before But as Article of Faith is taken for dogma necessario credendum for a divine truth necessary when known to be so to be believ'd or not oppos'd So a divine truth may be an article or object of my Faith to day which was not yesterday So he who by what means soever knows that something is said in Scripture which he knew not yesterday may be said to have to day a new article of his Faith or a new point no way to be opposed or denied but assented to and believ'd by him § L When therefore a thing is said to be no dogma fidei before and at such a time to begin to be so the meaning is That is is now a dogma fidei or object of Faith necessary to be believ'd which it was not before necessary to be believ'd not for the matter thereof as if the actual knowledg and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to Salvation thus a few points only some think not all those of the Creed are necessary and nothing thus necessary at any time that is not always so but necessary ex accidenti because we have a sufficient proposal thereof that it is a divine truth Not that the error in or ignorance of such a point even after such proposal doth derogate from our having absolutely necessary faith any more than it did before nor that in disbelieving or dissenting from it we are more defective in the necessarily salvifical principles of divine truth but that we are defective in our obedience to and acceptance of divine truths made known to us by the Church as some way conducible to Christian edification to the peace of the Church or to some other good end Therefore the duty she requires to many of her decisions is not so much an actual knowing of them as the not denying opposing contradicting them when made known to us Therefore for example should any one after the definition of the Tridentine Council thereupon hold John's and our Saviour's Baptism to have in every thing the same virtue and effect such a one whilst not knowing this definition of the Council is excusable in his error supposing it be not contracted from any careless neglect or if it be so contracted yet he is not guilty thereby of a point of infidelity as concerning necessary faith but only of the sin of negligence Neither when the Church requires the belief of Transubstantiation hence doth it follow that she saith the belief thereof is necessary to salvation but that she thinks it fit for some good ends of Christian edification not to be opposed and therefore Suarez his confessing that to believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to salvation quoted by Archbishop Laud p. 287. methinks well consists with the Church's determining it tho the Archbishop there thinks according to the Roman principles it is otherwise And as Bellarmin saith there are many things in Scripture which tho they are necessario credenda quia scripta sunt yet are not scripta quia necessario credenda so may I say of Church definitions Neither upon this may we collect that she is tyrannical in abridging the liberty of mens judgments if the belief of the points she determins be not necessary for salvation but only if no way at all beneficial to be known For the wilful opposing of which if we afterwards incur her Anathema's which exclude from heaven thus we miss of salvation not for want of necessary faith but obedience she Anathematizing us not for an error but a vice i. e. a causlesly disturbing her peace and resisting her authority Should any one after the Apostolical Synod and Decrees Act. 15. some of which were about matter of small account yet not without good reason commanded for a season at least to be observed have resisted their Injunctions in the matter of blood and things strangled holding it still lawful notwithstanding such prohibition to eat those things such an one doubtless notwithstanding the levity of the matter would justly have incurred the Church'es censure and without repentance bin liable to damnation not for want of any faith necessary thereto but of due submission and obedience to the decrees of a just Authority § LI 5. Lastly concerning our obedience to these Councils in such their decisions Obedience due to such decisions see what I have said in my Notes concerning that subject and in those of the obligation of not acting against conscience where I think t is sufficiently evidenced that we are bound to submit at least to all such points where we are not certain of the contrary as especially in this by most-confessed ineffable mystery we can little pretend to it considering what hath bin said in this paper But indeed such a submission will be found either a duty to all the Churches decisions or to none For if we obey only so many of her Canons as we in our judgment think truth rejecting the rest our submission is not to her authority deciding but a yeilding to the verisimility of the thing decided Again such a submission is either a duty to all Councils I mean which are in their authority equal or to none upon the same reason For for us to judge first of the orthodoxness of a Council which is appointed to direct us what is orthodox what a preposterous thing is it And if we go to this play once to receive only so many Councils as we like of their doctrines then as the Lutheran only admits of six Councils the Calvinist of only four so the Eutychians now in Asia upon as good grounds I mean as to any obligation to their Authority do admit only of three Councils Again the modern Nestorian of two only lastly the modern Socinian of none at all The Objection that may be made here What if a man's conscience be perswaded that the contrary to the Councils decree is evident in the Scriptures The objection of contrary perswasion of Conscience considered as what if one think that the Church in the Tridentine Council enjoyns adoration not to Christ but to the Symbols or that the worshiping of Christ as corporally present in the Sacrament is flat idolatry which is much urged by Daille as a sufficient ground for a discession from the former Church see the latter part of 8. c. of his Apology p. 55. I have answered in those Notes before-named I will only here retort it Suppose an Eutychian Nestorian Ariam plead the same excuse for dissenting from the ancient Councils for I hope he will grant some of them may be perswaded in conscience as they profess If he answer such perswasion of a conscience wilfully misinformed and refusing the guides God hath appointed to instruct it better excuseth them not from the guilt of heresy I reply neither will it in this point excuse the other especially for the business of corporal presence if they be found to go against the stream of present and former Church from whom we ought in all
these Ego Berengarius corde credo panem c. substantialiter converti in veram propriam vivificatricem carnem Domini c. In the former Roman Council an 1060. tho the words of the Recantation are Ego Berengarius anathematizo eam haeresin quae astruere conatur panem post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum non verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse Yet that the Council meant the Bread to be Christ's Body not whilst being but by ceasing to be Bread methinks is sufficiently vindicated by what Lanfranck one of it and Guitmund and Anselm contemporaries say of this Council as I find them quoted by Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 21. Lanfran de Corpore Domini to Berengarius Nicolaus Papa comperiens te docere panem vinumque altaris post consecrationem sine materiali mutatione in pristinis essentiis remanere c. praecepti tradi scripturam tibi i. e. the Recantation nam'd before Guitmund l. 3. De Corpore Domini speaking of the same Council saith Panem in corpus Christi substantialiter converti non sicut delirat Berengarius corporis Domini figuras tantum esse umbras aut intra se latentem Christum tegere universalis Ecclesiae consensione roboratum est Anselm tho I grant 't is not necessary to understand this to be spoken of the former Council notwithstanding semper abhorruit some way involves it Panis substantiam post consecrationem in altari superesse semper abhorruit pietas Christiana nuperque damnavit in Berengario But Anselm dyed an hundred years before the Lateran Council Besides the force of these Testimonies 't is not probable that in the eighteen years space that interceded between these two Councils the Judgment of the Church in the later should be so much alter'd and that without any noise or opposition from the former § XLVIII 4. Concerning these Councils that have so strictly determin'd the manner of corporal presence Councils excusable in determination of the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist which many pious men have wished that the Church had rather left undefin'd permitting to every one the liberty of their private conjecture and only imposing silence on all to forbear curious disputes Yet we may consider That the same we say concerning this point of the Eucharist is said by Sectaries concerning Decisions of Councils in any other point wherein they differ from her Judgment So she is by several complain'd of for her too much curiosity and punctuality in the mystery of the Trinity in her addition a Filioque in concluding that hard and long-disputed point of Rebaptization c. That not private men but the Church her self is meetest to judg what is fit to be determin'd or not determin'd by her That curious disputes may indeed easily be prohibited but once on foot will never be actually laid but still multiply into new controversies till something most probable is setled by just Authority That as there were then on foot some opinions very destructive and diminutive to this ineffable Mystery as Berengarius his first Doctrine so others again very extravagant as that of Hypostatical union of the Deity to a new Breaden Body That these Councils did no more in this than other Councils from time to time have done in very subtle only if much controverted matters in not silencing the Disputants but as became a Judg confiding in the Holy Spirit 's assistance determining the point as seem'd to them truest That these Councils in this point after all things had been for a long time more exactly debated and sifted than in former Ages before giving any sentence thereon in their decision follow'd the words of our Saviour Mat. 26.26 in their simplest meaning and the commonest phrase of the Writings of Antiquity tho some Fathers in their judgment perhaps differ'd from the rest i. e. conversion or transmutation taken in the strictest sense That if we restrain the Church from determining any thing where Scripture seems ambiguous tho the testimony and exposition of Antiquity perhaps in the same point is not so her decisive Authority in matters once controverted will be made void because so often is Scripture ambiguous i.e. by several men severally understood And in matters not controverted 't is needless That there comes 〈◊〉 more Peace to the Church by such a definition and no danger to Christians from this thing defined if an Error supposing still corporal presence a truth from which also follows Adoration because 't is only a purely speculative mistake and no point of practice depending on it Lastly That in the general acknowledgment of so much obscurity and uncomprehensibleness of this mystery as the Church hath less light to judg of the exact manner thereof c. so have others less grounds to contradict her Judgment As for her making it an Article of Faith now which was not so heretofore which is much objected by some Reformed In what sence they impose it as an Article of Faith. see Chemnitius quoted before Sed quia transubstantiatio saith he pro articulo fidei sub paena anathematis proponitur necessario contradicendum est c. See Dr. Taylor p. 331. Before the Lateran Council saith he Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei as Scotus saith and how it can be afterward since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our Faith and therefore all Faith was deliver'd from the beginning is a matter of highest danger and consideration Thus he I think it is sufficiently answer'd and the offence thereof taken away in my notes of Infallibility so that I need say little here Only this First They make this point of Transubstantiation no more an Article of Faith than their other Decrees to which they require assent under Anathema as they do to this For example 'T is made no more an Article of Faith by them than this is De Bapt. Can. 1. Baptismum Johannis non habere eandem vim cum baptismo Christi But if the Church may not be permitted to make thus new Articles of Faith she may not to make any new determination not formerly made nor to enjoin people to believe or assent to any thing which formerly was not enjoin'd nor believ'd But to explain the business a little We must know That all Divine Revelation any thing in God's Word whatever is eo nomine an Article or point of Faith and that as Article of Faith is taken for dogma verum and so credible for a divine truth which is creditable or which may be most surely believ'd So what Dr. Taylor saith is most true such it is not only after Decreed by a Council but at least from the time of our Saviour and the Apostles and nothing at any time thus an Article of Faith which is not so always And thus far doubtless was it from Scotus his thought That Transubstantiation at the Lateran Council began to be a divine truth when it was not so
the pillar stript and in the common Hall arrayed in 's Mock Regalia without an actual distinction of his garments from himself had the same object of his piety Ibid. l. 18. I must tell him that the adoration of those among the Lutherans is infinitely more excusable than theirs the Catholicks And this Good Man he is forced to assert not out of prejudice but by the cogency of some reasons The Reader will admire his assurance if he weighs his arguments As first because we Catholicks violate sense which the Lutherans preserve entire Now to wave both the impertinence and falshood of this leading Reason as intimating that we violate sense and that either the nature or heinousness of Idolatry depends thereon t is enough to quash it to affirm that the Lutherans violate sense as much as we Do they not believe the Body of our Lord present with the Bread Do not our senses tell us as experimentally there is no flesh present as they do that Bread is there He that says there are ten men in a Room where sense informs there are but five must needs treat sense with as much violence as he that says there are but five when ten are seen The violence done to sense therefore if any be done and so the inexcusableness is equal on the Lutheran to that on our side We descend to his next Reason the former part of it viz. that the Lutherans are right in their Object himself has overthrown in 's 89th pag. if he approve what he cites out of Dr. Taylor For the Lutheran object is a non Ens if Jesus Christ be not substantially present and if He be not in ours how can He be in their Eucharist since our Priesthood whereon all grant his being there in some sort depends is more undoubted valid and canonical than theirs they deriving Sacerdotal Orders from a Presbyter's Ordination which all Antiquity and Prelatick Protestants in their seuds with Presbytery and by their present practice in ordaining such Ministers anew damn not only as spurious but as null we from Episcopal legitimately communicated If then the Lutherans be right in their object much more are we Have we not more assurance that our Lord is there and He only is there We run therefore a less risque of missing him than they The other part of his 2d Reason seems to be an Ignoratio Elenchi the common Fallacy imploy'd by Protestants and this Minister especially in this dispute to amuse and deceive his Reader for if I comprehend him he proceeds on this ground that we hold the substance of the Bread to be the material of which the Body of Christ is made whenas we believe nothing like it Our Doctrine is that by Sacerdotal consecration the substance of our Lord's Body which now resides in Heaven and shall enjoy that glorious condition till his second Advent becomes however existent also under the species of Bread and Wine in a Spiritual manner and that the substance of Bread and Wine wholly ceases to he under those species as before consecration it was but further notice our faith takes not of the Breaden substance whether it be annihilated or how it ceases If the Breaden substance be absent then we do not adore that substance for Christ's body which is not his and if it be present we do not adore it unless we can be supposed to adore what we think not of or what we think to be nothing or to believe and adore two substances of one Body and be said to direct our devotion another way at the same time we with the strictest abstraction aim at the substance assumed by the eternal Word in the Virgin 's womb and now and ever personally united to it If we should worship the Eucharist whether there be a Substantial presence or no then we might well pass for Bread-worshippers if our Lord were not substantially present but worshiping not so loosly at random nor without a solid supposition of a substantial presence demonstrates we do direct our piety to our Saviour only never reflecting on what either ceases or remains of the elements so as to make them partners or rivals with him in our Duty The truth of the 5th Catholick Assertion is then evinced our worship is as excusable as the Lutherans and the new auxiliary Reasons drawn up p. 102. l. ult to oppose it afresh are indeed nothing to the purpose and moreover the former of them is false too We can be sufficiently sure of due consecration and anathematizing Dissenters does not alter the excusableness of our worship If our worship be of the same nature with the Lutheran and have as good grounds the imposing of it adds not one jot of guilt to it whatever it do to the imposers The Answerer then ought to have totally assented to the 6th Catholick Assertion for the same sound reason which moved him to grant it true of the Lutherans that their Object is right ours being certainly as true or the same with theirs and if we mistake the substance of Bread they worship nothing for Christ We worship no Host i.e. neither any substance that ever was or is a breaden substance nor yet the symbols but only Christ sacramentally existing who never was nor can be a Wafer nor made of either the substance or accidents of Bread. How then can we possibly mistake what is not Christ for Him unless the Christ born of the ever-blessed Virgin be not Christ Perverse therefore is the parallel of our worship to that of a Manichee's fancying Christ to be made of the Sun's substance this in that Heretick was both groundless and impossible whenas ours is quite another sentiment and founded on motives clear and infallible so far different in the thing as the substance born of our Lady is from that of the Bread or the Sun so far unlike in the ground as the fiction of a single Persian impostor is less credible than express Revelation and the constant Tradition of the Catholick Church Much-what the same Chaff is served up p. 106. to shew more difference between Us and the Lutherans than a Trans and Con amount to So zealous is this Polemic Divine to reduce Christians to an amicable temper that he exceeds the bounds of discretion and reverence not only to his own Party and the Noblest Nations of Christendom but also to his Prince For whilst He and others labour for Peace this man like seditious Love represents them irreconcilable His first reason here is already exposed There is either no or an equal violence done to Sense by Us and the Lutherans His second Reason is as faulty as his first if we are at defiance with any Texts that call the Eucharist Bread are not the Lutherans at as much defiance with those that call it Flesh and our Lord's Body for both it cannot be substantially Flesh and substantially Bread. To his third Reason viz. That the words of Institution afford occasion of inferring a Presence of
and also animates us to persist in it since those who have quitted our communion and relinquished our faith in other matters discern so strong Motives to retain this that tho very willing they cannot without violence to their consciences renounce it Pag. 117. l. 20. It is confessed by the greatest men of their Church c. A forgery Our great men make the contrary confession and if any of them seems to speak towards what this Minister feigns it is with respect to Transubstantiation not a corporal presence particularly Scotus misquoted Praef. p. 6. That most subtle Doctor as has bin often answered to this most impudent objection lays it down That the Points discuss'd by him in his 4ti Dist 11. q. 3. do all intend to maintain That the Body of Christ is truly in the Eucharist because to deny that is plainly against Faith for it was expresly from the beginning of the Institution of the truth of Faith that the Body of Christ is contain'd there truly and really And afterwards in his Reply to Objections fixing on Transubstantiation as the manner of the substantial presence he adds And if you demand why the Church chose this so difficult a sense i. e. of Transubstantiation being the manner of this Article when the words of Scripture may be rendred in a sense easy and as to appearance truer concerning this Article To this Objection he returns I say that the Scriptures are expounded by the direction of that Spirit by which they were composed And so it is to be supposed that the Catholick Church hath interpreted by the same Spirit by which the Faith was delivered to us viz. taught by the Spirit of truth and therefore she chose this sense because it is true For it is not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true but of God the Institutor but the Church directed herein as t is believed by the Spirit of truth hath explicated the sense delivered to Her by God. Now t is evident that the Schoolman is here speaking of Transubstantiation not of the corporal presence next that he says not the facility or appearance of a sense to be that designed in Scripture is to be regarded in Faith but the declaration of the Church in whose custody the traditive sense of Scripture i.e. what God intended not what we surmise is deposited and by whose mouth the Holy Spirit speaks Lastly that the Declaration of the Church is for Transubstantiation therefore this must be concluded to be the proper sense of Scripture tho that Scripture sound never so plausibly for some other sense Our Adversaries persevering in an imposture with so much pertinacy and immodesty extorts this tedious Repetition All we shall further remark upon it is that it yeilds this Minister a very wholsom Instruction how to interpret Scripture not by Jewish customs nor Rabbinical Deliriums not by the superficial notices of sense or vain Maxims and cheating suggestions of Science falsly so called but by the Guidance of the Church assisted with the Holy Spirit for of these two Directors in expounding Scripture this Mâ—nister seldom has regard whilst Catholicks enquire of the Church what sense the Holy Spirit chiefly design'd and without hesitancy adhere to that she gives whether it be literal or mystical because our Lord's promise of assisting the Church and leading her into all truth is so absolute that we think we may as justly distrust his being the Messiah as be jealous of his Fidelity or Providence in acquitting himself of this engagement Should we not be suspicious if without apprehension nay with perfect firmness and security we did not acquiesce in her expositions And how many of those who have leap'd from this Rock and committed themselves to the conduct of a Private spirit are now carried away by the wind of Socinianism Judaism Mahomatism or irreligion whilst we that stand on it have not only the same Faith still but cannot possibly fail by misbelief Pag. 118. l. 7. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of those words of Institution destroys the certainty of sense c. If he mean our interpretation of a corporal presence then he contradicts what he thrice told us that the Lutherans do no violence to sense but if he mean the Interpretation of Transubstantiation his observation is wide of the point contested But in both meanings t is false for we derogate from sense not in the least and if we did in one-case in obedience to Faith whereto we think sense may as justly be captivated as the understanding that will not infer we may in another destitute of such a revelation till a particular premise can support an universal conclusion The Fallacy and Ignorance of this importunate Argument so often brought and so often bafled and exposed must certainly be used by these men merely to deceive the People As to the Paradox of Miracles being discoverable by sense only we refer this Minister to Calvin Bishop Forbes and many other Classic Reformers for correction who esteem them stupid that disclaim the Eucharistical Miracles and truly by sense we discern none there How then by your favour came they to discern Miracles in the Eucharist But what Was there no miracle in the conception of our Lord What sense acquaints men with it That he was a Man we might know by sense but that he was miraculously conceived only Revelation not Experience assures all besides his Mother To pass this how comes it to be collected that if one of the evidences of the truth of Christianity cannot be had strait our certainty of the truth of Christianity is destroy'd Tell me I pray were Miracles its sole evidence Were accomplishments of Old Testament-prophecies none or uncertain Had all Believer's miracles before they assented Did none believe with certainty but such as had Miracles to attest what was tendred to them What 's become of the Beatitude Blessed are those that have not seen a miracle Christ risen and yet have believed on the credible relation of others and because it was foretold he should rise c. If the performance of something in Nature otherwise than any created Power uses or can do I say the performance of it by Power Divine be a Miracle and that such a performance may be effected in spiritual as well as sensible affairs the knowledg of which may and must be attain'd if it be had by an information not sensible then the confining of Miracles to be objects of Sense is exploded Having thus overturn'd two of his Observations his Arguings from them vanish as do all other Bubbles Pag. 119. l. 4. No Papist can have any Reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true but because he reads those words of holy Scripture c. A Papist has the same Reason to believe Transubstantiation tho he cannot read at all as the first Christians had before the Gospels were written or a blind man has now The mistake of Dr. Stillingfleet Tillotson Tenison this
Answerer and others insisting so eagerly and obstinately on the Authority of Sense grows if it be not an Artifice perhaps from their taking the Maxim Nothing is in the Intellect which was not before in the Senses absolutely as if the only Conveyer of Notices to the Mind were the Senses or no thought had its birth there without an external promter whenas to omit the ill consequences c. of the later there are other means of acquainting the Intellect without the concurrence of the Senses as by Good and Bad Spirits c. Now these either convey always the same Notices as the Senses or they do not if they do then the Mind must ever judg with the Senses which is against experience If they do not how comes the Intellect to determine against the Notices of Sense e. g. in the Magnitude of the Sun Surely it neglects the information of Sense either upon some other more powerful motive and overruling remonstrance than Sense has given or arbitrarily but whether way soever it goes the Maxim is rejected and the Mind 't is clear does not find it self obliged to determine in all cases as Sense deposes Sense then is no Judg but only a conveyer of Intelligence to the Judg according to which Intelligence we confess that Judg is to censure and resolve except when better Intelligence from Reason or Revelation be interposed and arrest such a Judgment Now Sense informs a Catholick Mind that hath so much Learning as to read which Protestants think few have they are so ignorantly educated that the words of Institution are in that Book the Church tells him are the Gospels and neither Reason nor Revelation countervening this Notice a Papist judges with certainty according to the deposition of the Senses but when a Papist desires to proceed further and would understand not only that there are such words but also what is that very meaning not which may be put upon them wherein his sense and reason may assist him but which the Holy Ghost intended and the Church holds then he relies not on his senses or reason only because he knows the sentiments of Men to be very different as amongst themselves so from the Church's and Holy Spirit 's and if he might rely on his own so might others and consequently collect opposite truths from their discordant conceptions Wherefore he resorts to that hand which reacht out to him the words of Institution as Gods word to give him also their true meaning which he receives and professes without demur or fear And thus Papists arrive at all saving-saving-truth thus they attain Unanimity and learn not only to think but speak the same thing whilst the minds and language of all Sectaries who pretend to follow sense and reason only in their Interpretation of Scripture are at wars and Babilonish For private Spirits are many and are Dissenters but the Church the Holy Spirit is but One and at Unity with it self And thus I suppose not our but the Minister's culpable ignorance is apparent Ibid. l 28. But let us quit this Reflection c. Content If he would not hasten to new untruths Where is it confess'd that we have neither command nor example in Holy Scripture for Adoring our Lord in the Eucharist If there he any command for Adoring our Lord at all there is for Adoring him in the Eucharist For once Adorable and he is always and every-where Adorable in what condition or circumstances soever and special injunctions or instances are not of necessity to warrant or oblige us to Adore St. Austin knew there was a command or he would not have said in Psal 98. Peccemus non Adorando Again tho we confess that Defects may possibly happen yet who grants them to be infinite or difficultly avoidable Is it not rather difficult considering the Caution of the Church that any defects should chance which are destructive to the Eucharist Can we not have a moral certainty the Priest has the Orders to which he pretends Do not our Senses inform us as to both the matter and Form of the Sacrament and the serious application of the one to the other As to the intention 't is true it is deem'd necessary will the Minister profess that none is needful to the performance of a Religious Action but what degree or sort of intention is a Question in the Schools some Divines requiring more some less Of the later kind if he please the Reader may view what Contenson writes of it Theolog. Mentis Cordis l. 11. p. 1. Diss 2. Append. § 2. c. It is undoubtlingly to be asserted says this Modern Divine that an Intention of seriously performing the External Rites amongst Christians counted Religious suffices for the validity of a Sacrament and that being observed no retention nor perverseness of the Minister's Intention doth void a Sacrament This Position he confirms by many Authorities and concludes them with that of the Council of Trent Sess 14. Cap. 6. Can. 9. where that Holy Synod declares the Sacrament not to be performed if a Priest act in Jest c. inferring thereupon that the Council understood by an Intention of doing what the Church does not as this Minister of doing what the Church intends but a doing with external seriousness what the Church prescribes Which inference he inforces by Cardinal Palavicini's Reflection on that Passage of the Council par 2. l. 12. c. 10. From these last words any one reading them may conjecture that the Opinion of Catherine and other Divines thinking a Will in the Minister to act seriously suffices for and that only Jesting which the Receiver of the Sacrament may discover does obstruct the accomplishment of a Sacrament was not expunged According to this Doctrine then the Consecration of the Eucharist does not depend on the Priest's believing Transubstantiation or secretly intending to Consecrate c. but only on an external intention to do seriously what the Church injoins which is very discernable to the Attendants by the Priest's exterior actions and deportment How many therefore of the Answerer's Dangers and Defects are blown away And if Adoration may at any time be paid to our Lord in the Eucharist it may ordinarily be so without any scruple by Catholicks Appendix II. ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Reply to the two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Holy Eucharist SOME time ago were printed in OXFORD Two Discourses the one concerning the Alterations in the Church-Service of the Church of England the second concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament of the Eucharist The Design whereof was to shew the incertitude and inconstancy of the Church of England in her Doctrine and Practices Whence it will follow That none can trust or rely upon her Authority nor safely either believe or practise according to her directions Of both these the Author took these two Articles as a manifest and sufficient instance But because there is nothing so true against which