent being now come so short of that latitude which made her swell to the contemt of all other Christian Churches now far exceeding her in number and lustre of Princes and Kingdoms embracing the Faith professed in them Suarez preventing a check to his argument from this discovery in the XVI Chapter num 4. of his said Book premises that this general extension of the Catholic Church over all the World is to be understood of extension either by right or by actual possession and tho the latter be deficient the former of right cannot want Christ having commanded that his Gospel should be preached to all the World But how can Suarez pretend that this right should belong to the Faith of his Church rather then to that of the Church of England whereas this latter preacheth only for object of
the Rule of our belief All this he must say of the Council of Trent or the Church represented in it of this Age that alone and not the Pope out of it must be in his doctrine our infallible Teacher Now further Is not the doctrin of the Council of Trent proposed to us as a Rule of our Faith of equal value and autority with the written word of God both proceeding from the Holy Ghost they say it is Is not moreover that doctrine known to us only by tradition certainly it is I have no notice of it nor can I have but by relation of others and they of no more credit with me but rather of far less then those Venerable Writers that relate to us the doctrine of the primitive Church Are there not Controversies dayly and endless about the sense and meaning of the Councill of Trent as well as about the more ancient Councils witness the dismall broyls betwixt Jesuists Jansenists and Dominicans Where is now Mr. I. S. his living infallible Judg The Councill of Trent and the Popes governing it are dead and gon The Pope now living or any Councill he can congregate less than a general one is not an infallible Judg. Who then will ascertain him will he have a generall Councill congregated for the resolution of his Faith in every doubt that comes into his head How shall we be sure that Pope Innocent and Alexander did not err in their definition of the great debate with the Jansenists Their definition not being in a general Council cannot be to us a warrant of security in Mr. I. S. his opinion The Jansenists will triumph at this and will that please them at Rome and Paris while Mr. I. S. agrees with them upon this particular I ask further Tho a General Council were congregated now to that effect such as that of Trent to ascertain us of the Articles defined against Jansenius how shall I be sure that God speaks by such a Council or the Church represented in it thus in Mr. I. S. his dialect because the Church by which God speaks says that God speaks by her because he doth credit her by so many Miracles and supernatural marks which makes it evidently credible that he doth speak by her Well and where be those Miracles and supernatural marks assisting this Council present to ascertain us that God speaks by it are you sure to find them at hand when the Council is joined likely you are upon the experience of coining Miracles when occasion requires it By this Reader you may see how little Mr. I. S. hath don after so much ado to resolve his Faith without a Circle How rash his assurance was that Protestants will never resolve theirs without such a fault I will now shew briefly The Faith of Protestants is that contain'd in Canonical Scripture as he often supposes my Faith touching each point of those contained in Scripture I resolve thus I believe the Son of God was made Man because I find it written in the holy Scripture I believe what is written in the holy Scripture because it is the infallible Word of God And I believe it is the Word of God because the Apostles preaching it did confirm it with such Miracles and Wonders as only God could work And finally that the Apostles did deliver the Doctrine contained in Scripture and did confirm it with Miracles I beleive in force of universal tradition according to that celebrated notion of it delivered by Vincentius Lyrinensis quod ubique quod semper quod apud omnes est creditum what was alwaies in all places and by all Christians received and believed is to be taken for Universal and Apostolical Tradition This common consent of Christians making up universal Tradition we have in what is unanimously delivered by the ancient Fathers and declared in the first general Councils of those more holy and sincere primitive times Thither I go to take up my belief as to streams immediatly proceeding from the Fountain of Grace with more pleasure and satisfaction then to the muddy Waters of doctrine delivered by the Church of Rome of this corrupt Age past through so many hands defiled with ambition avarice and other earthly passions repugnant to sincerity of which we have too much assurance CHAP. XIV A Reflection upon the perverse Doctrine contained in the resolution of Faith proposed to us by Mr. I. S. and the pernicious and most dangerous consequences of it IT is a Providence of God and the great force of truth that our Adversaries should forget themselves sometimes and discover their wicked intentions covered under sacred pretexts All their Novelties they frequently set forth under the venerable cloak of Antiquity It is a glory of humility says S. Bernard that Pride should wear a cloak of it to be in esteem Gloriosa res humilitas qua se vestire solet Superbia ne evilescat and so it is a glory of Antiquity that Novellers should pretend credit to their inventions by casting on them a color of Antiquity It is very frequent with the Romanists to use this stratagem to cloak their new Decrees with the venerable name of ancient Canons to call their Church ancient Church tho composed of Novelties where it opposes the Reformed Mr. I. S. hath bin pleased to unmask his Church herein to us declaring that the ultimate ground and motive of their belief and their Proselytes must not be the Testimony of that sacred primitive Church govern'd by Christ himself and his blessed Apostles but the Testimony of the present Church of Rome infected with the corruptions which the World knows and both friends and foes do see and cry against with universal scanâ—al Besides the perversness of this Doctrine obvious to every one that will not blind himself wilfully taking from our sigâ—t and view the sweet and comfortable face of primitive Christianity and willing us only to attend the foul and abominable practices of the Roman Court calling it self Church and even the Catholic Universal and only Church to the offence and scandal of all sincere and knowing Men Besides the perversity of this Doctrine the dangerous consequences of it are much to be considered for preventing the growth of this destructive Seed First it followeth hence that as there is no end of Disputes and Controversies among Men nor any is like to be so there will be no end of coining new Articles of Faith all tending to the encrease of power and splendor of the Pope and his Court tho at the expences of disturbance and destructions to Men Cities Provinces and Kingdoms as often happen'd This to be their aim under the pretence of exalting and propagating the Faith of Christ appears by the next attemt of Mr. I. S. in favor of the Popes supremacy to be examined in the Chapter next following Having established the Pope and his present Church as he conceives in the possession of infallible Judges in matters of Faith the next point he takes in hand
difficulties rendring the Mystery more hard to be believed but that the contrary is to be held for the declaration of the Church Cajetan said that only the said declaration could make the words of our Saviour alledged for Transubstantiation appear convincing to that purpose And Suarez tells us his saying was commanded by Pope Pius the V. to be expunged An old Copy of Ocham I found in Dublin Library was more fortunate in escaping their blurs In his 5th quodlibet q. 30. he relates three opinions touching the Bread in the Eucharist The first saying that the Bread which was before is the Body of Christ after Consecration of which opinion he delivers this censure Prima est irrationalis that it is an unreasonable opinion The second opinion saies he is that the substance of Bread and Wine ceases to be and only the Accidents do remain and under them begins to be the Body of Christ Of this opinion he saies Est communis opinio quam tenâ—o propter determinationem Ecclcsiae non propâ—â—r aliam rationem That to this opinion he consems for the declaration of the Church in favor of it and not for any reason assisting it The third opinion related by him is that the substance of Bread and Wine remains after Consecration and of this he saies Tertia opinio esset multum rationabilis nisi esset determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium That this opinion were very rational if the determination of the Church were not contrary to it So that it is not any reason nor any ground they saw for it in Scripture made these and many other very Learned men consent to the doctrine of Transubstantiation but only a blind Obedience to Innocents Decree in the Lateran Council Bellarmin wishes we should all have this submission to the Autority of the Church and I wish with all my heart that both we and he and his party and all Christians should have due submission to the Church truly Catholic Primitive and Apostolic declaring to us the Word of God by Canonical Scripture and Universal Tradition in which Fountains of Truth neither Transubstantiation will be found nor any of their Errors which I pointed out for motives of my forsaking their Communion Neither is I. S. more fortunate in his attemt of putting a terror upon me as if I had shock'd the Hierarchy of the Church of England by saying its rashness to give divine Adoration to a Wafer wherein they cannot be sure Christ to be Present this depending according to their own Principles upon the Priests intention to Consecrate his due Ordination and of the Bishop that gave him Orders his intention and due Ordination and so upward of endless requisites impossible to be certainly known And what has all this to do with shocking the Hierarchy of the the Church of England When I saw the man begin with so great a clap and sounding already a triumph I expected the story of the Nags-head or some other of their old Engines against the Legality of the Protestant Clergy should come down but all he brings is that we do also allow some things to be essentially requisite for the validity of a Sacrament the defect of which nullifies the Sacrament As for Baptism water is requisite and the form of words I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy Ghost The Minister may vitiate this form and utter somewhat in lieu of it or omit some words of it or add some other that would destroy the form The same may happen in the Ordination of a Minister or Bishop and there is no certainty that no error of these should have happen'd in any one of the whole train of our Ordainers and if it was wanting in any all the Ordinations derived from him are null Therefore we can have no Assurance of our Hierarchy I leave the Judicious Reader to see what singular exploit this man hath done herein against the Church of England his reasons alledged of doubting the Legality of its Ministers doth prove so much for rendring doubtful the Legality of the Roman Clergy by his own confession but much more for what I am to add first that we do not make the effects of Sacraments to depend so much upon the intention and quality of the Ministers as Papists do We entertain a better opinion of Gods goodness that he will not have pious Souls lose the fruit of their sincere Endeavors and will supply to that effect the defect of the Minister secondly that their practice of muttering the words in a Language unknown to the People and in a voice not audible especially in the consecration of the Eucharist is more subject to errors and fraud then the way of our Church where the Minister is to pronounce loudly and intelligibly the words of the form But chiefly touching the subject of our present discourse from which our Adversary seems willing to divert I mean the use and Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist who run more hazard the Papists or we In case a defect should happen touching the consecration we enjoy the fruit of a spiritual Communion and are not at the loss that Papists are in the like case who make the main fruit depend upon the real and corporal presence of Christ in the host We run no danger of Idolatry material or formal giving the worship of Divinity to a thing that is not God as Papists do giving that kind of worship to any host reputed to be duly consecrated which if it happens not to be so indeed their act of worship is at least a material Idolatry in their own confession and to expose themselves to a known danger of committing such kind of Idolatry cannot chuse but be criminal as it is generally reputed to be a sin for one to expose himself to a danger of committing a sin The parity of one honoring his Father not knowing certainly him to be his true Father is impertinent and undecent A bad opinion he must have of his Mother who doubts his reputed Father to be such in truth But what if he were in a material error it is not a sin but a duty to pay respect unto him that adopts or owns him for a Son I will conclude this matter with letting Mr. I. S. see his rashness in pretending I was rash in saying its intolerable boldness in some of his fellows to say there is the same reason for the adoration of the host as for adoring Christs Divinity And he pretends I should seem thereby not to understand their doctrine Sir I am not to enter with you in comparison which of us understands better the Doctrine of both Churches what I see evidently is that either you do ignorantly misunderstand or maliciously misrepresent the state of the Question that wanting an answer to my Arguments in their proper terms you may fashion them so as your impertinent Discourses may seem to strike at something which is properly hostem tibi