or what was the little further than was fit that they were forced to strain Next here 's another retreat to the Pacifick Humor to evade passages out of these Authors not proposed as terms of agreement or abatements to be yeilded or winkt at in order to an union but as certain truths justly maintain'd by the one side and perversly denied by the other the Quotations are true and they are conclusive but now the end and so the authority of the Authors must come into contempt and their design overthrow their evidence But what Is committing and defending Idolatry as they do if this man be in the right in them but straining a little more than is fit and in us a crime never to be sufficiently aggravated Pag. 91. l. 1. Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine c. The Discourser allows that to be the Doctrine of the Catholick Church which she not which any private Doctor without her allowance declares to be so and supposes tho not Bishop Taylor yet Bishop Andrews and King James to be of like authority with the genuine Sons of the Church of England as a Council is with us The reason is because the Head of the English Church hath all that Spiritual Power any Ecclesiastical person or persons ever challenged or exercised in England and may delegate it as the King did to Bishop Andrews in this case If the Minister had told us where St. Thomas Paludanus and Catherine assure him 't is Idolatry to Adore an unconsecrated Host thro mistake we might have understood what species of Idolatry they had esteem'd it since Protestants have lately discover'd a damnable and a saving sort of Idolatry for if of the later kind the danger incurr'd by an invincible mistake is inconsiderable However this we may learn thence That those Doctors did not hold either the substance or accidents of the Host unconsecrated Adorable nor did Adore either of them in an Host consecrated but something else that by Consecration became present in the Eucharist unless we can imagine they had there two objects adorable or made Christ and what remain'd after Consecration but one thing The Minister had dealt more ingenuously too if he had nam'd the several of our Writers that make our Adoration a worse Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty-of because the Person to whom that is imputed is abus'd if all be true the Answer to Dr. More tells us p. 47. viz. That the Doctor mistook Costerus his Ground of confessing at such a rate and moreover foisted in Transubstantiation which is not there Costerus arguing only thus If the true Body of Christ be not in the Eucharist Christ has dealt unworthily with his Church fail'd of his engagements to lead her into all truth and holiness and on the contrary seduc'd her by his own words to a fundamental impiety whereupon he could not be a true Christ and she must have worshipt not only a true object where it is not but an Impostor also and an object absolutely incapable of such Honour because Christ must then be not only a meer Creature but as Mahomet or Satan one of the worst of Creatures Ibid. l. 8. For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome I find it thus clearly set down in the Council of Trent c. We understand why he chuses to give our Doctrine out of the Chapter rather than out of the Canon It is not his way to represent our Points with the right side outward but if He will be so equal as to accept of such answers as himself hath often give the mist he raises before his Reader 's Eyes will be quickly dispell'd For if the sixth Canon of the same Session may interpret the fifth Chapter the illusion is escap'd if it may not why has he so often vexed us with Replies of the same nature which he despises His translation too of the Chapter is not accurate and tho I discern no great advantage got by this ill version yet his whole carriage in this controversie is so unhandsom that I fear I ought to complain rather of his sincerity than Learning Is quin exhibeant render'd well ought to give Or Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo D. ut sumatur institutum done rightly into for it is nevertheless to be adored because it was instituted by our Lord Christ that it might be receiv'd This is not the sense of that Clause but rather thus It is not the less to be Adored tho it were instituted by our Lord Christ to be Received This to shew the Minister's Translating Talent Now for his Arguing That according to this Council is to be worshipp'd which Christ instituted to be receiv'd Right He instituted that his Body Sacramentally existing should be received and this the Council says may be worshipped And in which they believe Christ to be present False Not it wherein Christ is present but Christ present in it is that the Council says may be Ador'd But Sir to expostulate with you a while for your treacherous method Why did you pick out the chapter and not the canon to shew our undoubted Doctrine Were you not aware there was such a canon wherein our Faith was contain'd as undoubtedly and more precisely even above the cavil and misunderstanding of either the Malignant or those they seduce Was it because you would have been depriv'd of a convenience to delude your People the complex and ambiguous terms Sacrament or Host as you fondly express our Doctrine there affording you no fallacies The canon does exclude all your pretences that we Adore the symbols or species with Divine worship which you would insinuate by your calling our Adoration an Adoration of the Sacrament or Host Tho these terms as Mr. Thorndike observes suggest to such as make not cavilling their business no other than the adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament Did you not peruse what is written from § 11. to § 17. in the 2d Treatise on purpose to vindicate our Doctrine from Dr. Taylor 's and Dr. Stilling feeet's comments and prevent such tricks as you now play Will no Answers satisfy you no cautions retrench your exorbitances but still such wild and malicious and seigned notions must be repeated by every little smatterer in Theology as if never exposed by us and all this to ingratiate with the vulgar grow famous and obtain pluralities Sine-cures and Dignities for such service against Popery Are you ignorant that a Council may express it self less or more distinctly or obscurely concerning a point without derogating from either its authority or infallibility as serving in the one and failing in the other unless whatever is determined by authority or infallibility must be equally perspicuous is Scripture so and all their chapters as exact as their creeds When you remember the Canon are you remorseless for writing that this Assertion by adoring the Sacrament no more nor other is intended than adoring Christ
That the manner of this Presence whether in or with the elements is inexplicable Lastly that the love and omnipotence of the same God are relied on to make good that Presence whereof the manner is incomprehensible Now if God incarnate were present on the Altar at the same time he is in Heaven by grace and influence only his flesh would be neither present on the Altar nor given us to eat No more mystery nor incomprehensibilitty could be discerned in his Eucharistical than in his Baptismal presence neither would there be such need of extraordinary love and omnipotence to perform his promised presence in this more than in any other Religious ceremony wherein all grant his presence to be only gracious Nay the whole paragraph were no better than a devout and solemn delusion Nor am I prevailed-on to alter my thoughts concerning this Bishop's present faith would he do himself his Order and Christianity that right as to profess it frankly and clearly by any retractation or correction published in the Edition of his Book 1â—86 That amounting to no more than a denyal of Transubstantiation not of a substantial Presence whereby I am perfectly confirmed that by inexplicable incomprehensible manner was intended the manner of the Flesh's being present not whether it were present or no and that it was this he could neither explain nor comprehend To proceed further in evincing affirmatively that the sense of the aforesaid Article Office and Catechism was a substantial presence the supremest and most authentic Interpreters that have appeared since the creation of the present Church of England may be produced 1. We begin with Queen Elizabeth the Parent of modern Prelatick Protestancy This Lady profess'd the Catholick Religion in her Sister's Reign and when she obtein'd the Crown was with difficulty perswaded to alterations in Religion as was long ago told the world from other intelligence and lately from Jewel's c Letters perused by Dr. Burnet in his Ramble In particular She own'd the Real presence to the Count of Feria and others and commended a Preacher for asserting it on Goodfriday 1565. A Real presence I say She patronized and such a one as was own'd by the ancient Fathers and had bin believed in the Church of England since the conversion of that Nation believed without either check or interruption till towards the setting of Edward the 6. when Zuinglianism seems to have bin introduced Now if She profess'd a substantial presence and if She that authorized the Liturgy and Articles did not do it till after she had fluxt them of whatever was malignant to a substantial presence to accommodate them to the majority of the Nation that with her self were so perswaded sure She intended they should be interpreted as her Self and the Most both thought and profess'd Can the genuine sense of the words be both a Substantial presence and a presence of Grace only Could a Nation in a moment believe by the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ spoke at the delivery of the Sacrament to them was meant on the one day that his Body was verily and indeed and in substance if this be more given to them and the next day understand by the same words that the Body of our Lord was not verily and indeed nor in substance but only in figure and benefit exhibited especially when they heard the imposer of such passages declare for the former sense saw her delete what opposed it and retain the self same language the Catholick Church their true Mother used in all times to convey her faith to their Minds Whereupon considering these things together with the miniated copy of Articles c seen by Dr. Burnet considering I say that the chief Pastoress had authority according to the Doctrine of Lay-Supremacy to impose and according to Dr. Burnet's deleted copy did impose her Judgment to be assented to and subscribed by the whole Clergy c. we may truly conclude not only as some have done that the chief Pastors of the Church but that the whole Church Head and Body Queen Clergy and People did then disapprove of or dissemble about the Definition made in King Edward's time and that they were for Real presence 2. Her Successor King James I. either understood the Article and Liturgy in the same sense according to the attestations of Bishop Andrews and Casaubon or where has the Church of England publish'd that she holds a substantial presence as those Learned Persons say she often has either no where if not here or with contradiction to what is here if elsewhere because the proper sense of the Article and Liturgy can't be both a substantial and but only a gracious presence But that Part of the Catechism which concerns the Sacraments and which was composed by Dr. Overal in this King's Reign determins the dispute as to this Prince's faith for tho the Catechism as almost any sentence may be wrested yet it cannot be rendred without absurdity and passing for a meer cheat in favour of any other than a substantial presence And Bishop Cosin's doctrine is some argument that Dr. Overal his Patron and Master did mean no other 3. As to King Charles the First if we may gather his judgment from either Books published by his command or Sermons preach'd before him He adhered to that Faith in this point which all his Christian Ancestors had profess'd Out of such Books and Sermons we present the Reader with two Instances so full to our design that if they can be eluded so may a Demonstration The former is in Archbishop Lawd's Conference with Father Fisher a Book highly esteemed by that Excellent tho calamitous King. And for the Church of England nothing is more plain than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist unless A. C. can make a Body no Body and Blood no Blood but unless Grace be a Body and Benefit be Blood Dr. St. and the Answerer can make a Body no Body c. c. The other is in Dr. Laurence's Sermon before the King Charles I. p. 17 18. As I like not those that say He is bodily there so I like not those that say His Body is not there because Christ saith it is there and St. Paul saith t is there and the Church of England saith t is there and the Church of God ever said t is there and that truly and substantially and essentially c. For the Opinion of the Sons and Successors to this Prince concerning a substantial presence c t is out of question I presume What then we add is That either all these Heads and the Church of England believed the same or she has a miserable Faith wherein no Head since Queen Elizabeth produced Her durst either live or die It were a diffidence in this Proof or an affront to an intelligent Reader to offer him a Protestant nubes Testium as a further confirmation in this matter for then we must recount to
him almost all their Fathers from their Primitive times throughout a Century at least that this Religion has endured even the celebrated names of Bishop Pomel Bishop Bilson Bishop Andrews Bishop Overal Archbishop Lawd Bishop Buckeridge Bishop Hall Bishop Forbes Bishop Field Bishop Montague Archbishop Bramhal Bishop Cosins Bishop Gunning c. Dr. Cowel Dr. Pocklinton Dr. Heylin Mr. Sutton c. omitting many now alive or dead since 1660. several of which have bin already alledged in the Treatises we defend and have received either no answers or such as be insufficient as the following Examination of them will manifest Pag. 61. l. 1. Here I must observe that this Learned Person Mr. Hooker is drawn in only by a consequence and that no very clear one c. Mr. Hooker says that besides partaking of the grace of that Body and Blood c the holy mysteries impart unto us even in true and real tho mystical manner the very Person of our Lord whole perfect and entire His Body and Blood are in that very subject whereunto they give life not only by effect or operation even as the influence of the Heavens is in plants c but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union c. Now the Inference the Oxford Discourses make is That Mr. Hooker believed by Real Presence more than a presence of Grace only even a substantial presence for a presence of Christ's person whole perfect and entire with either the worthy receiver or the elements too cannot possibly be resolved into grace only because where the Person of Christ is there his Natures are substantially present they since the incarnation being inseparable from it Is it not easy then to deduce what the Discourser did from the passage cited Can any other be drawn from that judicious Man's words This Answerer says the real Presence imports no more than a real presence of Power and Grace Mr. Hooker says the contrary and tells us what that more is which it imports the Person of Christ and that all the question is Whether the subject wherein Christ resides be the Receiver only or the consecrated Elements also To reconcile Mr. Hooker and the Answerer it will be necessary then for us to understand by Mr. Hooker's more than Grace Grace only and by the Person of Christ a Person without any Nature or Substance Humane or Divine But how does our Answerer scape this pinch truly with due respect to Mr. Hooker and some tolerable satisfaction to the Objection for he prudently collects other passages whereof some say as much as the quotation and none of them are contradictory thereto nor affirm the Real presence to signify no more than a presence of Grace Nothing but this will clear the difficulty and so much as this demonstrates the most judicious Protestant so weak as to contradict himself Pag. 62. l. 8. He Bishop Andrews utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the Manner of Christ's Presence c. Bishop Andrews does not decline defining that our Lord's Body is substantially present but the manner how this substance is present he waves defining Again unless that Bishop believ'd a substantial presence he believ'd one by so much less true than ours as the substance or person of a thing is nearer to it or a more proper predicate of it than its qualities and effects are Thirdly unless this Prelate makes the Eucharistical Presence no more real than the Baptismal which neither he nor any Father ever did the Allusion to Baptism is short of the Minister's purpose Lastly The Bishop's saying Christ's Body as Glorified is not present in the Eucharist does not in the least oppose a substantial presence Who that believes a substantial Presence thinks Christ to be in the Eucharist as in his glory This however they all say That the very same substance which is Glorified which was Born and Crucified is present in that Sacrament and that its Eucharistical manner of existence is different from what it either had or hath elsewhere If then Bishop Andrews testimony stand good for a substantial presence Casaubon's and King James's I. and consequently the Church of England's are assur'd on the same side and we may renew and augment that King's wonder That not only a Stranger to but a Minister of the same Church should be so inadvertant as not to remember or so presumptuous if he do as to deny what his Own Church of England has so often and so evidently asserted Pag. 64. l. 4. Nor can we make any other judgment of the Arch-Bishop of Spalato c. The Answer to Spalato's testimony is grosly extravagant If this Bishop be earnest against unworthy Receivers of the Sacrament Is then our Lord substantially absent according to him One would think that has perus'd St. Paul's words 1 Cor. 11.29 and heard of Mr. Thorndyke's Comment on them that from the Bishop's earnestness against unworthy receiving he should rather believe a substantial presence reprehending the impiety the more zealously because he discerned our Lord's Body to be where it is not where it is not If this Bishop own a spiritual imperceptible and miraculous presence does he thereby disown a substantial presence Sir These stupid Consequences will not pass now adays at least not amongst Adversaries whatever they do with your Party Ibid. l. 26. But he does not say that Christ's natural Body c. Here Archbishop Laud's testimony is rejected by a flat denial of what that great Man hath if not in terminis in effect said for to quote with approbation is as much as to say Does he not cite Calvin that Christ does not offer us only the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection but the Body it self in which he suffered and rose Is not Bishop Ridly also produc'd by him saying That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits at the right hand of God the Father c. Ibid. l. 30. The same must be said of Bishop Hall c. The quotations out of Bishop Hall Bishop Mountague and Bishop Bilson are plain for a substantial presence and if undiscern'd by the Answerer to be so surely not his faculties but prejudices and the Post he has undertaken to defend are blamable If any such matter as a substantial presence were observable in Bishop Andrews's words Why not in these Authors Why not in Bishop Hall's and Bishop Mountague's expressions whereof the one uses the same and the other terms equivalent Res apud utrosque cadem with Calvinists and Lutherans The thing is yeilded-to on either side On the Catholick and Church of England side But the Lutheran and Catholick side yeilds to no other thing than a substantial Presence The thing the object is not the same with them and us if Calvinists and the Church of England by the Body of Christ mean Grace only Pag. 65. l. 13. I ought not
que nous faisons volontiers piusque nous le croions Dieu ou Adorer Jesus Christ qui est present au Sacrement ascavoir par foi dans le coeur des communians en mystere dans les signes come la chose signifiée est presente en celle qui la signifie Les Peres ne disent ne font que le second ceux de Rome commandent pratiquent le premier And thus Rivet Annot. Animadv p. 92. in answer to the same Father Propriam adorationem deberi vero Christi corpori quod nobis est nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sola mente percipiendum nemo pius negabit So in Bishop Andrews Resp ad Bellarm. Apolog. 8. c. I find in Answer to the Fathers sayings urged by the Cardinal this Recipe Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem vere adorandum statuit rem sc Sacramenti at non Sacramentum terrenam sc partem ut Irenaeus visibilem ut Augustinus Nos vero in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio non id sed eum qui super altare colitur Nazianzen's saying Nec carnem manducamus quin adoremus prius cum Augustino Et Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus But here I am left in the dark whether Christ may be adored as corporally present with the Symbols the res visibilis and that before communicating See what he saith concerning this Presence in what is quoted out of his first cap. before Lastly I will set down what AP. Spalato and Bishop Forbes say who speak plainly and I suppose in this are allowed by the Church of England since they seem here to maintain only her opinion of the real presence of Christ's very body not to the signs but to the worthy receiver only tho of Bishop Forbes his opinion see more hereafter Thus therefore they see Forb de Eucharist 2. l. 2. c. 8. 9. s. Quod ad adorationem hujus Sacramenti attinet quum qui digne sumit S. Symbola vere realiter corpus sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter modo tamen spirituali miraculoso imperceptibili omnis digne communicans is the worthy communicant to worship but not the unworthy because Christ's body is there present to the one but not to the other adorare potest debet corpus Christi quod recipit non quod lateat corporaliter in pane aut sub pane aut sub speciebus accidentibus panis sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus reale illi communicationi realiter praesens ut inquit Archiep. Spalat Repub. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. Again An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus Protestantes saniores non dubitant in sumptione enim Eucharistiae ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalat adorandus est Christus vera Latria siquidem corpus ejus vivum gloriosum miraculo quodam inexplicabili digne sumenti praesens adest haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non Comestioni non signis sed ipsi Corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur perficitur Here these seem to allow an Adoration of Christ as present in the Sumption of the Sacrament but not of him before as present with the Symbols 2. Of those of the third Opinion who hold Christ's Body present with the Symbols yet some deny Adoration of this Body so present lawful upon such grounds as are also urged in subsidiis by Calvin and his Followers namely because Corpus non jubet se adorari in Eucharistia See Calv. Inst l. 4. c. 17. s 35 36. An res erat nullius momenti Deum hac forma adorare ut nihil nobis praescriberetur Cum de vero cultu ageretur tanta levitate fuerat tentandum de quo nullum usque verbum legebatur Qui sacramenti adorationem excogitarunt eam a seipsis somniarunt citra scripturam ubi nulla illius mentio ostendi potest So Rivet Exam. Animad Grot. Christus nullibi jussit ut eum in sacramento adoraremus nec legimus Apostolos cum eis exhibitum fuit accubitum mutasse in adgeniculationem So others in Eucharistiam Christum esse non ut adoretur sed ut manducetur Others non esse idem corpus Christi Christum But yet some of them grant Adoration not of the Sacrament but of Christ present with it lawful in usu Coenae or at such time as they grant him to be present with the symboles And some of the Calvinists object against the Lutherans That the lawfulness of Adoration is a necessary Consequent upon their Tenent of Christ's presence with the symbols see de Pace Eccl. sent Mort p. 10. And note here that whereas the Lutherans generally are said to renounce Adoration 't is meant not of the renouncing of the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament which some allow but of the Worship of the Sacrament 3. All generally acknowledg That the consecrated Symbols are to be used with Reverence and Respect as Holy things Therefore Rivet saith of the Fathers and of some Lutherans Annot. Animadv p. 92. Voluerunt quod de Theodoreto sentiendum ad sacra signa percipienda cum reverentia esse accedendum propter Dei potentiam 4. Lastly They all contend That the Symbols may not be Worship'd for Christ or as being Christ or with the Worship due to Christ And if they be That it is Idolatry i. e. Worshiping a Creature for the Creator Which Worship of the Symbols for Christ they object to the Church of Rome And this is all that I can find said by them concerning the ancient practise of Adoration The fourth thing we Consider'd § XXV Now as I said these their Answers to the former points seem to me at least the most part of them very unsatisfactory and if you please to review them as I have plac'd the Letters to avoid Repetition I shall as briefly as I can propose to you my Reasons For these Replies To that then which is said in their Answer to the first Argument from the Letter α to β it may be Reply'd That taking some other instance by which is signified only a representation or similitude as this Proposition when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10. The Rock is Christ If any one to explain only this similitude or representation should make such expressions as the Fathers use concerning This is my Body as Christ was made of the Rock or The Rock was chang'd into Christ c. they would be judg'd very improper and absurd That that Party will not admit of such interpretations of the Fathers meaning so seeming contrary to this expression in other places quoted by them against the Romanists Reply to their Answer to the first Argument out of the Fathers as namely in that of S. Austin quoted hereafter Non hoc corpus quod videtis c. Where it being answer'd that non
the same reason compel them to affirm Adoration follows their own Doctrine and therefore ours which forced Bishop Morton to say it followed the Lutheran 4ly Their deference to the certainty of sense must be adjusted with ours and Miracles must not be confined to its sphere 5ly Such language as this Minister uses must be forborn and his blasphemous Ironies receive the same detestation with them as they have with as For instance Pref. p. 6. l. penult That the Council of Lateran gave the Priests power of making their God for Church of England Priests if true Priests have the same power with the Catholick But neither pretend by Sacerdotal consecration to make the substance of Christ's Body but only to invoke the Holy Ghost to effect by its Almighty power that the substance of our Lord 's glorified body which now exists gloriously in Heaven may also exist Sacramentally on the Altar Is this making their God The Lateran Definition de Fide Catholica and the Council of Trent informed this Minister what part by Christ's institution not their gift as this man imposes the Priest has in the consecration if he had not bin willing to forget or mistake it for vile purposes Again p. 75. l. 8. That the Popish Real Presence is a meer figment and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored Such putrid falshoods and conceited nonsense will be very indecent in a genuine Church of England man's mouth not only because of his Defender but of his Faith too For such a one to tell us of adoring the Mass and that He abhors it and accounts our Real presence a figment is both absurd and impious But this is the result of a Gallican vagary and of learning the Doctrine of the Church of England from Hugonotal conversation Tales and Fathers Pag. 72. l. 1. That the alterations which have bin made in our Rubric were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions c. Tho it signify little whether the Alterations in the Article and Liturgy and the Disgrace of the Rubric were or were not from a change of opinions so long as the Doctrine of the Church was changed tho this I grant may well be and the other not according to the gloss of subscribing not with assent but for peace and tho too t is a strange casualty for Divines remarkable for resolution and famous for immutability to flit their sentiments as ordinarily as the Moon does her appearances yet the Proof brought that those Divines did not imitate Cranmer in compliance and submission of judgment to the present Possessor of White-Hall is no more than an heap of this Minister's conjectures stampt with the superscription of a Rational account when-as Dr. Heylin equal to Dr. Burnet in abilities and industry and incomparably more honest than that perfidious Fugitive reports that the changes were made lest in excluding a carnal Presence they the Divines sure might be thought to reject such a Real presence as was defended in the writings of the Ancient Fathers Nor is the design of reconciling Parties inconsistent with a change of opinions A comprehension-affair may be pursued by Real Presence-men as well as Zuinglians As to the Copy of Articles perused by Dr. Burnet and out of him mentioned pag. 58. we say again that it ought to be concluded from that rased Monument rather that the Divines did than did not change their Opinions for he that reverses a subscription voluntarily is likelier to have altered his resolution than to have retain'd it especially when induced to expunge what had bin agreed on by an Authority whereto by the Principle of Lay-Supremacy lately assumed by the Prince and submitted to by themselves their judgments were to conform and whose sentiments in Religion they were to believe and profess For Queen Elizabeth had by a dreadful example just then told the world as after she had like to have done in the Lambeth-Articles-Affair that She would not hear the Church but tho a woman be heard by it in matters of Faith and would neither consult with nor follow but controll and prescribe-to Convocations in causes of meer Religion Had She not refused to hear the voice of the whole Clergy in her first and the last Canonical Convocation In a Convocation acting agreeably not only to the institution of Christianity and rules of the Catholick Church but of all other Convocations that ever were in the Nation unless a few in Hen. 8. and Edw. 6. time in a Convocation acting according to all Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil then in force in this Kingdom and representing the Church of England by Law established How then could its Declaration be illegal as the Reflecter on the Historical Part of the Fifth part of Church-Government p. 82. will needs esteem it What could the Queen under a penalty justly prohibit them the use of that Authority both Christ and the Laws of the Land had setled on them alone If this were not tyranny where shall instances of it be found But that Reverend and Catholick Assembly understood both its own power and duty better than so and despising the temporal terrors that only a Tyrant in that case would threaten and a Persecutor execute discharged it self with constancy as became men entrusted with the souls of the Nation tho deprivation were the reward of their Confession Her new and parasitical Ministers understood then what they must do and that for that very end She had raised them up even to think and act at her appointment In return to the conjectures wherewith the Answerer strives to blanch o're a soul defection from the Catholick faith we will relate how we apprehend Religious affairs were managed At Edward the Sixths coming to the Crown the Doctrine of the Church of England was a substantial Presence the manner of that Presence was Transubstantiation but thro the Ambition and Avarice of Governing Parties some quickly began to contest and forsake this Faith vet by degrees rejecting first the manner and afterwards the Presence being assisted in this Apostasy by a few and opposed by most of the Clergy and Laity hence tho there were Assemblies and deliberations had yet no Canonical determinations pass'd or are extant unless such approbations may be deemed Synodical that were obtained by terrors and deprivations of many the most eminent Bishops and dignified Ecclesiasticks for relucting at what derogated from Christian Truth and Church Authority All was done by the conduct and influence of the evil Spirit and neither Scripture nor Antiquity rightly consulted or observed only herein the diligence and craft of those destroying Reformers must to their eternal infamy be own'd that they distinguished points immediately obstructing their gain and licentiousness from others more indifferent rejecting chiefly such as debarred them from spoiling the Church and gratifying their sensual appetites Thus as superstitious or idolatrous prayer for the Faithful deceased that Chanteries the Mass that the furniture of Altars c might be alienated
the present Church of England in compliance with the black Rubrick this Minister's only publick evidence such as it is against both a Substantial presence and Adoration must be concluded to deny Adoration from its beginning it did not so and in 1660 it could not be said the Church of England by Law establish'd condemns Adoration no Test no Rubrick was then extant no Penal Laws whereto the establishment as well as original of their Church is to be ascribed constraining any man to subscribe with or without consent a villanous slander upon the whole Church of God upon the Lutherans and themselves too till the Return of King Charles II. and since the contrary hath bin both said printed and practised by the genuine Sons of the Church of England who regarded the Rubric no more than the rest of that communion do the Fasts and other ceremonies injoyn'd them by the same Liturgy Pag. 87 l. 27. Now to this I shall at present only say That the Supposition being absurd does not admit of a rational consideration c. Here he asserts it impossible for Christ's body to exist or to be present except in the circumstances and cloathed with all the ordinary properties of a Body and consequently must disbelieve not only that the bodies of Saints at the Resurrection shall neither marry nor be given in marriage not need nourishment c but be as the Angels impassible c. and so either deny a Heaven or admit a Mahometan Paradise but also question our Lord's resurrection the stone unrolled from the mouth of the Sepulcher and his entrance into the room the door being shut and besides censure St. Paul's Spiritual body as absurd Could our Lord's body rise from the Grave thro a Stone and enter a close Room ad modum corporis If not then this Answerer must either retract this passage as an affront to Faith or Socinian-like reject the Scripture testifying this because absurd to his low and impure conceptions but if it could and did then where are our Minister and his vain Philosophy If he has known some admitting the Supposition That our Lord's Body may be present and not after the ordinary sensible manner of Corporal presence and yet resolving against adoration of it such oppose what this man concedes in the first Supposition unless he grant adoration due to the corporeal manner of Christ's presence and not to Christ himself Pag. 88 l. 13. I presume it was then in the times of Popery for since the Reformation I have shewn before that she always held the contrary viz. That our Lord's presence in the Eucharist is not adorable In the most flourishing Protestant times an adorable presence was believed and profest by Bishop Andrews deputed by the Head of the English Church to declare her sentiment in this matter He is not therefore to be considered as a private Doctor or Bishop but as the mouth of the Church and presumed to know and neither to falsify nor oppose her Doctrine or practice How came this Man to more skill and authority in expounding the Doctrine of the Church of England than that very learned Bishop Did King James II. depute you to expound it What reason do you assign why I must discredit Bishop Andrews and acquiesce in your exposition I cannot foresee how you can prove your self more honest more able more authentick than that extraordinary Bishop was But what does that accurate Plenipotentiary publish Does he fence and seek subterfuges as dreading or blushing to tell his thoughts No his expressions are with assurance and perspicuity He proclaims to the world that the King James I. believed and adored our Lord truly present in the Eucharist and we Church of England-men with Ambrose adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries and with Austin we do not eat the flesh without first adoring it Did Bishop Andrews speak true or did he not If he did then the Answerer speaks what 's false if he did not why may we not reject a Protestant Minister's testimony when such a Bishop's is so tardy What adoration Protestants render to the Divine Majesty in their other Religious offices we are not at leisure to enquire but that in this of the Eucharist the Bishop and King and consequently their Church adored the Flesh of Christ is to any one of modesty and candor undeniable They adored as St. Ambrose and St. Austin adored which was just in the same manner and in the self same degree as the Catholick Church adores at this day Those Fathers gave sovereign worship to the Flesh to the natural flesh of Christ substantially present in the Eucharist and Hypostatically united to his Soul and Divinity Our Dispute then with this Minister is about the adoration of Christ himself if about the adoration of his Flesh unless his Natures and Person be separable Pag. 89. l. 17. But is he sure the Bishop meant so i. e. that Bishop Taylor meant we worship the Body or Flesh of Christ Yes He is sure that Author meant the Flesh of Christ 1. Because the same Bishop Real Pres p. 144. says We worship the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our souls 2. Because the Action it self is not adorable the words then must either intend the flesh of Christ or What do they signify What is it the Bishop worships in the venerable usages of the signs Not the signs yet Divine Honor is given given then either to nothing or to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries 3. Because the Bishop is considering St. Ambrose's testimony for adoring the flesh of Christ in the mysteries and waving the usual refuges of the testimony being spurious or a Rhetorical flight c. he acknowledges that his party worships as St. Ambrose did Certainly then they have the same object pay the same service and at the like solemn occasions i. e. sovereign adoration to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries for this St. Ambrose undoubtedly perform'd And what if this Bishop according to his native constancy in another book recede from this was it therefore none of his thought when this was written Can his dictating contrary elsewhere alter the sence of what was said long before Pag. 90. l. 6. Since I have read of a Protestant Minister c. Very faithfully translated The Minister was permitted says the Answerer to exercise the functions of his Ministry as before 'T is false says the Margent He was not to preach any thing against the belief of the true Church nor to celebrate the Supper Thus the Man's Margent confutes his Text and his Translation quarrels with the Original Ibid. l. 17. As for Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato it is not to be wondred if men that had entertain'd the design of reconciling all Parties were forced to strain sometimes a little further than was fit c. An Answer very solid and very charitable For first is not this a concession that these Protestant Bishops allowed adoration