CHAPTER III.

WE are now arrived at the last Part of this Discourse; in which I must thus far change the Method I pursued in the Other Subject, as to consider,

First, What the Doctrine of the Church of Eng∣land as to this Point is; and what our Adver∣saries Exceptions against it are.

Secondly, What is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome; and whether what this Author has said in favour of it, may be sufficient to war∣rant their Practice as to this Matter.

For the former of these, The Doctrine of the Church of England, we shall need go no farther than the Rubrick we have before-mention'd; where∣in it is expresly declared, with reference to this Holy Sacrament,

This then being sufficiently cleared, let us see what this Author has to observe against it.

1.

He means, that were Christ himself here in his Bo∣dy actually present, He ought to be adored; and this he need not doubt of our readiness to grant.

2.

Now to this I shall at present only say, That the Supposition being absurd, do's not admit of a rational Consideration. Those who deny a bodily Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, and ask whether Adoration may not be paid to his Body, which is con∣fess'd not to be bodily present there, supposing it to be there some other way; ought to have no other Page  88 satisfaction than this, that they suppose an Impossi∣bility, a thing which cannot be; and therefore con∣cerning which no reasonable Answer can be given. Some I know have been more free, and allowing for the unreasonableness of the Supposal, have resolved contrary to our Author: But I think it very need∣less to dispute of the Affections of a Chimera; and wrangle about Notions that have neither Use nor Existence.

3. He observes, lastly,

I presume it was then in the Times of Popery; for since the Re∣formation, I have shewn before, that she has always held the contrary. But our Author will prove it, and that since the Reformation; This indeed is a very notable way of proving the Doctrine of our Church: But what now if I should bring him fifteen Others that have deny'd it; then I hope the Doctrine of the Church of England may be as fair for the con∣trary. But we will examine his Evidence.

First;

How this Bishop thought Christ truly present in the Sacrament we have seen before; and may from thence easily conclude how he suppo∣sed he might be adored there: viz. As in all other Page  89 Holy Offices, in which we confess Him by his Divine Power to be present with us, but especially in this Sacred Mystery. And thus we all adore him, both in and with, and without the Sacrament; we confess him to be truly present, and therefore truly to be adored by us. But now for Christ's Natural Body, (of which, and not of Christ himself, our Dispute is) if that be any otherwise truly present than as we before shew'd, let it be remembred, that according to this Bishop, it must not be his Glorified Body, his Bo∣dy as it now is; but his Body Crucified, his Body as * offer'd for us, and in the State of his Death; so He expresly affirms; and this I believe our Author him∣self will confess in his sense to be impossible.

His next Witness is Bishop Taylor:

But is he sure the Bishop meant so? If he be, I am sure the Bishop thought we all of us committed Idolatry in so doing. For being consulted, as we have seen above, He ex∣presly declares, And indeed this our Author knew very well was his Opinion, who himself in his next Trea∣tise, cites the xiiith Section of his Real Presence, * which was written on purpose to prove the unlaw∣fulness Page  90 of worshipping Christ's Body in this Sacra∣ment. But dissimulation of other Mens Opinions in matter of Religion, is perhaps as lawful on some Occasions, as if it were their own: And why may not an Author prevaricate the Doctrine of his Adver∣sary in defence of the Catholick Faith, since I have read of a * Protestant Minister, who in the Trou∣bles of France being brought over to the King's In∣terest, was secretly reconciled to the Church of Rome, and permitted so far to dissemble his own Opinion, as not only to continue in the outward profession of the Protestant Religion, but even to exercise the Fun∣ctions of his Ministry as before; and that by the express leave of his Holiness, for three whole Years, the better to carry on the Catholick Cause in betray∣ing the Secrets, and managing the Debates of his Brethren.

As for Bishop Forbes, and the Arch-bishop of Spa∣latto, it is not to be wondred if Men that had en∣tertained the Design of reconciling all Parties, were forced to strain sometimes a little farther than was fit for the doing of it. And for Mr. Thorndyke, we have seen that his Notion of the Real Presence was particular, and widely different both from theirs and ours; and therefore that we are not to answer for the Consequences of it. But however, to quit Page  91 these just Exceptions against them: Will he him∣self allow every thing to be the Doctrine or not of the Church of Rome, which I shall bring him three of their Authors to affirm or deny? If he will, then Transubstantiation is not their Doctrine, for I have al∣ready quoted above twice three of their most Lear∣ned Men against it. To adore an Unconsecrated Host by mistake, is Idolatry; for so S. Thomas, Paludanus, Catharine, and others, assure us: To worship the Host, supposing their Doctrine of Transubstantiation false, a worser Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty of; so several of their Writers confess. But now if our Author will not allow this to be good arguing against them, with what reason do's he go about to urge it against us?

Secondly; We must in the next place consider what the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as to this Point is; and whether what this Author has advanced in favour of it, may be sufficient to warrant their practice of this Adoration.

For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, I find it thus clearly set down by the Council of Trent: *

That therefore, according to this Council is to be worshipped, which Christ instituted to be received; and in which they believe Christ to be present: But 'tis no other than the Holy Sacrament, as these Trent-Fathers here expresly and properly stile it; which we all confess Christ instituted to be received, and in which they suppose Christ to be pre∣sent: And therefore 'tis the Sacrament which is to be adored. Which reasoning I find Card. Pallavicini thus improving in his History of this Council: This he illustrates in the Example of Christs Humanity; and thence concludes,

It is therefore, as I conceive, the undoubted Do∣ctrine of the Church of Rome, that the Holy Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist, for the Reason here given, is to be adored, with that Supreme Adoration that is due to the true God.

Now to warrant their Practice in this Matter, our Author thus proceeds in proof of it:

Page  93
• I. He premises some Propositions, which he calls, *Protestant Concessions.
• II. Some others, which he stiles, Catholick Asser∣tions. And then,
• III. Goes on to shew what warrant they have for that Belief on which this Adoration is founded.

I shall distinctly follow him in every one of these.

In his first Part, which he calls, Protestant Con∣cessions, * I will go on with him thus far:

1st. *

2dly, *

But now for his next Assertion; *

If he means, as in his former Treatise he explain'd himself, that the ve∣ry natural Body of Christ, that Body that was born of the Virgin, and crucified on the Cross, and is now in Heaven, is also as to its Substance truly and really pre∣sent on Earth in the Holy Eucharist, or to the worthy Receiver: I have in the foregoing Chapter fully shewn this new Fancy to be neither the Doctrine of Page  94 the Church of England, nor the Opinion of those ve∣ry Writers whom he produces for proof of it. And as to the ‖ adoration of it upon any such account, I have just now declared his Mistake of them in that Point too. And I shall not follow our Author's ill Example in repeating it all over again.

For his * fifth Remark,

I answer; First, As to the former part, it is confess'd that the Lutherans do indeed suppose Christ to be present, not only to the worthy Communicants, but also to the Consecrated Symbols. But now, secondly, for the other part, that during the Action of the Lord's Supper, He is to be Adored there; this is not so certain. For, 1. I do not find any thing establish'd amongst them as to this matter, neither in the Con∣fession of Auxpourg, nor in any other publick Acts of their Church. 2. I find several of their Divines ut∣terly denying, that Christ's Body is to be Adored in the Holy Sacrament; and our * Author himself con∣fesses it. Tho now, 3. † I will not deny but that some others of them do allow, if not that Christ's Body, yet that Christ himself is to be Adored after a peculiar manner in the Action of the Lord's Supper; and as far as I conceive, do by the Action mean, as our Author here represents it, from the Consecration to the end of the Communion. So that then, with this Limitation, his Proposition I presume may be admitted;

As to the sixth and last Concession, which he draws * from Monsieur Daille's Apologie,

always supposing that the belief of it had not been press'd upon us neither, as a necessary Article of Communion; nor any Anathema pronoun∣ced against us for not receiving it. And for the o∣ther part of it which he subjoyns, from whence he would infer, We are content to allow it; tho what use he can make of it in this Controversy, unless against his own Brethren, S. Thomas, Paluda∣nus, and others, I do not understand; since he knows we utterly deny any Host, consecrated or not, to be fit to be worshipped. And this may serve for his first Foun∣dation of Protestant Concessions,; which were they every one as certain as his first is, that Christ is to be adored, I cannot see what his Cause would gain by it; and he has not by any Application of them in this Treatise, given us the least reason to think that they Page  96 are of any moment in it. But some Men have a pe∣culiar faculty of amusing the World with nothing: and I remember, I once heard a judicious and modest Man give this Character of an Author much resem∣bling ours, with reference to his Guide in Controversy, that for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning, it had the least in it of any he ever met with. But I go on,

II. To his Catholick Assertions. *

And first:

This 'tis true the Papists, or if you please, the Catholicks do affirm; because that otherwise they could not call it a Sacrament. But now, if we enquire what that which they call a Sign, or a Symbol in this Holy Sacra∣ment is, we shall find it to be neither such as our Blessed Saviour establish'd, nor indeed any thing that can in propriety of Speech be so termed.

For our Saviour Christ, 'tis evident that the Sym∣bols instituted by him, were Bread and Wine: They were these that he took and blessed, and gave to his Disciples; and commanded them also in like manner to take, and bless, and give to others in remembrance of him; and as the Symbols of his Body and Blood in this Holy Eucharist. But now for the Papists; they destroy the Bread and the Wine; they leave only a few aiery, empty Species, that is, appearances of something, but which are really nothing, have no substance to support them.

Page  [unnumbered] The Symbols establish'd by Christ were Festival Symbols, a matter apt for our Corporal Nourishment; so signify to us, that as by them, viz. by Bread and Wine, our Bodies are nourished to a Corporal Life; so by the Body and Blood of Christ, which they both represent and communicate to us, our Souls are fed to Life Everlasting. But for that which hath no Sub∣stance, i. e. nothing which can be converted into our Bodily Nourishment; how that can be a Symbol of this Spiritual Food, I do not very well understand. Indeed our Author tells us,

That is to say, that the Symbol or external Sign then in this Eucharist, is according to them, a hard, soft, frangible, gustible, odoriferous, nutritive, visible, tangible, perceptible no∣thing. Verily a fit external Species indeed to contain, a one, manifold; visible, invisible; extended, unexten∣ded; local, illocal; absent, present; natural, superna∣tural; corporal, spiritual Body.

Secondly; Concerning the Adoration of the Sa∣crament, he tells us,

This indeed is a sort of new Divinity. I always thought hitherto, that when we talked of a Sacrament, properly so Page  98 called, we had meant an outward and visible Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace: and that this parti∣cular Sacrament had been a whole composed of the External Species, (whatever they are) as the Sign; and the Body and Blood of Christ as the inward part, or thing signified. Thus I am sure the Catechism of the Council of Trent instructs us. First, for the name; it tells us, that And for the nature of them, thus it defines a Sacrament from S. Austin, or more fully, as I before said; a visible sign of an So that neither then Symbols alone, nor the invisible part, or Grace alone, can with any manner of propriety be called a Sacrament; but the Sign referr'd to the Grace; and as it is the Symbol instituted by Christ for the conferring of it.

This therefore can with no good reason be called a Catholick Assertion; being neither general nor true: But however, since he seems content to allow it to be an impropriety of Speech, and that, I confess, the * Catechism of the Council of Trent does lead him in∣to it; let us see what use he can make of it. †

There is, no doubt, a great difference be∣tween these two: but then they who tell us, the Sa∣crament is to be Adored, if they will speak rationally, Page  99 must mean neither the one nor other of these, but the Host; that is, as Card. Pallavicini expounds it, The whole, of which Christ's Body is a part; in the lan∣guage of the Council of Trent; the Sacrament IN WHICH they believe Christ to be present, and for that Cause adore it; as the Cardinal again argues; * that, To make a Whole Adorable, it is sufficient that one part be so; and therefore since the Body of Christ is adorable, the Sacrament for its sake is to be worshipped. It is therefore a meer shift to tell us that the Sacrament is to be adored; i. e. Christ's Body in the Sacrament. Nor will the remark of our Author help us out, that tho the Chapter indeed calls it the Sacrament IN * WHICH is Christ's Body, yet the Canon speaks more precisely, and calls it Christ in the Sacrament; unless he supposes the Council to have been infallible in the Ca∣nons only, and not in the Chapters; as some have thought, that they may be out in their Proofs, but cannot be in their Conclusions. But however, since he so much desires it, for my part I shall be con∣tent to allow them this too; for I should be glad by any means to see them sensible of their Errors. But yet so as that it be esteem'd only a private Opinion this, not a Catholick Assertion.

Thirdly; Catholicks, he means the Papists still, *

By which Assertion, if he means only to make this Discovery, That Christ's Real Presence, together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine, is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration, as if he were there only with the Page  100 Species of the Bread, the Substance being changed into his Body; I have no more to say to it. But if he would hereby make us believe, that 'tis all one whether Christ be adored, as supposed here by the Lu∣therans in this Holy Eucharist, and as imagined there by the Papists; I must then deny his Assertion; and desire him to keep home to his own manner of Real Presence, and which I shall presently convince him, will leave them in a much worse condition than their Neighbours, whom he would draw into the same Snare with them. And therefore, whereas he con∣cludes,

Fourthly;

I must tell him, that the Adoration of those among the Lutherans, who worship Christ in this Sacrament upon the account of his Real Pre∣sence in, or with the Bread, tho it be an Error, yet is infinitely more excusable than theirs, who sup∣pose the Bread to be turned into Christ's Body; and because it may not be thought that I speak this out of any prejudice against them, I will here offer my Reasons for it.

1st, They that adore Christ as really present, toge∣ther with the Bread, do no violence to their Senses: They confess, that what they see, and taste, and feel, and smell, is really Bread and Wine. Whilst the Papist in denying the Bread and Wine to remain; or that what he sees, and feels, and smells, and tastes, is what all the World perceives and knows it is, con∣tradicts his Senses, and in them the Law of Nature, Page  101 that Means which God has given us to direct and lead us into the search of Truth; and by Conse∣quence errs against infinitely greater Means of Con∣viction, and so is more inexcusable than the Other.

2dly; They who worship Christ, as supposing Him to be together with the Bread in this Holy Eu∣charist, are erroneous indeed in this, that they take Christ's Body to be where really it is not; but yet their Object is undoubtedly right, and in that they are not mistaken. But now for the Papist; he a∣dores, 'tis confess'd, what he thinks to be Christ's Body; and would not otherwise adore it: But yet still 'tis the Host that he adores, the Substance that is under those Species which he sees; and which if it be not Christ, but meer Substance of Bread, the Case is vastly alter'd between the Lutheran and Him. The former adores Christ, only as in a place where he is not; the latter not only do's this, but more∣over adores a Substance for Christ which is not his Body and Blood, but a meer Creature of Bread and Wine.

Monsieur Daille therefore might rightly enough say of a Lutheran,

And yet our Au∣thor has no manner of Reason from thence to pre∣tend, that a Papist who terminates his Adoration up∣on a Substance which really is not Christ's Body, but only mistaken by him to be so, shall be in the same Condition: there being an apparently vast diffe∣rence between worshipping Christ in a place where he is not, and worshipping that for Christ which Page  102 really is not Christ, but only a created Sub∣stance.

And this in truth our Author seems to have been sensible of, and therefore thinks to evade it, by saying,

Well, be this so: But what now if they are mis∣taken in their Supposition: They worship, he con∣fesses, the Substance-that is under those Accidents, supposing it to be Christ's Body; but still, mistaken or not, that Substance which is under those Species, whatever it be, they do worship: And if they have, as he thinks, a rational ground for this Supposi∣tion, which we shall see by and by, yet this will only excuse them from being formal Idolaters; but will not hinder but that their Worship is still directed to an undue Object, if that which is under the Spe∣cies be indeed but Bread, and not Christ's Body as they imagine. And this then may serve to argue the false∣ness of what he lays down as his

Fifth, Catholick Assertion:

Since as I have said; 1st, They err more grosly in abandon∣ing the conviction of their Senses, which the Lu∣therans do not; 2dly, They worship a Substance for Christ, which really is not: To which if this be not enough, I will add yet two other Reasons: 3dly, That they make the Consecration, without Page  103 which Christ is not present upon their own Princi∣ples, to depend on such uncertainties (as I shall more fully shew anon) that they can never be sure that Christ is there, which the Lutherans are free from: And lastly; They Anathematize those who dissent from them as to this Point, and so make a Schism in dividing the Unity of the Church, which the Luthe∣rans are so far from doing, that they neither esta∣blish any Doctrine of Adoration at all, nay many of them do not believe it; and upon occasion, freely communicate with those who dissent from them in their belief, both of their way of the Real Pre∣sence, and of the Adoration. And for the same rea∣son I cannot totally assent to his

Sixth Assertion:

This as to what concerns those of the Lutherans who adore Christ in the Sacrament, is true: But for the Papist it is not. He intends, I allow it, to worship Christ, but he mistakes an Object for Christ, which is only a piece of Bread. He worships his Host, supposing it to be our Saviour's Body, but his Error is gross, and he not only mistakes Christ to be in a place where he is not, but he mistakes that to be Christ which indeed is not, but only a simple Wafer. His Worship therefore is not like the Ma∣nichees worshipping of Christ in the Sun; but ra∣ther as if the Manichee should, from some mistaken grounds, have fancy'd the Sun it self to be turned Page  104 into Christ's Body; and then in defiance of all Scripture, Sense, and Reason, should have fallen down before it; but with a good Intention not to adore the Sun, but the Body of our Blessed Lord un∣der the Species or Accidents of the Sun. This is the true Parallel; only that herein still the Manichee would have been the more excusable of the two, by how much the Sun is a more likely Object to be mis∣taken for Christ's glorified Body than a Morsel of Bread; and less capable of being discovered by our Senses and Examination not to be so.

It remains then, that these Lutherans only adore Christ where he is not; the Papists not only do this, but more-over they adore that for Christ which really is not, but a meer created Substance. Both the One and the Other are Erroneous; but the Papist's Mis∣take, renders him at the least guilty of material I∣dolatry, whereas the Lutherans is only an undue Ap∣plication of his Worship as to the Place, but right as to the Person. Let us see,

Seventhly; How far their Mistake will excuse them, in answer to his seventh Assertion:

Which Proposal is so just, that I am very willing to allow it; and shall be hear∣tily glad that the Grounds of their Mistake may in the End prove to have been so reasonable as to excuse them. But then it must be remembred too, that he confesses if these Grounds be not reasonable, but as he says of the Manichees, their adoring of the Host be indeed an adoring a Fancy of their own without any rational Ground; So that their ignorance in this Matter is culpable, then by their own allowance they are Idolaters.

This therefore brings me to the last Thing to be enquired into.

III. What Grounds they have for this Adoration? and whether they be such as, should they be mistaken in it, will be sufficient to excuse them?

And thus after a great deal of Preamble, but very little to the purpose, we are at last come to the main Question. I have already so largely shewn our Reasons against Transubstantiation, or that Real Presence on which this Adoration is built, that I shall not need to insist here. Yet because the stress of this Controversy depends principally on •his last Part, I will,

• 1st, Examine the strength of those Grounds which this Author has offer'd, to warrant their Adoration.
• 2dly, I will propose an Argument or two upon their own allowed Principles against it.

Page  106 But before we proceed to these Points, we must vet have one touch more upon the old String:

In Answer to which, the Reader may please to remember, that I have before said, that we do not excuse those Lutherans who do this so much upon this Principle, that they have a more plausible Ground or Motive for their Adoration; but for this rather, that confessing the Substance of the Bread to remain, they do not mistake their Object, but pay their A∣doration indeed to Christ, only supposing him to be there where in Truth he is not. But, 2dly, this Author is very much mistaken if he thinks the Lu∣therans have no better a Foundation for their Real Presence than the Papists. Indeed, were the difference * no greater than between a Con and a Trans, it would, I confess, be hardly worth the while to contend a∣bout it. But when we come to the Point it self, we may observe these four Advantages, among many o∣thers of the Lutherans side. 1. They confess for the outward Elements, that they are really what they ap∣pear to be, Bread and Wine; and so they do no Vio∣lence to their Senses; which, as I have said, is a great aggravation against the Papists. 2. By this means they are at no defiance with all those Texts of Scrip∣ture where they are so often called Bread and Wine after Consecration: All which the Papist contradicts, but the Lutheran does not. 3. From the words of Page  107 Christ, This is my Body; we all of us confess may be inferr'd, that Christ's Body is in this Holy Sacra∣ment: But whence do's the Papist infer the destru∣ction of the Substance of the Bread; so that what is taken, and blessed, and given, is not Bread, but Christ's Body under the appearance of Bread? This is an Error which I am sure the Text gives no man∣ner of colour to; and therefore our Author cannot with any reason pretend, as he do's, whether we consult the Text of Holy Scripture, or our own Sen∣ses, that they have as good grounds for their Real Presence, as the Lutherans have for theirs. To all which let me add, 4thly, that by Transubstantiation they destroy the very Nature of a Sacrament, by leaving no true external Sign or Symbol, and which is another unanswerable Argument against them, whilst the Lutherans acknowledging the Substance of the Bread to remain, do not destroy at all the Nature of this Sacrament, but retain the same Sign which our Blessed Lord established, and so have no Objecti∣on on this side neither to convict them.

But yet notwithstanding all this,

I An∣swer; What certain Protestants may have said in Zeal for their own Opinions, and in particular Ho∣spinian upon the account of his Master Zuinglius, I cannot tell: But sure I am, we are not bound to an∣swer for all that any Protestant Author has said. And if these Reasons I have here given for the con∣trary are valid, they ought to be more regarded, than the ungrounded Assertions of a Sacramentary Historian.

Page  108 Well, but still the

This is a fetch to very little purpose: For let me ask this Author; He confesses he founds his Adora∣tion upon the Corporal Presence: Do's he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation exclusive to all others, or no? If he do's, then 'tis evident that the Corporal Presence and Transubstan∣tiation, must with him stand or fall together; and so if he adores on the account of the Corporal Pre∣sence, he do's it upon the account of Transubstantia∣tion. If he do's not believe this, 'tis plain he is no Papist, nor submits to the Authority of the Church of Rome, which has defined the Corporal Presence to be after this particular manner, exclusive to all Others, and Anathematized all that dare to deny it.

Laying aside therefore this Comparison, and which in truth will do them but very little kindness:

I. Ground: And the first is Divine Revelation: * For which our Author offers the two usual Instances, of the words of Institution, and the 6th Chapter of S. John; both which therefore I have at large dis∣coursed on above, and I believe sufficiently shewn how false a Foundation these are of this belief.

But yet since our Author reminds us; *

I will beg leave to remind him of his own Assertion too, *

From which Principle it seems to me to follow, that were Hoc est Corpus meum, as evident a proof of Transubstantiation, as their own Authors confess it is not; yet if our Sense and Reason tell us that there are certain Contradictions against the common Principles of Nature, and the universal Sentiments of all Mankind, no otherwise to be avoided but by taking those words in the sense in which we do; we are then BOUND to interpret them so, as to avoid these Impossibilities. And this I am confident I have at large shewn above to be the Case, and thither I refer the Reader.

II. Ground. Their second Ground is founded up∣on * the Authority of those Councils that have deter∣mined this Matter;

These are great Words indeed; but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable * Synods of particular Prelats, such as are all those to which he refers us, assembled against Berengarius, were the Page  110 most supream and universal Church-Authority. For his little Reflection, that they were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism, I must tell him, I doubt he is mistaken. The Religion of Protestants, like that of Papists, is composs'd of two great parts; Catholick Christianity, common in some measure to us all; and Protestations against Popery. Now 'tis true, for what concerns the latter of these, we allow Popery to have the advantage of us, as to the Point of Antiqui∣ty, nor are we ashamed to own it: It being necessa∣ry that they should have fallen into Errors, before we could protest against them; but as to the present matter, our Author in his * Guide, to which he re∣fers us, confesses that Berengarius, against whom these little Synods were called, proceeded upon Protestant Grounds, i. e. in effect was a Protestant as to this Point: And therefore 'tis false in him now to say, that these Councils were assembled long before the birth of Protestantism.

But I return to his Church Authority; and an∣swer; 1. If this Doctrine be certainly contrary to Sense and Reason, as was before said, then he has told us before, that

2. For his Councils, the eldest of them was above a thousand Years after Christ, when by our own Confession, the Error, tho not of Tran∣substantiation, yet of the Corporal Presence, was creep∣ing into the Church. 3. These Councils were them∣selves a Party against Berengarius, and therefore no wonder if they condemned him. 4. They were neither universal of the whole Church, or even of the Western Patriachate in which they assembled; and therefore we can have no security that they did not Page  111 err, tho we should grant this Priviledg to a truly General Council that it could not. 5. 'Tis evi∣dent that some of them did err; forasmuch as the very * Formularies of Recantation prescribed to Be∣rengarius, do not agree the one with the other; and one of them was such, that their own † Authors tell us it must be very favourably interpreted, or it will lead us into a worser Error than that which it con∣demn'd. 6. Were they never so infallible, yet they none of them defined Transubstantiation, but only a Corporal Presence; and so whatever Authority they have, it is for the Lutherans, not the Papists. 7. And this their own Writers seem to own; forasmuch as none of them pretend to any definition of Transub∣stantiation before the Council of Lateran; and till which time they freely confess it was no Article of Faith.

Such is the Church Authority which this Dis∣courser would put upon us. But now that I have mentioned the Council of Lateran, as I have before observed, that it was the same Council which esta∣blish'd * Page  112 this Error, that also gave power to the Pope to depose Princes, and absolve their Subjects from their Obedience; so I cannot but remak further in this place, the Zeal of our Author in the defence of its Au∣thority. It is but a very little while since another of their Church, ‖ Father Walsh, in his Letter to the Bishop of Lincoln, did not think that the * Learned Person of our Church, to whom he refers us, had so clearly proved these Canons to have been the ge∣nuine † Acts either of the Council, or even of the Pa∣pist himself, but that a Man might still have reason to doubt of both: But indeed, tho that Father be of another mould, yet there are still some in the World, and I believe of this Author's acquaintance, who like this Council, never the worse for such a decision; but think the third Canon as necessary to keep Princes in a due Obedience to the Church, as the first, de Fide Ca∣tholià, to help out the obscurity of the Text in favour of Transubstantiation.

But he goes on; and upon these Premises,

Now, not to say any more as to his Expression of the Supremest Church Authority, which it may be he will interpret not absolutely, but with this Reserve, that hath been convened about such matters; I answer from himself, 1. It is a more reasonable and secure Page  113 course to follow that Interpretation which is agree∣able to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind, and against which he tells us, not only the Authority of a Synod, but even a Divine Revelation is not sufficient to secure us. 2. These Synods, as I have shewed, besides that they were particular, were moreover Parties in the case. And then, 3. It is false to say that they always decided the same, or, that that which they decided is the same which the Church of Rome now holds in this matter. All which our * Authors have fully proved, and this Discourser therefore ought to have answered.

III. Ground.

It would have been more to the purpose, if he could honestly have said of the most Primitive Times. But however his Modesty is the greater now, tho his Argument be not so strong. As to the Point of Antiquity, I have already fully discussed it above; and we are but * very lately assured by one of their own Authors, that Antiquity is of our side in this Point. For the six or seven Fathers he has mentioned, ‖ some of them are spurious; others have been † expresly an∣swered by us; and all of them at large by Monsieur Aubertine, Larrogue, and others. If this does not Page  114 satisfy him, he may shortly expect a fuller account in our own Language; * a Specimen of which has alrea∣dy been given to the World in Earnest of what is suddenly to follow.

IV. Ground. His next Ground is taken

To which I answer; That this Ground is not certain∣ly true; and if it were, yet certainly 'tis nothing to the purpose. 1. It is not certainly true: Indeed, that the latter Ages of the Western Churches before Lu∣ther, that is, from the time of the Council of Late∣rane, did profess the belief of Transubstantiation is confess'd: And that a great part of the Greek Church at this day do's the same, since their new Colledge at Rome, and their Money and Missionaries sent a∣mong them have corrupted their Faith, I do not de∣ny: But that this was so before Luther is not so cer∣tain; and whosoever shall impartially read over the long debate between the late Monsieur Claude, and Monsieur Arnaud concerning this matter, will, I believe, confess that this can be no rational Ground for their belief. Ludolphus tells us of the Ethiopian * Church, that at this day, it neither believes Tran∣substantiation, nor Adores the Host: and Tellezius con∣fesses it, because they consecrate with these words, * For the * Greeks, the Mus∣covites, the Armenians, the Nestorians, Maronites, &c. Page  115 those who please to interest their Curiosity in a matter of so little moment as to their Faith, may satisfy themselves in the Authors, to which I refer them. Tho now, 2. To allow the matter of Fact to be true, I pray, what force is there at last in this Argument, That is to say, you Protestants charge us for believing Transubstantiation, as Men that act contrary to the design of Christ in this Holy Eucha∣rist, that have forsaken the Tradition of the Primi∣tive Ages of the Church; that destroy the nature of this Holy Sacrament, and do violence to the common Sense and Reason of Mankind: Be it so; yet at least we have this rational Ground for our belief, tho it should be false, viz. That we did all of us peaceably and quietly believe it, till you came with your Scrip∣ture, and Antiquity, and Sense, and Reason, to raise Doubts and Difficulties about it; nay more, we all of us still do believe it, except those that you have perswaded not to do so.

V. Ground. Of no greater strength is his last * Ground for their belief, viz,

For, 1. If we did acknowledg this, yet it seems we are mistaken in it; and then what grounds can it be for a Papist to Page  116 believe Transubstantiation, that we Hereticks by a Mistake do not believe it, but only a real spiritual Presence, and as such are Anathematized by them for our Error? 2. I have before shewn, that were this a rational Ground, yet it fails them too; for neither do the Genuine Sons of the Church of England, nor any other that I know of, either believe Christ's na∣tural Body to be substantially present in the Holy Eu∣charist, or to be adored there: I am sure if there be any such, they cannot be the Genuine Sons of the Church of England in this Matter, who believe so expresly contrary to her formal Declaration, as this Author has himself observed.

And then for the Lutherans, to whom he again * returns; it is hard to conceive what rational ground of Security they can derive from their practice; that because they commit no Idolatry in worshipping what they know certainly to be Christ, the Papist commits none for worshipping what he do's not know certainly is Christ; in truth what, if he plea∣sed, he might know certainly is not Christ.

And now after a serious and impartial Considera∣tion of the Grounds produced in Vindication of this Worship; tho I could have wish'd I might have found them as rational as our Author pretends them to be, and shall be glad, as they are, that they may here∣after prove sufficient to excuse them from the Guilt of formal Idolatry in this Adoration; yet I must needs say, I do in my Conscience think 'tis more

And the Testimonies he produces, argue rather the candor of our Affections towards them, even such Page  117 as to hope, almost against Hope for their sakes; than give any security to them in their Errors. And because I would willingly, if possible, convince them of it, I will very briefly subjoin a Reason or two.

2dly; Why even upon their own Principles I am not satisfied that they have such a rational Ground for this Adoration, as may be sufficient to excuse them.

For, 1st, It is granted by this Author,

So that if their ignorance then be really culpable, their good Intention will not be sufficient to excuse them. Now the ignorance upon which this practice is founded, is their mistaken interpretation of those words, This is my Body; and whether that be a ra∣tional or culpable Mistake, we shall best be able to judg by two or three Observations.

1. It is confess'd by the greatest Men of their Church, that there is no necessity to interpret those words in that manner that they do; so that had not the Authority of their Church interposed, they might have been equally verified in our Interpretation. And this must be allow'd, unless we shall say, that all places of Holy Scripture must be understood in a literal sense, whatever the Consequence be of so doing.

2. Our Author himself confesses, that if the taking of them in the literal sense do's involve a certain Contradiction, then it cannot be right; but we are bound to seek out some other Exposition to a∣void a certain Contradiction.

Page  118 3. It is undeniable, that their Interpretation of these words destroys the certainty of Sense, and in that of the Truth of the Christian Religion, which was confirmed by Miracles, known only by the evi∣dence of Sense; and by Consequence of this particu∣lar Point, that Transubstantiation is revealed to us by God, or can be rely'd upon as coming from him.

Now from these Principles I thus argue: If that sense of these words, This is my Body, upon which they ground their Adoration, do's necessarily imply many plain and certain Contradictions, then by their own Confession that cannot be the right sense of them. But that it do's so, and that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot doubt of but know it, I thus shew. He that believes these words in the sense of Transubstantiation, must believe the same natural Body, at the same time, to be in ten∣thousand several places upon Earth, and yet still to be but one Body, and that all the while in Heaven: He must believe that the same natural Body is at the same time extended in all its Parts, and yet conti∣nuing still the same Body without any change, to be unextended, and have no distinct Parts, nor be capa∣ble of being divided into any: He must believe the same Body at the same time, to move, and to lie still: to be the Object of our Senses, and yet not to be per∣ceptible by any: With infinite others of the like kind * as I have more fully shewn before. But now all these are gross Contradictions, contrary to the Na∣ture of a Body, and to the common Principles of Reason in all Mankind; and no Man can, without culpable Ignorance pretend not to know them to be so: And therefore, notwithstanding any such supposed Divine Revelation as may be pretended from those Page  119 words, This is my Body, they cannot, by our Au∣thor's own Rule, without culpable Ignorance, not know that they are mistaken in this Matter.

Again: No Papist can have any reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true, but because he reads those words of Holy Scripture, This is my Body. That these words are in Scripture, he can know on∣ly by his Senses: If his Senses therefore are not to be trusted, he is not sure there are any such words in Scripture. If they are to be trusted, he is then sure that the Interpretation which he puts upon them must be false.

Since then it is confess'd, that there is no necessity to understand those words in a literal sense; and that both upon the account of the Contradictions that such an Exposition involves to the common Prin∣ciples of Reason, and to the certain Evidence of the Senses of all Mankind, it is necessary to take them in some other meaning, it remains that without gross and culpable Ignorance they cannot pretend not to know, that this could never have been the intention of our Blessed Saviour in those words; and that such Ignorance will not excuse them, our Author himself has freely confess'd.

But, 2dly, let us quit this Reflection, and for once suppose the possibility of Transubstantiation. Yet still it is confess'd by them: 1. That there is no Command nor Example in holy Scripture for adoring Christ in the Eucharist. 2. That infinite Defects may happen to hinder him from being there; and then what they worship is only a piece of Bread. 3. That they can never be sure that some of these Defects have not happened; and by consequence, that what they suppose to be Christ's Body, is indeed any more than a meer Wafer.

Page  120 From whence I argue;

He that without any Command or Warrant of God, pays a Divine Adoration to that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature, can never be sure that he do's not commit Idolatry: But whoso∣ever worships the Host, worships that which he can never be sure is more than a meer Creature; and therefore he can never be sure that in so doing he do's not commit Idolatry.

Now concerning the former of these, how dan∣gerous it is for any one to give Divine Worship to what he can never be sure is any more than a meer Creature, be it considered, what jealousy God has at all times express'd of his Honour as to this Matter; how strict he has been in the peculiar vindication of his Supreme Prerogative in such Cases. How there∣fore he that will come to him, must be very well assured that it is God to whom he approaches; and therefore if he has but the least reason to doubt of it, ought not to worship with a doubting Mind; be∣cause he ought not to do that the omitting whereof can be no fault, but the doing of which may, for ought he knows, be a very great Sin.

And for the second; Whether every Roman Catho∣lick, who adores the Host, has not even upon his own Principles, very great cause to doubt, whether he adores Christ's Body, or only a bit of Bread, will appear from those infinite Defects which they them∣selves allow as sufficient to hinder a Consecration; and which make it great odds, were their Doctrine otherwise never so true, whether yet one Host in twenty, it may be in five hundred, be consecrated.

1. With reference to the Holy Elements to be con∣secrated: If the Bread be not all, or at least the grea∣ter Page  121 part, of Wheat-flower; if it be not mix'd with * pure Water; if the Bread be corrupted, or the Wine sour; if the Grapes of which the Wine was made were not ripe; if any thing be mingled with the Wine but Water; or if there be so much Water mix'd with it, that that becomes the prevailing Ingre∣dient; in all these Cases, and many others which I omit, there is no Consecration. And of all this, he who adores either the Bread or Wine, can have no security. But,

2. Be the Elements right, yet if the Priest, being either ignorant, or in haste, or unmindful of what he is about, should by mistake, or otherwise, err in pro∣nouncing of the words of Consecration; whether by Addition, or by Diminution, or by any other Alte∣ration, there is no Consecration: The Bread and Wine continue what they were; and of this too he that worships them can never be certain.

3. Let the words be never so rightly pronounced, yet if the Priest had no intention to consecrate; if he be a secret Atheist, or Jew, or Moor: If he be a careless negligent Man; it may be do's not believe he has any Power to make such a Change, (as I have shewn that several of their greatest Men in this very Age have doubted of it): If he consecrate a number of Wafers for a Communion, and in his tel∣ling Mistakes, intending to consecrate but twenty, and there are one and twenty before him; in all these Cases, for want of a due intention in the Priest, there it no Consecration; but that which is adored, is only a little Bread and Wine.

4. Let the Priest have a good Intention, yet if he * be no Priest; if he were not rightly Baptized, or Ordained; if he were a Simoniac, or Irregular, or Page  122 a Bastard, &c. Or if there were no defect in his Ordination, yet if there was any in his who ordained him; or in the Bishops that ordained that Bishop that ordained him; and so back to the very Time of the Apostles, if in the whole Succession of Priests to this day, there has been but any one Invalidity, whether by Error or Wilfulness, or for want of a due Inten∣tion, or by Ignorance, or by any other means; then he that consecrates is no true Priest, and by conse∣quence has no Power to consecrate; and so all is spoi∣led, and whosoever worships in any of his Masses, a∣dores only a piece of Bread instead of our Saviour's Body.

When therefore so many Defects may interpose up∣on their own Principles to hinder this Conversion, that 'tis exceeding probable, nay 'tis really great odds, that not one Host in twenty is consecrated; it must certainly be very hazardous to worship that for God, which upon their own Principles they can never be sure is so; nay, which 'tis twenty to one is not God, but a meer inanimate Creature of Bread and Wine.

'Tis this has forced their most Learned Men to * confess, that they can never be sure of a Consecrati∣on; and our Author himself to declare,

Which is what Pope Adrian 6th, follow∣ing * herein the Authority of the Council of Constance, prescribed; that they ought always to adore the Host with such a reserve: But now if, as the Apostle tells us in another case, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin; and, He that doubts, is damned if he eats: I shall leave it to any sober Christian to say what secu∣rity there can be in such a Worship, which is neither ad∣vised, encouraged, or commanded in Holy Scripture; and which they themselves confess they can never be certain is addressed to a right Object; and therefore are forced to such Shifts and Reserves, as were they once admitted, might make any other Creature in the World as warrantably adorable as their Host.

How much better were it for them to adore their Blessed Saviour in Heaven, where his glorified Body most certainly is: Where there can therefore be no danger to lift up our Hearts unto him. Were his Sacred Body indeed substantially present in this Blessed Sacra∣ment, yet still it would be in a manner to us impercep∣tible, in the state of his Death, and by consequence of his Humiliation; and we might therefore have some cause to doubt whether, since we have received no Com∣mand concerning it, it were our Saviour's Pleasure that his Body should be adored by us in that State: So that there could be no Sin in the not doing of it. But now amidst so many Doubts, not only upon Ours, but e∣ven upon their own Principles, that they dare not them∣selves worship at a venture, that which yet they do wor∣ship; tho I shall leave them to their own Master to stand or fall at the Great Day, yet I must needs profess. I think there is very much hazard in it. A great Since∣rity, and great Ignorance, may excuse a poor untaught, and therefore blindly obedient Multitude: but for their Guides, who lead them into Error, for those to whom Page  124 God has given Capacities and Opportunities (as to those now among us he has done, of being better in∣formed) I can only say, Lord, lay not this Sin to their Charge!

And this may suffice to have been said to the third Thing proposed, of their Rational Grounds for this Worship. For what our Author finally adds;

I Answer: It will then be time enough to consider this, when either the Church to which we owe an Obe∣dience, shall require it of us, or they be able to prove that in such a Case the Church would not sin in Com∣manding, and not we in refusing to obey her. But, blessed be God, there is no great danger of either of these: Our Church is too well perswaded of the unlawfulness of such a Worship, ever to require it of us. And for that Church which has so uncharitably undertaken to Ana∣thematize all those who will not own her Authority, and receive her Errors, tho never so gross, as Articles of Faith: We are so fully convinced of the unreaso∣nableness of her Pretences, and of our own Liberty, that we shall hardly be brought to submit our selves to the Conduct of such a blind Guide, lest we fall into the same Ditch, into which she her self is tumbled. And it would certainly much better become our Au∣thor, and his Brethren, to consider how they can ju∣stify their Disobedience to their own Mother, than to Page  125 endeavour at this rate to lead us into the same Apostacy, both to our Religion and our Church with them.