IDolatry is so great a Blot in any Church, what­ever other glorious Marks it may pretend to, that it is not to be wondred, that the Church of Rome is very angry to be charged with it, as it has always been by all the Reform'd; who have given in this among many others, as a just and necessary Reason of their Reformation; and it must be confessed to be so, if it be fully and clearly made good against it; and if it be not, it must be owned to be great Uncharitableness on the other side, which is no good Note of a Church nei­ther; a grievous Slander and most uncharitable Ca­lumny, which will fall especially upon all the Clergy of the Church of England, who by their Consent and Subscription to its Articles and to the Doctrine of its Homilies, and to the Book of Common-Prayer, do expresly join in it. For it is not the private Opinion only of some particular and forward men in their Zeal and Heat against Popery, thus to accuse it of Idolatry; but it is the deliberate, and sober, and down­right [Page 2] Charge of the Church of England, of which no honest man can be a Member, and a Minister, who does not make and believe it. I might give several Instances to shew this; but shall only mention one, wherein I have undertaken to defend our Church in its charge of Idolatry upon the Papists, in their Adoration of the Host, which is in its Declaration about Kneeling at the Sacrament after the Office of the Communion, in which are these remarkable words, It is hereby declared, that no Adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the sacramental Bread and Wine there bodily received, or unto any corporal presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood; for the sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their na­tural substances, and therefore may not be adored, for that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Chri­stians. Here it most plainly declares its mind against that, which is the Ground and Foundation of their Worshipping the Host, That the Elements do not re­main in their natural Substances after Consecration; if they do remain, as we and all Protestants hold, even the Lutherans, then in Worshipping the conse­crated Elements, they worship meer Creatures, and are by their own Confession guilty of Idolatry, as I shall show by and by; and if Christ's natural Flesh and Blood be not corporally present there, neither with the Substance, nor Signs of the Elements, then the Adoring what is there, must be the Adoring some things else than Christs body; and if Bread on­ly be there, and they adore that which is there, they must surely adore the Bread it self, in the opi­nion of our Church; but I shall afterwards state the Controversie more exactly between us. Our Church has here taken notice of the true Issue of it, and de­clared that to be false, and that it is both Unfit and [Page 3]Idolatrous too, to Worship the Elements upon any account after Consecration, and it continued of the same mind, and exprest it as particularly, and direct­ly in the Canons of 1640, where it saysCanon 7. 1640. about placing the Communion Table under this head, A Declaration about some Rites and Ce­remonies., That for the cause of the Idola­try committed in the Mass, all Popish Altars were demolisht; so that none can more fully charge them with Idolatry in this point, than our Church has done.

It recommends at the same time, but with great Temper and Moderation, the religious Gesture of bow­ing towards the Altar, both before and out of the time of Celebration of the Holy Eucharist, and in it, and in neitherIb. Cant 7. 1640., Ʋpon any opinion of a corporal presence of Christ on the Holy Table, or in the mystical Elements; but only to give outward and bodily, as well as inward Worship to the Divine Majesty; and it commands all Persons to receive the Sacrament KneelingRubric at Com­munion., in a posture of Adora­tion, as the Primitive Church used to do, with the greatest Expression of Reverence and Humility, [...], as St. Cyrill of Hierusalem speaksCyril. Hieroso­lym. Catech. Mystag. 5., and as I shall shew, is the meaning of the greatest Authorities they pro­duce out of the Ancients for Adora­tion not to, but at the Sacrament; so far are we from any unbecoming, or irreverent u­sage of that Mystery, as Bellarmine Controv. de Eu­charist., when he is angry with those, who will not Worship it, tells them out of Optatus, that the Donatists gave it to Dogs; and out of Victor Ʋticensis, that the Arrians trod it under their Feet; [Page 4]that we should abhor any such disrespect shown to the sacred Symbols of our Saviours Body, as is used by them, in throwing it into the Flames to quench a Fire, or into the Air, or Water to stop a Tempest, or Inundation, or keep themselves from drow­ning, or any the like mischeif (to prevent which they will throw away even the God they Worship) or the putting it to any the like undecent Superstitions. 'Tis out of the great Honour and Respect that we bear to the Sacrament, that we are against the car­rying it up and down as a show, and the Exposing and Prostituting it to so shameful an Abuse, and so gross an Idolatry. We give very great Respect and Reverence to all things that relate to God, and are set apart to his Worship and Service; to the Tem­ple where God is said himself to dwell, and to be more immediately present; to the Altar whereon the Mysteries of Christs Body and Blood are solemnly celebrated; to the Holy Vessels, that are always used in those Administrations; to the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God, and the New Te­stament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, as the Sacrament is his Body, and the New Testament in his Blood; to the Font, which is the Laver of Rege­neration, wherein we put on Christ, as well as we eat him in the Eucharist; and if we would strain things, and pick out of the Ancient and Devout Christians what is said of all these, it would go as far, and look as like to adoring them, as what with all their care they collect and produce for adoring the Sa­crament, as I shall afterwards make appear, in Answer to what theJacob. Boileau Paris. De Adorati­one Eucharistiae. Pa­ris. 1685. la­test Defender of the Adoration of the Eucharist, has culled, or rather raked together out of the Fathers.

[Page 5] It seems from that Declaration of our Church, that some were either so silly, or so spiteful, as to sup­pose that by our Kneeling at the Sacrament, we gave Worship to the Elements; and that learned man is willing to have it believed, that we do thereby, ex­ternè Eucharistiam colere Boil. p. 145., out­wardly Worship the Sacrament, and he blames us for not doing it inwardly in our minds, as well as out wardly with our Bodies; so willing are these men to joyn with our wildest Dissenters in their unrea­sonable Charges against our Church, and use any crutches that may help their own weak Cause, or be made use of to strike at us; but it may as well be said, that the Dissenters Worship their Cushions, or their Seats, when they kneel before them; the roof of the Church, or the crowns of their Hats, when they fix their Eyes upon them, at the same time they are at Prayers upon their Knees; or that the Papists worship the Priest himself, before whom they Kneel in their Confessions; or that on Ashwednesday they adore the holy Ashes as they call them, and on Palm­sunday the holy Boughs, which they do not pretend to do, because they Kneel when they are given them; as well as that we Worship the Eucharist, or the Mystical Elements, when we receive them Knee­ling, and disavow any such thing, and declare it to be Idolatry to be abhorr'd of all faithful Christi­ans.

But is it Idolatry to Worship Christ? Or to Wor­ship the Body of Christ, tho not for it self, yet for the sake of the Divine Nature, to which it is al­ways hypostatically united? No, by no means; I know no Hereticks, tho they denied Christs Divinity, but yet were for Worshipping him; the old Arrians, and the late Socinians; but how justifiably, when they [Page 6]believe him but a meer man, or only a more excel­lent Creature; they and the Church of Rome are both concerned to defend, and to clear it, if they can of Idolatry. As to the Worship of the Flesh, tho Nestorius could not do this according to his Principles, as St. Cyrill and the Council of Ephesus argue against him; nor could the Ebionites, nor [...] of old; yet I know none but some of their School-men dispute now of Adoring the Flesh or Humane Nature of Christ, which however it be in our minds, is never in truth abstracted from his Di­vinity. But we will not at all trouble our selves with those parts of the Science of controversie; nor shall we stand upon any of those things. Well then, why may not Christ and his Body be adored in the Sacrament, if they are proper Objects of Adorati­ons. No doubt but they may be adored in this Sacra­ment, in the Sacrament of Baptism too, and in all the Offices of the Christian Religion, wherein we pray to Christ, and Kneel before him, and exer­cise the devout acts of the mind toward him, put our trust and hope in him, and expect Salvation from him, and devote our selves in all Subjection to him, and bow both our Souls and our Bodies, and give all, both internal and external Worship to him; this Adoration we give to Christ, who is God blessed for ever, and who sits at the right hand of God the Father. And the very same the Papists give to the Sacrament, to the Host, and the consecrated Ele­ments, the most Sovereign, and Absolute, and high­est Degree of Religious Worship that is due to God, whose creatures those Elements are; or to Christ himself, who commanded us to receive them in re­membrance of him. But it is only Christ, say they, whom we Worship in the Sacrament, whom we adore [Page 7]as being present there with his Body in the Host, and not the Host or the Sacrament it self; so a great many of them would fain bring off the matter, or at least colour and disguise it; Bellar­mine Lib. 4. de Eucha­rist c. 29. Quicquid sit de modo loquendi, status quaestionis non est, nisi an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu la­triae., when he had entangled him­self with the distinctions of Wor­shipping the Sacrament, whether formally or materially; would extri­cate himself, by thus stating the mat­ter, and reducing it to this questi­on, Whether Christ be to be adored in the Eucharist? And St. Clara St. Clara De­us, Natura, Gratia, p. 308. Nota bene, non dicit Concilium Tridentinum, Sacra­mentum, sed Chri­stum in Sacramento, latria adorandum. would reconcile the dispute with this Observation, Nota benè. Mark this, the Council of Trent does not say, that the Sacrament is to be adored, but Christ in the Sacrament. I won­der so great a man as Cassander Adoratio non ad exterius signum quod exterius vide­tur, sed ad ipsam rem & veritatem quae interius credi­tur referenda, Cas­sand. Consult. de A­dorat. Euchar., should say, Unless, with a design to condemn the thing, That the Ado­ration is not to be given to the outward sign which is seen; but is to be referr'd to the thing it self, and to that which is truly and inwardly believed. But Reconcilers, who will attempt the vain project of Accommodation, must do with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, as Apelles did with Antigonus his face, they must draw but one part, but half of it, that so they may Artificially conceal its deformed, and its blind side. That all these do so, I shall show by stating the Controversie carefully and truly, which is the chiefest thing in this dispute; for they love to hide their own Doctrines as much as they can; and they cunningly contrive most of them with a back door, to slip out at privately and upon occasion. [Page 8]The Council of Trent has in this, as in other things, used art, and not spoke out in one place, as it does in another; that so we may mistake half its words for its full meaning, as Bellarmine and others were willing to do, or at least to have others do so. In its sixth Canon on the Eucharist it only saysConcil. Trident. Can. 6. De Euchar. si quis dixerit in san­cto Eucharistiae Sa­cramento Christum Ʋnigenitum Dei fi­lium non esse cultu Latriae etiam exter­no adorandum, ana­thema sit., If any one shall say, that Christ the only begotten Son of God is not to be adored with the external Worship of Latria, in the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, let him be accursed. Who will not say in those general words, that Christ is to be adored with out­ward and inward Worship both, not only in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, but of Baptism too, and in every Christian Office, and in every Prayer, and solemn Invocation of him, ei­ther publick or private? But they mean a great deal more than all this, by Worshipping Christ in the Sacrament, and in as plain words they sayIb. 13. Sess. e. 5., That the Sacrament it self is to be adored; that, whatever it be which is something besides Christ, even according to them, which is placed in the Patin, and upon the Altar, which the Priest holds in his hands, and lifts up to be seen, this very thing is to be adored; There is no doubt, says the CouncilIb. Nullus dubi­tandi locus relinqui­tur quin omnes Chri­sti fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur, huic san­ctissimo Sacramento in Veneratione adhi­beant; neque enim minus est adoran­dum quod fuerit a Christo Domino at sumatur, institutum., but that all faithful Chri­stians, according to the custom always received in the Catholick Church, ought to give Supreme and Sovereign Wor­ship, which is due to God himself, to the most Holy Sacrament in their Worship of it; for it is never the less to be adored, tho it was instituted of [Page 9]Christ to be received. That which is to be received, which is to be put into the Peoples Mouths by the Priest (for since they have made a God of the Sacrament, they will not trust the People to feed themselves with it, nor take it into their hands; and they may with as much reason in time not think fit that they should eat it) this which was appointed of Christ to be taken and eaten as a Sacrament; this is now to serve for another use, to be adored as a God; and it would be as true Heresie in the Church of Rome, not to say, that the Sacrament of the Altar is to be adored, as not to say, that Christ himself is to be adored. But what according to them is this Sa­crament? It is the remaining Species of Bread and Wine, and the natural Body and Blood of Christ, invisibly, yet carnally present under them; and these together make up one entire Object of their Adoration, which they call Sacramentum; for Christs body with­out those Species, and Accidents at least of Bread and Wine, would not according to them be a Sacrament; they being the outward and visible part, are,Lombard. sent. [...]l. 4. dist. 10. according to their School­men, properly and strictly called the Sacramentum, and the other the res Sacramenti; and to this external part of the Sacrament, as well as to the internal, they give [...] and Adoration; to these remaining Species, which be they what they will, are but Creatures; religious Worship is given toge­ther with Christs Body, and they with that, are the whole formal Object of their Adoration. Non so­lum Christum sed Totum visibile Sacramentum, uni­co cultu adorari, says SuarezIn Th. Quaest. 79. disp., quia est unum constans ex Christo & Speciebus; Not only Christ, but the [Page 10]whole visible Sacrament (which must be something besides Christs invisible Body) is to be adored with one and the same Worship, because it is one thing (or one Object) consisting of Christ and the Species. So ano­ther of their learned menHenriquez. Moral, l. 8. c. 32., Speci­ebus Eucharistiae datur Latria prop­ter Christum quem continent; The highest Worship is given to the Species of the Eucharist, because of Christ, whom they contain. Now Christ, whom they contain, must be something else than the Species that contain him. Let him be present never so truly and substantially in the Sacrament, or under the Species, he cannot be said to be the same thing with that in which he is said to be present; and as subtil as they are, and as thin and subtil as these Species are, they can never get off from Idolatry upon their own Principles in their Worshipping of them; and they can never be left out, but must be part of the whole which is to be adored, totum illud quod simul adoratur, de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. as Bellarmine calls it, must include these as well as Christs Body. Adorationem, saies BellarmineBellarmine de Euch. l. 4. c. 29., ad Symbola etiam panis & vini pertine­re, ut quod unum cum ipso Christo quem continent, Adoration belongs even to the Sym­bols of Bread and Wine, as they are apprehended to be one with Christ whom they contain; and so make up one entire Object of Worship with him, and may be Worshipt together with Christ, as T. G. Cathol. no Ido­laters, p. 268. owns in his Answer to his most learned Adversary; and are the very term of Adoration, as Gregory de Valentia De Idol. l. 2. c. 5. says, who further adds, that they who think this Worship does not at all belong to the Species, [Page 11]in that heretically oppose the per­petual customand sence of the Church.Qui censeunt nullo modo ad Species ip­sus eam Veneratio­nem pertinere, in eo Haeretice pugnare contra perpetuum usum & sensum Ecclesiae: de Ve­nerati one Sacram. ad Artic. Thom. 5.

Indeed they say, That these Species or Accidents, are not to be Worshipt for themselves, or upon their own account, but because Christ is present in them, and under them; and so they may be Worshipt as T. G. saysIb., with Christ in like manner, as his Gar­ments were Worshipt together with him upon Earth; which is a similitude taken out of Bellarmine, the Magazine not only of Arguments and Authorities, but of Similitudes too, it seems, which are to De­fend that Church; Quemadmodum saies hede Euch. Ve­nerat., qui Christum in terris ve­stitum adorabant, non ipsum solum sed etiam vestes quodam modo adora­bant. And are Christs Carments then to be Worshipt with Latria, as well as Christ himself, or as the Sacra­ment? I think they will not say this of any of the Relicks they have of Christ, or his clothes: Did they, who Worshipt Christ when he was upon the Earth, worship his clothes too? Did the Wise men worship the blankets, the clouts, and the swadling­cloths, as well as the blessed Babe lying in the Man­ger? Might it not as well be supposed that the Peo­ple worshipt the Ass, upon which Christ rode; not for himself, but for the sake, and upon the account of Christ, who was upon him; as that they worshipt his clothes, or his Sandals on which he trod, or the Garments which he wore? Bellarmines quodammodo adorabant, shews his heart misgave him, and that [Page 12]he was sensible the Similitude would not do, when he used it; but T. G. is a man of more heart and courage, or front at least, and he found the cause was in great need of it, and so he saies boldly, without any trem­bling quodammodo, that they worshipt his Garments.

The humane Nature it self of Christ, considered alone, and being a meer Creature, is not an object of Worship, as St. Augustin saiesSt. Aug. Serm. 58. De verbis Dom. Si natura Deus non est filius sed Crea­tura, nec colendus est omnino nec ut Deus Adorandus. Ego Dominicam car­nem, imo perfectam in Christo humani­tatem propterea ado­ro, quod a divinitate suscepta atque Dei­tati unita est,— Denique si hominem separaveris a Deo, ut Photinus, vel Paulus Samosatenus, illi ego nunquam credo nec servio., but only as it is hyposta­tically united to the Divine Nature, i. e. so intimately and vitally united to it, as to make one Person with it, with God himself, one [...], and so one Object of Worship; and if the Sacramental Symbols or Spe­cies, are to be adored with true latria, not per se, or upon their own account, but by reason of the intimate Union and Conjunction which they have with Christ, as they say, not only with Christs body, for that alone is not to be worshipt, much less another thing that is united to it; but with Christs Person, and then there must be as many Persons of Christ, as there are consecrated Wafers; then these Species being thus worshipt upon the same ac­count that Christs humanity is, as Gregory de Valen­tia owns they must, [This Worship, saies he, belongs after a certain manner to the species, as when the Di­vine [...] is worshipt in the humanity which he assu­med, the Divine Worship belongs also to the created Humanity. Pertinet per accidens suo quodam mo­do ea veneratio ad Species, quemadmodum suo mo­do, etiam hoc ipso quod adoratur Divinum verbum in humanitate assumptâ pertinet ejusmodi Divinus [Page 13]cultus, ad illam humanitatem creatam secundario, ne­que in hoc est aliqua Idolola­tria.]Valentia, Disput. 6. Quest. 11. de ritu & oblat. Eucharist. must be also united to Christ, the same way that his Humanity is united to his Divinity, so as to become with that, one entire object of Worship, as the Species are, ac­cording to them, with Christ in the Eucharist; that is, they must become one suppositum, or one Person with Christ. This is so weighty a difficulty, as makes the greatest Atlas's of the Roman Church not on­ly sweat, by sink under it. Valen­tia De Idol. l. 2. c. 5. owns the wonderful Conjun­ction the Species have with Christ, but denies their being hypostatically united to him; but then, how are they to be worshipt? Since it is owned by him and the Schoolmen, that the very Humanity of Christ is to be worshipt only upon the account of its hypostatical Union; and tho God be very nearly and intimately present in other Crea­tures, yet they are not to be worshipt, notwith­standing that presence, because they do not make one suppositum or hypostasis with him, or are not hy­postatically united to him. Bellarmine being pincht on this side, removes the burden to t'other, that is as sore, and can as little bear it; Christ, says he,Longe a liter est Christus in Eucha­ristia, & in aliis rebus Deus; Nam in Eucharistia unum tautum Suppofitum est, idque Divinum, caeteraque omnia ad illud pertinent, & cum illo unum quid faciunt, licet non eodem modo, Bellar. de Euch. l. 4. c. 30. is much otherwise in the Eucharist, than God is in other things; for in the Eucharist, there is but one only suppositum, and that Divine; all other things there present belong to, and make one thing with that. If they do so, then sure they are hypostatically united with Christ, as T. G's. learned Adversary charges upon Bellarmine from this place; if [Page 14]they make but one suppositum with him, and but one with him, let it be in what manner it will, they must be hypostatically united to him. Bellarmines Licet non eodem modo, tho not after the same man­ner, is both unintelligible, and will not at all help the matter; 'tis only a Confession from him, that at the same time that he says they are hypostatically united to Christ, and make one suppositum with him, and one object of Worship, that he does not know how this can be, and that his thoughts are in a great streight about it, so that he doubts they are not hypostatically united at the same time that he yet saies they are so; for this is no way imposed upon him, as T. G. saies, notwithstanding his non eodem modo. If in the Incarnation of Christ, one should say, That the Soul and Body of Christ are both united to his Divinity, but that both were not united after the same manner; but the Soul in such a manner, as being a Spirit, and the Body in another; yet so, that both made but one Suppositum with it, and that Divine; and that all his humane Nature belong'd to that, and made one with that, tho not after the same manner; would not this be still an owning the hypostatical Union between Christs Di­vinity, and his Soul and Body? and so must the o­ther be between Christs Divinity, and his Body, and the Species; if they make one Suppositum, and are, as they hold, to be worshipt as such.

Thus I have taken care to give you their Doctrine, and state the Case with some exactness; tho I am sensible, with too much length; but that is the way to shorten the Controversie; and by this means I have cut off their common retreats, and stopt up those little lurking holes they generally run to, and in which they are wont to Earth themselves. As, that [Page 15]they worship only Christ in the Sacrament, or Christ under the accidents of Bread and Wine; and that 'tis only Christ, or the Body of Christ with which his Divinity is always present, is the formal object of their Adoration in the Sacrament, and that their Worship is given to that, and not to the consecra­ted Elements, or to the remaining Species of Bread and Wine; it appears from their own Doctrine and Principles to be quite otherwise; and if we take them at their own words, they are sufficient to bear witness against them, and condemn them of Idola­try; but this will be found to be much greater and grosser, when the whole foundation of this Doctrine of theirs of the Worship of the Host, proves upon Examination to be false, and one of the most thick and unreasonable Errors in the World, to wit, the belief of Transubstantiation, or that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, are converted into the natural and substantial Body and Blood of Christ, so that there remains nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration, but only the Flesh and Blood of Christ corporally present, under the Species and Accidents of Bread and Wine. If this Doctrine be true, it will in great measure discharge them from the guilt of Idolatry; for then their only fault will be their joyning the Species, which how thin and ghostly soever they be, yet are Creatures, together with Christ, as one Object of Worship; and unless they alter their Doctrine on this point, from what it is now, I see not how they can justifie their wor­shipping with [...], or the Worship due only to God, not only the adorable substance of Christs Body, but the very Veils and Symbols under which they suppose that to lye; and yet when they teach, as they do, the adoring of the Sacrament, [Page 16]they must adore the visible and outward part of it, as well as the invisible Body of Christ; for without the remaining Species, it would not, according to them, be a Sacrament; and they have not gone so far yet, I think, as to deny that there are any remain­ing Species, and that our senses do so far wholly de­ceive us, that when we see something, there is really nothing of a visible Object. And the same Object which is visible, is adorable too, according to them: If Christs Body were substantially present in the Sacra­ment, tho it were lawful to adore it as there present; but by no means, either the substance or Species of Bread with it; yet it is much to be doubted, whe­ther it were a duty, or necessary to do so. It would be present so like a Prince in Incognito, that he would seem not to require that Honour which we ought to give him under a more publick appearance. God we know is present in all his Creatures, but yet we are not to Worship him as present in any of them; un­less, where he makes a sensible Manifestation of him­self, and appears by his Shechinah, or his Glory, as to Moses in the burning Bush, and to others in like manners: and it would be very strange to make the Bread in the Eucharist a Shechinah of God, which appears without any Alteration just as it was be­fore it was made such; and especially, to make it such a continuing Shechinah as the Papists do, that Christ is present in it, not only in the action and solemn Celebration, but extra usum, as they speak, and per­manenter, even after the whole Solemnity and Use is over; that he should continue there, as a praesens Numen, as Boileau expresly calls itde Euchoristiae Adorat. p. 140., and be showed and carried about and honoured as such, and dwell in [Page 17]the Species as long as they continue, as truly as he dwelt in the Flesh, before that was crucified; this is strange and monstrous even to those who think Christ is present in the Sacrament, but not so as the Papists believe, nor so as to be worshipped. I mean the Lutherans. But to bring the matter to closer issue; the Papists themselves are forced to confess, that if the Bread remain after Consecration, and be still Bread, and be not Transubstantiated into the Body of Christ, that they are then Idolaters. So Fisher against Oecolampadius, l. 1. c. 2. in express words. So Coster in his Enchiridion de Euch. c. 8.In tali errore at­que Idololatria, qualis in orbe terra­rum nunquam vel visus vel auditus fuit. Tolerabilior est enim error eorum qui pro Deo colunt Statuam auream aut argenteam, aut al­terius materiae ima­ginem, quomodo Gentiles Deos suos venerabantur, vel panum rubrum in hastam elevatum quod narratur de Lappis, vel viva animalia ut quon­dam Aegyptii, quam eorum qui frustum panis. Coster Ench. c. 8. S. 10. Longe potiori ratione ex­cusandi essent infi­deles Idololatrae qui Statuas adoraverunt, Ib. If the true Body of Christ be not present in the Sacra­ment, then they are left in such an Error and Idolatry, as was never seen or heard; for that of the Heathens would be more tolerable, who Worship a golden or silver Statue for God, or any other Image, or even a red Cloth, as the Laplan­ders are said to do, or living Animals, as the Egyptians, than of those who worship a piece of Bread. And again, Those Infidel Idolaters would be more ex­cusable, who worshipt their Sta­tues. To whom I shall add Bellar­mine Sacramentarii omnes negant Sacramentum Adorandum & Idolola­triam appellant e­jusmodi Adoratio­nem; neque id mi­rum videri deber, cum ipsi non credant Christum reipsa esse praesentem, & panem Eucharistiae reipsa nihil esse nisi panem ex furno, Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 29., who saies, It does not seem strange, that they call the Adoration of the Sacrament Idolatry, who do not believe that Christ is there truly [Page 18]present, but that the Bread is still true Bread.

If then the Bread do still remain Bread in the Host, and the Elements in the Eucharist are not sub­stantially changed into the natural and substan­tial Body and Blood of Christ, then it is confest Idolatry, and it is not strange according to Bellar­mine, that it should be so; and then sure it will be true [...], or Bread-worship too, if that be Bread which they Worship, and be not the natural Body of Christ; that which is there present, that they adore; and if that be only Bread, then they adore Bread. And here I should enter that controversie, which has given rise to most of their abominable Abuses and Errors about the Eucharist; the making both a God of it, and also a true Sacrifice of this God instead of a Sacrament, which Christ intended it, and that is their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; but a great man has spared me this trouble, by his late excellent Discourse against it, to which I shall wholly refer this part of our present Controversie, and shall take it for granted, as any one must, who reads that, that (unless in Boileau's PhraseHomo opiniosus cui tenacit as Error is sensum communem abstulit, Boil. p. 159., he be such a Bigot, whose tenaciousness of his Error, has quite bereaved him of common Sense, which is an unlucky Character of his own Friends) that Doctrine is false; and therefore, that the charge of Idolatry in this matter, is by their own Confession true. But there are some more cautious and wary men amongst them, who out of very just and reasonable Fears [Page 19]and Suspicions, that Transubstantion should not prove true, and that they may happen to be mista­ken in that, have thought of another way, to cover and excuse their Idolatry; and that is, not from the Truth, but meerly from the Belief of Transubstan­tiation. As long, say they, as we believe Transub­stantiation to be true, and do really think that the Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of Christs Body and Blood, and so Worship the Sacrament upon that account, tho we should be mistaken in this our belief; yet as long as we think that Christ is there pre­sent, and design only to Worship him, and not the Bread, which we believe to be done away; this were enough to free us from the charge of Idolatry. To which, because it is the greatest, and the best Plea they have, and they that make it have some misgi­vings, I doubt not, that Transustantiation will not hold; I shall therefore give a full Answer to it, in the following Particulars.

1. All Idolatry does proceed from a mistaken be­lief, and a false supposal of the mind, which being gross and unreasonable, will not at all excuse those who are guilty of it; there were never any Idola­ters, but might plead the excuse of a mistake, and that not much more culpable and notorious, one would think, than the mistake of those who think a bit of Bread, or a Wafer, is turn'd by a few words into a God. They all thought, however blindly and foolishly, that whatever it was they worshipt, ought to be worshipt upon some account or other; that it was a true and fit Object, and that Adoration right­ly belong'd to it. Idolatry, tho it be a great Sin, and a great injury and affront to God, yet arises not so much from the malice of the will, as the blindness and darkness of the understanding; there were hard­ly [Page 20]ever any such Idolaters as maliciously, and de­signedly intended to affront the true God, by wor­shipping false Gods or Creatures; as if a Subject should pass by his Prince out of ill will, and a pur­pose to affront and defie him, and give the Reverence and Homage that was due to him, to a Rebel or fellow Subject standing by him; but they did this, because they mistook the person, and thought this to be the Prince that was not, or that he was there where he was not, or that that which was there, ought to be worshipt for his sake; still falsly supposing that they ought to worship that wrong Object, which they took to be right; or in that false manner which they took to be true; for if a mistake will excuse, it will excuse in one as well as another.

2. Tho they do not only think and believe that which they worship, to be a true Divine Object; but it really be so in it self, and that which they have in their Thoughts and intentions to worship, be right; yet they may still be guilty of Idolatry; for so were the Jews in the Idolatry of the golden Calf, whereby they intended not to throw off the Worship of the true God, The God of Israel, Exod. 32.4, 5. who brought them out of the land of Egypt; for they appointed the Feast to him under that Title, and under the Name of Jehovah at the same time; and so in the Idolatry of the Calves set up by Jeroboam; 1 K. 12.27, 28. they were not designed to draw off the people from wor­shipping the same God, who was worshipt at Hierusalem, but only to do it in another place, and after another manner; but still as T. G. Cath. no Idol. p. 330. says of the Roman Idolaters, so it may be said of these Jewish, [Page 21]That what they had in their Minds and Intentions to Worship, was the true God; and whatever was the ma­terial object of their Worship, he was the formal; for they did no more think the Gold, than the Papists think the Bread to be God. So the Manichees in their Idolatry, which St. Austin often mentionsContra Fau­stum Manicheum, l. 1. c. 3. Tom. 1. de Genesi contra Manich. l. 2. c. 25. Tom. 2. Epist. 74. ad Deuterium, Solem etiam & Lunam adorant & colunt., of adoring the Sun and Moon, the Object which they had in their Minds, and Thoughts, and Purposes to Worship, was Christ, as much as the Papists have him in the Eucharist. I would only ask, if a persons having a right Object in his mind, in his thoughts and pur­poses to adore, which T. G. Catholicks no Idolaters, p. 329, 330. so of­ten pretends, would excuse him from Idolatry; then suppose a per­son should before Consecration, Worship the Sa­cramental Elements, to prevent which they gene­rally keep them from being seen; yet in the Thoughts, and Intentions, and Purposes of his mind, design to worship Christ then supposed, tho falsly, to be there, as they Worship him afterwards; whether this would be Idolatry in him or no? If not, then they may worship the unconsecrated Elements, as well as consecrated, even whilst they believe they are Bread; if it be, then having a right Object in our Thoughts, and Purposes, and Intentions, will not excuse from Idolatry.

3. Whatever was the material Object of Idola­trous worship, it was not worshipt for it self, no more than the Bread or its Accidents are by the Papists in the Eucharist; but as they say of the Host, because they believed that the true Object of worship was really present in it, or in an ex­traordinary [Page 22]manner united to itDeos relictis sedibus propriis non recusare nec fugere, habitaculainire ter­rena, quinimo jure dedicationis impul­sos simulachrorum coalescere inunctioni, Arnob. contra gent. l. 6.; so did the Gentiles, who thought the Gods themselves, or at least a Divine Power, was brought into their Images, by their Consecrati­ons, and that it resided and dwelt there, and they worshipped their Images only upon this accountDeos per simu­lachra Veneramur, Ib.. Now if they had thought this of the true God himself, that it was he, and not any false God that was thus present in their Images, this would have been nevertheless Idolatry. Thus the Manichees, who worshipt the Sun, did not worship it for it self, but be­cause they believed Christ had placed his Tabernacle in the Sun; so the more Philosophi­cal Idolaters among the Heathens,See Voss. de Ido­lol. l. 8. c. 1. who worshipt the several Things of Nature, as parts, they thought, of the Great and Omnipresent God; they did not worship them pure­ly for themselves, but as God was in them, and they were as St. Austin speaks, Aut partes ejus aut mem­bra ejus, aut aliquid jubstantiae ip­sius August. l. 24. contra Faustum.. Either parts of him, or Mem­bers of him, or something of his substance, as the Papists believe the Sacrament to be his Body. Thus they deified the things of Nature, tho they thought there was but one Supreme God, whom they worshipt in them, as Eu­sebius says of them; they believe [...]. Euseb. Praepar. Evangel. l. 3. c. 13.. That one God fills all things with his various power, and pervades all things, and that he is to be worshipped in, and by all visible things; but yet [Page 23]they denied that those visible things were to be wor­shipt for themselves, but for the sake of God, and those invisible Powers of God, which were in them, as appears from the same place [...]., They do not, they say, make Gods of the visible Bodies of the Sun, Moon and Stars, or the other sensible parts of the World; but they worship those invisible Powers that are in them of that God, who is God over all. Nay the Egyptians themselves, did not as Celsus pleads even for those Idola­ters, worship their brute Animals, but only as they were Spmbols of God [...], Orig. contra Cel. l. 3..

4. Yet notwithstanding this Plea of Idolaters, they may justly be charged with worshipping those material Objects, which they say, as the Papists, when we charge them with Breadworship, that they do not Worship. So the Egyptians might be charged with brute worship, the Heathens with the Worship of the Sun and Moon; and the Scrip­tureIsa. 44.17. expresly Reproaches and Ac­cuses the Idolaters with worshipping a Stock or Stone, or a piece of Wood; tho it was the constant Plea and Pretence of the Heathens, that they did no more worship those material Objects, than the Papists do Bread.Non ego illum lapidem colo nec il­lud simulachrum quod est sine sensu, Aug. in Psal. 69. I do not Worship the senseless Stone or Image, which has Eyes and sees not, Ears and hears not, saies the Hea­then in St. Austin; and in Arnobius, We do not worship the Brass, or the Gold, or Silver, [Page 24]or any of the matter of which our Images are made Nos nequeaera, neque auri argenti­que materias neque alias quibus signa conficiunt eas esse per se Religiosa de­cernimus numina, sed eos in his colimus eosque veneramur quos dedicatio infert Sacra Arnobius contra Gentes.; and in St. Austin, again, Do ye think we or our Forefa­thers were such Fools as to take these for Gods Ʋsque adeone Majores nostros insi­pientes fuisse creden­dum est ut Deos —? No, they would disown it as much as Boileau does, With his, who shall say we adore the Bread or Wine? Quis nos adorare panem & vinum? Boileau, p. 160. or T. G's. pretending that we run upon that false ground, that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God. And yet, I see not why there may not be good reason to charge the one, as well as the o­ther.

5. If those other Idolaters had been so foolish and absurd, as to believe and think, that those things which they worshipt were their very Gods them­selves, substantially present, and that the visible sub­stance of their Idols, had been converted and turn­ed into the substance of their Gods; this would have made their Idolatry only more horribly sot­tish and ridiculous, but would not in the least have made it more excusable. If the Jews had thought that by the powerful words of Consecration, pro­nounced by Aaron their High Priest, the Calf had been turned into the very sustance of God, and that, tho the Figure and Shape of the Calf had remained, and the Accidents and Species of Gold, which ap­peared to their sight; yet that the substance of it had been perfectly done away, and that only God him­self, had been there under those appearing Species of a golden Calf; would this have mended the matter, or better excused their Idolatry, because they had been so extremely sottish, That they conceived the [Page 25]Gold not to be there at all, but in the place thereof, the only true and eternal God; and so, altho the Object (or rather Subject) materially present in such a case would have been the golden Calf; yet their Act of Ado­ration would not have been terminated formally upon that, but only upon God, as T. G. saies of the Bread, p. 329. Or if the Manichees had thought the Body of the Sun had been converted into the glorious Body of Jesus Christ, would this have signified any thing to bring them of; if their mistake had been, as T. G. saies, p. 327. theirs is concerning the Bread, that they believed the Sun not to be there at all, and there­fore, what they would have in their minds would not, or could not be the Sun, but the only true and eternal Son of God. Indeed they had as it appears from St. Austin Eum (sc. Chri­stum) navim quan­dam esse dicitis, eum triangulum esse per­hibetis, id est, per quandam trian­gulam caeli Fene­stram lucem istam mundo terrisque radiare. August. contra Faustum Ma­nichaeum, l. 20. c. 6. Nescio quam navim per foramen Trian­gulum micantem at­que lucentem, quam confictam cogitatis, adoretis Ibid., some such absurd Imagination; they did think that it was not the material Sun, which appeared to their senses; but a certain Navis, which was the sub­stance of Christ, that did radiate, through the triangular Fenestra in the Heavens to the World, and to the Earth. These wretched Fig. ments of theirs, whereby they made the Father the Light, that was in­accessible, and placed Christ in the Sun and Moon, and the Holy Ghost in the AirTrinitati loca tria datis; patri unum i. e. lumen in accessibile, filio duo Solem & Lunam, spiritui sancto rursus unum, Aeris hunc omnem ambitum, Ibid. c. 7., and called these the Seals of their substance Sedes ejusdem substantiae dicatis, Ibid. c. 8.; these made them indeed as he says, worship on­ly the Figments of their own cra­zy heads, and things that were [Page 26]notIn iis non quod sunt, sed quod vobis dementissime fingi­tis adoratis, Ib. c. 9. Vos autem colitis ea quae nec dii nec ali­quid sunt. quoniam prorsus nulla sunt, Ib. c. 9.; but yet this madness and extravagance did not excuse them from Idolatry, which he still charges them withal. They worshipt that in the Sun, which was not there, as the Papists do in the Sacrament, to wit, Christs natural Body, let it be Phantastick or not; and they en­deavoured to turn away the Senses of men, as he saysSensus Simpli­cium conantur aver­tere, & nonnullo­rum avertunt. Id. Enarrat in Psal. 10., from that visi­ble Sun, and perswade them that it was Christ himself. So that as T. G. says of their mistake concerning the Bread, They did not in their minds, affirm the Sun to be, but not to be, p. 330. and so it could not according to him, be the Object of their worship, because whatever is so, the understanding must affirm (either truly or falsly) to be, p. 329.

There was an Idolatry among the Persians, which Xenophon Cyrop. l. 8., and Quin­tus Curtius l. 3. give an account of, in their worship of Fire, and carrying it about with the most stately Pomp and Solemnity upon silver Altars, and a great Train of Priests and others; which does the most resemble the car­rying about the Host in Procession of any thing I have met with, as it is described by Curtius. Here the sacred Fire as they call'd it, which no doubt was consecrated by some Religious Ceremonies, and was no more counted ignis ex culinâ, than the holy Bread is panis ex furno; if they had supposed it by the magical Charms of the Priests to have been turned into some other substance than common Fire, and had thought it to have become the most noble Sym­bol of the great God, or the illustrious Veil, under [Page 27]which lay the Divinity of the great Lord of the World, and that all the substance of common Fire was quite changed, and done away in this sacred and eternal Fire, as they accounted itIgnis quem ipsi sacrum & aeternum vocabant, argenetis altaribus perfereba­tur, Curt. Ib., this would not sure have made them to be no Idolaters. T. G. will make himself a very great Patron of dolaters, if with this Art and Sophi­stry of his he can bring them off, as he would the Worshippers of the Host, by the meer adding of more thick Grosness, and more Absurdi­ties to their other mistakes. He will haveP. 322. the Israelites to take the gol­den Calf for God, and the Egyptians the Sun to be God, and perhaps some of the most stupid Heathens did take their very Images for Gods, and by his way, these were the most excusable, be­cause they were the most mistaken. These mistakes would after this rate do great and extraordinary things for Idolaters, and would be much better se­curity for the Roman Church, than her pretended Infallibility; and indeed 'tis these must bring off her, and her Members from the guilt, tho not from the Acts of Idolatry, as well as from other things, or else she and they are in a very sad and desperate Con­dition.

But now I dare appeal to any man, who shall take in all those Considerations I have mentioned together, whether the Papist's adoring the Host, up­on the supposal and belief of Transubstantiation, if that be not true, will excuse them from Idolatry, and whither if a mistake in this Case, will excuse them, it will not excuse the grossest Idolatry in the World? Notwitstanding all the little Shifts and Eva­sions, that T. G. uses to wriggle himself out of this [Page 28]streight and difficulty, into which his learned Adver­sary had driven him.

HAving considered the Adoration of the Host, as it is Taught in the Church of Rome, I shall now consider the Practice of it, which is more plain and evident, and notorious to all the World; how­ever they would palliate and disguise their Do­ctrine. According to their Missal, which is wholly different in this, as well as other things from the old Lyturgic, and Eucharistic forms, as I shall show by and by, the PriestCelebrans hosti­am inter pollices te­nens — genuflexus eam adorat tum usque in terram ge­nuflexus hostiam ip­sam veneratur — sic de calice reponit calicem super corpo­rale & genuflexus sanguinem reveren­ter adorat illum populo ostendens ado­randum Sacramen­tum genuflexus ve­neratur in Canon. Miss. genuflexus reverentiam facit Sacramento. in every Mass, as soon as he has consecrated the Bread and Wine, with bended Knees, he adores the Sacrament Missale Roma­num c. 9. Sacramen­tum genuflexus ado­rat Capite inclinato versus Sacramentum dicit Intelligibili vo­ce Agnus Dei qui tol­lis peccati mundi mi­serere nobis, Da no­bis pacem., that which he has consecrated, that very thing which is before him, upon the Paten, and in the Chalice, and gives the same Worship and Subjection, both of Body and Mind to it, as he could to God or Christ himself; for with his Head, and his Soul, bowing towards it, and his Eyes and Thoughts fixt upon it, and directed to it, he prays to it, as to Christ himself: Lamb of God that takest away the Sins of the World, have Mercy upon us, Grant us Peace and the like; then the Priest rising up after he has thus adored it himself, he lifts it up as high as conve­niently he can above his head, and with Eyes fixt upon it, he shows it [Page 29]to be devoutly adored by the Peo­ple Sacerdos post­quam ipse hostiam genuflexus adoravit, continuo se erigens quantum commode potest, elevat in al­tum & intentis in eam oculis populo reverenter ostendit adorandam., who having notice also, by ringing the Mass Bell, as soon as they see it, fall down in the hum­blest Adorations to it, as if it were the very appearance of God himself, and if Christ himself were visibly present before them, they could not show more acts of Reverence and Devotion, and Worship to him, than they do to the Host; they Pray to it, and use the very Forms of Perition and Invocation to that, as to Christ himself; such as these, O saving Host, or blessed Sacrament which openest the door of Heaven, give me strength and and power against dangers, and a­gainst all my Enemies O salutaris Ho­stia, quae caeli pandis ostium bella pre­munt hostilia, Da robur, fer auxilium. Hymnus in Festo corporis Christi in Brevia [...] Rom.. Adoro te devote latens Deitas, quae sub his figuris vere latitas, tibi se cor meum subjicit, Deum meum te confiteor. Fac me tibi ma­gis credere, in te spem habere, te de­ligere, praesta menti de te vivere & te illi semper dulce sapere, Rythmus, St. Thom. ad Eucharist in Mis­sal. Make me always more to believe, to hope in thee, to love thee; Grant that my Soul may always live upon thee, and that thou mayst always tast sweet unto it. Thus both the Priest, and the People are several times to Adore and Worship both the Host and the Cup in the Celebration of the Eucharist, and they will not disown, nor cannot, their directing and terminating their Devotions and Prayers upon the Sacrament, which is before them; Prayers, they call them to the Eucha­ristAd Sacram. Eu­charistiam Rythmus Rom. breviar.; and 'tis become a common form of Doxology amongst them, instead of saying, Praise be given to God, to say, Praise be given to the most holy SacramentLaus sacratissi­mo Sacramento.; as 'tis in one of their Authors, instead [Page 30]of ye shall pray to God, ye shall pray to the Bo­dy of Christ, i. e. to the Sacra­mentOrlandinus hist.. Sanders in his Book of the Supper of the LordCorpori & san­guini Christi sub Speciebus panis & vini omnis honor, Laus & Gratiarum actio in secula secu­lorum. Sanderus de caena Dom., instead of Glory be to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, turns it thus, To the Body and Blood of our Saviour, under the Species of Bread and Wine, be all Honour and Praise, and Thanksgiving for evermore, as if it were another Person of the blessed God­head.

This Adoration is not only in the time of Commu­nion, when it is properly the Lords Supper and Sa­crament; but at other times out of it, whenever it is set upon the Altar with the Candles burning, and the Incense smoking before it, or hung up in its rich Shrine and Tabernacle, with a Canopy of State over it. And not only in the Church which is sanctified, they say, by this Sacrament, as by the Pre­sence of God himselfBellarm. de sanct. c. 5., but when it is carried through the Sreets in a solemn and pompous Procession, as it is before the Pope, when he goes abroad, just as the Persian fire was before the Em­perorCurt. l. 3. S. 3., meerly by way of state, or for a superstitious end, that he may better the be Guarded and Defended by the company of his GodAd capitis illi­us sacri custodiam praesidialem & pa­tronalem. Perron. de Euch. l. 3. c. 19.. In all these times it is to worshipped and adcred by all persons as it passeth by, as if it were the Glory of God which passed by. They are like Mo­ses, to make hast and bow their heads to the Earth and worship Exod. 34.8.; but above [Page 31]all, upon that high day, which they have dedicated to this Sacrament, as if it were some new Deity, the Festum Dei, as they call it, the Feast of God, or the Festum Corporis Christi, the Feast of the Body of Christ; for to call the Sacrament God, is a general Expression among them, as when they have received the Sacrament, to say, I have received my Maker to day; and the Person who in great Churches, is to carry the Sacrament to the numerous Communicants, is called, Bajulus Dei, the Porter or Carrier of God; and they always account it, and so always reve­rence it, as Boileau falsly saysEucharistiam pro praesente numi­ne semper habuisse Verteres., the Ancients did, as a present Numen and Deity. This Feast was appoint­ed by Pope Ʋrban the 4th, about the middle of the twelfth Century; and again by Clement the fifth in the beginning of the 13th, as is owned by themselves, upon the occasion of a Vision to one Juliana, who saw a crack in the Moon, that signified, it seems, a great defect in the Church for want of this Solemnity: such was the rise of this great FestivalBzovii Annal. in Contin. Baron. Anno Dom. 1230., and so late was its Institution in the Ro­man Church, in which alone, and in no other Christian Church of the World, it is observed to this day. And that the whole practice of the Adoration to the Host is Novel, and unknown to the primitive Church, and to the Ancient Writers, I shall endeavour to make evident a­gainst that bold and impudent Canon of the Council of Trent, which is the first Council that commanded it in these wordsSi quis dixerit, non esse hoc Sacra­mentum peculiari fe­stivia celebritate ve­nerandum, neque in processionibus se­cundum laudabilem & Universalem Ec­clesiae sanctae ritum & consuetudinem, solenniter circum­gestandum, vel non publice ut adoretur, populo proponen­dum, & ejus Adora­tores esse Idololatras anathema sit. Concil. Trident. Can. 6. Sess. 13., If any one shall say that the Sacrament is not to be worshipt by a peculiar Festival, nor to be solemnly carried [Page 32]about in Processions according to the laudable and universal manner and custom of the Holy Church, nor to be publickly proposed to the People, that it may be adored by them, and that the Worshippers of it are Idolaters; let him be accursed. To confront this insolent pretence of theirs, that it was an universal custom of the Church, thus to carry the Sacra­ment in Processions, the ingenuous confession of their own Cassander is sufficient, The custom, says heConsuetudo qua panis Eucharistiae in publica pompa con­spicuus circumfertur ac passim omnium oculis ingeritur, prae­ter veterum morem ac mentem haud ita longo tempore in­ducta & recepta vi­detur. Illi enim hoc mysterium in tanta religione ac venera­tione habuerunt, ut non modo ad ejus perceptionem, sed ne inspectionem qui­dem admitterent, ni­si fideles, quos Christi membra & tanta participatione dig­nos esse existimarent, quare ante Consecra­tionem Catechumeni Energumeni, paeni­tentes, denique non Communicantes Di­aconi voce & Osti­ariorum Ministerio secludebantur, Cas­sand, Consult., of carrying about the Sacramental Bread in publick pomp, to be seen and expo­sed to all eyes, is contrary to the mind and custom of the Ancients, and seems to be lately brought in and re­ceived; for they had this mystery in such religious Veneration, that they would not admit any, not only to the partaking, but not to the sight of it, but the Faithful, whom they accounted members of Christ, and worthy to partake of such a Mystery. Wherefore all those who were but Catechumens, or were Energumeni or Penitents, and not Communicants, were always put out and dismist at the Celebration of it. Whether they be Idolaters for adoring the Sacrament, I have considered already, and their pra­ctice joined with their Doctrine, makes it more evident. I shall now prove that this Adoration of theirs, [Page 33]was neither commanded nor used by Christ, or the Apostles, nor by the Primitive Church, nor is truly meant and designed by any of those Authorities of the Fathers, which they produce for it; and upon a ge­neral view of the whole matter, That it is a very ab­surd and ridiculous thing that tends most shamefully to reproach, and expose Christianity.

1. That it was not used or commanded by Christ or the Apostles, is plain from the account that all the Evangelists give us of Christs celebrating this Sa­crament with his Apostles, where is only mention of their taking and eating the Bread, and drinking the Wine, after it was blessed by him, but not the least tittle of their adoring it; so far from it, that they were not then in a posture of Adoration, which they should have been in, if they had inwardly adored it, which makes this not only a Ne­gative Argument, as Boileau De Adorat. Euch. l. 2. c. 1. would have it, but a positive one. To take off this argument from the no mention of any such command or practice of Adoration to the Sacrament in the Gospel; he says, Neither is the Adoration of Christ, prescribed in express wordsNullo exiis loco conceptis verbis praescriptam fuisse Adorationem, (sc, Christi) p. 27., nor that of the Holy Ghost, either commanded or performedNullibi praecep­tam ejus Adoratio­nem aut confestim peractam conceptis intelligamus, p. 98.. But I hope all those places of Scripture, that so fully tell us, that both Christ and the Holy Ghost are God, do sufficiently com­mand us to worship them, by bid­ding us worship God; and if it and told us that the Sacrament is as much God as they, it had then commanded us to adore it. There are sufficient instances of Christs being adored, when he appeared upon Earth, and had the other Divine Per­sons [Page 34]assumed a bodily Shape; those who had seen and known it, would have particularly adored it, and so would the Apostles, no doubt, have done the Sa­crament, if they had thought that, when it was be­fore them, an object of worship. St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. c. when he wrote to the Co­rinthians of their very great Irre­verence in receiving the Lords Supper, had very good occasion to have put them in mind of adoring it, had that been their Duty; this then would have been a proper means to have brought them to the highest reverence of it; but he never intimates any thing of worshipping it, when he delivers to them, the full account of its institution, and its design; nor never reproves them among all their other unwor­thy abuses of it, for their not adoring it; and 'tis a very strange fetch in Boileau Ib. p. 103. l. 2., that he would draw St. Pauls com­mand of examining our selves before we eat, to mean our adoring when, or what we eat; and that not discerning the Lords body, and being guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ, is the not worshipping the Sacrament, which he never so much as touches upon among all their other faults. Are there not many other ways of abusing the Sacrament, besides the not worshipping it? this is like his first Argu­ment out of Ignatius his Epistlesl. 1. c. 2. [...], Ep. ad Smyr. at ipsemet nos docet nihil nos diligere de­bere praeter So­lum Deum., that because he says, the Sacrament ought to be loved, therefore he meant that it ought to be adored. At which rate I should be afraid to love this Gentleman however taking he was, lest I should consequently a­dore him, or because I am not to a­buse him, therefore it would follow, that I must worship him.

[Page 35] 2. This Adoration was not in use in the Primitive Church, as I shall show,

• 1. From those Writers who give us an account of the manner of celebrating the Eucharist among the Ancient Christians.
• 2. From the oldest Liturgies and Eucharistick forms.
• 3. From some very antient Customs.

1. Those most ancient Writers,1. Justin Marty. 2. Apolog. versus fi­nem. Apostol. Con­stitut. l. 8. c. 11, 12, 13, 14. 3. Cyril Hierosol. Cateches. mystagog c 5. 1. Justin Martyr. 2. The Author of the Apostolick Constitutions: And 3. St. Cyril of Hierusalem, who ac­quaint us with the manner how they celebrated the Eucharist, which was generally then one constant part of their publick worship; they give no account of any Adoration given to the Sacrament, or to the consecrated Elements, tho they are very particular and exact in mentioning other less considerable things that were then in use, the Kiss of Cha­rity, in token of their mutual Love and Reconcilli­ation; this Justin Martyr mentions as the first thing just before the Sacrament [...]. Justin Mar­tyr, Apol. 2.. In St. Cyril's timeCatech. mysta­gog. 5. Apostol. Con­stit. l. 8. c. 11., the first thing was the bringing of Water by the Deacon, and the Priests washing their hands in it, to denote that purity with which they were to compass Gods Altar; and then the Deacon spoke to the people, to give the holy Kiss; then Bread was brought to the Bi­shop or Priest, and [...]. Just. Mar­tyr. Wine mixt with Water in those hot Countries, [Page 36]and after Prayers and Thanksgivings by the Priest, to which the people to joyned their Amen. [...], Just. Martyr, Ib. The Deacons gave every one present, of the blessed Bread, and Wine, and Water; and to those that were not present, they carried it home; this, says Justin Martyr, we account not common Bread, or com­mon Drink, but the Body and Blood of Christ [...]. Ib., the blessed Food, by which our Flesh and Blood is nourisht, that is, being turned into it, which could not be said of Christs natural Body; nor is there the least men­tion of any worship given to that, as there present, or to any of the blessed Elements. The others are longer and much later, and speak of the particular Prayers and Thanksgivings that were then used by the Church, of the Sursum Corda, lift up your heart; which St.Cyril Hierosol. mystagog. Cat. 5. Cyril saies, followed after the Kiss of Charity; of the Sancta Sanctis, things holy belong to those that are holy; then they describe how they came to Communicate, how they held their hand [...], Ib. when they received the Elements; how careful they were that none of them should fall upon the Ground; but among all these most minute and particular Descriptions of their way and man­ner of receiving the Sacrament, no account is there of their adoring it, which surely there would have been, had there been any such in the Primitive Church, as now is in the Roman.

[Page 37] We own indeed, as Boileau objects to usL. 2. P. 106., that from these it appears, that some things were then in use, which we observe not now; neither do the Church of Rome all of them, for they are not essential, but indiffe­rent matters, as mixing Water with Wine, the Priest's washing, the Kiss of Charity, and sending the Sa­crament to the absent; but the Church may alter these upon good reasons according to its prudence and discretion; but Adoration to the Sacrament, if it be ever a Duty, is always so, and never ought upon any account to be omitted; nor would have been so by the Primitive Christians, had they had the same Opinion of it, that the Papists have now.

2. From the oldest Lyturgies, and the Euchari­stick Forms; in them it appears that there was no such Adoration to the Sacrament, till of late; for in none of them is there any such mention, either by the Priest or the People, as in the Roman Missal and Ritual, nor any such Forms of Prayer to it, as in their Breviary. Cassander Cassandri Ly­turgic. has collected together most of the old Liturgies, and Endeavours, as far as he can, to shew their agreement; with that of the Roman Church; but neither in the old Greek, nor in the old Latin ones, is there any instance to be produced of the Priests or the Peoples adoring the Sacrament, as soon as he had consecrated it; but this was perfectly added, and brought in a-new into the Roman Lyturgy, after the Doctrine of Transubstantiation was esta­blisht in that Church, which has altered not only their Lyturgy, but even their Religion in good part, and made a new sort of Worship unknown, not on­ly in the first and best times of the Church, but for [Page 38]above a thousand years after Christ; Boileau finding this, tho a negative Argument, press very hard upon them; and sure it cannot but satisfie any reasonable man, that there is no Direction in the ancient Lytur­gies for adoring the Sacrament; and it is very hard to require us to produce a Rubrick against it, when no body thought of that which after. Superstition brought in; He would fain therefore find something in an old Liturgy that should look like that of their own; and no doubt but he might have easily met with abundant places for their worshipping and adoring God and Christ at that solemn Office of the Christian worship, the blessed Sacrament; and there­fore out of the Liturgy called St. Chrysostomes, which he owns to be two hundred years later then St. Chry­sostome, he produces a placeBoil. l. 2. p. 74. ex Chrysost. Liturg. [...]., wherein it is said, That the Priest and the Deacon worship in the place they are in, and likewise the people; but do they worship the Sacrament? Is that, or only God and Christ the object of their worship there? Is there any such thing to determine this as they have taken care there should be in their Missal? where it is expresly several times, they shall worship the Sacra­mentSacramentum Adorare, Rom. mis­sal. Cooperto calice Sacramentum ado­rare, & genuflexus Sacramentum ado­rare.; but here in St. Chrysos. Li­turgy, 'tis God, who is to be wor­shipt, God be merciful to me a Sin­ner [...], Chrys. Lyturg.; but in the Roman, 'tis the Sacrament is prayed to ^l, and they would reckon and account it as true Irreligion, not to worship and pray [Page 39]to that, as not to worship God and Christ. So in the Lyturgy, that goes under the name of St. James, the Worship is only before the Holy Table [...]. Lyturg. St. Jacobi., as it is in the Church of England; and I hope Boileau will not pretend that this is to the Holy Table it self. If whatever we wor­ship before, is the very Object of our Worship, then the Priest is so, as well as the Table; but it is neither he, nor the Table, nor the Sacrament, but only Christ himself, to whom this Worship is, or ought to be given at the Celebration of the Eucharist; and therefore this Adoration was as well before as after the Consecration of the Sacra­mental Elements, and so could not be supposed to be given to them.

3. There were several very ancient Customs rela­ting to the Sacrament, which are no ways consistent with the Opinion the Papists have of it now, and with the worship of it as a God. It was very old, and very usual for Christians to reserve and keep by them, some of the Elements; the Bread especi­ally, which they had received at the Sacrament, as is evident from Tertullian De Orat. c. 14. Accepto corpore Domini & reservato., and from St. Cyprian De Lapsis., who reports a very strange think that happened to a Woman, and also to a Man, who had unduly gone to the Sacra­ment, and brought some part of it home with them. I shall not enquire whither this Custom had not something of Superstition in it; whither in those times of Danger and Persecution, it were not of use; but had the Church then thought of it, as the Papists do now, they would not have suffered pri­vate Christians to have done this; nay they would [Page 40]not have suffered them hardly to have toucht and handled, that which they had believed to be a God, no more than the Church of Rome will now, which is so far from allowing this private Reservation of the Elements, that out of profound Veneration, as they pretend to them, they wholly deny one part of them, the Cup to the Laity, and the other part, the Bread they will not, as the primitive Church, put into their hands, but the Priest must inject it into their Mouths.

The sending the Eucharist not only to the Sick and Infirm, and to the Penitents, who were this way to be admitted to the Communion of the Church, in articulo mortis, as is plain from the known Story of Serapion Euseb. Eccles. Hist. l. 6. c. 34.; but the Bishops of several Churches sending it to one another, as a token and pledg of their Communion with each other; andIren. apud Eu­seb. l. 5. c. 24. it being sent also to pri­vate Christians, who lived remote in the Country and private Places, which custom was abolisht by the Council of Lao­dicea; these all show, that tho the Christians always thought the Sacrament a Symbol of Love, and Friendship, and Communion with the Church, so that by partaking of this one Bread they were all made as St. Paul says, One Bread, and one Body; yet they could not think this to be a God, or the ve­ry natural Body of their Saviour, which they sent thus commonly up and down, without that Pomp and Solemnity, that is now used in the Church of Rome, and without which I own it is not fit a Deity should be treated. But above all, what can they think of those, who anciently used to burn the [Page 41]Elements that remained after the Communion, as Hesychius In Levit. 8.32. testifies, was the custom of the Church of Hierusalem, according to the Law of Moses in Levi­ticus, of burning what remain'd of the Flesh of the Sacrifice, that was not eaten; but however this was done out of some respect, that what was thus sacred might not otherwise be prosaned; yet they could not sure account that to be a God, or to be the very natural and substantial Body of Christ, which they thus burnt and threw into the Fire.

So great an honour and regard had the Primitive Church for the Sacrament, that as they accounted it the highest Mystery and Solemnest part of their Worship, so they would not admit any of the Pe­nitents, who had been guilty of any great and no­torious Sin, nor the Catechumens, nor the Possest, and Energumeni, so much as to the sight of it; the [...], and the Participation of this Mystery, used always in those times to go toge­ther as Cassander Consult. de Cir­cumgest. Sacram. owns, and Albas­pinaeus L'ancienne Po­lice de l'Eglise sur l'administration de l'Eucharistie. liure prem. Chap. 15, 16, 17. proves in his Book of the Eucharist. And therefore, as it is plainly contrary to the Primitive practice, to carry the Sacrament up and down, and expose it to the Eyes of all Persons; so the reason of doing it, that it may be worshipt by all, and that those, who do not partake of it, may yet a­dore it; was, it is plain, never thought of in the primitive Church; for then they would have seen and worshipped it, tho they had not thought sit that they should have partaken of it. But he that will see how widely the Church of Rome diflers from the [Page 42]ancient Church in this, and other matters relating to the Eucharist, let him read the learned Dallee his two Books of the Object of religious Worship.

I shall now give an Answer to the Authorities which they produce out of the Fathers, and which Monsieur Boileau has, be tells us, been a whole year a gleaning out of themAnnuae vellicati­onis litirariae ratio­cinium reddo. Praef. ad Lect. Boileau de Adorat. Euchar., if he has not rather pickt from the Sheaves of Bellarmine and Perrone. But all their Evidences out of An­tiquity, as they are produced by him, and bound up together in one Bundle in his Book, I shall Examine and Answer too, I doubt not, in a much less time. They are the only Argument he pretends to for this Adoration; and when Scrip­ture and all other Reasons fail them, as they gene­rally do, then they fly to the Fathers; as those who are sensible their forces are too weak to keep the open Field, fly to the Woods, or the Mountains, where they know but very few can follow them. I take it to be sufficient, that in any necessary Article of Faith, or Essential part of Christian Worship, (which this of the Sacrament must be, if it be any part at all,) it is sufficient that we have the Scripture for us, or that the Scripture is silent, and speaks of no more than what we own and admit. In other external and indifferent Matters relating meerly to the Circumstances of Worship, the Church may for outward Order and Decency, appoint what the Scripture does not. But as to what we are to be­lieve, and what we are to Worship the most posi­tive Argument from any humane Authority is of no weight, where there is but a Negative from Scrip­ture. But we have such a due regard to Antiquity, and are so well assured of our cause, were it to [Page 43]be tryed only by that, and not by Scripture, which the Church of Rome generally demurs to; that we shall not fear to allow them to bring all the Fathers they can for their Witnesses in this matter, and we shall not in the least decline their Testimony. Boi­leau Musters up a great many, some of which are wholly impertinent and insignisicant to the matter in hand, and none of them speak home to the bu­siness he brings them for. He was to prove, that they Taught that the Sacrament was to be adored, as it is in the Church of Rome; but they only Teach as we do, That it is to be had in great reverence and re­spect, as all other things relating to the Divine Worship; that it is to be received with great Devo­tion, both of Body and Soul, and in such a Posture, as is to express this, A Posture of Adoration; that Christ is then to be worshipped by us in this Office especially, as well as he is in all other Offices of our Religion; that his Body, and his Flesh, which is uni­ted to his Divinity, and which he offered up to his Father as a Sacrifice for all Mankind, and by which we are Redeemed, and which we do spiritu­ally partake of in the Sacrament, that this is to be adored by us; but not as being corporally pre­sent there, or that the Sacrament is to be wor­shipt with that, or for the sake of that, or that which the Priest holds up in his Hands, or lyes upon the Altar, is to be the Object of our Adorati­on, but only Christ and his blessed Body, which is in Heaven.

To these four Heads, I shall reduce the Autho­rities, which Boileau produces for the Adoration of the Host, and which seem to speak any thing to his purpose; and no wonder that among so many De­vout [Page 44]Persons that speak as great things as can be of the Sacrament, and used, and perswaded the great­est Devotion, as is certainly our Duty, in the recei­ving it; there should be something that may seem to look that way to those, who are very willing it should, or that may by a little stretching be drawn further than their true and genu­ine meaning, which was not to Worship the Sa­crament it self, or the consecrated Elements, but ei­ther

1. To Worship Christ, who is to be adored by us in all places, and at all times, but especially in the places set apart for his Worship, and at those times we are performing them in the Church, and upon the Altar, in Mysteriis, as St. Am­brose speaks,De Spir. St. l. 3. c. 12. in the Mysteries, both of Baptism and the Lords Supper, and in all the Offices of Christian Worship,Orat. II. de Gorgon. [...]. as Nazianzen y said of his Sister Gorgonia, that She called up­on him, who is honoured upon the the Altar. That Christ is to be ho­noured upon the Altar, where we see the great and honourable work of mens Redemption as 'twas per­formed by his Death, represented to us, is not at all strange; if it had been another, and more full word, that he was to be worshipt there, 'tis no more than what is very allowable, tho it had not been in a Rhetorical Oration; 'tis no more than to say, That the God of Israel was worshipt upon the Jewish Altar, or upon this Mountain. For 'tis plain, She did not mean to worship the Sacrament, as if that were Christ or God, for She made an ointment [Page 45]of it, and mixt it with her tears, and anointed her Body with it, as a Medicine to recover her Health, which she did miraculously upon it. Now, sure 'tis a very strange thing that she should use that as a Plaister, which She thought to be a God; but She still took it for Bread and Wine, that had extraor­dinary Vertue in it, and it is so called there by Na­zianzen, the Antitypes [...]. Ib. of Christs Body and Blood, which shews they were not thought to be the substance of it; and she had all these about her, and in her own keeping, as many private Christians had in those times; and there was no Host then upon the Altar, when she worshipped Christ upon it, for it was in the night [...]. Ib., she went thus to the Church. So St. Chrysostom Vid. Bo leau, c. 7. l. 1. ex Chry­sost. in all the places quoted out of him, only recommends the worshipping of Christ our blessed Saviour, and our coming to the Sacrament with all Humility and Reverence, like humble Supplicants upon our Knees, and with Tears in our Eyes, and all Expres­sions of Sorrow for our Sins, and Love, and Honour to our Saviour, whom we are to meet there, and whom we do, as it were, [...], Chrys. in 1. Ep. Cor. 10. c. see upon upon the Altar, which is the great stress of all that is produced out of him. That we do not truly see him upon the Altar, the Papists must own, tho they be­lieve him there; but not so as to be visible to our Senses; and he is no more to be truly adored as cor­porally present, than he is visibly present. St. Ambrose In Sermone 56 Stephanus in terris positus Christum tangit in caelo. says of St. [Page 46] Stephen, that he being on Earth, toucheth Christ in Heaven; just as St. Chrysostom says, Thou seest him on the Altar; and as he and any one that will not re­solve to strain an easie figurative Expression, must mean, not by a bodily touch, or sight, but by FaithNon corporali tactu, sed side., and by that we own, that we see Christ there, and that he is there present.

2. Adoring the Flesh and Body of Christ, which tho considered without his Divinity, it would be worshipping a Creature as St. Cyril of Alexandria saysIn actis Con­cil. Ephes. [...]., yet as it is al­ways united to his Divinity, 'tis a true object of Worship, and ought to be so to us, who are to expect Salvation by it, [...]. Chry­sost. Homil. 108. even from the Blood, and the Body, and Flesh of Christ; and therefore, as we inwardly trust in it, so we ought to adore it, as no doubt the Angels do in Heaven, and as we are to do in all the Offices of our Religion; tho that be in Heaven, yet we are to worship it upon Earth, and especially, when it is brought to our minds and thought, by that which is appointed by Christ himself to be the Figure and Memorial of it, the blessed Sacrament, there and in Baptism especially, when we put on Christ, and have his Death, and Rising again represented to us, and have such great benefits of his Death and Incar­nation bestowed upon us; in these Mysteries we are, as St. Ambrose Caro Christi, quam hodie in My­steriis adoramus, Ambros. l. 3. de Sp. San. c. 12. apud Boil. p. 32. says, to Adore the Body and the Flesh of Christ, to which we imme­diately and particularly owe them, [Page 47]and which we may truly call our Saviour. St. Am­brose, and St. Austin August. Enar. in Ps. 98. his Scholar after him, supposing that there was a great difficulty in that passage of the Psalms, worship his footstool, for so it is in the Latin Adorate scabel­lum pedum ejus., without the Preposition at his footstool, they laboured to reconcile this with that command of Worshipping and Serving God alone; and to give an account how the Earth, which was Gods footstool, could be worshipt; and the way they take, was this, to make Christs Flesh, which he took of the Earth, to be meant by that Earth which was Gods footstoolInvenio quo­modo sine Impieta­te adoretur terra, scabellum pedum ejus; suscepit enim de terra terram, quia caro de terra est, & de carne Ma­riae carnem accepit, August. Ib.; and this, say they, we ought to wor­ship; his Apostles did so whilst he was upon Earth, and we do so now, whilst he is in Heaven. We wor­ship the Flesh of Christ, which was crucified for us, and by the bene­fit of which we hope for Pardon and Salvation, we worship that, tho it be now in Heaven; we worship it in the So­lemn Offices of our ReligionIpsam carnem nobis manducan­dam ad salutem dedit (nemo autem illam carnem man­ducat, nisi pri­us adoraverit) Aug. Ib., that Flesh which he gave to be ea­ten by us for our Salvation, that we worship, for none eates that Flesh, but he first worships: Wor­ships that, if they please; tho St. Austin do not expresly say that; but we will own, and we will be always ready to Worship the Flesh of Christ, by which we are sa­ved, and we will do this especially at the Sacrament; and that more truly and properly, than they them­selves will own, that we eat and manducate it, as St. [Page 48] Austin says, not with our Teeth, as we do the Bread, but eat it, and worship it too, as it is Heaven. St. Hierome Epist. ad Mar­cel. Ibant Christia­ni Hierosolymam ut Christum in illis a­dorarent locis, in quibus primum E­vangelium de pati­bulo coruscaverat. says of some devout Christians, That they went to Hierusalem, that they might adore Christ in those places, where the Gospel first shone from the Cross. They went, that they might adore Christ in those places; not that they believed him to be corporally present in those pla­ces; much less, that they worshipt the places them­selves; but they made a more lively impression of Christ upon them, and made them remember him with more Passion and Devotion; and so does the blessed Sacrament upon us, and we therefore worship Christ, whom we believe to be in Heaven in the Sa­crament, as they worshipt him in those places, where they were especially put in mind of him. Thus St. Hierome says, He worshipped Christ in the Grave, and that Paula worshipped him in the Stall Ad Paul. & Eustoch., and so we may be said to worship him on the Cross, or on the Altar, or in the Sacra­ment, and yet not to worship the Cross, or the Altar, or the Sacrament it self.

3. Other places out of the Fathers brought by him for the Adoration of the Host, mean only, that the Sacrament is to be had in great reverence and esteem by us, as all things sacred and set apart to religious uses are; that a sngular Veneration is due to the Eucharist, as St. Austin saysEucharistiae de­beri singularem ve­nerationem, Epist. 118 c. 3., and as is to Baptism also, of which he uses the same word, We venerate Baptism Baptismum, u­bicunque est, veneramur. Id Epist. 146., as we ought to do all [Page 49]the Rites and Ordinances of our Religion; this is meant by Origen in that first place of him produced by Boileau De Euch. Ador. p. 10. ex Orig. Ho­mil. 13. Nostis qui Divinis mysteriis in­teresse consuestis, quomodo cum sus­cipitis corpus Do­mini, cum omni cautela & venerati­one servatis, ne ex eo parum quid de­cidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid di­labatur. Reos enim vos creditis & recte creditis, siquid inde per negligentiam decidat. Ye that are wont to be present at the Divine Mysteries, know how, when ye re­ceive the Body of Christ, ye keep it with all Caution and Veneration, that no part of the consecrated gift be let fall; for ye think, and that rightly, that ye should be guilty of a fault, if any of it should be let fall through your negligence. And Christans have this Care and Veneration of those consecrated Symbols of the Body and Blood of their Saviour, of these wonderful Pledges of his Love, that they would not willingly spill them, or let them fall to the ground, through their carelesness and neg­lect; they that have that due regard to the Holy Bible which they ought, would not trample it un­der their feet, or show any such disrespect to it; it was this, which Origen was recommending in that place from that example of their care and respect to the Sacrament Elements, that they should give it also to the Word of GodQuod si cir­ca corpus ejus tan­ta utimini cantela, & merito urimini; quomodo putatis minoris esse piaculi Verbum Dei neg­lexisse quam Corpus ejus. Ib., But if ye use such care, and that very deser­vedly about keeping his Body, how do ye think it to be a less fault to neglect the word of God, than to neglect his Body. The Comparison here made between the Word of God, and the Sacrament, so plainly shows that he no way meant its Adoration, that I wonder this Person was not ashamed to pretend just before it, [Page 50]that heAlienum esse ab institutis meis ullum in medium addu­cere patrem quin conceptis verbis propitium, Boil. p. 10. would bring no Authori­ty, but what was expresly for his Opinion, and use none butAnimo decre­verim argumenta invictissima conclu­dere. in­vincible Arguments; but Roman Faith must be defended with Ro­man courage and confidence, which is the only invincible thing they have.

The words of Theodoret are a great deal more plausible, and seem at the first glance, to look more fairly, than any for their purpose. The Elements are understood to be what they are made, and they are believed and reve­renced, as those things which they are believed [...]. Theod. Dialog. [...]. apud Boil. p. 64.. Here our Faith makes the Sacrament to be what it signi­fies, to become to us the res Sacra­menti, as well as a sign and Repre­sentation of it, and that thing is to be adored by us, in the use of the Sacrament, which is the true sense of Theodorets words; and that he cannot mean in the Roman sense, that the Elements are converted into another substance, the substance of Christs Body, is plain from what immediately goes before, and utter­ly destroys what they would catch from half his words; for he says, That the Elements, or the mysti­cal Signs do not after sanctification recede from their own, but remain in their former sub­stance [...]. Ib.. Thus their best Witness, that seems to speak the most for them, yet speaks that against them, which destroys their whole cause, as he must own, whoever reads the [Page 51]Dialogue, and considers the design of it, which was to answer the pretence of those, who said that the Body of Christ was after his Ascension, turned into a Divine substance, and lost the true nature of Body [...]., as the Sym­bols of Christs Body and Blood are changed, say those Hereticks, into what they were not before, Yes saies he, Now ye are taken in your own net; for they remain in their for­mer nature and substance afterwards, and so does Christs Body. If then the change of these sacred Ele­ments be only as to their use and vertue, but not as to their substance, according to Theodoret, then he could not mean that they should be adored, but only reverenced by the word [...], just as the Holy Bible [...]. Liturg. Chrysost. [...]. Acta Concil. Ephes., is said to be reverenced, and the Priest themselves, by the very same word z.

4. Some of the Fathers words imply, that when we come to the Sacrament, it should be with the greatest lowliness, both of Body and Mind; and as the Primitive Church used to do, and as the Church of England does, in a posture of Worship and Adoration, in the form and manner of Worship, as St. Cyril of Hieros. speaks [...]. Cate­ch. Myst. 5., or as St. Chrysostome, In the form of Sup­plicants and Worshippers ^b of Christ, [Page 52]as the Magi were, when they came to bring their presents to him; do thou then present him with humi­lity, and a lowly and submissive heart, and be not like Herod, who pretended he would come to worship him, but it was to murder him; but rather imitate the Magi, and come with greater fear and reverente to thy Savi­our than they did. This is the whole design and sub­stance of what is produced out of St. Chrysostom Boil. c. 7. l 1., And this is the plain meaning of Origen Hom. 5. in N. T. Tunc Dominus sub tectum tuum in greditur; tu ergo hu­milians teipsum imi­tare hunc Centurio­nem & dicito, Do­mine non sum dig­nus ut intres sub tectum meum., that when we come to receive Christ in the Sacrament, we should do it with all Humility; for consider, says he, That then the Lord enters under thy roof; do thou therefore humble thy self, and imitate the Centurion, and say, Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof. When the Fathers would give us the Picture of a devout Communicant, they draw him in the greatest Posture of Humility and Reverence, look­ing upon and [...], Chrysostom in Serm. 31. in natal Dom. [...]. Johan. Hieros. apud Chrysost. & apud Boil. p. 44. [...]. Ibid. adoring his Saviour, who died for him upon the Cross, prostrating his Soul, and his Body before him, and exercising the high­est acts of Devotion to him, and with Tears in his Eyes and Sorrow in his heart, standing like a Peni­tent before him, trembling and a­fraid, [Page 53]as sensible of his own guilt; with his Eyes cast down, and with dejected Looks considering that he is but Dust and Ashes, who is vouchsafed to this Honour, and inwardly Groaning, and Sighing, and Panting in his Soul, saying, Lord I am not worthy, that thou shouldest enter under my roof; and the like. And thus they may find all devout Communicants in our Church behaving themselves, during the whole Solemnity and Celebration of that blessed Sacra­ment, in which Mystery they always adore Christ, and that Flesh of Christ which was crucified; for then as St. Ambrose, and St. Austin speak, when their minds are all the while inflamed with the most devout Affections, and they are performing all the inward and outward Acts of the highest Devotion to God and their Saviour, then they are upon their Knees, offering up most ardent Prayers and Thanks­givings; but not to the sacred Symbols which are before them, or the Sacrament it self as the object to which, but as the Circumstance, at and in which all this Devotion and Worship is performed. And there is a great deal of difference from all this in the Church of Rome, when they direct all this to the Sacrament it self, and to the consecrated Elements, when they terminate their Worship upon what is be­fore them, and direct their Intentions to that as an Object; and therefore, whenever they have this Object appear to them, they immediately fall down and worship it, not only in the time of the Commu­nion, when it finds them at their Devotion, but at all other times, when they are standing or walking in the Streets, and are in no present Temper or Po­sture of Devotion; yet all of a sudden, as soon as they see the Host coming by, they must put themselves [Page 54]into one, and Adore that very Object, that appears to them.

The Fathers always speak of Persons as coming to the Sacrament, and partaking of it, and worship­ping Christ, and the Body of Christ in the Celebra­tion of those Divine Mysteries; but it never enter'd into their minds or thoughts, to perswade or encou­rage their hearers in their most devout Discourses, to Adore the Host, as the Church of Rome does, ei­ther in, or especially out of the time of that sacred So­lemnity; and tho it be very easie to make a Book out of the Fathers, and to heap Authorities out of them to little purpose; yet, it is imposible to prove by all the places produced out of them, by T. G. Chap. 1. Of the Adoration of the blessed Sacrament., or more largely by Boi­lean, that they meant any more than what we are very willing to joyn with them in, that Christ is to be worshipt in the Sacrament, as in Baptism, and the other Offices of our Religion; and that his Body and Flesh, which he offered for us, and by which we expect Salvati­on, is also to be adored, as being always united to his Divine Nature; and that the Sacrament it self, as representing the great Mystery of our Redemp­tion is to be highly reverenced by us, and that we should come to receive it with all Humility, and in the most decent Posture of Worship and Adoration, as the Primitive Christians did. But that the Sacra­ment it self is to be adored, as well as Christ; that which the Priest holds in his hands, or lies upon the Altar before us, that this is to be the Object of our Worship, and to have all manner of Latria, both of Body and Soul directed to that, as to God him­self; that the consecrated Elements, or the sacred [Page 55]Symbols of Christs Body and Blood are to be wor­shipt by us, when we receive them, or when with­out receiving them we see them set upon the Al­tar, or carried about in Procession; this, which is the Controversie between us, not one Father says, but above three hundred of them together in a Council sayConcil. Sept. Constant. Act. 6. [...]., That to prevent Idolatry, Christ appointed an excellent Image and Representati­on of himself in the Sacrament, with­out any manner of humane shape, even the plain and simple substance of Bread. But they resolve that Ido­latry shall not be prevented, but they will be so sottish as to commit it with that, which was designed to prevent it, and which one would think, should not in the least tempt any man to it, with a bit of Bread.

The Absurdities of which, upon a general view of the whole, I shall now for a Conclusion repre­sent and offer as the last Argument against it, and tho that alone might be sufficient, since God never imposes any thing that is really foolish and ridicu­lous, to be believed or practiced by his Creatures; yet I thought it the fittest to be produced after we are well assured, that neither Scripture nor Antiqui­ty have required any such thing. And however unwilling Bellarmine Bell de Sacram. Euchar. l. 3. c. 10. is to admit of Arguments of this na­ture, from the Absurdity of the thing, as knowing how very liable the Church of Rome was to them; and tho 'tis the most unjust Refle­ction upon Christianity to say, that any thing that is a part of that is so, which they are too ready to insi­nuate, and so bring a reproach upon the common Christianity, rather than part with their own ridicu­lous [Page 56]Opinions; yet after we have thoroughly imformed our selves, that there is nothing of a Divine Authority, as one can hardly think there should be for what is so absurd in it self, then an Argument from the folly and unreasonableness of the thing, must be allowed to be very proper; and till men have lost all their Reason, it will always be very cogent; and here it is so ve­ry strong, and presses so hard upon their Adoration of the Host, that 'tis no wonder that they love to set by, and except against reason, whenever this matter is to be tryed: but it is most sad to consider, that they should have so little regard and concern for the Credit and Reputation of the Christian Re­ligion, as by this means so shamefully and notori­ously to expose it to the Reproach and Contempt of the wisest Men. How must a Jew or a Turk, who are great enemies to all Idolatry, be prejudiced against Christianity, when he sees those who pro­fess it, fall down and worship a Wafer, and make an Idol of a bit of Bread? When he lives in those places, where he sees it carried about with Candles and Torches before it, in most Solemn and Pom­pous Processions, and all Persons as it goes by, fal­ling upon their Knees, and saying their prayers, and using all acts of Devotion to it; would he not won­der what strange and new God, that no History ever mention'd, the Christians adored?

Mankind indeed, when very ignorant, used to worship a great many Creatures that were very useful to them, and when they were very hungry, if they lighted upon Bread, it was no great wonder; but sure it can be no more fit to be worshipt by those who bet­ter know God, than any of his other Creatures, or any of the most dumb and senseless, and pitiful Images, for which the Christians so often, and so justly [Page 57]laught at the Idolatrous Heathens; especially, those of them, who were so foolish, and such true belly-Gods, as to eat and feed upon what they worshipt and deified. This the first and most learned Christians charged, as the highest degree of folly in the Egyptians, to eat the same Ani­mals, whom they worshipt [...]. Orig contra [...]el­sum, I. 4 [...]. Tatian. Orat. con­tra Graec. A pim bovem adoratis & pascitis Minut. Octav. p. 94.; And a wise Heathen could not think any would be so mad as to think that to be a God, with which he was fed Ecquem tam amentem esse putas, ut illud quo vesca­tur, Denm esse cre­dat? Tally de natura Deorum.. It was the ingenious Opinion of a very learned Father, that God made the difference between the clean and unclean Beast, to prevent this Egyp­tian and Brutish folly in the Isra­elites, who lived among them; Be­cause, saies he, by their abominating the unclean, they would not deifie them; and by eating the clean, they would be secured from ever worship­ping them; for it must be the extream­est madness to worship what they eat [...]. Theo­doret. in Quaest. in Genes.. How did the Ancient Apologists for Christianity with great wit and smartness, ridicule the other Idols of the Heathens, as being the works at first of the Carver, or the Painter, and particularly for being such Gods as were baked at first in the FurnaceIncoctos for­nacibus figulinis Ar­nob. contra Gent. l. 6. of the Potter (and it had been much the same, had it been in the Oven of the Baker) for being Gods of Brass, or of Silverⁿ? And [Page 58]yet they counted the Silver or the Brass no more a GodNos neque aeris neque auri argenti­que materias, Arnob. ut supra. than others do the Bread, as I have shown a­bove. How at other times did they think sit to expose their impotent and senseless Deities, because they could not pre­serve themselves from ThievesDeos vestros plerumque in prae­dam furibus cedere Lactant. Institut. l. 2. c. 4., nor yet from rotteness; but the Worms would still gnaw, and the Vermine deface them, and the Birds would defile them with their excre­ments even in their own TemplesQuanto verius de diis vestris ani­malia muta natura­liter judicant, mu­res, hirundines, mil­vi; non sentire eos sciunt, rodunt, in­sultant, insident, ac nisi abigatis, in ipso Dei vestri ore nidi­ficant; Araneae ve­ro faciem ejus in­texunt, Minut. Octav. p. 75.? And could not this be said of a breaden Deity? is not that as sub­ject to all these mischances, and therefore as liable to all those Re­proaches? will not a Mouse or Rat run away with it? tho if it do so, they have taken care, if they can catch the sacrilegious Thief, to have the Sacrament drawn out of its entrails, and religiously disposed ofAntonin. de de­fect. Miss. in Bishop Jewels reply.; but however, if no such mis­fortune come to it, it will in a little time, if it be kept, prove sowre, and grow mouldy; and when it does so, what should then thrust out the Deity, and bring in again the substance of the Bread that was quite gone before, is an unaccountable Miracle; and that which is taken of it into our Bodies, is not like one would think to have any better, or more be­coming treatment there, than by the other ways; so that upon all these accounts, this which is worship­ped by Christians, is in as ill Condition as that which was worshipped by Heathens; and those wit­ty [Page 59]Adversaries, Celsus, and Porphyry, and Julian would have thrown all that the Christians had said against the Heathen Idols, back upon themselves, and have improved them with as great Advantage, and retorted them with as much force, had the Christians in those times worshipt the Host, or the Sacramental Elements, as the Papists do now; and 'tis more than a Presumption, no less than a Demonstration that the Christians did not, because none of these things that were so obnoxious, and so obvious, were ever in the least mentioned by the Heathens, or made matter of Reflection upon them, when they pickt up all other things, let them be true or false, that they could make any use of to object against them. But the Primi­tive Christians gave them no such occasion; which was the only Reason they did not take it. As soon as the Church of Rome did so, by setting up the worship of the HostApud Dionys. Carthus in 4. dist. Nullam se sectam Christiana dererio­rem aut ineptiorem reperire. Quem colunt Deum, dentibus ipsi suis discerpunt ac devorant., Averroes the Arabian Philosopher, in the 13th Century, gave this Character of Chri­stians, that he had found no Sect more foolish, or worse than they, in all his Travels and Observations, upon this very account, For they eat the God whom they worship; andBullaeus Gultius in Itin. Mange Dieu. a later Histo­rian and Traveller tells us, that 'tis a common Reproach in the Mouths of the Turks and Mahumetans, to call the Christians Devourers of their God; and a Jew, in a Book Printed at Amsterdam in the year 1662, among other Questions put to Christians, asks this shrewd one, If the Host be a God, why does it corrupt and grow covered with Mold? and why is it gnawn by Mice or other Animals ^v?

[Page 60] The only way the Papists have to bring themselves off from these manifest Absurdities, is only a running farther into greater; and their little Shifts and Evasi­ons, are so thin and subtil Sophistry, or rather such gross and thick falshoods, that it could not be imagined that the Heathen Adversaries could ever know them, and therefore be so civil as Boileau would make themCap. 10. l. 2. de ador. Euch., as not to lay those charges upon them, as others do; nor can any reasonable and impartial man ever be­lieve them; for they are plainly these two; That they do not worship what all the World sees they worship; And that they do not eat what they take into their Mouths and swallow down: Which is in plain words an open Confession, that they are ashamed to own what they plainly do; We do not worship the Bread, say they, for that we believe is done away, and turned into the natural Body of Christ, and so we cannot be char­ged with Bread-worship. But do ye not worship that which ye see, and which ye have before ye, and which is carried about? And would not any man that sees what that is, think ye worship Bread or Wafer? And could you ever perswade him, that it was any thing else? And if notwithstanding what you think of it against all Sense and Reason, it be still Bread; then I hope it is Bread that ye worship; and till others think as wildly as ye do, ye must give them leave to think and charge ye thus. But if it were true, that ye did not worship the Bread, yet ye must and do own, that ye worship the Species of the Bread; and how ye should do that, without being guilty of another very gross Absur­dity, ye do not know your selves; for ye must make them so united to Christ, as to make one Sup­positum, and so one Object of Worship, as his Hu­manity [Page 61]and Godhead are; and then according to this way of yours, Christ may as well be said to be Impanated and United to Bread, or its Species, as Incarnated and United to Flesh, as some of you have taughtBellarm. de Ruperto Abbate Tui­tiensi, l. 3. de Euch. c. 11. that the Bread in the Eucharist is assumed by the [...], as the humane Nature was. But not to mention these, which wheresoever ye turn ye, stare ye full in the face, and should make ye blush, one would think, had ye not put off all shame, as well as all sense in this matter; grant ye what ye would have, that it is not Bread, but the substantial Body, Flesh and Blood of a man, that is in the Host; will this help much to mend the matter, or to lessen the Absurdi­ty, and not rather increase and swell it? For besides the incredible wonder, that a bit of Bread should by a few words of every common Priest, be turned immediately into the true and perfect Body of a man; nav, into ten thousand Bodies at the same time, which is a greater Miracle than ever was done i'th' World, and is as great almost, as creating the World it self out of nothing; and if it were true, would make she Priest a God, certainly, and not a man, and much rather to be worshipt than a bit of Bread, as Lactantius saies of the Heathen Idols, He that made them, ought rather to be worship than they Meliorem esse qui fecit, quam illa quae facta sunt & si haec adoranda sunt, artificem a quo fa­cta sunt, ipsum quo­que multo potiori jure adorandum esse. Lactant. Instit. l. 2. c. 2.. Besides this, it seems it is the whole Body of a man, then, which is eaten and swallowed down, instead of Bread; for sure the same thing is not one thing when it is worshipt, and another thing when it is eaten; and then how barbarous and inhumane, as [Page 62]well as absurd and ridiculous, must this appear to any man, that is not used to swallow the most sub­stantial Nonsense, as well as the whole Body of a man for a Morsel? and then all the former Absurdities which I mentioned, do return again, of the Eating that which we worship, which the Apologists thought so wild and extravagant in the Egyptian God eaters. Well then, there is no other way, but to say, we don't eat him as we eat other foodBoil c. 10. l. 2. Comestionem sub­stantiae corporis Christi non esse na­turalem.; so might the Egypti­ans have said too, if they had plea­sed; tho, how they can otherwise eat him, 'tis hard to understand; but only in the heretical sense of Spiritual and Sacramental Eating; unless they will at the same time say, They do not eat him truly and naturally, and yet do eat him so; and they are so used to Contradictions in this point, that I don't know whether they will make any more Bones of this, than of the rest, or of the substantial Body of a man himself, when they have got so large a Faith, or rather so large a Swallow. But how is it, that ye do not eat him after a natural and carnal manner, and yet it is a carnal Body, that ye so much con­tend for, and that ye really and truly eat, and 'tis a Carnal mouth and throat he is put into, and some­times a very foul and wicked one? And yet this must by this carnal way eat the very Body of Christ, as well as the most faithful; But we do not grind this Body with our Teeth, nor chew him in our Mouths, as our other Food; nor digest him in our Stomachs, nor cast him out into the draught; if ye do not as ye pretend, being ashamed of the most shameful and abominable Consequences of it; and yet a very [Page 63]great many among you, have owned all thatRetract. Be­reng. sub Nicol. 2 in Concil. Rom. Verum corpus Domini no­stri Jesu Christi sen­sualiter, non solum Sacramento, sed in veritate, manibus Sacerdotum tracta­ri & frangi & fide­lium dentibus atteri, Sic Gualt. & Ab­baud apud. Boil. p. 177., as not knowing how it could be otherwise, and how if this eating be Spiritual and Sacra­mental, Christs presence may not be so too, which is the Heresie on the other sideIste in omnibus veritatem subtra­hit, dum asserit om­nia fieri (sc. fracti­onem & attritio­nem corporis Christi in Eucharistia) non substantia sed in spe­cie visibili & forma panis & Sacramen­to tantum. Gualter adversus Abailard. apud Boil. 179.; and ye seem to make strange Monsters of your selves that have spiritual Teeth, and can spiri­tually, and not naturally eat a na­tural, and a carnal Body; and if ye do not thus eat it, as ye eat other meat, when ye take it into your Mouths, and into your Stomacks, and do every thing to it that you do to your other food, which is as like eating as if it were very true and na­tural eating; and if it be not Bread, which is thus eaten, when it is just as like other Bread as is possible, then it is certainly, the most phantastick Food, and the most phantastick way of eating it, that can be imagined; then there must be a new way of eating, which is not eating, and a new way for a Body to be present, and yet not present as a Body; and I will add there must certainly be then a new understanding, which is no understanding, that can understand, or believe all this.

But further, ye have found it necessary for your purpose of Adoring the Host, to keep the Body of Christ confined to it, and inclosed in it as a Prisoner, till the Species corrupt, and so the prison is as it were opened, and the Body let loose, and when that is gone, whether ye think it be the Species, or the Sub­stance [Page 64]of Bread that corrupts, I would gladly know; and surely then, when the Body is gone, there is no need of such a miracle to keep the Accidents with­out a Subject; if it be Bread, what think ye of this sudden Transmutation from Bread to Flesh, and from Flesh to Bread again, and this latter without any words from the Priest; but since Christs Body must be so permanently in the Host, not only in the act and use of the Sacrament, but at all other times; ye are then forced to own, that as it is eaten in the Communion, as well by those who have no faith, as by the most faithful Christians, so if any other Animals should happen to eat the Host, taking it no doubt heretically for meer Bread, that yet they truly take the Body of Christ, and eat it after some manner or other, but whether it be after a natural manner in them or no, I don't know how you have resolved, but most of the Schoolmen have agreed that Scandalous questionAn mus, vel Porcus vel canis comedens hostiam suscipit corpus Chri­sti? Bishop Jewels reply Artic. 24. See Burchard de Correct. Miss. upon those Questions, De vino in calice congelato, de musca vel aranea vel veneno mixto cum sanguine, de vomitu post recep­tionem Sacramenti, Quando cadit cor­pus Christi, Quando cadit sanguis Chri­sti. fol. 51, 52. in the Affirmative, Whether if a Mouse, or a Hog, or a Dog eat the Host, they do partake of Christs Body? Or as Thomas Aquinas, your most An­gelick Doctor says, consequently to this Opinion of yoursAliter deroga­ret veritati-corporis Christi. p. 3. qu. 79., It would otherwise derogate from the truth of this Sacrament and Christs presence in it. So that wherever the Species are, there is always Christs Body, and whatever happens to them, happens to that also; If they fall to the ground, Christs Body does so to; and so, if they lie in a hol­low Tooth, or hang but in the least [Page 65]crum or drop upon a Communicants Beard; there according to their principles, they and the Bo­dy must be worshipt with Latria; and if they be in a Mouse or Flies body, that has got to them, the adorable Object still goes with the Species, till they be corrupted; and whither the Species be corrupted, or no if they be poysoned as they have somtimes been, or whether Christ be there with the Accidents of the Poyson, I can't tell; but when the Species are in the pix, he is as fast there, as he ever was in his Sepulcher, and to all appearance as dead and senseless, and if the Species be Burnt or Gnawn, or vomited out of the Stomack, before they are corrupted, all these mis­fortunes belong as truly to Christs Body as to them, and so worse indignities may be thus offered every day to Christ glorious Body, than ever were offered to it, in its state of Humility and Contempt upon Earth, when it was Spit upon, and Scourged, and Pierced, and Crucified by the Jews. But Good God! that men should think to Honour and Adore Christ and his Body, by thus exposing them to the danger of the vilest Abuses! that humane reason should be so decayed and besotted, as to believe and defend such palpable Absurdities! that Christianity should be so shamefully and abominably exposed to all the World, by such an extravagant Doctrine, and such an obnoxious practice and unreasonable Idola­try as this is? God Almighty open all our Eyes, that we may not be given up to blindness of Mind, and darkness of Understanding, and to the belief of Lies, as most Idolaters generally were; but may it please him, who is the God of Truth, to bring into the way of Truth, all such as have erred and are [Page 66]deceived, in this or any other matter; in which charitable and constant Prayer of our Church, which is much better than Cursing and Anathema­tizing, its Adversaries, I hope, as well as its Friends will not refuse to joyn with it.