whom he censures so freely in the remaining part of this paragraph Ibid. p. 33. We shall still think that Mons Daillé had reason and made a true resolution of Popery into Passion and Interest that Bishop Taylor has prov'd as well as said that the Papists pretences to the Fathers are but few and trifling that what the Defender quotes out of Liberty of prophecying is a very good argument against the literall sense and that the Bishop while he pleaded for the Papists did prudently to omit Catholic tradition which he knew was not on theyr side We shall still profess with Dr. Stillingfleet that the grossest Idolatry in the world has as fair a plea as the Popish and conclude that this Trifler finding fault with him has not ex but inexcuseably mistaken the Doctor 's argument as will appear by comparing his words with what the Dr. says Rom Idolatry cap. 2. § 7. pag. 132.133 Lastly we agree that if Transubstantiation were warranted by Catholic tradition Adoration were sufficiently grounded and cannot but smile as Crassus did upon a like occasion to see how gingerly the Defender nibbles at this concession He seems to say that Tradition is for Transubstantiation Ibid. yet he waves that and pleads only for a Corporal Presence which for any thing he says here may be taken in a Lutheran sense though to talk with him in his own language if Trans be true Consubstantiation must needs be fals And what 's all this to his purpose who pretends to abstract from both and ground his Adoration precisely upon a Real Presence And now 't is my turn to address to the indifferent Reader and if he have either read Mr. Thorndike's Epilogue or but carefully consider'd this Author's quotations out of it to ask his opinion about these two or three questions 1. Whether this Author has in all this whole Pamphlet expressly own'd himself a Roman-Catholic or rather skulk'd under the general name of Catholic taken in the same latitude Mr. Thorndike takes it in his Epilogue 2 Whether all his shuffling be not only to advance Mr Thorndike's new and singular notion of a presence of Christ's body in or with or under the Elements § 28. p. 32. distinct from the Church of Englands Real and the Papists and Lutherans Corporal Presence In short not a Virtual nor Spiritual but a Corporal Presence effected neither by con nor Transubstantiation but after some other unknown manner distinct from both § 17. p. 21. 3 Whether a new and upstart doctrine which was probably never thought of before Mr Thorndike's time ought to pass for a doctrine of the Primitive Church 4 Whether the man that plays these tricks be an honest Papist And whether the humble Christian that swallows them must not have a very humble understanding CHAP. XI A Reply to the five last Sections of the second Discourse Disc 2. pag. 33. OUr Author § 30. imputes it to the strength of his Grounds not to excess of Charity or the singular fancies of some few learned men that of late the Protestants do either not at all or but very faintly charge the Papists with Idolatry This confident assertion he very well knows is false as the Reader will find it by by if it were true it will not serve him to shelter his peculiar notions under the Patronage of the Church of England Wherefore I must return him a quotation out of * Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to Roman Idolatry last paragraph the same Preface which himself quotes viz. That our Church is not now to be form'd according to the singular fancies of some few tho' learned men much less to be modell'd by the Copricio's of superstitious Fanatics who prefer some odd opinions and wayes of their own before the receiv'd Doctrine of the Church they live in Such as these we rather pity their weakness then regard their censures and are sorry when our Adversaries make such properties of them as by their means to beget in some a disaffection to our Church But to come to those Protestants Disc 2. §. 30. p. 33 34. who our Author tells us neither out of singularity nor charity but pure conviction are of late so kind to Popery The first he quotes is Mr. Thorndike in his Epil wherein he is not only a Conciliator and so oblig'd by his very design to strain his charity but his terms of Reconciliation are by his own confession peculiar notions of his own which he seems to have propos'd as not thinking that other Reconcilers had sufficiently clear'd the Papists from Idolatry For it must be confessed that this Pious and Learned Man was zealous to his last hour to acquit the Church of Rome from Idolatry partly out of the natural sweetness of his temper which made him unwilling to lay so grievous a sin to the charge of any Church but chiefly upon a mistaken principle that all Idolatry unchurches So that the charge of it would in his opinion light heavy upon the Papists and at the rebound equally hurt the Church of England which derives her Succession and Ordination from the Church of Rome This mistaken opinion the Defender greedily lays hold on and ask's with great briskness What Church or Sect of religion can be apostate at all Ibid. p. 34. if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry I must desire him to reconcile this pert question with another as pert in the book of the Benefits of our Saviour chap. 9. § 14. And now says he what can hinder God's goodness or decay the Church since 't is plain that sin cannot even the sin of Idolatry as is proved at large in the two foregoing Sections For when he does this he will return the common answer to that objection wherein he now sides with Mr Thorndike Ibid. The next is Bishop Forbes in his Considerationes modestae pacificae whose design and character is so well known and so obvious to any man that has but ever look'd upon his book that I think the Reader will need no farther information how excessive his charity was in this matter Ibid. p. 35. Thirdly Arch-Bishop Bramhall concludes that very Section which our author quotes with these words Tho' the Church of Rome do give divine worship to a Creature or at least a party among them yet I am so charitable as to hope they intend it to the Creator It may be the Defender will reply now that he does not say excessively charitable Ibid. Fourthly 't is notorious that Bishop Taylor wrote his Liberty of prophecying to serve the interest of the Church of England which at that time was to obtain a general toleration Wherefore it concern'd him in that book to be more then a Conciliator and represent Popery with the utmost favour it would bear Yet he could not even in that book so dissemble his Zeal against Popery but that in the very Paragraph our Author quotes he accuses the Papists confidence and
a Real participation of the body by consequence of the effects and benefits But the great and killing objection against all explications he dislikes is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism Whether the opinion which he brands by that name be truly ascribed to Zuinglius and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend I need not now stay to inquire 't is sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our observation It seemeth saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308. much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective Discourses are made all running upon two points that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament For no man having read their Books and Writings which are thus traduced can be ignorant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true they do not so interpret the words of Christ as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signifie his Blood They grant that these Holy mysteries Receiv'd in a due manner do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in True and Reall though Mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and intire as hath been shew'd These words may receive farther light from Bishop Cosins's History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17 18. Now they that acknowledge thus much hold a Real Participation and Vnion which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be us'd but perhaps be better let alone The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius was as Bucer reports the tenent of the Anabaptists and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puritans in the beginning of the late Rebellion And by them 't is most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours who at that time was observ'd to be their great associate and favourer Disc I. §. 37 p. 25. What the Remonstrants and Socinians say does no way concern us much good may they do the Author they who set up for so great masters of reason will but ill resent it that a man of his head should pretend to them Ibid. §. 38. Who W.H. is and who his Answerer I know not having never seen either of their Books And being so well acquainted with this Author's sincerity I cannot depend upon his Credit I meet with nothing quoted but what 't is easy to give an account of but to do it as it should be one ought to have the Books by him for I vehemently suspect this Answerer has far'd no better then his Brethren CHAP. V. A Reply to the Fourth Chapter of the first Discourse TO the third Observable lay'd down in the first Chapter which now comes to be consider'd the Author has three things to say 1. That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist Disc I p. 27. §. 39. it ought to be then ador'd which we grant him and had he design'd to dispute for the Papists he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present 2. Ibid §. 40. That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be reveal'd which is as Real and Essential as if it were Corporal adoration will be no less due to it thus then so Present That is if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent yet as Truly and Really Present as if it were Locally Present she is as much bound to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence which she owns as she would be if she likewise own'd that Corporal and Local Presence which she deny's I say to adore the Elements for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body abstracting from the hypostatical Union be more then a creature which is not adorable with Divine worship For all understanding men are agreed it is not Or whether Christs person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or howsoever present is to be ador'd both in and out of the Sacrament viz. in the performance of all religious offices still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present for this is allow'd by all true Christians whatsoever This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it in the mean time we deny it 3 He undertakes to shew that the Church of England i. e. five writers of her Communion Disc I. pag. 28. §. 41 42 43 44 45. whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue have heretofore believ'd and affirm'd such a Presence to which they thought adoration due To adore a presence is an odd kind of expression for 't is to adore an extrinsic denomination To adore Christ present in the mysteries is a phrase we better understand though that too be lyable to misconstruction If the author dare to speak plain the point that pinches and the true thing to be prov'd is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshiped upon that account And if this be so as I think I have plainly shewn I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose who expressly in the very quotation declares himself against him saying Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus or Bishop Taylor saying likewise We give no divine honour to the Signs or Bishop Forbes saying Haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni debetur or the Arch-Bishop of Spalato since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Arch-Bishop I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion Disc I. pag 29. §. 47. Having given us this taste of his other good qualities he concludes with a spice of his Logic and infers 1. That notwithstanding what he has said the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist contrary to the forecited Doctrine and K. James's and Bishop Andrews's Religion I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions but tell him that the King 's the Bishop's and the Churches meaning is very plain viz. that since Christs Natural Body is not to be ador'd but where it is Corporally Locally Present it is not so
Fancifull Opinion which makes them doe violence to all Philosophy and the Reason of man and undoe and cancel the Principles of two or three Sciences And these words which one would think are not so very favourable and absolving lye just between the two sentences the Defender has transcrib'd In the next paragraph he calls Idolatry the crime which Papists formally hate and we materially avoid And again in the next to that says If they who do as the Papists do are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger their disciples should be so So that he plainly owns them guilty of material and dares not venture to acquit them even of formal Idolatry Notwithstanding the Defender goes on at all adventures Disc 2. pag. 31. §. 35. and will have it a fault in Dr. Taylor to say in one book that if Papists are deceiv'd in Transubstantiation it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry whereas he says in another that 't is evident the Object c. is the only true and Eternal God c. which seems to be a very course Complement to his Reader for it either supposes him so Lazy as not to look back what words those cetera's stood for or if he did so dull as not to see that Dr. Taylor in both these quotations only charges the Papists with material Idolatry Ibid. He will likewise have M. Daillé to be faulty for opposing the Papists with such a form of argument as would prove the Lutherans to worship a mite But instead of his miserable that-which solution let him interpret the word joyned in the major of his own Syllogism by Consubstantiate as he must do if he mean to oppose the Lutherans and hee 'll find that it has four terms In the third place faulty with him is Dr. Stillingfleet for two or three reasons which as they have been urg'd so they have been answer'd before But he tell 's us in good time that Catholics grant as much as the Dr. that the Presence of the Divine Nature in any thing is no good ground to pay Divine Worship to that thing For he hop'd we had forgot his abstracting from a Corporal and grounding his adoration precisely upon a Real Presence we desire he will stick to this grant and that supposal and then shew what trick he has left to evade Idolatry Disc 2. pag. 36 37. § 31. He concludes All these are faulty I say Why so Positive good Sir why because they charge the Papists with worshiping a Creature instead of Christ from which other Protestants cleare them But what if the Chargers give better reasons then the Clearers Or what if the Chargers are the far greater number is a majority the Guide's beloved argument grown out of Favour Or what if the Chargers and the Clearers both agree in the matter of fact as indeed they do for the one part only says that the Papists worship Bread and the other that 't is true they do so but 't is more then they mean to do To conclude the Papists direct the act of adoration to the species supposing Christ to be Locally present under them but if Christ be not so but the substance of Bread instead of him as the Protestants affirm and prove then the Papists who intentionally worship Christ do actually pay their Worship to Bread instead of him which is all the Protestants accuse them of For that act is as certainly a species of Idolatry as the object has the species of Bread Disc 2. pag. 37. §. 35. The fifth and last Protestant Author that is quoted is the Reverend and Learned Dr. Hammond who according to the Defender seems to Charge the Papists rather with a material then Formal Idolatry and this material Idolatry we are told like material Adultery may in many cases be committed without Sin This latter Doctrine I believe is none of Dr. Hammond's for t is contrary to plain Scripture For when Abimelech Gen XX. had like to have committed material Adultery with Sarah and being reprov'd in a Dream pleaded the innocence of his intention God acknowledges this innocence and says For I also with-held thee from sinning against me therefore I suffer'd thee not to touch her v. 6. so that it seems the act had been a sin against God v 5. notwithstanding Abimelech's doing it in the integrity of his heart and the innocence of his hands But to return to Dr. Hammond 't is plain he has heartily endeavour'd to strain his charity and yet for all that censures the Papists as severely as any sober Protestant ever did And the Reader will be fully satisfy'd of this truth if he please to consult for it would be too much to transcribe the * § 63. He delivers himself to this effect To Worship the Bread in the Sacrament must certainly be Idolatry in the literal notion of the Word and they that do this upon any the subtilest ground that by any error or mistake be it never so piously taken up believe it not to be Bread but very Christ incarnate and thereupon Worship it these I say in case they be mistaken though they are not guilty of Idolatry in all the aggravations that belong'd to it among the Heathen yet I cannot free them from the Charge of Worshiping an Idol c. nine Sections which the Dr has writ upon this Subject beginning § 63. of his discours of Idolatry I assure my self the mildest censure that can be passed upon the Defender will be that he never read that Discourse But he thinks he has launc'd us to the quick Disc 2. pag. 37. § 32. when he puts us in mind of our Forefathers who for many centuryes were such Idolaters as we make the present Papists Poor man where has he been sleeping these fifty years that he knows not this stale objection has been so often urg'd and answer'd that all understanding Papists are now asham'd to make use of it Yet for all this we are likely to part good friends for he tells us his Catholics grant it is unlawful to worship the bread if we do not believe it to be God Ibid. §. 33. or direct the outward act to our Lord as Corporally present in the Sacrament if we do not believe him so present Thus instead of defending his Catholics for adoring he graciously absolves the Protestants for not adoring As for what he adds of submitting our Judgment to the Church that is nothing to the present purpose For he knows that we insist upon it that Popery in this point does directly and manifestly overthrow all the principles of Sense of Reason Religion and we are not so singular in this opinion but that Papists themselves own they cannot in this question pretend to Scripture without first defying Sense Reason In the last Section the Defender proposes two Questions which he thinks the most material in this dispute 1. Disc 2. pag. 38. § 34. Whether the Popish