Some more considerations proving the unreasonableness of the Romanists in requiring us to return to the communion of the present Romish-church by William Squire.

CHAP. IV.

I Propound this consideration that the Protestants in most points now con∣troverted betwixt them and the Romanists take that way, which according to the Romish Concessions is the safest. It is a common rule on which the Romanists do much insist, that where two parties do differ, 'tis the safest way to take that which they agree in: but the most of the Doctrines held by the Protestants are owned by the Papists; it follows therefore that the Protestants take the safest course. As for the proposition on which I found this consideration, I press it no further than according to the opi∣nion of the Romanists, for thus they deal with ignorant Protestants; 'Tis the safest course, say they, in which both parties agree; but both parties agree there is possibility of salvation among Papists, whereas the Papists deny any possi∣bility of salvation among Protestants; therefore it's the safest course to leave

the Protestants and turn Papists. Now on this very principle, I argue that the Pro∣testants take the safest way. 1. In the adoration of images, the Protestanrs say they ought to abstain from the wor∣ship of images, and they found their judgement on a plain Command, Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven image, nor the likeness of any thing in Heaven or Earth, &c. thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them; now both agree, it is not necessary to adore them, and that no man sins in not adoring them, that there is no Command of God requiring this adoration, and that to give a Religious respect to an Image which God forbids is Idolatry, though they do not give the inward re∣spect. Or else the three Children might have been excused from Idolatry if they had fallen down and worship'd the Image which Nebuchadnezzar set up, because they might still plead that they gave only an outward respect without an in∣ward. Both agree that men may perform a true sincere respect to the thing repre∣sented (as they think) by the Image,

though they do not direct their respect by the Image to the thing represented. As a man may truly love Christ, and inwardly reverence him as the Author of eternal salvation, though he do not express this inward reverence by the outward respect to that which some frame for an Image of him. Both agree that every action which we perform to the Image cannot be warranted by the pretence of the in∣ward intention, that we do intend to ho∣nour the thing represented by it: for then a man might pray to the Image of Christ, on pretence of honouring Christ. Take then what both agree in, and it must needs be the safer way according to the Protestants to abstain from the worship of Images, than to practise it according to the Romanists, for the one sayes it is sin to worship them, the other cannot say 'tis sin abstaining from wor∣shipping them; the one sayes, 'tis a dishonouring God to worship the Crea∣ture, whether they worship it for it self or for another, the other cannot say that 'tis a dishonouring God to ab∣stain from worshipping the Creature

and directing our worship immediately to God himself.

2. I instance in the practice of Invo∣cation of Saints. The Protestants say, that God alone is to be invoked through Christ, that Christ is appointed the Mediator betwixt God and man, both to make reconciliation by his death, and to intercede for us in Heaven, that he is able to save to the uttermost them that come unto God by him, for he ever liveth to perform this Office of Inter∣cession for us, that he is heartily affected with the miseries of his people, and therefore we may come boldly to the throne of grace and find help in time of need. So that now they think 'tis suffi∣cient to fly to the merits and intercession of Christ, and therefore to make use of the intercession of any other either to God or Christ without a command is either a distrust of his willingness to intercede for them, or of his power to help them. Now both agree, 'tis not necessary to pray to Saints, that there is no command obliging them to pray to them, that no man sins

in not making use of the intercession of Saints, yea lastly, the Romanists cannot say, that our prayers are not heard as soon and answered as effectually when we make our requests in the name of Christ to his Father, as when we desire the intercession of Saints. So then if it be the safest way to take that course which both judge farthest from sin, then 'tis safer to abstain from the invocation of Saints (for both agree there is no sin in abstain∣ing) than to practise the invocation of Saints according to the Romanists, for then (say the Protestants) they must sin.

3. I instance in the practice of deny∣ing the Cup to the Laity. The Protestants say that the rule for the Celebration of these Ordinances, is the institution of the Law-giver, and therefore Saint Paul to rectifie the abuses crept into the Cele∣bration of the Lords Supper in the Church of Corinth, brings them back to the primitive institution, as the unalterable rule which they ought to follow. They say that Christ administred the Sacra∣ment to his Disciples in both kinds,

that they all drank of the Cup as well as ate of the Bread, that there appears as full an obligation that the Priests should deliver the Cup to the Laity as well as the Bread, for he says Drink ye all of this as well as Eat; that they should do the one as well as the other in remembrance of him; and therefore to take away the Cup is a violation of Christs institution, an usupation of authority which Christ never gave. Now the Romanists on the other hand acknowledge, that Christ did institute in both kinds, that the primitive Church for some ages did practise accordingly, that since the Sacrament was instituted in both kinds, it must necessarily be received by some persons in both kinds, so far Bellarmin confesses, though he will not have it necessarily received by all; that the prohibition of the Cup is only by the Churches authority, and setting that aside, it is no sin to distri∣bute in both kinds, and therefore they allow the Grecians and Maronites (who submit to the Pope) the use of the Cup.

Thus then I argue, the practice of the Protestants is the safer way, for there can be no sin in giving the Cup accord∣ing to Christs institution, and so far they both agree. Now it is the safer to take that course which both judge farther from sin: there can be no sin in adhering to that which Christ instituted, and the primitive Church practised: but both Protestants and Papists acknowledge that Christ instituted in both kinds, and the primitive Church practised in both kinds; therefore the Protestants take the safer way.

4. I instance in the Adoration of the Sacrament: The Protestants say, that 'tis not lawful to adore the blessed Sa∣crament, for then they must adore meer Bread and Wine, and give the glory to the creature, which is due to the Crea∣tor, God blessed for ever. They say, that they see it is Bread, they taste it is Bread, they smell it is Bread, and unless their reason and sense be deceived it is Bread, and therefore they hold it is Idolatry to worship it. Farther, supposing the doctrine

of Transubstantiation to be true, that the Bread was turned into Christs Body, yet still many say, it is still not lawful to adore the Sacrament, for though the body be present under the species of Bread, yet his presence doth not make the things where∣in he is present capable of the same Di∣vine honour with himself, or else his very clothes which he wore must needs be wor∣ship'd with Divine worship, because he was present under those clothes. 'Tis plain the Sacrament is distinct from the body that is present in the Sacrament, or else when we say, Christs body is in the Sacra∣ment, it would signifie no more than if we said, Christs body is present in it self; but now if the body be distinct from the Sa∣crament, and that the body is in the Sa∣crament, yet Christs presence in the Sa∣crament will not make the Sacrament it self to be adored. Many Protestants do say, that though his body be present under the species, yet 'tis Idolatry to worship it, for the primary reason which the Romanists give for the adoration in the Sacrament, is, because Christ hath said,

this is my Body, and therefore the proper ground of Adoration must be the bodily presence of Christ; but if the body can∣not be the proper object of Worship, be∣cause it is a creature, then upon the ac∣count of his bodily presence there can be no proper ground of Adoration, and there∣fore at the best it must be uncertain whe∣ther I may worship Christ as present in his humane nature there. On this ground they abstain from the Adoration of the Host. On the other hand the Papists can∣not say it is necessary to worship the Host; for they cannot say that God commanded the Adoration of the Host, or that the Apostles did Worship it; they cannot say that we sin in not worshipping the Host▪ for though we ought to worship Christ, though in the general it be true that eve∣ry one ought to worship Christ, yet if I do not bow the knee to him in the Host, I do not sin, for there is no particular com∣mand hîc & nunc to perform this external Adoration to him: though I am bound to worship God, yet I am not bound to an external Adoration of him in every

place, or in every immediate object in which God is. It does not follow, God is to be worship'd, therefore I must worship him in the Sun or Moon: So it does not ••ollow Christ is to be Worship'd, there∣fore I must worship him in the Host. It does not follow, God is to be worship'd, therefore to be worship'd in this stone, for that would excuse the Idolatry of the wisest Heathens who worship'd (as they say) not the stone, but God in the stone: no more will it follow, Christ is to be worshipped, therefore I am bound to wor∣ship him in the Host. Again, the Ro∣manists do not deny but that we may per∣form a true spiritual worship to Christ, without diminution of our real respect to him, though we direct our worship imme∣diately to Christ in the Heavens, or though we primarily direct our worship to Christ in the Heavens, whose passion is represented to us in the holy Sacra∣ment, and the benefits of whose death are there offered to us. They will not say that no man can give a true inward spiri∣tual worship to Christ, unless he does give

this outward worship to Christs body in the Host. They cannot say, that 'tis want of love to Christ, not to worship him there, where they know not whether he be or no; or that 'tis want of true respect to Christ to omit those outward acts of worship, when they know not whether he will accept them or no. Again, they do acknowledge, that if Christ be not there under the species, if the bread be not transubstantiated into the body, that then they must needs be Idolaters, yea guilty of such an Idolatry as had not been seen or heard of in the world; and therefore the errour of the Heathens who worship∣ped Statues of Gold or Silver, or the Lappians that worshipped a red Cloth, or the Aegyptians that worshipped any living Creature, would be more tolera∣ble, than of the Christians who worship a bit of bread. Again, that it is very possible thàt they may be guilty of Ido∣latry in worshipping the Host; for if the bread be not transubstantiated, then they do worship only bread, and though they believe the doctrine of transubstan∣tiation

to be true, and that by the words of Consecration spoken by a lawful Priest with a right intention this change is wrought; yet in particular they cannot be assured, that this change is wrought, and that this individual bread is turned actu∣ally into the body of Christ; for they neither know whether the Priest who Consecrates be a lawful Priest, nor whe∣ther he really intended to Consecrate that very Wafer, which they are about to adore. There is none of the Romish Communion but will say, that if it be not transubstantiate, 'tis but bread, and he that worships bread, whatever his inten∣tion is, is materially an Idolater: and further, that he can have no other ground to believe that this Wafer is Conse∣crate, than his hopes of the Priests ho∣nesty; but if the Priest should prove a knave and maliciously suspend his in∣tention, then he runs the hazard of com∣mitting Idolatry, at best of worshipping he knows not what. And now then the practice of the Protestants must be the ••afer way; for if they say true, then

'tis Idolatry to worship the Host, and the Romanists cannot say that we sin against a Divine Command in not worshipping it. The Protestants say, at best they run the danger of Idolatry, and 'tis the safest course to avoid the danger of sin as much as they c••n▪ the Romanists can∣not say that there is any danger of Ido∣latry in abstaining from giving Adora∣tion. The Protestants say 'tis unlaw∣ful to worship the Host, and the Ro∣manists cannot say 'tis necessary to wor∣ship it: or that there can be no spiritual worship acceptable to Christ without this external worship of him in the Host.

5. I instance in the celebration of Di∣vine Service in an unknown tongue. The Protestants say that 'tis fit that all people should offer God a rational ser∣vice: that if men pray in a language which they do not understand, that they only offer the sacrifice of fools: that it is repugnant to the use of Vocal pray∣ers, which are the expression of our in∣ward desires to God for those things we

want; but we cannot be said to express our desires in words, if we do not un∣derstand what we say: That Prayer if it be not understood is only the act of the Lips and not of the Heart, and must needs want that inward zeal and earnest∣ness, those acts of faith, and hope, rely∣ance and trusting on God, which make our Prayers properly acceptable to him: that they cannot answer Amen to those Prayers, as the Apostle requires, (i. e.) that they consent to those prayers, and joyn with the Priest in those petitions, unless they understand those prayers. Thus the Protestants condemn those Prayers in an unknown tongue, as unsutable to the nature and use of Vocal Prayer, and dero∣gating from the true affection and devoti∣on required in Prayer. On the other hand the Papists cannot say it is unlawful to pray in a language, which they do un∣derstand, for themselves in their private prayers frequently use that language they do understand. They cannot say that Christ hath commanded the use of the Greek or Latin tongue more than any

other in their publick Service: or that words spoken in those tongues are of more efficay with God than words spo∣ken in their mother-tongue: or that words which we do not understand con∣duce more to stir up devotion, than those words which we do understand. I con∣fess some Papists have ventured very far (I'le instance for one in Costerus) and tell us that there is a fruit of prayer, though they understand not what they say, that is, a conjunction of the mind with God, and that in the meditation of him they find an admirable comfort though they know not what they are saying, and that the words which they do speak, though they be not understood, do much increase that comfort, even as the holiness of the place, though they think not of it, does excite and stir up devotion: and he tells us, that if the words of the Charmers have some effi∣cacy on Serpents, though they want un∣derstanding, much more do the sacred words of God, though they be not un∣derstood, affect and move men. But this

is to turn prayers into charms, and ascribe efficacy to the bare sound of words. But many others will not deny, that the people are as much or more edified by the prayers in a known tongue, than an un∣known. Estius says, that take it by it self, it is good that divine Offices be ce∣lebrated in a tongue which the people understands, for that conduces to edifica∣tion, and that the text of the Apostle proves it. Cajetane goes higher, and says it is better for their edification: and if it were not, why have some Councils com∣manded that such as cannot learn distinct∣ly the Lords Prayer and Creed in Latine, should be taught them in the vulgar tongue? And yet the Rhemists say this has been done. And now then the pra∣ctice of the Protestants must be the safer way, for both agree that prayer in a tongue which they do understand, serves much for edification, and conduces to quicken devotion, and inflame their zeal in Prayer: Both agree that 'tis fit, that people should endeavour to understand the contents of their Prayers; both agree

that there is no sin in praying in a language which they do understand. If it be the safest to take that course in which they agree, and leave that in which they dif∣fer, then 'tis safer to follow the Prote∣stants in this point than the Papists.

I might instance in the sacrifice of the Mass. Both parties agree that in the Lords Supper there is a Sacrifice; we only differ what kind of Sacrifice: the Prote∣stants own a Sacrifice of praise, a Sacrifice of Alms, and a Sacrifice of our selves. And the English Church in her publick Li∣turgie after the distribution of the Cup, uses these words, We offer unto thee our selves, our souls and bodies to be a rea∣sonable, holy and lively Sacrifice unto thee. Besides these Sacrifices the Prote∣stants acknowledge a commemorative Sa∣crifice, that there is a representation of the Sacrifice on the Cross, that there is a memorial of his passion, and thus far the Romanists agree. But then they go further, and they oblige us to believe that there is a true real external Sacrifice, a Sacrifice propitiatory for the living and

the dead, &c. Now if this principle be true, then 'tis safer to acknowledge a fi∣gurative Sacrifice which both own, than a real proper Sacrifice which the Pro∣testants disown.

I might add, both parties agree that the Scriptures are a rule, and as perfect a rule (saith Knot) as a writing can be: (but if whatever the Apostles Preached▪ they might write, and whatever tradi∣tions the Church hath received it might set down in writing, then a writing may be a perfect rule.) The Protestants deny Doctrinal traditions to be a rule, there∣fore 'tis safest to follow them. Again, both parties agree that the books of Scri∣pture which the Protestants own to be Canonical are Canonical, but the Pro∣testants reject the Apocryphal; therefore still it must be safer to follow the Pro∣testants. There is one thing I will par∣ticularly insist on; Both parties agree that in the English Liturgy there is no positive error; there are (say some of them) some things wanting which they would have, but there is nothing which

they can say is sinful; most of the prayers are taken out of the antient Liturgies, many of them to be found in their own Missal, as S. C. confesses; and 'tis known the English Reformers did only design to reform, not totally to abolish, to purge out the corruptions, and reform that which they saw unfit in the Offices, and not to abolish what was good and useful. What therefore remains and is used in our Liturgy, cannot be censured for erroneous and sinful. And thus far both agree that the matter of the prayers is good, that the form of the prayers to God through the mediation of Jesus Christ is very good, that there is no rite required in our Offices which is su∣perstitious or unlawful: so that the Ro∣manists cannot say that there is any rea∣son from the prayers and Offices used in our Church why they might not joyn in them. If the prayers were good in La∣tin and might be lawfully used when they were not understood, there can be no reason why they should be bad when they were translated into English. The

omission of some rites used in the Offi∣ces is no substantial alteration, the omis∣sion of some Responds, Anthems, Invi∣tatories, &c. which our Reformers judg∣ed superfluous or inconvenient, doth not make the rest of the prayers and Offices unlawful; the difference in the method and order of prayers doth not make the service to be sin, for there were diversi∣ties in saying and singing within this Realm; some followed the use of Sarum, some of Hereford, some of Bangor, &c. yet all approved; though in the Litany the ora pro nobis to the several ranks and orders of Saints be omitted, yet the supplication to the three persons several∣ly or jointly is good still: though some petitions be left out, the rest which re∣main, if they might be used before, they may be used still. So that this is grant∣ed by the Romanists who have weighed the prayers and service of our Church, that there is no positive error in our Prayers, that there is nothing in the Li∣turgy of our Church which can be con∣demned for error or impiety, or give

just ground to the Romanists for a refu∣sal to joyn in the use of it. And there∣fore during the time of Edward the sixth we hear of no Recusants that refused to be present at the Service; and when Queen Elizabeth came to the Crown (if our English Historians, who generally relate this story, do not bely him) Pius the fourth offered to confirm the Liturgy, provided that She would own his Su∣premacy. I confess the Romanists ex∣claim heavily against the Sacrament in our Churches, Suarez for instance calls it a sacrilegious Supper, and a feigned Eu∣charist, and saith that those who parti∣cipate of it do evidently cooperate with an Infidel Superstition, and take that for the Sacrament of Christ whichis nothing. But upon a serious consideration of these things I cannot see what benefit can be had by the Sacrament in the Romish Church, which is not to be had from the Sacrament in ours. Suppose we do not own the corporal presence of Christ under the Species, yet I cannot see any real benefit which the receiver can have

from the Sacrament administred among them, and cannot be had from the Sa∣crament administred among us: for whe∣ther it be bread in its own nature, or the body under the bread, yet the bare external eating doth no way confer or increase grace in the receiver. If a wicked as well as godly man may eat Christs body, yea if a Mouse as well as a Man may eat it, then there is no spi∣ritual blessing to the bare eating of the body. Let a man be wicked who eats of the Sacrament, and tell me then whe∣ther the eating of Christs flesh would profit any thing; or whether he that eats the flesh and drinks the blood of Christ, whether in its own shape, or under the species of bread and wine, shall live for ever? So that now as to an unworthy Receiver here is nothing to be had, whether the bread be transubstantiate or no. Suppose again, a man be truely godly, what doth the eating of Christs body in their opinion more benefit him, than the Sa∣crament can do according to ours? Wherein is a man more benefited by

eating Christs body under the species, than if he eat that which is bread in its nature, but according to Christs institu∣tion represents his body? To talk of Christs body in their sence quickning and inlivening us, is strange, for men may eat the body, and yet continue dead in their sins. To say that by eating of the body in the Sacrament that we abide in Christ, and Christ in us, is very strange too; for neither doth Christs body be∣come part of our bodies, nor can we by receiving his body with our mouths be said to abide in him, unless by eating of Christs body we conceive a conversion of our bodies into his body. To call the body of Christ as it is under the species, a spiritual nourishment of the soul, is as strange a fancy, for I never could see how the food of the body properly nou∣risheth the soul: if it does nourish the soul it must be done in a moral, not na∣tural way; now I see not why the Sa∣crament in our way cannot as truly nou∣rish the soul, as they conceive the eating of the body doth in their way. The nourishing of the soul is to be considered

not so much from the things we outward∣ly receive into our mouths, for proper∣ly these things can never nourish the soul, as from the sacramental institution. And so the Manna by Gods institution be∣came spiritual food, and the water out of the Rock spiritual drink ; and though the things in themselves were but bread and water, yet in a spiritual sence they ate and drank Christ: and so here, the bread which we break is the Communi∣on of the body of Christ. And we do as really partake of the benefits of his passion, as we do feed on these outward elements, and we spiritually are nourish∣ed, our graces increased, and our hearts refreshed. Thus whatever the Romanists pretend, there's no more benefit to be had by the Sacrament administred in the Ro∣mish Church than in ours; our Ministry conveys as great things as they speak of, only according to our Doctrine men must do something more of the work themselves: as one very well adds, We pretend not to send wicked men to Hea∣ven with a word, but we can help the

thoughts and affections of pious souls as much as they with all their skill and power. The Rhemists much cen∣sure the celebration of the Eucharist among us, and call it Calvins Supper, a Table and Cup of Devils, wherein the Devil is properly served, and Christs honour defiled; yet really upon a seri∣ous perusal of the whole Communion Service, they cannot say that there is any positive error: though the Church of England hath omitted sundry Ceremo∣nies which are now used in the Mass, yet the omission of a Ceremony doth not make the service sinful: though it appoint the bread to be such as is usual to be eaten at the Table, when the Ro∣mish Church uses Wafers, yet they can∣not say it is unlawful, for our Saviour at the first institution used such bread, and it is no more unlawful here, than among the reconciled Grecians, where the holy bread is made after the man∣ner of a Cake, and is cut in pieces by the Priest with a sacred Knife: though it appoint the bread to be broken before

the words of consecration are finished, that is, at the mentioning in the rehear∣sal of the institution those words, he brake, when the Romish Church ap∣points it afterwards, that the Priest shall break the Host into three parts, and put one of them into the Chalice; yet still it is not unlawful, and more agreeable to our Saviours practice in the first insti∣tution, who first blessed and brake be∣fore he used those words, this is my bo∣dy. Though it appoint the bread to be gi∣ven into the hands of them that do Communicate, whenas the Romish Church requires it to be put into the mouth, yet still the order of the Eng∣lish Church is not unlawful. Though the words of consecration be spoken that all may hear and be instructed, when the Romish Church requires them to be spoken secretly; yet still the order is not unlawful, and certainly more agreeable to the Primitive practice and the Litur∣gies of the Eastern Churches. Though our Liturgie requires the consecrated bread to be eaten in the Church, where∣as

the Romish Church reserves it to be adored, or carried to the sick, &c. yet still the order is not unlawful, for none can say that reservation is always neces∣sary, or that it is an unlawful cele∣bration of the Eucharist because it is omitted. So for mingling water with wine, the Church of Rome practises it, the English omit it; for there being no command for it, nor sufficient evidence that it was universally practised in the Apostles times, the Communion Service is not by the omission of it made unlaw∣ful. The Romanists themselves confess, that though water be not mingled with the wine, yet it doth not cease to be a Sacrament. Thus though many Cere∣monies used by the Romanists be omit∣ted or altered in our Liturgie, yet still there is no su••erstition, nor positive er∣ror. Again, though there be some al∣teration in the Prayers, yet there is no∣thing in the prayers we use, which they do or can except against as erroneous and heretical. They cannot blame the Ge∣neral Consession, in which we acknow∣ledge

our former transgressions; profess our hearty sorrow for them, desire him to forgive the sins that are past, and beg grace for the future that they may serve and please him in newness of life to the honour and glory of his name. They cannot blame the Absolution which is much the same with that in the Ordo Missae, misereatur vestri Omnipotens De∣us, &c. that Almighty God would have mercy on them, deliver them from their sins, and bring them to his everlasting Kingdom. They cannot censure the short sentences which follow the Abso∣lution, which are designed for the incou∣ragement, and comfort of poor sinners, who are heartily grieved for their sins. That antient exhortation, Lift up your hearts, with the versicles following are used by the Romanists; the proper pre∣faces are on some daies the same which were used in the Romish Church, and those which are used on other daies are more full and express in declaring the blessing which God at that time bestow∣ed on his Church, but no way to be

taxed with any error. They cannot blame that prayer in which we disclaim all confidence on our own righteousness, and cast our selves on Gods mercy, be∣seeching him that we may so eat the flesh of Christ and drink his blood, that our bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, &c. for the Roma∣nists do pray that God would give them who trust in the multitude of his mercies a part and fellowship with the Saints, and admit them into their society not weigh∣ing their merits but bestowing pardon on them.

They cannot blame the prayer of Con∣secration: For the Preface in which we acknowledge the sufficiency of that one oblation on the Cross for the satis∣faction of the sins of the world, and that Christ did command us to keep a con∣tinual remembrance of his passion till his coming again, which is one principal end of the institution of the Sacrament: These things they do not blame. For the petition, that receiving these Creatures of

Bread and Wine according to Christs holy Institution, we may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood; nei∣ther can they fault this, for it is sutable to that very prayer in their Mass, when the Priest prays that the offering may be to them the body and blood of thy most beloved Son Jesus Christs; and to that in the Mass of St. Basil, where the Priest after he had repeated the words of consecration, sayes, We thy unworthy servants who are admitted to serve at thy Altar, not for our righteous∣nesses, (for we have done no good upon the earth) but for thy mercies, and com∣passions which thou hast shed abundantly on us, do approch unto it; and placing be∣fore us the representations of the holy body and blood of thy Christ, we pray thee, we beseech thee, O holy of ho∣lies, for the good pleasure of thy good∣ness, that thy holy Spirit may come down on us and on these gifts set before us, and bless them, and sanctifie them. And afterwards he prayes again, Make this Bread the precious body of the Lord and

God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ, and make this Cup the precious blood, &c. The narration of the Institution (which is the Priests warrant for the use of this rite) they cannot censure, for it is ex∣presly taken out of St. Luke, and if there be any words added to the words of consecration in the Romish Church, which are omitted by us, they them∣selves cannot affirm that they are essen∣tially necessary in the consecration of the Sacrament. The words which the Priest uses in the delivery of the elements are faultless: the first part, that is the prayer, is much the same with the form in the Romish Church; the latter part is an exhortation to receive these things in remembrance of Christs death and passi∣on. The prayer after the receiving of the holy Sacrament is without the least sign of error: the hymn which follows is the gloria in excelsis mentioned in the Ordo Missae. Thus take the whole service, there is no prayer used which is taxed by the Romanists of error or superstition, nothing prescribed which is simply un∣lawful.

On the other hand we say there is error and superstition in the Mass, in the adoration of the Host, in the invoking Gods protection by the Merits and Prayers of Saints, in the offering up the Host in the honour of the Saints, &c. Now then according to the principle layd down by the Romanists 'tis safest to hold that in which both dissenting parties agree in; but both parties agree there is nor error or superstition in the English Communion service, whereas the Protestants say there is error in the Romish Mass; therefore it is safer to fol∣low the English Protestants.

Notes

• Conc. Const. sess. 13. Conc. Trid. sess. 21.
• L. 4. de ••uch. c. 23.
• Coster. E••chir Con∣trov. c. 8. de Euch. sacr. arg. 10.
• E••cbir. c••••••r. cap. 17. p. 497.
• In 1 Cor. 14. 17.
• Rhemist. test. in 1 Cor. 14.
• Def. fid. Cath. l. 6. c. 9. n. 29.
• 1 Cor. 10. 3, 4.
• Rhem. Annot. on Jo. 4. 4. sect. 4
• Annot. on 1 Cor. 10. 21.
• Goar. in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. in miss. Chrys. n. 29, 30.
• Litur. Ba∣si••ii & Chrysost;
• Catech. Roman. cap. 4. sect. 16.
• Can. Misse, Ora∣tio, nobis quoque.
• Can. Missae, O∣ratio quam oblationem.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• Can. Miss. Orat. Com∣municantes. Ordo Miss. Orat. susci∣p••.