A REPLY TO Two Discourses.  
Lately Printed at OXFORD Concerning THE ADORATION OF Our BLESSED SAVIOUR, IN The Holy Eucharist.  
Lest Satan should get advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devises.  2 COR. II. v. 11. 
OXFORD, Printed at the THEATER. Anno 1687.   

Imprimatur. JO. VENN Vice-Can. Oxon.  
May 19 1687.   

To the READER.  
WHEN the two late Discourses concerning The Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Eucharist, were first printed at Oxford, and the World expected they should receive an Answer from the same place, from whence they had defied the Church of England, I was vain enough to think it might fall to my lot to Answer them. For I fancied so trivial a Pamphlet was below the regard of other men, who do God and the Church better sevice in another station: and presumed that while they offered Sacrifice, a mean man might serve to drive away the Flies. Wherefore I committed to paper, what I thought I should say, supposing that Province were assigned me, but having neither order nor inclination to appear in Print, I proceeded as my leisure would allow me: and was not so assiduous as I should have been to perform a task. Besides I indulged my curiosity in a strict examen of the Quotations, which (some of the Books being scarce, and most of them of a competent bulk) between procuring and reading them cost me twice the time, that it did to write my Reply. This search I grant was not absolutely necessary to my purpose, for a man that knows the Doctrine of our Church, will not stick at any of the Quotations save only those out of Mr. Thorndike: yet I do not regrett my pains: for I gained a more just and lively Idea of the Discourser than I had before: and a fresh perusal of our own excellent Authors, renewing those impressions I had formerly taken from 'em was itself a very great reward.  
So much work cut out for one that was in no great haste: being neither very fond of labour, nor lying under any obligation: must needs proceed as slowly as ever any Church-work did: so that no man need wonder if a London Answer was published when there yet remained near a third part of mine to finish. Perusing that Reply I threw aside my own papers as superfluous, and resolved to proceed no farther in so needless a design: the rather because it was reported with great confidence, that another Answer was at that time ready, and transcribing for the press. But some that impatiently expected this second answer, finding after a fortnight's expectation, there was no good ground for that report: and being possessed with an opinion that there ought to be an Oxford Answer; having likewise seen in what method I proceeded; and how far I was advanced: importuned me first to finish my Reply though it were but for their satisfaction: and at last extorted my consent to print it; upon condition no other Answer should prevent them.  
These are the reasons why it was made public, and why so late. If any man find leisure to peruse it, I must beg him as he reads the Answer to read the Discourses along with it, for that's a piece of justice due to every book that's answered, and in confidence it would here take place, I have frequently worded my Reply, so that it cannot be throughly understood, without comparing my words with those in the Pamphlet they reply to.   

CHAP. I. The Introduction.  
IT is somewhat surprising that one, who has left the Church of England to go over to that of Rome, should attempt to justify his desertion by pretending both Churches are agreed; and if they are so, his conduct is the more amazing, who quits the Principles of 'em both, and goes to settle the point he contends for upon new Notions of his own: which by the way is so plain a confession, that he thinks the Popish Principles cannot justify their Practice, that I doubt the Gentlemen of that Communion will scarce thank him for his undertaking. One would likewise have expected, that a man of the Editors reputation, the famous Compiler of an 
* Ars rationis Oxon. è Theatro 1673.  Art of Reason, should neither have writ nor published any thing, wherein the Author did not reason like a man of art; or at leastwise talk as coherently as ordinary men use to do by the pure strength of natural reason. Yet it pleases the Author of the Pamphlet to display his great search and quickness, in such illations as these; 
* Disc I. ch. I. §. 2. pag. 2.  Gloria in excelsis, is put in the Post communion, Ergo, The Church that put it there disowns the Real Presence, 
* Disc. I. ch III. § 20. pag. 13.  Nihil magis incredibile: Ergo Not this more incredible that Idem corpus potest esse in diversis locis simul. 
* Ibid.  This thing is above our reason, Ergo 'Tis contrary to it: with other such deep discoveries; to show us that his talon in Logic is as singular as his judgement in Religion.  
But I have no commission to question any man for making bold with himself; or exposing his own understanding to what degree he thinks fit: and should therefore have taken no notice of this Pamphlet, had it been any where printed but at Oxford. I should not have thought myself obliged to censure the extravagant singularities of a private fancy; such especially as are not likely to do any mischief to the Public: and such I esteem the notions of this Pamphlet; which is too perplexed for a common Readers understanding, and too sophistical to impose upon the more intelligent. But considering the false and scandalous reports, that are of late so industriously spread about the Nation: as if Oxford Converts came in by whole shoals, and all the University were just ready to declare: I have reason to believe this Pamphlet was designedly printed at Oxford, to countenance those reports. For no doubt the Popish Presses were at the Editors service; and to use them, instead of setting up a new one, hand been less trouble and better husbandry. But the secret is, these Papers are to pass with unwary people for a specimen of the Universities judgement: much such a one indeed as the Tile was, which Hierocles' Scholar brought to market for a sample of the House he had to sell. Now there are divers agravations of this foul play, which make it yet more insupportable. As why is this question now revived which the members of our Church have of late so carefully declined out of pure respect to those ears, which if it be possible they are not willing to offend? Or why are we of the University attacked in our own quarters? and so defied to our teeth, that we can neither in honour nor honesty decline an answer, though, we are well ware with what design the scene of the Controversy is laid in Oxford? Or how can we brook this usage from our companion? our own familiar friend whom we trusted? with whom we have taken sweet council together? and walked in the house of God as friends 
* Ps. LV. 14, 15. ? These are such cutting circumstances, as no armour of patience is sufficient proof against.  
For these Reasons, and not for any worth in the Book, I have ventured to answer it; and complied with the severe task the Author sets me to make brick and find straw too. For the Pamphlet duly considered will not furnish sufficient matter for a Treatise. Strip it of its garniture, and it comes to no more than this, That the Author supposes the Church of England to hold such a Real Presence of Christ's natural body in the Eucharist, as he thinks a sufficient ground to adore the Elements: To which we need only reply; That as the Church ever held a real, so she ever denied a corporal i. e. a local presence; and for that reason forbidden the adoration of the Symbols. For, to say no more at present, the same arguments that will justify our adoring them upon the score of any, but a local presence of Christ's natural body, will excuse not only the Popish, but even the grossest Heathen Idolatry.  
This I take to be a full and sufficient answer to what our Author has spun into two Discourses: However that I may leave no room for cavil, I shall take a distinct view of the whole Pamphlet, and reply particularly to the Chapters and Sections of each Discourse as they lie in order.   

CHAP. II. A Reply to the first Chapter of the first Discourse.  
THIS Chapter is taken up chief in recounting some little Alterations that have been made at several times in our Rubrics and Articles: from which the Pamphlet would infer that our Church has wavered in her Doctrine.  
Now to my apprehension, this Design let it be executed how it will, is very impertinently undertaken. For admit that the Church had wavered (as she has not) what's that to his purpose of proving, that a Real tho' not Corporal presence is ground enough to adore the Elements in the Eucharist? Again, admit it were pertinent to prove, that the Church had wavered in her Doctrine; how impertinent is it to allege no proof, save out of the Rubrics and Articles, which contain only terms of her Communion? omitting the Homilies and Catechisms set forth by her Authority, as a solemn declaration of her Doctrine? We grant that the Church having always held a Real Presence, so far as a Real Participation implies one; but always denied it if by Real we mean Corporal and Local; has not always thought it requisite, to make the declaration and subscription of this Doctrine, a term of her Communion: and if the Author has any thing to object to her upon this score; it may possibly be to the purpose, and then we are ready to answer it. Always provided he forbear that shrewd way of arguing, which he gives us a taste of in the second paragraph of his second section: for to such kind of sequels as he makes there, we shall not think fit to reply; but leave 'em to be seen through and despised by the Freshmen.  
But a man, that is not moved by those arguments, may perhaps be put in mind by the premises, to inquire why these Alterations were made? I answer that 'tis easy to assign good reasons 
* The reasons here assigned are (it may be) not the true ones why the changes were made, but may serve to make a sober man acquiesce in these alterations, nay prefer them now they are made: and the Lawfulness not the Prudence of the Church's constitutions is the main point to be considered by the members of her communion. 'Tis no matter what Politic reasons might induce the Government to make these changes, as long as in making them it did not deviate from the rule of Scripture. But the Reader that is so disposed may gratify his curiosity as to this point too; by consulting Dr. Burnet's History of the Reformation vol. 2 pag. 170.190.392.394.405. Foxes and Firebrands par. 2. pag 10.11, 12, 13. Discourse of the holy Eucharist newly printed at London pag 72, 73. etc. ; but for want of the authentic Records we can but guests at the true. Perhaps they might be as follows.  
1. It has ever been the practice of all conformable Church of England-men to handle both the Patin and the Chalice when they Consecrate. And indeed the very nature of the action implies the use of that ceremony, so that there seems to be no need of a Rubric to enjoin it. In K. Edward's first book there was a marginal note to direct the more ignorant and unpractised 
* In the present Liturgy there are divers such marginal notes; which are not injunctions to perform, but directions when to perform some ceremonies which the Rubric elsewhere enjoins, or the nature of the action supposes As for instance in the office of Baptism Here (says the margin) the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Child's forehead; the Rubric for this ceremony went before. And in the office of the Eucharist, Here the Priest is to take the Patin into his hands etc. that he should break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands is supposed in the precedent Rubric (which only directs his standing that he may do it readily and decently) for the very nature of the act of Consecration implies it. But when this note of direction (when to take the Patin &c.) was omitted, the practice of takeing it did not cease. For Rastall himself takes notice that Jewel used to take the Bread into his hands; and we may better learn the mind of our Church from his Practice then the Pamphlets surmises; if there were any thousands as Rastall supposes (though I beg his pardon for some of his thousands, and without a better reason than his supposal won't suppose one thousand) omitted it; they were of those half-conformists, whom the Church has always complained of as the most disingenuous and dangerous of all her enemies. And for their sake in the review of sixty one it was necessary to restore these directions, which were not so necessary when the mangling of the service was less common.  when to use it; which was afterwards omitted; when the usage was in all appearance sufficiently secured by common practice. But when false brethren took advantage from the omission to perform the ceremony awkwardly and lamely, the directions were restored in the edition of sixty one.  
2. The Gloria in excelsis is a hymn; and therefore most properly put in the Postcommunion; because most conformably to our Saviour's own practice, who when supper was done 
* Matt. XXVI. 13. Mark. XIV 26.  sung a hymn with his Disciples.  
3. The Trisagium as it now lies after Holy thrice repeated, in honour of the three Persons of the Trinity, concludes very properly and pertinently with Glory be to the O Lord acknowledging the Unity. This the Benedictus qui venit, does not; but is rather liable to the same misconstruction for which the 
* Pandectae Canonum etc. published at Oxford by Dr. Beverege.  Council in Trullo (Can. 81.) condemned the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that hymn.  
4. The omission of these words [in these holy mysteries] might be purely accidental; and pass undiscovered, because as they signify no more than [in this celebration of the Eucharist] they have no material influence upon the sense. But if we understand, as perhaps a perverse man may, that [these mysteries] signify the same with [these elements] that is cause enough to omit them: because they would assert an opinion which is contrary to sound Doctrine, and the declared judgement of the Church.  

Disc. I. §. 3. n. 1. pag 3.  What is farther observable in the two first Sections, is repeated and backed in the third, and might be safely passed over, as containing nothing material but what we again meet with there. For concerning the Form prescribed in delivering the consecrated Elements he tell's us that in K. Edward's first book the Form was The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ etc. in his second Take and eat this in remembrance etc. in Qu. Elizabeth's both these put together as they still continue in the English Liturgy. But withal he tells us, the first of these Forms descends to us from Antiquity: and he finds no fault with the second, which is entirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution. So that we are yet to seek, where the harm lies of using either Form single, or both of them together? and yet farther to seek to what purpose this observation is made? since 'tis manifest that neither Form single nor both of them together, either owns a Corporal or denies a Real Presence.  
He addds that the Scotch Rubric keeping the first Form requires the Communicant to answer to it Amen: which without a Rubric ever was and is still the Practice of the Church of England (for what more natural then to answer Amen to a prayer?) and so were divers other things (as for instance standing up at the Gospel, and saying Glory be to thee O Lord,) which the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy having good reason to approve, thought fit to enjoin by a Rubric; that the Puritans might have no pretence for Nonconformity.  
But to return to the Communicants answering Amen. the Pamphlet truly observes it to be according to custom of Antiquity: but I doubt the proofs it quotes are not very judiciously chosen. The place in Eusebius belongs plainly to another thing. The words are (Hist. VII. 9.) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. Which evidently shows that That Amen, was answered to the Doxology before the distribution of the Elements, as not only Justin Martyr could have taught him, but even Valesius himself in his Notes upon that passage of Eusebius. I leave the examen of the other two Quotations to them that have leisure and the Books by them, 'tis probable they may prove as pertinent as this. For I find it a common practice in this man's other Works to quote those passages at length which he thinks will bear the stress of an Argument, and barely refer to such places, as contain only a hint which perhaps an unwary Reader may go near to swallow.  
This Amen was spoken says the Pamphlet as the Communicants confession that what he received was Corpus Domini. But I shall rather learn the meaning of it from Justin Martyr, 
* Just. Mart. Edit. Steph Apol. 2. pag. 162. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  who observes that Amen in Hebrew signifies so be it, wherefore according to His notion the Communicant answering Amen only joins with the Priest in praying that the Body and Blood of Christ may preserve his Body and Soul to everlasting life.  
The Pamphlet farther observes that in K. Edward's first book there was this passage in the prayer of Consecration. [And with thy holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ] which was afterwards left out of the English Liturgy, and restored in the Scotch. This omission by the way is something injudiciously observed; because it shows us that the Clergy of Q. Elizabeth had no such thoughts of the Real Presence as the Pamphlet would suggest they had. But I refer him for answer to his own quotation out of Laudensium Autocatacrisis. From these words (saith he) all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation; wherefore the English Reformers scraped them out of their Books] tho' his Gloss upon Restoring them in the Scocth Liturgy is a manifest cavil; for no man of sense can interpret them as they lie there in favour of Transubstantiation. see Archbishop Cranmers' answer to Gardiner. p. 70. p. 289. 
* The Archbishop the most competent Judge in this case thus interprets this passage p 79. of his answer to Gardiner. And therefore in the Book of the Holy Communion, we do not pray absolutely that the Bread and Wine may be made the Body and Blood of Christ, but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so: that is to say that we may so worthily receive the same, that we may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood, and that therewith in Spirit and Truth we may be Spiritually nourished. And again p. 289. We do not pray &c:— but that they may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ; that is to say, that we may so eat them and drink them, that we may be partakers of his Body Crucified and his Blood shed for our redemption. Wherefore this was the sense of our Reformers that compiled the Communion-office; and thus they understood it that restored it in the Scotch Liturgy; and so must any man understand it that is not too partially addicted to Popery.   
I must beg the Readers pardon, if out of a desire to leave nothing unreplyed to, I have particularly spoken to these inconsiderable observations, which the Author himself does but skirmish with. But we are now come to the Rubric, before which he intends to sit down: viz. that for explaining why we Kneel at the Sacrament. This he tells us in K. Edward's book denied a Real and Essential, but now denies only a Corporal Presence. To which I answer that K. Edward's Rubric by Real and Essential means (as the Papists then used to do) a Real and Bodily Presence: as is plain by the Articles set forth about the same time, and quoted by the Pamphlet itself pag. 2.  
He observes farther that both this Rubric and the explanatory Paragraph in the 28th Article were expunged in the first of Q. Elizabeth. To which we have already answered, that this at the utmost implies but a change in the terms of our Communion: and if he think fit to challenge the Church upon that score we are ready to give him satisfaction.  
In the fourth Section he falls on in earnest upon the declaration about adoration as he calls it, 
〈◊〉 I. §. iv pag. 4.  and from it as it now lies, draws three Observables, which are either very dishonestly or else very ignorantly worded. They need no other answer then a bare amendment of the expressions; which if they were intended to give the sense of the Church of England, should have been to this effect.  
1. Observable. That the Clergy do profess and teach, that the natural body and blood of Christ, are not corporally i e. locally present in the Eucharist.  
2. Observable. That they have divers reasons for this assertion: one especially wherein Scripture, Philosophy, and common sense are agreed, viz. that a true humane body cannot locally be in two places at once.  
3. Observable. That in consequence hereof they declare, that the Presence of Christ's body in the Sacrament, is indeed real but spiritual, and therefore the Elements are not to be adored, because adoration ought not to be directed to the natural body of Christ, but where it is locally present.  
Had our Author had the ingenuity to express himself after this manner, he had been no less kind to himself then just to the Church of England; for he might have avoided divers errors he commits in the three next Chapters, by avoiding the grand impertinence of having written them at all.   

CHAP. III. A Reply to the second chapter of the first Discourse.  

Disc I. §. VII. pag. 5.  THe design of the second Chapter is to prove by abundance of quotations, that Learned Protestants heretofore have held, that the same body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified etc. is present as in Heaven so here in the Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy receiver, or the Symbols.  
By learned Protestants I presume he means those of the Church of England; for so he should mean since he draws his Observables from a Rubric in their Liturgy. Now he would have told us some news, had he mentioned but one of these learned Protestants, who pretending to give the sense of the Church of England does not hold, that the same numerical body which was born of the Virgin Mary, crucified etc. is locally present in Heaven, and virtually present in the Eucharist; not to the Symbols, but the Faith of the worthy receiver: or if by those words, as in heaven so here he means locally in both; as indeed he must mean, if his next Chapter be at all pertinent; he would have told us no less news, had he brought but one quotation that could be honestly taken in that sense. But if he have any third meaning it would have been a favour to explain himself, for we pretend not to any talon in divination.  
Now supposing he designs to combat the Church of England, I would gladly know to what purpose he alleges Calvin and Beza? 
Disc. I. §. VIII. IX.  for let their doctrine be what it will, to quote it to us who are not to be concluded by their authority, is very trifling and impertinent. When the sense of the Church of England was the question, one would have expected to hear what the Church-Catechism says? What the Homilies? What Nowells Catechism? Books allowed and published by the Church's authority, and authentic witnesses of her judgement, or if private Doctors were the game, what Archbishop Cranmers book of the Sacraments? what Bradford, Philpot and the rest of Q. Mary's Martyrs? what Bishop Jewel in his Apology and the Defence of it? what Bishop Usher in his Sermon before the House of Commons? But instead of these we have only the testimonies of some other eminent, but private men; all miserably mangled and disjointed; some of them Conciliators too, whose very design obliges them to a loser kind of expression, than a true and adequate standard of the Church's judgement will allow. Now should any of our private writers, either in heat of disputation, or out of zeal to peace, or desire to explain a great mystery; a little deviate in their expressions; we can easily forgive an error, that proceeds from so allowable a cause; but still the Church is not bound to justify that error.  
But the quotations in the Pamphlet will not put us upon this Apology. Not an author he quotes (except only Mr. Thorndike, of whom we shall say more by and by) but speaks the sense of the Church; and industriously drives at a point quite contrary to the Pamphlets design; which discovers a great flaw either in the Author's judgement or honesty. I grant the authors as he has mangled 'em look as unlike those worthy champions of our Church, as the shape that appeared to Aenaeas did to the true and whole person of Hector. But I desire the Reader neither to trust the Pamphlet nor me but his own eyes; to consult the quotations as they lie entire in the authors themselves; and consider 'em with their several contexts. For my own part having taken that pains, I profess to find such dealing as I do not care to report, because I cannot expect to be believed.  
'Tis somewhat unaccountable that a man of sense, having read the book of Bishop tailor's, which the Pamphlet quotes; should split upon the very Fallacy, which that Bishop spends almost the whole first Chapter in detecting. He makes it his business there to show, that Protestants in explaining the Real Presence may lawfully use the same terms that Papists do. But they neither can nor do use them in the Papists sense, and he that will urge the Protestants with those words, must take the Protestants meaning along with him. This seems to be a very equitable proposal. How far the Pamphlet complyes with it, I dare leave to the meanest Reader, when he has perused this short and plain account of our Church's doctrine in this point.  
The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a twofold consideration in the Eucharist. 1. As a body dead; under which notion we are said to eat it in the Sacrament, and to drink the blood as shed; as appears by the words of the Institution, Take and eat, this is my body which is given or broken for you; Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood which is shed for you: in which words (
* Acts and Monuments. pag. 1611.  as Mr. Bradford long ago observed) what God has joined we are not to put asunder. 2. As a glorified body; in which condition it now sits at the right hand of God, and shall there continue till the restitution of all things, imparting Grace & Influence and all the benefits purchased by the Sacrifice of the dead body, to those that (in the holy Eucharist most especially) are through Faith and by the marvellous operation of the holy Ghost incorporated into Christ; and so united to him that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them; they are one with Christ and Christ with them; they are made members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: and by partaking of the Spirit of him their head, receive all the graces and benefits, purchased for them by his bitter death and passion.  
Wherefore it is evident that since the body broken and the blood shed neither do nor can now really exist, they neither can be really present, nor literally eaten, or drank, nor can we really receive them, but only the benefits purchased by them. But the body which now exists whereof we partake, and to which we are united, is the glorified body: which is therefore verily and indeed received (as we shall see anon) and by consequence said to be Really present notwithstanding its Local Absence; because a real participation and union, must needs imply a Real presence, though they do not necessarily require a Local one. For 'tis easy to conceive how a thing that is Locally Absent may yet be Really Received, as he that receives a Disciple is said to receive Christ; as the Disciples themselves received the Holy Ghost; as the King in the Gospel received a Kingdom; or as we commonly say a man receives an Estate or Inheritance when he receives the Deeds or Conveyances of it. In all which cases the reception is confessedly real, tho' the thing itself is not locally or circumscriptively present, or literally grasped in the arms of the receiver.  
This by the way may serve to show the vanity as well as falsehood of Transubstantiation, which was first devised to solve the literal eating of the glorified body of our Saviour: whereas though the body that is glorified, be numerically the same that was broken; yet the body which is eaten as dead, and the body which is present as glorified, are two as different things as can well be imagined.  
This may likewise serve to show, that there is no great disagreement among those Protestants, whom the Papists too hastily charge with it. For they all agree that we spiritually eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood: that we neither eat nor drink nor receive the dead body nor the blood shed, but only the benefits purchased by them: that these benefits are derived to us by virtue of our Union and Communion with the glorified body: and that our partaking of it, and union with it, is effected by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the holy Spirit. The only difference is, that one part from the premises infer, that Christ may be truly said to be Really Present in the Eucharist; whereas the other scruple at the use of that expression (because the local absence of his body is confessed on both sides) notwithstanding they agree in all the points which the other party think requisite to defend it.  
Now tho' it be easy as I said before to conceive how a natural substance may be said to be Really Received though not Locally Present: it is not so easy to conceive it Really Present when at the same time it is Locally Absent. Therefore the Church of England has wisely forborn to use the term of Real Presence in all the Books that are set forth by her authority. We neither find it recommended in the Litugy, nor the Articles, nor the Homilies, nor the Churches, nor Nowell's Catechism. For although it be once in the Liturgy, and once more in the Articles, it is mentioned in both places as a phrase of the Papists and rejected for their abuse of it. So that if any Church of England-man use it, he does more than the Church directs him, if any reject it he has the Church's example to warrant him: and it would very much contribute to the peace of Christendom if all men would write after so good a Copy.  
Yet it must not be denied but the term may be safely used amongst Scholars; and seems to be grounded upon the language of Scripture itself. For when our Saviour promises to be in the midst of them that call upon him; and to be with his Church always to the end of the World, no doubt he promises to be really present with them, though he does not mean that his Natural Body shall be locally present amongst them. So St. Paul speaks of his own being absent in Body but present in Spirit, 1. Cor. V 3. The Romans used to call their Gods Praesentes Deos, not as locally present but always ready to assist them: and whatever is in readiness when we want it, to answer our occasions may be properly said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to be at hand, to be present. A man does truly repraesentare pecuniam when he gives a good bill for it, though he does not pay it down in specie. The Holy Ghost is said to abide and dwell in us; which words imply a continual presence; no doubt Real, though not Physical and Local, but only by his grace and influence. In short whatever we enjoy, use, and reap the benefit of, as truly as if it were prae sensibus, is as Really present as if it were Physically so: nay no doubt when virtue went out of our Saviour's body to heal the woman in the Gospel; though the Jews thronged him, and she did but touch his garment, yet his body was more really present to her whom the virtue of it healed then to them whom the substance of it touched.  
So much for the use of the word: which when we of the Church of England use, we mean thus. A thing may be said to be really received, which is so consigned to us, that we can readily employ it to all those purposes, for which it is useful in itself, and we have occasion to use it: And a thing thus really received may be said to be really present two ways, viz. either Physically or Morally, to which we reduce Sacramentally. A Physical presence (now we speak of a natural Body) is local; antecedent to the reception and independent upon it: the thing is first really present and then really received; and though it were not received, would be still really present. A moral presence is only virtual consequent to the reception and dependent upon it: the thing is first really received, and by consequence said to be really present; but it is not at all present, to them that do not really receive it. Thus in the holy Eucharist, the Sacrament is Physically, the res Sacramenti, Morally present: the elements Antecedently and Locally, the very body Consequentially & Virtually but both Really present.  
From hence it is evident, that if we rightly understand the Presence, it is not material with what adverbs we affirm it. We may say it is Really, Essentially, nay Corporally present: that is, it is present in as much as it is Really received to all intents and purposes, for which the Res ipsa the Essence the Substance the very Body would be useful to us, if it were Physically and Locally present. And the difference between us and the Papists is plain. They (however they express themselves) understand a Local presence, which we deny and therefore reject their expression. We (whatever term we use) mean only a Spiritual and Virtual Presence, and explain the term we make use of to that effect. Thus the Protestants in K. Henry the Eighth's time, that suffered upon the six Articles, denied the Real Presence (i. e. the Popish sense of it) but meant the same thing with us, who think, we may lawfully use that term. On the other side that excellent Person and glorious Martyr Mr. Bradford 
* Acts and Monuments p. 1608. , I do believe (says he) that Christ is Corporally present, at and in the due Administration of the Sacrament. But he adds this explication, By this word Corporally I mean that Christ is present Corporally unto Faith.  
It is likewise evident, that when we say Christ is Present, or Adorable in the Sacrament, we do not mean in the Elements but in the Celebration. We affirm his natural Body to be Locally in Heaven and not here; and that we, who are here and not in Heaven, aught to Worship it as Locally present in Heaven while we celebrate the Holy Sacrament upon Earth.  
Lastly it is evident that this Doctrine is sufficiently removed from what the Pamphlet calls Zuinglianism, how truly I will not now inquire. For we do not hold that we barely receive the Effects and Benefits of Christ's Body: but we hold it Really Present in as much as it is Really received, and we actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us. So that while we Spiritually eat Christ's Flesh and drink his Blood, we through Faith, in a mysterious and ineffable manner, dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us: and by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet Real participation, we receive the Benefits consequent to it; even the remission of our Sins and all other benefits of Christ's Passion.  
This in short is our meaning; and to this effect all true Churches-of-england-man declare it. Whether we express ourselves in proper and accurate terms is another question, wherein if the Editor think fit to engage, we are ready to answer him. In the mean time we desire him and the rest of his Communion, not to catch up our words, and bait them in their own sense, which is too like the dealing of the Old Romans with the Primitive Christians.  
It remains that we say a word or two concerning Mr. Thorndike's Testimony, and so dismiss this Chapter. The reader may please to take notice, that the whole design of this Pamphlet is to furbish, and rig out a notion of Mr. Thorndike's in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England. The notion is neither the Church of England's, nor as I believe any other Churches: nor does he so much as pretend that any other man, much less any Church ever taught it. He only thinks it is * consistent with the analogy of Faith, not trenching (as he says) upon any ground of Christianity, and seems to propose it as a peaceable expedient, for complying outwardly with the Popish adoration of the Euch●●●●● a practice, which, when he wrote his 〈…〉 thought adviseable if it could be warranted, for he was then upon a project of Uniting all Christians in one Communion: and wrote his Epilogue on purpose to serve that design: not pretending to give the true sense of any party; but so to blanche the opinions of them all, that the difference of their Judgement might not hinder their Uniting. Wherefore he professes to expect 
* Preface to the Epilogue p. 45 etc.  the Lot of Reconcilers, to be contradicted by all parties; and owns that he says those things which he should have dissembled had the Church of England continued. But it seems he thought as some others did, when the King was Murdered, that the Church of England was utterly and irrecoverably dissolved: and that it was necessary to hold Communion with some Church: and if it were honestly practicable with the Church of Rome rather than another. 'Tis probable the Editor was of the same mind, for I remember to have heard this very plea made in his defence, by a friend of his about some Eighteen years since.  
But whatever Mr. Thorndike's opinion was when he wrote his Epilogue, 'tis certain when the King returned, he was a member of that Convocation that revised the Liturgy; that he constantly attended there; and had a hand more than ordinary in the Edition of sixty one. That he declared his unfeigned assent and consent, to all things in the Liturgy as it was then altered: that he conformed to it all the rest of his Life, and at last died in Communion with the Church that imposed the use of it.  
So then we have here quoted out of the Epilogue, a private opinion of a private man, and what's that to the Church? especially since for aught than appeared he was singular in it while he held it; & when occasion offered, he forsook it: professing his unfeigned assent to that Rubric, which the Pamphlet would confront with his Authority.   

CHAP. IU. A Reply to the third Chapter of the first Discourse.  

Disc. 1. §. 19 p. 13.  The Author's purpose in the third Chapter, is to combat this assertion in the Rubric, that it is against the truth of a natural body to be (i. e. as he explains it, that a natural body cannot truly be) in two places at once.  
Here is a kind of inauspicious stumble at the very entrance. For 'tis one thing to say as the Rubric does, that a true natural body cannot be; and another as he does that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once. For should we suppose as he would have us, that God should make one of our bodies be in two places at once; when God had done this, it would truly be in those places; but before he did it he must change the nature of the body, and make it cease to be a true natural body.  
This is but a slip: but in the next Paragraph 'tis neck or nothing. 
Ibid §. 20. n. 1.  He finds there that Protestants confess Christ's presence in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery (they own indeed our Union and Communion with him to be so, but supposing that, the Real Presence is easily explained. But admit the Real Presence be ineffable) what then? 
Ibid.  He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradictory to reason. Now any Protestant Child could have told him, tho' perhaps he will take it more kindly from the Catholic 
* Part 2. Cap. 6. pag. 41.  Representer: that the mysteries of Faith, are above reason not contrary to it. A little farther nihil magis incredibile says Calvin: therefore says the Author not this more incredible that. Idem Corpus etc. Away you Wagg; what thrice in one Paragraph?  
§. 20. n. 3. Dr. 
Disc. 1. § 20. n. 3 p ●4.  Taylor is Quoted saying that if Transubstantiation were plainly revealed he would burn all his arguments against it and believe it without more ado. And so say I too: yet I would not believe that a contradiction could be verified; but rather that they were deceived who thought that doctrine to imply a contradiction: for if it were plainly revealed, it would be certainly true; and if it were true it would not imply a contradiction. For a true proposition has a true meaning: but a contradiction has no meaning at all: 'tis an empty sound of words without any res substrata: whatever one part of it means, the other unmeans again, and so the whole means nothing▪ Besides of two contradictories one is always falls, so that to assert a contradiction is to affirm a falsehood for a truth, and this we are sure God cannot do, because he has told us he cannot lie. To conclude the Author himself seems to own that God cannot verify a contradiction and he gives a very wise and perspicuous reason for it which I leave to the Reader to consider.  
Again Dr. Taylor is Quoted saying, 
Ibid.  that the doctrine of the Trinity does as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation. And so say I too: yet I profess I can easier conceive it then I can Transubstantiation. For this supposes that a natural body being unum numero, is at the same time fifteen hundred bodies all numerically distinct: whereas the Doctrine of the Trinity says the three persons are one God, but it does not say they are one person: so that here's no ad Idem as there is in the other case, which implies a manifest contradiction, while the Doctrine of the Trinity implies none at all. The Doctrine of the Trinity transcends natural reason; Transubstantiation contradicts it in its own sphere: both of them do equal i e. both of them do alike so far offer violence to natural reason, that it cannot frame an adequate notion of either. Yet still it can conceive what obstructs the credibility of both; and that more things do so in one case then another: it can easily discern that what transcends it may for all that be true; but what contradicts it in its own sphere must needs be false. And this it can do without Scripture: but by Scripture it can further discover that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true, and Transubstantiation utterly false. These things are so plain and common, that it is nauseous to be forced by an unthinking writer to inculcate them. Whoever knows any thing of the reason of his Religion, knows all this and how to apply it to Dr. tailor's words without my telling him: and yet if I had trusted to that, these Quotations might perhaps have gone for unanswerable.  
In the next Section we come to a point. For since all contradictions are equally possible and credible why (says he) may not this contradiction that Idem corpus potest esse etc. 
Disc. 1. §. 21. p. 14.  bid as fair for our belief as another? No doubt it may; and that for this reason that all contradictions are equally, i. e. all of them absolutely, impossible, and incredible; we may as well believe this as another, because we can believe none at all. Why then (says he) I cannot apprehend how you believe a real presence. If he cannot apprehend it, 
Ibid. §. 22. p. 15.  we cannot help it; we do all that a reasonable man need desire to make him apprehend it; we speak in plain and intelligible terms; We tell him that we think it implies no contradiction to believe God can do things far above our comprehension; and therefore when God tells us, that the bread which we break is the Communication of Christ 's body, tho' we cannot explain this mystery, we can believe it without believing a contradiction; and granting this communication, the Real Presence may be easily understood and explained: at least it is no contradiction to say, that a body thus mystically communicated, may be really present when 'tis locally absent as was showed before.  
But the Author who has a peculiar way of thinking, 
Ibid. and §. 23, 24.  can think but of two expedients to evade a contradiction, in affirming a real and substantial, contra distinct to a Zuinglian Real presence: one of which is by holding a Zuinglian Real Presence. (compare §. 22. with §. 24. n. 1.) and so let that pass. The other is by an incomprehensible continuation of Christ's body. Bishop Usher would have told him a third; and other learned Protestants a fourth; but the major part of them will 
* So for instance Bp. Andrews quoted in the Pamphlet pag 7. §. II. n. 1. De modo praesentiae nihil temere definimus; addo nec anxie inquirimus etc. Inter mysteria ducimus, (& quidem mysterium est Eucharistia ipsa) cujus quod reliquum est debet igne absumi; (i. e.) ut eleganter imprimis Patres, fide adorari non ratione discuti.  tell him 'tis needless to inquire after any. For the Union of Christ's body to the Soul of a worthy communicant being an inexplicable mystery, yet plainly affirmed in Scripture; they with the fathers conclude, we have all the reason in the world to believe it; but none to attemt explaining it: and we can certainly believe it without believing a contradiction, tho' he that attemts to explain it, may chance to run himself into an inconvenience.  
Notwithstanding some Protestants hold that Christ's Body may be present by an ineffable continuation; 
Disc. I. § 23. p. 16.  and what has he to say to them? Why He thinks he may as probably suppose it Present by an ineffable discontinuation. Perhaps not; for their Opinion may be an Error, but his I doubt is a Bull: at least if I rightly understand that abstruse notion of Presence by discontinuation; which looks so like a contradiction in terms, that to me it is almost inconceivable, not for the mystery of it but the nonsense.  
Perhaps the example he gives may a little clear this difficulty. The Soul he tells us is totally in the head and foot: and if a Spirit may be in two Ubies, who can tell but a Body may be in two Places? 
Ibid.  That's a Consequence which I leave to shift for its self among the Freshmen: But I would fain know what the Souls Ubiety makes here? for if it serve to any purpose in this question 'tis to illustrate a Zuinglian Real Presence as he calls it, for as the substance of the Soul not being coextended to the dimensions of the Body, is lodged but in some one part; but the virtue informs them all as effectually as if its proper Vbi were in each of them; and in this sense the Soul is said to be tota in toto & tota in qualibet parte: so (to make a just parallel) the natural Body of Christ which is Locally only in Heaven, does as effectually impart its virtue to every worthy Communicant, as if it were Locally present to each of them upon earth; and is therefore said to be Really Present in the Eucharist. But to proceed. If this be a true account of the Souls Ubiety, I see no occasion of conceiving it to manage the Body with one foot in the water and the other out like a broken Oblicer, 
Ibid.  for the placing of the Body altars nothing in the Presence of the Soul. Oh but what if the Legs be cut of? 
Ibid.  and the same Soul supposed still to inform them as before, per potentiam divinam? why I think they might as well have stayed on; for the Soul will be Present as before; the Substance where it was before, and the Virtue in the Legs as it was before. Well but let him suppose what he can't explain, that God by his Omnipotence may make a Soul be in too Vbies, what will he get by it? Not that the Soul is or may be so, for a thing is never the truer or more possible for his supposing it, but only that if a man suppose God can make a soul be in two Vbies, than he must suppose that a soul may be in two Vbies; which is a great truth, and no less a secret. Now does he say any thing to induce a man to this strange supposal? Not a Syllable that I can find to show the equity or decency of it; not a Syllable to take of the impossibility. But here is the Divine Omnipotence unaccountably summoned to vouch an impertinent Bull, which if it be granted we are never the nearer. So perfect a tally is this Author's understanding to his Judgement.  
I have already spoke of what is most material in the next Section, if any thing be farther observable, 
Ibid §. 24. n. 1. p. 17.  it is this question, viz. If Dr. Tailor's exposition of the real presence be Orthodox, what becomes of— praesentiam non minus quam illi veram quoted out of Bishop Andrews. If a man would take advantage of this Quoter's blundering, he might translate those words. We believe a real presence as well as they. But we take the Bishop's words 
* Bishop Andrews answ. to Bellarm. n. II.  praesentiam credimus; nec minus quam vos, veram; and his meaning, that the Spiritual presence which we hold is as Real as the Corporal which the Papists hold: and I hope we need not stay to prove a thing so manifest, and so universally agreed on, 
Disc. 1. §. 24. n. 2, 3, 4.  as that what is Spiritual is as Real as what is Corporal.  
From this Passage to the twenty fifth Section, he reports the disagreement of the Schoolmen, 
Ibid. §. 25, 26.  in whose quarrels we are no way concerned. After this digression he spends two Sections to show that the Real and Essential presence in the old Rubric, must mean the same with the Corporal presence in the new. To which we have already answered, that K. Edward's Reformers not only thought but said so. In the twenty seventh Section he is at it again, 
Disc I. pag 20.  that the absurdity of Idem Corpus, etc. presses us as much as the Papists: and again in the twenty eighth that all he has been saying from the twenty second is to show that to his apprehension, we must either hold this contradiction, or another equivalent, or cease to hold a Real Presence contradistinct to that of the Zwinglians. To this we have likewise answered, that if he will apprehend things aukwardly, we cannot help it. We have told him very plainly how we hold a Real Presence, and shown it to be far enough from what he calls a Zuinglian presence: and all this without holding any contradiction; or so much as meddling with that question whether two Contradictories may be both true? But the Papists (and he if he were one of them) neither do nor can explain their Presence without holding a contradiction; which is one of the very many arguments, we urge against that prodigious doctrine.  

Disc I. §. 29 30.  The two next Sections are quotations out of Protestant" writers to this effect. That we care not to dispute the Extent of God's Absolute Power; that it is not pertinent to this question; that some men are too bold in setting bounds to the Almighty; and others too forward in pronouncing what implies a contradiction; and therefore the safest way is to wave these points, and stick to what is revealed. All this is most undoubtedly true, and constantly maintained by our best writers. We grant that no Judicious or Pious man would discourse of God's absolute power more than he has revealed; or press the Papists with Idem Corpus, etc. were it only a Philosophical argument: much less would a Judicious man speak to either of the points, when they were not pertinent to his purpose. But when God has declared he cannot verify a contradiction; 
* For example, we read in Scripture that Christ was made in all things like unto us, Sin only excepted; and that the Heaven of Heavens must contain him (i e his Natural Body) till the restitution o● all things; and that God who says both those things cannot Lie, from whence it is evident that the Natural Body of Christ is an Organical Body such a one as ours; which, as all men agree, can never be said to be Locally Present in two places at once, without affirming such a contradiction, as God declares he cannot verify. Wherefore when the Scripture says that Christ's Natural Body is and must continue to be Locally in Heaven; we have Gods own warrant to affirm, that even the Divine Omnipotence cannot make it to be Locally Present at the same time upon Earth. This the Angel in effect affirms when he says to the Women that sought Christ's Body, he is risen, he is not here: for such an answer would but ill become the mouth of an Angel, if it were possible for his Body to be risen, and yet be there at the same time.  and the maxim of Idem Corpus, etc. is applied in Scripture to our Saviour's natural body; when we wave this where it is not necessary; to wit in explaining our own doctrine; and employ it only against those that do, and must maintain the contrary; we presume that neither the Judgement nor Piety of our Writers will be questioned by any man that has but a grain of either. Though it would not be altogether impertinent, even while we confine ourselves to revelation, if finding that Idem Corpus, etc. is a truth allowed in Scripture, we infer that the contradiction of it must be false and therefore cannot be revealed. And certainly did a man that considered what he said apply himself to answer this argument, he would endeavour to take off the contradiction, and show it was not real but apparent only; and not, as this unthinking Author does, maintain that contradictions may be verified; which position were it once granted, 'twere in vain to dispute or but assert any thing; and impossible to give a firm assent to any conclusion either in Reason or Religion. Wherefore it is ridiculous and impious in this man & Bellarmin and the rest of them to invoke the Divine Omnipotence when they run their heads against a contradiction. But they that pretend to make God when they please, may by the same reason make him do what they please.  
This I hope is a sufficient guard, against the untoward application of any Protestant writings, wherewith the Pamphlet either does or can abuse the common Reader in this matter. 
Disc. I. pag. 22. Ibid. §. 19 p. 13.  In the end of the thirtieth Section, he palms upon us a passage out of S. Austin, which is very surprising. He professes to forbear quoting the Fathers, because the Protestants have done it for him; though we may take leave to suppose another Reason; but here when he thought he could delude the Reader with S. Austin's authority, he is willing to make his best of him. It seems that excellent Father in his 
* Tom. 6. p. 515. & Seqq. Edit. nov. Paris.  Cura pro mortuis having proved that Martyrs cannot interest rebus viventium, without a Miracle; immediately adds that Quemadmodum, the modus whereby this Miracle is wrought is beyond his capacity, too sublime, too abstruse for him, he had rather inquire of them that know, Vtrum ipsi per seipsos adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis? or whether they relieved their votaries by the Ministry of Angels? or whether it be both these ways? Which shows as the Pamphlet tells us this Father believed no impossibility of a Martyr's being uno tempore in diversis locis. Would not any man imagine now, who knows what point the Author drives at, that he would have S. Austin say a a Martyr's Body might be in two places at once? and would he not wonder that S. Austin should be quoted for this purpose, who is 
* Epist. 57 ad Dardanum— carnis forma atque substantia, cui profecto immortalitatem dedit▪ naturam non abstulit. Cavendum enim est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis, ut veritatem corporis auferamus Una enim p●rsona Deus & Homo est, & Utrumque est unus Christus Jesus; Ubique per id quod Deus est; in Coelo autem per id quod Homo. Idem Tract. 31. in Joan. Homo enim secundum corpus, in loco est & de loco migrat; & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco unde venit non erit. Et Tract 30 in Joan. Corpus enim Domini in uno loco esse oportet (so Ivo, Gratiam, Lombard & Aquinas quote it; not potest as 'tis Printed) veritas ubique diffusa est.  elsewhere so express and peremptory that the Natural Body of Christ himself cannot be in two places at once? But the Author is wary; for he knew very well that by ipsi per seipsos S. Austin meant, as he explains himself, ipsorum animae in figura corporis sui. But did not S. Austin then believe that a Spirit might be in two places at once? Perhaps not; but was therefore at a loss because he knew not how to believe it; and this put him upon search of other solutions. I will not now inquire whether a Spirit may be said to be in two places at once? as the Souls of the Martyrs were by some perhaps supposed to have been; though the affirmative may be explained without holding a contradiction: but rather observe how S. Austin concludes this point, viz. If the man whom he consulted should tell him out of Scripture, This thing is above your reach and therefore forbear your enquiry; he would thankfully receive this answer and and acquiesce. So upon the whole matter S. Austin delivers himself like a true Church-of-England-man; Here's a point started which is past my understanding; the difficulties and ways of solution are these: I cannot determine and therefore do not care to dispute; I submit to Scripture, and content myself with the Certainty of the thing, without enquiring into the modus. I wish other Writers would follow this example; and then perhaps we might keep our Religion without parting with our common sense.  
The thirty first Section containing only old matter has been spoken to before. 
Disc. I. pag. 23.  I only add that if the Author allow Dr Heylin's reason, why does he give a different one of his own? if not, why does he quote it?  
In the thirty second Section he repeats the old blunder about Real and Corporal; 
Ibid.  and adds two or three to keep it company. He cannot discern he says why it should not be a contradiction for a Body to be Locally in one place and Really Received in another? He should read Mr. Walker's Logic which will tell him that two contradictories have the same Subject and Predicate. He says it is insidious in the Rubric not to say that the Body Locally Absent is Really Received, and may tempt a man to doubt whether the Church thinks it to be so. Now I fancy not; because the Catechism is very express. He is troubled we refuse other men's contradictions, and expect our own should pass currently. But we have told him that we neither hold nor meddle, that we know of, with any contradiction in explaining our own Doctrine, and he has not yet vouchsafed to make it appear we do.  
From hence to the end of the Chapter he is as busy as if he were playing with 
* Book of Education part. 1. chap. 11. pag. 145. printed 1677.  Thesauro's Bees. Five ways he has found out of explaining Really and Essentially, and no man Living, that I know of, either says or means any one of them as they are there delivered. 
Disc. I. §. 33.  He says he does this to express his disquisition more fully  
The three first explications are three such unaccountable Whimsyes, as need no other disquisition, but whether the words are capable of a rational meaning. For example. 
Ibid.  If by Really and Essentially be meant such a Presence of Christ's body to our souls as the Papists hold there is to the Elements, i. e. by abolishing the substance of the Soul and substituting Christ's body in the room of it etc. and so for the two next. The fourth speaks imperfectly, 
§. 36. pag. 25. Ibid.  but seems to say something of truth, viz. that the body becomes Really present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven. To this he objects that then Christ would be no more present in the Eucharist then in any other Sacrament, wherein the Spirit is conferred. In which I see no inconvenience; nor do I believe the Fathers did, when they said Christ is present in the Eucharist as he is in Baptism. He objects farther" that such presence is properly of the Spirit: 
Ibid.  which I hope for his credit is only a mistake of the Press; and that the written copy had it by the Spirit. The fifth explication is likewise imperfect, if he apply it to the Church of England; which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits; but a Real participation of the body, & by consequence of the effects and benefits. But the great and kill objection against all explications, he dislikes, is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism. Whether the opinion, which he brands by that name, be truly ascribed to Zuinglius, and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend, I need not now stay to inquire; 'tis sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it. Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our observation. It seemeth (saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308.) much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective Discourses are made, all running upon two points, that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only, and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament. For no man having read their Books and Writings, which are thus traduced, can be ignorant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true, they do not so interpret the words of Christ, as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signify his Blood. They grant that these Holy mysteries Received in a due manner, do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood, which were given for the Life of the World, and besides also impart unto us, even in True and Real though Mystical manner, the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire as hath been showed. These words may receive farther light from Bishop Cosins' History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17, 18. Now they that acknowledge thus much, hold a Real Participation and Union; which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence. And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be used; but perhaps be better let alone. The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius, was as Bucer reports the tenant of the Anabaptists; and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puritans in the beginning of the late Rebellion. And by them 'tis most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours, who at that time was observed to be their great associate and favourer.  

Disc. I. §. 37 p. 25.  What the Remonstrants and Socinians say does no way concern us; much good may they do the Author, they who set up for so great masters of reason will but ill resent it that a man of his head should pretend to them. 
Ibid. §. 38.  Who W.H. is, and who his Answerer I know not, having never seen either of their Books, And being so well acquainted with this Author's sincerity, I cannot depend upon his Credit, I meet with nothing quoted, but what 'tis easy to give an account of; but to do it as it should be one ought to have the Books by him: for I vehemently suspect this Answerer has fared no better than his Brethren.   

CHAP. V A Reply to the Fourth Chapter of the first Discourse.  
TO the third Observable laid down in the first Chapter which now comes to be considered, the Author has three things to say.  
1. That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist, 
Disc. I p. 27. §. 39  it ought to be, then, adored; which we grant him and had he designed to dispute for the Papists, he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present.  
2. 
Ibid §. 40.  That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be revealed, which is as Real and Essential, as if it were Corporal; adoration will be no less due to it thus, then so Present. That is, (if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow) that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent, yet as Truly and Really Present, as if it were Locally Present; she is as much bound, to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence, which she owns, as she would be if she likewise owned that Corporal and Local Presence which she denies. I say to adore the Elements: for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body, abstracting from the hypostatical Union, be more than a creature, which is not adorable with Divine worship; For all understanding men are agreed it is not: Or whether Christ's person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or howsoever present, is to be adored both in and out of the Sacrament, viz. in the performance of all religious offices; still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present; for this is allowed by all true Christians whatsoever. This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it; in the mean time we deny it.  
3 He undertakes to show that the Church of England (i e. five writers of her Communion, 
Disc. I. pag. 28. §. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45.  whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue) have heretofore believed and affirmed such a Presence, to which they thought adoration due. To adore a presence is an odd kind of expression; for 'tis to adore an extrinsic denomination. To adore Christ present in the mysteries, is a phrase we better understand; though that too be liable to misconstruction. If the author dare to speak plain, the point that pinches, and the true thing to be proved, is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist, that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshipped upon that account. And if this be so, as I think I have plainly shown, I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose, who expressly in the very quotation declares himself against him, saying Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus; or Bishop Taylor saying likewise, We give no divine honour to the Signs, or Bishop Forbes saying, Haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni debetur; or the Archbishop of Spalleto, since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Archbishop. I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion.  

Disc. I. pag 29. §. 47.  Having given us this taste of his other good qualities, he concludes with a spice of his Logic, and infers 1. That notwithstanding what he has said, the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist; contrary to the forecited Doctrine, and K. James' and Bishop Andrews' Religion. I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions; but tell him that the King's, the Bishop's, and the Church's meaning is very plain, viz. that since Christ's Natural Body is not to be adored but where it is Corporally & Locally Present; & it is not so Present in the Eucharist: that therefore in the Sacrament (i. e. in the celebration) the worthy Communicant, to whose Soul that Body is really present, is to adore the person of Christ in heaven where alone his Body is Locally Present. This I doubt the Author very well knew, and saw it was no way contrary to the Declaration. Wherefore he seems to lay no great stress upon this first inference, but goes on Or at least 2 lie. And here he would have it be infidious in the Church to deny that Adoration is due to a Corporal presence, 
Ibid.  and not declare though she believes that there is another adorable presence. Now I cannot imagine that even this Author has the confidence to say the Church of England has not sufficiently taught that Christ in Heaven is adorable; or the ignorance to think that any good Christian is not sufficiently assured of that point. But as for adoring Christ's Body any otherwise then by directing adoration to his person where his body is supposed to be Locally present, neither the Church of England nor any other Church ever dreamt of it.   

CHAP. VI A Reply to the fifth Chapter of the first Discourse.  
THe fifth is the kindest Chapter in all this Discourse: for the six first Sections require no manner of answer, and the last seems at first sight to show some little ingenuity; which with this Author is a thing so extraordinary, that had he not retracted, I think we must have given him public thanks for it.  
He tells us that perhaps some other passages may be collected out of the Authors he has quoted, 
Disc. I. pag. 32. §. 55.  that may seem to qualify those he has set down, and better suit with the expressions of the Declaration. For it seems his Conscience flew in his Face, because he very well knew, that if the Reader consulted the Authors themselves, not only the passages he omitted, but those he mangled, would be found entirely agreeable to the Declaration. The only way left to escape discovery, was to prevent, if he could, the search as unnecessary. Wherefore he says tnat if the unquoted passages come over to the quoted, we are then but where we were: and the quoted accommodated to the unquoted will appear to abett but bare Zuinglianism. To this I have answered as much as is necessary already and therefore shall not repeat or add to it.  

Disc. I. pag. 30, 31, 32.  The former part of the Chapter is spent in creating and annihilating such objections as are worthy the Author's sagacity. Three such he has devised as no man else could have thought on; and is pleased to answer them himself; for no other man was worthy. I will not interrupt his triumph, or provoke him to renew the combat, by telling him there yet seems to be life in those objections: but rather advise him to consider, and spare himself, and not batter his own notions in this cruel and hostile manner; he has another more gentle and easy method; he knows how to contradict them by his way of proving them. But if he be so bend upon Controversy, that he cannot be contented to live in Peace; I would (rather than quarrel with himself) he would look down upon this Reply. Not that I pretend in my own strength to cope with so puissant an Adversary; but asserting the Doctrine of the Church of England, I may safely defy all Opponents.   

CHAP. VII. A Reply to the eight first Sections of the Second Discourse.  
THE Title of this second Discourse does but ill agree with the design of it. For all the world knows that Papists, who should be the Catholics this Author means, by a Real and Substantial understand a Corporal Presence, and ground their Adoration upon it. Whereas the scope of this Discourse is to show, that the Papists in Adoring either do or may prescind from Transubstantiation; and ground their Adoration precisely upon the Reality of the Presence: and by consequence that Protestants especially of the Church of England, who hold Christ Truly Present and Adorable in the Eucharist; aught upon their own Principles to join in the Popish adoration; or at least absolve them that do so from the guilt of Idolatry.  
What the Writers of the Church of England mean when they hold a Real Presence, and in what sense they teach us to Adore Christ's Body in the Sacrament; I hope I have already explained so fully, that I need make no repetition: so that the first six leaves of this Defence, will afford us little new matter, being chief taken up in repeating some quotations in the first Discourse; and aiming at no more than a specimen of Protestant concessions, which by what we have said are sufficiently guarded against the Sophistry of his interpretations. Wherefore waving for the present a distinct examen of all his Protestant quotations, as a thing tedious, and no way necessary, serving chief to divert and amuse the Reader, and thereby puzzle the cause, I shall make it the business of this Chapter to speak briefly to those other passages that are most observable in the eight first Sections of this Defence.  

Disc II. pag. 1. §. 1, 2, 3.  His two first Suppositions we grant him, being convinced of the truth of them by much better reasons than he assigns. Nor should we have demurred to the third, if we were not now acquainted with his insidious and shuffling way of talking. But if we may explain ourselves we grant him that Wherever the Body of our Lord is Locally Present, it is supremely Adorable. We likewise grant him that the Omnipresent God may be adored, before or in the Presence of any Creature, (we on earth cannot worship him but in the presence of some Creature) provided always we direct our Adoration immediately and solely to him; not considering the Creatures present, nor addressing the outward act, much less the inward worship of the Heart, to any Creature upon the score of God's presence. For (taking Adoration for divine Worship) it is certainly Idolatry not only to adore a Creature, but even to make it (as I may so say) the vehicle of that adoration which we direct to God, and terminate upon him alone. 'Tis true Christ's natural Body abstractedly considered is a creature: but than it is for ever hypostatically united to the Deity; so that the whole person of Christ is that very Lord our God, whom we must worship, and whom alone we must serve. But no other creature is so united by virtue of God's presence to or in or with that creature: and even that body is not so (i. e. hypostatically) united, but as it exists like other human bodies within some determinate local circumscription: wherefore no other creature may be adored; nor even Christ's Body but as it exists and is united, and thereby becomes adorable, where it is Locally present.  
I pass by the place in the Corinthians which the Pamphlet most impertinently refers to, 
Disc. II. pag 2. § 3.  having already taken notice of the Author's practice in such cases. Nor shall I much insist upon that passage; that Christ's humanity abstractively considered is adorable with a Worship not exceeding that due to a Creature: 
Ibid.  for we are not now talking of Inferior Adoration, but supreme Divine Worship. We know that adorare is by some taken for manum ori admovere; to kiss the hand (or any thing else) in token of respect, which, as some Papists would persuade us, is all they do to their Images. But 'tis certainly foppery if it be no worse to do so to any thing but an intelligent being. Besides we know it was a 
* Lucian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  ceremony of the heathen Idolatry, and Job is of opinion, 
Ibid.  that if he had used it to the sun (in which our author newly instanced) it had been an iniquity to be punished by the Judge, for he should have denied the God that is above. Job. XXXI. 26.27.28.  
In the fifth Section he tells us that Protestants, 
Disc. II. pag. 2. § 5. n. 1.  of the Church of England especially, grant the body and blood of Christ to be Really Present in the Eucharist not in Virtue only but in Substance: and that this body and blood of our Lord which is not severed from his person is then to be worshipped with Supreme Adoration. This we likewise grant him, as we have already explained it according to the mind of those Protestants, and so pass over the quotations which take up the two next sections, together with abundance of advantage that an adversary might take: for we are now in pursuit of an argument, that is in some danger to be lost in this mist of quotations.  
These are all the Concessions wherein the Church of England is concerned: and therefore we might pass over the two next; which I cannot imagine to what purpose he mentions. 
Disc. II. pag 10. § 7.  For though the Lutherans grant (as some, not all of 'em do) that during the action of the Eucharist, Christ's body is to be adored, as by Consubstantiation present to the Consecrated Symbols: I see not what advantage this concession gives to his cause, or how it is any way prejudicial to ours. For the Lutherans hold a Local Presence; wherefore some of them think they may adore; and if we could believe their Presence we should not contest their Adoration.  

Ibid p. 11.  To as little purpose does he press us with Monsieur Daille's concessions. For, if he grant more than the Church of England does, she is not bound to defend him: tho' in this case I think he does not; and so we may safely join with him in his concessions. For the reason why we cannot Communicate with the Church of Rome, is not barely because she holds an Error, but because she proposes it under an Anathema; and grounds an Idolatrous practice upon it; and requires our consent to both these things as a term of Her Communion. This the Lutherans do not: and therefore tho' their opinion be Erroneous, their Communion need not be unlawful. Now to see with what judgement the Defender makes use of this concession. He's to prove that Protestants by their own rules ought to join in the Popish adoration; and his argument is that Mons. Daillè says we cannot communicate with the Papists as long as they impose their adoration; tho' otherwise we might if they only believed erroneously and kept their error to themselves.  

Ibid. p. 12.  Once more this Judicious Author appeals to M. Daillè, who believing as the Church of England does, that to Worship any Host is Idolatry, yet grants if the case were otherwise, and if a Consecrated Host were truly adorable, it were possible to adore one that is not Consecrated, without committing formal Idolatry. Likewise He and Dr. Stillingfleet grant that when Christ was upon Earth (where his person was confessedly adorable) a man that by inculpable mistake had adored another person for him, might have likewise been absolved from the guilt of formal Idolatry. And both these concessions are as certainly true, as certanly alleged to no purpose. But perhaps the Author means the reason only, not the instances, to be pertinent, and would infer no more but that Papists by our own concessions may be no Idolaters though they Worship a Creature; because they may do this by an inculpable mistake. This I grant may be something (not to his but) to the Papists purpose, if he prove them inculpably mistaken; but that We should suppose them so, I cannot see why he should pretend. For he knows that we think Transubstantiation to be more than a mistake; a flat and manifest defiance of Sense and Reason, Scripture and Tradition; and in that respect more culpable than the grossest Heathen mistake: for they (to mention no other disparity) wanted the Light of Scripture, which the Papists have, and shut their eyes against; and this in our opinion makes a vast difference between the Popish and Heathen Idolatry.   

CHAP. VIII. A Reply to the six next Sections of the second Discourse beginning at §. 9  
SO much for the Protestant Concessions. The Defender in the six next Sections, pretends to lay down Catholic Assertions; which I doubt will be no more allowed by the Church of Rome, than his Protestant Concessions are by the Church of England. First he tells us tha● Catholics affirm there is in the Eucharist after consecration, a Sign distinct and having a divers existence from the thing signified. 
Disc. II. pag. 13. §. 9  Whence he concludes that Dr. Stillingfleet does them wrong, when he says they grant the Signs to be hypostatically united to the Thing signified. A Sign there must be, says his own quotation out of Bellarmin, or there can be no Sacrament. Wherefore we presume they hold a Sign. But then the Sign as they explain it, is neither the Sign instituted by Christ, (which doubless a Sacramental sign ought to be) nor indeed any other Sign, but a Sign that signifies nothing. Then for the separate Existence of it, some Papists do not hold that neither; as the Author could not but see in that very place of Dr Taylor, which he refers to in this Section: which makes it somewhat strange, that so liberal a quoter should here be so unseasonably sparing, as not to afford us one testimony that expressly owns this separate Existence. But all Papists that will talk consistently must deny it: not only because an accident cannot exist without inherence; but because they hold the Species united to the Body to make one entire object of Adoration; which cannot be without a Hypostatical Union. Wherefore Bellarmin and Valentia though they do not use the term [Hypostatically] yet find themselves obliged to say the thing; and explain the Union of the Species to the Body in the same manner as they do the Hypostatical Union. Valentia indeed is so much a Jesuit as having said the thing, to deny the word: but Bellarmin is more considering. And this is all, that excellent Person says, whom the Author therefore traduces for slandering the Catholics: to which I can only say, that he certainly slanders Dr Stillingfleet; and I know not how to count him a Papist who will not allow Bellarmin to be one of his Catholics 
* See Dr. Stillingfleet, of the Idolatry of the Ch of Rome, cap. 2. § 4. pag. ●25.   
He adds that his Catholics affirm this Sign, we are speaking of, to be all that of the Bread and Wine which is perceptible by any sense: and therefore when they tell us that the Substance is done away, 
Disc. II. pag. 14. §. 10.  they take Substance in such a sense as is nonsense; For so he says though in more and other words: but 'tis good to be as brief as may be when we talk unintelligibly. And nonsense is a sort of sense very proper for this subject being the remaining species and accidents of sense when the substance of it is done away. Wherefore our Author proceeds in the same strain, and tells us that his Catholics allow Local positions to be predicated of Christ's Body, indivisibly present; but to taste, to be digested to nourish▪ to be pressed with the Teeth, to be burnt, or gnawed by brutes, these belong only to the Species, and not to Christ's Body which is impassable. All this is to be understood in the Sense last mentioned; wherefore he wisely forbears to give a reason; and only quotes Bellarmin, who is now become one of his Catholics. But Bellarmin at best was but a fallible Cardinal, and infallible Pope 
* See the Preface to Determinatio. Jo. Parisiensis, lately Printed at London p 5, 6.  Nicholas II. with his Cardinals made Berengarius tell another tale. And though Hildebrand differed from Nicholas, and Innocent III. from them both; yet we must not inquire how all these Popes were Infallible, and their several Adherents Orthodox, and yet our Author's Doctrine good Catholic Doctrine still. For the Book of Education tells us, that 
* Part. I. cap. 9 p 92.  Acuteness & Sagacity are apt to dispose men to Heresy: and 'tis certain that no man can become a Through Convert of this Authors, till his Brains be Case-hardned to be proof against all manner of contradictions.  
In the eleventh Section he says that the word Sacrament is not always taken in the same sense. 
Disc 2. pag. 14. §. 11.  We allow him to take it in any sense provided it be sense that he takes it in. Wherefore we except not to his taking Sacramentum for Res Sacramenti when he explains how his Catholics adore the Sacrament. It seems that they to the Sacramentum give an inferior cult; but Divine adoration (which I wonder why he would not call latry) to the Res Sacramenti only, 
Ibid  viz. only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in the Sacrament (for so he says) and to him precisely as Really present, abstracting both from Transubstantiation and the belief of a Corporal presence; for so he explains himself afterwards. Now if there be no Popery Lurking under that sly word cult, I am afraid this Catholic Defender will go for as rank a Heretic as any Calvinist that now rows in the Galleys. For to give the Papists sense in the words of 
* Theol. quaest. 79. disp.  Suarez. Non solum Christus sed totum visibile Sacramentum, unico cultu, adoratur. 'Tis not an inferior cult to the Species that will serve the turn; nor Duly nor Hyperduly neither, but 
* Moral. l. 8 cap. 32.  Henriquez says it must be Latry; speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent. In short 
* Disc concerning the Adoration of the Host, lately reprinted at London.  the remaining Species of Bread and Wine together with the Natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them, make one entire object of the Papists adoration which they call Sacramentum. And this they tell us the Council of Trent means, when it requires 
* Sess. 13. cap. 5.  Omnes Christi fideles Latriae cultum huic Sanctissimo Sacramento adhibere. 
* Dr. Stillingfleet Idolatry of the Church of Rome cap. 2 pag. 116.  Nor is this Denied that I know of by any that understand either the Doctrine or the Practice of the Church of Rome. So says the Great & Learned Dr Stillingfleet in the place here quoted by our Author: who should have confuted this passage instead of nibbling at an unanswerable argument: else the meaning of the Council will always be judged, by the Doctrine and Practice of the Church; and the most artificial disguise the Defender has in his Wardrobe will never make his Catholics pass currently for true Papists.  
I am not solicitous what the words of the Council of Trent are, nor I think ever shall be, till I forget the two famous controversies that 
* See F. Paul's History, lib 2. pag. 216.228.  Soto had with Vega and Catharinus. 
Disc 2. pag 15. § 12.  For if they who were members of the Council, and so eminently concerned in wording the Decrees, were for all this ignorant of the true sense of those Decrees; 'tis now I doubt too late for a Protestant to give 'em a determinate meaning; nor need any man regard 'em any more than those other Oracles that were dictated with the like ambiguity. But to guide us in this Labyrinth, the Defender gives us a Judicious Observation, as he calls it, out of Sancta Clara which is this. 
Disc. 2. §. 13. p. 17.  The substance of the Catholic Faith is declared both in the Chapters and Canons; but yet the Canons we must stick to, where the form is exceeding exact, though the manner of expression sometimes different from that in the Chapters. How Judicious this remark is, and how much for the Council's honour, may perhaps be questioned: but how well 'tis applied to the present case, where the Canon is more ambiguous and therefore less exact than the Chapter; is a thing will admit of no dispute: nor will any man contest this Author's title to so Judicious an application.  
After a leafe's insignificant pother, he comes to this final Resolution. 
Disc. 2. §. 14. p. 18.  That to adore the Sacrament is at most but an improper expression. And says as magisterially as ever Soave did, that dutiful Children ought to learn of their Mother how to speak; 
Disc. 2. p. 17.  provided always (say I) that their Mother do not teach them to abuse their Father; and if they cannot come at their Mother, or cannot understand her language, I hope 'tis no offence to ask her meaning of their Brethren that know her mind. But after all it is not the expression but the practice that we complain of; 'tis not talking improperly, but committing Idolatry that we fear; 'tis not his inferior cult, but Suarez's unico cultu that we cannot digest. And if the Defender would not urge us by pardoning an expression to allow a great Sin, we would not only suffer, but advise him to talk improperly and singularly, that so his language might the better correspond with his notions.   

CHAP. IX. A Reply to the nine next Sections of the second Discourse beginning at §. 15.  
HItherto the Author has been ranging; in the fifteenth Section he seems to make a set. 
Disc. 2. pag. 19  He denies that the Protestants give a true state of the question and his instance is in Dr. Stillingfleet, whom his evil Genius ever prompts him to attack; notwithstanding his briskest attempts so constantly & scandalously miscarry. To him he joins Bishop Andrews and Bishop Taylor; whose words if they be pertinently applied here, are so disingenuously quoted in other parts of this Pamphlet, that I doubt the Author's dealing will amount to a very improper expression.  
But if Protestants state the question wrong; let us hear how this Author himself states it. He reduces the whole controversy to these two questions 1. 
Ibid. p. 20.  Wither the Body and Blood of Christ (prescinding from whatever symbol is or may be there) is adorable, as being present in the Sacrament with the symbols? 2 lie Wither the adoration of Christ's Body (and so of Christ) as present, if it should not be so, will amount to Idolatry? always supposing as he adds in the 17 th' Section, that we continue to adore the self same object as the Papists now do, in the self same place, 
pag 21.  with all the same circumstances wherewith their adoration is now performed.  
To this I answer, that I cannot take it upon this Author's word, that Popes and Councils with the most and best of the Romish writers, have so abandoned all common sense and ingenuity, as to say and practice what they have done, if they really meant no more than he pretends. For this were an improper expression with a witness; an insincerity that an honest Heathen would tremble at. Nor if one or two Schoolmen were really of his mind, should he that in the Guide is so great a stickler for majorities, here propose the opinion of a few forlorn members, for the standing Judgement of the whole Church. The true sons of the Church of Rome are more ingenuous; and own that they believe, the species together with the Body, to make one entire object, to which they pay one entire act of adoration. For the truth of this together with a full state and decision of this question I refer the Reader to a 
* Printed at London 1685. for Brab. Ailmer and lately reprinted.  late excellent Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host. For it is not my present business to dispute with Honest minded Papists, whose errors I hearty lament, and beseech God to open their eyes; but with this shuffling writer, who being indeed of no Church, would fain pin himself now upon the Church of Rome. This (says he) is affirmed by Catholics; more than this need not be so, and again, 
Disc 2. pag 20. l. 7. Ibid l. 2 Disc 2. pag. 16.  The Roman Church owns or imposes no more. So likewise §. 13. The definition of this Council in the sixth canon, (more than which is not required to be professed by any Son of the Roman Church) is this Si quis dixerit etc. That is (as is declared more at large in the fifth discourse of the Guide) the stress of all lies upon si quis dixerit & si quis negaverit. 
§. 186. p. 133.  So that if a man be but a little complaisant in his practice and keep a good tongue in his head, let him be what he will in his heart, he may still be one of this Author's Catholics, though I doubt none of the Church of Rome's. For though the greatest sins are with him but improper expressions, yet all honest men of the Roman or any other communion, will call his dealing by a proper expression which I do not now care to name.  
Wherefore the Controversy between us and this Author (for the Church of Rome is no way concerned in his dreams) is briefly this. Whether prescinding from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence, and allowing only a Real Presence as the writers of the Church of England do, it is Idolatry to pay the self same adoration, with the self same ceremonies to the self same object in the self same place and manner, that the Papists now pay it to the Consecrated Elements? To this I answer Affirmatively; and hope I have already 
* Chap. 7. par. 2. of this Reply.  given a good and sufficient reason why I do so. It remains that I examine what the Author has to say for the Negative.  
First he says those Protestants who absolve the Lutherans from Idolatry, 
Disc. 2. §. 19  may, as he has stated the matter, as well absolve his Catholics. To which I am not concerned to answer, tho' 'tis false and easily confutable, because his own state excludes the consideration both of a Popish and Lutheran Presence as far as either of them differ from the Church of England's Real Presence.  
Come we therefore 2 lie to the twenty first section, where he supposes both Papists and Lutherans in an error; both mistaking Christ the true object of supreme Adoration to be in a place where he is not. 
Ibid. p. 25.  He should add, and the Papists upon that mistake adoring an object that is not at all Adorable. Now this he says cannot be termed any such Idolatry, as is the Worship of an object not at all Adorable. Such or not such is not properly the question, but whether it be Idolatry? Wherefore I pass by his impertinent trifling with his Angel and his Serpent; for the argument he should answer is this. The Israelites and Manichees, who directed the outward act of adoration to a Creature, were accounted Idolaters by God and the Primitive Church; notwithstanding their own supposing, or the Author's supposing for them: and we by the same reason say that whoever pays the adoration aforesaid to the Consecrated Elements, let him suppose what he will, will for all his supposition commit an improper expression which God and the Church will account Idolatry.  
His third assertion must be taken in pieces. 
Disc. 2. pag. 26. §. 22.  He says Whatever Fault or Idolatry it may be in a Manichee to Worship the Sun, or an Israelite the Calf, yet etc. where I wonder he talks so mincingly, whatever fault, and may be, when St. Paul 1 Cor. X. 7. is peremptory that the Worshippers of the Calf were Idolaters. 
Ibid.  He says his Catholics freely grant, that a good intention grounded upon culpable ignorance can excuse none from Idolatry. We accept this Concession and desire to know if Popish ignorance be not Culpable how 'tis possible any Ignorance should? 3. He says that Mons. 
Ibid.  Daillé (and he supposes other Protestants with him) allow that a Ground or Motive of adoration which is Reasonable though not absolutely certain, but actually mistaken, is sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry. Whence he infers that if Catholics can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist, tho' possibly mistaken in it, they are to be excused from Idolatry: at least by those Protestants who excuse the Lutherans: and so he proceeds to show his Rational Grounds.  
I think it an easy undertaking to show a vast disparity between the Papists and Lutherans in this point; but not very pertinent at this time. For neither of those parties is concerned in the question as 'tis now stated by our Author. 'Tis with him and with his Catholics we have to do; with them that prescind from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence; and not with the Lutherans or Papists who both stick to a Corporal Presence, & are not so ill advised as to quit their hold to run the hazard of this man's idle suppositions· But here's the juggle I expected, here's the Main Point lost in a mist. We that have been drilled on through one whole Discourse, and twenty and six long pages of another, and all in hopes to have seen it proved, that supposing no Corporal, but precisely a Real Presence, to adore the Elements is no Idolatry; are now to be put of with five stolen grounds for belief of Transubstantiation. I say of Transubstantiation though he only names a Corporal presence: For he calls himself the Catholic Defender, and the grounds he alleges are the Popish arguments for Transubstantiation; and he disclaims being a Lutheran; and we know of no party besides these two that now holds a Corporal Presence.   

CHAP. X. A Reply to the six next Grounds of the second Discourse▪ beginning at sect;. 24.  
SInce my present undertaking obliges me no farther, then to answer the Defender's arguments upon the question as he has stated it; I might very well pass over his grounds for belief of Transubstantiation: which were before offered in the Guide; and in other Authors before that Guide could go alone; and may be easily traced from Author to Author up to Archbishop Cranmer, who has reported and answered every one of them in his Book of the Eucharist.  
Our Author delivers in his list of them like a bill that gins with Item. 
Disc. 2. pag. 27. sect;. 24.  For he says his first ground for a Corporal presence (after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants) is Divine Revelation, viz. the words hoc est corpus meum, so often iterated in the Gospel; and again by S. Paul without any variation, change, or explication: as also the discourse of our blessed Saviour in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel.  
Now to this second and foremost argument, the 
* I choose to refer here to the Archbishop's book, that the Reader may the better see these Arguments are stolen, and have been baffled above a hundred years since.  Archbishop has punctually replied: viz. to the words of the institution p. 8.23.253 and elsewhere, and the answers are now so well known that they need not be repeated, and whereas the Pamphlet insists upon S. Paul's repeating them without any variation or explication; the Archbishop plainly shows p. 254. 
* Pag. 254. S. Paul is not afraid for our better understanding of Christ's words, somewhat to alter the same, lest we might stand stiffly in Letters and Syllables, and err in mistaking the sense and meaning. For whereas our Saviour Christ broke the Bread, and said This is my Body, S. Paul say'th that the Bread which we break is the Communion of Christ's Body. Christ said his Body, and S. Paul said the Communion of his Body: meaning nevertheless both one thing, that they which eat the Bread Worthily do eat Spiritually Christ's very Body.  that S. Paul both varies and explains them as will be evident to any man that consults 1 Cor. X. 16. so likewise to the Popish explication of our Saviour's discourse Joh. 6. the Archbishop answers in divers places 
* Pag 20. The Spiritual eating of his Flesh, and drinking of his Blood by Faith, by digesting his Death in our minds, as our only price, ransom, and redemption, from eternal Damnation, is the cause wherefore Christ said, that if we eat not his Flesh and drink not his Blood, we have not Life in us, and if we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood we have everlasting Life. And if Christ had never ordained the Sacrament, yet should we have eaten his Flesh and drunken his Blood, and have had thereby everlasting Life, as all the Faithful did before the Sacrament was ordained, and daily do when they receive not the Sacrament. See more Ibid and again p. 112. These words (what if you see etc. Joh. VI 62.63.) our Saviour Christ spoke▪ to lift up their minds from Earth to Heaven, and from Carnal to Spiritual eating, that they should not Fantasy that they should with their teeth eat him present here on earth: for his Flesh so eaten (saith he) should profit them nothing, and yet so they should not eat him, for he would take his Body away from them and ascend with it into Heaven: and there by Faith and not with Teeth they should Spiritually eat him, sitting at the right hand of his Father, and therefore (saith he the words, which I do speak, be Spirit and Life: that is to say, are not to be understood that we shall eat Christ with our teeth grossly and carnally, but that we shall Spiritually and Ghostly with our Faith, eat him being carnally absent from us in Heaven.  p. 18.31.37.111.217.329. in all things speaking consonant to the sense of the primitive Fathers: according to whose notions the true and plain meaning of that Chapter has been so fully expressed in a late Paraphrase that no more need be said of that matter. And whereas this Author farther says that no argument from our senses is valid against plain revelation; (though the case was something otherwise in the fourteenth page of the first Discourse,) to this likewise the Archbishop answers p. 263. 
* Pag. 263. Let us now consider how the same (Transubstantiation) is against natural reason and natural operation; which although they prevail not against God's word, yet when they be joined with God's word, they be of great moment to confirm any truth— not that they add any authority to God's word but that they help our infirmity p. 266. where giving divers instances out of Scripture of Faith confirmed by sense, he concludes. Which sensible proofs were so far from derogation of Faith, that they were a sure establishment thereof. Again p. 270 concerning arguments drawn from the Schoolmen. I make (saith he) no foundation at all upon them, but my very foundation is only upon God's word— and mine arguments in this place, I bring in only to this end, to show how far your imagined Transubstantiation is, not only from God's word, but also from the order of nature.  in the very same manner that we do to this day; and have already answered in the fourth Chapter of this Reply.  

Disc. 2. pag. 23 ● 25.  The next Ground is the definition of several Councils which he calls the Declaration of the most Supreme and Universal Church-authority, not considering how harsh these expressions will ●ound at Rome: and he tells us that seven or eight of these Councils, if we take in the second Nicene are reckoned up in the first Discourse of the Guide and all of 'em before that of Trent.  
I must confess the Archbishop replies to but one of these; for men were more wise and modest in those days then to challenge the other seven. He says indeed en passant of the Roman one under Pope Nicholas, that the Papists themselves were then ashamed of Berengarius' first recantation; a very good reason one would think, to wave an appeal to that Synod: and in truth the Lateran under Innocent III. was the only Council that intelligent Papists could at that time pretend to. Now to this the Archbishop excepts p. 251. as a Synod packed and overawed by that exorbitant Pope, which neither had nor alleged any Scripture to vouch their definitions: A truth, of which the whole world is by this time very well satisfied. But to speak distinctly of these eight Supreme Universal Church-Authorities; 
* See Bp. Cousin's History of Transubstantiation c. 7. §. 7, 8, 9, 10.  two of 'em, those at Rome and Vercelli under Leo IX were Italian Conventicles, managed by Humbert and Hildebrand, whereof the first condemned Berengarius without hearing, the second without understanding him. Wherefore the Gallican Churches defied 'em both, and Victor was fain to send Hildebrand into France; where he picked up another little Synod at Tours, and once more condemned Berengarius. The express Judgement of these three small Universal meetings is not certainly known: But if we may guests by the decision of the next Roman Synod under Nicholas TWO they believed according to the form, which Humbert and Hildebrand then contrived for Berengarius to recant in. About 18 years after, when Hildebrand himself was Pope, and his infallibility began to bloom, he convened another Roman Synod, and proposed a more correct form; which he forced Berengarius to subscribe to; 
* Labbe. Concil. Tom. 10. col. 378.  not without some feud, which arose in that little assembly like a tempest in a basin, and continued three days till at last the Pope outblustered it. After all this, Hildebrand himself, 
* See Pref. to Determine. Jo. Paris. lately printed at Lond. p. 7▪  as appears by his own work in manuscript, was not fully satisfied what was fit to resolve upon the question. So that five of these eight Supreme Universal Church-authorities, were governed by one man, who scarce knew his own mind: and one whose character; as many of the Papists give it; would have made Sr. Thomas More say of him too, that he would not for the world hear him say the Creed. Now for the second Nicene Council, our Author seems to make but a faint and doubtful appeal to it; whether it be that the places, he refers to, are fairly capable of another meaning than he aims at; or whether he had a Just notion of the reverence due to such a Council. 
* See Bp. Andrews upon the 2 d. Command. c. 3. p. 203.  A Council convened by an Empress that had lived a Heathen till her marriage; and was then but a kind of a Si quis dixerit-Convert to Christianity. A Council managed by Tarasius an old courtier of the Queens; and one John of the East, whom his own Patriarch, that sent him, affirmed to have some devotion but little Learning. A Council that defined Angels to be Corporeal, and Stocks and Stones to be worshipped: in short a Council that should have defined Transubstantiation, though it did not: for the world never saw an assembly better fitted, to define a condradiction to Scripture Sense and Reason. 
* See Bp. Cosin's History of Transubstantiation cap. 7. §. 30.  Yet even this Council came not up to our Author's terms, any more than the Council of Florence, which he quotes to as little purpose. For 'tis certain that Council did neither decree nor treat of Transubstantiation; the Instructio ad Armenos, being foisted into the Decrees, three months after the Council was dissolved, and so much with the Armenians approbation, that to this day they believe the Consecrated elements to retain their nature in the Eucharist. And will not our Author's private and truly humble Christian be finely holp up now with the Supreme Universal Authority of eight Councils in Buckram, which at last amount to but one Lateran under Innocent III? and that too infamous for establishing the Deposing Doctrine? 
* See F. Walsh's Letter to the Bp. of Linc. §. 22.  so that all honest and loyal Papists reject the Lateran Canons; affirming they were only proposed but never ratified by the Council, but shuffled into the Decretals by Pope Innocent's Nephew when he came to be Gregory IX. But perhaps the Council of Trent may salve all and help to settle a wavering man. Truly no; as this Author expounds it; 
* See c. 9 par. 3. of his Reply.  for it only defined Si quis dixerit: i. e. the Council itself says nothing but only what you shall not say: do but hold your tongue and believe your pleasure, you may still be as good a disciple as Nicodemus was. Now to muster up the forces of these nine General Councils; here are seven of 'em nothing to the purpose; the Eighth of very doubtful, if not very scandalous Authority; the Ninth leaves our Faith at liberty, and would only bridle our Tongues; proposing no grounds of believing, but a swinging curse for talking.  
Our Author himself seems a little diffident of this ground, 
Disc. 2. pag. 29. §. 26.  for a better reason too then a man would expect from him. He says these Councils are not so ancient as some may expect; and truly Novelty in Religion is allowed by all sober men too be a great persumtion of Falsehood. Wherefore he endeavours to goad up his pretensions some two or three hundred years higher; though all in vain as long as he is destitute of truly primitive Antiquity. The Authors, he remits us to, are every one of 'em explained and vindicated by the Archbishop; except those mystagogicall Catecheses', which I think were not printed, (perhaps not made) till after the Archbishop's death. But these 
* Of whom I do not speak more particularly, because the Discourser himself but names them, without laying claim to any particular passages or expressions in them, waving also (with his accustomed prudence) all pretence of proving them authentic; though whether they are so be a disputable point; or rather 'tis indisputably certain that several of them are spurious.  Authors and abundance more are effectually considered in that Just and admirable work of Monsieur Aubertine de Eucharistia: which if the Defender's humble Christian" when he goes into the public library, 
Ibid.  will be but so humble as to make the companion of his studies, he'll find that no art can make Transubstantiation look so old, but that the persent Roman Doctrine will appear too young by above twelve hundred years.  

Disc. 2. pag. 29. §. 27.  Instead of securing his next deceitful ground, and giving us something we may rest our foot upon; He sends his humble Christian to a Discourse and a Digression in the Guide, to Mons. Blondell's Eclaircissement; and the endless Controversy between Claud and Arnaud: which when he has consulted he will find he has been upon an April errand. But to save him that labour if we can; let us first see what will become of us if we grant this ground; viz. the Universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time. Now to this ground likewise the Archbishop has effectually replied in divers places. p. 11. p. 380. and especially from p. 405. to the end of the Book. The sum is that the true Church & Doctrine are to be judged by their agreement to Scripture & Antiquity; not always to be measured by the majority of visible Professors. For that may be often overrun with dangerous error; (as de facto it was among the Jews even by our Authors own confession, in his book of the benefits of our Saviour cap. 9) Wherefore the general Example is not always a rational ground of Practice; and a reasonable man will consider the reason of the practice, he complies with; and bring a Doctrine 
* Isa VIII. 20.  to the Law and to the Testimnyo, before he yields up his assent to it. This we presume 
* Rom. XI. 4. 1 King. XIX. 18.  the seven thousand did which were the true though secret Church of God, when all the rest of the visible Jewish Church, had bowed the knee to Baal and kissed him. Thus the rest of that 
* Luke. XII. 32.  little flock which God hath ever had and will have to the end of the world; not swimming with our Author's stream though never so impetuous, 
Disc. 2. §. 27. p. 31.  but weighing all things in the balance of the Sanctuary. For if prevalence and prescription were a rational and sufficient ground of practice, and the visible majority of the Church should fall into a Damnable error, (which thing certainly may be, because it has been) the Church might lawfully persist in that Damnable error, nor would it be obliged to eject the most scandalous corruption that had once got peaceable possession. This we think a sufficient, and give it as the shortest, answer to this ground considered with the utmost advantage whereof it is capable; viz. supposing (
* See Dr. Feild's Appendix to his third Book of the Church, wherein he proves that the Latin Church was and continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the maintainers of Romish Errors were only a Faction in the same at the time of Luther's appearing.  what is falsely challenged) the universal doctrine and practice of the later Church till Luther. But otherwise we could both tell him, and prove beyond all possibility of a fair Reply, that the controversy lasted above three hudred years before Transubstantiation could be licked into any shape; and that at last it was settled in an age, of which the Papists themselves give so scandalous a Character, that no History can tell us of a majority more unlikely to sway a knowing or a virtuous man. We could show him that the Universality, he talks of, must exclude the Abyssines, the Armenians, the Maronites, and abundance of other Christians; nay the much more valueable part of the Latin Church itself. For though the Pope, when he was strong enough to exercise the Plenitude of his Power, made his Enemies and their writings as invisible as fire and smoke could; yet still there remain the undoubted Monuments of a long visible Succession all declaring against Transubstantiation; for a collection of whose Testimonies the world has lately been obliged to a member of the Roman Communion.  
His last ground is the same with the foremost of his firsts; viz. the Concessions of Protestants. 
Disc. 2. § 28. p. 31.  For he's at it once more that the Genuine Sons of the Church of England hold our Saviour to be Really Present and Adorable in the Sacrament. Which has been so often said, &, I hope, so fully answered before, that I shall take no farther notice of it now. I shall only tell him as the Archbishop often tells Gardiner upon the like occasion, that he seems to be in great distress, when he flies for refuge to those Authors, whom at other times he abhors as Heretics; but his application to them is in vain; for they are far from meaning any such thing as he pretends.  

Ibid. p. 32.  In the close of this Paragraph he looks back upon all these Pleas of Catholics, and invites us to see if they will not make up at least a reasonable Ground or motive of their Adoration. Now I must profess that I see nothing like it, as he has ordered the matter. For though I believe a man of art out of these five grounds, might have made a plausible though not a rational plea; to my apprehension this Author has left the Papists in a much worse case, than he found them. For 1. he offers nothing to excuse them from Idolatry, but the Concessions of one or two Protestants, which 'tis evident come not home to his purpose; because they whom the Protestants excuse are supposed inculpably mistaken; and not at all mistaken in the object of their Adoration. 2. He engages the Papists upon a very difficult, or rather an impossible precision, both because it is contrary to what they have been taught; and because they are all bound under a severe Anathema to believe Transubstantiation; so that a Papist can never explain this term [Real Presence] to himself, but by this other of [Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantiation] 3. Having invited the Papists to wave that Corporal Presence, for which they think they have a great many arguments; he proposes Adoration founded on another notion; for which he has not offered them so much as one argument. So that in short he proposes what no body is like to practice, upon the sole strength of a Doctrine for which he has nothing to say.  
In the next place he complains that these five Rational grounds are not strictly examined by the Protestants. 
Disc. 2. §. 29 p. 32.  But we think otherwise; and must leave the indifferent Reader to Judge between us. We think they were effectually answered by the Archbishop above an hundred years ago; and by divers other writers since; especially the Author of a late Incomparable Discourse against Transubstantiation: which all the Posse of the Church of Rome will never be able to answer any otherwise then they did the Archbishop.  
Wherefore the Defender must allow us to retain our old opinion of those Protestants, whom he censures so freely in the remaining part of this paragraph. 
Ibid. p. 33.  We shall still think that Mons. Daillé had reason; and made a true resolution of Popery into Passion and Interest; that Bishop Taylor has proved as well as said, that the Papists pretences to the Fathers are but few and trifling; that what the Defender quotes out of Liberty of prophesying, is a very good argument against the literal sense; and that the Bishop while he pleaded for the Papists did prudently to omit Catholic tradition; which he knew was not on their side. We shall still profess with Dr. Stillingfleet, that the grossest Idolatry in the world has as fair a plea as the Popish; and conclude that this Trifler finding fault with him, has not ex- but inexcuseably mistaken the Doctor's argument; as will appear by comparing his words with what the Dr. says Rom: Idolatry cap. 2. §. 7. pag. 132.133. Lastly we agree that if Transubstantiation were warranted by Catholic tradition, Adoration were sufficiently grounded; and cannot but smile, as Crassus did upon a like occasion, to see how gingerly the Defender nibbles at this concession. He seems to say that Tradition is for Transubstantiation, 
Ibid.  yet he waves that, and pleads only for a Corporal Presence; which for any thing he says here may be taken in a Lutheran sense; though (to talk with him in his own language) if Trans— be true Consubstantiation must needs be falls. And what's all this to his purpose, who pretends to abstract from both? and ground his Adoration precisely upon a Real Presence?  
And now 'tis my turn to address to the indifferent Reader; and if he have either read Mr. Thorndike's Epilogue, or but carefully considered this Author's quotations out of it, to ask his opinion about these two or three questions. 1. Whether this Author has in all this whole Pamphlet expressly owned himself a Roman-Catholic? or rather skulked under the general name of Catholic taken in the same latitude, Mr. Thorndike takes it in his Epilogue? 2 Whether all his shuffling be not only to advance Mr Thorndike's new and singular notion of a presence of Christ's body in, or with, or under the Elements (§. 28. p. 32.) distinct from the Church of England's Real, and the Papists and Lutherans Corporal Presence? In short, not a Virtual, nor Spiritual, but a Corporal Presence, effected neither by con— nor Transubstantiation, but after some other unknown manner distinct from both? (§. 17. p. 21.) 3 Whether a new and upstart doctrine which was probably never thought of before Mr Thorndike's time, aught to pass for a doctrine of the Primitive Church? 4 Whether the man that plays these tricks be an honest Papist? And whether the humble Christian that swallows them must not have a very humble understanding?   

CHAP. XI. A Reply to the five last Sections of the second Discourse.  

Disc. 2. pag. 33.  OUr Author §. 30. imputes it to the strength of his Grounds not to excess of Charity, or the singular fancies of some few learned men, that of late the Protestants do either not at all, or but very faintly charge the Papists with Idolatry.  
This confident assertion he very well knows is false, as the Reader will find it by & by; & if it were true, it will not serve him to shelter his peculiar notions under the Patronage of the Church of England. Wherefore I must return him a quotation out of 
* Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to Roman Idolatry last paragraph.  the same Preface, which himself quotes, viz. That our Church is not now to be formed according to the singular fancies of some few tho' learned men: much less to be modelled by the Copricio's of superstitious Fanatics; who prefer some odd opinions and ways of their own, before the received Doctrine of the Church they live in. Such as these, we rather pity their weakness then regard their censures: and are sorry when our Adversaries make such properties of them as by their means to beget in some a disaffection to our Church.  
But to come to those Protestants, 
Disc. 2. §. 30. p. 33, 34.  who (our Author tells us) neither out of singularity, nor charity, but pure conviction are of late so kind to Popery. The first he quotes is Mr. Thorndike in his Epilogue. wherein he is not only a Conciliator, and so obliged by his very design, to strain his charity; but his terms of Reconciliation are, by his own confession, peculiar notions of his own; which he seems to have proposed, as not thinking that other Reconcilers had sufficiently cleared the Papists from Idolatry. For it must be confessed that this Pious and Learned Man was zealous to his last hour to acquit the Church of Rome from Idolatry: partly out of the natural sweetness of his temper, which made him unwilling to lay so grievous a sin to the charge of any Church; but chief upon a mistaken principle, that all Idolatry unchurches. So that the charge of it would in his opinion light heavy upon the Papists; and at the rebound equally hurt the Church of England, which derives her Succession and Ordination from the Church of Rome. This mistaken opinion the Defender greedily lays hold on; and asks with great briskness What Church or Sect of religion can be apostate at all, 
Ibid. p. 34.  if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry? I must desire him to reconcile this pert question with another as pert, in the book of the Benefits of our Saviour chap. 9 §. 14. And now (says he) what can hinder God's goodness, or decay the Church, since 'tis plain that sin cannot? even the sin of Idolatry as is proved at large in the two foregoing Sections. For when he does this, he will return the common answer to that objection wherein he now sides with Mr Thorndike.  

Ibid.  The next is Bishop Forbes in his Considerationes modestae & pacificae; whose design and character is so well known, and so obvious to any man that has but ever looked upon his book, that I think the Reader will need no farther information how excessive his charity was in this matter.  

Ibid. p. 35.  Thirdly Archbishop Bramhall concludes that very Section, which our author quotes, with these words. Tho' the Church of Rome do give divine worship to a Creature (or at least a party among them) yet I am so charitable as to hope they intent it to the Creator. It may be the Defender will reply now that he does not say excessively charitable.  

Ibid.  Fourthly 'tis notorious that Bishop Taylor wrote his Liberty of prophesying to serve the interest of the Church of England; which at that time was to obtain a general toleration. Wherefore it concerned him in that book to be more than a Conciliator, and represent Popery with the utmost favour it would bear. Yet he could not even in that book so dissemble his Zeal against Popery, but that in the very Paragraph, our Author quotes, he accuses the Papists confidence, and fanciful Opinion, which makes them do violence to all Philosophy, and the Reason of man, and undo and cancel the Principles of two or three Sciences. And these words, which, one would think, are not so very favourable and absolving, lie just between the two sentences the Defender has transcribed. In the next paragraph he calls Idolatry the crime which Papists formally hate, and we materially avoid. And again, in the next to that, says If they who do as the Papists do, are not formally guilty of Idolatry there is no danger their disciples should be so. So that he plainly owns them guilty of material, and dares not venture to acquit them even of formal Idolatry.  
Notwithstanding the Defender goes on at all adventures, 
Disc. 2. pag. 31. §. 35.  and will have it a fault in Dr. Taylor to say in one book, that if Papists are deceived in Transubstantiation, it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry; whereas he says in another that 'tis evident the Object etc. is the only true and Eternal God etc. which seems to be a very course Compliment to his Reader; for it either supposes him so Lazy as not to look back, what words those & cetera's stood for, or (if he did) so dull as not to see, that Dr. Taylor in both these quotations only charges the Papists with material Idolatry. 
Ibid.  He will likewise have M. Daillé to be faulty, for opposing the Papists with such a form of argument, as would prove the Lutherans to worship a mite. But instead of his miserable thatwhich solution, let him interpret the word [joined] in the major of his own Syllogism, by [Consubstantiate] (as he must do, if he mean to oppose the Lutherans) and he'll find that it has four terms. In the third place, faulty with him is Dr. Stillingfleet for two or three reasons, which as they have been urged, so they have been answered before. But he tell's us in good time, that Catholics grant as much as the Dr. that the Presence of the Divine Nature in any thing is no good ground to pay Divine Worship to that thing. For he hoped we had forgot his abstracting from a Corporal, and grounding his adoration precisely upon a Real Presence, we desire he will stick to this grant and that supposal, and then show what trick he has left to evade Idolatry. 
Disc. 2. pag. 36, 37. § 31. " He concludes, All these are faulty I say. Why so Positive good Sir? why because they charge the Papists with worshipping a Creature instead of Christ, from which other Protestants clear them. But what if the Chargers give better reasons then the Clearers? Or what if the Chargers are the far greater number? is a majority the Guide's beloved argument, grown out of Favour? Or what if the Chargers and the Clearers both agree in the matter of fact? as indeed they do: for the one part only says that the Papists worship Bread; and the other that 'tis true they do so, but 'tis more than they mean to do. To conclude, the Papists direct the act of adoration to the species, supposing Christ to be Locally present under them: but if Christ be not so, but the substance of Bread instead of him (as the Protestants affirm and prove) then the Papists who intentionally worship Christ, do actually pay their Worship to Bread instead of him; which is all the Protestants accuse them of: For that act is as certainly a species of Idolatry, as the object has the species of Bread.  

Disc. 2. pag. 37. §. 35.  The fifth and last Protestant Author, that is quoted, is the Reverend and Learned Dr. Hammond; who according to the Defender seems to Charge the Papists rather with a material then Formal Idolatry: and this material Idolatry, we are told, like material Adultery may in many cases be committed without Sin. This latter Doctrine I believe is none of Dr. Hammond's, for 'tis contrary to plain Scripture. For when Abimelech (Gen, XX.) had like to have committed material Adultery with Sarah and being reproved in a Dream, pleaded the innocence of his intention; God acknowledges this innocence, and says, For I also withheld thee from sinning against me therefore I suffered thee not to touch her v. 6. so that it seems the act had been a sin against God, 
v 5.  notwithstanding Abimelech's doing it in the integrity of his heart and the innocence of his hands. But to return to Dr. Hammond; 'tis plain he has hearty endeavoured to strain his charity, and yet for all that censures the Papists as severely as any sober Protestant ever did. And the Reader will be fully satisfied of this truth; if he please to consult (for it would be too much to transcribe) the 
* § 63. He delivers himself to this effect. To Worship the Bread in the Sacrament must certainly be Idolatry, in the literal notion of the Word, and they that do this upon any the subtlest ground, that by any error or mistake (be it never so piously taken up) believe it not to be Bread, but very Christ incarnate, and thereupon Worship it: these, I say, in case they be mistaken, though they are not guilty of Idolatry in all the aggravations that belonged to it among the Heathen; yet I cannot free them from the Charge of Worshipping an Idol, etc.  nine Sections which the Dr has writ upon this Subject; beginning §. 63. of his discourse of Idolatry, I assure myself the mildest censure, that can be passed upon the Defender, will be, that he never read that Discourse. But he thinks he has lanced us to the quick: 
Disc. 2. pag. 37. § 32.  when he puts us in mind of our Forefathers, who for many centuryes were such Idolaters, as we make the present Papists. Poor man! where has he been sleeping these fifty years? that he knows not this stolen objection has been so often urged and answered, that all understanding Papists are now ashamed to make use of it.  
Yet for all this we are likely to part good friends for he tells us his Catholics grant it is unlawful to worship the bread, if we do not believe it to be God; 
Ibid. §. 33.  or direct the outward act to our Lord as [Corporally] present in the Sacrament, if we do not believe him so present. Thus instead of defending his Catholics for adoring, he graciously absolves the Protestants for not adoring. As for what he adds of submitting our Judgement to the Church; that is nothing to the present purpose: For he knows that we insist upon it that Popery in this point, does directly and manifestly overthrow all the principles of Sense, of Reason, & Religion, and we are not so singular in this opinion, but that Papists themselves own, they cannot in this question pretend to Scripture without first defying Sense & Reason.  
In the last Section the Defender proposes two Questions, which he thinks the most material in this dispute. 1. 
Disc. 2. pag. 38. § 34.  Whether the Popish grounds of believing Christ's Corporal Presence [viz: as effected by Transubstantiation] be Solid and true? to which we answer Negatively. 2. Whether the Church of Rome, as a term of communion in this point, exact any more than the acknowledgement of a Real Presence? to which we answer, that to our apprehension she does. For she requires us under an Anathema to believe Transubstantiation: which whoever does, must define a Real Presence to be a Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantiation. So that the prescinding expedient this Author offers, would have us prescind from the definition of the object, i. e. to consider a thing, prescinding from the thing that we consider; which the Papists have more wit then to propose to us. 2 that if she did not, 
Disc. 2. §. 17. p. 21.  it would not serve the turn. For she requires us even by this Author's confession, to bow down before the Elements; which, if Christ's Body be not Locally Present in the Eucharist, we have proved to be Idolatry, be the bow never so prescinding. For to worship the true God by an Host, is in effect all one as to worship him by an image; which is as truly, though not so gross, Idolatry as to worship an image instead of him.  
And now (as the Defender says) Hitherto of this Controversy: wherein if I have chief considered my Adversarye's management, 'tis because a Scholar should be answered; but a Juggler need only be detected.   

CHAP. XII. The Close.  
Having taken so distinct a view of both the Discourses, I know not whether I must beg the Reader's pardon for considering so much of 'em; or demand the Author's thanks for sparing what I have passed over. The Controversy itself would have lain in a little room; but the Author's handling it gives an adversary so large a field of matter, as would easily furnish a very voluminous Reply. My aim in this was to make it as short as was possible, without omitting any thing material; and I'm confident I have not, I'm sure I have not willingly, omitted or dissembled the force of any one line, that seemed to make against the Church of England.  
The Quotations in the Pamphlet are many and generally tedious; none of 'em sincere, and most of 'em twice or thrice repetaed. To have-published 'em entire, would have taken up more paper than this answer does: nor would a recital have sufficed, without some reflection▪ & after all the Reader is no more bound to trust me then him; but for full satisfaction must recur to the Authors themselves. Wherefore I concluded it the shorter & better way, to give the sense of our Church and those Authors in plain & easy terms; so that the common Reader might be his own interpreter; and without any farther assistance make a right construction of what the Pamphlet would pervert.  
Some perhaps may fancy my Reflections are sometimes too severe, upon so little seeming provocation; and at other times too light for so serious a subject as I treat of. I confess I could not always dissemble my just abhorrence of the Author's insincerity; which I take to be the Sin in the world that an honest man can least pardon. Had the Author been a true sincere Papist, as well my inclination as my duty would have made me treat him with respect, for simple error is an object of compassion to be dealt with in the spirit of meekness: but Hypocrisy is the common aversion of God and Man; and aught to be abhorred and stigmatised. As for lighter Answers, I think I have never given them, but when they were requisite in reply to Comical objections; for nothing can be more ridiculous than a solemn confutation of a Jest. The Author indeed seems to talk with great gravity all the way; but his matter for the most part is of a quite contrary Character: and in such a case the Grimace does but add to the Comedy and make it the more necessary to return an answer in kind.  
What I have said has been the shorter, because my Adversary has been twice answered already: both professedly by the Author of the late Reply printed at London; and occasionally by those other worthy men that have considered the several parts of the Guide in Controversy. For there is not an argument, nor a quotation, nor scarce a sentence in either of these Discourses, but is almost verbatim in that Guide aforesaid; which contains the whole stock of the Fraternity; the sum and substance of all they have to say, if they writ as many books as Tostatus. 'Twas but t'other day that a great part of these Discourses was again printed in the Book of Church-Govenment; and for aught I find we must expect the same stuff word for word, in every book they are to publish. But at this rate instead of being answered they deserve to be indicted for extortion. For the buyer of their book pays unconscionable use upon use, besides the nauseousness of the tautology. Wherefore for my own part I now take my final leave of them; and resolve, not so much as to inquire what other books the Editor's press is big with. And perhaps when other Readers are ware of his proceed, the edition of his books will not need to be stinted to twenty thousand of a sort in a year.  
FINIS.