A COMPENDIOUS DISCOURSE ON THE EUCHARIST.  
WITH TWO APPENDICES.  
OXFORD, Printed in the Year M. DC.LXXX.IIX.   

The CONTENTS.  

A Brief Account of the Modern Doctrines concerning the Eucharist.  
Four principal modern Opinions concerning the Eucharist. 

1. Virtual presence. §. 1.  
2. Real presence aliquo modo. § 2.  
3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation. § 3.  
4. Real presence with the symbols by Transubstantiation.    
Observations touching these Opinions. § 4. 

1. Observation, That both the third and fourth Opinion hold an Oral reception of Christ's Body by all Communicants. § 5.  
2. Observation, That the fourth Opinion affirms, § 6. 

1. A Symbol of Christ's Body remaining after consecration; viz. all the sensibles of the Bread. n. 1.  
2. These Symbols in the Church's language, not unusually to have had the denomination of Bread. n. 2.  
3. These Symbols to have several things predicated of them not agreeable to Christ's Body. 3.  
4. These Symbols to be as signs of Christ's Body, sacramentally present; so of it as formerly broken on the Cross. n. 4.  
5. Christ's Body also as sacramentally present to be a 〈…〉 (or memorial) of the same Body as formerly on the Cross. n. 5.  
3. Obs. That the difference between the third and fourth Opinion is not great. § 7.  
4. Obs. That the third and fourth Opinion affirm not Christ's Bodily presence in the Sacrament after so gross a manner as is objected to them. § 8.  
5. Obs. That no Argument drawn from sense or seeming contradiction can be valid against the third and fourth Opinion. § 9  
6. Obs. That those of the third Opinion, and some also of the second, condemn not the fourth as holding a thing impossible or unfeasible. § 10.  
7. Obs. That Communion with the fourth Opinion is unjustly rejected whilst retained with the third. § 11  
8 Obs. That the Doctrine of the second Opinion is very varying, dubious, and obscure. § 12. 

Where is discussed § 13. 

1. Whether they hold any real, substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist. 

Several quotations out of them, wherein they seem to maintain it.  
Other quotations wherein they seem to retract it. § 14  
And divers Arguings of theirs against the third and fourth opinion, which seem to overthrow it.    
2. Whether they hold such presence to the Symbols, or only to the Communicant. § 16. 

Several quotations, wherein they seem to deny such presence to the Symbols.      
Where 

Whether they hold Christ's Body present to the soul only, or also to the body of the worthy receiver.  
Some other say, wherein they seem to imply such presence to the Symbols.  
And the testimony of Mr. Thorndike expressly declaring for it.          
An Accounted of the Doctrine of Antiquity touching Christ's presence in the Eucharist. § 17.  
That the Arguments equally urged out of the Fathers for their not holding Transubstantiation, disprove not their holding of a Corporal presence (at least after some other manner) with the Symbols. § 18. 

As Theodoret. §. 19 1.  
Gelasius. 2.  
Ambrose. 3.  
St. Austin. 4.  
Other quotations out of Blondel. 5.  
And others. 6.    
Arguments that they hold corporal presence. § 20. 

Because they affirm a change of the Elements into Christ's Body. n. 1.  
A miraculous change. n. 2.  
Offering the Body of Christ as a Sacrifice before communicating. n. 3.  
Using Adoration before communicating. n. 4.  
Holding an Oral manducation of Christ's body. n. 5.    
Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments. § 21. 

Concerning the change of the Elements. n. 1.  
Concerning the miraculousness of the change. §. 22  
Concerning its being a Sacrifice. § 23.  
Concerning Adoration. § 24.    
Replies to these. § 25.  
The doctrine of the Father's concerning it as a Sacrifice. § 26. 

That the sacrifice on the Cross is the only sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away sins. n. 1.  
Yet is the Eucharist a true and real sacrifice. n. 2.  
Testimonies out of Card. Bellarmin, C. Trent and, Mr. Mede n. 3. 4.  
Of the Fathers, that it is a sacrifice expiatory. n. 5.  
Of Dr. Tailer. n. 6.    
Digr. The omission of the da●●y Oblation in the Reformed Churches. § 27. 

The Fathers say that it is an Oblation of the same Body which was crucified. § 28.  
Reply concerning Sacrifice. § 29.  
Reply concerning Adoration. § 30.    
The Roman qualifications concerning Adoration. §. 31.  
Suppose Transubstantiation an error, yet Adoration lawful, if a corporal presence; and if no corporal presence, yet their Adoration no idolatry. §. 32.  
An account of the variance in the doctrine of the Eucharist in later times. § 36. 

In the Eastern Church. §. 37.  
In the Western Church. §. 41.    
Reflections upon the former narration. §. 43. 

1. Corporal presence than the common opinion.  
2. All Councils since the 2d. of Nice unanimously deciding corporal presence with the symbols. § 44. 

And that not by way of Impanation. §. 45.      
Councils excusable in so strictly determining the manner of Christ's presence in the Sacrament. §. 48.  
In what sense they impose it as an Article of faith. § 49.  
Obedience due to such decisions. § 51.  
The objection of a contrary persuasion of conscience considered. § 52.  
Objection of non-certainty considered. § 53.  
The objection of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal presence considered. § 54.  
App. I. The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the Substantial presence and Adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament: with a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject printed at OXFORD.  
App. II. Animadversions upon the Reply to the Two former Discourses.    

A DISCOURSE on the EUCHARIST.  

Four principal Opinions concerning the Eucharist.  COncerning the Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, there are Four chief Opinions among Christians.  
The First, That it is Present to the Worthy or Faithful Reeciver, in all the Efficacy and Benefits thereof (either as it suffered, §. 1 or was raised again) by a communication to us of Christ's Spirit, whereby we are vivificated, united, 
1. Virtual Presence.  and incorporated into him. Et nullus hic miraculo dandus locus est cum sciamus qua ratione Christus Caenae suae adsit, nimirum Spiritu vivificante, spiritualiter & efficaciter,— ut ipsius divinitas possit nos vivificare & in nobis habitare, oportuit corpus ipsius pro nobis frangi in Cruse, etc. atque hanc fractionem & effusionem fide a nobis apprehendi, ut hac fide insiti corpori ipsius, caro ipsius, sanguis ipsius effecti, possimus fieri participes justitiae & vitae ipsius, atque ita aeternum domicilium divinitatis.— Spiritus sanctus nos cum Christo conjungens, etiam longissime distantia secundum locum copulat multo arctius & propius quam in uno loco posita conjunguntur. This opinion seems not to put any real or substantial Presence of Christ's very Body and Blood in the Eucharist, or worthy Receiver, but a real participation of all the benefits thereof, by his Spirit communicated to the faithful Receiver of the consecrated symbols of his Body.  
§. 2 The Second Opinion goes beyond this, or at least seems so (for I must confess I do not well understand it, 
2. Real Presence, aliquo modo.  and we shall look more into it anon) and affirms a real Presence of Christ's Body, not only in its virtue, but in its very substance; but in this, not after a natural or carnal, but spiritual, manner; not to all, 
1  but only to the worthy Receivers. To them, (i.e.) to their Souls and Spirits, by the susception of Faith, and not to their Mouth or their Body. Again, to them, but not to the symbols at all; or if in some sense to these (as Mr. Hooker, l. 5. s. 67. saith, they really exhibit, but not contain in them, that which with, or by, them God bestoweth), yet not ante usum, or before the act of Receiving. Neque enim mortis tantum & resurrectionis suae beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est & resurrexit, saith Calv. in 1 Cor. 11.24. and these following quotations are found in his Instit. l. 4. c. 17. But how these high expressions, where he opposes the Zwinglians, agree with those diminutive, where he opposes the Lutheran and Romanist, I know not. Neque enim mihi satisfaciunt qui dum communionem cum Christo ostendere volunt, nos Spiritus modo participes faciunt praeterita carnis & sanguinis mentione. Quasi vero illa omnia de nihilo dicta forent, carnem ejus vere esse cibum, etc. non habere vitam nisi qui carnem illam manducaverit, etc. Quoe omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus, quin totus [Christus] Spiritu & corpore, nobis adhaereat.— Then quoting Eph. 5.30. he saith, Apostolus sermonem exclamatione finite; magnum (inquit) istud arcanum! ver. 32. Extremae ergo dementiae fuerit nullam communionem agnoscere cum carne & sanguine Domini, quam tantam esse declarat Apostolus, ut eam admirari quam explicare malit,- nullum locum relinquo huic cavillo, quasi dum fide percipi Christum dico, intelligentia duntaxat velim concipi.— Manducatio non est fides, sed ex fide consequitur.— panem quem frangimus communio est, etc. neque est quod objiciat quisque, figuratam esse locutionem.— Hoc est Corpus Meum rem significatam vere exhibet.— Facti participes substantiae ejus, virtutem quoque ejus sentimus in bonorum omnium communicatione. And of the Lutherans, he saith, Si ita sensum suum explicarent, dum panis porrigitur annexam esse exhibitionem corporis quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas, non valde pugnarem. §. 24. In answer to those who objected, Se rationi humanae ita addictum esse, ut nihilo plus tribuat Dei potentiae (in the matter of the Eucharist) quam naturae ordo patitur & dictat communis sensus, he saith, Ego hoc mysterium minime rationis humanae modo metior, vel naturae legibus subjicio.— Humanae rationi nihilo magis placebit (that which he affirms) penetrare ad nos Christi carnem, ut nobis sit alimentum-In his paucis verbis (i. e. of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, as he states it), qui non sentit multa subesse miracula, plusquam stupidus est; quando,— nihil magis incredibile, quod res toto coeli & terrae spatio dissitas ac rimotas in tanta locorum distantia non tantum conjungi, sed uniri, ut alimentum percipiant animae ex carne Christi. See the place in him,— Porro de modo si quis me interroget, fateri non pudebit, sublimius esse arcanum, quam ut vel meo ingenio comprehendi, vel enarrari verbis queat. I cannot but ask here (though I digress), seeing this great Doctor of the Reformation in such a good mood, what if any should say, Christ's Body, presently after Consecration, is with the Symbols after the same inexplicative and miraculous manner, as he makes it with the Soul, and so together with them is received from the Priest? (See what he himself saith favourable to this, in that place quoted before,— Si ita sensum suum, etc. quia inseperabilis est a signo suo veritas,— And §. 33. Atque haec est Sacramenti integritas, quam violare totus mundus non potest, carnem & sanguinem Christi non minus vere dar● indignis, quam electis Dei fidelibus: simul tamen verum est, non secus atque pluvia super duram rupem decidens, effluit, etc. And before, Aliud est offerri, aliud recipi,— I ask, Are the Bread and Christ's Body offered apart? Why not together? And if they be together when Offered, why not together before?) What can he reply from any argument of Sense or Reason against it? Will he plead a possibility of Christ's Body being really present to one definite substance in such a place (namely, the Soul); and an impossibility of its presence to another substance, the Bread or Wine? Or, himself thus granting it in general present after an inexplicative or inconceivable manner; if any other should name some particular way unexplicative (i. e. fully), how can he possibly disprove it by any way of Reason, since he grants this matter above it (now 'tis granted by him above it, because implying in it something which to Reason seems, but which is not contradictory) but only by God's Word and plain Revelation? As for example, If he can show the Scriptures somewhere to say, That Christ's Body is there present, but not joined with the Signs.  
2 I might add to these of Calvin, 
2  the Confession of Beza and others, when they were desirous to accord the matter with the Lutherans (which you will find quoted by Bishop Forbes, Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s. 13. related by Hospin. Hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251. Fatemur in Caena Domini non modo omnia Christi beneficia, sed ipsam etiam Filii Hominis substantiam, ipsam inquit veram carnem, etc. & verum illum sanguinem quem fudit pro nobis non significari duntaxat, aut symbolice, typice, proponi tanquam absentis memoriam, sed vere ac certo representari, exhiberi & applicanda offerri, adjunctis symbolis minime nudis, sed quae (quod ad Deum ipsum promittentem & offerentem attinet) semper rem ipsam vere ac certo conjunctam habeant, sive fidelibus, sive infidelibus proponantur. Jam vero modum illum quo res ipsa, (i.e.) verum corpus & verus sanguis Domini cum symbolis copulatur, dicimus esse symbolicum, sive sacramentalem, sacramentalem autem modum vocamus, non qui sit sigurativus duntaxat, sed qui vere & certo sub specie rerum visibilium repraesentet quod Deus cum symbolis exhibet & offered nempe (quod paulo ante diximus) verum corpus & sanguinem Christi: ut appareat nos ipsius corporis & sanguinis Christi praesentiam in coena retinere & defendere, & si quid nobis cum vere pits & doctis fratribus controversiae est, non de re ipsa, sed de praesentiae modo duntaxat, qui soli Deo cognitus est, & a nobis creditur, disceptare etc. Hold they not here the presence of Christ's body cum symbolis? Lastly Mr. Hooker, 5. l. 67. sect. affirms even of the Sacramentaries and the first opinion, that those who read their books, shall find; that they grant the holy mysteries instrumentally both to make us partakers of that grace of that body and blood which was given for the life of the world; and besides also to impart unto us in true and real, though mystical, manner, the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect, and entire. Thus much now of the second opinion, to which I shall return by and by.  
§. III The 3d. opinion goes yet farther than the second, and (moved by the expressions partly of Scriptures, 
3. Real presence with the symbols by Consubstantiation.  ['tis said that Luther Epist. ad Argentinenses acknowledges se valde propensum fuisse in eam sententiam, quae in Eucharistia nihil praeter panem agnoscit, & conatum totis viribus hoc asserere, sed non potuisse satisfacere Scripturis quae contra objiciebantur,] comparing Matt. 26.26. and 1 Cor. 11.24. &c with 1 Cor. 11.26, 27. [eateth this bread,] partly also of the Fathers, who many times also call it bread after consecration,) affirms a real presence of Christ's body with or under the signs; meaning by them, the substances of the bread and wine still remaining after consecration. Making (if we take the moderatest stating thereof; for see what Cassander consult. art. 10 p. 81. quotes Melancthon and some others, at some time before the reformed opinion, to have held; Asserimus cum Christo Domino corpus Christi non modo esse in, cum, sub pane, sed quod panis sit corpus Christi ipsum, itaque unum cum ipso praedicatione identica;) the meaning of [hoc est corpus meum] to be, not hic panis manens adhuc panis, ipse etiam est corpus meum; but, hoc, quod continetur sub pane consecrato, est corpus meum; making the article [hoc] supponere confuse (to use Bellarmin's terms) pro eo quod continetur sub pane; as the 4th opinion makes it supponere confuse, pro eo quod continetur sub speciebus: and to show the understanding of those words [Hoc est corpus meum] after this manner to be very proper, they exemplify in some like ordinary phrases. So, de dolio vini recte dicimus, hoc est vinum, speaking only of the thing contained; so, de marsupio pleno pecuniis recte dicitur, hae sunt pecuniae: so, demonstrando vestes sub quibus est Petrus, we say, hoc, or hic est Petrus. Nam abstrahentium non est mendacium.  
Now some hold this conjunction of Christ's body with the elements ante usum in mensa, presently after consecration; others (perhaps the better to avoid pretences of adoration, or of reservation of the Sacrament) only in the use and act of receiving in o'er fidelium. Again some (to make this presence seem more certain, and more conceivable) holding an ubiquity of Christ's body; not only a presence then and there, but always every where, by reason of its hypostatical union to the ubiquitary Deity; only (lest we may say, we receive it as well (then) in all other bread) stating, that though it is ubique, yet non posse ubique capi, sed solum in ea re quam Christus ad hoc instituit.  
§. IV The fourth opinion yet transcends this (except in the point of ubiquity,) and affirms the real presence of Christ's body with, 
4. Real presence with the symbols, by Transubstantiation.  or under the signs, meaning by them only the accidents, or properties, or all that is any way to be perceived by sight or any other sense, of the bread and the wine; which accidents they affirm still to remain, but holding from the most proper sense (as to them seems) of the solemn words of the Institution, Hoc est corpus meum &c, a Conversion of the substance of them into the body and blood of our Saviour; conversio totius substantiae: Conc. Trid. sess. 13.4. c. Which seems to be so punctually expressed, because (of those who all held Christ's corporal presence) some there were, that held the substantial form of bread changed, but not the matter; others the matter, but not the form: others again that held no total substantial conversion of the bread at all, but an impanation or hypostatical union of Christ with the bread, whereby it became his body, (corpus Christi non carneum but panaceum,) such as there was with the humane nature in his incarnation; saying, panem a Christo fieri corpus suum, non mutando vel destruendo panem, sed assumendo ad personam suam. Now this conversion of the substance was thought fit in latter times to be expressed by the word Transubstantiation, as a diminutive to conversion. For whereas conversion of the bread might be understood either of it with all its properties and accidents, or only of the substance thereof, and not of the rest, therefore to express this distinctively, the word Transubstantiation was used. Primi authores hujus sententiae finxerunt conversionem physicam simplicem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi, quam posteriores Romani & Scholastici defendere ut possint, manentibus accidentibus panis & vini, commenti sunt 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seu Transubstantiationem. Casp. Peucerus hist. pag. 527. Compare with Transubstantiation that expression of the Greeks in their answer to Claudius' Cardinal of Guise: [Credimus panem in Christi corpus &c ita mutari, ut neque panis neque substantiae ipsius accidentia maneant, sed in divinam substantiam transelemententur,] and Transubstantiation saith the least of the two. But here note, that though Councils have defined a conversion of the whole substance, yet since such a conversion there may be many several ways, (see those reckoned up in Field Append. to 3. lib. 17. cap.) the particular manner they have no way determined, and the Roman Doctors remain in their opinions divided. Fatemur, saith Dr. Holden de resol. fid. 2. l. 4 c. hujusmodi supernaturalis conversionis substantialis modum nos penitus latere &c. and Bellar. in his recognit: lib. Euchar. after his discoursing of conversion adductive and productive &c, concludes:— Quicquid sit de modis loquendi, illud tenendum est, conversionem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Domini esse substantialem, sed arcanam, & ineffabilem, & nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem etc. Whilst the third opinion therefore interprets our Saviour's words of the Institution thus, Hic panis continet sub se corpus meum, or, hoc quod continetur sub pane est corpus meum; the 4th saith, Hic panis per conversionem est, or fit, corpus meum, or, hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus meum: the one holding the substance of the bread to be transient, the other permanent.  
§ V But first here note, 1. That both this third and fourth opinion hold an oral reception, 
Observations touching These opinions.  by all communicants, even the unworthy, (according to 1 Cor. 11.27, 29.) of the very body and blood of Christ, though by the last not at all to their benefit, but greater condemnation. Which I note here, to show that no complaint upon this account can be raised against the fourth opinion, Obs. 1 which may not be as justly against the third.  
§ VI 2. Note 2ly, concerning the 4th opinion, that though it makes the whole compositum ex materia & forma to be changed, Obs. 2 yet not so the whole aggregatum ex subjecto & accident; 
1  and though it makes the thing signified really present, yet it (as well as the other opinions) allows a sign not only of the inward grace and spiritual nourishment of the soul obtained thereby, but also of Christ's body remaining after consecration distinct from the thing signified; namely, all that of the bread and wine which is perceived by sense. But so, that under this sign is contained the thing signified, it being figura non nuda, sed veritati suae & substantiae conjuncta, signum rei praesentis, sed rei invisibilis, (lest any should think the sign needless.) Hence the Church-hymn, allowed and recommended by Dr. Taylor, p. 331. Sub duabus speciebus▪ signis tantum & non rebus, latent res eximiae; Conc. Trid. 13. sess. 3. c. saith, Hoc esse commune Eucharistiae cum aliis Sacramentis, ut sit symbolum rei sacrae, & visibilis forma invisibilis gratiae, by which forma visibilis (as Bell. expounds it 4. l. 6. c.) is meant the species of the elements, not the body of Christ. So Bell. Euchar. 2. l. 15. c. Etiam post consecrationem species panis & vini sunt signa corporis & sanguinis Christi, ibi revera existentium: and 3. l. 22. c. Accidentia remanent, quia si etiam accidentia abessent, nullum esset in Eucharistia signum sensibile; proinde nullum esset Sacramentum. So Estius: Eucharistia constat ex pane tanquam materia quadam, partim transeunte▪ partim remanente; transeunte quidem secundum substantiam, remanente vero secundum accidentia, in quibus tota substantiae vis & operatio nihilominus perseverat. Hence they allow of that expression of Irenaeus, where he saith; Eucharistiam ex duabus rebus, terrena & coelesti compositam esse: and S. Gregory's; In hoc mysterio summa imis sociari, terrena coelestibus jungi; unum ex visibilibus & invisibilibus fieri.  
2 Nay further they allow, that these appurtenances of bread may have in some sense (in reference to former matter contained under them, and in as much as still substantiae ipsius omnem operationem retinent,) and have often had, the name of the substance, granting them to be called so after consecration by the Fathers, (hence they reject not that expression of St. Austin, Panem consumi comedendo,) by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11.26, 27; nay, by our Saviour, Mat. 26.29. Mar. 14.25. Of these signs they predicate many things, which they allow by no means to be said of Christ's body; and ordinarily the same things of these accidents of bread, which the 3d. opinion saith of the substance: See Blondel acknowledging this p. 215. so sapere, digeri, nutrire, comfortare corporaliter &c they apply to these accidents, affirming singulari miraculo tam operationes panis &c quam proprietates subsistere & conservari absque natura. And to Theodoret and some other Fathers, that say, after consecration the nature of Bread remains, they grant thus far, naturales vires & proprietates remanere, and think this sufficiently clears the Father's meaning. Now what is this but tantum non to affirm consubstantiation, and close in with the 3d. opinion? (which methinks much reflects upon those who, very charitable to the one, maintain so great a feud against the other). So frangi dentibus, digeri, comburi, rodi a brutis animalibus, and whatever other things may be named (excepting only those attributes which indicate the presence of Christ's Body to or with the species, whilst integrae) all, or at least the more modest of them (no Council having decided any thing in this matter) apply only to the accidents, not to Christ's Body. Bellarmin (who, bolder than some others, useth some expressions of Christ's Body being capable of such things per accidens, improprie, in specie aliena) saith, Christus vere in Sacramento existit, sed nullo modo laedi potest, non cadit in terram, non teritur, non roditur, non putrescit, non crematur, illa enim in speciebus istis recipiuntur, sed Christum non afficiunt; licet species ipsae sint conjunctae cum Christo, Euch. l. 3. c. 10. and the conclusion of that Chapter is, in propria specie Christus haec pati non potest. And good reason to say this, because these accidents are held ad suppositum Christi non pertinere, neque in illo inhaerere; see Estius Sent. 4. Dist. 9 Sect. 3. Ob. 4. and Bishop Forbes de Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s. 9 Now in affirming of Christ's Presence to them in some abuses of these Signs, (though since his Body is voluntarily present, & sine ulla sui laesione desinit esse, sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat, whether it may not in such cases be withdrawn, I think none can say, and the Roman Doctors are divided about it. See Forb. Euch. l. 1. c. 4. s. 9 Blon. p. 212. yet) I see no great cause of offence, since as the Cardinal well saith in the same Chapter, ipsa divinitas nonne ubique est praesens, & tamen non sordescit in sordibus, non crematur in flammis, nec putrescit in putrescentibus rebus.  
3 Again, 
3  as these species are acknowledged by them Signs of the Body, in one sense present, so of the Body in another acception, or mode not present; namely a Memorial of the Body and Blood of Christ, as it was broken and shed upon the Cross, Signa corporis Christi ut sacramentaliter praesentis; & signa Corporis Christi ut in cruse immolati. Thus they are called a Memorial or a Representation of the Passion, in the Scripture-phrase; see 1 Cor. 11.25, 26. and therefore may be also in the Church's. In which respect also the Fourth Opinion allows the name of type, antitype, similitude▪ figure, etc. not only before, but after Consecration proper to them. Veteres quando hoc sacramentum dicunt signum esse & figuram, non negant ibi esse verum Christi corpus, sed intelligunt non ibi esse in propria specie, sc. ut conversans in mundo, patience in cruse. Nay yet farther they say, ipsum corpus & sanguis Domini, ut sunt sub illis speciebus, signa sunt ejusdem corporis & sanguinis ut fuerunt in cruse. For Eucharistiam (take it for the signum & signatum, which signatum is invisible in the Eucharist, both together) they hold to be signum, symbolum, representationem, memoriale, typum, etc. mortis seu passionis Christi; seu carnis & sanguinis, ut illa suffixa, ille effusus est visibiliter in cruse: For Corpus Christi ut sub speciebus panis. (being idem quoad substantiam, but not idem quoad qualitatem, nor eo modo in Eucharistia quo fuit in cruse) non est vere, sed representative corpus in cruse. And this it is also by reason of the visible species, since itself not perceivable cannot be representative.  
4 And this which they say here, methinks, seems not unreasonable (by which also they accord many say of the Fathers, which else would contradict what the same Fathers say in other places, which Dr. Taylor, p. 311. passeth over with saying, 'tis their fault or forgetfulness) notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor hath said against it, p. 317, etc. where he first urgeth, that idem non est simile. Resp. but though these are supposed idem in substance, yet in all the qualities and modifications thereof, as Dr. Taylor himself grants, p. 20. the same Body to be crucified and eaten in several manners of being. And what more ordinary than for a Body or Man at one time to be said to be like or unlike what he was at some other time? Secondly, If I well understand him, he urges the absurdity of making an invisible and glorified Body, the sign of a visible and humbled. Resp. But they making the Body, as in the Eucharist, a sign or representment of it as upon the Cross, do not divide or abstract it from the species of Bread, as he doth; (for indeed how can a thing invisible be a sign in respect of Men, who discern all by their Senses; and indeed none can know when such a sign is, or is not), but say, Corpus, as Sacramentally present, sub illis speciebus, is a sign or symbol of it, as it was once upon the Cross. Secondly, Tho they say the Body in the Sacrament is the same with that glorified, yet is it not in the Sacrament, but only in Heaven, as glorified; see Dr. Taylor, p. 20. Now, I say, why not as well the manner several from what it is in Heaven, as from what it was on the Cross? But however this be concerning the Body of Christ being a type, figure, or symbol of itself; I think the fourth Opinion is no more necessitated, in answer to the Fathers, to affirm any such thing, than the second or the third; since these expressions of the Fathers are in show arguments (and are so used by the first Opinion) against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament [see Dr. Taylor, p. 319. The Sacramental Body is a figure and type of the Real], which Real Presence both the 2d. and 3d. Opinions maintain. And if here you say, they are good arguments against real Presence with the Signs, but not with the Receiver; This seems to me to be said gratis, and without reason, since the real Body is no less invisible, if with the Signs, than if with the Receiver only; and we usually say, that something we see, is a Sign of the Presence of another thing we see not, though they be both together; as Breathing is a Sign of Life, Smoke of Fire present, though not seen: the same may be said of Similitude; as a Vizard, resembling a Face, may be truly said a Similitude, when the Face is under it.  
5. But if the 2 d. and third Opinions, notwithstanding that both of them hold Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist, ordinarily say of the Bread and Wine, that they are Signs and Figures, both of the Body as then present, and also of it as it was formerly on the Cross; and thus satisfy the Fathers (though the first Opinion denies they satisfy them); the same thing saith the fourth Opinion of the species of the Bread and Wine, remaining, that they are symbols, figures, etc. which species they affirm singulari miraculo to have, as all the operations and proprieties, so much more all the significations of the Bread and Wine. And because Dr. Taylor instanceth in some say of St. Austin, of the Sacrament being signum Corporis, etc. to which he disalloweth their answers, and saith, p. 310. That it is so evident, that that Father was a Protestant in this Article, that it were a strange boldness to deny it; and upon equal terms no man's mind in the world can be known: Yet things, I believe, out of that Father will not be so clear for his side, as is pretended, if first he will grant, that St. Austin held (as much as himself doth, or at least as others of the second Opinion) Real Presence; and secondly, if such expressions (as these which follow in St. Austin will prove, that he held this real Presence of Christ's Body with the elements or signs; namely, that saying Conf. l. 9 c. 13. Tantum memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit; unde ex quo altari] sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis, qua triumphatus est hostis etc. and that saying Conf. 9 l. 12. c. where he saith of the consecrated elements or Eucharist; cum offeretur pro ea, posito cadavere juxta sepulchrum, sacrificium pretii nostri:— which he saith of the Eucharist before communicating, but surely would not say but of Christ's body, not of bare bread. And that saying contra adversarium Legis & Prophet. 2. l. 9 c. where writing against an Heretic that denied, and urged many absurdities in the Old Testament, he saith, Eat plane iste retro cum suis similibus sociis, qui dixerunt, Durus est hic sermo, etc. Jo. 6. Nos autem audiamus & intelligamus duo Testamenta in duobus filiis Abrahae etc.— Sicut Mediatorem Dei & hominum, hominem Christum Jesum dantem carnem suam nobis manducandam, sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus, quamvis horribilius videatur, humanam carnem manducare, quam perimere, & humanum sanguinem potare, quam fundere. And elsewhere; Adhuc in Sacramento spes est, quo in hoc tempore (i.e. till the day of judgement) consociatur Ecclesia, quamdiu bibitur quod de Christi latere manavit.— Contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c. See the places quoted p. concerning Christ's body received also by the wicked.— Lastly, that saying in comment. Psal. 98. (with the Reformed, 99) upon those words 5. ver. Adorate scabellum ejus, which we translate, Worship at his footstool, where alluding to terra scabellum pedum meorum, Isa. 66. he goes on; Invenio, quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra scabellum pedum ejus, suscepit enim [Christus] the terra terram; quia caro de terra est, & de carne Mariae accepit carnem; & quia in ipsa carne hic ambulavit & ipsam carnem jam manducandam nobis ad salutem dedit, nemo autem carnem illam manducat, nisi prius adoraverit, inventum est quem-admodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domim; ut non solum non peccemus adorando, sed non adorando peccemus. [Which matter some think he borrowed from S. Ambrose upon the same Psalm and text de Spiritu Sancto, 3. l. 12. c. Adorate scabellum pedum ejus. Itaque per scabellum terra intelligitur- per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis adoramus, & quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt.] Like to this are many other say of S. Austin. Psal. 48.33.— 21. And Ep. 120. ad Honorat. 27. c. expounding that in 21. Psal. 29. v. Manducaverunt & adoraverunt omnes divites terrae, he saith, & ipsi [divites] (per divites terrae, saith he before, hoc loco superbi intelligendi sunt,) adducti sunt ad mensam Domini, & accipiunt de corpore & sanguine ejus, sed adorant tantum: non etiam saturantur, (alluding to 26. v. edent pauperes, i. e. humiles, saith he, & saturabuntur,) quia non imitantur. Here he saith, the wicked do adorare that which they receive de mensa Domini; but 'tis certain they may not adore any thing else, however consecrated or sanctified, or whatever it represent, but only the real body and blood of Christ. [But of Aderation more fully afterward.] In which say of his we find the real body of Christ in mensa, in altari, in ore manducantium, (not only in cord,) in the oblation (which was before communicating) adored before manducation; and therefore I think 'tis plain, as S. Austin held with the second opinion the real presence of Christ, so with the 3d and 4th opinion the real presence in mensa or Altari with the elements, or the signs. Now, I say, if these two things be granted once, I do not see what thing that Father can say in any place, of the bread and wine being symbols, figures, &c, of Christ's passion, or of Christ's body that was crucified; &c, which thing the 4th opinion may not say of the species of the bread or wine being so. Thus much of the 2d note, that the 4th opinion, as well as the other, after consecration makes a sign remaining, and distinct from the thing signified, of which signs many things are predicated, which cannot be so of Christ's body.  
§ VII 3. Note 3ly, in comparng the two last opinions together, That some at least of the defenders of the 4th opinion reject the third as contrary to the Scripture and reason, Obs. 3 
1.  by supposing a sense in it, which the third, I mean the moderator party thereof, doth not own; whereas, their sense well understood, their difference seems not so great. For thus Bellarm. de Euchar. 3. l. 19 c. argues against it: Hic panis triticeus non est corpus Domini, (but who is there saith it is?) fieri enim non potest, ut una res non mutetur, & tamen fiat alia, esset enim ipsa, & non esset ipsa: but at last, when he takes into consideration the instance whereby the third opinion explains itself; that, as of a barrel of wine we say, Hoc est vinum; so we say not of the bread, but that contained under it, Hoc est corpus Domini, (even as the fourth opinion saith, Hoc est corpus Domini, of that which is contained under the species of bread.) He hath little to say against their tenant, in respect of the expression of Scripture, or evidence of reason, his arguments from which (3. l. 22. c.) seem of little moment, but (see the end of 19 c.) flies to this ward; licet in verbis Domini esset aliqua ambiguitas, tamen sublata est per multa Concilia Ecclesiae & consensum Patrum. And so do many of the Schoolmen; see the quotations in Blondel de Euchar. 12. cap. and cocerning this proposition, Potuisse Deum efficere ut in Sacramento vere adesset corpus Christi cum pane, & si hoc fecisset mysterium, futurum fuisse facilius & minus miraculorum in se continens. Bellarmin saith, Aliqui negant, alii concedunt; res ad fidem non pertinet, (i. e. of the possibility of this,) neque de eo est nobis cum haereticis controversia. de Euchar. 3. l. 23. c.  
2. Indeed the difference is not much, when as one saith, hoc est corpus meum quod continetur sub accidentibus panis; the other, hoc quod continetur sub substantia panis, (of which the former men grant a possibility;) and when as the fourth opinion denies panis to remain after consecration, not because corpus Domini cannot possibly be sub pane, which the third opinion affirms, but because panis cannot be corpus Domini, in which the third opinion agrees with them: yet corpus Domini sub pane, the fourth opinion admits not, the better to accord with Antiquity, who affirm the bread consecrated to be, to be made, to be changed into, Christ's body, which mutation of it into another, they think cannot consist with its being the same as it was before; but the bread remaining as formerly, only Christ's body now with, or under it, though it may be thought to suit well with the words of Institution, yet they canceive agrees not so well with those expressions of the Fathers; this interpretation arguing a change indeed about the bread, but not a change indeed of the bread: and perhaps I may say, to follow the closer the words of Institution, of which, though the Lutheran sense be not improper, as is showed in the former instances, yet the sense that the fourth opinion gives of them, though perhaps encountering more difficulties, seems more proper: whilst in it the article Hoc no way includes or involves any other substance besides corpus meum. As we may say, it would also be yet more proper, if the article Hoc no way involved any foreign accidents, (as in the sense of the fourth opinion it doth,) but those belonging to our Saviour's body. So, to say hoc est vinum, is more proper when 'tis covered with no other substance or accidents but its own, than when 'tis said so of it hide within a barrel or other vessel.  
3. Thus much of the distance between the third and fourth opinion. As for some incommodious explications and expressions used by some of the third opinion; as that of the ubiquity of the Manhood by reason of its union with the Deity, with which the Lutheran opinion hath no need to defend its self against the Transubstantialist, who grants a possibility of Christ's bodily presence; and that, of the bread's being properly called Christ's body in the words of Institution, from the bread's being united with it, because the Son of God is properly called man from the union of the Humanity and Deity in the person of Christ; as they are liable to much exception, so are they unnecessary, since the third opinion is justifiable without them.  
§. VIII Observe in the 4th place, concerning the last opinions; that, for the manner of Christ's real presence with the signs, Obs. 4 they are not so gross as some apprehend, or represent them: for they both of them hold Christ's body not to be there physica or locali (i. e.) ad modum corporum sensibili praesentia, or inclusione. 
1.  Thus saith Conc. Trid. sess. 13.1. c. Neque enim haec interse pugnant; juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assid●re ad dextram Patris, & nobis substantia sua adesse praesentem sacramentaliter, ea existendi ratione, quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogitation per fidem illustrata, assequi possumus. etc. Bellarm. de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c. 3. l. 5. c. 10. c. and elsewhere in that treatise. Christum non esse in Eucharistia ut in loco, vel ut in vase, aut quod sub aliquo velo, sed eo modo ut panis prius; sed non ita ut accidentia panis inhaereant Christi subtantiae; non coexistere aut commensurari loco; non esse, ita ut habeat ordinem ullum ad corpora circumstantia; non esse sensibile, visibile, tangibile, extensum; non adesse mobiliter, extensive, corporaliter, as we understand this word to exclude, not naturam, but modum corporis. See many like expressions concerning it quoted by Blond. 10. c. p. 321. out of Romanists. That nothing belonging formerly to the substance of the bread &c can be attributed to it; as to be white, round, &c, but only words that signify its presence, as contineri, manere sub speciebus, sumi in Eucharistia, ore recipi, etc. Dr. Holden p. 316. Verum & real corpus Christi profitemur esse in hoc Sacramento, non more corporeo & passibili, sed Spirituali & invisibili, nobis omnino incognito. Spirituli, i. as opposed to corporali, but by no means as opposed to real, which neither the second opinion will tolerate: therefore that 8th Canon Conc. Trid. sess. 13. [Siquis dixerit Christum in Eucharistia exhibitum spiritualiter tantum manducari, & non etiam sacramentaliter, & realiter, anathema sit,] by the second opinion cannot be censured.  
2. The same expressions the Lutherans have (which you may find in the pacific Discourses of Bishop Davenant, Morton, Hall, &c, (see Davenant adhort. ad pacem Eccles. cap. 11.) lessening the difference between the several parties of the Reformed, but by the same reason may be also urged as lessening that between the Reformed and Romanist) Christum adesse signis; but invisibiliter, intangibiliter, etc. Again (about oral manducation), recipi quidem ore etc. Therefore do they as others detest the Capernaitan error.  
3. See what Bishop Forbes saith the Euchar. 1. l. 28. s. Nemo sanae mentis etc. Urged in Discourse concerning the Rubric of the Eng. Lit. §. 48. Hear likewise what Bellarmin confesseth in recogn. operum, p. 81. (upon some men disallowing his conversion not productive, but adductive; saying, non esse vere conversionem sed translocationem, which Dr. Taylor also presseth p. 269.) namely, Quod conversio & transubstantiatio pertineant ad panem, non ad corpus Christi; Quod corpus Christi nec translocari dici potest, cum neque deserat locum suum in coelo, neque incipiat esse sub speciebus, ut in loco, sed ut substantia sub accidentibus, remota tamen inhaerentia.— Quod per consecrationem Eucharistiae non producatur de novo, sed praexistat etc.— Sed quicquid sit de modis loquendi, illud tenendum est, Conversionem panis & vini in corpus & sanguinem Christi esse substantialem, sed arcanam & ineffabilem, & nullis naturalibus conversionibus per omnia similem, & quam solus Deus facere potest, qui solus in totam entis naturam absolutam potestatem habet. And if we may believe Dr. Tailor, (in the place sorequoted, p. 269.270. and see the same in Blondel, p. 197. etc.) that, by conversion or Transubstantiation the Romanists mean only a local succession of Christ's body into the place of bread, and nothing to be produced but a new ubi or presentiality, whilst it is only made present where it was not before, (a thing which, excepting that clause [into the place of bread] himself cannot deny, unless he saith, Christ is no more really present in the time of the Sacrament, than out of it) though perhaps some terms may seem to be used unproperly, yet the difference and cause of offence is made still less: it being then only about the place of the presence of Christ's body; for as for annihilation or ceasing to be of the bread, this is granted possible to be done, and if not done, an error no way dangerous.  
4 Those therefore who dispute against the two last Opinions, as professing such gross things (as I have showed above) they expressly reject, beat the Air, and have no Adversary, at least not Councils; nor the moderator and modester party of their Writers, with whose Concessions only, the desirous of Christ's Peace ought to debate matters of difference; but if they say such gross things follow naturally from their professed Tenants, though these Consequences be denied and renounced by them; here, to preserve their Charity towards the Defenders of the Fourth Opinion, I must put them in mind of that Rule which Daille hath so much enlarged upon (in his Apology for the Separation of the Reformed Churches from that of Rome, printed in English, c. 9 and in his Letter to Monsieur de Monglat, in Answer to Chaumonts' Remarks upon his Apology, p. 15, 16. and in his Considerations upon Chaumonts' Reply, p. 31, etc.) to preserve Charity towards the Defenders (being Brethren of the Reformaon) of the Third Opinion. He in these places saith, That, though Adoration of the Sacrament should necessarily follow from the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's Presence with the Signs (as Bishop Morton saith it doth, De Pace Eccl. p. 9); again, Tho a Destruction of the Human Nature of Christ necessarily follows from the Lutheran Tenent of the Ubiquity thereof (as he himself confesseth it doth); again, Tho the Destruction of the Trinity of Persons should necessarily follow from the Tenent of the Greek Church, denying the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son (as he quotes many of the Schoolmen to affirm it doth) yet, since these opinions destroy, or oppugn to, such principles or Fundamentals (for the destruction of which only (see his c. 7.) a Separation of Communion may be made), par ses suittes, & non par ses theses: c' est a dire qu' elle induit cette ruin, mais ne la pose pas. And since such men still hold the Principle, and utterly deny and renounce such a Consequent of their error (he saith) none ought to impose or impute such a Consequence unto them; or for it separate from their Communion. Neither may one (then) impose upon the Fourth Opinion the Consequential Contradictons or Absurdities thereof; or for these Desert their Communion. But of this Rule of Daille's more anon, when we come to Adoration.  
§. IX 5. Note in the fifth place for the Third and Fourth Opinion; That, Obs. 5 since they affirm from pretended sense of Scriptures, such as Mat. 26.26. 1 Cor. 10.16.— 11.27, 29. Eph. 5.30, 32, 
1  etc. whether that (which is opposed to qualify these Texts) 1 Cor. 11.27, 28. be taken only for all the sensibilia of Bread, as the Fourth; or also for the substance of Bread remaining together with Christ's Body, as the Third Opinion will have it; the Mystery of the Sacrament to be Miraculous and Supernatural, and Incomprehensible (which also the Second Opinion pretends to hold) no Arguments drawn from Sense, or natural Reason, or also from any Rules of Contradiction, can be of any force to confute them.  
2 For first, for the matter of Sense, they affirm it not to be deceived at all, but truly to discern its proper object; every thing sensible in the Eucharist remaining after Consecration, as before it; and the Presence of Christ's Body (whatever it is there) being invisible, intangible, etc. As for that Argument ordinarily made against the Fourth Opinion, from the position of the Accidents, which are discerned by sense, to the position of the Substance, which in the ordinary course of Nature they accompany (as, It hath the usual colour, taste, etc. of Bread, therefore it is Bread:) 'tis granted good, where intervenes no supernatural or miraculous effect, revealed unto us by the Scriptures. Good therefore was that Argument of our Saviour's, Lu. 24.39. Handle one, and see, etc. And that of the Apostle, 1 Jo. 1.1. That which we have heard, which we have seen, etc. Good, that of the Fathers from these and suchlike places, against the Marcionites, to prove, Christ had no fantastical, but a true Body; and Good still, though the Marcionites had pretended a Miracle: because such pretended Miracle was not provable from Scripture, but the plain contrary, as appears in the forequoted Texts. But such Argument were not good, if one should argue from the outward appearance, touch, etc. that the Angels, that came and talked, and eat and drank with Abraham, and also led Lot out of Sodom, were Men: because the Scripture hath told us they were Angels. In which cases it consists well (notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith, p. 169.) with the Justice and Goodness of God, to be angry with us for believing our Senses, or our Reason, whenever he makes known to us such Mysteries contrary to the ordinary experience of Nature.  
3 But than you will say, the Scripture hath revealed unto us no miraculous or supernatural effect in the Eucharist, and therefore an Argument from our Senses here stands good. The Third and Fourth Opinion contend mainly, that it hath. You see then, till this is decided (of which anon) no Argument from Senses is to be heard; and after this is cleared, it needs not be urged. The same which is said of Arguments from Sense, may be said of Arguments from seeming Contradiction. For though this Proposition be willingly granted, That whatever truly contradicts cannot be effected Potentia Divina; (not naturally, nor supernaturally;) so that there is no place of pleading to make two contradictories good, by urging Miracle: Yet this general Rule is utterly useless to us in any particular Controversy, unless we know first what things truly contradict. Now a contradiction is only when the same thing is denied of, or removed from itself, as this, [a Man is not a Man] or this [a Man is white and not white], where the formal contradiction being resolved, is, [whiteness is not whiteness]. Now such plain apparent contradictions, none, having the use of Reason, will make or maintain; it being one of the primest principles of Reason, Impossible est idem esse & non esse. Therefore where we find Contradictions in terminis (a thing not unusual with Orators, to make the acuter expression) these terms are taken in several senses, by those who propose them; one term not signifying the formal essence of the thing. So those Contradictions in terminis observed by Dr. Taylor p. 14, 15. to the Roman party [as corpus incorporeum, cruor incruentus,] if the terms be took in several acceptations, will be no formal Contradictions; as if cruor be taken for the substance of Blood, incruentus for the colour and other accidents usually accompanying, but (as the Proponents suppose) possibly separable from, the substance. So, if corpus be taken for the substance of a Body, and incorporeum for extension in a place, etc. which the Proponents conceive not essential, but accidental, to a Body: else, if corpus incorporeum taken in any sense be a Contradiction, so will the Apostle's corpus spirituale be; for in the predicament of substance, incorporeum and spirituale are made the same.  
4 But though not plain and formal Contradictions, yet virtual, I grant, many may and do make, whilst they take those things to be divers, which are the same: as if quantum or extensum be the same with corpus; or rather, extensio with corporeitas (as Rivet affirms it is, but the Romanist denies) then corpus non-extensum will be a Contradiction. To know then, what truly contradicts, and so is Potentia Divina unfaisible, or unseparable, we must know exactly, what things are the same, what different.  
1. First, we must perfectly discern all the accidents of any thing from the essence of it, not only what accidents are ordinarily separated, (for this will have no place where a supernatural effect is urged,) but what are potentia divina separable. For that all things separable are actually in the course of nature separated; or that every thing not essential is sometimes locally disjoined from the essence; or that nothing can be done by miracle, which nature never worketh; who can justify? Now by what means any can know this, I much wonder.  
2. Secondly, since the Essence also of all creatures is composit, not simple, we must discern all the parts of its essence one from another, and then know in which of those essentials or constitutives the essence of the thing more chief consists; so that this removed, the name of the thing can be no longer retained. For note, that a thing may be said to be the same still, even though some part of the essence thereof be changed, or removed; if that wherein it more formally consists, still abides; as a man or a ship is still the same, though much of the matter of both of them be altered. Now if these things no man can exactly know, then to say, all things are possible to God except what contradicts, is as much as to say; Every particular thing that can be named to us, is, for any thing we know, (without revelation to the contrary), to God possible. Methinks some such thing appears from Dr. Tailor's concession, p. 240. Let it appear that God hath affirmed Transubstantiation, and I for my part will burn all my arguments against it, and make public amends. (See Disc. conc. Rubric. of the Eng. Lit. §. 20.) Where the Doctor prefers Revelation to all arguments against it.  
3. Lastly, for the seeming contradictions which are objected by Dr. Taylor p. 207. I see not but that a many of them may be as well urged to disprove the world made of nothing; the resurrection to every one of the same body when one is fed on, or feeds on another; the Trinity; or the Incarnation; (for note, that if such are to be accounted no true contradictions, in respect of the Trinity, because this is clearly revealed; neither are they in respect of Transubstantiation, or Consubstantiation, though it be not revealed,) nay to disprove the ordinary Philosophical axiom [anima est tota in toto, & tota in qualibet parte,] which soul, if tota in capite, & tota in pede, is consequently tota in two places at once: the same may be said of Angels, and must much more of the simple essence of God, of whom also is believed, that the self same nature is totally in three real distinct persons, yet without any division or multiplication of itself; (miratur hoc mens humana, et quia non capit, fortasse non credit- saith St. Augustin, Epistola 3. ad Volus.) but our Saviour also, who never departs from heaven on the right hand of the Father till his second coming to judgement, (Act. 3.21.) yet hath often appeared here on earth to many, several times to St. Paul A many of them to disprove a Camel's passing thro' a needle's eye; or our Saviour's body passing thro' a door unopened, (for many bodies to be in one place, is as well absurd, as one to be in many;) but especially, the multiplying of the five loaves to feed so many thousands, which doubtless might as well have been multiplied to feed all the world, at any distance, and this without applying an attribute of God, Ubiquity, to them. See how the Doctor hath prosecuted this business of Ubiquity, p. 214. 217. etc. 231. A many of them to disprove the substantial presence of Christ's body (and not only by the effects, influence, or virtue thereof,) to the soul of the faithful receiver, in so many several places, which thing seems to be affirmed by the second opinion: and the Socinians, Remonstrants, Zuinglians, all that hold only the first opinion, charge such contradictions and absurdities upon the second opinion, as well as those do upon the third and fourth. Now any one contradiction found in the second opinion is as irreconcilable to truth, as many; and if there were no seeming contradiction in it, why fly they also to modus ineffabilis & plenus miraculis? (see before p. 3.) And indeed, what can be more contradictious, than for a finite body to be present, not only in its effects, but substance, to another body; and yet not be present there, after any manner of presence, neither of a Body, nor of a Spirit; neither definitively, nor circumscriptively, nor repletively? (See what the Doctor saith to that effect, p. 218.) But if you say 'tis there modo ineffabili, and think this objection answered by it, then why may not others excuse their seeming contradictory expressions by modus ineffabilis? Methinks, setting aside divine revelation, for matter of reasoning, those who grant se nescire modum quomodo est praesens, should likewise confess se nescire modum quomodo non est praesens; for if by their reason they comprehend not the manner, how Christ's body is there, neither can they by their reason discover, but that that particular manner, which they oppose, may be the manner of his being there.  
§. X 6ly, Note, that the third opinion denies not the possibility or feisibility of the 4th, but only disputes the fact; Obs. 6 acknowledgeth God's power to do it, 
1.  but saith, there is no divine revelation that shows, that 'tis his pleasure so to do; therefore the chief blame that is laid by them upon the abettors of the fourth opinion, is, that it, in so much doubt and uncertainty of the manner of Christ's Presence, should be obtruded on the world, prejudicially to the tenants more probable, as an article of faith. See Harmon. Confession. Judicium Theol. Wirtemb. quoted by Bishop Forbes. Credimus omnipotentiam Dei tantam esse, ut possit in Eucharistia substantiam panis & vini vel annihilare, vel in corpus & sanguinem Christi mutare; sed quod Deus hanc suam absolutam potentiam in Eucharistia exerceat, non videtur esse certo verbo Dei traditum, & apparet veteri Ecclesiae fuisse ignotum. See Chemnit. exam. Conc. Trid. de Transub. Sed dicat quis, Quare ita contendamus, an substantia panis in Eucharistia vel remaneat, vel non remaneat, cum thesaurus Eucharistiae sit non panis naturalis etc. sed vera & substantialis praesentia, exhibitio, sumptio corporis & sanguinis Christi & c? Respondeo. Nullo modo pari momento censemus panem, & corpus Christi. Et Lutherus semper dixit, se in tota hac disputatione magis spectare praesentiam corporis Christi in coena, quam praesentiam panis. Sed quia Transubstantiatio pro articulo fidei sub poena anathematis proponitur, necessario contradicendum est etc. See Bell. Euchar. 3. l. c. 11. In hoc valde distinguuntur Lutherani a Calvinistis; Calvinistae enim Transubstantiationem sceleratam esse haeresin, & rem prorsus impossibilem; Lutherani dicunt esse possibilem, & non pugnare aperte cum fide; unde magis reprehendunt Catholicos, quod Transubstantiationem faciunt articulum fidei, quam quod eam defendant.  
2. Yet some there are of the second opinion, who dispute not the supernatural possibility of it, (see Calvin de vera Christianae pacificationis ratione, joined to Rivet's animadv. on Grot. 11. c. Quasi vero hic de Christi potentia disputetur,— Rerum omnium conversionem fieri posse a Christo, nos quoque fatemur.— Quaerendo quianam possit Christus, frustra se fatigant; cum haec una cognitio sensus omnes nostros in se continere debeat, quidnam velit:) and who grant a possibility of many of those particulars maintained by the 4th opinion; as that, the same body may be in many places; accidents persist without a subject etc. which things some others again make to involve a contradiction. See many testimonies to this purpose numbered up by Bishop Forbes de Euchar. 1. l. 2. c.  
Lastly, Some of the Second Opinion there are, that hold the Fourth Opinion more agreeable to our Saviour's words, than the Third. See Bishop Forb. l. 1. c. 4. s. 5. Longius consubstantiatorum quam Transubstantiatorum sententiam a Christi verbis recedere (i. e. I conceive, as they take the Third Opinion to affirm ipsum panem esse corpus Domini, for this seems much more unreasonable, than, Hoc quod continetur sub specie panis est corpus Domini) sive litera spectetur, sive sensus, affirmat R. Hospin. hist. Sacr. parte altera, p. 7. etc. Calviniani communiter. See Calvin (Instit. l. 4. c. 17. s. 20.) where, speaking of some of the Lutherans affirming proprie loquendo panem esse corpus Christi, he argues, that consequently they must say panem esse Christum; because totus Christus offertur in coena; and then concludes, intolerabilis autem Blasphemia est sine figura Praedicari de elemento corruptibili quod sit corpus.— Again (s. 30.) inveighing against Lutherans— Ubiquity he saith, Papistarum tolerabilior vel saltem magis verecunda est doctrina. And see Judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. 5. s. 67. how indifferently he behaves himself between the two Tenants of Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation, censuring them both, only as Opinions unnecessary and superfluous, and p. 361. saying of the later (the Transubstantialists) that they justly shun some Labyrinths of the former (the Consubstantialists) but yet that the way which they take to the same Inn is somewhat more short, but no whit more certain. See likewise Spalat. Rep. Eccl. l. 7. c. 11. n. 6. Fateor neque Transubstantiationem neque Ubiquitatem haeresin ullam directe continere, etc.  
§. XI 7. Yet even those Reformed, who cry out of the Fourth Opinion as Heretical, Obs. 7 Diabolical, Blasphemous, etc. (for such also there are), Seventhly, Observe, That for the most part those of the Second Opinion hold the Third (notwithstanding the near alliance it appears to have with the Fourth) no ways Heretical, or (though erroneous) destructive of any fundamental or principal Article of Faith (unless by some Consequences renounced by those who hold the Third Opinion) and therefore giving no just cause of any separation of Communion from any such. Credere quod caro Christi ubique est, quod in pane est, & oraliter manducetur, idque etiam ab impiis, stipula & palea est, Par. in 1 Cor. 3. See many quotations in Bishop Forb. Euch. l. 1. c. 4. See likewise Daille's Charity in the place, quoted before in the end of the Fourth Observation, p. 16. notwithstanding those dangerous Consequences of the Third Opinion, of destroying Christ's Humanity by Ubiquity, and of Adoration by presence with the Elements. See Bishop Hall's, Davenant's, Morton's Discourses De Pace Ecclesiastica. How far can men bend, when they have a good mind to it? See particularly Bish. Hall, p. 73. Res apud utrosque eadem, etc. At last he brings in the Decree of the Synod of the French Protestants at Charenton; in which the Lutherans are received to their Communion, as agreeing with them in omnibus verae Religionis principiis Articulisque fundamentalibus. 
See Disc. conc. Rub. of Eng. §. 12.  How well therefore the same men can refuse Communion with those of the Fourth Opinion, supposing the falsity thereof, or asperse it with the name of Heresy, etc. I see not; and perhaps the more moderate do not refuse, nor quarrel with it for this: But the thing they blame is Adoration, or the imposing their Transubstantiation on others as an Article of Faith (of which anon): to which purpose Daille, in his Answer to the Remarks made by Chaumont on his Apology, p. 20. hath these words (after vindicating Beza and Calvin from holding any real Presence of Christ's Body in the Signs) Mais bienque nous ne croyons pas &c. Although we believe no such Presence in the Signs, yet we esteem not that Belief so criminal, as that it obligeth us to break off Communion with those who hold it, as it appears by our tolerating it in the Lutherans. So that had the Church of Rome no other Error than this, we voluntarily accord her to have given us no sufficient cause of Separation from her. What is that Faith of Rome then which I alleged as a sufficient cause of Separation? (then he names this) l' Adoration de l'Ostie. Thus he.  
§. XII Having thus made a Cursory over the Four Opinions about the Eucharist; give me leave now to reflect a little upon, and search more strictly into the Second Opinion; which I think is the Tenent of many of the Church of England. Concerning which I do not well understand, How it must not either fall into many of the difficulties and seeming contradictions of the Third and Fourth Opinions, or slide back into the sense of the First, the most intelligible and perspicuous indeed, but (thought by the rest) too much diminutive of this tremendum Mysterium, this ineffable Mystery. §. XIII  

Concerning the Second Opinion.  Now let us consider this Second Opinion, first concerning its affirming or denying the real or substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Celebration of the Eucharist. Next, concerning its affirming or denying such Presence in or with the Signs. As to the former; the phrase of real Presence, if we mean by it only presence in something real, may be used by those who deny substantial presence. For if Christ be present to us (in the Eucharist,) in the benefits of his Passion, in his Grace, in his Spirit, he is present to us in something real, though not in the reality of his Person. But they, going beyond all these, even the last of them also, the presence by his Spirit, (see before p. 2. neque enim mortis tantum &c,— neque enim mihi satisfaciunt etc.) affirm a real and substantial presence (for indeed what can real presence of a substance, such as body and blood is, be but substantial presence?) even of that body which suffered upon the Cross for us: which presence they clearly contradistinguish to presence by effect, influence, virtue, grace, or an uniting of our bodies with Christ's body by the same Spirit abiding in both, (by which way things furthest distant (if we call this presence) may be said to be present to one another, as long as there is any thing between them, that immediately toucheth or informeth both: so the head may be said to be present to the foot, the Saints in heaven to those on earth, the West to the East-Indies: so the substantial presence of Christ's body and blood may be affirmed, as well as here, when ever there is any communication of his Spirit, as in Baptism; and as properly as the Bread which we break, and the Cup which we bless here, so the Water, that is (then) poured on us, may be said to be the communion of the body and blood of Christ): these manners of Presence therefore they count not enough to satisfy the Scriptures, and Tradition. Therefore they speak of Eucharistical-presence as a great mystery, Eph. 5. wrought by God's omnipotence after a manner ineffable, or incomprehensible to man's reason. Lastly, as far in substantial or real presence they seem to go as any, either the third or fourth opinion; in that they question not the matter of that presence, (the which the other affirm,) but the manner; which whilst the others guess, some after this, some after that manner, they will guests nothing at all of it; (by which they are free from any objections;) and well, modestly, prudently this: only if such would not so peremptorily condemn the conjectures of others, (as perhaps some of them do not.) See for what I have now said (besides the quotations before, p. 2. in the relation of this second opinion) many places in Dr. Tailor, the very Title of his book, wherein Spiritual must be took in such a sense, as not to deny real; and of Christ, must be understood of the Body and Blood of Christ: For this he saith often in the Book, namely, p. 7. see p. 20. where, in answering some hard say of the Fathers, etc. as if the same Body that was crucified, was not eaten in the Sacrament, he saith, That Proposition is true, if we speak of the eating of Christ's Body in the same manner of being [for it had one manner of being on the Cross, and another in the Sacrament] But that Body which was crucified, the same Body we do eat, if we speak of the same thing in a several manner of being, &c: Christ's Body therefore is in the Sacrament, not only in its operation, but being; though after another manner of being than it was on the Cross. And what Dr. Taylor saith, methinks, answers several arguments brought afterward by himself out of the Fathers against real presence under, or with, the symbols, see p. 311. Non hoc quod videtis, etc. see p. 288. They that do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour, etc. See p. 5. where he will have spiritual presence to be particular in nothing, but that it excludes the corporal, and natural manner, etc. See Arch B. Laud, 
See Disc. concerning the Rub. of the En. Lyt. §. 14, 15.  p. 286. where he saith, The worthy Receiver is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and real Body and Blood of Christ, etc. And Arch B. Cranmer (as the Arch B. quotes out of Fox, p. 1703.) confesseth, That though he was indeed of another opinion, and inclining to that of Zuinglius, yet B. Ridly convinced his judgement, and settled him in the point.  
2. Add to these Bishop Hall, quoted before; Res apud utrosque eadem, rei tamen ratio diversa, etc. utrosque he means Lutheran, but the Consequence is as good for the Romanist. See the same opinion of A. Spalat. and Bishop Forbes, quoted hereafter. Lastly, in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland, in the Administering the Sacrament, the former words or comment [Feed on him in thy heart by Faith] are left out, according to the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI and also the Form in the Missals; perhaps, as being a Diminutive of this great Mystery, in which is maintained another, a more real eating and participation of Christ's Body, than that by Faith alone. As likewise there are added in the Prayer of Consecration these words (agreeable to the first Book of Edw. VI and the Forms of all Antiquity; only those run not, ut nobis sint, but ut nobis fiant corpus, etc.) [So bless and sanctify with thy Word and Holy Spirit 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] which seem to tend to the same purpose: and upon Bucer's exceptions at them, in his Censura in ordine Eccl. c. 9 were by the Second Reformers of the Common-Prayer-Book cast out. Now in these passages above recited (if I well understand them) the Presence of Christ's Body is as fully and properly affirmed by these, as by the Lutheran or Romanist; only all the difference is; not about the Presence, whether carnally or spiritually, substantially or locally, after the manner of other Bodies, or not locally or substantially; but about the subject only, to which present, (as Mr. Hooker well observes) whether to the worthy Receiver only, or also to the elements or signs; or if present to the signs, whether not some other way present to them, than either Cousubor Transubstantially. Whereas therefore the Lutheran and Romanist dispute the manner, whether our Saviour's Body be Consubstantially or Transubstantially with the signs; the other Reformed and these dispute the manner, whether with the signs, or only with the Receiver (or also whether with the signs, not by the forenamed, but some other unknown way) but in its presence with the worthy Receiver all agree, and one affirm it as much as another.  
3. But now if one should affirm Christ personlly or substantially present to the Receiver, another only virtually present, in his Grace, Spirit, etc. 'tis plain, that here a difference between them is not in the manner of the presence, but in the presence itself. So the first Opinion, though affirming a virtual presence, is said to deny the real presence, or any mystery in the Sacrament.  
§. XIV Thus much of their affirming the substantial or personal presence of Christ in the Sacrament, as to the third and fourth Opinion. But now, I confess, I do not see how this doth consist with many other things which they say. See Dr. Taylor, p. 15. But we by the spiritual real presence of Christ, do understand Christ to be present as the Spirit of God is present in the hearts of the Faithful, by blessing and grace,— p. 107. by saith and blessing,— and this is all which we mean, beside the Tropical and Figurative presence, p. 21. They (the Romanists) say, that the spiritual and the virtual taking him in virtue or effect, is not sufficient, though this is done also in the Sacrament. See p. 218. where, after showing, that Christ's Body is in the Eucharist, neither circumscriptive, definitive, nor repletive, (the only three ways that are conceivable of being in a place) he saith, his Body is there figuratively, tropically, representatively in Being, [might not he say, or in reality? now representatively only, in respect of reality, is the same with not really,] and really in effect and blessing: but this is not a natural, real, being in a place, but a relation to a person. I suppose he means, but Christ's Body in Heaven having a relation to a Communicant on Earth in some effect and blessing. Add to these, what he saith p. 120, 121, That we under the Sacrament of Bread and Wine receive Christ's Body no more really, than the Israelites did in the Manna, Rock; Cloud, etc. both in a divers Sacrament, saith he, but in all the same reality: whatsoever we, the same they did eat. Surely this than argues only a virtual presence thereof, not a substantial; because Christ's Body or Flesh was not then as yet assumed. See likewise p. 276, 277. See p. 7. where he quotes the Fathers, that whatsoever they speak of the Eucharist, they affirm also the same of the other Sacrament, Baptism, etc. quoting out of St. Austin," that we are made partakers of the Body and Blood of" Christ, when in Baptism we are made Members of Christ, etc. therefore (whatever may be answered to the Fathers, of which more anon, yet) his opinion is, that Christ's Body is no more really present in the Lord's Supper, than in Baptism, etc.  
2. I find B. Forbes, though holding neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation, yet much censuring, out of Spalat. and others, these two diminutive comparisons of the Lord's Supper, de Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s. 26, 27. Falso etiam asseritur, haud aliter nos Corpus Christi in Eucharistia comedere, quam Patres veteris Testamenti, etc. and s. 27. Perperam etiam asseritur, res easdem esse Christum in Baptismo endure, & ipsius carnem ac sanguinem in Caena sumere, etc.  
3. I will add to these of Dr. Tailors, an expression of Dr. Hammond's Pract. Cat. where he speaks of the Eucharist,— God bestows the Body and Blood of Christ upon us, not by sending it down locally for our Bodies to feed on, but really for our Souls to be strengthened by it. As when the Sun is communicated to us, the whole Bulk and Body of the Sun is not removed out of its Sphere, but the Rays and Beams of it, and with them the Light and Instuences are really and verily bestowed and darted out upon us. Thus he. As therefore not the Body of the Sun, but only the Beams thereof, can be said to be really and locally here below; so, I conceive the Doctor means, that not the very Body of Christ, but the virtue and efficacy thereof only, are really here present to the worthy receiver. If so, you may see how Mr. Hooker differs from him in the same simile, (in the quotation set down above, p. 50.) where he saith, not only by effect and operation, as the influence of the heavens is in plants, beasts, men, &c, which they quicken etc.  
4. Lastly, I do not see, how this their opinion of substantial Presence consists with many of those objections made by them against the third and fourth opinion; as that in particular of the impossibility of the same body to be in many places at once, which objection opposeth not the modus, but any presence substantial whatsoever? But if on the other side, in good earnest, a real substantial Presence be affirmed by them; though in (wisely) not expressing any particular manner, as others do, they both avoid the arguments, which perhaps might be made against it, and have advantage to make some against others; yet I see not, but that, from their affirming in general such a Presence, they must incur many of the same difficulties with the third and fourth opinion. If they say substantially present, but they mean not to the elements, but to the receiver, and that to his soul, not to his body; yet if they affirm it as much, or as far present to the soul, as the other doth to the signs, (as Mr. Hooker saith, they differ only about the subject, not the presence,) do not the same objections, absurdities, &c, concerning Christ's Body, being both substantially in Heaven and in the place where the Communion is celebrated, with which they afflict the others for making it present with the signs, return upon themselves, for making it present with the receivers? For if it be possible, that the body of Christ, now sitting at the right hand of God in heaven, can notwithstanding this be present in our soul, or in our heart, so may it under, or with the bread; unless we say, that we affirm not that real presence to the soul, which they do to the bread. But then our writers must not say, that we differ only about the manner, or the subject of his Presence, but the Presence itself also.  
5. If they say, substantially present; but they mean spiritually, not naturally, or not corporally, so saith the Romanist, i. e. not with the usual accidents or qualities always accompanying (where no supernatural effect) the nature or essence of a Body: but if they will extend, spiritually so far, as that it shall imply Christ's body to be there, substantially or really, yet not quoad naturam or essentiam suam, or not quoad corpus, this is by a distinction to destroy their thesis.  
6. Again, if they say, substantially there present, but not locally, so saith the Lutheran and Romanist, i. e. circumscriptive, or by such commensuration to place as bodies use to have; but if they will extend locally so far, as that they understand Christ's body to be there by no manner of ubi at all, (see Dr. Tailor p. 218.) not so much as ubi definitive, so that we may truly say 'tis hic, so as not ubique, or alibi where no communion; what is this but to affirm, 'tis there so, as that it is not there?  
7. If they say substantially present, by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven; besides that thus Christ's body is no more present in the Eucharist, than in any other ordinance or sacrament, wherein the Spirit is conferred; such presence is properly of the Spirit, not of the body; unless that which (being finite) is only in heaven (as they affirm) may not rightly be said to be really and substantially absent from what is on earth. Now if these seeming-impossibilities and contradictions we acknowledge, and fly to the incomprehensibility and inexplicableness of the mystery; all that I reply is, that we must indulge the same privilege to others, allowing that a thousand contradictions of theirs may be as soon true, as only one of ours.  
8. But if at last we plainly interpret our real and substantial presence by Christ's being present (in corporal absence) to the worthy receiver in all the benefits and effects thereof, we slide back into the first opinion, differing only from them in expression; and then what need we speak any more of omnipotency for such presence, or make any thing miraculous in the Sacrament? what incomprehensibleness in this, when (as Bellarmin expresseth it) all that we say is, That per fidem apprehendentem Christum in coelo & manducantem sacramentum or signum corporis sui, participamus omnia bona Christi? What mean (then) those gradations of reception, not only of bare signs, nor of the signs and the benefits applied by faith; but also of the very body and blood of Christ? In tanta locorum distantia penetrat ad nos Christi caro, saith Calvin, ut nobis sit in cibum. Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 10. s.  
§ XV Therefore the Remonstrants, discerning the difficulties as are above named, into which the affirming of real Presence cast some of the Reformed (Apol. pro confessione sua, p. 256.) said the Zuinglian opinion was simplicissima, & ad idololatriam omnemevitandam in hac materia inprimis necessaria: & quae a Calvino & illius ●●quacibu● dicuntur manifestam in se continere tum vanitatem, tum absurditatem; & ex isto fonte emanasse ingentem illam idololatriam etc. _____ The same say the Socinians. See Volkelius.  
And I think Rive●, in his controversies with Grotius, is of the same opinion with the Remonstrants, at least much differing from Dr. Tailor's; for that saying of the Conc. Trid. [Sacramentaliter praesens Salvator noster substantia sua nobis adest], allowed in some sense by the Doctor, he maintains to contradict. Quia quod sacramentaliter praesens est, saith he, non est substantia sua praesens, nec contra. Animad. p. 85. And again, (Examen: p. 45.) Si corpus Christi non est in Sacramento quantitative (i. e.) corporally, or secundum modum corporis, non est omnino; quia corpus Christi ubicunque est quantum est, aut non est corpus. Indeed I have often wondered, seeing that something more than they willingly grant, seems necessarily to follow upon it, why so many of the reformed writers remain not content with a virtual presence, which is maintained by them to be sufficient for salvation, but concur so much in asserting a real and substantial. I guess; not only the punctual and fixed expressions of the Scriptures, (as the words of Institution, in so many relations thereof, not only in the Gospels, but in St. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians, being so unvariably observed; besides the expressions 1 Cor. 11.27, 29.) and the authority of the Fathers (who so often call it tremendum mysterium,) and the stream of Tradition, to have as it were necessitated them to it; but also the authority of Calvin not a little to have moved them, who was a great Leader to our reforming Forefathers.  
Again, him I suppose to be induced to it, as from the former reasons, so from a desire to reconcile several parties of the then early begun Reformation, and to moderate and temper the former, Lutheran and Zuinglian, quarrel. Of whom therefore Bishop Forbes observes; Quod sua doctrina super hac re (as it seems here also of the doctrine of others of this second opinion) erat maxime incerta, & dubia, atque lubrica.— Et dum nunc his, nunc illis gratificari studuit, haud pauca male sibi cohaerentia scripsit. de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 6. sect.  
§. XVI Now to come to the second thing; it's affirming; or denying, the real or substantial presence of Christ's body with the signs, and that, ante usum. And this I think to be generally denied by the 2d. opinion, (though I see not with what reason they can deny a possibility thereof, since they grant such a presence with the worthy receiver.) See Mr. Hooker 5. l. 67. s. p. 359, The real presence of Christ's most blessed body and blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy receiver of the Sacrament.— The Bread and the Cup are his Body and Blood, because they are causes instrumental, upon the receipt whereof the participation of his Body and blood ensueth. For that which produceth any certain effect, is not vainly or improperly said to be that very effect, whereunto it tendeth. This he speaks in behalf of the Scripture-expression, saying of the elements, This is my body and my blood: because we receive by these instruments that which they are termed. See Dr. Tailor, p. 14. By spiritual we mean, present to our Spirits only: that is, saith he, so as Christ is not present to any other sense but that of faith, or Spiritual susception. Where (to digress a little) I wonder why he and some others (so Dr. Hammond saith, [for our souls to be strengthened &c] quoted before) do not say; that Christ's body is substantially present to the bodies of worthy receivers, as well as to the souls, (yet perhaps they deny it not); for though the body of Christ be only spiritually there, yet may a spirit be present to a body, for our souls (spirits) are so. And we say in the Liturgy, The Body of Christ preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life: And, Grant us gracious Lord so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed thro' his most precious blood etc. And the Fathers therefore called the consecrated elements, from their vivifical influence on the body, according to Jo. 6. symbola resurrectionis. See Grot. Annot. ad Cassand: p. 21. Sic & corpora nostra percipientia Eucharistiam jam non sunt corruptibilia, sed spem resurrectionis habentia. Irenaeus. Neither see I any reason for Rivet's expression: Corpus Christi affi●it corpus per animam. Nor for that of Dr. Tailor, p. 131. if he means, that the Soul receives Christ's body more immediately than the Body doth. For though without faith, which is an act of the soul, Christ's body is not received, at least, received, profiteth not; yet where faith is, Christ's body is received as well, and as immediately by our body, as by our soul, and nourisheth and vivifieth equally (but spiritually) both. See what Bishop Forbes saith, Euchar. 1. l. 1. c. 27. s. Verum Christi corpus non tantum animae, sed etiam corpori nostr●, spiritualiter tamen, hoc est, non corporaliter, exhibetur, & sane al●o ac diverso nobis & propinquiori modo, licet occulto, quam per solam fidem.— Fides, qua proprie Christi caro in Eucharistia spiritualiter, hoc est, incorporaliter manducatur, non est ea sola, qua Christus creditur mortuus pro peccatis nostris &c, ea enim fides praesupponitur etc. sed ea fides est, qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis, Hoc est corpus meum. Credere enim Christum ibi esse praesentem etiam carne vivificatrice, & desiderare eam sumere; nimirum hoc est spiritualiter & recte eam manducare in Eucharistia. Sect. 25. Proinde male docetur a multis Protestantibus, hanc praesentiam & communicationem per fidem effici.— Fides magis proprie dicitur accipere & apprehendere, quam praestare. Verbum Dei & promissio, cui fides nostra nititur, praesentia reddit quae promittit, non nostra fides. 'tis not faith that confers Christ's body, though by the faithful it is only worthily, or (as they say) only received, but received equally, and immediately both by the soul and body: whether this body of Christ be disjoined from, as they think, or conjoined with the elements, yet, whilst this second opinion seems to hold no presence at all, to, or with, the signs; but to the receiver, they only making the signs to be (as well as I can understand them) after consecration sanctified instruments, upon receipt of which by those who believe, God gives the other, the body and blood of his Son; as also in Baptism upon receiving the water, God gives the Spirit; yet I say, some other expressions of theirs seem not so suitable to such a meaning, and may easily cause a mistake in the unwary reader; and why they use them I cannot tell, unless it be to imitate the phrase of the words of Institution, and also of the Fathers. See Dr. Tailor, p. 7. After the Minister hath consecrated the bread and the wine, the Symbols become changed into the body and blood of Christ in a Spiritual, real manner. May we then say, that the Baptismal water after prayers &c is changed into the Spirit, in a spiritual real manner, because that is an instrument, upon using of which the Holy Spirit is conferred? So p. 21. The question is not, whether the symbols be changed into Christ's body and blood or no, for it is granted; but whether this conversion be Sacramental and figurative, or natural and bodily, etc. So p. 265.266. Before consecration it is mere bread, but after consecration it is verily the body of Christ, truly his flesh, and truly his blood. Yet if we inquire, how he means that the bread is so, surely he means only this; that upon receiving, or at the same time that we receive the bread, suffering only an accidental mutation (as he calls it) of condition, of sanctification, and usage, at the same time Christ's real body is received, but not in, or joined with, the bread at all, by the faithful. The expression is strangely differing, methinks, from the meaning thereof.  
But especially see such full expressions in his Great Exemplar, 3d. part. disc— 18. p. 109. in the former Edition, sect. 3. where amongst other things he saith, It is hard to do so much violence to our sense, as not to think it bread; but it is more unsafe, to do so much violence to our faith, as not to believe it to be Christ's body— (Again.) He that believes it to be bread, and yet verily to be Christ's body, is only tied also by implication to believe God's omnipotence, that he who affirmed it, can also verify it. And if we profess we understand not the manner of this Mystery, we say no more, but that it is a mystery etc. (See the place.) Strange expressions! when the thing required to be believed is this: That Christ's body is no way present to the bread, neither by the bread being any way changed into it, nor joined with it; but only it given and present to the faithful, upon the receipt of this sanctified bread.  
Now would any discourse of the waters of Baptism, by which the Spirit is received, on this manner; It is hard to do so much violence to the sense, as not to think it water, but it is more unsafe to do so much violence to our faith, as not to believe it to be the Spirit, etc. Would not he rather explain himself, that the one is not the other; but the one received, by God's free gift, upon the receiving of the other?  
§. XVII After the real or substantial presence of Christ's body thus granted (if I well understand them) by the second opinion to the worthy receiver, but denied to the symbols, or signs: 
Whether Antiquity affirmed Corporeal Presence, and whether this, to the worthy Receiver only; or also to the Symbols upon consecration.  let our next Quaere be; what may be the opinion of Antiquity (which is of great moment with all obedient Sons of the Church) in this matter. Where, supposing it granted by all, that the Fathers also held the real presence as much as those of the second opinion do: it remains only to be examined, whether they held this real presence not only to the worthy receiver, but also to the Symbols, and that, ante usum: which if they did, if their judgement is not to be submitted to, at least their followers are to be excused. §. XVIII  
1. And note here, first, before I proceed further, 
That the arguments usually urged out of the Fathers, for their not holding Transubstantiation, disprove not the●● ho●ding of a Corporal Presence (at least after some other manner) with the Symbols.  that I inquire here only after the tenant of the Ancients, concerning a real or substantial Presence of Christ's body with the outward signs: but whether they maintain it cum pane remanente or transeunte; whether by Con— or Tran-substantiation; or whether some of them affirmed the one, some the other, (for 'tis not necessary that, either in Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation, they must all go one way,) or some also a several way from both, I meddle not. And indeed I am apt to believe, in so high and difficult a mystery, before such particular manners so punctually discussed, and before the determination of any Council concerning them, a likelihood of some variance in their opinions.  
2. And therefore when as some of their Testimonies affirm the nature of the Bread after Consecration to be changed, Ambr. de Mist. init. c. 9 speaking of this Sacrament, Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur (i. e.) miraculously; Others, the nature of the Bread after Consecration to remain still; I can neither altogether embrace the Answer (for making Antiquity unanimous) of some Protestants to the first, That by the change of Nature, etc. is meant only an accidental change of its now sanctified condition and usage, for so we say (urges Dr. Taylor, p. 271.) a man of a good nature (i. e.) disposition, and that it is against our nature, (i. e.) our custom and affection: etc. See the like concerning the word [substance] in Blondel, in answer to a Latin Father, p. 179. notwithstanding what Dr. Taylor saith p. 324. nor the answers of some Romanists to the second, that by the nature of Bread remaining, is meant only the remaining of the natural accidents, or the properties of Nature, or species, or natura exterior, not interior substantia, (tho 'tis always to be remembered, that the fourth Opinion, in holding not only the outward appearance, colour, and figure, of the Bread to remain, but all other properties and sensibles thereof; and besides these, all the operations whatsoever, which agree to the substance, as corporally nourishing, etc. by miracle to remain to these accidents, and that without any communication unto, or dependence upon the Body of Christ, but existent by themselves; do indeed tantum non hold also the substance itself to remain, (see Obs. 3. p. 24.) and methinks differ too little from the third Opinion, to make such an abhorrence as some Protestants entertain of the one, in comparison of the other). Neither will I justify that Apology made by Bellarmin for such a forced interpretation (see de Euch. l. 3. c. 24.) concerning St. Austin, and (c. 27.) concerning Theodoret, namely, because otherwise such a Father will be made repugnare apertissime Cyrillo, Ambrosio, Nysseno, Epiphanio, Chrysostomo, etc. his Cotemporaries, or also his Masters. For why may not some of them differ in something concerning the manner of so high a Mystery (of which some of the acutest of the Roman Writers confess, there was no manifest evidence either from Scripture or Reason) before things were yet fully discussed and determined by the Church? Therefore neither need I undertake here a Confutation of those Arguments, that are brought out of Fathers or ancient Liturgies against Transubstantiation, in which the Bread is affirmed to remain after Consecration, if these also be not against (or do establish) Consubstantiation; or at least a substantial presence some other way of Christ's Body to the symbols (either Bread, or the species of Bread) presently upon Prayer or Consecration of these Elements. Which thing, were it once granted by the second Opinion, the necessary consequents thereof with reference to practice (of which more anon) are such, that the contests between Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation would quickly vanish.  
Now I think it will appear, that many of those most evident authorities that are urged against Transubstantiation, yet confirm Consubstantiation: and so destroy as well the Tenent as of the fourth, so of those of the first and second Opinion, who use them against the fourth. As for example; The comparing of the Incarnation and the Eucharist, (i.e.) the being of the Bread together with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, as of the Humane Nature with the Divine in the Incarnation, against Eutyches about the time of Conc. Chalcedon: (though the same comparison before Eutyches is made by Justin Martyr, and that in confession of this great mystery to a Heathen Emperor,) as it seems to make against a change of the Bread, so, to confirm the substantial and real presence of Christ's Body with the Bread.  
§. XIX To name some particulars: 1. That noted place of Theodoret in Eranist. Dial. 2. p. 87. not fully set down by Dr. Taylor, 
1  p. 321. runs thus, as you fin it also quoted fully in Blondel, esclaircissement sur l' Eucharistie, p. 59— Eran. (the Eutychian) Qui appellas donum quod offertur ante sacerdotis invocationem? Orthod.— Cibum ex talibus seminibus— Eran. post sanctificationem vero quomodo haec apellas? Orthod. Corpus Christi & sanguinem Christi: Eran. Et credis te corpus Christi & sanguinem percipere? Orthod. Ita credo. Eran. Sicut ergo symbola Dominici corporis & sanguinis alia sunt ante sacerdotis invocationem, post invocationem vero mutantur, & alia font; ita Dominicum corpus post ascensionem in Divinam substantiam mutatum est. Orth. Retibus quae ipse texuisti captus es. Neque enim signa mystica per sanctificationem recedunt a sua natura; manent enim in priori substantia & figura & forma, & videri & tangi possunt sicut prius. Intelliguntur autem ea esse quae facta sunt, & creduntur, & adorantur, ut quae illa sint quae creduntur. Confer igitur imaginem cum archetypo, & videbis simil tudinem. Illud enim corpus [i. e. post ascensionem] priorem habet formam & circumscriptionem, & ut semel dicam, corporis substantiam. Immortal autem post resurrectionem, & immune a corruption factum est, sedemque a dextris adeptum; & ab omni creatura adoratur, quia Domini-naturae corpus appellatur. Here the later part (which is omitted by Dr. Taylor) shows Theodoret to believe, the consecrated Elements to contain, and someway to be made Christ's Body, as well as to remain what they were formerly; and to be adored, as being indeed, what they are believed to be. Which adoration, I hope, cannot be due to Bread. Theodoret therefore, at the least, held Consubstantiation. But had Theodoret not held Christ's Body present with the Bread, instead of the later part [intelliguntur etc.] he might more readily have destroyed the Supposition of the Eutychians (namely, the mutation of Bread into the Body of Christ) in denying Christ's Body to be there at all, either with or instead of the Bread. Besides this, the Doctor joins another place, out of Dial. 1. p. 18. On which (having not quoted the words perfectly) he descants thus [the words are not capable of an answer, if we observe that, he saith, there is no change made, but only Grace superadded, in all things else the things are the same. Thus he]. But the passage in the Author is this: Orthod. Salvator noster nomina permutavit, & corpori quidem, id quod erat symboli nomen, imposuit: symbolo vero quod erat corporis.— Eran. Vellem permutationis nominum causam ediscere. Orthod. Manifestus est scopus iis, qui Divinis mysteriis sunt initiati. Volebat enim eos qui Divinis mysteriis participant, non attendere naturam eorum quae cernuntur; sed, per nominum mutationem, mutationi, quae ex gratia facta est, fidem adhibere. Qui enim corpus naturale frumentum Jo. 12.24. & panem Jo. 6. apellavit, & vitem rursus seipsum nominavit, is visibilia symbola corporis & sanguinis appellatione honoravit; non naturam mutans, sed naturae gratiam addens. Where the Author plainly affirms a change (though not of the nature of the Bread, yet) in the Sacrament, upon Consecration [mutationi fidem adhibere] namely, by Christ's Body then being there, and, as there, Adored. And for his not speaking more plainly of the manner thereof; in the first Dialogue, he saith, Mystice mystica dicta sunt.— And in the second, Aperte dicendum non est; veri simile est enim adesse aliquos mysteriis non initiatos. All therefore that Theodoret saith consists well with Consubstantiation, and necessarily includes a real presence. But neither do I see that which Dr. Tailor much presseth, p. 322. That Theodoret's answer, supposed to speak in the sense of the Transubstantialists of the properties only, would have been insufficient; since they also affirm, naturam symbolorum externorum panis non mutari, & eo modo in Eucharistia esse duas naturas impermixtas: Whereas the Eutychian asserted our Saviour to have Flesh only in Apparition, and devoid of all the properties thereof: Nasci enim & pati, & mori indignum esse Deo.  
But suppose the Eutychian still pressed the substance of the Flesh, at least, to be changed, as that of Bread in the Eucharist; yet if there were a Transubstantiation in the Eucharist, I hope it will not follow necessarily, that there must be one too in the Incarnation (as Dr. Taylor p. 320. would make men afraid) unless there be also Revelation of the one, as well as of the other; for a potentia ad actum, is no good arguing: And for the potentia too, it follows not, If that one Creature may be changed into another, therefore a Creature may be changed into the Creator; or e contra, (i. e.) Christ's Humanity into his Divinity. Thus much for Theodoret.  
2. Concerning that of Gelasius, quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 324. [That the Sacraments of the Body, etc. are a Divine-thing, yet cease not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine] In the same place the same Author saith, mutari Panem Spiritu Sancto perficiente in substantiam Divinam. And see him by Blondel. p. 70. reckoned amongst the Authors that hold the Elements to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, in his sixth Proposition. This therefore at the least will amount to Consubstantiation, like Theodoret's.  
3. Concerning that noted place of St. Ambrose, De Sacram. l. 4. c. 4. quoted by Dr. Taylor, p. 306. the words are these, Si tanta vis est in sermone Domini, ut ea incipiant esse quae non erant (he refers to Ipse dixit & facta sunt) quanto magis operatorius est, ut sint quae erant, & in aliud commutentur. Here the true natural meaning seems to be (as Bellarmin observes) ut quae erant sint, answering to the former [quae non erant incipiant esse] (i. e.) ut quae erant maneant quamvis mutata. As in another Treatise, De Myster. init. c. 9 he saith, non minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare naturas. And in the same Chapter, out of which the former Testimony is taken, are also these words, Panis iste panis est ante verba consecrationis: ubi accesserit consecratio de pane sit caro Christi. But suppose him to hold no change here of the substance of the Bread, yet must he mean some real change effected by God's Omnipotence, beyond the Bread's being changed from common to a sacred use; and this such, as putteth the substantial presence of Christ's Body at least with the Bread; since he supposeth a miraculous operation someway upon Nature. But this shall be cleared more anon.  
4 That Saying of St. Austin's Sermon to the New-baptized, recited by Fulgentius, Baptism. Aethiop. lat. cap. and Bede in 1 Cor. 10. Quod vidistis panis est & calix, quod nobis etiam oculi renunciant; quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est corpus Christi, & calix est sanguis. In this later clause, that at least the Body of Christ is affirmed substantially present with the Bread; see what I have said Observe. 2. And consider also his moving the doubt in the same place, since Christ was now ascended in Body into Heaven, quomodo est panis corpus ejus; & calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est sanguis ejus? where he answers,— ista fratres ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in illis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur speciem habet corporalem; quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritualem. By which [aliud intelligitur] if he meant only the benefits of Christ's Body and Blood shed upon the Cross, which are received in the Sacrament, surely he would have said [est fructus spiritualis, and not habet fructum, etc.] but this word intelligitur & non videtur is frequently used by him, concerning Christ's Body, though present with the Sacrament; because the symbols only, and not It, are present there to the sight or senses. Tho we are to understand It to be there also, as appears out of many other places of St. Austin, quoted before.  
5 Let there be added to these, those many quotations in Blondel (c. 4. prop. 1, 2, 3.) out of the Fathers, and (c. 21.) out of the ancient Liturgies and Missals, of the Eucharist after Consecration called Bread; and of something said of the signs or symbols, not agreeable to Christ's Body. As for this later, since the Transubstantialists, as well as the rest, affirm symbols after Consecration, distinct from the Body (see Obs. 2.) I see not how it makes against any Opinion. As for the former, as long as it can be showed, that the Fathers with that they called Bread hold a substantial presence (some way or other) of our Saviour's Body, if the Answer of the Transubstantialists (set down before) misinterpret their meaning, yet at the most, such a term will but prove Consubstantiation, which opposeth not our Position.  
6 As for that Proposition, so usual in the Fathers, that the Bread is Christ's Body, [pressed by some Protestants, as inconsistent not only with Trans— but Con-substantiation, and the words of Bellarmin, quoted in this behalf by them, Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Si Dominus ait, hic panis est corpus meum, necessario sequitur, ut aut falsa sit Domini sententia, si nimirum proprte panis materialis dicatur esse corpus Domini, quod aperte implicat contradictionem; aut panis sit corpus non proprie, sed figurate, quod volunt Calvinistae; aut denique panis, non manens panis, sed benedictione mutatus, sit corpus Domini, quae est sententia Ecclesiae Catholicae. Whereby it seems to follow, That if the Father's accord not in the sense of it with the Transubstantialist, they must with the Calvinist; and the Schoolmen also brought in to oppose it, see Blondel p. 155.] I answer, this Proposition, Hic panis est corpus meum, as it is diversely explained, seems proper enough to be used by any of the Three Opinions. First, by those who hold a substantial conversion (for indeed at least some of those Fathers who use this phrase, yet seem clearly to hold a substantial conversion (as I shall show anon); and the same Fathers, who say, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, say the Bread is so by a change) for it may be interpreted thus; Hic panis consecratus (i. e.) mutatus per consecrationem est Corpus Domini. Panis denoting the former matter, or the terminus a quo. Such a Speech is not unordinary upon a sudden change, see Exod. 7.12. where Aaron's Rod is said to devour the Magician's Rods: Aaron's Rod (i. e.) turned into a Serpent, devoured, etc. See somewhat like this, ver. 19, 20, 21. where the Water already turned into Blood, ver. 20. notwithstanding is called Water afterward, ver. 21. And they could not drink of the Water of the River; the Water (i. e.) now turned into Blood. See the like Joh. 2.9. [And when the Ruler of the Feast-had tasted the Water that was made Wine] (i. e.) had tasted the Wine made of the Water. But more especially here may such a denomination be made, than after other changes, because there remains, even in the Transubstantialists opinion, still something (namely, all that which is any way sensible) of the former substance.  
But 2ly, the same proposition may as well be used by those who hold a Consubstantiation of Christ's body with the bread still remaining: not taken in such a sense, whereof Bellarmin and the Schoolmen say, that it plainly contradicts; but in the more qualified and moderate sense, set down §. 3. As pointing at vessels filled with several liquors, we ordinarily say, This vessel is wine, that beer etc. or, hic purpuratus est Rex; So the proposition, Sub hoc pane est corpus Christi, into which the Lutheran resolves it, is as remote from contradiction as the proposition, sub specie hujus panis est &c, the resolution of the Transubstantialist.  
3ly. The same proposition may bear only a figurative sense, like that, I am the vine, or, I am the door; and this in relation to some real effect, which it signifies to be produced by it. So we may say, This bread is my body, (i. e.) a figure, sign, representative thereof, but not only so: But, this bread is my body, (i. e.) by, or with, or upon the receipt of this bread, by his mouth, to the worthy communicant in his soul is exhibited or given at the same time my true and real body: or in Dr. Tailor's words, p. 266. After consecration and blessing (i.e. of the bread &c,) it is really Christ's body, which is verily and indeed taken of the faithful in the Lord's supper. Thus he. The words are ambiguous, but I guess by the rest of his book, that he means by [it is] not the bread is, for he holds Christ's real body not present to the bread or symbols, but only to the spirit of the worthy receiver of the sanctified bread, (see p. 65.) but that which the souls of the faithful receive, whilst with their mouths they receive the hallowed bread, is Christ's real body. Which sense of the proposition, this bread is my body, doth not seem to conform so strictly to the words, as either of the former do; because the body, in this 3d. sense, hath not so near a relation to the bread, as in the other.  
This last interpretation is granted by all the other, as Hooker observes; for all grant a presence of Christ's real body to the soul: but more also is affirmed by them, as the other expressions of the Fathers will clearly evince, who make (whether by Consubstantiation, or Transubstantiation, or some other way) some miraculous effect upon consecration of the elements, whereby Christ's body becomes really and substantially present together with the substance, or at least with the properties, of the bread; with which miraculous effect either of the former interpretations well consists, but not the third; since they utterly deny either any substantial or any other way miraculous change about the symbols.  
7. So for the quotations made by Blondel, cap. 12. and by Dr. Tailor, p. 104. of many Schoolmen and Doctors of the Church of Rome, even since the decision of Councils confessing Transubstantiation not clearly provable from Scripture or reason; amongst which see the concession of Bellarmin himself in his Answer to a Lutheran urging these Schoolmen as on his side, de Euch. 3. l. 23. c. Tho all these affirm the same Transubstantiation clear from Fathers and Tradition; yet for this also, if you will, I will suppose it not clear from an unanimous consent of Antiquity, i. e. in such a manner that none of them held rather Consubstantiation. Perhaps the quotations in Dr. Tailor p. 285. may have something in them to this purpose, but for want of books I cannot examine in what sense they are spoken, excepting that of. P. Lombard. Of whom 'tis not amiss to give you some account: because, as Dr. Tailer truly saith, it was his design to collect the sentences of the Fathers in certain heads or articles. He therefore, after many sentences of the Fathers recited to that purpose, concludeth the 10. dist. (immediately precedent to the words quoted by the Dr.) thus; Ex his aliisque pluribus constat, verum corpus Christi & sanguinem in altari esse; imo integrum Christum ibi sub utraque specie; & substantiam panis in corpus (i. e. some way or other) vinique substantiam in sanguinem converti. (The like is said before 9 dist. li. B. A malis sub Sacramento (sci. sub specie visibili) caro Christi de Virgine sumpta & sanguis pro nobis fusus sumitur.) After this follow the words quoted by Dr. Tailor: wherein he doubts of the manner of the conversion of the bread, whereof he names three several ways; One, ibi substantiam panis & vini remanere, & ibidem corpus Christi esse; & hac ratione dici, illam substantiam (i.e.) panis, fieri istam (i.e.) corporis; quia ubi est haec, & est illa. This opinion he rejects, saying, sed quod non sit ibi substantia, nisi corpus & sanguis Christi, ex praedictis & subditis aperte ostenditur. Yet note that he writ before Conc. Lateran. A second way he names is, sic substantiam converti in substantiam, ut haec (i. e.) panis essentialiter fiat illa (i. e.) corporis Christi; i. e. that that, which was the substance of the bread, is afterward not annihilated, but becoming the substance of Christ's body: of this he discourseth B. C. and answers an objection against it. The 3d. way he mentions (litera D.) is, panem sic transire in corpus Christi, ut ubi erat panis nunc est corpus Christi, & substantia panis & vini redigitur in nihilum: and of these two last he saith, definire non sufficio; and see him, notwithstanding this [definire non sufficio] numbered by Blondel among the first Transubstantiators, p. 212. and see what Calvin saith of him, Inst. 4. l. 17. c. 13. s. Judge then whether the second opinion had any reason to make use of such a quotation; and if I may advise you, trust not me, nor others, in our citations, but, if you can, consult the authors, and see the context. Yet in general I answer. All this makes nothing for the first or second opinion, or against our present proposition: because what those Roman Doctors say, is spoken of Transubstantiation only in comparison to the third opinion, which they supposed might contest with it for Scripture-evidence, not to the first or second, (by the third I mean, the remaining after consecration with Christ's true body not only the properties, but the substance of the bread,) whilst mean while they affirm, against the first and second opinion, the true substance of Christ's body (some way or other) with the elements, from Scripture itself to be most clear and evident. Therefore Mr. Blondel's saying in the title of that chapter, that they confessed the expositions of Protestants compatible with the words of the Gospel, and St. Paul, is true indeed; but it is only of some Protestants (namely the Lutherans) of another persuasion than he, or Dr. Tailor. See Dr. Tailor p. 104. where he confesseth these Authors to be for Consubstantiation only, and the being of Christ's natural body (though they deny the body to be in the Eucharist modo naturali, as Dr. Tailor cannot but know) together with natural bread. Yet indeed they cannot be said to be for consubstantiation neither, since transubstantiation is their tenant also, whilst they profess themselves to acquiesce in the Church's determination, but this not from conviction of Scripture or reason, but evidence of tradition.  
§. XX Having premised thus much, to show that any arguments from Antiquity, 
Arguments that they held corporal presence with the symbols.  though supposed to against. Transubstantiation, yet if they put Consubstantiation, or some other manner of Substantial Presence of Christ's Body with the consecrated elements, prejudice not at all our present proposal set down p. 33. I proceed to confirm it. And this,  

1. Their firming change of elements to Christ body.  First, from that usual prayer in the consecration of these elements in all Liturgies and Missals, (of the antiquity of which anon,) ut Deus Spiritu suo dona sanctificet, faciatque ea corpus & sanguinem Filii sui. Blondel p. 469 confesseth this phrase not only in the modern forms, but in all the other ancient Liturgies, c. 21. yet is this phrase laid aside in the forms of the Reformation. Instead of which our English hath these words: Hear us O Merciful Father, and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour's holy Institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed body and blood etc. but no prayer that those elements may be made his body and blood.  
And from those ordinary expressions in the Fathers, whereby is signified not only the real body and blood of Christ to be received in the action or communication of the Sacrament; but the bread and wine to be, to be made, to be changed into; of them to be made Christ's body and blood, not by the virtue of worthy receiving, but by the virtue of the consecration (preceding the receiving,) quae fit Dominicis verbis, (therefore these in no Liturgy omitted,) & invocatione Divini nominis. See many of these expressions in Blondel, 4. c. 4, 5, 6, 7, propos. and Cassand. consult. art. 10. The Father's calling the Eucharist Christ's body when in altari, when in manibus Sacerdotis, (hoc ipsum corpus Magi habuerunt in praesepi, nos in altari; illi in ulnis Mulieris, nos in manibus Sacerdotis, etc. Chrysost.) which shows, that what presence they held of Christ's body in the Sacrament, they held it ante usum, with the consecrated elements, and not only with the worthy receiver. These two expressions, to be reverenced for antiquity, I find in S. Ignatius Bishop of Antioch An. Dom. 71. his Epistles, (I mean those Epistles free from the paraphrase allowed by Archbishop Ʋsher and Dr. Hammond, (one in Ep. ad Philadelphicos. Si quis schisma facientem sequitur, regnum Dei non haereditat.— Stude igitur una Eucharistia uti; una enim curo Domini nostri Jesu Christi, & unus calix in unionem sanguinis ipsius, unum altar, & unus Episcopus cum Presbyteris etc. the other in Ep. ad Smyrnaeos: Quid enim juvat me quis, si me laudat, Dominum antem meum blasphemat, non confitens ipsum carniferum (who said also, secundum videri ipsum passum esse before this) afterward it follows; ab Eucharistia & oratione recedunt (Theodoret dial. 3. quotes it, oblatione recedunt) propter non confiteri Eucharistiam carnem esse Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi pro peccatis nostris passam, quam benignitate Pater resuscitavit. Contradicentes ergo huic dono Dei, perscrutantes moriuntur; conferens autem esset ipsis diligere, ut resurgant.  
Secondly, From their affirming such a change of the elements, as was miraculous; miraculous in such a manner, as that, after the words of Consecration, with, made of, or instead of, the substance of the Bread, etc. is the substance of the Body of Christ; that Body which was born of the B. Virgin: Some of them at least affirming it such a change, as that the substance or nature of Bread ceaseth to be; and saying, that our senses, for this matter, were not to be trusted; in whom are found also some of the modern phrases of the Catholics and Schoolmen. I will set you down some of them: Aquam aliquando mutavit in vinum, etc. & non erit dignus cui credamus quod vinum in sanguinem transmutavit? Quare cum omni certitudine corpus & sanguinem Christi sumamus, Nam sub specie panis datur ibi corpus, & sub specie vini datur sanguis. Cyril. Hieros'. Benedictione etiam natura ipsa mutatur (natura, i.e. of the Bread and Wine)— sermo ergo Christi qui potuit ex nihilo facere, quod non erat; non potest is, quae sunt, in id mutare, quod non erant? Non minus est novas rebus dare, quam mutare, naturas. Ambr.— Sermo Christi immutat quando vult instituta naturae, applied to the Eucharist, as if something in Nature is there changed, Ambr. de Sacr. l. 4. c. 4.— Haec tribuit, virtute benedictionis in corpus suum, rerum, quae videntur, i.e. panis & vini naturam mutans. Greg. Nyss.— Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis & sanguinis verbo suo secreta potestate immutat.— Ante quam invocatione sui nominis consecretur, substantia illic est panis & vini, post verbum autem Christi corpus & sanguis est Christi. Quid mirum autem si ea quae verbo creare potuit, possit creata convertere? etc.— Caesarius Arelat. quoted by Blondel p. 69.— Ne ergo consideres tanquam nudum panem & nudum vinum; est enim corpus & sanguis Christi, secundum ipsius Domini verba; quamvis enim sensus hoc tibi suggerit, tamen fides te confirmet, ne ex gustu rem judices. Hoc sciens & pro certissimo habens, panem hunc, qui videtur a nobis, non esse panem etiamsi gustus panem esse sentiat, sed esse corpus Christi, etc. Cyr. Hier. Carech. 4. Mystag. Here observe, that the presence of Christ's Body is applied not only to the Receiver, but to the Elements; else why should the Fathers press the mistakes and errors of sense about the Elements? For what Protestant warns his Scholars of a fallacy of their senses in the Eucharist?— Chrysost. in Mat. Hom. 83. Credamus ubique Deo, nec repugnemus ei etiamsi sensui & cogitationi nostrae absurdum esse videatur quod dicit— quoniam ergo ille dixit, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. Num vides panem? num vinum? num sicut reliqui cibi in secessum vadunt? absit, ne cogites: quemadmodum enim si cera igni adhibita illi assimilatur, nihil substantiae remanet, nihil superfluit; sic & hic puta, mysteria consumi corporis substantia, Chrys. Hom. de Euch. in Encoeniis.— Forte dicas, aliud video, quomodo tu mihi asseris, quod Christi corpus accipiam; quantis probamus exemplis, etc.— Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum, ubi accesserit consecratio, de pane fit caro Christi. Ambr. Besides these, methinks two passages in Dr. Tailor's Book (though not urged by him to such a purpose) one p. 320. of the Eutychians, using this principle or argument (now all proof proceeds a notiori ad minus notum) that in the Sacrament the Bread was changed into Christ's Body, to prove that so the Human Nature might be into the Divine; And another p. 343. of Averro his saying, That the Christians Eat their God: Do show, that a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body, was not so rare an Opinion in the Church in ancient times. They also use words very emphatical for to express such a change of the Bread; see them set down in Blond. p. 156. in Dr. Taylor p. 267. The Greek Fathers, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. The Latins, conversio mutatio, transitio, migratio, transfiguratio. And they prove the possibility of such a change (as they suppose) made in the Elements, from God's Omnipotency; and from several instances of other changes; but all such, as they conceive miraculous, done by the Power of God in the Old Testament, and by our Saviour in the New. Among which instances these are very usual, The Creation, with a Word, of all things at first out of Nothing; Than which how much easier to change the Nature of things already in being? The Rod of Moses changed into a Serpent. The Water of Nile into Blood. The fetching Water out of the Rock. The dividing of the Red Sea, and of Jordan. Eliah 's word bringing Fire from Heaven. Elisha 's making the Iron to swim. Our Saviour's changing Water into Wine (a frequent instance.) Our Saviour's preternatural Conception of a pure Virgin; comparing this union of Christ and the symbols (for the fourth Opinion also holds something of the Bread remaining with Christ's Body) with the Incarnation, with the change of the Bread that our Saviour eat into his Body by Nutrition; with Angels appearing to men in bodily shapes; with man's being regenerate, made a new creature, partaker of the Divine Nature, Flesh of Christ's Flesh, and Bone of his Bone, by the Spirit. Which last, though some Writers (Blond. c. 4. s. 8. prop. 17.) bring in as a Diminutive of the pretended change of the Sacramental elements, yet St. Paul calls it a great mystery Eph. 5. and St. Austin, a greater effect of God's power than the Creation; and Chrysostom (in Joh. c. 3. v. 6. that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit) saith, Formatio primi hominis & mulieris ex latere ejus; Helisaei preterea miraculum, qui ex sundo ferrum revocavit; transitus Judaeorum per rubrum mare, piscin●e ab Angelo commotio; mundatio Naaman Sylli a lepra in Jordanc; haec omnia generationem & purgationem futuram, tanquam in figura, permoustrarunt. Lastly, with the change of our Bodies that shall be at the Resurrection.  
They urge some difficulties about it, not incident to a change only of sanctification, as for example; Nyssen. Catech. Orat. c. 37. Cum solum illud corpus, quod Deum suscepit, hanc gratiam acceperit— ut per communionem immortalis nostrum factum sit particeps incorruptionis, oportet considerare, quomodo fieri queat, ut cum unum illud corpus assidue per totum orbem tot fidelium millibus impertiatur, totum cujusque per partes evadat, & in seipso totum permaneat. Chrys. l. 3. de Sacerdotio, speaking of the Sacrament, O miraculum— qui cum Patre sursum sedet in illo temporis articulo omnium manibus pertractatur ac se ipse tradit volentibus illum accipere. They forbidden enquiring after the quomodo (nunquam in tam sublimibus rebus (quomodo) aut cogitemus aut proferamus. Cyr. Alexand.) and frequently exhort the people to a firm belief, without any doubting of the truth thereof. Epiphan. Anchorat. p. 60. (bringing it in for a simile, How Man may be God's Image) saith of the Eucharist, Videmus aequale illud non esse, nec simile, non susceptae carnis imagini, non divinitati ipsi, quae videri non possit, non membrorum lineamentis ac notis. Illud enim rotundum est & sensus expers; & nihilominus ex gratia pronunciare voluit; Hoc meum est, hoc. Neque quisquam est, qui ei sermoni fidem non adhibeat (for so in their giving It, the Priest anciently said Corpus Christi, and the Communicant answered Amen. Ambr. de Sac. l. 4. c. 4. Apost. Const. l. 8. c. 20.) Nam qui verum illum, (i.e.) sermonem, or Christum, esse non credit, a gratia & salute prorsus excidit, verum quodcunque tandem audierimus, aut crediderimus, ipsius esse credimus, etc.— As B. Forbes also notes the Euch. l. 1. c. 1. s. 27. That the Faith more properly required at the receiving the Sacrament, is, ea fides qua creditur verbo Christi dicentis, Hoc est corpus meum: credere Christum esse ibi etiam carne-vivificatrice praesentem. Of which S. Austin saith, Crede & manducasti.  
Considering the foresaid passages in the Fathers, methinks I miss some candour in Mr. Blondel, (if perhaps he intended to make a history of the Father's opinions in this matter,) that whereas he is so punctual in the 8th. propos. of the 4th. cap. he is so remiss in the 6th. especially in not taking notice of the miraculousness the Fathers held in the change, and their recourse to omnipotency for it; as likewise of some other things I shall mention anon. See for the truth of the things I have said in this Section, the authorities quoted by Blond. 4. c. 6. prop. and more at large in Bellarmin's whole 2d. book de Euch. or in 4. sent. 11. dist. 1. & 3. sect. But if you desire more perfectly to inform yourself, (because quotations are but short pieces dismembered from the context, and glosses are made upon them according to the interest of the writer that selects them;) spend an hour or two in a public library, and read more specially these, Ambros de mist. initiand. 9 c.— De Sacr. 4. l. 4. and 5. c. where also you shall find the Canon of the Mass not differing from the present, in any thing of those which the Reformed dislike in the present Mass, save in one, where the elements, but before consecration, are called figura corporis Christi. See Cyril Hieros. catech. mystag. 4. Chrysost. Hom. 83. in Matt.— Greg. Nyss. orat. catech. 36, 37. c.— Euseb. Emyssen. or the supposed author quoted in Blond. p. 69. serm. 5. de Paschate, de corpore Domini. Now that you need not fear lest you should take in the testimonies of some age by the Reformed disallowed; know that Mr. Blondel holds no doctrine of Transubstantiation to be maintained till after the 10th. age; no alteration of doctrine about the Eucharist till after (in the Eastern Church) the 7th; in the Western Church, the 8th. age; no change of language and expression, till, in the Eastern Church, the 6th; in the Western, the 7th. So that any author for the first 600 years may be securely quoted; and therefore in the present Canon of the Mass, which is granted by Protestants to be the same as in Gregory the Great's time, all things are acknowledged conformable to the doctrine of uncorrupted Antiquity. And whatsoever expressions concerning the Eucharist are made by that Constantinopolitan Council under Constantine Copronymus in the East, and by that of Francfort under Carolus M. in the West, are by Mr. Blondel held orthodox. See therefore those passages in the one, Blond. p. 38. Ainsi l'image d'icelui (i.e. the Eucharist) est sainte, come estant deifée per certain sanctification de grace: and— ainsi son bon plaisir a este, que par l'entremise du sacrificateur, qui fait l'offrand en transportant ce qui est commune a ce qui est saint, le pain de l' Eucharistie come image non mensongere de sa chair naturelle sainctifiée par l'anvenement du Saint Esprit, devinst corpse divin— And in the other, Blond. p. 411. Car le mystere du sang & du corps du Seignieur ne doit pas maintenant estre dit image, mais verity etc. and p. 412. Christ n'a pas dit ceste est l'image de mon corpse; mais cecy est mon corpse etc. whether they do not argue such a change of the elements, as the Reformed will not assent to, and the presence of Christ's body (whatever it is in the Eucharist) to be with the Symbols.  

3. Offering the body of Christ as a Sacrifice before communicating.  3. From their offering to God the Eucharist as a Sacrifice, before their communicating it as a Sacrament, with giving such attributes, and imputing such operations unto it, as seem plainly to evince, that whatever presence of Christ's body there is (and real the second opinion saith it is) in receiving the Sacrament, to the worthy communicant, the same the Ancients conceived to be to the signs, when offered to God as a Sacrifice; neither, supposing Christ's body not accompanying the symbols, do such attributes seem agreeable to Symbols. See those Epithets in the ordinary Canon of the Mass, (allowed by Blondel to have nothing in it, qui ne s' accorde a l' Escriture, au sens, a la raison, & au tes-moignage de l'antiquité: p. 453.) In S. Ambr. de Sacr. 4. l. 4. c. etc. In Cyril. Hieros'. catech. mystag. Hostia pura, sancta, illibata, immaculata, panis sanctus vitae aeternae, calix salutis perpetuae, etc. called by Chrysostom, Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. and others, Sacrificium terribile & plenum horroris, tremenda mysteria. The author Eccl. Hierarch. 3. c. 3. p. Pontifex, quod hostiam salutarem, quae supra ipsum est, litet, se excusat, exclamans, Tu dixisti, Hoc facite etc. S. Aust. Conf. 9 l. 12. c. Cum tibi offerretur pro ea [matre] sacrificium pretii nostri, juxta sepulchrum posito cadavere. Idem, de Spiritu & litera 11. c. Dei cultus in hoc maxime constitutus est, ut anima non sit ei ingrata. Unde & in ipso verissimo & in singulari sacrificio Domino Deo nostro agere gratias admonemur. etc. This is in those words where the Priest saith, Let us give thanks to our Lord God, and the people answer, It is meet and right so to do. De civ. Dei. 10. l. 20. c. Cujus rei Sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiae Sacrificium. Contra Faust. 20. l. 18. c. Christiani jam peracti Sacrificii memoriam celebrant sacrosancta oblatione & participatione corporis Christi. Where is affirmed an oblation of the same body, of which there is participation. See the expressions of the Fathers in the same manner, of the very body of Christ offered in the Eucharist as received, quoted in the Controvertists. See Bell. de Missa 1. l. 15. c. sect. S. Andreas.— Ambr. Christus offertur in terris, cum corpus ejus offertur.— And in 1. c Lucae Cum sacrificamus Christus adest, Christus immolatur. Chrysost. 24. Hom. in 1. ad Cor. Pro victimarum & pecorum caede seipsum offerendum praecepit. In Ep. Heb. 17. Hom. In multis locis offertur, non plures Christi, sed unus ubique Christus, hic & illic plenus existens; unum corpus, non multa corpora. Conc. Nic. (which Protestants pretend all obedience to) 14. can. Pervenit ad S. Concilium, quod in locis quibusdam Presbyteris Sacramenta Diaconi porrigant. Hoc neque regula, neque consuetudo tradidit, ut hi qui offerendi Sacrificii non habent potestatem, his, qui offerunt corpus Christi, porrigant. And in the Acts of that Council there is a notable passage also, part of which Calvin hath urged, as making for his cause; Inst. 4. l. 1●. c. 36. s. Huic malo (i.e. prosternere sese homines coram pane, ut Christum illic adorent) proculdubio voluit obviare Nicaena Synodus, cum vetuit nos humiliter attentos esse ad proposita Symbola. Thus much only he. But I will give you the place more full, as I find it quoted in others. Ita etiam hic in divina mensa ne humiliter intenti simus ad propositum panem & calicem, sed attollentes mentem fide intelligamus situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei tollentem peccata mundi incruente a Sacerdotibus immolatum, & pretiosum ipsius corpus & sanguinem vere nos sumentes credere haec esse nostrae resurrectionis Symbola etc. Observe, situm in sacra illa mensa agnum illum Dei. See likewise their expressions, as of the body of Christ as received as a Sacrament, so offered as a Sacrifice for salvation and remission of sins for the living, and for the dead, in Bell. de Miss. 2. l. 2. c. sect. Secundo. Justin. in dial. cum Tryphone dicit Sacrificium vaccae quod offerrebatur pro elephantiacis fuisse figuram Eucharistiae, quae offertur pro expiatione peccatorum. Hieron. in comment. in Tit. 1. c. Si Laicis imperatur, ut propter orationem abstineant se ab uxorum coitu, quid de Episcopo sentiendum est, qui quotidie prosuis populique peccatis illibatas Deo oblaturus est, victimas? Aug. Civ. Dei, 20. l. 25. c. saith, Sacrificium pro peccato offerri in Ecclesia usque ad diem Judicii, sed non ulterius. Chrys. in Act. Hom. 21. Non frustra oblationes p●o defunctis fiunt, etc.— Non simpliciter (i.e. to no purpose) Minister clamat pro his qui defuncti sunt in Christo, & pro his qui illorum memoriam faciunt. Quid dicis? In manibus est hostia, & omnia proposita sunt bene ordinata; adsunt Angeli, adsunt Archangeli, adest filius Dei; cum tanto borrore astant omnes; astant illi (i e. ministri) clamantes (as before, offerimus pro his qui defuncti &c) omnibus silentibus; & putas simpliciter haec fieri? (i. e. pro defunctis.) Igitur & alia simpliciter, & quae pro Ecclesia & quae pro Sacerdotibus offeruntur, & quae pro ubertate ac multitudine? absit. I have written this at large, that you may see the custom of St. Chrysostom's times concerning the oblation of this Sacrifice, the Prayers &c attending it, not to be varying from those we find in the Missals or Liturgies, either the pretended-ancient, or modern.  
And see Bloudel, p. 378. the Conc. Constant. using the same expression, offrent pour le salut du corpse & de l'ame la uray image de Christ— And the Conc. Franckfort, p 407. Qu'elle est faite invisiblement par l'esprit de Dieu; consacree par le Prestre invoquant dieu, portee par les mains Angeliques sule haut Autel de dieu. (the words in the Mass) & que par elle les peches sont remis, qu' elle ne peut ni accroistre ni diminuer: (as Images are &c.) For these things, Calvin (Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 11. s.) after he had as much as might be mitigated the sense of Antiquity, confesseth, veteres quoque illos alio hanc memoriam detorsisse, quam institutioni Domini conveniebat; quod nescio quam repetitae aut saltem renovatae immolationis faciem eorum coena prae se ferebat, & excusari non posse, quin aliquid in actionis modo peccaverint. Imitati sunt enim propius Judaticum Sacrificandi morem, quam aut ordinaverat Christus, aut Evangelii ratio ferebat. And indeed it is somewhat strange, that the Fathers are made in the matter still not to differ from the Reformed; but in their language, in their ceremonies confessed to concur with the Catholics. This using by the Ancients of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice before communicating, I find not Dr. Tailor to take any notice of, which yet methinks makes much for their conceiving a real presence with the signs; concerning which is our present discourse.  
4. From their Adoration and also Invocation of the body of Christ on the Altar, 
4. Using adoration before communicating.  or with the Symbols; I say, not adoration of Christ's body, or Christ as in Heaven in the act of communicating, (which is all owned by those of the first and second opinions, though I think only practised by the Church of England) but adoration of Christ's body as present with the Symbols, before communicating: And such to have been the practice of Antiquity, I think will appear from many passages in the Fathers.  
See Clem. Apost. Const. l. 2. c. 61. Diaconi absoluta oratione, alli oblationi Eucharistiae sint intenti, ministrantes corpori Domini cum timore, alii etc. And afterwards, accipiant Dominicum corpus, & preciosum sanguinem, gradatim cum pudore ac timore tanquam ad Regis Corpus accedentes.— Nazianz. Orat. de obitu Gorgoniae, speaking of his sick Sister in the Nighttime going to Church, and praying before the Altar, to be cured, he saith, Ad Altare cum fide procumbit, eumque qui super illud colitur magno cum clamore obtestans, etc. After these, I pray you read over again those quotations, about Adoration, of St. Austin and St. Ambrose Obs. 2. Chrys. Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. Hoc corpus etiam jacens in praesepi reveriti sunt Magi— & cum multo metu ac tremore adorarunt. Imitemar ergo vel barbaros nos coelorum cives, etc.— Tu autem non in praesepi vides, sed in Altari non foeminam eum tenentem; sed sacerdotem vides astantem, & spiritum cum magna copia (perabunde) proposita supervolantem, etc. (greater excitations of Reverence) nos ergo ipsos excitemus, & formidemus, & long majorem quam illi barbari ostendamus reverentiam, etc.— Non enim Angelos, nec Archang elos, neque Coelos, sed ipsum eorum ostendo Dominum. Vidisti quemadmodum quod est omnium praestantissimum & maxim honorandum, vides interra: neque solum vides, sed etiam tangis, sed etiam commedis, etc. Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antiochen. Si pura sunt vestimenta adora & communica.— In Ephes. Hom. 3. he calls it sacrificium quod illi stupent & venerantur Angeli.— So Hom. 83. in Mat. Angeli videntes horrescunt, neque libere audent intueri propter emicantem inde splendorem.  
See the former Quotation, p. 98. The places are frequent in Chrysostom, where he speaks of the presence, and adoration, and trembling of Angels, at these Sacred Mysteries. This for Adoration; but see him also for Invocation: Hom. 41. in 1 Cor. Non sunt enim haec temere excogitata (he speaks of Praying and Offering the Eucharist for the Dead) neque frustra corum, qui decesserunt, in divinis mysteriis meminimus, Et pro ipsis accedimus, rogantes agnum propositum qui mundi peccatum tulit; sed ut inde eis aliqua sit consolatio, etc. And see Hom. 21. in Acta Apostol. where he makes this special presence of our Lord a time of more acceptable audience,— Domino praesenti dum mors illa p●rs●●itur & horrendum Sacrificium, Et ineffabilia Sacramenta. Nam quasi sedente Roge quicunque voluerit perficit, ut autem surrexit quicunque dicit frustra dicit. Ita & nunc, quamdiu proposita fuerint mysteria, etc. See the place,— and afterward, sicut quando Regum trophaea statuuntur,— dimittuntur qui sunt in vinculis per illud tempus, ubi autem transierit hoc tempus qui nihil assecutus est nihil obtinet, ita sane & hic. A place I think much worth the noting, why at the time chief of the celebration of the Mysteries all manner of Invocations were made. See a kind of Invocation, Dionys. Areop. or the Author Eccl. Hierarch. c. 3. par. 3 O divinissimum & sacrosanctum Sacramentum dignanter aperis obducta tibi operimenta significantium signorum, & perspicue nobis fac appareas, etc. And see for Adoration what Mr. Blondel quotes of the same Chapter for his calling them symbols, Blond. p. 88 le president de choses sacrees sétient debout devant les tressaintes symbols— & tout le Clerge se leve devant les tressaints symbols, comme devant Christ.  
See Theodoret in the place quoted before, p. 74. You may find it likewise in Blondel p. 59 Signa mystica intelliguntur ea esse quae facta sunt, (i. e. by Consecration) & creduntur & adorantur, ut quae illa sint quae creduntur. See that place of St. Hierom. in his Preface to Theophilus Alexand. upon the Translation of his Epistle quoted Blond. p. 56. where speaking of the Utensils of the Altar, the Chalices, etc. he saith, que ne peuvent estre dits n' avoir point de sainteté, mais que par la societe du corpse & du sang du Seigneur ils doivent estre venerez de mesme necessity, que le corpse & le sang.  
Lastly, See that Constantinopolitan Council under Constantine Copronymus, quoted by Blondel for Orthodox in the matter of the Eucharist, yet held they Worship due to the Eucharist (which they called the only true Image of Christ) because this by Divine Consecration is Deificatum, and made Divinum Corpus; though they affirmed any Worship given to any Artificial Image of our Saviour, or to any Human Form, to be Idolatry. I will set you down the words somewhat higher than where Blondel gins them.— In talem igitur blasphemiam & impietatem cadentes pudore suffundantur, atque aversentur seipsos & talia facere (i. e.) depingere Christum desinant; Neque hi solum qui faciunt, verum etiam qui falso nomine factam & dictam ab ipsis Christi imaginem veneratur. See for what follows Blond. p. 378. Exultent & laetentur, Et libertate linguae fruentur, quicunque veram Christi imaginem sincerissima ment sacientes desiderant & venerantur & ad salutem animi corporisque adferunt, quam (imaginem) ipse Dominus noster Deus summus sacerdos tradidit suis sacerdotibus, etc. 'Tis probable, that the used ●en●ration of the consecrated symbols was urged before this Council to countenance that given to Images. And the Council saith something afterwards, that the Eucharist had no humane shape, lest Idolatry to other humane shapes of Christ might have been countenanced by it.  
But the Assembly in the West at Franckfort, opposing the worship of Images, and practising that to the Eucharist, together with the Conc. Nic. 2 dum. affirmed the Eucharist to be not an Image of Christ's body, but his true body. See Dr. Tailor p. 316; The words of type and image in the question of the Holy Sacrament were disliked by the Assembly at Franckfort; because, if the Sacrament were an image, as they of Constantinople said, than it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images. Thus he. Whence it follows, that all the three Councils agreed in this, the veneration of the Eucharist. Add to this, what is said by the Doctor p. 343. that in Averroes' time, who lived about A. Christi 1000 Christiani adorabant quod comedebant, (though not in such a gross sense as the Philosopher understood those words,) which Adoration what reason the Doctor hath to restrain to some mistaken souls of Averroes' acquaintance only, I know not. See likewise Tail. p. 279. where that of St. Austin, contra Faustum 20. l. 13. c. Propter Panem & Calicem nonnulli nos Cererem & Liberum colere existimabant, argues the Christians worshipping of the Eucharist. Neither doth St. Austin's, ritu nostro amplectimur, say any thing contradictory to it: only if not to the Catechumeni, much less to the Heathen, did the Fathers use full explanations of this ineffable mystery.  
August. in Psalm. 33. concione 1. Nondum enim erat sacrificium corporis & sanguinis Domini, quod norunt fideles, quod sacrificium nunc diffusum est toto orbe terrarum. Conc. 2. Quomodo ferebatur in manibus ejus? quia cum commendarit ipsum corpus suum & sanguinem suum, (i.e. in his last Supper,) accepit in manus suas, quod norunt fideles etc. See the quotation out of Epiphanius, p. 93. Where he saith, Hoc meum est, but names not corpus. This frequent in St. Austin, and others. But what need of such disguising the business, if all the catechumeni, fideles, or unbelievers were to know, was only in plain language, that the consecrated Bread was signum corporis sui, to the worthy receivers of which sign God communicated all the benefits of his Passion. Thus much of their adoration of Christ in the Symbols, of which Mr. Bloudel in his fourth chap. which gives a history of the Father's doctrine, takes no notice.  
5. From their holding not only a Spiritual, 
5. Holding an oral manducation of Christ's body etc.  but an oral manducation of the body and blood of Christ, and it to be received not only by the good but wicked; which necessarily infers its presence with the Symbols. Austin mentioned before p. 123. Cum dantem carnem suam manducandam sanguinemque bibendum fideli corde atque ore suscipimus. Cyprian 5. serm. de lapsis. speaking of those, who after having denied Christ come to the Sacrament, saith; Vis infertur corpori ejus & sanguini; & plus modo in Domini manibus atque ore delinquunt (i. e. in receiving,) quam cum Dommum negaverunt. Chrysostom. Hom. 83. in Matt. Quare non oportet esse puriorem, tali fruentem sacrificio? Quo Solari radio non splendidiorem manum carnem hanc dividentem; os, quod igni Spirituali repletur; linguam, quae tremendo nimis sanguine rubescit! And in 1 Cor. 11.17. Reus erit corporis.— he saith, Risus intempestivus, urbanitas, & facetiae exitio plenae, feast, &c, & haec facis Christi mensa exceptus, illo die quo dignus es habitus, qui ejus carnes lingua tangeres.— Manum tuam expurga, & castiga linguam & labra, quae ingressus Christi fuere vestibula, etc. S. Gregory in 4. lib. Dialog. (in whose time Mr. Blondel cap. 17. grants there was yet no alteration concerning the doctrine of this Sacrament,) Est quidem in peccatoribus & indigne sumentibus vera Christi caro, & verus sanguis, sed essentia, non salubri efficientia: See concerning S. Austin's opinion p. 132.  
From Christ's body and blood being held in the hands of the Priest of the communicants, (for the use of putting into their mouths is, though ancient, yet somewhat later than the times of those Fathers we mention) from their exceeding care, that no part thereof should fall to the ground etc. that it should not be seen by the heathen, or the catechumeni, I suppose lest their weakness should have some disesteem thereof. Basil. de Spiritu Sancto 27. c. speaking of many Traditions not published in writing from the founders of Christianity, but secretly conveyed, saith, Pulchre quidem illi, nimirum docti, arcanorum venerationem silentio conservari, Num quae nee intueri fas est non initiatis. Qui conveni●bat horum doctrinam publicitus circumserri scripto, Horum doctrinam (i. e.) the Consecration, Prayers, etc. in the celebration of the Eucharist.  
Add to these, the same honour and reverence continued to the Eucharist, as to the body of Christ, in their reposition and reservation of some part thereof after the communion ended, to be distributed, when need was, to the sick &c, (or also to be communicated another day (as in some time of Lent) even in the Church. See Conc. Const. 6. in Trullo Can. 52.) See for this reservation the Testimonies of Antiquity gathered in the Controvertists; as in Bell. de Eucharistia l. 4. c. 3. See S. Austin's Sermon to the new-baptized. In Fulgent. Bapt. Aethiop. ult. cap. and Daille on it Answ. to Chaumont p. 42. and the confession of Calv. Instit. l. 4. c. 17. s. 39 Sed enim qui sic faciunt (i. e. Sacramentum repnunt) habent veteris Ecclesiae exemplum fateor verum in re tanta & in qua non sine magno periculo erratur, nihil tutius, quam ipsam veritatem sequi. True, if we certainly knew it: But when every Writer pretends his Doctrine to be the Truth (For who tells us, that himself lies?) nihil tutius quam Ecclesiae consuetudinem sequi, that so we may not forsake the Truth.  
§. XXI To some of these five Considerations from which we gather the Fathers to have held a substantial presence of Christ's Body with the Symbols, 
Answers of the Reformed to these Arguments. 1. Concerning the change of the Elements into Christ's Body.  something is said both by Mr. Blondel and Dr. Taylor, and others; but what seems to me no ways satisfactory.  
To the first, second, and third, they say, (but I would wish you to peruse their own Books, lest their Answers may receive some wrong by my relation, or something in them more considerable be omitted by me,) they say then, that where the Fathers say, 1. That the Bread after Consecration is the Body of Christ. 2. That of the Bread by Consecration it made the Body of Christ. 3. That after Consecration it ceaseth to be Bread. 4. Or, That it is not only Bread. 5. That the Nature and Substance of Bread by Consecration is changed into Christ's Body, etc. they mean α only: 1. Is a sign or Sacrament of Christ's Body; or his Body in Sacrament; or (as Dr. Taylor p. 266) the Bread is verily the Body of Christ, truly his Flesh, and the Wine truly his Blood] (How?) by a change of condition, of sanctification, and usage. 2. That of Bread is made [the Sacrament] of his Body. 3. That it ceaseth to be Bread, i. e. common Bread. 4. That it is not only Bread, by reason of the Grace of Consecration added to its nature. 5. That the nature of it is changed from simple Bread to pain benit, or Sacramental Bread; and that it acquires a new essence, i.e. the essence of a Sacrament.  
See such solutions in Blondel, p. 64. etc. in his Margin, and p. 222, 224. So in his Explication of the Canon of the Mass, p. 452. See likewise p. 470. where it petitions, ut (oblatio) fiat nobis corpus & sanguis dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi, he expoundeth Corpse etc. en Sacrament. Again where it, ut quotquot ex hac Altaris participatione sacrosanctum Filii tui corpus & sanguinem sumpserimus, etc. he interprets prendrons [le Sacrament du] sacro-sainct corpse de ton fils, qui est ce mesme sacro-sainct corpse en representation & signification, (where note also, that he holds not any substantial presence of Christ's Body to the worthy Receiver, in which thing those of the second Opinion I think will not consent to him.) Lastly, they say, That, by change of the Elements, the Fathers mean no more than an accidental Sacramental conversion; a change of condition, of sanctification and usage, and efficacy; as a Table (by consecration) is changed into an Altar; a House into a Church; a Man into a Priest; as the Water of the River into the Laver of Regeneration. See this in Dr. Taylor p. 270. and the like in Blondel, p. 472. Bref par tout ce pain est apellê saint de mesme que le chalice, lafoy table, lafoy palatine, sont apeller saints, Ascavoir entant qu'ils servant a une usage saint, etc. without any presence of Christ's Body either to them or instead of them. See Blond. p. 156, 157, 174, etc. Tailor p. 266. Now though (as it appears I think above) the expressions of the Fathers, for such a change of the symbols, as that, after Consecration, the substance of Christ's Body is there with them, are so full, as 'tis hard to say such a thing more plainly than they do: Yet that they are not in such a sense to be understood, they urge many things.  
B First, That we must not interpret them so as to make them contradict themselves, or one another. See Blond. p. 158, 232. Then they show, that the same Fathers, that use these high expressions, yet cease not to call the Elements, even after Consecration, images, figures, types, similitudes, signs, sacraments of the Body, etc. representations, memorial, exemplars, symbols, Corpustypicum, & symbolicum, & mysticum. See many more Blond. c. 4. prop. 8. and Taylor p. 313. & p. 290. where that expression of Tertullian is much stood upon (adv. Martion. l. 4. c. 40.— Professus itaque se concupiscentia concupisse edere pascha ut suum (indignum enim fuit ut quid alienum concupisceret Deus) acceptum panem & distributum discipulis, corpus suum illum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset nisi veritatis esset corpus. Caeterum vacua res, quod est phantasma (as Martion contended Christ's Body was) figuram capere non posset; and say, that they are Christ's Body, not proprie, but aliquo modo etc. γ Now, idem non est simile: the sign can't be the very thing signified by the sign; nor the type (figure) the prototype, or the truth. See Tayl. p. 318. Blond. 207.210. δ Especially these places of S. Austin are much insisted on by them, 23. Ep. ad. Bonifacium. Si enim Sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum Sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino Sacramenta non essent. Ex hac autem similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo secundum quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, Sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita Sacramentum fidei (i. e. Baptism) fides est.— Sicut de ipso Baptismo Apostolus, Consepulti, inquit, sumus Christo per Baptismum in mortem; non ait, sepulturam significamus; sed prorsus ait, consepalti sumus: Sacramentum ergo tantae rei non nisi ejusdem rei vocabulo nuncupatur. So in Psal. 33. Concio. 2. Ipse se portabat quodammodo, cum diceret, Hoc est corpus meum. ζ. In Psal. 98. upon those words in St. John, Verba quae locutus sum vobis spiritus est & vita.— Spiritualiter intelligite, quod locutus sum; non hoc corpus quod videtis manducatisri estis, & bibituri illum sanguinem quem fusuri sunt, qui me crucifigent; Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritualiter intellectum vivificabit vos. Etsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi. De doctrina Christiana 3. l. 16. c.— Si praeceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans, aut utilitatem aut beneficentiam jubens, non est figurata; si autem slagitium aut facinus videtur jubere, aut utilitatem & beneficentiam vetare, figurata est. Nisi manducaveritis, inquit, carnem filii hominis, & sanguinem biberitis, non habebitis vitam in vobis. Flagitium vel facinus videtur jubere, figura est ergo praecipiens Passioni Domini esse communicandum, & suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus crucifixa & vulnerata sit.  
η To these they add some other places of St. Austin, wherein he saith the unworthy Communicants receive the Sacrament of Christ's body, but not his Body; which argues the body at least not present with the Symbols. Such that tract 26. in Johan: Qui non manet in Christo, & in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio n●c manducat (Spiritualiter in my book) carnem ejus, nec bibit ejus sanguinem, licet carnaliter & visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis & sanguinis Christi; sed magis tantae rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat. And tract. 59 where he saith of the Apostles and Judas: Illi manducabant panem Dominum, ille panem Domini, contra Dominum. I find likewise urged by some, two places out of Chrysostom: One out of 20. Hom. in 2. Corinth. that he there prefers the poor as being reipsa or ipsummet corpus Christi, before the Sacrament, or corpus Christi in Altari: but searching the place, I find (and so may any that please to peruse it) the comparison not to be at all between the poor and corpus Christi in altari, but between the poor and altar, quia capit corpus Christi. Another, out of 11. Hom. in Matth. of the opus imperfectum; where it is said, vasa sanctificata &c, in quibus non verum corpus Christi, sed mysterium corporis ejus continetur. Words plain enough, but none of S. Chrysostom's. See Bell de Euch. 2. l. 22. c. and Erasmus his Preface to that work. To which Dr. Tailor's reply, p. 308. no way satisfies me, it not following, that because they happen to be inserted among S. Chrysostom's works, therefore he must be esteemed a good Catholic that writ them: which rule should it generally pass, the Protestants would have much the worse by it.  
There are urged also by them two places out of the same book of S. Ambrose, which here we have made much use of against their tenant. The one place, de Sacr. 4. l. 4. c. Vinum & aqua in calicem mittitur, sed fit sanguis consecratione verbi coelestis, (i.e. by the words, Hoc est corpus meum, pronounced by the Priest.) Sed forte dices, Speciem sanguinis non video. Sed habet similitudinem. Sicut enim mortis similitudinem sumpsisti, (i. e. in not seeing any crucifixion of him in the Sacrament,) ita etiam similitudinem pretiosi sanguinis bibis, ut nullus horror cruoris sit, & pretium tamen operetur redemptionis. The other places, 6. l. 1. c. where the Father makes a recapitulation of things formerly said. Sicut verus est Dei Filius,— ita vera caro, quam accepimus.— Forte dicas, quomodo vera? qui similitudinem video, non video sanguinis veritatem. Primo dixi tibi de sermone Christi, (i. e. the words of Consecration, Hoc est etc.) qui operatur, ut possit mutare & convertere generalia instituta naturae. Deinde, ubi non tulerunt sermonem Christi discipuli ejus, (Jo. 6.52. How can this man give us his flesh to eat?) ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti quidam esset horror cruoris, sed maneret gratia redemptionis: ideo in similitudinem quidem accipis Sacramenta, sed vere naturae gratiam virtutemque consequeris.  
ϑ. These things they strengthen with the Conc. Constant. under Constant. Copronymus calling the Eucharist the Image of Christ's Body; and Christ's Body 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, see Tail. p. 313. Blond. p. 378. etc. and with the inference of the 2. Conc. Nice, in their refuting the Constant. Conc. where they say, Demittentes quidem mendacium quadantenus veritatem contingunt confessi divinum fieri corpus panem.  
● At si imago corporis est, non potest sane fieri divinum Corpus, urged by Mr. Blondel p. 385. therefore, The Fathers likewise making it imago, figura, etc. by this deny it to be Corpus Divinum.  
λ Again, with the Form of the Canon of the Mass, which they say plainly makes for them against substantial Conversion.  
μ For in it both before the words of Consecration, there is an Oblation made of the Elements, and that pro Ecclesia Catholica; & pro peccatis, etc. See that Prayer; Suscipe sacrosancte Pater, and— Te igitur clementissime Pater— both before the Consecration (not to be denied saith Bellarmine, & veteres Patres passim idem tradunt, saith he, i. e. that the Creatures of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are offered to God: see him de Missa l. 1. c. 27.) and there they are called dona sancta, sacrificia illibata, etc.  
● And likewise some of those Expressions and Forms of Oblation, which are made after Consecration in the Roman Canon, are put before it in some other Liturgies.  
ξ Again, after the Consecration many expressions are found in the Roman Canon no way suiting to the presence of Christ's real Body: As the praying, that God would accept these Offerings, i. e. accept of his Son, say the Romanists, (as if he were at any time not acceptable,) accept them as he did that of Abel's, Abraham's, Melchisedech's Sacrifices, (saith Blond.) on bruts, on inanimezes; a fit comparison to Christ his Son! That God would command them perferri per manus St. Angeli tui in sublime Altar suum, in conspectu, etc. i. e. the Body of our Saviour to Heaven; where it is continually. And in other Liturgies, as that of St. James, they being called Bread and Wine, and the Fruits of the Earth, after Consecration; and particularly, in that Form set down in the Apost. Const. l. 8. c. 17. where after the words of Institution rehearsed (by which words they are supposed to be Consecrated) it follows— Rogamusque Te ut benigne respicere digneris super haec dona proposita in conspectu tuo, & complaceas tibi in ipsis in honorem Christi tui; Et mittas S. Spiritum super hoc sacrificium testem passionis Domini Jesus, ut ostendat hunc Panem Corpus Christi Tui, & hunc Calicem Sanguinem Christi Tui, ut qui eum percipiunt, etc. See much more to this purpose in Blondel, from p. 454, to 467.  
§. XXII Secondly, For the miraculous instances by which the Father's use to illustrate the change of the Bread into the Body of Christ, Mr. Blondel p. 315, 
Concerning the miraculousness of changes.  seems to deny the Fathers to have acknowledged any miracle at all in the Eucharist, saying, ou est le Pere, qui dit que les symbols soyent changes miraculeusement? (which I am astonished at, and the rather, when presently after he saith, that Chrysostom and others on't considerê l' Eucharistie comme un object plein des merveilles,) and then he urgeth Aug. de Trin. l. 3. c. 10. as if that he denied all miracle in the Eucharist. I looked diligently upon the place; and I found nothing at all there advantageous for Mr. Blondel to this purpose. St. Austin falls into a discourse there, that there are several things de materia corporali, quae tamen ad aliquid divinitus annuntiandum nostris sensibus admoventur: And these, either natural; where, amongst others, he instances in Jacob's Stone, which he Consecrated. Or, which are made by Men, and these, vel aliquantulum mansura, sicut potuit Serpens ille aeneus exaltatus in Eremo; vel peracto ministerio transitura; sicut panis ad hoc factus, in accipiendo sacramento consumitur. Then adds he— sed quia haec omnibus nota sunt quia per homines fiunt (as the brazen Serpent and the Bread used in the Sacrament are things made by Man) honorem tanquam religiosa possunt habere, stuporem tanquam mira non possunt; he goes on, itaque illa quae per Angelos fiunt, quo ignotiora, eo mirabiliora sunt nobis, etc. All he saith than is, That the Bread, or brazen Serpent, have no wonder in the substance or matter of them, for men make them both. Now who affirms any miracle in any thing that is visible in the Eucharist? The miracle is in that which is invisible, the presence of Christ's Body with the signs.  
But could any justly argue from hence, That the Cure of the Man by looking on the Serpentine figure of Brass was not miraculous; because St. Austin says, the Brass or Figure shapen by Man had nothing miraculous in it, but was known and ordinary?  
Having cleared this passage of Mr. Blondels, now to go on: I say, for those miraculous instances, they endeavour to qualify the matter, in saying;  
● That some of them are only accidental mutations, not substantial; as, the bringing Water out of the Rock by Moses; Fire from Heaven by Elijah; Iron made to Swim on the Water by Elisha, etc. See Mr. Blondel p. 165.  
ρ Or becoming new creatures and members of Christ by Regeneration, (a comparison in the Fathers which the Reformed make much use of, see Blond. p. 100) But if you still press upon them the miraculousness of these mutations, though accidental, they answer;  
σ That some of those instances argue another or greater change, than any party will allow of, in the Eucharist, and what proves too much proves nothing. See Taylor p. 347. 274. 278.  
τ That the effect produced by the instrumency or upon the receipt of the consecrated Elements in the Eucharist is miraculous, and no way proportioned to the natural qualities of them; as also the efficacy of the water of Baptism, and the real mutation which it causeth in the soul, is supernatural.  
ν And lastly, that some of the same miraculous mutations are applied to Baptism, (for which chief a passage in Ambrose de Sacram. 2. l. 3. c. is quoted,) and other sacramentals or rituals of the Church: which Sacramentals the Fathers also illustrate by the change made in the Eucharist, and affirm such change to be in the one as in the other. See for this Blond. p. 165. 316. 101. etc. Tail. p. 276. See Calvin Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 14. s Patres hic quoque (i.e. in Baptism) mirificam conversionem statuunt, cum dicunt ex corruptibili elemento fieri spirituale animae lavacrum. See Daille's first Reply to Chaumont p. 30. etc.  
ρ Add to these that it may be said, that the second Opinion, in affirming the Substantial Presence of Christ's Body to every worthy receiver, affirms a most miraculous effect in the Eucharist, (though this not having any reference to the signs,) and therefore seems to concur with these testimonies of the Fathers, as professing in the Eucharist a work of God's Omnipotency.  
χ. As to the third, that of the Father's using and offering the Eucharist before communicating as a Sacrifice etc. §. XXIII I do not remember that Dr. Tailor takes much notice of it, 
Concerning a Sacrifice.  but Mr. Blondel saith 4. c. 9 prop. that they celebrated or offered it only as a memorial, image, representation, antitype of the Sacrifice upon the Cross; and then heaps up many testimonies, where the Fathers call it by these and the like names.  
§. XXIV To the 4th, Adoration of Christ in the Sacrament, and that before communicating, 
Concerning Adoration.  (which seems to pinch closer than any of the rest,) I find them to say little or nothing with any close application to the testimonies brought out of the ancients.  
1. In general they say; Christ may be worshipped when we receive the Eucharist or Symbols of his Body, (for which practice Daille (in the Reply to Chaumont) quotes and allows of the Church of England,) but Christ as sitting at the right hand of God in Heaven, not as in his body there present. See Calvin, de Christianae pacificationis ratione p. 50. Fateor certe Christum, ubicunque simus, esse adorandum, in coena vero cum se nobis fruendum offerat, rite aliter recipi nequit, quam si adoretur. Sed hoc quaeritur, sursumne an deorsum respiciat nostra adoratio? Quum in coelesti gloria resideat Christus, quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa, ab ipso discedit. And Instit. 4. l. 17. c. 37. s. In coena adoratio ea est legitima, quae non in signo residet, sed ad Christum in coelo sedentem dirigitur.  
To the same purpose writes Dr. Taylor p. 343. and quotes St. Austin as speaking of such Adoration. So Dr. Hammond in his Treatise of Idolatry, 67. s. Our Church adores Christ in the Sacrament, (as it signifies an action, in which certainly Christ is) not Christ's body locally present under the shape of the Elements. Thus he. But this worshipping of Christ in the Sacrament, as it signifies an action, in the end of the Section is explained to be only this: That we in that time and place, when and where he is eminently represented by the Priest, and offered to God for us (i.e. rerepresentatively,) do worship him, (i. e. as being according to his humane nature only in heaven. See 66. s.)  
But I find some expressions in some of them, when shaping answers to the Fathers, (though I do not well understand them, therefore I shall set you down their own words,) as if they did allow of something more, namely of adoring Christ as someway there present; present both to the worthy receiver, and to the Mysteries or Symbols. Of which Dr. Taylor thus-in answer to that saying of Ambrose, [Adorate scabellum etc. Per Scabellum terra intelligitur, per terram caro Christi, quam hodie quoque in mysteriis (i. e. the Eucharist or Symbols) adoramus; & quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt,] We worship &c. (saith the Doctor,) for we receive the mysteries as representing and exhibiting to our soul the flesh and blood of Christ. So that we worship it [he means the body or the flesh of Christ] in the sumption and venerable usages of the signs of his Body: but we give no divine honour to the signs. And thus Daille (2d. Reply to Chaumont p. 29.) in answer to the places of the Fathers: Il' y a une enorm difference entre [adorer le Sacrament] & [adorer Jesus Christ au Sacrament, ou es mysteries] Le second signify ou Adorer Jesus Christ, en communiant a son Sacrament (ce que nous faisons volontiers, piusque nous le croions Dieu) ou Adorer Jesus Christ, qui est present au Sacrament, ascavoir par foi dans le coeur des communians; & en mystere dans les signs, come la chose signifiée est presente en celle qui la signify. Les Peres ne disent & ne font que le second; & ceux de Rome commandent & pratiquent le premier.  
And thus Rivet (Annot. & Animadv. p. 92.) in answer to the same Father:— Propriam adorationem deberi vero Christi corpori, quod nobis est nunc 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & sola ment percipiendum, nemo pius negabit. So in Bishop Andrews Resp. ad Bellarm. Apolog. 8. c. I find in Answer to the Father's say urged by the Cardinal, this:— Recipe Christum in Eucharistia vere praesentem, vere & adorandum statuit: rem sc. Sacramenti; at non. Sacramentum; terrenam sc. partem, (ut Irenaeus,) visibilem, (ut Augustinus.)— Nos vero & in mysteriis carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio; & (non id, sed) eum, qui super altare colitur. Nazianzen's saying:— Nec carnem manducamus, quin adoremus prius, cum Augustino. Et Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus. But here I am left in the dark, whether Christ may be adored as corporally present with the Symbols (the res visibilis) and that before communicating. See what he saith concerning this Presence, in what is quoted out of his first cap. before.  
Lastly, I will set down what AP. Spalleto, and Bishop Forbes say, who speak plainly, and I suppose in this are allowed by the Church of England; since they seem here to maintain only her opinion of the real presence of Christ's very body, not to the signs, but to the worthy receiver only: though of Bishop Forbes his opinion see more hereafter. Thus therefore they: see Forb. de Eucharist. 2. l. 2. c. 8. & 9 s. Quod ad adorationem hujus Sacramenti attinet: quum qui digne sumit S. Symbola, vere & realiter corpus & sanguinem Christi in se corporaliter (modo tamen spirituali, miraculoso, & imperceptibili) omnis digne communicans, (is the worthy communicant to worship, but not the unworthy, because Christ's body is there present to the one, but not to the other?) adorare potest & debet corpus Christi quod recipit; non quod lateat corporaliter in pane, aut sub pane, aut sub speciebus & accidentibus panis; sed quod quando digne sumitur panis sacramentalis, tunc etiam sumitur cum pane Christi corpus real, illi communicationi realiter praesens; ut inquit Archiep. Spalat. Repub. Eccl. 7. l. 11. c. Again: An Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus, Protestants saniores non dubitant; in sumptione enim Eucharistiae (ut utar verbis Archiepiscopi Spalat.) adorandus est Christus vera Latria: siquidem corpus ejus vivum & gloriosum, miraculo quodam inexplicabili, digne sumenti praesens adest; & haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non Comestioni, non signis, sed ipsi Corpori Christi immediate per sumptionem Eucharistiae exhibito debetur & perficitur.] Hear these seem to allow an Adoration of Christ, as present in the Sumption of the Sacrament; but not of him before, as present with the Symbols.  
2. Of those of the third Opinion, who hold Christ's Body present with the Symbols, yet some deny Adoration of this Body so present lawful; upon such grounds as are also urged in subsidiis by Calvin and his Followers, namely, because Corpus non jubet se adorari in Eucharistia. See Calv. Inst. l. 4. c. 17. s. 35, 36. An res erat nullius momenti Deum hac forma adorare, ut nihil nobis praescriberetur? Cum de vero cultu ageretur, tanta levitate fuerat tentandum, de quo nullum usque verbum legebatur? Qui sacramenti adorationem excogitarunt eam a seipsis somniarunt, citra scripturam, ubi nulla illius mentio ostendi potest. So Rivet. Exam. Animad. Grot. Christus nullibi jussit, ut eum in sacramento adoraremus; nec legimus Apostolos, cum eis exhibitum fuit, accubitum. mutasse in adgeniculationem. So others; in Eucharistiam Christum esse non ut adoretur, sed ut manducetur: Others, non esse idem corpus Christi & Christum.  
But yet some of them grant Adoration, not of the Sacrament; but of Christ present with it, lawful in usu Coenae; or at such time as they grant him to be present with the symbols. And some of the Calvinists object against the Lutherans, That the lawfulness of Adoration is a necessary Consequent upon their Tenent of Christ's presence with the symbols; see the Pace Eccl. sent. Mort p. 10. And note here, that whereas the Lutherans generally are said to renounce Adoration; 'tis meant, not of the renouncing of the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament, which some allow, but of the Worship of the Sacrament.  
3. All generally acknowledge, That the consecrated Symbols are to be used with Reverence and Respect, as Holy things. Therefore Rivet saith of the Fathers, and of some Lutherans, Annot. & Animadv. p. 92. Voluerunt (quod & de Theodoreto sentiendum) ad sacra signa percipienda, cum reverentia esse accedendum, propter Dei potentiam.  
4. Lastly, They all contend, That the Symbols may not be Worshipped for Christ; or, as being Christ; or, with the Worship due to Christ: And if they be, That it is Idolatry, i. e. Worshipping a Creature for the Creator: Which Worship of the Symbols for Christ, they object to the Church of Rome. And this is all that I can find said by them concerning the ancient practice of Adoration: The fourth thing we Consider'd.  
§. XXV Now (as I said) these their Answers to the former points seem to me (at least the most part of them) very unsatisfactory; and if you please to review them, as I have placed the Letters, to avoid Repetition, I shall as briefly as I can propose to you my Reasons.  

For these Replies.  To that than which is said in their Answer to the first Argument [from the Letter α to β] it may be Replied: That taking some other instance by which is signified only a representation or similitude; as this Proposition, when the Apostle saith 1 Cor. 10. The Rock is Christ: If any one, to explain only this similitude or representation, should make such expressions as the Father's use concerning [This is my Body;] as [Christ was made of the Rock] or [The Rock was changed into Christ, etc.] they would be judged very improper and absurd. That, that Party will not admit of such interpretations of the Father's meaning (so seeming contrary to this expression) in other places quoted by them against the Romanists Reply to their Answer to the first Argument out of the Fathers, as namely, in that of S. Austin quoted hereafter. Non hoc corpus quod videtis, etc. Where, it being answered, that [non hoc] was exclusive to the qualities then accompanying it, not to the substance; Daille (in his second Reply to Chaumont p. 45.) saith, c'est nous tenir pour des Enfans que de nous vouloir payer de tells desfaits.  
But especially such interpretations seem more unreasonable from any of the second Opinion, who hold the substantial Body of our Saviour (not altogether absent in the Eucharist, but) most certainly present, though by a miraculous and ineffable manner, to the worthy Receiver; and therefore hold also a possibility of its being present with the Symbols; and yet will force these plain expressions of the Fathers, that de facto it is so, to another sense.  
But (of whatever constructions these Speeches may be thought capable) I think the miraculousness of the change of the Elements alleged by them, and the Adoration of Christ, as being with the Signs, before Communicating, practised (of which more by and by) will put the meaning of those phrases of the Ancients out of doubt.  
In Answer to what is said from [β] (meaning of those phrases of the Ancients) to [δ] as a necessary reason of such interpretations, I must entreat you to read over again what I have written in the second Observation, p. 6, 7, 8, etc. Where I have showed, what little reason those of the second Opinion, who hold a real presence, have to move such an Objection, p. 8. But secondly, I think there it is sufficiently cleared also, that the expressions of the Symbols, being a sign, image, type, figure, etc. of the Body, as then present with them; or of the Symbols or Body itself then Sacramentally present, being a type, figure, etc. of the Body as it once suffered on the Cross, do well consist with the substantial presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament, with the Symbols; and with the miraculous and supernatural mutation (which is affirmed by the Fathers) of those Symbols in part into that very Body. In part, I say; for a total change, of all that is visible or sensible of the Elements into the Body of Christ, none affirm; but that after Consecration still a sign remains distinct from the thing signified. For this is willingly yielded, that what is changed into the Body can be said no longer a sign or symbol of it. But yet, supposing a total change, two other Propositions may still be true:  
1. That those symbols, after Consecration or that change, are figures, etc. of Christ's Body.  
2. That after Consecration, that body into which they are changed, in that manner in which it is there existent, is a figure, etc. of itself, as after another manner once existent upon the Cross. Hence, take any of those Fathers who use the highest expressions concerning this mutation, as, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Greg. Nyssen, etc. yet do they as familiarly use the words also of sign, sacrament, figure, etc. in some of those senses above, as any other.  
Now since both these; That of the Elements being changed into Christ's Body, and that of their remaining signs, as properly understood, are no way incompatible: The excuse of using some violence upon the one phrase, namely that of mutation (which Mr. Blondel confesseth p. 155, in appearance plus  a l'opinion de Rome) to accord it with the other, namely that of type and figure, etc. is taken away. For to be figure or sign, in respect of what remains unchanged, whether it be the substance of the Elements, or only their properties or species, well consists with a true change of the rest into Christ's Body, if the species only remain; or with a miraculous change of Christ's Body to be joined with, or contained in, the Elements, if the substance of them still remain. But such a miraculous change into Christ's Body no way consists with the Elements being only a Sacrament or sign thereof, without any real presence with them of that Body into which they are said by Omnipotency to be changed. For now where is there any such miracle showed about the Symbols? Where any mistake or misinformation of the sense beholding them? And if any contend, that they are called figures, etc. in some Texts of the Fathers, with exclusion to the presence of Christ's Body; Resp. 'Tis with exclusion not to any real presence of this Body, (as the second Opinion will grant, who affirm it really present to the worthy Receiver,) nor to any real presence with the symbols; but only to some manner of the presence thereof; namely, as It was when Crucified.  
That this Answer may seem the more warrantable, I refer you to Dr. Taylor, p. 20. who there used it in another matter. This of the Father's Language: But the next Ages after the Fathers (the Seventh and Eighth Age) proceeded contrary to the Reformed, in their judgement of the sense of Antiquity; rejecting the words of Figure and Image (as opposed to a real presence,) and abetting the miraculous change. See Anastasius, Damascen, the Second Nicene Council in the East, that of Francfort in the West, following the former expressions of Nice, as quoted in Blondel, p. 365. Tho I suppose they denied not, Figure, and Image, and real Presence, taken in several respects well to consist together. And indeed, supposing that the Fathers were all of one mind in this obscure mystery, and that they held all what the third or fourth Opinion pretends they did; yet so many several things considered in the Sacrament [Christ's Passion, or his Body as on the Cross, commemorated; Christ's Body, as present with the Signs, offered as a Socrifice to the Father; and then said upon by the Communicants: The Symbols meanwhile only visible, and nothing besides; used in this sacred action as Signs, Figures, and Similitudes, not only of Christ's Body as present in one manner, but of It not present in another, (namely, as it conversed in the World, and suffered for us); these Symbols Offered likewise, and Eaten, as well as the Body] must needs produce diversity of Expressions; now looking one way, now another, according to the thing to which they relate; the like variety to which I know not whether any other subject in the world is capable of.  
In that place of Tertullian, Figura corporis (according to what is said before, and in Obs. 2.) argues not, that Tertullian held not verum corpus to be together with panis, the Figure. Which seems to be his opinion, by his saying before [fecit panem corpus suum]; which panis was in the Old Testament (though this much opposed by Martion, who denied the Old Testament, and all the types and relations thereof to the New) also (as Tertullian shows presently after this) a Figure of Christ's Body; and by that phrase after [non capit figuram], and by his expressions elsewhere concerning it, That, ad uxorem l. 2. c. 5. Non sciet Maritus quid secreto, (i. e. the Eucharist) ante omnem cibum gusts? & si sciverit, panem, non illum, credit, esse, qui dicitur. [If this be an assertion, and not (as Junius thinks it is) an interrogation rather, referring to Infanticidium Apol. c. 7.] And that the Idol. c. 7. Semel Judaei Christo manus intulerunt, isti quotidie corpus ejus lacessunt; speaking of the Eucharist. And that adv. Martion. l. 1. c. 14. At ille quidem (i. e. Christus) nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, etc.— nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat, (i. e. praesentem reddit, if we may interpret it by the same sense of the word in l. 4. c. 22. Itaque jam repraesentans eum, i. e. Deus Christum) Hic est Filius meus; utique subauditur, quem repromisi repraesentans, (i. e. praesentans).  
To γ]. How the same in some sense may be said, to be like or unlike itself, see before. But, there being two things in the Sacrament; and something remaining after Consecration, which is not the Body of Christ, but the Symbol thereof, etc. None say, that Christ's Body in the Eucharist is the Image, or sign, figure, or similitude of itself, as in the Eucharist: But either, that the Symbols are signs, figures, etc. of the Body; or, the Body, as in the Eucharist, a figure, etc. of the same Body as Crucified.  
To [δ] that S. Austin held a real presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, those of the second opinion I think will not deny. That he held this its presence in the Eucharist to be with the symbols also before communicating, I think is clear from his other say quoted p. 38, etc. The words, immediately before those here quoted, are, Nun semel immolatus est Christus in seipso, & tamen in Sacramento omni die populis immolatur, nec ubique mentitur qui interrogatus, eum responderit immolari. Si enim Sacramenta etc. From this it seems plain, that St. Austin speaks of the Eucharist, as signifying Christ's immolation on the Cross, and so 'tis rightly said, not properly, but secundum quendam modum, or quodammodo, the Body of Christ as the Body was in that manner existent. And thus Paschasius answered this place above 800 years ago.  
But it is capable also of another answer, (and so some other places like it,) That by Sacramentum S. Austin (there) means the symbols: That corpus Christi may be predicated quodammodo of the sign thereof, (whether it be the substance or only the species of the bread,) namely, after such a manner as the Consubstantialists say, Hic panis est corpus meum. And thus Algerus answered this place against Berengarius, before any Council had decreed Transubstantiation. Lastly, S. Austin instanceth in Baptism; that the Apostle saith in it, consepulti sumus, because Baptismus sepulturam significabat: but none may lawfully conclude from hence, that S. Austin held Baptism only to signify grace, and not to confer it; neither therefore may he, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist only signified Christ's Body.  
To [ζ] 1. The place in Psalm 98. Since S. Austin speaks here of eating it; all those who hold the worthy receiver to partake and eat that very substantial body which suffered for them upon the cross, can make no use of this place. Now for this I must remember you again of Calvin's expression:— Neque enim mortis suae tantum beneficium nobis offert Christus, sed corpus ipsum in quo passus est. And see what Dr. Tailor saith p. 20. 2. Note, that S. Austin elsewhere (as in Psalm. 33. upon those words, Accedite ad eum & illuminemmi; and contra Faustum 12. l. 20. c.) saith as plainly the seeming-contrary to this: Judaei de crucifixo tenebrati sunt, nos manducando & bibendo crucifixum illuminamur.— Et nunc bibimus quod de Christi latere manavit. 3. In the very same 98. Psal. are those words quoted before. Nemo autem carnem illam manducat nisi prius adoraverit, which shows either Christ's very flesh in the Eucharist, or adoration of another creature for the flesh of Christ. 4. I see no reason why that old answer may not pass, given long since against Berengarius, quoting this place, Non idem corpus, (i.e.) in propria sua specie, accompanied with the natural qualities of flesh and blood; Non in specie mortali & visibili, ut aderat tunc praesens discipulis suis, sed alio modo impassibiliter & invisibiliter se habens. Neither doth Daille's Reply (in his 2d. answer to Chaumont p. 45.) move me, [that when corn is first sown, and cared, and threshed, and so ground, and moulded into bread, we may with the same reason maintain, that the eater of this bread eats not the same corn that was threshed &c, because it's now changed in its qualities,] because this alteration about our Saviour's body, as it is invisible, impassable, &c in the Eucharist, is much more strange than that he instanceth in. But that all such expressions, as we make this to be, are not improper, see the Apostles 1 Cor. 15.37. Thou sowest not that body that shall be, i. e. with such and such qualities and ornaments as it shall come up, though it shall be idem numero corpus in the resurrection; and so flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of heaven, though flesh otherwise qualified shall inherit it: for our Saviour's glorified body had flesh and bone. Luk-24. 39. And see St. Austin's discourse upon these places, Ep. 146. where, to reconcile caro possidebit, and caro non possidebit &c, he saith, caro secundum substantiam possidebit, caro autem, cum secundum corruptionem intelligitur, non possidebit. And so for the wheat sown: Non quod triticum, saith he, non erit ex tritico; sed quod nemo seminat herbam, stipulam, &c, cum quibus ista semina exurgunt.  
5. Lastly, the same phrases are found in other Fathers, whose opinion perhaps is more clear than S. Augustine's, that the same body that was crucified is in the Sacrament received: as in S. Ambrose comment in Luc. l. 8. urged by Daille 2d. Rep. to Chaum. p. 331. and in S. Hierom. in Ephes. 1. cap. where he thus on 7. verse. Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi & caro intelligitur: Spiritualis illa atque divina, de qua ipse dixit, Caro mea vere est cibus, & sanguis meus vere est potus: & nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, & sanguinem biberitis, non babebitis vitam aeternam; vel caro & sanguis, quae crucifixa est, & qui militis effusus est lancea. Juxta hanc divisionem, & in sanctis ejus diversitas sanguinis & carnis accipitur; ut alia sit caro, quae visura est salutare Dei, alia caro & sanguis, quae regnum Dei non queant possidere. But here he means [alia] in quality only, as is showed before. This distinction of Christ's flesh in S. Hierom Dr. Tailor qualifies thus, p. 10. That Body which was crucified is not that Body which is eaten in the Sacrament, if the intention of the Proposition be, to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being. But [that body which was crucified is the same we do eat] if the intention be, to speak of the same thing in several manners of being and operating; the same answer the Doctor gives here I conceive fits this place of S. Austin. To the place (de doct. Christiana) flagitium or facinus can appear only in the Capernaitan conceit of eating it (as I mentioned but now in the answer given to the last place urged by Berengarius) in propriasua specie as accompanied etc. see p.  
Therefore the Father meaneth only that the text was not so to be understood. But supposing that it is indeed Christ's very body we receive in the Eucharist, yet what flagitium, what horror, can any apprehend in it, as he receives it after another manner of being, impassibiliter, invisibiliter se habens, under the visible species only of bread and wine? As for that the Father saith afterward, that the locution is figurata, and inculcates only a memorial of the Passion etc. it is very true, though Christ's very Body that suffered on the Cross be granted to be present also in the Eucharist; because it is not in the same manner present, and in its Eucharistical presence relates to the other: for which see what is said (that I may not often repeat the same things) before, in the 2d. Observation. p. _____— and below [of the sacrifice of the Eucharist being a representative or commemorative in respect of that of the Cross] p. _____ yet in this place S. Austin seems to speak, not of the manducation of Christ's body made more particularly in the Eucharist, but extrasacramental and in general; as by faith it may, and is to be done at all times by us in a spiritual manner; and as our Saviour's auditors might have eaten it at that very time, when he made this Sermon to them. Therefore it is worth the marking that what in some verses of this Chapter he expresseth by feeding, in others he promiscuously denoteth by believing, on him. See Jo. 6.35, 40, 47, 64, compared with 50, 53, 54, 57  
To these places that follow quoted out of S. Ambrose, I answer to the first. That there are two ways to understand similitudo sanguinis or cruoris; either similitudo, non cruor (or veritas cruoris) or similitudo, non species (or exterior apparentia cruoris), lest there should so arise some horror from it. Now that the Father opposeth not the similitudo to exclude cruor or veritatem cruoris, his assertion before puts out of doubt, vinum & aqua fit sanguis Christi, and sanguis not in figura or sacramento, but verus sanguis, as appears in the latter place quoted. Which assertion occasions the objection. His meaning therefore is, Bibimus similitudinem &c, ne sit horror, sed sub qua similitudine continetur, licet non videatur, veritas. To the 2d. place, vere naturae gratia & virtus may be understood either virtus & gratia sanguinis, either simul cum natura sanguinis or sine natura sanguinis. But if it be taken this latter way, than the Father after such high expressions will be made to assert in earnest no more than a Zuinglian, and this interpretation will never consist with what goes before, [vera caro & veritas sanguinis sicut verus Filius & sermo Christi mutans generalia Instituta naturae,] upon which an objection being raised [non video sanguinis veritatem, therefore there seems to be there in the Cup no such thing,] he that makes the Father to deny, under similitudo, veritatem sanguinis, makes him in his answer to grant the objection, and reverse his former positions.  
To [η] I will first set you down for an allay some other places in S. Austin, expressing carnem & sanguinem Domini to be received by the unworthy: and then you will better digest the common answer to these places. Contra Donatistas' 5. l. 8. c. To illustrate (against them) that— Is nullo modo facit, ut Baptismus bonus non sit, aut ut omnino Baptismus non sit, quisquis eo sive quia in haeresi, sive quia in pessimis moribus vivit, non legitime utitur, he brings in a simile from the Eucharist. Indign quisque sumens Dominicum Sacramentum non efficit, ut quia ipse malus est, malum sit; aut, quia non ad salutem accipit nihil acceperit. Corpus enim Domini & sanguis Domini nihilominus erat etiam illis, quibus dicebat Apostolus; Qui manducat indigne, judicium sibi manducat & bibit. In Matt. 11. Sermon upon those words, [Qui blasphemaverit in Spiritum sanctum, non habebit remissionem in aeternum,] to illustrate Christum non intendisse omnem sed quendam blasphemantis in Sp. S. reatum, he brings that saying Jo. 6. Qui manducat meam carnem etc. in me manet. Upon which, Nunquid (saith he) etiam illos hic poterimus accipere, de quibus dicit Apostolus, quod judicium sibi manducent & bibant, cum ipsam carnem manducent, & ipsum sanguinem bibant? etc.— Sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem etc. quomodo qui manducaverit in Christo manet:— quem modum utique ipse Christus videbat, quando ista dicebat. Sic igitur & in eo quod ait, Qui blasphemaverit— 162. Epist. against the Donatists; Tolerat ipse Dominus Judam: sinit accipere inter innocentes discipulos, quod fideles noverunt, pretium nostrum. Et. 163. Traditorem suum, qui jam pretium ejus acceperat, usque ad ultimum pacis osculum inter innocentes secum esse perpessus est. Lastly, see those quotations p. 10, 11, and especially that, where he saith, ●ivites terrae (i.e. superbos) accipere de corpore & sanguine Christi, adorare, manducare, &c and this [adorare] is such, as he allows to no (other] creature, as you may see in his discourse upon adorate scabellum: which adoration also being before manducarion, it sufficiently inferreth S. Austin's belief of the presence of Christ's body with the symbols before communicated.  
This qualification premised; the common distinction in answer (which was given of old, before any Conciliary decree concerning Transubstantiation, and also is set down in Conc. Trid. 13. Sess. 8. c.) is this. Quosdam accipere Christi corpus Sacramentaliter tantum, as the unworthy receivers; yet in which Sacramental sumption is the true body of Christ, though not the fruit and efficacy, and benefit thereof, as to them that received, but hurt and judgement; (as the same good nourishment is received by the sick and healthful stomach, but as the one is fed, the other is damaged by it;) quosdam Spiritualiter tantum, qui voto illum coelestem panem edentes, fide viva (quae per dilectionem operatur) fructum ejus & utilitatem sentiunt; quosdam Sacramentaliter simul & Spiritualiter; as the worthy receivers of it who, by the Sacramental reception, as well as Spiritual, partake more the virtue thereof, than the only Spiritual receivers, (but of this more anon,) as also the wicked incur more judgement by their unworthy reception of it, than were it only of the bare representative thereof, they thus being in a higher manner rei corporis Christi in the Apostle's expression 1 Cor. 9 Now S. Austin means, non manducant corpus Domini Spiritualiter.  
But if it seem still to some S. Austin's opinion, that the wicked do no way at all receive the very body, but only the sacrament thereof, as understood only as representing it: Yet I see not (with submission to better judgements) that it must necessarily infer, that he held not Christ's true bodies being before present with the symbols, and offered to the wicked, but only it, by ceasing to be there, (for his body is only voluntarily present, and perhaps only in such cases as this may desinere ibi esse, sicut ante consecrationem ibi non erat,) not to be received at all by the wicked, as many hold it not to be devoured together with the consecrated elements by beasts &c, neither in specie propria, nor aliena. See before. And Estius gives it the place of an argument, 4. sent. 9 distinct. 3. sect. Peccator magis est Deo abominabilis quam animal brutum, multo minus igitur peccator sumit Christi corpus. To answer which he holds the opinion contrary to the others; namely, that a brutis animalibus etiam sumitur non secundum propriam speciem, sed secundum species Sacramentales.  
And see Dr. Field, Append. to the 3d. book 17, 18. c. quoting out of Waldensis Tom. 2. de Euchar. 19 c. That many, who affirmed the bread to be changed into Christ's body, yet held, when unworthy men came to communicate, the body and blood of Christ to cease to be present; and when a wicked man is to receive it the substances of bread and wine to return &c, why might not S. Austin's conceit be the same?  
To [ϑ], besides that two Councils not long after (one in the East, another in the West) opposed that of Constantinople in this matter of the Sacrament, (see hereafter:)  
I can say only this, that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must not be taken in such a sense, as that upon consecration the elements are not made divinum corpus, or adoration not due to it. For these two things that Council affirms, as well as image and corpus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and for this the Council of Nice that followed, said of those Fathers of Constantinople, that huc illucque se jactantes, inconstantia & minime firma omnia sua dogmata asserunt. But why may not Image here, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be opposed, not to the verity of Christ's body in the Eucharist after some manner, but only to its being there as formerly on earth, that is, after a natural manner? for it is not in the Eucharist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and the Eucharist so (by other Fathers) is called only an Image of it. And why might not the Council of Nice mistake the sense of this Council in one point, as well as Mr. Blond: p. 411, grants that of Franckfort did misunderstand it in another?  
To [μ], see what is said to [γ].— To [λ] (which seems more material than the rest,) with which I shall consider also [χ] their Reply to the 3d Consideration about Sacrifice:  
First I say, if there be found so much, not only in the ancient Missals but those now used, 
Concerning the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.  that makes against any substantial conversion of the elements into Christ's body; and if the offering the Eucharist therein as a Sacrifice, is only commemorative of that upon the Cross, (in which sense the Reformed also allow a Sacrifice,) without involving any special presence of Christ's body with the elements; how comes it to pass, that only the fourth opinion retains still the same forms (for the things which are here objected) that were used in St. Ambrose's days? (or if only used in the time of Gregory the Great, yet than they grant there was yet no corruption in the doctrine concerning the Sacrament) against whose modern tenants these forms make so much, and that all the other three opinions have made new forms to themselves, and rejected the old? which they plead are so favourable unto them? In doing which things Luther is said in the beginning of his book de abroganda Missa to object to himself; Magnum est certe tot saeculorum consuetudini, tantae multitudinis sensui, tantorumque Authoritati reluctari.— Tu solus sapis? totne errand universi? tanta saecula erraverunt? Again, how can we more justify their reverence to Antiquity than in this thing, that they have not taken the boldness to correct, or change, or note in the daily and Public Service, what makes so much against their present opinions?  
Now to come closer to the matter, and to speak a little more fully, 1. (in answer to χ) in what sense the Eucharist is now or was anciently used as a Sacrifice; that that which follows may be more cleared by it, and that you may see whether there may be so just cause for that clamour that is made against it, as injurious and derogating from the Sacrifice upon the Cross:  
§. XXVI 1 First, 'Tis confessed, as by the Fathers, 
The opinion of the Father's concerning it.  so by those of the fourth Opinion, That the Sacrifice made on the Cross is the only Sacrifice that by its own virtue takes away Sins; and that there is no need of any more Sacrifice for Sin; i. e. for making full satisfaction, and paying the due debt for Sin; that therefore the Sacrifice cannot, nor need not, to be iterated in this respect, for than must Christ often have suffered, etc. see Heb. 9.25, 26, 28. see Heb. 10.10, 12, 14, 18. That therefore the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is no new or divers Sacrifice from that of the Cross, no suplement or completement of it, but only representative or commemorative of it; applying (see the manner more explained hereafter) unto particular men the remission purchased thereby, as also all other fruits and benefits thereof. Which application, as it is said to be obtained by Christ's present intercession now in Heaven, by Faith, by Prayer, by the Sacraments, etc. (in a several way) without any suspicion of a diminution or injury done thereby to the merits of the Passion; so may it as safely be attributed to this continual Sacrifice of Christians, the Eucharist. For this, see Conc. Trid. s. 22. c. 1. Dominum nostrum in coena novissima Dilectae sponsae suae Ecclesiae visibili (sicut hominum natura exigit) reliquisse sacrificium, quo cruentum illud semel in cruse peragendum repraesentaretur, ejusque memoria in finem usque saeculi permaneret, atque illius (i. e. of the Sacrifice of the Cross) salutaris virtus in remissionem eorum, quae a nobis quotidie committuntur, peccatorum applicaretur. And so ch. 2. Cujus oblationis cruentae fructus per hanc uberrime percipiuntur. See Estius sent. 4. d. 12. s. 12, 13. Dum patres sacrificium crucis unicum & singular sacrificium Christianorune esse dicunt, intelligunt quod propria virtute Deum placat, quale non est sacrificium missae, utpote habens vim suam omnem ex sacrificio in cruse peracto.— Nam incruenta seu mystica oblatione corporis & sanguinis Christi (ex doctrina Ecclesiae) non hoc agitur ut per eam paretur precium, quo redimantur peccata; sed ut applicetur pretium unico illo crucis sacrificio comparatum nobis ad remissionem peccatorum & ad caetera salutaria dona consequenda. Quare sicut unicum illud sacrificium crucis non tollit vim baptismi & altorum sacramentorum quibus renovamur, sanctificamur, a peccatis purgamur; imo si●ut non derogat efficaciae illius oblationis & orationis, qua adhuc Christus in coe●is continuo semetipsum pro nobis sistit, & offered patri & continuo pro nobis interpellat; ita nec tollit incruentam oblationem sacrificii missae aut quicquid derogat ejus virtuti. See the like said in Bellarm, de Missa l. primo, c. 25. Fatemur sacrificium crucis vim sempiternam habere ad sanctificandum, etc. atque inde non esse opus alio sacrificio crucis, aut ejusdem sacrificii crucis repetitione.— Negamus autem inde sequi, non posse sine crucis Christi injuria multiplicari sacrificia repraesentantia sacrificium crucis, & ejus fructum nobis applicantia. Nam si ita esset— Efficeremus omnia sacrificia testamenti veteris fuisse peracta in injuriam crucis Christi.— In hoc est totus error adversariorum, quod sibi falso persuaserint, nos tribuere missae vim remittendi peccata sine ullo ordine ad sacrificium crucis,— Or, quod Missa vim habeat expiandi peccata sine crucis sacrificio,— sed sacrificium missae applicat fructum sacrificii crucis. See Dr. Holden de Resol. Fid. l. 2. c. 4. Propitiatorium quidem est hoc sacrificium; sed non eo modo quo sacrificium crucis; puta in redemptionem generis humani: sacrificium enim crucis adeo sufficiens est & abundans, ut nec altero, nec hujus iteratione nobis ullatenus opus sit, in ratione redemptionis. Quapropter vi solius missae sacrifien nihil meretur nobis Christus, sed per illud nobis applicantur (sicut & per sacramenta) fructus meritorum Christi per immolationem suam sanguineam acquisiti. Haud igitur docet nos divina & catholica fides sanctum hoc sacrificium missae, ut distinctum (si tamen absolute distinctum) a sacrificio cru is, de se peccata remittere, gratiam augere, justificationem afferre, etc. An autem sit hoc sacrificium absolutum an relativum solummodo (nempe commemorativum, representativum, significativum,) est Theologicarum litigationum materia.  
See Cassand. Consult. de Sac. Corp. & Sang. Chr. & de iteratione per totum. Some places of which you may find quoted by Bishop Forb. l. 3. c. 1. s. 21. and many of the like out of other Authors, set down in that Chapter to which I refer you for them.  
Non igitur hic novum est sacrificium; nam & eadem hic est hostia quae in cruse oblata fuit, (i. e. the Body and Blood of Christ) & commemoratio in mysterio sacrificii illius in cruse peracti, & continuati in coelis sacerdotii & sacrificii Christi in imagine representatio; quo (sacrificio) non efficitur nova propitiatio & remissio peccatorum, sed ea, quae semel sufficienter in cruse facta est, nobis quoque efficax esse postulatur. Christ making such an Offering unto the same purposes of his Body here on the Altar by his Substitutes, as is by Himself now in Heaven made of the same Body: It being victima perennis & perpetua quae semel oblata consumi non potest. So de iterat.— in sacra hac actione pro vivis & mortuis, etc. offerri dicitur quando non solum pro iis oblata commemoratur, verum etiam solenni prece pro iis omnibus efficax & salutaris esse postulatur,— And after, sacrificium non modo Eucharisticum, sed etiam propitiatorium dici posset, non quidem ut efficiens propitiationem (quod sacrificio crucis proprium est) sed ut eam jam factam impetrans, quomodo Oratio propitiatoria dici potest. See Fr. a Sanctae Clara on the XXXI. Article of the Church of England, [sacrificium Missae] non est propitiatorium primo, quia hoc competit sacrificio in cruse, licet bene per se, & quasi secundo per applicationem sacrificii cruenti & per commemorationem ejus; adeo ut ratio propitiationis originaliter sacrificio in cruse competat, & illinc seu illius virtute huic. Ut etiam recte notavit Canus in locis l. 12. c. 12. ubi dicit; Satis esse ut vere & proprie sit sacrificium, quod mors ita nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur ac si Christus nunc moreretur; ubi rationem propitiationis applicationi mortis Christi tribuit. Et ad eundem sensum citat Gregorium [in seipso immortaliter vivens iterum in hoc mysterio moritur:] mors igitur incruenta in altari virtutem suam derivat a morte cru●nta in cruse— & in hoc sensu hoe sacrificium est imago & exemplar alterius in cruse, unde omnis salus radicaliter emanavit. Nulla prorsus hic erit difficultas cum doctioribus Protestantibus, etc. Thus he; where also he saith, that in the later words of the Article (sufficiently vehement) s●sobrie intelligantur nihil agitur contra sacrificia missae in se, sed contra vulgarem vel vulgatam opinionem de ipsis; scilicet quod sacerdotes in sacrificiis offerient Christum pro vivis & defunctis in remissionem paenae & culpae, adeo (i. e. in such a manner) ut virtute hujus sacrificii ab iis oblati, independenter a crucis sacrificio, mererentur populo remissionem, etc. But this vulgata opinio, as no Church maintains, so neither can it (without a high breach of Christian charity) on any Church be charged. See Champney de Vocat. Minist. against Mason, cap. 17. pag. 704, etc. of whom only delivering the common Doctrine of the Roman Church Dr. Fern acknowledgeth, That he makes wide difference between the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and that of the Cross; and indeed comes to that which we allow in the Eucharist as it is a Sacrament (see his Exam. of Champney p. 324.) but yet (p. 346.) he grants the Fathers to have Offered the Sacrifice of the Altar (as they called it) which was the representation of Christ's Sacrifice, for the Dead, for an Impetration of all that Mercy, Redemption, and Glory for them, which was yet behind. And (p. 354.) he saith, we have Christ's warrant and appointment— sacramentally hear below to represent his own Oblation upon the Cross, and by it to beg and impetrate what we or the Church stand in need of. Where, in the Celebration of the Eucharist, he plainly involves, not only a communication of Christ's Body and Blood, but also a Representation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, and this Impetratory of Blessings for our Brethren absent, and not only for ourselves Communicants.— See Bishop Forbes, l. 3. de Eucharistia c. 2. s. 2, 3, 4, 5.— Missam— Sacrificium propitiatorium sano sensu dici posse, recte affirmant Romanenses moderatiores, Non quidem ut efficiens propitiationem & remissionem peccatorum, quod sacrificio crucis proprium est, sed ut eam jam factam impetrans— And s. 5.— omnes saniores Romanenses, quicunque tueantur sententiam de modo verae & realis praesentiae corporis Christi in Eucharistia, agnoscunt oblationem sacrificii missae incruentam ab illa una cruenta quae facta est in cruse, omnem suam vim & efficaciam haurire proinde ut Sacramenta novi Testamenti. Which may also, I conceive, in some manner be said of the Oblation of Himself by our Highpriest now in Heaven, Heb. 8.3, 4, he not paying the price of our Redemption there now, but formerly upon the Cross.  
See in Blondel c. 4. prop. 9 the Testimonies of Eulogius Alex. and of Chrysostom in Heb. Hom. 17. The later (not fully set down by him) I will transcribe you,— upon Heb. 9.25. Quid ve●o? nos enim quotidie offerimus? offerimus quidem, sed ejus mor●em revocamus in memoriam; & ipsa una est non multae. Quomodo una est non multae? quoniam semel fuit oblata, illa illata fuit in Sancta Sanctorum. Hoc est figura illius, & ipsa illius; eundem enim semper offerimus; non nunc quidem alium sed semper eundem; quamobrem unum est sacrificium Propter hanc rationem quoniam multis in locis offertur, multine sunt Christi? nequaquam. Sed unus ubique Christus, qui & hic est plenus & illic plenus, unum corpus. Quomodo ergo multis in locis oblatus unum est corpus & non multa corpora, ita etiam unum est sacrificium. Pontifex noster ille est qur illam Obtulit hostiam quae nos mundat. Illam nunc quoque offerimus quae tunc fuit oblata, quae non potest consumi, hoc fit in recordationem ejus quod tunc factum est; hoc enim facite inquit in mei recordationem: non aliam hostiam, sicut Pontifex (i e. the Levitical Highpriest) sed eandem semper facimus, vel potius hostiae sen sacrificii facimus recordationem.  
2. Yet do they both affirm the Eucharist to be a true and proper Sacrifice; (see quotations hereafter.) In ipso verissimo & singulari sacrificio, spoken of the Eucharist by St. Austin. True and proper, not as it denies, or is opposed to Sacrifice relative to, or commemorative or representative of, another Sacrifice; namely, the Sacrifice of the Cross. For the same Sacrifice may be truly such, and yet commemorative. For saith Bellarmin, Sacrificia veteris Testamenti fuere commemorationes postea futuri, & tamen fuerunt illa vetera in severe & proprie dicta Sacrificia, de Missa, l. 1. c. 15. sec. quod autem; (and so St. Austin in the saying quoted hereafter, Christiani jam, etc.) joins oblatio corporis Christi with celebratio memoriae sacrificii peracti. And those among the Romanists; who hold it not sacrificium aliquod absolutum, but relativum, or commemorativum; yet affirmed to be verum & proprium. See Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s. 12, 13, etc. See Mede Diatr. on Mal. It's one thing to say, that the Lords Supper is a Sacrifice (i. e. a proper one,) and another to say, Christ is properly sacrificed therein. For there may be a Sacrifice which is the representation of another, and yet a Sacrifice too. And that not in a metaphorical but a proper sense, sect. 5.  
Again, true and proper; not as if there were exactly found in it all the properties of other Sacrifices, as the word Sacrifice is taken more strictly for a Slaughter-Offering; for the mactation or occision of some thing that hath life, whereby it is put to some pain and suffering. To this saith Estius, sent. 4. d. 12. s. 12. Non sequitur Christum non immolari in altari quia nihil patitur. Est enim haec immolatio mystica, & talis qualis Christo nunc Competere potest. And again, s. 13. hoc sensu (i. e. as immolatio was taken by the Fathers for mactatio offerendi causa facta) non vera sed mystica tantum ab iis agnoscitur immolatio in altari, quam vocant immolationem incruentam. Or, for the destruction and consumption of any thing at all though inanimate (about which are many curious disputes touching the consumption of the elements or of Christ's Sacramental being, &c, to make this of the Eucharist bear the more resemblance to other Sacrifices, methinks to little purpose, since in some thing (i. e. in some mactation) they grant a difference in it from them all, therefore why not here also say, est immolatio mystica, & talis qualis Christo nunc competere potest: See Bishop Forbes his censure of such contests, 3. l. 1. c. 12. s.) Nor yet true and proper, as if it had all other properties of that of the Cross besides mactation, or were propitiatory even in the same manner as it, as is shown before; for, that only, not this, propria virtute Deum placat.  
But true and proper, in as much as it, by commemorating, and representing again to God that bloody Sacrifice on the Cross, and offering to God the very same Sacrifice taken passive, (i.e.) the same body of Christ that was once sacrificed and slain on the Cross, procureth (by way of impetration, as other Sacrifices also anciently did, not by any new merit or satisfaction) from God grace, and repentance, and remission of sin, (by the merits of the passion which are then applied to us,) and other blessings Spiritual or temporal, to those who come to God cum vero cord & recta fide, cum metu & reverentia &c: coming short therefore in nothing of the true and proper Sacrifices of the Old Testament, but that, as to the visible Symbols, it is an oblation of things inanimate; but in this also it resembled of old by the Sacrifice of a perfecter Priesthood, i.e. of Melchisedech, offered unto God. See Bishop For bes 3. l. 1. c. 4. sect. Patres magno consensu (qui non est spernendus) affirmant Melchisedech panem & vinum non tantum protulisse & exbibuisse Abrahamo ad alendum exercitum, sed Deo primum, quem praeclarissimae victoriae authorem agnoscebat, usitato modo obtulisse & libasse: ac proinde & Christum, eujus ille figura fuit, in institutione Eucharistiae ut Sacerdotem idem egisse, i. e. of Melchisedech. Which, that the Fathers generally held to have been a true and proper Sacrifice, and to have been by Melchisedech offered to God; See Bishop Forbes 3. l. 1. c. 4. sect. Patres magno consensu etc. where also 6, 7, sect. he urgeth the concessions of Mason de minist. Ang. 5. libro 3. c.— and of Bishop Morton, de Euchar. 6. l. 3. c. 1. s. Note that I said, this Sacrifice procureth or obtaineth from God remission of sin &c by way of impetration, as also our Prayers do, not by an immediate conferring of it, as it is in the Sacraments.  
For, as Cassander saith, Sacrificium species est orationis, quare non inepte etc. p. 199. Et hoc modo sacrificare, est preces & gratiarum actiones ad impetrandam virtutem illius perennis victimae propositae (i. e. on the Altar) Deo Patri offer. p. 198. and p. 208. Hic offertur in imagine & mysterio; cum extermis precibus & interna fide, & devotione, Sacerdos hostiam illam unicam nomine totius Ecclesiae Deo Patri sistit, & per eam— Sacrificium hoc laudis, & fidei & devotionis gratum & acceptum esse postulat.  
3. And so Bellarm. de Missa 2. l. 4. c. Sacrificium proprie orantis & supplicantis est, & ad orationem juvandam adhibetur.— Again, Sacrificium, quod est quaedam oratio (ut sic dicam) realis, non verbalis, proprie impetratorium est. Thus much that the Eucharist was counted a proper and true Sacrifice. Which also the Council of Trent affirmeth, but this in general only, not applying this notion any way to the particular fancies of controvertists. And though as it is thus described, to some the name of Oblation may seem more fit for it, yet besides the style of Sacrificium, and immolation in all antiquity, and the lively representation that is here made of the Sacrifice on the Cross, it differs much from all other, called Oblations, in this; That it is (in the judgement of the Fathers, and those of the fourth opinion) that ever remaining victim of that which was once sacrificed by a mactation, and the very same with it, which can be said of no other oblation whatsoever.— I would entreat you to read Mr. Mede's discourse on Malach. 1. and 11. wholly tending to show the Eucharist to be now the Christian Sacrifice; and that not in a metaphorical, but a proper sense, p. 513 where he showeth also that according to the true nature of a Sacrifice, it is oblatio & epulum foederale; such as were of old (not every offering consecrated to God, but) the burnt-sin-peace-offerings; and that the difference of the matter and manner of offering &c hinders not, that these now should be truly a Sacrifice, no more than the differing of the Christian Sacraments from theirs of old (in which was effusion of blood, as that of the Circumcision, or of the Passeover) hinders, that these now should be true Sacraments. p. 505, 506. That the viands also of the Christian Feast even in the Primitive times were (as it is in other Federal Sacrifices) made God's by Oblation; and so eaten of, not as of man's, but of God's, provision. That Malach. 1.11. is alleged to this by those in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, after them by Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. p. 472. That mention of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Oblation and Altar, is made by two that lived before the Age of the Apostles was quite expired, (when they speak of the Christian Service) Clemens and Ignatius. See Clem. ad Cor. p. 52. & debemus omnia rite & ordine facere quae Dominus praestitutis temporibus peragere nos jussit (oblatione scilicet,) & alia munia obire, (and that he speaks of this oblation done in the Eucharist by the Priest, may probably be gathered from what follows,) neque temere vel mordinate voluit ista fieri, sed statutis temporibus & horis; ubi etiam & a quibus peragi vult ipse, excellentissima sua voluntate definivit, ut religiose omnia etc.— Qui igitur praefinitis temporibus oblationes suas faciunt, accepti & beati sunt, Domini enim mandata sequentes non oberrant— Summo quippe Sacerdoti sua munera tributa sunt, Sacerdotibus locus proprius assignatus est, etc.— Laicus praeceptis laicis constringitur,— unusquisque vestrum— cum decore intra praescriptum ministerii sui canonem se contineat— Sic D. Ignatius ad Smyrn. Eucharistias & oblationes non admittunt, quod non confiteantur Eucharistiam esse caruem Servatoris nostri etc. And— Nullus sine Episcopo aliquid operetur eorum quae ad Ecclesiam pertinent. Firma Eucharistia reputetur, quae sub ipso est etc. Non licitum est sine Episcopo neque Baptizare, neque agapen facere. And Epistola ad Eph. Vos beatifico conjunctos (Episcopo) sic ut Ecclesia Jesu Christo, Jesus Christus Patri— Nullus erret, si quis non sit intra Altar, privatur pane Dei. Si enim unius & alterius oratio tantam vim habet, quanto magis ea quae Episcopi & omnis Ecclesiae? Which words imply (saith Mr. Mede, p. 494.) that the Altar was the place as of the bread of God, so of the public Prayers of the Church:— That the Ancients believed our Blessed Saviour himself to have made such an oblation at the Institution of this holy rite, when he took the Bread and Cup into his sacred hands, and looking up to heaven gave thanks and blessed: p. 514.— And to have done the same in this his new Passeover, which the Jews did in theirs, who made such an oblation to God of it first as being a Sacrifice.— That some such thing may be gathered from many Scriptures: From Luk. 22.20. evidently implying, that the bloody Sacrifices of the Law, which with their meat— and drink-offerings were rites of an old Covenant, and that this succeeded them as the rite of the new: p. 513. From Matt. 5.4.23. which precepts the Church ab initio applied to the Eucharist; not thinking that our Saviour would enact a new law concerning Legal Sacrifices, as which he was presently to abolish. p. 520.  
From Act. 2.42. where Prayers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are joined with the Eucharist, or fraction of Bread; and which shows, that the joining of the solemn Prayers of the Church with the mystical Commemoration of Christ in the Sacrament, took its original from the Apostles times; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifying the Communication of the Eucharist, as the Vulgar and Syriack Transtation have it. But for this, see Dr. Hammond on this Verse, who makes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here to be the People's bringing and presenting of the Bread and Wine, and Fruits of the Earth, etc. Part of it to be Eaten in Commemoration of Christ's Sacrifice; and the rest to be distributed amongst the Poor. See Ver. 44, 45, 46. p. 493, 494. Yet more plainly from 1 Cor. 10.21. You cannot be partakers, etc. where these two Tables imply contrary Covenants: now here the Table of Devils is so called, because it consisted of Viands Offered to Devils, see ver. 20. whereby those, that Eat thereof, Eat of the Devil's Meat: Therefore the Table of the Lord is likewise called his Table, not because, the Lord ordained it, but because it consisted of Viands Offered to him; in the same manner as the other of those Offered to the Devil, p. 519.— And therefore that he knows not, why St. Paul Heb. 13.15. and St. Peter 1 Epist. 2.5. in the Sacrifices mentioned there, may not be understood to speak of the solemn and public Service of Christians, wherein the Passion of Christ was Commemorated, p. 487.  
4. Lastly, He allows all the benefits and effects, whether propitiatory or impetratory, by the Ancients attributed to this Sacrifice; granting the Prayers of the Church to have been Offered to the Divine Majesty through Christ, Commemorated in the Symbols of Bread and Wine, as by a medium, whereby to find acceptance:— and the representation of the Body of Christ in this Christian Service to have been rightly used, as a Rite, whereby to find Grace and Favour with God. Only the presence of Christ's real Body with the symbols in it, he acknowledges not. See p. 499, 500, 501.  
5 The Fathers also affirmed it to be, and Offered it as a Sacrifice, not only Eucharistical, or Latrentical, but also Expiatory or Propitiatory (in the sense abovesaid) for the Remission of Sins; and Impetratory of all sorts of Benefits, not only Spiritual, but Temporal; and both these, for all persons (according to their several capacities) not only for those present receiving the Sacrament, but for all those for whom this Oblation is made, though absent, though deceased. In Euchristia sacramenti susceptio soli sumenti prodest, ut autem est sacrificii consummatio, prodest illis omnibus pro quibus oblatum est sacrificium. For wherever they held Prayers beneficial, they held this Oblation or Presentation to the Father of the Body and Blood, and this solemn commemoration (and repetition as it were) of the precious Death, of his dear Son, for such persons; much more, as being the most effectual and moving kind of Petition that can be made to him. And therefore remembrance of the absent, or deceased, at the Altar, namely, when this Sacrifice was Offered, was more especially desired than in other ordinary Devotions. Non ista mandavit nobis (saith St. Austin of his Mother) sed tantunmodo memoriam sui ad altare tuum fieri desideravit. (Confess. l. 9 c. 13.)  
For this, see (if you please) the Collections of Places in the Fathers, in the Controvertists. See Bellarm. de Missa, l. 2. c. 2, 3. See the quotations set down before. See all the Liturgies unanimously according in this Form: Offerimus tibi pro peccatis, pro omnibus Fidelibus, vivis atque defunctis, pro Ecclesia Catholica, etc. pro pace, pro copia fructuum, etc. See Bishop Forb. de Euch. l. 3. c. 2. s. 12. Sacrificium autem hoc coenae non solum propitiatorium esse pro peccatorum, quae nobis quotidie committuntur, remissione, etc. sed etiam impetratorium omnis generis beneficiorum, etc. licet scripturae diserte & express non dicant. Patres tamen unanimi consensu scripturas sic intellexerunt, etc. & Liturgiae omnes veteres, etc. & s. 15. Nos inre certa & clara diutius immorari nolumus.  
6 Lastly, See Dr. Taylor in his Great Exemplar, p. 3. dise. 18. on the Sacrament, sect. 7. There he says,— The Eucharist is a commemorative Sacrifice, as well as a Sacrament; in both capacities the benefit next to infinite.— Whatsoever Christ did at the Institution, the same he commanded the Church to do, etc. and Himself also doth the same things in Heaven for us, etc. There he sits an Highpriest continually, and Offers still the same One perfect Sacrifice (i. e. still represents it, as having been once finished and consummate) in order to perpetual and neverfailing events, And this also his Ministers do on Earth— as all the effects of Grace— were purchased for us on the Cross, but are applied to us— by Christ's intercession in Heaven; so also they are promoted by acts of Duty, etc. that we, by representing that Sacrifice, may send up, together with our Prayers, an instrument of their graciousness and acceptation.— As Christ is a Priest in Heaven for ever, and yet doth not Sacrifice himself afresh; (nor yet without a Sacrifice could he be a Priest;) but by a daily ministration and intercession represents his Sacrifice to God, and offers himself as Sacrificed; so he doth upon Earth by the Ministry of his Servants. He is Offered to God, i. e. he is by Prayers and the Sacrament represented, or offered up to God, as Sacrificed; which in effect is applying of his Death to the present and future necessities of the Church, etc.— It follows then, that the Celebration of this Sacrifice be in its proportion an Instrument of applying of the proper Sacrifice to all the purposes which it first designed. It is ministerially and by application an instrument propitiatory, it is Eucharistical, it is an act of Homage and Adoration, it is impetratory, obtaining for the whole Church all the benefits of the Sacrifice which is now applied, etc.— And its profit is enlarged, not only to the persons Celebrating, but to all to whom they design it, according to the nature of Sacrifices and Prayers, and all such solemn Actions of Religion. Thus much Dr. Taylor, conformably to the judgement of the Church in all Ages, and practice in her public Liturgies. See the same in Medes Diatrib. upon Mal. 1.11. And 'tis worth your labour to see the Alterations concerning this matter which have been lately made (I suppose by some of the most prudent and learned Fathers of the English Church) in the new Liturgy provided for Scotland, tending much to the vindication of the use of the Eucharist by way of Sacrifice. In the Prayer for the whole State of Christ's Church are put in these words [We commend especially unto thy merciful Goodness the Congregation which is here Assembled in thy Name to Celebrate the Commemoration of the most. precious Death and Sacrifice of thy Son, etc.] Where [and Sacrifice] is added de novo. But the rest of the words are found in the former Common-Prayer-Book of Edw. VI. Again, in the Prayer of Consecration, whereas 'tis said in all the former Liturgies [to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious Death until his coming again.] 'tis added here [Death and Sacrifice until etc.] But chief after the Prayer of Consecration, and before the administering of the Sacrament to the Communicants, you may find interposed (after the manner of the first Books of Edw. VI) a Prayer (as it is there called) of Oblation (in which Prayer of the Missal which follows the Consecration,) the beginning of which Prayer is left out by our later Liturgies, and the rest transported to after the Sacrament received (beginning thus, O Lord, our Heavenly Father, We thy humble Servants, etc.) perhaps on purpose lest it might bear any show of the former solemn offerings of the Eucharist (before communicating it) to God as a Sacrifice in those words (which are not found in the common Liturgies) in the beginning of the Prayer [We thy humble Servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy Gifts, the Memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make, having in remembrance his blessed Passion, mighty Resurrection, and glorious Ascension, etc.— And we entirely desire thy Fatherly Goodness, mercifully to accept this our Sacrifice of Praise, etc. Beseeching, etc. that we and all thy whole Church may obtain Remission of our Sins, and all other benefits of his Passion.]— The Rom. Miss. hath it: Unde & memores, Domine, nos servi tui ejusdem Christi Filii tui Domini nostri tum beatae Passionis, nec non ab inferis resurrectionis, sed & in coelos gloriosae ascensionis offerimus praeclarae majestati tu●e de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, etc. See, if you please, these prudent reformations, or perfectings of the former English Liturgy (i.e. that prepared for Scotland,) and many more (which I omit) noted in a Scotch Book called Laudensium autocatacrisis (from p. 100 to 114,) and censured for their agreement with Popery, i. e. Indeed for their conformity with the former practice of the Church Catholic.  
§. XXVII And here I cannot but with grief complain, That the Oblation of this Christian Sacrifice is confessed to have always been part of the public Service of the Church (contained in the Second Service thereof, 
The Onassion of the Daily Oblation in the Reformed Churches. ) and to have been daily, or at least at all times of solemn Prayers, and on the days of God's public Worship,  made and celebrated (though there were few or no Communicants, except him who Officiated,) for those many beneficial ends abovementioned, which the Church conceived non-communicants also to receive from this precious Offering. See the proofs in Medes Diatrib. upon Mal. 1.11. p. 484, 493. That the public Prayers of the Church were always joined with the mystical Commemoration of Christ, in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood: And that this was no after-invention of the Fathers, but took its original from the Apostles times, and the very beginning of Christianity. See the like Testimonies in Mr. Thorndyke of Christian Assemblies. See Calvin's expression to the same purpose, Instit. lib. 4. c. 17. s. 44. Quae de Sacramento hoc hactenus disseruimus abunde ostendunt, non institutum ideo fuisse, ut semel quotannis acciperetur, idque persunctorie (ut nune communiter moris est) verum quo fiequenti in usu Christianis omnibus esset, ut frequenti memoria passionem Christi repeterent, etc.— Talem fuisse Ecclesiae Apostolicae usum, Lucas in Acts commemorat; quum fideles ait perseverantes fuisse in doctrina Apostolorum, communicatione, fractione panis, & orationibus; sic agendum omnino erat, ut nullus Ecclesiae conventus fieret, sine verbo, orationibus, participatione coenae, & eleemosynis. Hunc & apud Corinthios fuisse institutum ordinem, satis ex Paulo conspicere licet; & multis postea saeculis in usu fuisse constat etc. This he speaks indeed with reference to the people's daily or frequent communicating; but if this will not be had, what excuse is there in the meanwhile of the Priests omitting the daily or frequent oblation thereof, useful for so many purposes, besides that of the communion; used in all former times even where the people were negligent to receive? See S. Chrysostom's saying, p. 78. Quid vero? nos non quotidie offerimus? and Hom. 3. in Ep. ad Ephes. Frustra habetur quotidiana oblatio, cum nemo sit, qui simul participet. Frustra, i.e. comparatively, non tam fructuose. Hieronym. in Tit. 1. c. saith; Sacerdotes— quotidie pro peccatis populi ac suis sacrificare. August. contra adversar. leg. 1. l. 20. c. Ecclesia immolat in corpore Christi sacrificium laudis, ex quo Deus Deorum locutus vocavit terram a Solis ortu usque ad occasum.— Ep. 86. Sacrificium laudis (meaning the Eucharist) ab Ecclesia toto orbe diffusa diebus omnibus immolatur.— Ep. 23. Christus semel in cruse immolatus omni die in Sacramento populis immolatur. See the quotation p. Quotidianum esse voluit sacrificium. Ep. ad Januar. quoted by Calvin. ib. alibi— Nullus dies intermittitur, quo non offeratur; alibi Sabbato tantum & Dominico; where it appears this oblation at least, though people more seldom communicated it, was made once a week every Lord's day; (used still to this day by all other modern Churches. Eastern and Western:) How cometh it to pass then, I say it with grief, that such a sacrifice for such precious ends is ceased only to be continually offered in the Churches Reform? If they agree also in the same notion of sacrifice with antiquity, why have not their public prayers and intercessions, after the confessed manner of all the ancient and modern Churches of God, the efficacious assistance of this sacrifice? I desire it may be seriously considered, whether this be not a defect in their public Service much to be laid to heart (in the daily loss of such an allowed-most-effectual means of Address to God Almighty) by all the followers of the Reformation. You will pardon me this digression.  
§. XXVIII 4. The Fathers held; That in this Sacrifice, (the representation of that of the Cross, 
The Fathers say that it is an oblation of the same body which was crucified.  and beneficial to us only by its virtue,) is an oblation made of the very same Body and Blood of Christ, which our High Priest also himself now offers in Heaven, (which is prevalent with his Father also in reference to his former sufferings, neither that oblation in heaven, nor this upon the Altar paying the price of our Redemption; but used for an application of the price paid for several sinners for the actual remission of sins daily committed.) Again, the same body now offered that was offered upon the Cross, though not in the same manner, (i.e.) by mactation; and therefore being in such respect more properly Sacrificium (as one expresseth it) passive sumptum pro sacrificato noviter nobis applicato, quia in illo continetur Corpus Christi quod fuit vere sacrificatum in unico illo sacrificio crucis, yet with a representation also of that sacrificing of it, in the blood being here severed and offered apart from the body. So that I may say, a little altering Cassander's words, Consult. de sacrificio corp. p. 196. Veteres in hoc mystico sacrificio (Cassand. [non tam]) tum peractae semel in cruse oblationis, cujus hic memoria celebratur [quam] tum perpetui sacerdotii, & jugis sacrificii, quod quotidie in coelis sempiternus Sacerdos offered, rationem habuerant, cujus hic imago per solennes ministrorum preces exprimitur. Neither is there any more incongruity that Christ's true body and blood be here offered, and yet this be done also in commemoration of his body offered upon the cross, than that his real body (which those of the second opinion maintain) be here partaken of by the worthy receiver, and yet this also done in commemoration of the same body given for us upon the cross. See for the Father's holding an oblation in the Eucharist of the true and real body of Christ, the places quoted out of them, before. See likewise Bishop Forbes 3. l. 1. c. 10. s. Dicunt etiam saepissime Sancti Patres in Eucharistia offerri & sacrificarripsum Christi corpus, ut ex innumeris pene locis constat; sed non proprie & realiter omnibus sacrificii proprietatibus servatis, sed per commemorationem sacrificii (crucis.)— Et per piam supplicationem qua Ecclesiae ministri, propter unius illius sacrificii perpetuam victimam (so they call Christ's body remaining still after sacrificed) in coelis ad dextram Patris assistentem, & in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem Deum Patrem humillime rogant, ut virtutem & gratiam hujus perennis victimae, Ecclesiae suae, ad omnes corporis & animi necessitates efficacem & salutarem esse velit. Where note also, that either Bishop Forbes his opinion (though he opposeth Transubstantiation) is, That Christ's body is present with the symbols before communicating, (though this is not so clearly professed by him in 1. l. 1. c. see the 7. sect. there, and rather the contrary intimated in 2. l. 2. c. 8, & 9 sect.) or else here he seems to contradict himself, in these words especially, in sacra mensa modo ineffabili praesentem; for this ceremony of oblation upon the table is before communicating. To which add those words of his 3d. Book 2. c. 13. sect. where Bishop White, showing how the Eucharist might be said to be a sacrifice here, non solum ratione precum & actionis gratiarum, (which is the common solution,) said & ratione Eucharistiae ipsius, both quia elementa externa panis & vini consecrantur & ad Dommi cultum deputantur &c, and also quia corpus & sanguis Christi praesentia animae fide & pietate pastoris & populi, qui haec mysteria percipiunt, Deo offeruntur & sistuntur. Bishop Forbes censures that expression with a nimis jejune hoc dictum; but who will say more, must affirm a presence of it with the symbols. See likewise his quotation out of Nazianzen 2. l. 2. c. 8. s. See 1, book. 1. c. 26. s. Christi corpus reale nobis cum pane exhibetur.  
Fifthly, though the oblation of the body and blood of this Son of God in the Eucharist was always presumed to be in its self most acceptable unto the Father; yet in respect of those who or for whom it is offered, the same thing by the Ancients was conceived of it, as of all other prayers, that it is sometimes accepted by God for them, sometimes again not; namely, if they be such as are otherwise unreformed in their lives, and unworthy of God's favours. Again, that sometimes more, sometimes less benefit is received by it, according to the several preparation or indigence of the Suppliants, or also the good pleasure of the divine dispensation; as also that of the cross, though infinite in its value, and offered for all, is beneficial for some, not others; and as Christ's intercession in heaven is still continued for our several necessities, though one single act thereof (had it so seemed good to the divine ordination) had been supersufficient for the obtaining for all, for ever, all benefits whatsoever. Hence are those Prayers in the Liturgies concerning this oblation after the words of Institution pronounced: supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, & accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel etc. & jube haec perferri per manus S. Angeli tui in sublime Altar tuum: and in some Liturgies after the words of Institution pronounced, Fac Domine panem istum corpus Filii tui, or something to this purpose.  
All which Petitions (if they are not to be thought part of the Consecration of these Elements) are to be understood to be made, with reference not so much to the thing Offered, as to the Offerers; That God would accept it from them, for them, them for it; and confer on them the benefits and fruits thereof. As if I said; Respice pro nobis,— fac nobis,— Jube proferri pro nobis, etc. Cassan. in Consult. art. 24. p. 208. Haec non ad ipsam hostiam corporis Christi in se, sed ad offerendi modum qui prece, fide, devotione constat, referenda sunt; videlicet quia sacrificio omnia non dignitate rei oblatae, sed offerentis animo, aestimantur.  
These five things well considered, I think first an Answer to (χ) is sufficiently made; it appearing, that as the Fathers in this Sacrament held a Commemoration in this Sacrifice of that upon the Cross, so an Oblation nevertheless of the real Body and Blood of Christ; which two are showed before well to coexist.  
To (Μ); 
To Μ Concerning the Form of the Mass  First, This Objection methinks presseth also the Objectors (and therefore they must help to answer it,) for they do not allow it a commemorative Sacrifice before, but only after Consecration and Sanctification of the Elements: Which Consecration therefore they neglect not; neither I think will they grant those Epithets, that in this first Oblation are given, any way to belong to simple and common Bread.  
Secondly, That the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist is Offered to God, none deny; even none of those who hold a real presence of Christ's Body: nor that the Symbols after Consecration remain with, and are Offered with the Body of Christ, else there could be no visible Sacrifice at all there; nor that many things are and may be said in Liturgies (after Consecration) of the Symbols as well as of the Body; and that also they are called by the name of Bread, God's Creatures, etc. See what is said of this before.  
Thirdly, That in the primitive times, (at least when at this Solemnity by much people much provision was brought in for the relief of the Poor,) an Oblation in the first place might be made to God of them, as of the People's Alms and Thanksgivings for his Blessings, it is very probable, (which Offertory before the Communion is retained also in the English Liturgy, and in that prepared for Scotland;) also many new Texts added to those formerly read, in the time of the Offering, that are very expressive to this purpose. Which addition is taken notice of, and censured, in the Book called Laudensium Autocatacrisis (p. 101.) as directly (saith it) in a literal sense carrying to a Jewish Oblation. Likewise, whereas the Rubric of the former Common-Prayer-Book ordereth only, that such Alms be put in the Poor Man's-Box, this new one enjoineth, that the Deacon shall reverently bring the said Basin with the Oblations therein, and deliver it to the Presbyter, who shall humbly present it before the Lord, and set it Upon the Holy Table. See Cassand. Consult. art. 24. p. 194. who ranks the several Offices in the Canon thus: Symbolorum consecrandorum oblatio; oblatorum consecratio; mortis Domini commemoratio; gratiarum actio; pro communi omnium salute supplicatio; (which last St. Ambrose and St. Austin were of opinion was a prescribed Form left by St. Paul to all Churches, in the Celebration of this Sacrament, according to what is said in 1 Tim. 2.1.) Sacramentorum distributio & participatio. And p. 202. Primum populi oblationes Deo commendantur; Der nomen invocatur; symbola oblata verbis Domini consecrantur; mors Domini commendatur; vivorum & mortuorum memoria agitur; pro tota Ecclesia & totius orbis incolumitate Deo preces offeruntur. This is the Order, he saith, of the present Roman Service. Again p. 207, of the same Service he saith, Primum sacrificii & doni nomine intelligitur sacrificium populi quod consistit in pane & vino,— deinde est sacrificium corporis Christi, etc. And see Bishop Forbes l. 3. c. 1. s. 9 Panis Eucharisticus Deo consecratur; quia de profano seu non sacro sacer fit; Deo specialiter dedicatur (ut constat ex rebus factis & verbis dictis circa ipsum) ideo negari non potest quin Deo specialiter offeratur; fit igitur ibi quodammodo sacrificium panis, etc. This Offering up of the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament is also expressly appointed in the new English Liturgy; where, after the Oblation made of the Alms, the Rubric saith, and the Presbyter shall then (i. e. together with the Alms) Offer up, etc. the Bread and Wine prepared for the Sacrament upon the Lord's Table, etc.— Thus the Bread may be said to be Offered as a Sacrifice of Alms, and Praise, and Thanksgiving for God's good Creatures, etc. or as some portion of it is then Dedicated. Bellarm. de Missa, l. 1. c. 27. In omnibus Liturgiis, seu Graecis seu Latinis, quantumvis antiquis, pars actionis est oblatio rerum consecrandarum. This being, as I conceive, for the intentions but now mentioned.  
But Fourthly, To go a little further; since it must be granted from what is said above, That the Fathers in some part or other of this Service make an Oblation of the real Body of our Lord; and since (again) its manifest, that the same expressions are used in the Oblations made before, as in those after the words of Institution pronounced; and the Offering mentioned in these there is tending to all the same ends and purposes, whether Propitiatory, Impetratory, or Eucharistical (as you may see by comparing the Prayers before, Suscipe Sancte Pater, etc. and Te igitur Clementissime Pater, etc. with the Prayer after the words of Institution— unde & memores Domine, etc.) From these two things therefore I think it follows, That all these Prayers and Service (before as well as after) refer to the same Sacrifice and Oblation of the Body and Blood of our Lord: It being most improbable, that the same or the like expressions would be used of that which they conceived only Bread, and (afterward) of that which they conceived to be Christ's real Body, if the former was used as a distinct Oblation without relation to the later. The action therefore of this Oblation is only preparatory in the precedent Prayers, according to that expression in one of them, Benedic hoc sacrificium tuo sancto nomine praeparatum; consummate in that following— unde & memores &c. offerimus, etc. Offertur panis non ut sacrificium perfectum, sed ut inchoatum & perficiendum, saith Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 27. Therefore the chief purpose of the Prayers before seems to be Consecratory and Benedictive of the Symbols, rather than Oblatory, though in them the Oblation is mentioned. So they begin with Petition, Suscipe hanc hostiam, etc. quam offero, i. e. quam oblaturus sum pro etc. or cujus oblationem praepare; according to which is that following offerimus deprecantes etc. after which is said Veni sanctificator benedic hoc sacrificium praeparatum etc.— and— Te igitur clementissime Pater rogamus uti accepta habeas & benedicas haec dona, haec sancta sacrificia illibata; Sancta illibala, i. e. post benedictionem; and after this, quam oblationem tu Deus benedictam facere digneris, etc. But after the Institution, follows a consummated Oblation. And indeed in some Liturgies we find no Oblation at all made. I mean in this kind, pro peccatis, pro Ecclesia, etc. till after the words of Institution and Consecration completed; see Const. Apost. l. 8. c. 17, 18. See Chrysost. Liturg▪ offerimus tibi etc. pro requiescentibus in fide etc.— super oblatis & sanctificatis pretiosis donis Dominum rogemus ut benignus Deus noster dimittat nobis divinam gratiam etc. after the Consecration finished. And, there being no controversy amongst them about the matter of the Sacrament we cannot doubt the intentions in all the Liturgies are the same. Then therefore follows a consummated Oblation in a more singular manner,— unde & memores Domine, nos servi offerimus Majestati tuae de tuis donis hostiam puram etc. and the prayers following are for God's acceptation of their Oblation, not for benediction; not benedicta facere, but accepta habere, & jube perferri per manus etc. And then, lastly, follow other prayers, with reference to the worthy communicating of his Body. For note, that as some petitions (first for benediction, and then for acceptation) there are with respect to the Eucharist as an oblation; (which oblation is joined also with those prayers;) so other prayers there are with respect to it as a sacrament, and the communication to us of Christ's Body to be performed afterwards. And to this may aptly be applied that Prayer made in some Liturgies after the words of Institution, Fiat nobis corpus Christi tui, i. e. to us communicating thereof to all the spiritual effects and benefits thereof.  
5. But fifthly, one thing ordinarily taken for granted [That our Saviour's words of Institution are (I do not say the chiefest part of, but) the whole and only consecration; so that this is neither begun by any Prayers before these, nor continued by any after them,] is a thing very disputable; Whether in the opinion of the Ancients, from whom we have received these Liturgies, they were so thought to be: and it hath been a contest between the Greek and Roman Church of later times. See Bishop Forbes his discourse about it de Eucharistia 2. l. 2. c. 1, 2, 3. sect. and Cassand. consult. art. 24. the iteratione, p. 202 Both who say, that it is the safer opinion to place it in both, and that veteres Latini utriusque pariter & invocationis sive precis & Dominicorum verborum mentionem faciunt in consecrandis mysteriis.  
And that passage of Damascene and of Epiphanius in 2. Nicen. Conc. act. 6. tom. 3. that Basil called the Symbols antitypa only before, not after consecration, whereas he calls them so after the words of Institution, but before Fac istum panem corpus etc. shows, that they in those times conceived the consecration partly at least to be in these following words. And Basil himself saith Invocation was used by the Church as well after as before the Evangelical words, tanquam multum habens momenti ad mysterium. See Basil. de Spiritu S. 27. c. where speaking of the authority of unwritten Traditions, amongst many others, he names the forms of the Liturgies; Invocationis verba cum conficitur panis Eucharistiae & poculum benedictionis, quis sanctorum (i. e. of the Apostles) in scripto nobis reliquit? Nec enim his contenti sumus quae commemorat Apostolus aut Evangelium; verum alia quoque & ante, & post, dicimus, tanquam multum habentia momenti ad mysterium, quae ex traditione, citra scriptum, accepimus. Consecramus autem aquam Baptismatis, & ex quibus scriptis? nun a tacita secretaque traditione? etc.  
Now this being supposed, that other prayers besides our Lords words bear some part in the consecration, many of the objections made will be of no force: some of which also may be and are used as arguments to confirm this tenant.  
1. To [ν] 'tis answered, 
To ν.  first, that this matters not, if true; because as much, though not the same, is said in the Roman form, before the words of Institution. Therefore to no purpose were it, to alter some and not the rest which is as opposite to their opinion.  
2. That no alteration is made of the ancient form for the things objected, they being found placed in the same order in the Ambrosian Liturgy, de sacram. 4. l. 4. c. by which unquestioned-ancient form you may find Bellarmin to defend the Roman Missal in all the chief objections made against it, in his 2. l. de Miss. 24. cap.  
To [ξ] an answer may be collected out of what is said above in the 5th consideration, 
To ξ.  and out of what was but now said to [α.]  
Now to their Answer to the second argument of the Fathers. To [τ] I say: 
To τ. Reply to their answer to the 2d. argument out of the Fathers.  but the Reformed deny the change of any accident at all in the bread, (of the change of which bread in something or other the Fathers speak, and that before communicating,) and all the change they allow (save only relative) is in the communicant ex pacto or promissione divina upon receipt of the bread.  
To [ρ], see the answer which is made p. And we not unusually compare things, when (not only in some other things they are incomparable, 
To ρ σ.  but) in the reason of the comparison one far transcends, or is transcended by the other. Which may be said also to [σ].  
To [τ] I grant both in Baptism and the Eucharist to be a miraculous or supernatural effect wrought upon the soul of the worthy receiver; 
To τ.  to which such miraculous instances wrought by God's omnipotency may be not unfitly applied. But besides this effect acknowledged in general; first, in Baptism it hath been a question, (and undecided for any thing I know by any Council,) Whether the Baptismal water contineat aut conferat gratiam, per virtutem aliquam creatam (i.e. upon the benediction thereof) quae illi insit, & qua effectum gratiae operetur; or, quia divina virtus illi ad producendum gratiae effectum certo & infallibiliter ex Christi promissione assistit, ut habeat rationem causae sine qua non: (i. e.) that God immediately by himself and not by the water gives such grace, whenever the water washeth a sinner. Now though the later opinion is the more common, yet some of the Fathers at least are thought to incline to the former, which makes a great miracle wrought not upon the Baptised only, but upon the water. See Chrysost. (who is quoted by them for his high expressions concerning Baptism as well as concerning the Eucharist) in Johan. Hom. 25. Ex quo Jordanis alveum ingressus est Christus non amplius reptilia animarum viventium, sed animas rationales & spirituales aqua producit. And Hom. 24. upon c. 3.— Unless a man be born of water— Si quis interroget, quomodo ex aqua? rursus ego illud, quomodo ex terra, (i.e. in man's first generation?) nam quemadmodum terra inanimata &c divina voluntate ad tanta miracula producenda vires accepit; ita spiritu & sensibili aqua omnia haec admirabilia & humanam cogitationem excedentia facile exoriuntur.— Nunquam aqua Baptismi purgare peccata credentium posset, nisi tactu Dominici corporis fuisset sanctificata. And Cyril. Alexand. in Joann. 2. l. 42. c. Sicut viribus ignis intensius aqua calefacta non aliter quam virtute ignis urit; sic aqua virtute Spiritus sancti in se suscepta abstergit peccata. And Estius 4. sent. 1. d. 5. s. Haec sententia est probabilior si nudas quasdam Patrum sententias, ut sonant, attendamus. Now, suppose the Fathers to be of this opinion, they might well apply the same instances and expressions to Baptism for this supernatural infused virtue into the water, as they do to the Eucharist for the supernatural mutation of the elements, without any diminution at all to the miraculousness of this effect. This for Baptism.  
2. In the Eucharist there is pretended to be, besides the supernatural effect wrought upon the communicant by Christ's body, a miraculous conversion also of the elements into that his body▪ Now that the Fathers used those miraculous instances of God's omnipotency, to illustrate a miraculous change made not in the communicant, but also in the elements, and to prove not a presence of Christ's body simply in the Eucharist, but a supernatural mutation of the bread (some way or other) into it, I think is both plain (if you please to review the places I quoted out of them) from their clear language, applied to the elements, not to the communicants; and very consonant to the other arguments which are drawn out of them, to show their Tenent of the real presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist before communicating.  
Again to [υ] that they held this change in the elements of the Eucharist much otherwise than that in the Waters of Baptism, 
To υ.  though both some way miraculous, seems plain; in that, though in Baptism Grace and the Spirit is bestowed, and then we are also incorporated into Christ, etc. yet say they not of the Water of Baptism from this effect thereof, that it is the Spirit; or is turned into the Spirit; neither saith the Apostle, that in unworthy receiving it, we are guilty of the Spirit; as in the other he saith, guilty of the Body. Neither was there ever such a veneration, or reservation of it, such a care that none should be spilt, or fall to the ground, as of the consecrated Elements; which shows, that though they imagine some miracle in both, yet a much different and transcendent one in the second.  
§. XXIX The same Answer may serve to [φ] where, 
To φ. Reply to their Answ. to the 3d Arg. out of the Father's concerning Sacrifice.  since the real presence of Christ's Body, that now is in Heaven, with the worthy Receiver, is as great a Miracle, as that other with the Symbols; 'tis strange, why those allowing the one so strongly oppose the other; unless perhaps this be to avoid Adoration.— Concerning the Reply which may be made to their Answer to the third Argument out of the Fathers, see (before) the Reply to [λ]  
§. XXX Lastly, Concerning the fourth Argument out of the Fathers, Adoration: 
Reply to their Answ. to the 4th Arg. out of the Father's concerning Adoration.  The heads of what they say (see before) as well as I can understand them are these; α That the Symbols are to be used with a due reverence and respect, as things consecrated to a sacred use. β That Christ may be worshipped also in receiving of the Eucharist, as he is now in Heaven sitting at the right hand of God. γ But not as present in the Eucharist, because no Divine command for any such thing, and because he is there ut manducetur non ut adoretur; he saying there, Take eat, not take worship. 
α.  Or yet further, That he may be worshipped as present (or who is present) by Faith in the hearts of the Communicants; 
β.  or also really present, 
γ.  as others say, to the worthy Receiver; and who is present also in the Symbols after that manner as the thing signified or represented may be said to be present in that thing which signifies it. 
δ.  δ That the Fathers, in the places quoted out of them, speak either of a reverence due to the consecrated Symbols of our Saviour's Body, or also of Adoration of our Saviour, or of his Body in some of the foresaid manners or intentions, but not as really present with the Symbols.  
ζ That these may not be worshipped for Christ's Body, 
ζ  etc. That if they be, 'tis flat Idolatry [η]. 
η.  That those of the fourth Opinion do worship them for Christ, or for his Body.  
Of these [α] and [β] are granted. To [γ] First, 
Reply to α. β. To γ.  I suppose a Precept in general, to worship Christ; and the whole Christ to be there wherever his Body is; it being never severed, not when it lay in the Grave, from the Divinity.  
And therefore (as Daille grants out of St. Austin's Apology, c. 10.) l'humanite de Jesus Christ est urayement & proprement, adorable. I find Calvin indeed somewhat boggle at it, Inst. l. 4. c. 17. s. 35. where bringing in this arguing, Si corpus est & anima & divinitas sint una cum corpore, quae jam divelli non possunt, igitur illic adorandus Christus, he saith, Primum si sua illa, quam obtendunt, concomitantia ipsis negetur quid facient?— Quis sanus & sobrius Christi corpus Christum esse sibi persuadeat? But there is no Body that saith, that Christ's Body is Christ; but that it being no more since his Passion (for Christ dyeth no more, Rom. 6.) a dead Body, but having the Soul joined with it, as likewise ever since the Incarnation having its hypostasy, or subsistence from the Deity joined with it, therefore where the Body is, there is totus Christus. But yet suppose Christ's true Body in the Sacrament apart, I hope Calvin will allow a superior worship to be given to it, properly due to no other Creature. Let then such be the worship we here speak off.  
2. Next; Affirmative precepts (such as this is of worshipping Christ) do not oblige to every time and place; but if they are unlimited and general, they warrant the lawfulness of our practice of them in any time or place. Nor is there need of any partiticular command in respect of these (i. e. places or times) without which we may not obey them. See Discourse concerning Adoration, etc. p. 1.  
3. But then again: This is seriously to be considered, concerning affirmative precepts; That they do oblige for some time and places, positis debitis circumstantiis; else they would not oblige at all. Now, Suppose Christ's Body really present in the Eucharist, and that with the Symbols, (as the Lutheran believes,) what fitter time to Adore, than when we receive from him the greatest Love and Mercy that can be showed to Mankind, the Communion of his own Flesh and Blood to us? And what fit place than in a Church, wherein usually we receive it? and when, and where no impediant circumstances can be alleged? Let therefore the omission of such worship be lawful, with Daille's qualifications, (Reply to Chaumont p. 66.) Purveuque cette omission ne proceed ni de haine ni de mespris ni de non chalance ni d'aucune autre mauvaise disposition de esprit: Yet how the Lutheran (considering his persuasion) is acquitted from some of these in his omission (at such time) of Adoration, I see not. And Daille himself, in his Apology, c. 9 p. 66. seems to maintain the necessity, in such time of this Duty, supposing a real presence. Si le Sacrament— est en sa substance le corps de Christ, etc. il est evident qu' on le peut & qu'. on le doit adorer; attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable.  
Now, if the Body of Christ be a subject adorable to the Romanists, so it is to the Lutherans. And see St. Austin's saying to this purpose before: Non solum non peccamus adorando, sed non adorando peccamus. And what man is excused from blame, who appearing in the presence of his Prince, to receive from him the Donation of his Lise or Liberty, &c doth not at such time give unto him his due Honour, though by no Law obliged at all times to do it?  
To [δ] First, its plain from the places quoted, That by the Fathers in the Eucharist not only an inferior reverence was given to the Symbols, but also a divine worship to Christ. Else St. Austin, if speaking of an inferior reverence, would not have asked the question, 
To δ.  Quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra? since the Creature is well capable of some inferior veneration. Nor would S. Ambrose say; adoramus illam carnem, quam Apostoli in Domino Jesu adorarunt: nor S. Chrysostom, quam in praesepi adorarunt Magi, etc. hence is that answer excluded, that they speak of, A reverend usage of the Symbols.  
2ly. 'tis plain, that they worshipped not only the omnipotent Deity of Christ, but his Humane nature or substance as there present.  
3ly. Present not only to the worthy receiver, but on the Table, on the Altar; which they worshipped as there, before their receiving it. As appears by— Illum, quisuper Altare colitur.— Adducti sunt ad mensam Domini, & accipiunt de corpore & sanguine, sed adorant tantum etc.— Imitemur vel barbaros etc. Tu non in praesepi vides, sed in altari.— Non Angelos, sed Dominum ostendo.— Si pura sunt vestimenta, adora & manduca.— Rogantes Agnum propositum (i. e.) on the Altar, etc. see the former quotations. Therefore those answers serve not, of worshipping him as really present to the receiver, or present in men's hearts by faith.  
Neither doth that help any thing (which I do not well understand) of worshipping Christ (which must be with divine worship) and that before receiving, as representatively present in the symbols, (he in reality not being there.) Which thing (first whether it may, or may not be done) is unappliable to the Fathers, who express themselves, to adore the very flesh (not its figure or representation) as present on the Altar; that flesh as now on the Altar, which the Apostles adored in Domino Jesus, and the wise men in the Babe, in praesepi; and non Angelos, saith Chrysostom, neque Archangelos, neque Coelos, sed ipsum eorum ostendo Dominum. Is signum corporis Domini, which thing, only, they say, he shown, above Angels?  
Now to examine the answer itself a little; whether such a thing may lawfully be done. And here I will first set you down Bellarmin's reply to such an answer, given by Pet. Martyr to that place of Nazianzen, [eumque qui super altare colitur magno cum clamore obtestans] who said, Coli quidem Christum super altar, sed coli in symbolo, sicut in symbolo significatur. To which the Cardinal; vel est ipse revera in symbolo illo, vel non est; si est etc. si non est; ergo licet saltem coram symbolis procumbere, & ibi Christum licet absentem adorare; ergo licet imagines Christi venerari, etc. or rather Christum in imagine ipsius adorare. And doth, not this warrant divine adoration of Christ's Body and Blood as some way present there, and that before communicating, to be lawful, and that to all opinions whatsoever, if only they hold the Sacrament a sign of Christ's Body? And then why saith Daille, (who gives this answer for the Father's adoration,) that the Lutherans worship of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist, if there it be not, is vain, & inutile & tombe par maniere de dire dans le neant? Reply to Chaumont p. 63. Would it be in vain in a Lutheran, and was it not so in the Fathers? And is it without reason then that which Calvin saith, de Christiana pacificatione 11. c. Come in coelesti gloria resideat Christus, quisquis alio se convertit ejus adorandi causa, ab ipso discedit? which is most true, if Christ be only in heaven: he that worships Christ or his Body there where he confesseth it is not, nor any thing else (relating to it) that is capable of such a worship as he gives, seems to me to have no object at all of his worship. For divine worship suits not to the sign; and there is nothing else there (in his opinion) to give it to. To worship Christ as there, must be to worship something there as him: we worship Christ upon the Altar, i. e. we worship Christ in Heaven, upon the motive of something representing him upon the Altar, is too forc'd a paraphrase of the Father's expressions.  
To [ζ] it is granted. 
To ζ.  To [η] namely, that those of the fourth opinion, 
To η. Concerning idolatry imputed to the Roman Church, Whether the Roman Church worship not Christ as corporally present in the Sacrament, but (by holding Transubstantiation) the Sacrament instead of Christ: and whether all such worship however qualified be idolatry?  contrary to the practice of the Fathers, worship not only Christ that is present, corporally present, with the symbols, but (by holding Transubstantiation) the very substance of bread in stead of Christ, and that all such worship (however qualified) is idolatry; much is to be said, and rather because Monsieur Daille an eminent man (in his Apology for the Reformed Churches, lately published in English) hath singled out this point from all the rest, upon which chief to ground a necessity of separation from former Church, and of excusing the separaters from Schism.  
Now to make way for what I have to say; first I will premise some concessions of Monsieur Daille's, who hath very diligently argued this point, and then some concessions (on the other side) or qualifications (in their adoration) of the Transubstantialists; by both which I conceive the heavy imputation of committing idolatry, that is laid upon them, may be much lightened.  
1. First therefore Daille grants (which yet I do not press so much, because he saith such things, 
Mr. Daille's Concessions.  as because in reason no man can say otherwise) an enorm difference (as he calls it) between worshipping Christ or the body of Christ in the Sacrament, and worshipping the Sacrament; (see 2d. Reply to Chaumont, p. 29.) and this, though we mean the first of worshipping his Body as really present in, or with, the Symbols.  
2. Of which worship of Christ as present, he holds that it is not idolatrous at all, because it hath no direction to any object now-adorable; but (to use his own words) seulement vain & iwtile & tombant par maniere de dire dans le neant, s'abusant en ceci seulement que par erreur elle cherche cet objet & pense l'embrasser la, ou il n' est point. 1. Reply to Chaumont, p. 63. See likewise 12. c. of his Apology, where he saith," Had the Church of Rome obliged us only to adore Christ in the Sacrament, they had not by this tied us to worship any creature. So he saith 1. Reply. p. 20. Bienque nous ne croions pas cette presence du corps de Christ dans les signs, neantmoins nous n' estimons pas, que la creance en soit si criminelle, qu' elle nous oblige a rompre avec tous iceux, qui la tiennent— de façon que si l'eglise Romain n' eust en aucune autre erreurque celle la, nous accordons volontiers qu' elle ne nous eust pas donné un suffisant suiet de nous separer d'auec elle, come i'll paroist de ce que nous la supportons es Lutheriens. Quell est donc la cause de nostre separation d'auec elle? l'adoration de l' hostie etc.  
3. He holds, that Adoration follows necessarily the tenant of the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist. Quant au droit; & qu' on le peut & qu' on le doit adorer, attenduque le corps de Christ est un suiet adorable. Which shows Adoration to be rightly grounded on Christ's corporal presence, be it after what manner soever, that of the Romanist, or that of the Lutheran; for le corpse de Christ est suiet adorable. Apol. 9 c.  
4. He resolveth Apol. 10. c. the Jews worshipping before the Ark or footstool Psal. 99.5. and Psal. 132.7. into worshipping God as especially present there upon the Ark; symbolum praesentiae Dei, as Rivet calls it, or between the Cherubims ver. 1. And if we compare [adorate scabellum] there, as the Vulgar read it, with [adorarunt vitulum,] Exod. 32.8; to worship the true God of Israel in the Calf is judged idolatry, to worship the same God before the Ark or between the Cherubims, none.  
5. So he grants Apol 11. c. That when our Saviour was on ●arth, a Disciple's giving divine honour upon mistake to another person much resembling him, would be no idolatry; so supposing the consecrated Host truly adorable, should one see one exposed on the Altar that happened not to be consecrated and worshipped, neither would such a person be guilty of idolatry. So he pronounceth him blameless, that should give the honour and service due to his true Prince to a subject, whom being very like he took for his Prince. See concerning Adoration, p. 11.  
The same thing I conceive it is in apparitions. Had S, John Rev. 22.28. taken the Angel for God appearing, (as some think he did, but the Angel quickly rectified his mistake,) and so given him divine honours, such as Abraham and many other Saints in the Old Testament gave to the Lord appearing, this had been far from an act of idolatry in him. So had Mary Magdalen, as she took our Saviour for a Gardener, worshipped a Gardener like apparelled &c for our Saviour, it had been no idolatry.  
But saith Daille, should any worship the Sun for Jesus Christ, as S. Austin mentions some that did, or the Virgin Mary for a Goddess, as the Collyridians' are said to have done, these will be guilty of high Idolatry. I add further; Should any worship not only an image, but (which Dr. Hammond hath observed in his Treatise of Idolatry, sect. 47.) any glorified Saint or Angel, by giving any of God's attributes to them; as, the knowledge of the secrets of men's hearts, and of all other passages in this lower world, and the ability likewise of working miraculous effects as they please; and both these, not from God's communicated, but their own original, power; and should address his prayers to them, as fancied such by him; this man will certainly be an idolater.  
Now the reason Daille gives in the same 11. chapter Apol. why in this worshipping the creature for God or Christ, some are idolaters, some not, [by Idolaters, I mean sinful and formal idolaters, as some call them; for note, that it is no otherwise in idolatry than in other sins, there may be a material act or real adultery without fault; suppose another man's wife conveyed into the husband's bed instead of his own, as Leah was once into jacob's: so the real kill of his neighbour without any guilt; suppose by the miscarrying of some instrument a man is using in his vocation: and here an ignorance of such a fact, without any faulty error in the judgement, or obliquity of the intention, excuseth the sin:] Daille's reason therefore for distinguishing guilty idolatry from that which materially may also be called so, is, not the good intention to worship only him who is truly God or Christ, or the opinion and belief they have, that the subject they worship is truly such, (for this (as he in that Chapter, and other Writers copiously express) is common to the worst of Idolaters;) but the error or ignorance of the judgement, from which flows this mistaking. practise, as that is only affected and culpable, or innocent and excusable. Of which thus he, in that Chapter, J' avove, que l'ignorance excuse lafoy (i. e. in this very matter of Idolatry) ou elle est involuntaire, quand le suiet, que nous mesconoissons, est tellenent cachê etc. mais la, ou l'ignorance d'un objet procede non de l'obscurite & difficulté de la chose, mais de la malice, ou de la negligence de l' homme, alors tant. s'en faut, qu'elle excuse, etc. So he saith, those that worshipped the Sun for Christ were unexcusable, because l'ignorance de tous ces gens estoit visiblement affects & voluntaire, née de leur vice seulement, & non de l'obscuritê des choses qu' ils ignoroient. Therefore also afterward upon this reason as he excuseth him, that should have worshipped one resembling our Saviour, or an unconsecrated Host, etc. because non sa passion ou sa non chalance avoit cause cette mesprise, etc. So he blameth the Romanist, mistaking and worshipping the Sacrament for Christ, because l'erreur vient tout enliere de leur passion, & non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux.  
6. Mr. Daille grants (which I have touched before,) That as we may not reject the Communion of any, for every erroneous Tenent, when it offends against no principal or fundamental point of Religion, see Apol. c. 7. so we may not reject it for Errors, though destructive of a Principle, (see Apol. c. 9) if it do this, not immediately and directly, but by some consequences thereof which consequences also are renounced, and the Principle still maintained by those who hold the error. [Tho if you desire my opinion of this: First, I see not how any can hold a Principle, and yet hold a contrary Tenent that directly and immediately opposeth it; for no man is so sottish, as to hold two things directly contradictory the one to the other: See what he saith for this, when pressed by Chaumont, in his second Reply, p. 81. So then, when any one's Tenent opposeth the Principle (which also he holds) by some consequence it must be, and not be, point blank; Secondly, I see not, but that if one holding the Principle hold also another Tenent, which by a consequence clear and manifest to others; though not to him, ruineth the Principle, such an one is to be rejected &c. as if he denied the Principle. And thirdly, The judgement of the clearness of such consequences, private men must leave to the Church and her Councils: Esse two men, as interessed and prepossessed, ordinarily pretend contradictories both to be clear. For example: If the Lutheran Tenent of the ubiquity of Christ's humanity, or the Greek Tenent of the Holy Ghost not proceeding from the Son, should seem to a General Council, the one, by a clear consequence, though not acknowledged by the Party, to ruin Christ's true humane nature; the other, to destroy the Trinity: Such aught to be separated from as men not discerning this consequence, only from a some way culpable and affected ignorance. See what Daille saith of this, Rep. 2. p. 82, 83.] But (to return to Daille) therefore (saith he) though Adoration should follow upon the Lutheran Tenent of Christ's presence in the Eucharist, yet if they acknowledge no such consequence, or practise no such thing, we may not for their error abhor their Communion. In which I may advance one step farther (with Daille's good leave,) that, should the Lutherans also acknowledge the consequence, and practise such a thing as Adoration of Christ as corporally present in the Eucharist; yet for this neither is their Communion refusable: Because such Adoration opposeth no Principle; but is at the most but vain and inutile, according to Daille's own judgement, quoted before.  
Observe here also from this Proposition of Daille's, That he holds a duty of separation from the Communion of the Church of Rome, because of their worshipping the Eucharist, though they should not enjoin it to any; because we ought not to Communicate with any such, who acknowledge and profess a Doctrine or Practice clearly repugnant to a Principle, as he contends the Roman Adoration is. As for the other cause of Separation, the enjoining this Practice upon men contrarily persuaded, we shall speak to it anon. Thus much for Daille.  
§. XXXI 
The Roman Qualifications concerning Adoration.  Next, To see what qualifications the Transubstantialists make concerning their Adoration.  
1. First, After Consecration, they affirm not Christ's Body to be there alone; but the Symbols also to remain with it. This is showed before.  
2. They affirm the Symbols capable of some reverence, as being holy things; but not at all of divine worship, as being Christ's Body, for they are distinct from it. See Cassand. Consult. de Ador. Euch.— Quae adoratio non ad ipsum signum quod exterius videtur, sed ad ipsam rem & veritatem, quae interius creditur, referenda est; quamvis & ipsi signo, cujus jam virtus intelligitur, tanquam religioso & sacro, sua veneratio debeatur. See Forbes his Testimony of them, l. 2. c. 2. s. 9 In Eucharistia ment discernendum esse Christum a visibili signo docent Romanenses, & Christum quidem adorandum esse non tamen sacramentum; quia species illae sunt res creatae, etc. Neque satis est quod Christus sub illis sit, quia etiam Deus est in anima tanquam in Templo suo, & tamen adoratur Deus non anima; ut ait Suarez Tom. 3. Qu. 79. Art, 8. disp. 65. sect. 1. See Spalat. l. 7. c. 11. n. 7. Nam neque nostri (i. e. Romanists) dicunt species panis & vini, hoc est accidentia illa esse adoranda, sed dicunt corpus Christi verum & real, quod sub illis speciebus latet, deberi adorari.  
Lastly, See Bellarm. de Euch. l. 4. c. 6. Species illae neque excellunt aliis sacramentis, imo sunt inferiores omnibus, cum sint pura accidentia, neque adorari possunt. Again, c. 29. Neque ullus Catholicus est qui doceat ipsa Symbola externa per se & proprie esse adoranda cultu latriae, sed solum veneranda cultu quodam minori qui omnibus sacramentis convenit. Where also he saith, those Lutherans, that hold Christ adorable in the Sacrament, only modo loquendi a Catholicis dissentire. And whereas many are offended, see Tailor, p. 366. that he puts in [per se & proprie] and holds the Adoration of Christ aliquo modo pertinere ad Symbola: Yet 1. This is no stating of the Church in any Council. 2. Nor an universal Doctrine of the Roman Doctors; see Forbes l. 2. c. 2. s. 11. Sententia ista Bellarmini plurimis Doctoribus Romanensibus displicet. 3. He doth afterwards such up again, or suspend what he had said before, in the conclusion, where he saith, Quicquid sit de modo loquendi, status quaestionis non est nisi, an Christus in Eucharistia sit adorandus cultu latriae. 4. Lastly, If examined close, the matter is not great, for he saith only, that we worship Christ in the Eucharist, vested with the Symbols, as a Disciple worshipped him on Earth, his Divinity clothed with Humanity, and that again clothed with Garments, without making in the act of his Worship a mental separation of his Humanity from his Clothes, or of his Deity from his Humanity. When yet, saith he, ratio adorandi (i. e. with supreme Adoration) non erant vestes, imo nec ipsa humanitas, sed solum divinitas. So then; at the worst he affirms no more Worship due to the Symbols in the Eucharist, than to Christ's Garments, when he was on the Earth.  
3. They deny also any Divine Worship due to the substance of the Bread, as well as to its species, or symbols: which substance of Bread many of them at least hold, to be changed, both for form, and also matter; that is, to be annihilated, and nothing at all thereof to remain. Catholici cum negent, saith Bellarmin, panem in Sacramento remanere, quomodo possunt asserere 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 De Euch. l. 4. c. 29. Perperam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (i. e. the Tenent of it, saith Forbes) Romanensibus a plerisque Protestantibus objicitur, & illi idolatriae crassissimae etc. insimulantur; cum credant panem consecratum non esse amplius panem etc. l. 2. c. 2. s. 9— Tilenus there quoted s. 10. Tametsi hi panem (ex sententia Protestantium) adorant, non tamen panem adorandum esse dictitant. They deny any Divine Worship due to Bread; i. e. to any thing which whilst they affirm to be Christ's Body, they acknowledge also to be Bread (as those, who worshipped the Sun for Christ, or the Molten Calf for the God that brought them out of Egypt, affirming these still to be the Sun, and a Molten Calf) for they hold it impossible, and involving contradiction, That the Bread, remaining Bread, should also be the Body of Christ; and much urge the Lutherans for saying, Hic Panis est Corpus meum.  
Therefore also they say, That should they worship Bread for the Body of Christ, they should be the greatest Idolaters in the World. But yet this, I conceive, they say not; That should they worship Christ's Body as being under the accidents of Bread, and yet indeed not his Body, but the Bread itself be still under those accidents; that so also they should be the greatest Idolaters that ever were. For this their very Adversaries, less partial to their cause, yet will not say of them. Nor do they say it of themselves; for Bellarmin, speaking of one mistakingly Adoring an unconsecrated Host, saith, Adoratio ex intentione potissimum pendet: Quare qui [talem] panem adorat, quod certo credat non esse pa●●m, sed Christum, is proprie & formaliter Christum adorat, non panem, de Euch. l 4. c. 30. Thus much that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 taken in this sense, not that de facto they do worship, but that also they hold a worship of the Bread, cannot justly be objected to them.  
4. They use the phrase indeed of worshipping the Sacrament, and that speaking of Divine Worship (which phrase also is used by the Ancients,) see Conc. Trid. Sess. 13. c. 5. Omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholica Ecclesia semper recepto, latriae cultum, qui vero Deo debetur, huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant. But by it they mean, the worshipping, not of any thing visible or sensible in the Sacrament, nor of any substance invisible, that is not Christ, (for these they expressly make uncapable of any such worship,) but only the body of Christ present invisibly, impassibly, &c, after the manner described before, not of the Sacrament as it implies the signum, but only the significatum, then there also really present.  
See therefore that expression of Conc. Trid. (now quoted) explained, both by the reason immediately following, Nam illum eundem praesentem in eo adesse credimus, quem Pater aeternus introducens &c dicit, Et adorent cum omnes Angeli, Heb. 1. and most clearly in the following Canon, to which the Anathema is affixed, for those who denied such adoration to be due, Can. 6. which runs thus; Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei filium non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum &c, Anathema sit. This is observed by Father Paul, in his history of that Council, 4. l. pag. 343. The manner of speech used in the 5th point of doctrine, saying, That divine worship was due to the Sacrament, was noted also for improper; since it is certain, that the thing signified or contemned is not meant by the Sacrament, but the thing signifying or containing; and therefore it [i.e. the manner of speech] was well corrected in the 6th Canon, which said, that the Son of God ought to be worshipped in the Sacrament: Observed also and pressed by F. Sancta Clara, (Enchiridion of Faith, Dial. 13.)" It's true (saith he) that in the 5th chap. the Fathers say, that the Sacrament is to be adored; but here in the Canon they speak more strictly, and the reason in the Chapter is the same, nam illum eundem Deum etc. And elsewhere (3d. dialogue) he shows where the expressions differ (for which he names, besides this place, the 2d. Canon of 6. Sess. compared with 7. chapter,) Our obligation to be to the Canon not the Chapter; * because the chapter rather declares the doctrine to be defined, than contains the definition itself, neither is framed in the stile of Conciliary definitions with anathemas; and * because the Council of Trent itself doth seem to put a difference between these two, (Sess. 14. c. 3. of Extr. Unction, haec sint quae etc.) in making a further Commination for violation of the doctrines of the Canons than of the Chapters. Observed also by Grot. in his Apolog. Rivet. discussio p. 79. where also he notes Bellarmin's forequoted passage, that the controversy between the Catholics and Lutherans was only in modo loquendi, in saying, the Sacrament, or Christ in the Sacrament, was to be worshipped; and to this nothing is replied by Rivet, and it appears that that indeed is said by them which Daille wisheth. Apol. 12. c.  
See Dr. Holden de resol. fidei 2. l. 4. c. In hoc sacrosancto Eucharistiae sacramento Christus unigenitus Dei filius cultu latriae adorandus est, and this is all (saith he) that in this matter is fide Catholica credendam. See Dr. Tailor, Liberty of Prophecy, 20. s. 16. n. Now it is evident that the object of their Adoration (i.e. the Romanists) that which is represented to them in their thoughts, their minds, their purposes, (by which God principally, if not solely, takes estimate of humane actions) in the Blessed Sacrament, is the only true and eternal God hypostatically joined with his holy Humanity, which Humanity they believe actually present, under the veil of the Sacramental signs.  
Add to this, that the same argument Daille, Apol. 9 c. urgeth to prove, that we may not worship the Sacrament because Christ is in it; namely this, that Christ is in the faithful as in his Temple, yet may we not adore the faithful: the same they urge to the same purpose. See the former quotations out of Suarez, p. 200. Now if Mr Daille say, that the word Sacrament cannot properly be applied to only Christ's Body, or the thing signified, abstracted from the Sign, I shall accord willingly; but then we must accuse the Church of Rome, not of an erroneous tenant for this, if she expound to us her orthodox meaning, but of an improper expression.  
And for that which he saith 1, Reply. p. 22. That if the word Sacrament in the Council of Trent signified nothing besides Jesus Christ formally and precisely, than we might affirm que le sacrament est la aut haux cieux a la dextre de Dieu; I answer that [precisely] is to be taken, as, though not involving besides Christ any other subject, yet including besides Christ the manner of his presence, which is not natural in the Sacrament as it is in the Heavens.  
5. Therefore also they ground adoration (a thing Card. Peron much insisteth upon in his reply to King James) not on Transubstantiation, (though both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation involveth it, so that either of these posita ponitur adoratio,) as if sublata Transubstantiatione tollitur Adoratio, but on real presence; which in general is agreed on by the Lutheran, together with them. Which adoration they affirm due with all the same circumstances wherewith it is now performed, though Christ's Body were present with the symbols, neither as under the accidents of bread as they say, nor under the substance of bread as the Lutherans say; but, after some other unknown manner distinct from both: and if they were convinced of the error of Transubstantiation, and of the truth of the presence of the sabstance of the bread unchanged; yet, as long as not confuted in the point of real presence, would they nevertheless for this continue to adore the self same object as now in the self same place; namely the body of Christ still present there with the symbols, and therefore there adorable, though present after another manner than they imagined.  
See the arguing of Barnesius a Romanist, Forbes 2. l. 2. c. 12. s. Corpus Christi ibi est cum pane vel permanente vel transeunte, uno vel alio modo &c, per consequens non est idololatria adorare Christum ibi in Eucharistia realiter praesentem. See in Conc. Trid. 13. s. 5. c. the reason immediately following the requiring of adoration: Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem in eo (sacramento] adesse credimus, quem Pater introducens etc.  
If therefore the Church enjoins these three 1. to believe Christ's corporal presence in the Sacrament, 2. to believe Transubstantiation, for the manner of that presence, 3. to adore Christ as being there present; it follows not that she enjoins the third in order to the second, but may only in order to the first, as it being (without the second) a sufficient ground thereof. As is observed in the former Discourse of the Eucharist.  
§. XXXII 
S●●●ose Transubstantiation to be an error, ●e● Adoration lawful, if corporal presence true.  These considerations premised, 1. Therefore now suppose Transubstantiation an error; yet if the tenant of corporal or real presence (as held by the Lutherans or others) be true, the same adoration is no way frustrated, but still warrantable, and to be continued.  

Suppose Cornoral presence an error, yet their Adoration no Idolatry.  2. Suppose not only Transubstantiation, but real presence an error; suppose the Bread after consecration to remain in substance. unchanged, and our Saviour after no manner at all present corporally; yet I do not see (after the foregoing concessions and qualifications well weighed, especially that wherein they profess adoration not of the Sacrament, or any part thereof, but of Christ in the Sacrament) how the adoration of Christ, as present there and that as under the accidents, and in the room of the substance of the bread, (though I have showed that such a quatenus is required of none in their adoration) can amount to idolatry; which to show  
1. First, compare this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialists with any other granted idolatries of the Heathens, Jews, or Christians; and we shall find no instance of any, the subtlest idolatry, that ever was, but in its guilt or error much differing from this. The most subtle of Idolatry Heathen, I think is that, (as it is expounded by Maximus Tyrius, dial. 39 mentioned in Dr. Ham. Idol. 17. s.) that they bestowed their worship only on the Gods to humane eyes invisible, and used Images only as signs and tokens of their honouring them, and helps of their infirmity to remember them etc. Of Jewish Idolatry, was that of worshipping the true God in the golden Calf, and those other set up afterward in ‛ Dan and Bethel. Of Christian Idolatry, I find these mentioned: that of worshipping the B. Virgin for a Goddess, of the Sun as being Christ, of Saints or Angels, (if ever any such worship were, for I find only such a case put in Dr. Hammond, Idol. 47. s.) communicating God's attributes unto them, (as is expressed above p.) of Omniscience, Omnipotence, which thing makes indeed not one but many Gods.  
But as for the first of these, the Heathens, whatever respect they gave to the Images, it's certain the Gods they worshipped were, not one and the true, but many and false; whilst they grossly and stupidly erred (even Tyrius amongst the rest) in many of the Divine Attributes; though also, as Dr. Hammond saith, the actions of the many were very unlike. Tyrius his speculations. As for that of the Jews, Dr. Hammond's opinion is, sect. 34, 35, 36. that they worshipped not God only, but the Idol-calf also, as, upon Aaron's Consecration animated and inspirited by God, (as the Heathen also conceited of their Idols,) and so fitted to supply Moses' place, and go before them and be their Conductor; and the same is to be thought of Jeroboam's Calves, see 1 Reg. 12.28. As for that of the Christians, those who worshipped the Sun for Christ were not excused by their good intentions, because most wilfully and groundlessly mistaken in their judgements; in which I shall show the Transubstantialists not to run parallel with them. The worshippers of Angels, as such, err also grossly in the Divine Attributes; but no such thing is imputed to the Transubstantialists.  
2. Again, These Idolaters generally in their worshipping, when they took such a visible thing to be God, they denied it not to be the thing still. They affirmed the Images, the Calves, the Sun they worshipped, to be Calves, and Gold, to be the Sun and Images still, without supposing them to be annihilated, and God (not misunderstood by them in any of his Attributes) to be instead thereof. An Error therefore only like theirs would it be, If any in the Eucharist should acknowledge the Bread to remain, and worship that Bread, no way supposed altered, for his Christ: Which none do; or if they do, they are confessed by all to be Idolaters.  
3. But yet further; These Idolaters in worshipping a Creature for the Creator, grossly imagined in their blind Judgements a thing no way possible: And God not only was not, but could not be, such a thing as they supposed; but a Creature may be the Body of our Lord; and many of those, who deny Transubstantiation, yet grant a possibility thereof: And when we worship the true Body of our Lord, it is a Creature we Adore, though by the Hypostatical Union to the Deity, it is capable of such Honour. So that in all the Idolatrous Worships that can be named, though their intentions might be good, in directing their Adorations only to what they thought the true God; yet were their Judgements incomparably beyond the Transubstantialists culpably and stupidly (Rom. 1.22, 23.) erroneous to think so. And extremely were they also mistaken (from which the Transubstantialists are granted most clear) in many of the Divine Attributes and Properties.  
4. But now in the last place: Suppose that the Israelites did in no manner direct their worship to the Calf, but only to the God of Israel, as supposed by them, after some peculiar manner, there present; or suppose, that they held the Calf no more to be there at all, but the God of Israel under the outward appearance thereof: So likewise, That the Christians worshipping the Sun, held first a Transubstantiation thereof into the Body of our Lord: Yet will it not follow, That if their worship thus qualified would still be Idolatry, therefore the Transubstantialists Adoration is so, because (according to Mr. Daille's fifth Concession), from the probability or unreasonableness of the grounds and motives of our persuasion, the like practice is, or is not Idolatry.  
For, as the Israelites Adoring God as present after a peculiar manner in the Golden Calf was Idolatry; So the Israelites Adoring God as after a peculiar manner present or dwelling between the Cherubims, or upon the Ark (called his Footstool) was not so. Or, to instance in mistaking worships: Tho the Israelites worshipping God as peculiarly present in the Calf, when as there was no such matter, was Idolatry; yet the Lutherans worshipping Christ (suppose they did it) as present after a peculiar manner in the Eucharist, though indeed he be not there, is not so; but only an Adoration vain & inutile tombant en neant. Again, though the Christians worshipping the Sun for Christ, though supposed by them not the Sun, but Christ, were Idolatry; yet when our Saviour was on Earth, a Disciple's worshipping a mere man, very like him, for him, would not be so. See Daille's reason for it in his fifth Concess. Why then is the Transubstantialist an Idolater in his Account? See c. 11. of his Apol. because l'erreur de ceux etc. vient tout entiere de leur passion, & non d'aucune chose, qui soit hors d'eux. Here therefore lies all the trial of their Idolatry; Let this be disputed, this judged of by indifferent persons. For this, let what is said before in this Paper be well considered; and what shall be said by and by.  
§. XXXIII 1. For First: Suppose they ground Adoration on real presence (whatever becomes of Transubstantiation,) the mistake of this ground (i. e. of real presence) will be excusable in them; for, in the Lutherans it is so. But suppose the ground of their Adoration be the Tenent of Transubstantiation; yet after a granted possibility thereof, the Tradition of Antiquity, in Exposition of the Scriptures concerning the Eucharist, so much favouring (some way or other) a substantial conversion; and in after times, when this point grew to a debate, the Decision of Councils (the first of which was before A.D. 800. Conc. Nic. 2.) for such a conversion; if in some of them, not the same Transubstantiation, yet as strange; the reception of such Decisions by the succeeding Ages of the Church Universal (Eastern, Western,) till Luther's time, (and since his time the affirming still in general of a Corporal presence with the Symbols, by a considerable Party of the Reformed, I mean the Lutheran) (of the reasonable obligation of private Judgements to which Determinations and Practices of the Church in matters divine, I have discoursed elsewhere.) These motives; I say, (however Daille passeth over them in that 11. cap. with a light foot, reducing all to a laseule authoritê du Pape & de son Concile, and Dr. Tailor the like p. 346.) will sufficiently show, that their mistake is not un erreur, qui vient tout entiere de leur passion, & non d'aucune chose qui soit hors d'eux. Surely no practice can be idolatry, where is no malignant or heretical opinion of God or our Saviour: but such corporal presence is not in Daille's, nor Transubstantiation in many other Protestants opinion. See before.  
2. Compare we this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialist with those mistakes mentioned in Daille's 5th. concession, which, though worshipping of the mere creature for Christ, yet are excused by him from idolatry; and we may find it no less excusable than they.  
For though this hath not the same reason drawn from sense, i. e. a corporal similitude; yet it hath another (supposed) strong enough to ground such practice upon, i.e. divine revelation, as interpreted by Ecclesiastical authority. Tho indeed the mistake of the Transubstantialist is not so much as one's mistaking of a thing like Christ for Christ, because he worships nothing visible at all, nor any thing invisible wherein those accidents which he seethe do inhere; but only supposeth Christ's body present, where his sense can no way sufficiently inform him (since salvis phaenomenis this presence is possible) when it is absent.  
3. Lastly, compare we this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialists with that of the Consubstantialists, and I think we shall find no reason to accuse the one of flat idolatry, whilst the other of inutility or vanity only; or to charge the one with a bad consequent (which they renounce) of their erroneous tenant, (as that consequent is, [that they adore a piece of bread,] from that tenant of theirs, that the bread is annihilated and Christ's Body instead thereof, notwithstanding they hold the principle, that no mere creature may be worshipped) whilst we absolve the other from them, as long as they cease to own them, and hold the principle they oppose. See Daille's 6th. concession.  
§. XXXIV Thus far these two parties, the Transubstantialist and Lutheran, agree. 1. That Christ is corporally present. 2. That he may be worshipped. 3. That no other object there but He may be worshipped; not bread, nor any other mere creature. 4. That nothing visible in the Sacrament is He, or his Body; which is present only invisibly, without any thing visible inhering or appertaining to it as the subject thereof. They differ only about the manner of the presence of this invisible substance. The one saith it is there together with the bread; the other saith there instead of the bread, and the bread away; a thing also possible, for any thing we know. The one saith, he is there under both the substance and accidents of the Bread; the other, there under the accidents only of the Bread.  
Now whilst both worship the same object in the same place, and veiled with the same sensible accidents; yet the one adoring him as being under the substance of Bread (he not being there) are freed from any Idolatry in such worship; the other adoring him as being under the accidents of Bread (he not being there) are made idolaters. Why so? since they say and profess, that if his Body be not there under those appearances, but the same substance still under them which was formerly, they confess it a creature, and renounce all adoration of it. Whereas therefore it is objected, that the substance of bread only being in that place where they suppose Christ's Body and not any bread to be, therefore in worshipping the thing in that place, they worship bread; this were a right charge, if they affirmed that they worshipped the substance, that is in that place under such accidents, whatever it be: but this none say; but that they worship it only upon supposition that it is Christ's Body and not bread, and that for this supposition they have rational grounds. Now saying that they worship it, because it is so; is saying, if it be not so they intent no worship to it. And this worship is like theirs, which Bishop Andrews saith was rendered by some formerly out of fear of a someway defective consecration, Si es Christus, te adoro; Resp. ad Apol. Bell. 1. c. Again, whereas it is objected, that a good intention excuseth not idolatry, for so the Sun-worshippers, suppose they held a Transubstantiation, and thought Christ to be instead of the Sun, and should say, Si es Christus te adoro, would be no idolaters: this would be true, were their good intention founded upon an excusable and unaffected ignorance. But notwithstanding their intention and supposition it remains idolatry still: not because whilst thinking to worship Christ there, they de facto worship only what is the Sun; but because they have no reasonable motive to imagine such a thing, as that Christ is there, and by consequence so to act upon it; which the Transubstantialist pleads he hath. This clearly appears, in that, should Christ be worshipped by them, not, as being instead of the substance, but as being under the substance of the Sun, idolaters still they would be; yet none argue thence, that the Lutheran, in adoring Christ under the substance of the bread, is so.  
§. XXXV To conclude this point; If we look upon the judgement of some Reformed writers concerning this Transubstantiatory idolatry, it is either not at all, or but faintly asserted by them. See Dr. Hammond of Idol. sect. 64, 65, 66. where though he doth not excuse it from being material (though perhaps not in them formal) idolatry, yet he grants it to come much short of the Idolatry of the Heathen, (contrary to the quotations he makes out of Costerus, sect. 62.) and how far excusable, ignorance, and that founding itself upon the word of God mistaken, may make it, he saith he will not determine; and that he will hope, that it may be far from being irremissible to him, who hath reform his other known sins, and for all known and unknown is truly humbled. And indeed those writers must either allow it to be such a gentle Idolatry, as that the practice thereof died in, and it neither particularly confessed, nor repent of, yet excludes not from salvation; or else they must damn all those who lived in the visible communion of the Church Catholic for five or six hundred years by their own confession.  
Here the same Dr. Tailor, that speaks so vehemently against it, in Real Presence p. 341. parallelling there (though not proving it) the grossness and culpableness of the Roman, with that of the Heathen idolaters: Yet in his lib. of Prophecy 20. s. 16, 17, 18. n. speaking on this manner; That the Romanist giving worship to no undue object, as the Heathen did, and if they thought Christ not present, being so far from worshipping Bread in this case, that themselves profess it idolatry to do so; this is a demonstration, that their soul hath nothing in it that is idololatrical.— That idolatry hath so great a tincture and residency in the will, that from thence only it hath its being criminal, [I suppose he means, from the will, as by its perverseness someway against reason, blinding the judgement.] That the will of the Transubstantialist hath nothing in it, but what is a great enemy to idolatry: and nihil ardet in inferno nisi propria voluntas.— That a divine worship is given also by them only to Christ; but they differ and mistake infinitely in the manner of his presence.— Whilst all agree that the Divinity and the Humanity of the Son of God is the ultimate and adequate object of divine adoration, incommunicable to any creature whatsoever; and they, before they venture to pass an act of adoration, believe the bread to be annihilated, or turned into his substance who may lawfully be worshipped: and that they who have such thoughts, are as much enemies of idolatry, as they who understand better etc.— For their motives to such opinion, that they have a divine revelation; whose literal and grammatical sense, if that sense were intended, (he omits, that they also gather this sense from Church Tradition,) would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the circle; that Transubstantiation being openly and violently against natural reason, is no argument to make them disbelieve the Trinity &c, with as much violence to the principles of natural and suparnatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation.  
See Spalleto Rep. Eccles. 7. l. 11. c. Respondeo (saith he) me nullum idololatricum crimen adoratione Eucharistiae, si recte dirigatur intentio, agnoscere. Qui enim docent panem non esse amplius panem, sed corpus Christi, illi profecto panem non adorant, sed solum ex suppositione (i.e. that his Body is under the species instead of the bréad) licet falsa, (Bishop Forbes adds 2. l. 2. c. 9 s. non tamen haeretica, aut impia, vel directe pugnante cum fide) Christi corpus vere adorabile adorant. See Bishop Forbes 14. sect. where showing the Greek and Eastern Church, as well as the Roman, to use it, he concludes; Quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere & damnare? As for the concessions of Roman writers, of the grossness of their idolatry beyond any heathen, (that is, further than any of their adversaries will charge it upon them,) if the bread should happen to remain, (if this be their meaning, and not rather, that [if they ex professo worship bread]), they labour to advance it the higher, the more to show the impossiblity that such an error, for so many hundred years, in the universal Church of Christ, assisted by our Saviour to the end of the world, and the pillar of truth, should be entertained; thinking the greatness of this, if a crime, a good argument of the Christians innocence therein: whilst perhaps in some smaller matter she might be liable to a mistake. §. XXXVI  

An account of the variance in the doctrine of the Eucharist in latter times.  Thus much in answer to the former replies. Now to show you yet more fully the reasonable motives a Christian may have, of submission to the doctrine decided by Councils concerning Transubstantiation, or corporal presence of Christ's Body with the symbols, and consequently to the practice of Adoration, which Daille grants du droit to follow from the other; (so that that tenant being excusable, this practice is: nay, the omission of the second in one persuaded of the first, would not be blameless:) I will in the last place give you a short account of the progress of the doctrine of the Eucharist, after the more primitive times, and so conclude this Discourse.  
§. XXXVII 1. 'tis granted by Mr. Blondel, that there was no difference in, nor any alteration of, this doctrine, till in the Eastern Church after 700. A. D.— in the Latin Church after 800. See 15. c. and 18. c. Therefore in Gregory the Great's time, who flourished Ann. 600. there was yet no change. Now he it was, that put the last hand to the Canon of the Mass, which is now used in the Roman Church. See Chemnit. exam. 2. part. p. 828; and see Dr. Field of the Church, Append. to 3. lib. p. 188. where out of Durand's Rationale he saith; That Ambrose out of the ancienter Liturgies having in some things enlarged and perfected a form, called afterward The Ambrosian Service, and Gelasius Bishop of Rome likewise composed another, Gregory and the Church of Rome entertained Gelasius his form, Gregory having first added, detracted, changed, some things therein; (where note, that Bellarmin de Missa 2. l. 19.20. c. tells the story a little otherwise, and saith, out of Diaconus, That Gregory Gelasianum codicem coarctavit,— and out of Gregory himself, Ep. 73. lib. 7. se restituisse in Missa antiquas consuctudines, & sustulisse quaedam quae postea irrepserant; but then he is noted by Diaconus and others, to have added de novo to the Canon only those words, [diesque nostros in pace tua disponas;]) and the other Western Churches still continued to use the Ambrosian Service: that Charles the Great afterward forced these Churches to leave off the Ambrosian Service, (though in Milan it is used to this day,) and to use all one form, that of Gregory.  
Now this Gregorian form, imposed for uniformity by Charl. M. is verbatim the same with that now in use; as Bellarmin proves ibid. from Alcuinus. And others, who living before 800. and in Charles the Great's time, writ Expositions on the Canon of the Mass, as now it is. But no alteration of the doctrine (Daille saith) was before 800. and Charles the Great and his Council at Franckfort assembled 794, who used this form, are reckoned by him orthodox; therefore also if any change were made by Gregory, or the times after him, before Charles, (of which for the Canon, I find none alleged,) yet those times being orthodox, it could be no change prejudicial to truth.  
Again: The Gregorian Form, as now, agrees in the chief matters with that form set down by S. Ambrose, de sacram. 4. l. 5, 6. c. expressed also by Mr. Blond. in the Margin 21. c. Therefore Bellarmin in 2. de Missa 23, 24. c. justifies many things objected against the modern Canon, by showing them to be in that set down by S. Ambrose 200 years before Gregory: and this form again S. Ambrose allegeth ex antiquo ritu Ecclesiae. Accordingly these men also seem to justify the present Canon of the Mass, if it be rightly understood. See Mr. Blondel's conclusion, after he hath commented on the meaning of the modern Canon, Qu' y at'-il (saith he) en tout cela, qui ne s' accord, a l'escriture, au sens, a la raison, & au tesmonaige de l' Antiquitê, cap. 21. p. 453. And p. 457. he saith S. Gregory's Liturgy is en substance une mesme formulaire avec celuy, qui est en usage entr' eux.  
So Dr. Field being engaged in the maintaining that Proposition, [That the Church before Luther, though of the Roman profession, were of the Protestant Religion] (excepting some only, that then maintained the modern Popery) justifies the Canon also, then and now used: even those passages thereof; of praying for the dead; and those words in this prayer, des illis locum refrigerii, lucis, & pacis: and, of the commemoration of Saints, and that clause in it, quorum meritis, precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio, (which merits, methinks, he interprets very well and orthodoxly,) and thus concludes his discourse concerning it: It appeareth by that which hath been said, that the Canon of the Mass, rightly understood, hath not, includeth not in it, any such points of Romish religion, as some imagine; but in sundry, yea in all the capital differences between us and them of the Roman faction, witnesseth for us, and against them. Append. to 3. l. 220, 221. etc. Is it not lawful then, now as heretofore, for a Protestant in opinion to frequent the Roman Service; especially the Mass, and then to adore &c, for so did their Ancestor— Protestant's before Luther's time? for all did so. And if it be said, that so we must now live under an obligation also to the Conc. Trident. so did they to the Lateran &c, after the four first Councils; or if not they to those, why we more to this?  
§. XXXVIII By this I think a Christian may take the doctrines about this subject, which he finds in the Fathers before 700, or in the Canon of the Mass, for authentical, and may rationally adhere to them; and that this Canon much favours the Roman opinion, we have some prejudice, in that whilst others urge many arguments out of it, for their own side, against the other; yet, they only, whom we say it confutes, retain it entire: and those, whom, as they plead, it favours so much, have rejected it.  
§. XXXIX Now let us come to the time, when, after long peace in the Church about this matter, controversy began first to appear in the world, concerning the doctrine of the Eucharist; which by all, both Romanists and Protestants, is agreed to be after A. D. 750. in the time of the Council of Constantinople assembled by Constantinus Copronymus, and of the 2d. Nicene Council that followed after Copronymus' decease. At that time, the contest about the lawfulness of Images in Churches &c (which were then very frequent) being on foot, this Constantinopolitan Council called together by the Emperor, who vehemently opposed Images, amongst other things, declared; That they acknowledged only one true venerable Image of Christ, chosen by him to perpetuate his memory amongst us &c, namely, that of the Eucharist. See 2. Conc. Nic. Act. 6. tom. 3. and what I have said of it before.  
These expressions falling from this Council concerning the Eucharist, were presently resented and opposed, first by Damascen, then by 2. Coucil. Nice, called the 7th General Council, assembled not long after the other (Copronymus being now dead) under the Empress Irene: who; against the other, urged, That our Saviour said not, Sumite, edite imaginem corporis mei, but, Accipite, edite, Hoc est corpus meum; and affirmed, neque Dominum, neque Apostolos, neque Patres, incruentum illud Sacrificium, quod a Sacerdote offertur, imaginem dixisse, post sanctificationis consecrationem, (but the consecration by them probably is imagined to extend beyond the words of Institution, see before.) verùm ipsum corpus & sanguinem: and accused the former Council of contradicting itself; nunc quidem sanctum & notabile nostrum sacrificium imaginem sacri corporis Christi, nunc autem sacrum & divinum corpus asserentes.  
This Council in the East, was then opposed again by the Council at Franckfort assembled by Charles the Great in the West; which Council mainly disliking Images, and seeing (as Dr. Tailor conjectures) that if the Sacrament were an Image than it might be lawful to give reverence and worship to some Images, (which argues the practice then of worshipping the Sacrament) took part in this thing with the Conc. Nic. though in other things they opposed it, and censured the Constantinopolitan expressions of the Eucharist, much what in the same language, as that of Nice did. See Blondel 17. c. pag. 411.  
Here you see the first controversy; and it, not so much about substantial conversion of the elements, as about the real or substantial presence of Christ's very body; denied by the Constantinopolitan Council, (if that of Nice perhaps misunderstood them not;) affirmed by Nice and Franckfort. The innovation of Doctrine, * saith the Romanist, began in the Const. Council: (Primi (saith Bellarm.) qui veritatem corporis Domini in Eucharistia in quaestionem vocabant erant iconomachi etc. de Euchar. 1. l. 1. c.) * saith the Protestant, began in 2. Conc. Nic. by Damascen, and others; see Blondel 15. c. But as for the Conc. Francf. he contends, that though it was dangerous in its expressions, yet, was in its opinions orthodox; and inveighed against that of Constant. upon a misunderstanding of their meaning. To reflect a little upon this matter; you may observe, 1. First, that the Constant. conc. though speaking somewhat more diminutively of the Eucharist than the other, yet seems to say more than any Protestant will allow, as is showed before.  
2ly. That it was an Assembly of Bishops, called together by that Emperor that caused the Patriarch of Constantinople to be scourged; assented to by no Patriarch: which thing is objected against it by the Conc. Nice, Act. 6. tom. 1. in these words; Quomodo autem magna & universalis, in quam neque omnes consenserunt, & reliquarum Ecclesiarum praefecti non admiserunt, sed anathemate eam devoverunt? Non habuit cooperarium (ut haec quae nunc celebratur) Romanum Papam, neque illius Sacerdotes, neque per Vicarios, neque per provinciales literas, quemadmodum fieri in Synodis debet. Quinetiam neque concordantes habuit Orientis Patriarchas; Alexandrinum, inquam, Antiochenum, & urbis sanctae suminos Pontifices, neque cum illis etiam inystas & sacerdotes.  
Thus Conc. Nice. But the same things are affirmed by the historians of those times; as also, that this Copronymus was opposed for demolishing images in Churches by the Constantinopolitan Patriarch, whom he shamefully abused; and his Father Leo Isaurus excommunicated for the same cause by Gregory the 3d, Bishop of Rome. Besides this, to lessen the esteem which may be had of it by the reformed, I might name the 15. and 17. Canon's thereof. Whereof the 15th runs thus, Si quis non confitetur sanctam semper Virginem Mariam quavis visibili & invisibili creatura superiorem, & cum sincera fide ejus intercessiones, tanquam quae libertatem apud eum, qui ex se genitus est, Deum habeat, non postulaverit; Anathema. And the 17th Canon not unlike, Si quis sanctorum etc.— intercessiones non petierit, utpote qui libertatem apud Deum habeant, secundum Ecclesiasticam Traditionem, pro mundo intervenire; Anathema. Which Canon, though 'tis noted by the Second Nicene Council (Act. 6. Tom. 6. post hanc editionem suam, etc.) to have been left out in some later Copies of the Acts of this Council (those times growing on after this Synod from opposing of Images to destroying of Relics, and denying of Saints Intercessions (a thing not disallowed by the Reformed,) and of calling them also by the name of Saints [See the Authors quoted by Mr. Mede, Apostasy of later times, p. 131, 135, etc.]) though the Council is cleared from any such Decrees, both by Mr. Mede, p. 137, and by the whole Body of their Acts examined by the Second Nicene Council, their severe Antagonists; Yet it is clear, that it was one of the ultimate Definitions of that Council, since it is found, not in the first framing only (as Mr. Mede would have it, p. 135.) but in that first Edition of their Acts, which was subscribed by all the Council (as appears in the Conclusion of Act. 6. Tom. 6. of the Second Conc. Nic.) and which accordingly the Nicene Council undertook to refute, as not the first Draughts, but the Ratified Acts of that Synod.  
3. That the Council which reversed its Doctrine of the Eucharist, was General, and Confirmed by all the Patriarches.  
4. And lastly, That the Council of Francfort also, though it might in something mistake the meaning of the Council of Constantinople (for which I will not contend with Mr. Blondel; for so perhaps did they of Nice too misunderstand it,) yet perusing the Doctrine of Nice, Censures not it at all, a far greater (if an) error; but almost in the same phrase with it, Blameth the other of Constantinople, saying; The mystery of the Body and Blood of our Lord was not now to be called Imago, but Veritas; not Umbra, but Corpus.  
Which word, and other expressions, that they imported not less than those of Nice, may be shrewdly presumed from Mr Blondel's Concession (c. 18. p. 415.) That within a few years after this Council followed a Change in the Eucharist-Doctrine in the West; a change, i. e. to this Tenent of Corporal presence. Now all those things well weighed, let any one judge between the Constantinopolitan Council, and those two that followed, who are more likely to be the Innovators: or whose Determination a good Subject of the Church, not so able in such high Mysteries to guide himself, ought rather to adhere and submit to.  
§. XL Now to go on: This opinion of Damascen and the Council of Nice, 
The state of the Greek Church since these Councils.  hath been owned, and embraced ever since, even to this day, by the Greek Church, without any opposition to it; and that not only as being theirs, but the Tenent also of all the Greek Fathers before this Councll, which also are frequently by them quoted for it. See this confessed by Mr. Blondel c. 16. p. 399, 400. Le Concile de Nice 2. a imposê une  loy aux Grecs posterieurs; 
Their adherence ever since to the Doctrine of Nic. Conc. 2  qui ont jusques a nos jours reverê ses decrets de parler a sa mode; & de renoucer (so he is pleased to say, but they pretend the contrary) en imitant ses faults, au style de la plus venerable antiquité. And then he reckons up their Writers since (both ancienter, and more modern) concurring in this opinion; naming amongst the ancienter, Theophylact and Euthymius. See Sandys West. Relig. p. 233, 234. who confesseth the Greeks to agree with the Romanists in Transubstantiation, Sacrifice, and the whole Body of the Mass.  
See Dr. Potter, Char. Mist. sect. 7. p. 225. where he saith, In the opinion of Transubstantiation, the later Greeks seem to agree with the Romanists; and justifieth what he saith by many quotations in the Margin. See Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s. 2. who himself opposing Transubstantiation, yet, after many Authorities given, concludes that Section, Certum est recentiores Graecos a Transubstantiationis opinione non fuisse, neque etiamnum esse, omnino alienos; hosce autem omnes Christianae pietatis cultores, haereseos aut erroris exitialis damnare, magnae profecto audaciae & temeritatis esset. So l. 2. c. 2. s. 14. Graeci Venetiis viventes & reliqui omnes Graeci, etiam adorant Christum in Eucharistia, & quis ausit omnes hos Christianos idololatriae arcessere & damnare?  
To give you some of the Grecian expressions since this Council. See Theophylact, (who lived in the Ninth Age) in Mat. 26. Non enim dixit, Hoc est Figura, sed hoc est Corpus, ineffabili enim operatione transformatur, etiamsi nobis videatur panis. And in 1 Cor. 11. expounding those words, non dijudicans Corpus Domini, he saith, Si certiores essemus quisnam & quantus sit ille qui nobis in conspectu adjacet, i. e. in Altari, nulla ferme rei alterius ope indigeremus, etc. So speaks Oecumenius on the same place.  
Euthymius in Mat. 26. Quemadmodum supernaturaliter assumptam carnem deificavit, si ita loqui liceat; ita & haec ineffabiliter transmutat in ipsum vivificum corpus suum.— See the Answer of the Grecians to the Cardinal of Guise, quoted before, and by Blondel p. 400. and the Answer of Jeremiah, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the Lutherans (who in their beginnings sought the support of the Grecian Communion, c 10.) which Answer also may show them, in the manner of Christ's presence to differ, as from the Calvinistical, so also from the Lutheran Tenent; Multa in hac parte de nobis referuntur, quae nobis nullo pacto probari possunt. Ecclesiae igitur sanctae illud judicium est, in sacra coena, post consecrationem, panem in illud ipsum corpus Jesu Christi, vinum in illum sanguinem virtute Spiritus sancti transire & immutari.— Non tanquam corpus illud sursum translatum de coelo iterum descendat (blasphemum enim hoc est,) sed— transformatis & transmutatis gratia Spiritus sancti & ejusdem invocatione speciebus,— ipso quidem pane in verum corpus Domini, vino autem in verum sanguinem transeunte & immutato. Again,— illud ipsum verum corpus Christi sub speciebus fermentati panis continetur. 'Tis plain here, that as they hold corporal presence, so not by way of Consubstantiation, but Transmutation.  
As for those passages in the Florentine Council, between the Greeks and Latins about this point, as it is there named, de divina panis transmutatione, (which the Pope was so earnest to have had then accorded between them; but the Grecians, much worsted in the Controversy concerning A Filioque, had no mind to enter into any further Disputes,) it was not whether this Transmutation was, or after what manner it was, but by what words, or in what place of the Prayers it was made; as appears by those words in that Council, following the Pope's proposal,— de Panis autem transmutatione Latinis quaerentibus cur Graeci post Dominica verba— Accipite & manducate etc. quibus verbis Sacramentum confici dicitur, hac etiam utuntur oratione— & fac panem quidem hunc Honorabile corpus Christi tui etc. ex sancto tuo Spiritu transmutante: Responderunt Graeci etc. After which it follows, quibus quidem quatuor quaestionibus dissolutis; therefore that which was proposed in the fourth Question, was in this their Answer spoken to; but they only answered concerning this matter of the words of Consecration; afterward the same Questions being repropounded, it's said, they answered to the fourth as before. Yet this answer being given only by some particular persons sent to the Pope, 'tis said, that after this their answer, Summus Pontifex petiit, ut de divina panis transmutatione, quae quidem quarta quaestio fuit, in Synodo ageretur; as likewise he desired afterwards that they would treat of the three rest, and leave out that, calling it amongst the rest quaestiuncula, which he would not have said, had the Greeks denied transmutation. I have insisted the longer on this passage, because some have so mistaken it, as to think transmutation, as affirmed by the Romanists, so denied by the Greeks; whenas amongst many errors by the Greeks imputed to the Roman Church, yet none about the Eucharist was ever objected.  
Now consider, if Transubstantiation, or substantial conversion, were an innovation brought into the Church about the Conc. Lateran, under Innocent 3d. or, as some say, later; How comes it to pass, that we find the same opinion, or, if any difference, an opinion seemingly as much or more absurd, in the Greek Church also, who are not discovered to have had any controversy about the Eucharist amongst themselves, since that 7th, which was the last General Council that they allow of. See Conc. Flor. 6. sess. Nor could receive any infection from the Western Church, after the breach made between the two Churches; which began not long after the 2. Nic. Conc. in the 9th age, and was at its height in the 11th. age, long before the Lateran Council.  
§. XLI 
The Agitations in the Western Church after these Councils.  Thus much of the Greek; now to see what was done in the Western Church. Here, after the first agitation and stirring of the doctrine of the Eucharist by the Councils of Constantinople, Nice, and Franckfort, a risen some questions and doubts about it, and began a more curious and particular inquisition to be made into it; as (amongst other things) Whether that which was received in the Eucharist, was, or was not, that very Body of our Saviour, which was born of the Vngin Mary, and which suffered on the Cross? some then moving questions about it, and doubting of, or also denying it.  
For settling men's minds: the first that I can find to have written more punctually on this subject, for the corporal presence, is Paschasius, (of whom Bellarm. saith, (de scriptor. Ecclesiasticis,) Hic author primus fuit, qui serio & copiose scripsit de veritate corporis & sanguinis Domini in Eucharistia, contra eos qui eam in dubium revocarunt; but of whom Blondel 18. c. saith, he was the first in the Western Church that altered the doctrine of the former times.) Against him, and on the other side, writ (saith Blondel ibid. and Dr. Tailor, p. 328.) Amalarius, and Rabanus, and Johannes Scotus, Erigena, and Bertram: but the Romanists, I think, acknowledge only Johan. Erig. (of whom Bellarm. saith, primus in Ecclesia Latina de hac re dubius scribere coepit, whose writings were afterwards condemned in Conc. Vercellensi, A Dom. 1050, 165 years before that of the Lateran,) and Bertram, (of whom Estius saith, tecte admodum atque id sine successu contra doctrinam Catholicam scribere coepit.) As for Amalarius and Rabanus, you may inform yourself out of their writings (one writing de officiis Ecclesiasticis, the other de institutione Clericorum,) concerning their opinion.  
Out of Amalarius de Ecclesiast. offic. l. 3.34. c. I find Bellarmin quoting these words for his side: Hic credimus naturam simplicem panis & vini mixti verti in naturam rationabilem, sc. corporis & sanguinis Christi: And Archb. Usher in Jes Challenge p. 75. making him by his doting questions (what, after the eating thereof, should become of Christ's Body,) the first occasioner of the innovation (as he calls it) in the doctrine of the Eucharist. Meanwhile his questions show what opinion men had then, that they received the very Body of Christ.  
But the two chief it seems are Paschasius and Bertram, which Bertram also had some followers, as elsewhere, so here, in England; as appears by what Osbert saith, (who in Lanfranck's time writ the life of Odo, who lived in the 10th Age); Hoc fere tempore, i.e. in Odo's, quidam Clericorum maligno errore seducti asseverare conabantur, panem & vinum, quae in altari ponuntur post consecrationem, in priori substantia manere, & figuram tantummodo esse corporis & sanguinis Christi: and by the Saxon writings of Aelfrick, who flourished in the latter end of the 10th Age; which writings you may see at large in Foxes Martyrol, Henr. 8.1540, quoted by Dr. Tailer p. 330. and by Archbishop Usher, Jes. chall. p. 77. who there shows many passages of his to be verbatim translated out of Bertram, whose expressions methinks are somewhat obscure, of the bread being truly after its hallowing turned into Christ's Body ghostly or spiritual, not into that in which he suffered.  
Afterward in the 11th. Age, when the opinion opposing corporal presence, as it was never very openly maintained, so now was almost laid aside, and sunk of itself, without the interdict of any Council, appeared Berengarius, a stout reviver and open abetter of it; who at first is said to have held the Lord's Body present in the Eucharist, only ut res significata in suo signo, but pressed by many adversaries, and much persecuted for his doctrine, was afterwards brought to recant it, and to acknowledge a real corporal presence. But then presently began to be agitated new controversies about this real presence; whether it was together with the bread also remaining entire and unchanged? and what mutation the Elements underwent by consecration? When arose some who maintained only a conjunction of Christ's body with the bread; others a kind of Impanation of Christ, of which something is said before; non quia panis vertatur in carnem Domini, sed quia assumatur a verbo; ex quo sequitur panem esse corpus Christi, sed non humanum, neque carneum, sed panaceum, & long diversum ab illo quod de Virgine sumptum est. Haec duo corpora posse tamen dici unum, quia unus Christus est qui utrumque assumpsit. Others there were, that held a mutation only of part of the bread into Christ's body, namely that portion received by the worthy communicant, not the rest, lest the wicked also might seem to partake of it, which they thought most improbable.  
Of some of these opinions are named to be Berengarius himself, after his first recantation, or at least some of his followers; of such also Rupertus, and others; and perhaps Aelfrick (mentioned before) might have such conceit of Impanation. And Mr. Blondel (in his 16. and 19 chapters) would persuade us, that this also was partly the opinion both of Damascen and Paschasius, and others of the former times.  
§. XLII Opposites to all these tenants, and to the maintainers of them, were Lanfrank Archbishop of Canterbury, Guitmundus, Algerus, and generally the writers following those times, Anselm, Peter Lombard, Bernard, Hugo, and Richardus de Sancto Victore, &c, who all writ before the Council of Lateran. By these opposite Author's  is every corner of the ancient Father's writings sought into; the same places then quoted, as now they are by the Romanists and Protestants; one side pressing much their words of miraculous change etc. The other, those of image, type, figure, &c, and the same answers as now, returned then by both sides. If you please to look into Bellarmin's 2d. book de Eucharist. he often makes use of the answers of these ancient Authors, to what is urged by the Protestants: and saith, if they bring the arguments of their Forefathers, Bertram, Berengarius, &c, we return the answers of ours, Paschasius, Algerus, etc. Amongst these disputes a corporal presence, and also a substantial conversion of the elements, prevailing; yet some (again) there were also that allowed such a conversion in the form of bread only, not the matter: Durand's opinion, and some others, affirmed e contra a change of the matter, but not of the form; which opinions were opposed by the ordinary stream of writers.  
Now as these controversies arose, or grew to any height, so several Councils since Nicen. 2. for the settling and preserving of the Church's peace and quiet, have been in several Ages assembled. The corporal presence was decided against Berengarius by five several Councils (see Blond. 20. c.) before that of Lateran under Innocent 3. A substantial conversion of the elements determined by the Lateran (whether also by those before it, more anon,) and many others following it: A conversion of the whole substance of them stated more expressly in the Tridentine Council. Notwithstanding which Synodal determinations from time to time, there have not wanted those successively, who have taught contrary to their decrees. See Blond. 20. c. p. 441. as Petrus Bruise, and Henricus his disciple, Petrus Waldo from whom the Waldenses and Albigenses, John Wicklif, (whom John Hus his disciple followed not in this point,) &c: but these very rare; and their disciples most what some vulgar, not the learned, until the times of Luther.  
§. XLIII 
Reflections upon the former narration.  Now concerning this narration of the passages of the times after 2. Conc. Nice, and that of Franckfort, observe  
1. That though the other doctrine was much easilier credible, as more agreeing to humane reason, yet that, that of Paschasius and his followers was the common, and the most prevalent, not only in the Eastern (shown before,) but also in the Western Church: 
1. Corporal presence than the common opinion.  and this not only after, but before, and when Paschasius writ; See what he saith lib. de verb. instit. Sacramenti.— Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent, nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto qui hoc (i.e. Christ's corporal presence in the Eucharist) ita esse contradicat, quod totus orbis credit & confitetur.  
For Paschasius writ before either Johan: Erigena, or Bertram: and when Bertram writ otherwise, it was tecte admodum & sine successu, as Estius notes of him. And Osbert (quoted before) saith only, Quidam Clericorum seducti etc. And this more appears, in that, when Berengarius afterward showed himself afresh for that opinion, all the Church-governors' unanimously resisted him; so that there is not one Bishop found to have consented to his opinion, and the Authors who oppose him much object the singularity of his tenant to him. Guitmund. 3. l. Notissimum est hoc tempore, priusquam Berengarius insaniisset, hujusmodi vesanias nusquam fuisse.— And Laufranck in his last Book against him: Interroga universos, qui Latinae linguae nostrarumve literarum notitiam perceperunt; interroga Graecos, Armenios', seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque Christianos, uno ore hanc fidem (which he maintained against Berengarius) se testabuntur habere: and he himself (as Lanfranck reports of him) called the opinion opposed by him, sententiam vulgi.  
The Historians likewise of those times relate Berengarius his, as a new and singular tenant. See W. Malmsbury, 3. l. de gestis Anglorum. Observe likewise, that no Councils, after Nice and Franckfort, determining any thing in this point, for the space of about 300 years before the times of Berengarius, argues the Church not much afflicted with open contentions in this matter: that when they did determine any thing, it was not before that the Fathers, by several writers pro and con, had been much searched and examined: that though many Councils called about it, yet they differed not in their judgements, but exactly agreed one with another, and still condemned the same side, without its finding a party (tho smaller) in any of them to patronise it.  
§. XLIV 2. Observe; that there is granted a substantial presence of Christ's body with the symbols (which (as I have often said) is the main business to be agreed upon by all these Authors and Councils, 
All Councils since the 2d. of Nice unanimously deciding corporal presence with the symbols. ) before the Lateran Council: so that though some contest there may be between the Lutheran and Catholic about the persuasions of these times concerning Impanation, and the remaining of bread in part at least after consecration; yet none can there be between the Calvinist and Catholic concerning those times holding corporal presence with the symbols, and consequently concerning Adoration; for this the Calvinist must grant to be the judgement of these Writers and Councils , beginning at Nice until the Lateran.  
3. Observe, that whereas Mr. Blondel in c. 16, 19, 20. p. 397, 431, 441, affirms both Damascen and Paschasius, 
And that not by way of Impanation, as Blon. affirms of the former part of those times.  and the other Authors, that held corporal presence till the beginning of the 12th Age, and Councils, till the Lateran, not to have held Transubstantiation, or substantial conversion of the elements, but only a certain union or identity between them remaining still in their former substance, and the natural body of Christ, by the inhabitation of the Deity in, or its assumption of them, which he calls impanation: There are many things which to this may be replied.  
1. If it were as he saith, yet since it warrants the main business of corporal presence with the Symbols, and Adoration, what relief can Mr. Blondel's or the Protestant-cause receive thereby? Again, since such impanation differs very much from the Lutheran Consubstantiation; (see what Blondel confesseth to this purpose p. 436, and 400. And it is clear enough also from Paschasius his assertions set down by Blondel p. 423, which no Lutheran will subscribe to;) and it is a tenant, if well considered, much more absurd than that of substantial conversion, or Transubstantiation, (which he saith succeeded it in these later times;) as it making Christ to have two bodies by union hypostatical; one Carneum, in his assuming humanity; and another Panaceum, in the Sacrament: And these two bodies again identified by the same Person of the Deity present to both, etc. (see it examined by Bellarmine, as one Rupertus his opinion in the 12th Age, and the absurdities thereof displayed in l. 3. de Euch. c. 11, 15.) I say, that to prove such to have been the opinion of Antiquity, which makes as much against Protestants as the present doth, and is more incommodious than the present, doth not only no way patronise their cause, but also help to excuse their Adversary.  
2. Algerus, one of Berengarius his Opposites (in his first Book de Sacr. c. 6.) calling it novam haeresin suo tempore exortam & absurdissimam, and there confessing it: This argues it very unlikely to have been the common opinion until his Age, as is affirmed; unless we will make him mistake the opinion of those Writers and Councils immediately before him.  
3. Tho Mr. Blondel doth not, yet Dr. Taylor acknowledgeth concerning Paschasius in particular, that he held and writ for a substantial change; see p. 328. And comparing Mr. Blondel's quotations out of Paschasius p. 423, with those p. 432, I see not any thing brought to prove the contrary. Bishop Forbes l. 1. c. 4. s. 1. saith, Bertram in his Preface clearly affirms, that some in his time held that which is since called Transubstantiation. Who could this be, but Paschasius, and others, whom he opposed?  
4. Again, The expressions of these Authors, who are said to hold no substantial conversion of the bread, etc. are ordinarily such as these: Damascen. Panis vinumque per invocationem & adventum Spiritus sancti supernaturaliter transmutantur in corpus & sanguinem Christi, & non sunt duo, sed unum & idem.— Pasch. Licet figura panis & vini hic sit, omnino nihil aliud quam caro Christi & sanguis post consecrationem credenda sunt, (see many more gathered by Bell. de Euch. l. 3. c. 20. which it will be tedious here to set down.) Now these expressions show them to have held a conversion or transmutation, beyond Consubstantiation, wherein the element becomes not locally joined, but the same with Christ's body; and if perhaps they (or some of them) by such expressions should not have intended such a conversion of the bread, as that nothing thereof should afterwards remain, but a conversion into Christ's body only in Rupertus his sense, quia per hypostaticam unionem fit corpus Christi, as Bellarmin interprets him in his Recognitions; yet it seems plain, that they held (beyond the tenant of the Lutherans) such a physical change in the substance and nature thereof, as that it could not afterward be truly called bread; though some diversity of phrase there might be, in what no Council had yet so punctually decided.  
5. And this is more confirmed by the Opinion of the Greek Church; who, if Damascen and the Nicene Council, whom they follow, held no conversion of the Bread in its nature or substance, how come they to hold it? and about Transubstantiation, to nourish no difference at all with the Latins? See the quotations before. Surely, in that Answer they gave to the Cardinal of Guise (quoted in Blondel p. 400.) where they say, neither substance nor accidents of Bread to remain, but all to be transelemented into the substance Divine, some change they would intimate much divers from the Lutheran (with whom they could not agree in this point) and not much abhoring from the Roman Opinion: excepting only that the Roman is the more moderate.  
§ XLVI As for comparison of Christ's presence in the Eucharist with that of the Incarnation, and of the Divinity, in such manner infusing itself into the Bread, as once into our Nature, found in these Authors, as likewise in the Fathers; either they meant only, that the Bread in this infusion was turned by the Divine Omnipotence into the Lord's Body (as the Catholicks say) or something more gross; if they held the Deity thus to contract a new hypostatical union with the Bread, whereby it properly becomes his Body: So that the crime, that their posterity in this is accused of, will be only, that they are less absurd than their Ancestors. Thus much for those Authors before the 12th Age.  
§ XLVII Now, that the Councils (which were before the Lateran) wherein Berengarius was Condemned, understood a substantial conversion of the Bread in the Eucharist, notwithstanding what Blondel saith (c. 29. p. 439, etc.) I think is also plain enough. In the Roman Council Assembled an. 1078. wherein Berengarius last recanted, the words are these: Ego Berengarius corde credo panem etc.— substantialiter converti in veram & propriam & vivificatricem carnem Domini, etc. In the former Roman Council, an. 1060. though the words of the Recantation are, Ego Berengarius anathematizo eam haeresin, quae astruere conatur panem post consecrationem solummodo Sacramentum & non verum corpus Domini nostri Jesu Christi esse: Yet, that the Council meant the Bread to be Christ's Body, not whilst being, but by ceasing to be Bread, methinks is sufficiently vindicated by what Lanfranck (one of it,) and Guitmund, and Anselm (contemporaries,) say of this Council, as I find them quoted by Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 21.— Lanfran. de Corpore Domini to Berengarius,— Nicolaus Papa comperiens te docere panem vinumque altaris post consecrationem sine materiali mutatione in pristinis essentiis remanere etc. praecepti tradi scripturam tibi; i. e. the Recantation named before. Guitmund l. 3. De Corpore Domini, speaking of the same Council saith, Panem in corpus Christi substantialiter converti, non sicut delirat Berengarius corporis Domini figuras tantum esse & umbras, aut intra se latentem Christum tegere, universalis Ecclesiae consensione roboratum est. Anselm (though I grant, 'tis not necessary to understand this to be spoken of the former Council, notwithstanding semper abhorruit some way involves it) Panis substantiam post consecrationem in altari superesse semper abhorruit pietas Christiana, nuperque damnavit in Berengario, &. But Anselm died an hundred years before the Lateran Council.  
Besides the force of these Testimonies; 'tis not probable, that in the eighteen years' space that interceded between these two Councils, the Judgement of the Church in the later should be so much altered, and that without any noise or opposition from the former.  
§. XLVIII 4. Concerning these Councils, that have so strictly determined the manner of corporal presence; 
Councils excusable in determination of the manner of Christ's presence in the Eucharist.  which many pious men have wished that the Church had rather left undefin'd; permitting to every one the liberty of their private conjecture; and only imposing silence on all to forbear curious disputes: Yet we may consider, That the same we say concerning this point of the Eucharist, is said by Sectaries concerning Decisions of Councils in any other point, wherein they differ from her Judgement. So she is (by several) complained of, for her too much curiosity and punctuality in the mystery of the Trinity; in her addition a Filioque; in concluding that hard and long-disputed point of Rebaptisation, etc.  
That not private men, but the Church herself, is meetest to judge what is fit to be determined or not determined by her. That curious disputes may indeed easily be prohibited, but once on foot, will never be actually laid, but still multiply into new controversies, till something (most probable) is settled by just Authority. That as there were then on foot some opinions very destructive and diminutive to this ineffable Mystery, (as Berengarius his first Doctrine); so others again very extravagant, (as that of Hypostatical union of the Deity to a new Breaden Body.) That these Councils did no more in this, than other Councils from time to time have done in very subtle (only if much controverted) matters; in not silencing the Disputants, but (as became a Judge confiding in the Holy Spirit's assistance) determining the point as seemed to them truest.  
That these Councils in this point (after all things had been for a long time more exactly debated, and sifted, than in former Ages, before giving any sentence thereon) in their decision followed the words of our Saviour, Mat. 26.26. in their simplest meaning, and the commonest phrase of the Writings of Antiquity (though some Fathers in their judgement perhaps differed from the rest) i. e. conversion, or transmutation, taken in the strictest sense. That, if we restrain the Church from determining any thing, where Scripture seems ambiguous (though the testimony and exposition of Antiquity perhaps in the same point is not so) her decisive Authority, in matters once controverted, will be made void; because so often is Scripture ambiguous, i.e. (by several men severally understood:) And in matters not controverted, 'tis needless.  
That there comes 〈◊〉 more Peace to the Church by such a definition; and no danger to Christians from this thing defined, if an Error: [supposing still corporal presence a truth, from which also follows Adoration;] because 'tis only a purely speculative mistake, and no point of practice depending on it. Lastly, That in the general acknowledgement of so much obscurity and uncomprehensibleness of this mystery, as the Church hath less light to judge of the exact manner thereof, etc. so have others less grounds to contradict her Judgement.  
As for her making it an Article of Faith now, which was not so heretofore; which is much objected by some Reformed; 
In what sense they impose it as an Article of Faith.  (see Chemnitius quoted before. Sed quia transubstantiatio (saith he) pro articulo fidei sub paena anathematis proponitur necessario contradicendum est, etc. See Dr. Taylor p. 331. Before the Lateran Council, saith he, Transubstantiatio non fuit dogma fidei, as Scotus saith; and how it can be afterward, since Christ is only the Author and finisher of our Faith, and therefore all Faith was delivered from the beginning, is a matter of highest danger and consideration. Thus he.) I think it is sufficiently answered, and the offence thereof taken away, in my notes of Infallibility; so that I need say little here.  
Only this. First, They make this point of Transubstantiation no more an Article of Faith, than their other Decrees; to which they require assent under Anathema, as they do to this. For example: 'Tis made no more an Article of Faith by them, than this is, De Bapt. Can. 1. Baptismum Johannis non habere eandem vim cum baptismo Christi. But if the Church may not be permitted to make (thus) new Articles of Faith, she may not, to make any new determination not formerly made; nor to enjoin people to believe or assent to any thing which formerly was not enjoined nor believed.  
But to explain the business a little: We must know; That all Divine Revelation, any thing in God's Word, whatever, is eo nomine an Article or point of Faith; and that as Article of Faith is taken for dogma verum, and so credible, for a divine truth which is creditable, or which may be most surely believed. So what Dr. Taylor saith is most true; such it is, not only after Decreed by a Council, but at least from the time of our Saviour and the Apostles; and nothing at any time (thus) an Article of Faith, which is not so always. And thus, far doubtless was it from Scotus his thought, That Transubstantiation at the Lateran Council began to be a divine truth, when it was not so before. But, as Article of Faith is taken for dogma necessario credendum, for a divine truth necessary, when known to be so, to be believed, or not opposed: So a divine truth may be an article or object of my Faith to day, which was not yesterday. So he, who (by what means soever) knows that something is said in Scripture, which he knew not yesterday, may be said to have to day a new article of his Faith, or a new point no way to be opposed or denied, but assented to, and believed by him.  
§. L When therefore a thing is said to be no dogma fidei before, and at such a time to begin to be so, the meaning is, That is is now a dogma fidei, or object of Faith necessary to be believed, which it was not before [necessary to be believed;] not for the matter thereof; as if the actual knowledge and faith thereof were absolutely necessary to Salvation; thus a few points only (some think not all those of the Creed) are necessary; and nothing thus necessary at any time, that is not always so; but necessary ex accidenti, because we have a sufficient proposal thereof, that it is a divine truth. Not that the error in, or ignorance of, such a point, even after such proposal, doth derogate from our having absolutely necessary faith, any more than it did before; nor that, in disbelieving or dissenting from it, we are more defective in the necessarily salvifical principles of divine truth; but that we are defective in our obedience to and acceptance of divine truths made known to us by the Church, as some way conducible to Christian edification, to the peace of the Church, or to some other good end.  
Therefore the duty she requires to many of her decisions, is not so much an actual knowing of them, as the not denying, opposing, contradicting them, when made known to us. Therefore, for example, should any one, after the definition of the Tridentine Council, thereupon, hold John's and our Saviour's Baptism to have in every thing the same virtue and effect; such a one, whilst not knowing this definition of the Council, is excusable in his error, supposing it be not contracted from any careless neglect: or if it be so contracted, yet he is not guilty thereby of a point of infidelity, as concerning necessary faith, but only of the sin of negligence.  
Neither when the Church requires the belief of Transubstantiation, hence doth it follow, that she saith, the belief thereof is necessary to salvation; but that she thinks it fit, for some good ends of Christian edification, not to be opposed: and therefore Suarez his confessing, that to believe Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to salvation, quoted by Archbishop Laud p. 287. methinks well consists with the Church's determining it, though the Archbishop, there, thinks according to the Roman principles it is otherwise. And, as Bellarmin saith, there are many things in Scripture, which though they are necessario credenda quia scripta sunt, yet are not scripta quia necessario credenda; so may I say of Church- definitions.  
Neither upon this may we collect, that she is tyrannical in abridging the liberty of men's judgements, if the belief of the points she determins be not necessary for salvation; but only, if no way at all beneficial to be known. For the wilful opposing of which, if we afterwards incur her anathemas which exclude from heaven, thus we miss of salvation, not for want of necessary faith, but obedience; she Anathematising us not for an error, but a vice, (i. e.) a causelessly disturbing her peace, and resisting her authority.  
Should any one, after the Apostolical Synod and Decrees, Act. 15. (some of which were about matter of small account, yet not without good reason commanded, for a season at least to be observed,) have resisted their Injunctions in the matter of blood and things strangled, holding it still lawful, notwithstanding such prohibition, to eat those things; such an one doubtless, notwithstanding the levity of the matter, would justly have incurred the Church's censure, and without repentance been liable to damnation; not for want of any faith necessary thereto, but of due submission and obedience to the decrees of a just Authority.  
§ LI 5. Lastly, concerning our obedience to these Councils in such their decisions, 
Obedience due to such decisions.  see what I have said in my Notes concerning that subject; and in those, of the obligation of not acting against conscience; where I think 'tis sufficiently evidenced, that we are bound to submit at least to all such points, where we are not certain of the contrary, as especially in this by most-confessed- ineffable mystery we can little pretend to it, considering what hath been said in this paper. But indeed such a submission will be found either a duty to all the Church's decisions, or to none. For if we obey only so many of her Canons as we in our judgement think truth, rejecting the rest; our submission is not to her authority deciding, but a yielding to the verisimility of the thing decided.  
Again; such a submission, is either a duty to all Councils, (I mean, which are in their authority equal,) or to none; upon the same reason. For, for us to judge first of the orthodoxness of a Council, which is appointed to direct us what is orthodox, what a preposterous thing is it? And if we go to this play once, to receive only so many Councils, as we like of their doctrines; then, as the Lutheran only admits of six Councils, the Calvinist of only four; so the Eutychians now in Asia, upon as good grounds, (I mean as to any obligation to their Authority,) do admit only of three Councils. Again, the modern Nestorian of two only; lastly, the modern Socinian of none at all.  
The Objection that may be made here; What if a man's conscience be persuaded that the contrary to the Councils decree is evident in the Scriptures? 
The objection of contrary persuasion of Conscience considered.  [as what if one think, that the Church in the Tridentine Council enjoins adoration, not to Christ, but to the Symbols; or, that the worshipping of Christ, as corporally present in the Sacrament, is flat idolatry; which is much urged by Daille as a sufficient ground for a discession from the former Church; see the latter part of 8. c. of his Apology, p. 55.] I have answered in those Notes beforenamed. I will only here retort it:  
Suppose an Eutychian, Nestorian, Ariam, plead the same excuse for dissenting from the ancient Councils, (for, I hope, he will grant some of them may be persuaded in conscience as they profess.) If he answer, such persuasion of a conscience wilfully misinformed, and refusing the guides God hath appointed to instruct it better, excuseth them not from the guilt of heresy: I reply, neither will it in this point excuse the other, especially for the business of corporal presence, if they be found to go against the stream of present and former Church, (from whom we ought in all humility to receive the exposition of ambiguous Scripture,) and to make therefrom a causeless division. If the Church may enjoin men nothing that is against their conscience, and nor in these exact obedience; all heresy must be tolerated, and the Nicene Creed is a tyranny. But if you say, they may use their anathemas in greater matters, but in these smaller niceties may not thus domineer over men's consciences, (a thing Daille accuseth the Tridentine Council of, 7. c. 40. p.) I answer: Who shall judge, what is small, what is great, but those who decide also the matters both small and great? But let him search Antiquity, and see if small matters have not also undergone their anathemas. He confesseth they have, and therefore is liberal to blame both. 7. c. 38. p.  
§. LIII But I find this objection advanced yet higher; That men may not obey such a decree, not only when it is against conscience, 
Objection of non-certainty considered.  but when they have thereof so much as a doubting conscience, especially in a matter of such high consequence, as Adoration is, (which follows upon holding a corporal presence) which to give to any object, without certainty that it is adorable, they say is utterly inexcusable. Ce n' est pas assez d'en avoir quelque opinion. Il' en fault estre certain. Daille 11. c. 94. p. Upon these premises no man can choose but doubt, & quod dubitas, ne feceris. Tail. p. 340.  
1. In answer to this also, see what I have said at large in those notes. Indeed the rule is good, where doubt of sinning is only on one side, not on both; only on the side of doing, but not on the side of omttting also: and when we are certain in omitting the thing, we sin not. But the case is otherwise, wherever our Mother the Church enjoins us the doing of a thing; for here is no security of not sinning, if we do it not. Again, if Christ be there corporally present, as she saith He is, Daille saith, 'Tis our duty to adore him: and, as to give adoration to an object not adorable; so to deny it to one adorable, is both, sin. I may retort then with more reason, quod dubitas (if you doubt only, and are not certain of the contrary) ne omittas, where the Church and your lawful Superiors enjoin you to do it. For, as reasonable as this proposition is, quod dubitas ne faciendo pecces, ne feceris; so reasonable is the other, quod dubitas, ne omittendo pecces, ne omittas.  
2. Again, Mr. Hooker's reason methinks hath as little force as any of these, to encourage any in a non-submission to the Church's judgement; who, in his 5. l. 67. sect. 363. p. discourseth thus. That," there being three several opinions in the matter of the Eucharist, (he joining the Two first in this Paper in one)" we may safeliest cleave unto that, which hath nothing in it but what the rest do all approve and acknowledge to be most true. But you may find the Archbishop Laud sect. 35. p. 286. in his refutation of a like argument brought by the Romanist, [namely, that it is better to be of that Church, in which all Churches agree salvation may be had,] mentioning this very argument about the Eucharist, and rejecting it as insufficient. And indeed were it any way valid, it would follow; when, of divers opinions, some affirm less, some more; a prudent man ought always to side with the least, because this is affirmed by all: which I think is a dangerous assertion, especially in Religion, To believe, and do still with the least.  
§. LIV 3. Lastly, neither do I think that a sufficient  to keep any from assenting to a corporal presence, 
Obj. of the fruitlesness of supposed corporal presence considered.  or substantial conversion; because such Presence (if it be) is pretended to be utterly unbeneficial and fruitless, and since Nature doth nothing in vain, much less doth the Author of it. See Mr. Blondel (in his 10. c.) and Dr. Tailor, (sect. 3. p. 28 etc. and p. 46.) much pressing this upon these three reasons. 1. Because any pretended effects of the Eucharist must be granted to be attainable without it, by a spiritual reception of Christ etc. (See their writings.) 2. Because the unworthy receiver must be granted to be partaker of it (the substance of Christ's Body) as well as the worthy; and this without enjoying the least benefit thereof. 3. Because our Saviour hath decided this point, John 6.63. declaring to the Capernaites (mistaking his say, as if he meant to feed them with his flesh, by virtue of which once eaten by them they should afterward live for ever) That his flesh, if they should eat a piece thereof, would profit them nothing for any such purpose.  
1. First note, concerning this Objection, in respect of the former reason; that it presseth as much the second as the third and fourth opinion, who affirm the worthy receiver to partake not only virtually, (as the first saith,) but really also Christ's Body; but to what end this? since the other, i e. Christ received by faith, supplieth all the effect desired or pretended, according to John 6.40, 47. and St. Austin's saying, crede & manducasti?  
2. Now for an Answer to it in reference to both the reasons, I might transcribe you Bellarmin's, in Eucharist. 3. l. 9 c. which to me seems very satisfactory. Read it at your leisure. The effects of the Eucharist, such as are alleged by Blondel out of Peron, Namely, a more strict and entire union and conjunction of us to God; the increase of grace and charity in us; the sowing in us the seed of immortality, and a resurrection of our decaying bodies, etc. are not affirmed to be wrought in us by the corporal presence of our Saviour, as after a physical or irresistible manner, but as by a proper instrument appointed by God for such effects upon such a disposition of the receiver. Therefore neither are these effects necessary to corporal presence, i. e. that corporal presence cannot be without them; for so it is in the unworthy communicant: neither again is corporal presence absolutely necessary to such effects, i. e. that they cannot be at all without corporal presence; for so they are in the faithful before communicating, at least in some imperfecter degree.  
3 But these concessions we have now made (if this be all they contend) will never argue the substantial or corporal presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist to be a thing superfluous or void of effect: 1. Because in God's appointing several instruments for conveying the like benefits to us, the arguing that one doth, will never prove the other doth not the like. 2. In the like effect being wrought by several means, the one may produce it in a far more advanced degree than the other: So Aquinas p. 3. q. 80. art. 1. saith, Plenius inducit effectum sacramenti, ipsa sacramenti susceptio, quam solum desiderium: Yet sometimes the desiderium serves the turn. 3. Because from a thing proved useless sometimes, or to some persons from some incapability of the subject, etc. it follows not, that it is so altogether, and to others: As, it follows not, that such a Diet not nourishing, or also hurting a languishing stomach, therefore doth not profit to a sound.  
To illustrate it a little in our present subject. By Baptism, or also by Faith and Repentance before Baptism, or the fervent desire of Baptism (when it cannot be had) we are regenerated and united to Christ, and made members of his body; yet will any therefore say, that in Baptism we enjoy as much a communion of the body and blood of Christ, as in the Eucharist? Or that the Eucharist is inutile? Therefore, hath Christ given us also the symbols of his body in vain? Therefore, do we possess no more of his grace and goodness by believing and receiving also the Sacrament of his body and blood, than only by believing on him? But the, if receiving him spiritualiter by Faith and sacramentaliter, be better than spiritualiter only; why may not sacramentaliter and coporaliter, be also better than sacramentaliter only? Who can demonstrate it, That the faithful receive no more benefit (from the Divine good pleasure) by faith, and the body of our Lord substantially present, than he should by faith; and the body only typically present; since all depends on God's good pleasure? Why may it not be his will, to confer the compliment of our union with him, and the perfection of grace and charity in us, and the last seal of our immortality and incorruptibility in us, not by the receipt of the symbols of his body, but by his very body united and joined to our souls and bodies; and yet not these to all that receive it neither (because it acts not physically or irresistibly) but to the worthy?  
Calvin (as he is very inconstant in his expressions concerning this Sacrament) seems to hint something to this purpose, Instit. l. 4. c. 17. s. 9 s. 11. Quae omnia non posse aliter effici intelligimus quin Christus totus spiritu & corpore nobis adhaereat, that we may be membra corporis ejus, ex ossibus ejus & carne ejus, magnum istud arcanum Eph. 5.— and s. 11. Quo (i e.) exhibitione sanguinis & corporis ejus primum in unum corpus cum ipso coalescimus; deinde participes substantiae ejus facti, in bonorum omnium communicatione virtutem quoque sentimus. See B. Forbes l. 1. c. 1 s. 26, 27. much to this purpose; Prisci fideles ante Christi incarnationem carnem Christi spiritualiter edebant in manna & rebus aliis figuratam, & sufficienter pro statu Oeconomiae illius ad salutem.— 1 Cor. 10. Sed nihilominus, per communicationem carnis Christi in Eucharistia, multo altius & solidius nos Christianos incorporari Christo, quam priscos fideles qui spiritualiter tantum seu per solam fidem carnem Christi manducabant, credidit semper Ecclesia Catholica— nos cum edimus eundem Christum fide quidem utili, sed fide rei praesentis, quae actu ipso & non sola spe, nobis cum pane exhibetur, modo tamen ineffabili etc. c●rtum est per manducationem mysticam corporis Domini,— nos multo efficacius & plenius, sublimius & augustius, strictius & arctius corpori & sanguini Christi uniri, quam perilla (i. e. verbum, fidem, baptismum, etc.) Quam ob causam Hoc sacramentum dicitur per excellentiam communio; quia scil. hunc modum per manducationem mysticam Christus instituit longe efficacissimum perficiendae unionis & conjunctionis quam arctissimae inter sese & membra sua, etc. I conclude therefore, that very transcendent may the effect of this corporal presence of our Saviour be, beyond a spiritual and symbolical only; as the effect of a spiritual and also symbolical in the. Sacrament is granted to be more than of a spiritual only; though the virtue thereof by God's good pleasure be obstructed and denied to the unworthy; even as his blood shed on the Cross, and given for all, yet is not effectual or beneficial to many.  
To the 6th Chapter of St. John's Gospel. Supposing, for the present, §. LV what Dr. Taylor and others contend for, That our Saviour speaks only of a spiritual feeding on him by faith, and not of the sacramental at all: Yet as the Doctor will grant, that this Chapter contains in it nothing prejudicial to our attaining some benefit by receiving the sacrament and the symbols of Christ's body therein, though it is most true of these symbols, that they of themselves profit nothing, as to confer on us an eternal life, without the participation also of the spirit of Christ communicated only to believers: So I return, that it contains nothing in it prejudicial to our obtaining some benefit from the sacramental receiving of our Saviour's very flesh: Tho it is most true also of this very flesh, that received alone without the spirit, as it is by all the unworthy communicants, it doth help nothing at all to make a man live for ever. The whole passage in Joh. 6. seems to be thus: When our Saviour had told the Capernaites, upon occasion of their boasting how Moses gave them Manna to eat, that (much beyond those Manna-eaters that were dead) he, whosoever should eat the flesh of the Son of man, should live for ever; they conceived his meaning to be, that whoso could get a piece of his flesh and eat it, should by virtue thereof for ever be preserved in life: And this seemed to them so unreasonable and so barbarous a thing, either that he should any way feed them with his flesh, or that they that fed with it should by the strength and force thereof live for ever, that they forsook him and his doctrine: Upon which he instructs them further in this mystery, as it seems to me to this effect: 1. That they should not eat his flesh at all, in such a manner as they imagined, i. e. in its natural condition; but that he should ascend up to Heaven, where he was before, and so that his flesh with him; see ver. 62. upon which ascent the Spirit should come upon all true believers, which Spirit should give them this life; see Joh. 7.38, 39 2. That his flesh (if eaten then, or whenever it should be eaten in such manner as he should communicate it to them) could give them no life alone, or by its own virtue, but only by his Spirit (which is the fountain of life eternal) joined with, and accompanying his flesh; and that not to all receiving his flesh, but to the believer of his words; which words therefore in the close of ver. 63, when believed in, he calls spirit and life; i. e. conferring the Spirit, from which is received that life. See ver. 63.— wherein, that you may the better understand the usual expression of this Evangelist, see Joh. 4.14. and 7.38, 39 where the Spirit (signified in both places by water) is declared to be the fountain of life eternal.  
And now it is high time to leave of to tyre you with a Discourse, the more tedious because entangling itself with the Writings of so many others. Now (to conclude) I pray the good Lord, To preserve you, or any other, that reads it, from being moved or persuaded by any thing erroneous therein: And may he make the shame of any thing that is said amiss here by me (though, he knows, unwittingly, yet I may not say innocently) to fall upon me; and open your Understanding to see all my Defects; that so, if this my Endeavour in this History of the Eucharist (intended chief to make men, though of another persuasion, yet more charitable at least to the Doctrine of our Forefathers, which they have left) can do no good, it may do no hurt; but that Truth may ever prosper, prevail, triumph. Blessed be his holy Name for ever. Amen  
FINIS.   

Appendix I.  

The Doctrine of the Church of England concerning the substantial Presence, and Adoration, of Our B. Saviour in the Eucharist asserted: With a Vindication of Two Discourses on that subject, Published at Oxford, from the Exceptions of a Sacramentary Answer, Printed at London.  
I. THE former Part of the Answer, Combating Transubstantiation, is foreign to the Oxford Discourses, treating of the Real Presence, and Adoration, of our Lord in the Eucharist: Therefore, though liable to material exceptions (such are false and perverted quotations, long since detected and exposed; Romantic Stories, impertinent if true; fallacious Arguings, and wretched Calumnies, industriously contrived to deceive and incense the Populace;) yet, It shall be neglected, and our Animadversions commence at Part 2. c. 2. where the Minister's Reflections are professedly applied to the Treatises.  
II. Pag. 44. l. 14. All which the Doctrine of our Church implies by this Phrase, is only a Real Presence of Christ's invisible Power and Grace, etc.  
A Presence of Grace and Power only, i. e a real absence of our Lord's body and blood, from both the Eucharist and worthy Communicant, was indeed professed by the Puritan Party, which exclaimed against Archbishop Laud, Bishop Montague, and others, for maintaining a substantial Presence: From whose Clamour and Impeachment these Learned Prelates vindicated themselves, not by that easy and complete way of disowning the Doctrine, and interpreting their Expressions and Sentiments to intent a presence of Grace and Power only (which obvious Reply would have silenced, if not appeased, the Faction); but by justifying their Tenet to be what the Church of England held and prescribed.  
A presence of Grace only, can import no more than a bestowing of Grace or benefits without the thing beneficial or gracious: But, that the Church of England, by her Heads or eminentest Members (from Q. Elizabeth's time to the Return of Char. II.) owned this Zuinglianism for her Faith, is from no authentic act, that I have perused, yet evident.  
1. Not evident from the XXVIII Article (though the Answerer affirms so much): For that Article neither does, nor was intended to, contain any thing inconsistent with a substantial Presence; though it condemns Transubstantiation. To ratify this, I need allege against this Minister a Witness no better qualified then Dr. Burnet (because produced as very credible in this case by this Man in p. 58.) who says— it was thought to be enough to condemn [in this Article] Transubstantiation, etc.  
2. Not evident from the Communion-Office, as the same Historian relates Hist. Ref. Part 2. p. 390. It was proposed to have the Communion-Book so contrived, that it might not exclude the Belief of the Corporal Presence: For the chief Design of the Queen's Council was to Unite the Nation in One Faith, and the greater part of the Nation continued to believe such a Presence; thereupon, the Rubric— is left out. And indeed had we not this uncontrollable testimony out of that very Author, who would fain have been set up in Churches (as the Old Fox's Monuments) yet, as much might be collected from the Office itself: that nowhere excludes the substance, or limits the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ to Grace and Power; which it must do before it can countenance the Answerer's tenet. Surely, any Person, not extremely prepossessed, will sooner interpret these Passages,— The Communion of the Body, etc.— We Spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ, etc. When the Minister delivers the Communion,— The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. (omitted in the Answer)— Take, eat, etc. We thank God that he doth vouchsafe to feed us with the Food of the most precious Body, etc. The Bread, that we break, is a partaking of the Body of Christ, etc. I say, an unprejudiced Man will sooner understand these expressions as including a substantial presence, than a signifying only the power and grace of Christ's Body and Blood. How could they then take them otherwise who believed a corporal presence, and, till the last years of Edw. VI scarce ever heard that the words were capable of any other sense?  
3. Not evident from the Catechism: In which the Church of England is so far from teaching her Children a Presence of Grace only, that she plainly instructs them to believe a substantial Presence. Does she not, as it were, dissect the Eucharist into its parts, acquainting them that it consists of an Outward part or sign, Bread and Wine; of an Inward part or thing signified, the Body and Blood of Christ, etc. and then demands, What are the Benefits (or effects of these Parts,) whereof we are partakers thereby, i. e. by the Body and Blood of Christ? Now if she design by body and blood of Christ the benefits only of them, than her Question runs thus; What are the Benefits, whereof we are partakers, by the Benefits which are the inward Part of the Lord's Supper? A Question too ridiculous to be proposed by any person of sobriety, much less fit for a Church to put in her institution of Christians. If then the Catechism may be explicated literally, (as one would imagine a Catechism ought,) the Church of England both believes and teaches a substantial Presence. Agreeable hereto is Bishop Ken's Exposition, licenced 1685, by Jo. Battely, Chaplin to the Archbishop of Canterbury.— O God incarnate, (says the Bishop,) how thou canst give us thy flesh to eat, and thy blood to drink; how thy flesh is meat indeed etc. How thou, who art in Heaven, art present on the Altar, I can by no means explain, but I firmly believe it all, because thou hast said it; and I firmly rely on thy love, and on thy Omnipotence to make good thy word, though the manner of doing it I cannot comprehend.— Here, in expressions very fervent, and becoming a Christian Pastor, he instructs the people of his Diocese to believe, that God incarnate gives them his flesh to eat etc. Next, that, though in Heaven, yet the same God incarnate is present on the Altar. 3ly. That the manner of this Presence, whether in or with the elements, is inexplicable. Lastly, that the love and omnipotence of the same God are relied on to make good that Presence, whereof the manner is incomprehensible. Now, if God incarnate were present on the Altar, at the same time he is in Heaven, by grace and influence only, his flesh would be neither present on the Altar, nor given us to eat. No more mystery, nor incomprehensibilitty could be discerned in his Eucharistical, than in his Baptismal presence; neither would there be such need of extraordinary love and omnipotence to perform his promised presence in this, more than in any other, Religious ceremony, wherein all grant his presence to be only gracious. Nay, the whole paragraph were no better than a devout and solemn delusion. Nor am I prevailed-on to alter my thoughts concerning this Bishop's present faith (would he do himself, his Order, and Christianity that right as to profess it frankly and clearly) by any retractation or correction published in the Edition of his Book 1●86: That amounting to no more than a denial of Transubstantiation, not of a substantial Presence: whereby I am perfectly confirmed, that by inexplicable, incomprehensible manner, was intended the manner of the Flesh's being present, not whether it were present or no, and that it was this he could neither explain nor comprehend. To proceed further: in evincing affirmatively, that the sense of the aforesaid Article, Office, and Catechism was a substantial presence, the supremest and most authentic Interpreters, that have appeared since the creation of the present Church of England may be produced.  
1. We begin with Queen Elizabeth, the Parent of modern Prelatic Protestancy. This Lady professed the Catholic Religion in her Sister's Reign; and, when she obtained the Crown, was with difficulty persuaded to alterations in Religion, as was long ago told the world from other intelligence, and lately from Jewel's &c Letters perused by Dr. Burnet in his Ramble. In particular, She owned the Real presence to the Count of Feria and others, and commended a Preacher for asserting it on Goodfriday 1565. A Real presence, I say, She patronised, and such a one, as was owned by the ancient Fathers, and had been believed in the Church of England since the conversion of that Nation; believed without either check or interruption till towards the setting of Edward the 6. when Zuinglianism seems to have been introduced: Now if She professed a substantial presence, and if She, that authorised the Liturgy and Articles, did not do it till after she had fluxed them of whatever was malignant to a substantial presence, (to accommodate them to the majority of the Nation that with herself were so persuaded,) sure, She intended they should be interpreted as herself and the Most both thought and professed. Can the genuine sense of the words be both a Substantial presence and a presence of Grace only? Can a Nation in a moment believe by the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ, spoke at the delivery of the Sacrament to them, was meant on the one day that his Body was verily, and indeed, and in substance (if this be more) given to them, and the next day understand by the same words, that the Body of our Lord was not verily, and indeed, nor in substance, but only in figure and benefit exhibited? especially when they heard the imposer of such passages declare for the former sense, saw her delete what opposed it, and retain the self same language the Catholic Church, their true Mother, used in all times, to convey her faith to their Minds? Whereupon, considering these things, together with the miniated copy of Articles &c, seen by Dr. Burnet; considering I say that the chief Pastoress had authority according to the Doctrine of Lay-Supremacy to impose, and according to Dr. Burnet's deleted copy did impose, her Judgement to be assented- to and subscribed by the whole Clergy etc. we may truly conclude, not only as some have done, that the chief Pastors of the Church, but that the whole Church, Head and Body, Queen, Clergy, and People, did then disapprove of [or dissemble about] the Definition made in King Edward's time, and that they were for Real presence.  
2. Her Successor, King James I. either understood the Article and Liturgy in the same sense according to the attestations of Bishop Andrews and Casaubon; or, where has the Church of England published, that she holds a substantial presence, as those Learned Persons say she often has? either no where if not here; or with contradiction to what is here, if elsewhere; because the proper sense of the Article and Liturgy can't be both a substantial, and but only a gracious, presence. But that Part of the Catechism, which concerns the Sacraments, and which was composed by Dr. Overal in this King's Reign, determins the dispute as to this Prince's faith: for, though the Catechism (as almost any sentence) may be wrested, yet, it cannot be rendered, without absurdity and passing for a mere cheat, in favour of any other, than a substantial presence: And Bishop Cosin's doctrine is some argument, that Dr. Overal, his Patron and Master, did mean no other.  
3. As to King Charles the First, if we may gather his judgement from either Books, published by his command, or Sermons preached before him, He adhered to that Faith in this point, which all his Christian Ancestors had professed. Out of such Books and Sermons we present the Reader with two Instances, so full to our design, that if they can be eluded so may a Demonstration. The former is in Archbishop Lawed's Conference with Father Fisher, a Book highly esteemed by that Excellent, though calamitous, King.— And for the Church of England nothing is more plain, than that it believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, unless A. C. can make a Body no Body, and Blood no Blood, [but unless Grace be a Body, and Benefit be Blood, Dr. St. and the Answerer can make a Body no Body etc.] etc. The other is in Dr. Laurence's Sermon before the King (Charles' I.) p. 17, 18.— As I like not those that say, He is bodily there, so I like not those that say, His Body is not there; because Christ saith it is there, and St. Paul saith 'tis there, and the Church of England saith 'tis there, and the Church of God ever said 'tis there, and that truly, and substantially, and essentially, etc. For the Opinion of the Sons and Successors to this Prince, concerning a substantial presence &c, 'tis out of question I presume. What then we add, is, That either all these Heads, and the Church of England, believed the same, or she has a miserable Faith, wherein no Head, since Queen Elizabeth produced Her, durst either live or die.  
It were a diffidence in this Proof, or an affront to an intelligent Reader, to offer him a Protestant nubes Testium, as a further confirmation in this matter; for than we must recount to him almost all their Fathers from their Primitive times, throughout a Century at least that this Religion has endured, even the celebrated names of Bishop Pommel, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Andrews, Bishop Overal, Archbishop Lawd, Bishop Buckeridge, Bishop Hall, Bishop Forbes, Bishop Field, Bishop Montague, Archbishop Bramhal; Bishop Cousins, Bishop, Gunning, etc. Dr. Cowel, Dr. Pocklinton, Dr. Heylin, Mr. Sutton, etc. omitting many now alive or dead since 1660. several of which have been already alleged in the Treatises we defend, and have received either no answers, or such as be insufficient, as the following Examination of them will manifest.  
Pag. 61. l. 1. Here I must observe, that this Learned Person [Mr. Hooker] is drawn in only by a consequence, and that no very clear one etc. Mr. Hooker says, that besides partaking of the grace of that Body and Blood &c, the holy mysteries impart unto us even in true and real, though mystical manner, the very Person of our Lord, whole, perfect, and entire. His Body and Blood are in that very subject, whereunto they give life, not only by effect or operation, even as the influence of the Heavens is in plants &c, but also by a far more divine and mystical kind of union etc. Now the Inference, the Oxford Discourses make, is; That Mr. Hooker believed by Real Presence more than a presence of Grace only, even a substantial presence: for a presence of Christ's person, whole, perfect, and entire, with either the worthy receiver or the elements too, cannot possibly be resolved into grace only; because where the Person of Christ is, there his Natures are substantially present, they, since the incarnation, being inseparable from it. Is it not easy then to deduce, what the Discourser did, from the passage cited? Can any other be drawn from that judicious Man's words? This Answerer says the real Presence imports no more than a real presence of Power and Grace. Mr. Hooker says the contrary, and tells us what that more is, which it imports, the Person of Christ, and that all the question is, Whether the subject wherein Christ resides, be the Receiver only, or the consecrated Elements also? To reconcile Mr. Hooker and the Answerer, it will be necessary then for us to understand by Mr. Hooker's more than Grace, Grace only; and, by the Person of Christ, a Person without any Nature or Substance Humane or Divine. But how does our Answerer scape this pinch? truly, with due respect to Mr. Hooker, and some tolerable satisfaction to the Objection: for he prudently collects other passages, whereof some say as much as the quotation, and none of them are contradictory thereto, nor affirm the Real presence to signify no more than a presence of Grace. Nothing but this will clear the difficulty, and so much as this demonstrates the most judicious Protestant so weak as to contradict himself.  
Pag. 62. l. 8. He (Bishop Andrews) utterly excludes all defining any thing as to the Manner of Christ's Presence, etc. Bishop Andrews does not decline defining that our Lord's Body is substantially present; but the manner how this substance is present he waves defining. Again, unless that Bishop believed a substantial presence, he believed one by so much less true than ours, as the substance or person of a thing is nearer to it, or a more proper predicate of it, than its qualities and effects are. Thirdly, unless this Prelate makes the Eucharistical Presence no more real than the Baptismal (which neither he nor any Father ever did) the Allusion to Baptism is short of the Minister's purpose. Lastly, The Bishop's saying, Christ's Body, as Glorified, is not present in the Eucharist, does not in the least oppose a substantial presence. Who, that believes a substantial Presence, thinks Christ to be in the Eucharist as in his glory? This however, they all say, That the very same substance which is Glorified, which was Born, and Crucified, is present in that Sacrament, and that its Eucharistical manner of existence is different from what it either had, or hath, elsewhere. If then Bishop Andrews testimony stand good for a substantial presence, Casaubon's, and King James' (I.), and consequently the Church of England's, are assured on the same side; and we may renew, and augment that King's wonder, That not only a Stranger to, but a Minister of, the same Church, should be so inadvertant as not to remember, or so presumptuous (if he do) as to deny, what his Own Church of England has so often, and so evidently, asserted.  
Pag. 64. l. 4.— Nor can we make any other judgement of the Archbishop of Spalleto, etc. The Answer to Spalato's testimony is grossly extravagant. If this Bishop be earnest against unworthy Receivers of the Sacrament, Is then our Lord substantially absent according to him? One would think, that has perused St. Paul's words, 1 Cor. 11.29. and heard of Mr. Thorndyke's Comment on them; that, from the Bishop's earnestness against unworthy receiving, he should rather believe a substantial presence; reprehending the impiety the more zealously, because he discerned our Lord's Body to be where it is, not where it is not. If this Bishop own a spiritual, imperceptible, and miraculous presence, does he thereby disown a substantial presence? Sir, These stupid Consequences will not pass now adays, at least not amongst Adversaries, whatever they do with your Party.  
Ibid. l. 26.— But he does not say, that Christ's natural Body, etc. Here Archbishop Laud's testimony is rejected by a flat denial of what that great Man hath, if not in terminis, in effect said (for to quote with approbation is as much as to say). Does he not cite Calvin, that Christ does not offer us only the Benefit of his Death and Resurrection, but the Body itself, in which he suffered and risen? Is not Bishop Ridly also produced by him, saying, That in the Sacrament is the very true and natural Body of Jesus Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascended into Heaven, which sits at the right hand of God the Father, & c.?  
Ibid. l. 30.— The same must be said of Bishop Hall, etc. The quotations out of Bishop Hall, Bishop Montague, and Bishop Bilson, are plain for a substantial presence; and if undiscerned by the Answerer, to be so, surely not his faculties, but prejudices, and the Post he has undertaken to defend, are blamable. If any such matter as a substantial presence were observable in Bishop Andrews' words, Why not in these Authors? Why not in Bishop Hall's and Bishop Mountague's expressions; whereof the one uses the same, and the other terms equivalent?— Res apud utrosque cadem,— with Calvinists and Lutherans.— The thing is yeilded-to on either side.— On the Catholic and Church of England side. But the Lutheran and Catholic side yields to no other thing than a substantial Presence. The thing (the object) is not the same with them and us, if Calvinists and the Church of England, by the Body of Christ, mean Grace only.  
Pag. 65. l. 13.— I ought not to pass over etc. But why is Bishop Forbes' testimony passed over so unconcernedly, and, instead of an Answer to his assertions, an obloquy left on his Name, involving the whole Family of Reconcilers? Did he not in that passage writ his thoughts? Was his intention only a palliating or recommending of Error and Idolatry, not a retrenching the opinions and unjustifiable aggravations of those that affect extremes, and thro' rage desert truth? I always conceited the aim of that wise and moderate Person, and of other Accommodators, to have been the undisguising of Doctrines, and a representation of them in their proper lineaments and habit; but not a betraying of truth to purchase a wicked peace. Henceforward therefore, if this Minister be regarded, whenever we hear a man speak of reconcilement, we must double our guards, and apprehend treachery. But where was the Bishop's conscience, and respect to piety if, according to this Minister, to cement a rotten Union, he condescended not only to relinquish his Faith, but also to establish an inexcusable Idolatry; for his words assert both a substantial presence on the holy Table, and an Adoration of our Lord's body there present: The presence he means is such a one, of which the more orthodox Protestant's do not doubt, which the Holy Fathers very often mention, and which the Puritans, grossly erring, rejected: but the rigider Protestants reject a substantial, not a gracious, presence, so that the Bishop's sense will admit of no other evasion, besides his being of the Pacifick tribe, which is, it seems with this Minister, if not in maledictionibus, of no authority. Thus this impartial Friend to truth, whilst he should weigh the arguments, considers the personal qualities of an Author; and is carried for or against those, as these affect or displease him.  
Pag. 66. l. 1.— For Bishop Tailor, I cannot acquit our Author of a wilful prevarication etc. Nor I the Answerer of folly, for meddling with what he can no better discharge. His business is to show either that Bishop Tailor had written no such passage, as was cited out of his works, or that his words were perverted from their literal sense by the Discourser: for to allege out of the same, or another Book, sentences contradictory thereto, will expose the Bishop indeed, but satisfies not the difficulty; for the Discourser no where undertook, that Dr. Taylor has not said and unsaid ( to the custom of Protestants and Wits,) but that he has said what, with any candour, is incapable of any other meaning than is imposed in the Oxford Treatises. Bucer's advice to P. Martyr,— ut Dogma sacramentarium ambiguis loquendi formulis involveret, and Dr. Taylor's boastings and practices are too notorious to be insisted-on; or for us to expect from so inconstant, artificial, and confident a Writer, other than that according as his humour or circumstances engaged, he should sometimes deliver himself plainly, sometimes in affected and intricate terms, and never scruple contradicting himself, so he might procure a present relief, when reduced by his cause or indiscretions to a straight. This Reply, to this Minister's Answer to Dr. Taylor's testimony, will serve for what was returned pag. 49. 50. to Calvin's and Beza's Authorities. If other places contradictory can be picked out of their Writings, yet that will not manifest, that they, in the sentences cited, intended not a substantial presence. But where does Calvin say, solum beneficium non corpus ipsum, the proposition contradictory to neque tantum beneficium sed corpus ipsum? Is it not of this Proposition that Archbishop Lawd says;— Nor can that place by any art be shifted, or by any violence wrested, from Calvin's true meaning of the Presence of Christ in and at the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist.— The Archbishop was a Puny in evasions, and of a feeble spirit; for, what his acuteness could not contrive, and his courage durst not attempt, this Minister has discovered and adventured to perform, even to shift off and wrest this place, by some that say nothing different, and by others that say nothing contradictory.  
Pag. 69. l. 24.— And now I am afraid his cause will be desperate; unless Mr. Thorndike can support it. The same course is taken to answer Mr. Thorndike, as was followed to dismiss most of the precedent, viz. endeavouring to oppose Mr. Thorndike to himself: this practice how useful, and how frequently used, soever it be by the Answerer as wondrous sufficient, yet is rejected by him in parallel cases; and he takes that liberty he disallows to such as have equal right to it with himself. Yet how will this rare controvertist vindicate Mr. Thorndike from approving Idolatry, if he deny that learned Man to hold a substantial presence? for, what can be more express for Adoration of our Lord in the Eucharist than his words are? I do believe that it [adoration] was practised and done in the ancient Church.— I know the consequence to be this, that there is no just cause why it should not be done at present, etc. Whatever notion therefore Mr. Thorndike had of our Lord's presence, certainly he maintained the presence of such a Body as was adorable, and that the adoration practised in the Catholic Church was not Idolatry.  
Having thus copiously discussed this Point, Whether the Doctrine of the Church of England, concerning the Real Presence, was, from Queen Elizabeth 's days till the Restauration of the last King, for a substantial, or but gracious, Presence; and having amply demonstrated, that a substantial Presence was its faith, and that as well its Article, Communion-Office and Catechism, as its supremest Governors, and most dignified and learned Doctors, are peremptory and full in the case, for which the Discourses contend; one chief Design of them is secured and defended and by this Minister's confession several points are gained: as, 1. That of all men living, the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought not to press us with such contradictions wherein their own opinion is equally involved. pag. 41. l. 18. 2. That it is no less a contradiction for Christ's Natural Body to be in several places at the same time by the Church of England's mode of Substantial Presence, than by the Church of Rome's; which adds only the Manner of that Substance being present, viz. Transubstantiation: the repugnancy being in the thing itself, not in the manner of it. Therefore the Philosophical Maxim, of the impossibility of one Body's being in many places at the same time, must not by Church of England-men be relied-on, nor urged in the Dispute between us. pag. 44. l. 4. Besides, we obtain 3ly, That the genuine Sons of the Church of England ought neither to impeach Catholics of Idolatry, nor, in taking the Test, profess we are Idolaters, since, according to their faith, our object is right, and there where we believe it to reside. Should they charge the whole Church with Idolatry for worshipping Jesus Christ substantially present in the Eucharist, which they both believe and practise? Does not the same reason compel them to affirm Adoration follows their own Doctrine, and therefore ours, which forced Bishop Morton to say it followed the Lutheran? 4ly, Their deference to the certainty of sense must be adjusted with ours, and Miracles must not be confined to its sphere. 5ly, Such language as this Minister uses must be forborn, and his blasphemous Ironies receive the same detestation with them as they have with as. For instance, Pref. p. 6. l. penult. That the Council of Lateran gave the Priest's power of making their God: for Church of England Priests (if true Priests) have the same power with the Catholic. But neither pretend by Sacerdotal consecration to make the substance of Christ's Body, but only to invoke the Holy Ghost to effect by its Almighty power, that the substance of our Lord's glorified body, which now exists gloriously in Heaven, may also exist Sacramentally on the Altar. Is this making their God? The Lateran Definition de Fide Catholica, and the Council of Trent informed this Minister what part, by Christ's institution, not their gift (as this man imposes,) the Priest has in the consecration, if he had not been willing to forget or mistake it for vile purposes. Again, p. 75. l. 8. That the Popish Real Presence is a mere figment, and their Mass to be abhorred rather than adored. Such putrid falsehoods and conceited nonsense will be very indecent in a genuine Church of England man's mouth, not only because of his Defender, but of his Faith too. For such a one to tell us of adoring the Mass, and that He abhors it, and accounts our Real presence a figment, is both absurd, and impious. But this is the result of a Gallican vagary, and of learning the Doctrine of the Church of England from Hugonotal conversation, Tales and Fathers. Pag. 72. l. 1. That the alterations which have been made in our Rubric, were not upon the account of our Divines changing their Opinions etc. Tho it signify little whether the Alterations in the Article and Liturgy, and the Disgrace of the Rubric, were or were not from a change of opinions, so long as the Doctrine of the Church was changed; though, this I grant may well be, and the other not, according to the gloss of subscribing, not with assent, but for peace; and, though too, 'tis a strange casualty for Divines, remarkable for resolution and famous for immutability, to flit their sentiments as ordinarily as the Moon does her appearances; yet the Proof brought, that those Divines did not imitate Cranmer in compliance and submission of judgement to the present Possessor of White-Hall, is no more than an heap of this Minister's conjectures stamped with the superscription of a Rational account: when-as Dr. Heylin, equal to Dr. Burnet in abilities and industry, and incomparably more honest than that perfidious Fugitive, reports; that the changes were made, lest in excluding a carnal Presence they [the Divines sure] might be thought to reject such a Real presence, as was defended in the writings of the Ancient Fathers.— Nor is the design of reconciling Parties inconsistent with a change of opinions. A comprehension-affair may be pursued by Real Presence-men, as well as Zwinglians. As to the Copy of Articles perused by Dr. Burnet, and out of him mentioned pag. 58. we say again that it ought to be concluded from that razed Monument rather that the Divines did, than did not, change their Opinions; for he, that reverses a subscription voluntarily, is likelier to have altered his resolution, than to have retained it; especially, when induced to expunge, what had been agreed on, by an Authority, whereto by the Principle of Lay-Supremacy, lately assumed by the Prince, and submitted to by themselves, their judgements were to conform, and whose sentiments in Religion they were to believe and profess. For Queen Elizabeth had by a dreadful example just then told the world, (as after she had like to have done in the Lambeth-Articles-Affair,) that She would not hear the Church, but (though a woman) be heard by it in matters of Faith; and would neither consult with, nor follow, but control and prescribe-to Convocations in causes of mere Religion. Had She not refused to hear the voice of the whole Clergy in her first and the last Canonical Convocation? In a Convocation acting agreeably not only to the institution of Christianity and rules of the Catholic Church, but of all other Convocations that ever were in the Nation, (unless a few in Hen. 8. and Edw. 6. time); in a Convocation acting according to all Laws Ecclesiastical and Civil then in force in this Kingdom, and representing the Church of England by Law established. How then could its Declaration be illegal, as the Reflecter on the Historical Part of the Fifth part of Church-Government p. 82. will needs esteem it? What? could the Queen under a penalty justly prohibit them the use of that Authority both Christ, and the Laws of the Land, had settled on them alone? If this were not tyranny, where shall instances of it be found? But that Reverend and Catholic Assembly understood both its own power and duty better than so, and despising the temporal terrors, that only a Tyrant in that case would threaten, and a Persecutor execute, discharged itself with constancy, as became men entrusted with the souls of the Nation, though deprivation were the reward of their Confession. Her new and parasitical Ministers understood then what they must do, and that for that very end She had raised them up, even to think, and act, at her appointment.  
In return to the conjectures, wherewith the Answerer strives to blanche o'er a soul defection from the Catholic faith, we will relate how we apprehend Religious affairs were managed. At Edward the Sixths coming to the Crown the Doctrine of the Church of England was a substantial Presence; the manner of that Presence was Transubstantiation: but, thro' the Ambition and Avarice of Governing Parties, some quickly began to contest and forsake this Faith; yet by degrees; rejecting first the manner, and afterwards the Presence; being assisted in this Apostasy by a few, and opposed by most of the Clergy and Laity; hence, though there were Assemblies and deliberations had, yet, no Canonical determinations passed, or are extant, unless such approbations may be deemed Synodical, that were obtained by terrors and deprivations of many the most eminent Bishops and dignified ecclesiastics, for relucting at what derogated from Christian Truth and Church Authority. All was done by the conduct and influence of the evil Spirit, and neither Scripture nor Antiquity rightly consulted or observed; only herein the diligence and craft of those destroying Reformers must to their eternal infamy be owned, that they distinguished points immediately obstructing their gain, and licentiousness, from others more indifferent, rejecting chief such as debarred them from spoiling the Church, and gratifying their sensual appetites. Thus, as superstitious, or idolatrous, prayer for the Faithful deceased, (that Chanteries, the Mass, that the furniture of Altars, &c, might be alienated) came to be reform: thus, the Sacrament of Penance, solemn Fast and Celibacy of Priests, &c, (that both Clergy and Laity might indulge themselves, as their lusts suggested, in luxury and impenitence) fell to the ground. Not truth, nor any consideration of Christians either at home or abroad, but libertinism and filthy lucre were then the rule of this unjustifiable Reformation, wherewith the majority of Christians, as well of England as of the whole world, could not choose but be, and actually were, scandalised. But how should better come of Cranmers intermeddlings? It was that Cranmer, who for flattery, lust, inconstancy, ingratitude, treason, and most damnable Hobbism, utterly pernicrous to the being of a Church, deserves the invectives and execrations of all Posterity.  
But now under Queen Elizabeth, other Circumstances are to be considered, why some of the Godly innovations under Edward the Sixth were not revived. For first, She was rather of her Father's than Somerset's Religion; believed and practised Invocation of Saints; approved of Images in Churches; was no Admirer of Clerical Marriages; nor yet very fond of her new Power of Supremacy (given her by Protestants, that she might requite them with a Church and a Creed), much less of that foreign Drug, Zuinglianism; professing on all occasions her firm adherence to a Real Presence. However, to fortify the weakness of her Title, that had been Questioned by Catholics, and Condemned by Protestants, she was persuaded to restore the Schism begun, and assume the Supremacy extorted, by her Father; but, for alterations in other points merely Doctrinal, Protestants do confess her somewhat resty, resenting her tepid proceed with warm Contumelies, and most virulent reproaches; which shows, that her pleasure, security, or interest, not their extravagances, was the measure whereby Religion was settled; and that Conscience did a little, though Policy more, influence transactions. She qualified the Title, but not the Power or Use of Supremacy, extending it as far as either her Father or Brother had done. She did perhaps desire to unite the Nation; but, I suppose, it was in that Faith she held, and the majority of the Nation with her, otherwise she was put upon a very odd method of Union; it being easier to bring a few to close with what's settled, or least removed from it, than to convert a majority, from an old established Religion, to embrace the contradictory novelties of a few. Thus she settled her Religion, and whatever (like Jeroboam) she devised out of her own heart; and it continued, without any visible alteration, by Authority, till the Return of Charles II. when Protestant's being about to repair what their Brethren had endeavoured to demolish, the Puritans at the Savoy-Conference 1661., amongst other cunning demands, whereby both the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church of England were undermined, inserted the restoring of the Black Rubric into favour: but were answered, that It was not in Queen Elizabeth's Liturgy, nor confirmed by Law, nor needful. However, that wealthy Faction's obliging importunities, or pretence of mighty satisfaction that it would give to Dissenters, overcame, if not the Clergy, yet a potent Favourite; and so with a few emendations, too slight as some, sufficient as others thought, to save the Church's Doctrine, this goodly Henoticon stole into the Liturgy. Stole into it, I say, if with the connivance of any, yet with the scandal of the best, of the Clergy; who, on all occasions, expressed their dislike of it, as truly inconsistent with their Faith, and without that effect, either of gaining other Sectaries to their promiscuous Communion, as was pretended, or stilling their clamours and disgusts against kneeling at the Communion. And this, I am persuaded, is the most impartial and exactest account, that matter of fact yields of the English giddiness, toss, and variations in matters of Religion.  
Pag. 77. l. 21. Now these [Exceptions against founding an Article of Faith on a Philosophical Maxim] being most of them founded on the former mistaken Notion of the Real Presence, etc. That the Discourser's Notion of the Real Presence was the same the Church of England has asserted is evidenced; the Minister's Replies therefore are unsatisfactory; and it was rightly inferred from the high Expressions used by the Members of that Communion concerning the Eucharist (as, that 'tis an ineffable Mystery, full of Miracles; incomprehensible to, not to be measured by, sense or reason, etc.) that they believed something in it seemingly [this word was omitted by the Transcriber] opposite to humane reason. But whether the word were omitted or no; Not to be agreeable to human Reason, to captivate the mind, to be incomprehensible to men's wit, to do violence to the Principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy (Protestant language concerning this Sacrament and other Mysteries,) are not far short of opposite and coutradictory to human Reason: So that a Revelation, clear and evident, must be submitted-to, according to Calvin and Bishop Taylor, though it agree not with Reason, though it propose something incomprehensible, and which does violence to it. Neither is it a manifest contradiction, that a Natural Body should be in more places than One at the same time; but manifestly no contradiction, as all that know the Rules of Opposition must confess. That the same Body should be in a place, and not in that place at the same time, is a contradiction. But this is a Proposition very wide from the other: To be and not to be, is not equivalent to that, To be here and elsewhere too: whereby the failure of what the Answerer writes against the second Observation p. 80. l. 14. is manifest: For, there may be such things as perfect contradictions known to us, and yet all that seems to be so to some, upon severer scrutiny may prove not so to them, or to sharper Judgements. The instance is before us; Even to this very Minister that seems a contradiction which is none. The utmost force of Nature, much more of Omnipotence, is not so easily comprehended, as confident (who commonly are the least experienced and adverting) men boast: The more we inquire into them, the more sensible shall we be of the narrowness of our knowledge, and shortness of our faculties; especially, when we reflect how modestly persons of vast experience, of very capacious and improved intellects, such as Bishop Forbes, etc. have spoken in the same case, That we are unable, in all oppositions, to discern the true distance, and whether it amount to a real contradiction or no; and therefore God may do, what may seem to us impossible, as well by his ordinary, as absolute, Power. Whereupon, in points abstruse, where there appears seeming contradictions on the one hand, and a Revelation on the other, this consideration, attended by a just deference to infinite Power, aught to move us to captivate our understandings, and neglect the objections, from nature and reason, being joyful to exert the humility of our Minds, and to demonstrate, we measure not the immense Majesty of our Creator by our selves, his worthless potsherds. This thought, so becoming a Creature, doubtless instructed Dr. Taylor and others, to promise their assents to a plain Revelation, notwithstanding any pretended Contradictions from Sense or Reason: Not because they fancied there could be no such Revelation, but because they knew themselves incompetent Judges of possibility; and believed God can do what man may conceit unfeasible, whilst more conceited men (what Pride is this!) will protest he cannot.  
Pag. 83. l. 10.— If by Zuinglianism he means, etc. a mere Commemoration, etc. Were we inclined to judge of this Minister's opinion, concerning the Eucharist, by his Jewish method of expounding the nature of it in general, p. 1. he must pass with us for a Socinian; One that believes the Eucharist to be a mere Commemoration. Did the Passover contain or confer Grace? Was it more than a memorial of the Israelites Deliverance out of Egypt? And what Scripture does he produce, that tells him clearly, that the Eucharist contains or confers Grace, or it only, without our Lord's substance? Nay further, to convince him of his imprudence (to speak no harsher in so heinous a miscarriage) in preferring the Synagogue before the Church for his Guide in explicating a Christian Sacrament, p. 5. l. 20. Does he not in plain terms conclude for this worse sort of the Sacramentary Heresy elsewhere disowned? His words are,— So was this Holy Eucharist established upon the Analogy which we have seen to the Paschal Supper, whose place it supplies, and whose Ceremonies it so exactly retains, that it seems only to have heightened the design, and changed the application to a more excellent Remembrance. What is this else, but the refinedst Zuinglianism, but that very Socinianism which in this 83d page is not allowed? But if this Minister think such a collection from one period too rigorous and captious, I may challenge him to show any other sense can be put on it, or on the whole parallel for six or seven pages, drawn between the Paschal Lamb and the Lord's Supper. We meet with no more than Remembrance, Commemoration, showing the Lord's Death, and not a syllable of grace or benefit; and indeed his parallel, without straining, would not reach thither. A Socinian might have composed, and may subscribe, that Introduction, without any injury to his erroneous sentiments concerning the Eucharist. These are the dreadful consequences of immoderate heats against a Doctrine, which we confute because we hate.  
Ibid. l. 14.— If by Zuinglianism he understands such a Real presence etc. nor shall we be ashamed to own it etc. Why not? seeing what he owns is at best but the Sacramentary Doctrine. A Doctrine disowned by the genuine Sons of that Church wherein he is a Minister, and by the Church itself never countenanced, till the Puritan Sect prevailed in it. A Doctrine novel, and therefore without Ground in either Scripture or Fathers. A Doctrine said to begin with the curiosities of Erigena, (Sunt & aliae quae vocum novitatibus desectantes, unde sibi inanes comparant rumusculos, contra fidei Catholicae veritatem dicunt, viz. quod Sacramenta Altaris non verum corpus & sanguis sint Domini, sed tantum memoria veri corporis & sanguinis ejus. Hin●m. in L. de Praedest.) a vagrant Buffoon in the 9th, and revived and retracted by Berengarius in the 11th Age. Broached again by Carolostadius, or Oecolampadius, as some say, or by Zuinglius, a Spirit black or white (he knew not which) suggesting it in a dream, as himself says. [But surely 1 Cor. 10.16. is literally for this creditable Doctrine:] so far from being so, that 'tis literally against it, if Bishop Cousins, cited below, had the gift of interpreting. This Answerer must not think himself able to conclude from that Scripture, Our Lord's Body is communicated by Grace, but with much more reason, I will collect, that its Substance is communicated also; inasmuch as the communication of a Body is more likely to imply the communication of its Substance with the attendent properties, than of these without it.  
Pag. 84. l. 8. I will close this Discourse with a plain and familiar example:— A Father makes his last Will etc. This familiar example does not accord with Bishop Cosin's Doctrine, Hist. Trans. p. 43. where he writes,— We do not say, that in this holy Supper, we are partakers of the fruit only of the Death and Passion of Christ, but join the ground with the fruits which accrue to us from it, asserting with the Apostle, 1 Cor. 10.16. The Bread, etc. yea, in that same substance which he assumed in the Virgin's Womb, and which he carried to Heaven, in this only differing from the Papists, that they believe this eating and conjunction to be made corporally, we not in any natural or corporal manner, but yet as truly as if we were naturally or corporally joined to Christ.— How different is this Doctrine from what the Minister would inculcate by his Allusion? though indeed that allusion, if pursued, will convey us directly to a substantial presence: for the Will is never perfectly accomplished, nor obtained, till the Son have Seisin and corporal possession of the Land bequeathed; that is, the substance as well as title of it. Now the Promise of giving his Body is our Lord's Will, or corresponds to the written Instrument, but the actual giving of his Body to us (as St. Gregory Nyssen, [Qui sua potestate cuncta disponit, non ex proditione sibi impendentem necessitatem, non Judaeorum quasi praedonum impetum, non iniquam Pilati sententiam expectat, ut eorum malitia sit communis hominum salutis principium & causa; sed consilio suo antevertit, & arcano sacrificii genere, quod ab hominibus cerni non poterat, seipsum pro nobis hostiam offered, & victimam immolat, Sacerdos simul existens & Agnus Dei, ille qui mundi peccatum tollit. Quando id praestitit? cum corpus suum Discipulis congregatis edendum & sanguinem bibendum praebuit; tunc aperte declaravit Agni sacrificium jam esse perfectum. Nam victimae corpus non est ad edendum idoneum si animatum sit: quare cum corpus edendum & sanguinem bibendum Discipulis exhibuit, jam arcana & non aspectabili ratione corpus erat immolatum, ut ipsius mysterium peragentis potestati collibuerat; & anima in illis erat in quibus eadem illa potestas illam deposuit. S. Greg. Nyss. in prima Orat. de resur. Dom.] and St. Augustin. [Ferebatur enim Christus in manibus suis, quando commendans ipsum corpus suum, ait, Hoc est corpus meum. Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis. S. Aug. concione 1. in Ps. 33.] affirm, he did it to his Disciples in the Institution of the Eucharist) answers the entering on the Estate. The former renders us but Heirs; this, Inheritors also.  
Pag. 86. l. 15. For the doctrine of the Church of England [against Adoration] we shall need go no further than the Rubric etc. If the present Church of England, in compliance with the black Rubric (this Minister's only public evidence, such as it is, against both a Substantial presence and Adoration) must be concluded to deny Adoration, from its beginning it did not so; and in 1660 it could not be said, the Church of England by Law established condemns Adoration; no Test, no Rubric, was then extant, no Penal Laws (whereto the establishment as well as original of their Church is to be ascribed) constraining any man to subscribe with, or without consent, a villainous slander upon the whole Church of God, upon the Lutherans and themselves too, till the Return of King Charles II. and since, the contrary hath been both said, printed, and practised by the genuine Sons of the Church of England, who regarded the Rubric no more than the rest of that communion do the Fasts, and other ceremonies, enjoined them by the same Liturgy.  
Pag. 87- l. 27. Now to this I shall at present only say, That the Supposition being absurd does not admit of a rational consideration etc. Here he asserts it impossible for Christ's body to exist, or to be present, except in the circumstances, and clothed with all the ordinary properties of a Body, and consequently must disbelieve, not only that the bodies of Saints at the Resurrection shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage, not need nourishment &c, but be as the Angels impassable etc. and so either deny a Heaven, or admit a Mahometan Paradise; but also question our Lord's resurrection, the stone unrolled from the mouth of the Sepulchre, and his entrance into the room the door being shut, and besides, censure St. Paul's Spiritual body as absurd. Can our Lord's body rise from the Grave thro' a Stone, and enter a close Room ad modum corporis? If not, than this Answerer must either retract this passage, as an affront to Faith, or, Socinian-like, reject the Scripture testifying this, because absurd to his low and impure conceptions: but if it could, and did, then where are our Minister, and his vain Philosophy? If he has known some admitting the Supposition, That our Lord's Body may be present, and not after the ordinary sensible manner of Corporal presence, and yet resolving against adoration of it, such oppose what this man concedes in the first Supposition, unless he grant adoration due to the corporeal manner of Christ's presence, and not to Christ himself.  
Pag. 88- l. 13.— I presume it was then in the times of Popery; for since the Reformation, I have shown before, that she always held the contrary, [viz. That our Lord's presence in the Eucharist is not adorable.] In the most flourishing Protestant times, an adorable presence was believed and professed by Bishop Andrews, deputed by the Head of the English Church to declare her sentiment in this matter; He is not therefore to be considered as a private Doctor or Bishop, but as the mouth of the Church, and presumed to know, and neither to falsify nor oppose, her Doctrine or practice. How came this Man to more skill and authority in expounding the Doctrine of the Church of England than that very learned Bishop? Did King James II. depute you to expound it? What reason do you assign, why I must discredit Bishop Andrews, and acquiesce in your exposition? I cannot foresee how you can prove yourself more honest, more able, more authentic, than that extraordinary Bishop was. But, what does that accurate Plenipotentiary publish? Does he fence and seek subterfuges, as dreading or blushing to tell his thoughts? No, his expressions are with assurance and perspicuity. He proclaims to the world that the King [James I.] believed and adored our Lord truly present in the Eucharist, and, we [Church of England-men] with Ambrose adore the flesh of Christ in the mysteries; and with Austin we do not eat the flesh without first adoring it. Did Bishop Andrews speak true, or did he not? If he did, than the Answerer speaks what's false; if he did not, why may we not reject a Protestant Minister's testimony, when such a Bishop's is so tardy? What adoration Protestant's render to the Divine Majesty in their other Religious offices, we are not at leisure to inquire; but, that in this of the Eucharist, the Bishop, and King, and consequently their Church, adored the Flesh of Christ, is to any one of modesty and candour undeniable. They adored as St. Ambrose and St. Austin adored; which was just in the same manner, and in the self same degree, as the Catholic Church adores at this day. Those Fathers gave sovereign worship to the Flesh, to the natural flesh of Christ, substantially present in the Eucharist, and Hypostatically united to his Soul and Divinity: Our Dispute then with this Minister is about the adoration of Christ himself, if about the adoration of his Flesh, unless his Natures and Person be separable.  
Pag. 89. l. 17.— But is he sure the Bishop meant so? [i. e. that Bishop Taylor meant, we worship the Body or Flesh of Christ.] Yes, He is sure that Author meant the Flesh of Christ: 1. Because the same Bishop (Real Pres. p. 144.) says, We worship the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries exhibiting it to our souls. 2. Because the Action itself is not adorable; the words than must either intent the flesh of Christ, or, What do they signify? What is it the Bishop worships in the venerable usages of the signs? Not the signs; yet, Divine Honour is given, given then either to nothing, or to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries. 3. Because the Bishop is, considering St. Ambrose's testimony, for adoring the flesh of Christ in the mysteries; and waving the usual refuges of the testimony being spurious, or a Rhetorical flight, etc. he acknowledges that his party worships as St. Ambrose did. Certainly then they have the same object, pay the same service, and at the like solemn occasions, i. e. sovereign adoration to the flesh of Christ in the mysteries, for this St. Ambrose undoubtedly performed. And what if this Bishop (according to his native constancy) in another book recede from this, was it therefore none of his thought when this was written? Can his dictating contrary elsewhere alter the sense of what was said long before?  
Pag. 90. l. 6.— Since I have read of a Protestant Minister etc. Very faithfully translated! The Minister was permitted (says the Answerer) to exercise the functions of his Ministry as before. 'Tis false, says the Margin, He was not to preach any thing against the belief of the true Church, nor to celebrate the Supper. Thus the Man's Margin confutes his Text, and his Translation quarrels with the Original.  
Ibid. l. 17.— As for Bishop Forbes, and the Archbishop of Spalleto, it is not to be wondered, if men that had entertained the design of reconciling all Parties, were forced to strain sometimes a little further than was fit, etc. An Answer very solid and very charitable. For first, is not this a concession, that these Protestant Bishops allowed adoration, or, what was the little further than was fit that they were forced to strain? Next, here's another retreat to the Pacifick Humour, to evade passages out of these Authors, not proposed as terms of agreement, or abatements to be yielded, or winked at in order to an union, but as certain truths, justly maintained by the one side, and perversely denied by the other: the Quotations are true, and they are conclusive, but now the end, and so the authority, of the Authors must come into contempt, and their design overthrow their evidence. But what? Is committing and defending Idolatry (as they do, if this man be in the right) in them but straining a little more than is fit, and in us a crime never to be sufficiently aggravated?  
Pag. 91. l. 1. Will he himself allow every thing to be the Doctrine etc. The Discourser allows that to be the Doctrine of the Catholic Church, which she, not which any private Doctor without her allowance, declares to be so; and supposes, though not Bishop Taylor, yet Bishop Andrews and King James to be of like authority, with the genuine Sons of the Church of England, as a Council is with us. The reason is; because the Head of the English Church hath all that Spiritual Power any Ecclesiastical person or persons ever challenged or exercised in England, and may delegate it, as the King did to Bishop Andrews in this case.  
If the Minister had told us where St. Thomas, Paludanus, and Catherine, assure him, 'tis Idolatry to Adore an unconsecrated Host thro' mistake, we might have understood what species of Idolatry they had esteemed it, since Protestants have lately discovered a damnable, and a saving sort, of Idolatry; for, if of the later kind, the danger incurred by an invincible mistake is inconsiderable. However, this we may learn thence, That those Doctors did not hold either the substance, or accidents, of the Host unconsecrated Adorable; nor did Adore either of them in an Host consecrated; but something else that by Consecration became present in the Eucharist: unless we can imagine they had there two objects adorable; or made Christ, and what remained after Consecration, but one thing.  
The Minister had dealt more ingenuously too, if he had named the several of our Writers that make our Adoration a worse Idolatry than any Heathens were ever guilty-of; because the Person, to whom that is imputed, is abused, if all be true the Answer to Dr. More tells us, p. 47. viz. That the Doctor mistook Costerus his Ground of confessing at such a rate, and moreover foisted in Transubstantiation which is not there: Costerus arguing only thus; If the true Body of Christ be not in the Eucharist, Christ has dealt unworthily with his Church, failed of his engagements to lead her into all truth and holiness; and on the contrary, seduced her, by his own words, to a fundamental impiety; whereupon he could not be a true Christ, and she must have worshipped not only a true object where it is not, but an Impostor also, and an object absolutely incapable of such Honour; because Christ must then be, not only a mere Creature, but as Mahomet or Satan, one of the worst of Creatures.  
Ibid. l. 8. For the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, I find it thus clearly set down in the Council of Trent, etc. We understand why he chooses to give our Doctrine out of the Chapter rather than out of the Canon. It is not his way to represent our Points with the right side outward; but, if He will be so equal as to accept of such answers as himself hath often give, the mist, he raises before his Reader's Eyes, will be quickly dispelled: For, if the sixth Canon of the same Session may interpret the fifth Chapter, the illusion is escaped; if it may not, why has he so often vexed us with Replies of the same nature which he despises? His translation too of the Chapter is not accurate; and, though I discern no great advantage got by this ill version, yet his whole carriage in this controversy is so unhandsome, that I fear I ought to complain rather of his sincerity than Learning. Is quin exhibeant rendered well, aught to give? Or, Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quod fuerit a Christo D. ut sumatur, institutum, done rightly into for it is nevertheless to be adored, because it was instituted by our Lord Christ, that it might be received? This is not the sense of that Clause, but rather thus; It is not the less to be Adored, though it were instituted by our Lord Christ to be Received. This to show the Minister's Translating Talon. Now for his Arguing; That (according to this Council) is to be worshipped which Christ instituted to be received. Right; He instituted that his Body, Sacramentally existing, should be received, and this the Council says may be worshipped.— And in which they believe Christ to be present. False. Not it, wherein Christ is present, but Christ, present in it, is that the Council says may be Adored.  
But, Sir, to expostulate with you a while for your treacherous method: Why did you pick out the chapter, and not the canon, to show our undoubted Doctrine? Were you not ware there was such a canon, wherein our Faith was contained as undoubtedly, and more precisely, even above the cavil and misunderstanding of either the Malignant, or those they seduce? Was it because you would have been deprived of a convenience to delude your People; the complex and ambiguous terms, Sacrament or Host (as you fond express our Doctrine) there affording you no fallacies? The canon does exclude all your pretences, that we Adore the symbols or species with Divine worship, which you would insinuate by your calling our Adoration, an Adoration of the Sacrament or Host: Tho these terms, as Mr. Thorndike observes, suggest to such as make not cavilling their business, no other than the adoration of our Lord in the Sacrament. Did you not peruse, what is written from §. 11. to §. 17. in the 2d. Treatise, on purpose to vindicate our Doctrine from Dr. Taylor's and Dr. Stilling feeet's comments, and prevent such tricks as you now play? Will no Answers satisfy you, no cautions retrench your exorbitances, but still such wild and malicious and feigned notions must be repeated by every little smatterer in Theology, as if never exposed by us; and all this to ingratiate with the vulgar, grow famous, and obtain pluralities, Sine-cures, and Dignities, for such service against Popery? Are you ignorant that a Council may express itself less or more distinctly, or obscurely, concerning a point, without derogating from either its authority or infallibility, as serving in the one and failing in the other, unless whatever is determined by authority or infallibility must be equally perspicuous, (is Scripture so?) and all their chapters as exact as their creeds? When you remember the Canon, are you remorseless for writing, that this Assertion— by adoring the Sacrament, no more nor other is intended than adoring Christ in the Sacrament, must pass for a private opinion, not a Catholic assertion? Where does the Discourser seem to grant the Church's expression improper? Does he not on the contrary tell you, that Soave and all humble Sons of the Church are obliged to take Ecclesiastical language, as well as Christian sense, from her, i. e. that her expressions with her interpretations are proper, though in your mouth, attended with your perversions, they become a snare? How many Ecclesiastical phrases has the Church been constrained to proscribe thro' this pravity of seducers, that employ her orthodox terms to maintain or convey their impieties? That the Word is of like substance to his Father, that our B. Lady is the Mother of Christ, are sentences capable of a sound sense, and might be used without suspicion or offence till the Arians and Nestorians misemployed them. Thus it is with adoring the Sacrament or Host, the Church. and Catholic Doctors have rightly used these expressions, and we all understand them accordingly; but in England, where they are wrested to purposes the Church never dreamt of, we justly except against them, and choose to deliver ourselves so, as shall be most secure from calumny. When therefore you contest with us, either take our terms in our sense, or you beat the air.  
As to Cardinal Palavicini's words, they amount to this only; that we are not to withhold Adoration to a while, whereof only out part is sovereignly adorable, till the several parts exist separately; for if so, we shall never adore our Lord; they do not import, that in adoring the whole, we give sovereign worship to the species, or own them to have any motive for, or to be the end of, such Adoration: for we do not allow so much to our Lord's Humanity abstractedly considered, much less to his Garments or the Sacramental veils. Wherefore if by Sacrament and Host, this Answerer would mean what the Church does, the res Sacramenti, our Lord sacramentally existing, we join issue with him, that 'tis our undoubted Doctrine, That the Sacrament or Host is adorable; but if he intends otherwise, (as we have too much occasion to conclude he does,) the Council in the very chapter cited by him, corrects his corruption of our Doctrine, in adding to this purpose for her reason of adoring the Sacrament— in the Sacrament That is adored, wherein there is an innate motive or excellence why we should worship it, and which therefore alone can be the object and end of our worship; for at this it aims in adding,— For we believe the very same God present in the Sacrament, of whom, at his introducing into the world, the Father saith, Let all the Angels adore him. So that this wise and ever to be received Synod, as it were foreseeing that men would arise speaking perverse things, prudently acquaints us with its sense of adoring the Sacrament as soon as it had declared that it may be done, straight pointing to whom the worship is directed, and on whom terminated, on him that is in it, none on it that signifies and conceals him.  
Pag. 93. l. 28. I have fully shown this new fancy to be neither the Doctrine of the Church of England, nor etc. Having granted the first three Protestant concessions, he stands at the fourth upon a pretence, that he has already refuted the Authorities whereon it is founded; which is untrue, as is manifest above, where this Champion's achievements are displayed, and reversed: and besides, to back this fourth Proposition, new Authorities are annexed from Bishop Cousins, Archbishop Bramhal, and Monsieur Daille, to which he is mute, retiring from them without the least notice or reflection.  
Pag. 94. l. 32. So that then with this limitation his [5th] Proposition that the Lutherans adore] I presume may be admitted etc. If the Answerer adhere to what he concedes p. 87.93. (i.e. in the first Supposition, and third Protestant concession) in consequence of their opinion, they all ought to adore, if they do not; and Chemnitius agrees as much, saying, No man denies it [adoration,] but such as with the Sacramentaries deny or doubt of the Presence of Christ in the Supper.  
Pag. 95. l. 12. We are ready to admit it [the 6th Concession, That the belief of a Real presence is not so criminal as to oblige them to break communion,] always supposing, that the belief of it had not been pressed etc. Then the Protestants have generally mistaken their business in spending their raillery hitherto, not on the mischief of imposition, but chief on the erroneousness of our tenets, and enormity of our practices, as both very destructive to salvation; and Dissenters do well to insist on the heinousness of enjoining, as a term of communion, what they can discern to be no better than humane inventions. If the belief of a Real presence be no such pernicious corruption, neither can Adoration that follows upon it: how then can the imposition of such inconsiderable things outweigh in guilt a rapture of Catholic communion, and a violation of charity, together with all the deadly sins of Fanaticisin and enmity, springing from division and looseness? The points are almost harmless and indifferent (our Adversaries confess;) but if imposed as a necessary Article of communion, and the disobedient anathematised, than the Church may be defied, and the belief and practice become so criminal, as to justify a separation (suppose of one Minister) from all Christians. So that when the Faith and customs of the Catholic Church give no colour for a Schism, the exercise of her Authority may; and she becomes as an heathen or a publican, for requiring such to hear her, whom our Lord hath declared shall be accounted so for not hearing her: and she must either relax her Discipline, enlarge or contract the conditions of her Society as every individual shall demand, (though they neither think nor live as she prescribes,) or become schismatical. If private Christians must be Arbiters, what shall, or shall not, be terms of Catholic communion, why may not some as justly recede from the Church, because she does not, as others because she does, impose terms, whereat these have a pique, and wherewith those are pleased? the Novatian, Donatist, and Luciferian charge against the Church was, That its communion was promiscuous, and Latitudinarian. The Accusation was false; yet they were right in this, that there are certain terms of Christian communion, which are indispensably to be submitted to by all that will be members of the Catholic Church; though all the terms, they accounted such, were not so, and not themselves but the Church was to distinguish. But here the strictness of communion is our salt, and comprehension would make either no Sectaries, or them mexcusable. However, from Daille's granting, that if the Church of Rome had obliged her children to worship Christ in the Sacrament, she had not obliged them to worship a creature, we conclude she did not impose Idolatry, because 'tis certain she never obliged them to worship any thing in the Sacrament but Christ, so that neither for her Faith, nor the imposition of it, was her communion to have been broken; unless it were unlawful for her to impose the worshipping of What is no creature, which is God.  
Ibid. l. 32.— I cannot see what his cause would gain by it, [the certainty of the six Concessions.] The advantage gained by these concessions is considerable; because, thereby the Dispute is reduced to narrower and certain bounds, and so many Objections prevented, as also Opponents silenced, (such as hold a substantial presence surely;) that I see not what the Conceders have further to allege against Adoration. Can they plead we want a due object, occasion, precept, or precedent to adore? All then but Zuinglians (a few of the latter brood of Protestants) are on our side, and these by the so much greater suffrage of Christendom are convicted of obstinacy in resisting so credible a judgement.  
Pag. 96. l. 14.— This 'tis true the Papists— affirm etc. In a kind fit we are allowed by this liberal man to affirm a sign to remain in the Eucharist after consecration, distinct from the thing signified; but then he speedily retracts so much as will make his concession a cipher. For though we affirm, That nothing can outwardly and visibly signify in any Sacrament, but what is perceivable by some sense or other; and next, That whatever is perceivable by any sense, together with all the natural properties, remains unchanged in the Eucharist; And 3ly. That we consecrate in the same elements wherein our 0203 069 Lord instituted the Sacrament: yet, because in defiance to Tradition, Reason, Revelation, and the universal profession of all times and Churches, till Luther arose, we cannot believe that the same thing can be substantially Bread and Flesh; and because we cannot think that substance to be there, which sense cannot tell us is there, and Scripture &c assures us is not there; therefore this Minister denies ours to be such a symbol as our Lord instituted, and (to be brief) declares it really nothing. Thus nothing must be an object of sense, and all that is symbolical in the Eucharist must be the substance of the Elements, which no sense can immediately perceive.  
Pag. 97. l. 32. This is indeed a sort of new Divinity. I always thought etc. Alas! That People should be so disrespectful, as not to conform their Notions to this Answerers; and so rude, as to write Divinity wherein he is not versed. But Old Divines reply, The incivility or oversight is not in them, but in this Minister, who mounts the chair, when he should be in a lower Form; and will needs be scribbling controversy, before he has stayed a due season in his Study. For, to their knowledge, the word Sacrament has a manifold sense, and is a complex term, used therefore variously, with respect to the subject of which Authors treat; just as they do Christ, Emanuel, etc. sometimes signifying by them God alone, sometimes Man, sometimes both. Whereupon Bishop Bramhall, and Mr. Thorndike, though more knowing, are less nice than this Minister, and without scruple admit the word Sacrament to be capable of more than one sense; which might have protected the former part of the Assertion from derision, as the 6th Canon of the 13th Sess. of the Council of Trent does advance the other part [viz. that by worshipping the Sacrament Catholics understand worshipping Christ in the Sacrament] beyond a private (which the Man concedes) to a Catholic Assertion, which he is loath to yield. How shall we assure Protestants concerning our Faith, if a Canon of the Council of Trent; so sacred and authentic amongst us in matters of Faith, be refused? Here's a Canon accurately publishing what all the Members of the Catholic Church must assent-to and profess; and yet, lest he be deprived of the opportunity of slandering us, this Minister will not resolve, that we believe as it prescribes. Hard is our case, since neither ourselves, nor our Divines, nor yet our Councils, must be regarded; but any silly conceited Sectary shall be better able to tell what we believe than we ourselves, or those that guide our Souls. What we do not hold, that is our Faith; and what we do believe, that is not our Faith, according to our Adversaries; and why so? if not, that their false Accusations may continue, and improve an odium on us, and delusion amongst the Multitude.  
Pag. 100 l. 6.— I must then deny his Assertion, [viz. That the ground of our Adoration is Christ present, not present after this or that manner.] The Answerer will have the 3d Assertion capable of being taken two ways, passing the one, and opposing the other. But what if they be coincident? If Christ be the object of our worship, (as seems, though saintly, to be granted under the 2d. Assertion,) then a Real presence of him, and not the manner of that presence, is the ground and occasion of our adoration, without any regard whether He be solitary, or attended by another substance. Christ, we say, not the manner of existence in the Virgin's womb, in a Manger, on the Cross, in the Grave, in Glory, or in the Eucharist, is the motive and object of our worship. For, if any one manner of existence were our inducement to adore, when that ceases, we should owe no adoration: whereupon, it must necessarily follow, that we should as much adore, if Consubstantiation were, as now Transubstantiation is, the mode of Presence we believe: because, this is not the presence itself, but a circumstance of it, not at all considered in the act of adoring, neither as object which, nor as reason why, we adore. Or thus, to Jesus Christ existing substantially in the Eucharist we direct our adoration, without respect to the coexistence or absence of any other substance; for if we worshipped him upon the account that another substance is, or is not coexistent, we must condemn worshipping in either ourselves or the Lutherans, which we do not; they worshipping with a belief, that another substance is, we, that no other is there. Whereupon, as, if no substance of the elements remains after consecration, they are only mistaken in their faith, not in their worship, only misbelieve, do not commit Idolatry; so, if the substance do remain, this will only affect our persuasion, not impair our adoration; we err about a creature, we do not idolise it. Nay, were our worship directed to Jesus Christ as alone, and so confusedly, or in general, to the whole substance of the Eucharist, and it should chance to be true, that our Lord is not the only substance present under the species; yet hence a just charge of Idolatry could not be drawn against us: because the precise object of our worship is not any created substance, but the divine person of our Redeemer; and the other concomitant substance, whatever it may by accident, does intentionally no more share in the honour we pay, than would the Scarlet Robe, should our Lord have been adored (instead of derided) therein. He that adored him at the pillar stripped, and in the common Hall arrayed in's Mock- Regalia, without an actual distinction of his garments from himself, had the same object of his piety.  
Ibid. l. 18.— I must tell him, that the adoration of those among the Lutherans— is infinitely more excusable than theirs, [the Catholics.] And this, Good Man, he is forced to assert, not out of prejudice, but by the cogency of some reasons! The Reader will admire his assurance, if he weighs his arguments. As first, because we Catholics violate sense, which the Lutherans preserve entire. Now to wave both the impertinence and falsehood of this leading Reason, as intimating that we violate sense, and that either the nature or heinousness of Idolatry depends thereon; 'tis enough to quash it, to affirm, that the Lutherans violate sense as much as we. Do they not believe the Body of our Lord present with the Bread? Do not our senses tell us, as experimentally, there is no flesh present, as they do, that Bread is there? He that says there are ten men in a Room, where sense informs there are but five, must needs treat sense with as much violence, as he that says there are but five, when ten are seen. The violence done to sense therefore (if any be done,) and so the inexcusableness, is equal on the Lutheran, to that on our side. We descend to his next Reason: the former part of it viz. that the Lutherans are right in their Object, himself has overthrown in's 89th pag. if he approve what he citys out of Dr. Taylor. For the Lutheran object is a non Ens, if Jesus Christ be not substantially present; and if He be not in ours, how can He be in their Eucharist? since our Priesthood, whereon all grant his being there in some sort depends, is more undoubted, valid, and canonical, than theirs: they deriving Sacerdotal Orders from a Presbyter's Ordination, (which all Antiquity, and Prelatic Protestants in their seuds with Presbytery, and by their present practice in ordaining such Ministers anew, damn not only as spurious, but as thursdays,) we from Episcopal legitimately communicated. If then the Lutherans be right in their object, much more are we. Have we not more assurance that our Lord is there, and He only is there? We run therefore a less risk of missing him than they. The other part of his 2d. Reason seems to be an Ignoratio Elenchi, (the common Fallacy employed by Protestants, and this Minister especially, in this dispute, to amuse and deceive his Reader): for, if I comprehend him, he proceeds on this ground; that we hold the substance of the Bread to be the material, of which the Body of Christ is made; whenas we believe nothing like it. Our Doctrine is, that by Sacerdotal consecration the substance of our Lord's Body, which now resides in Heaven, and shall enjoy that glorious condition till his second Advent, becomes however existent also under the species of Bread and Wine in a Spiritual manner, and that the substance of Bread and Wine wholly ceases to he under those species as before consecration it was: but further notice our faith takes not of the Breaden substance, whether it be annihilated, or how it ceases. If the Breaden substance be absent, than we do not adore that substance for Christ's body which is not his; and if it be present, we do not adore it, unless we can be supposed to adore what we think not of, or what we think to be nothing, or to believe and adore two substances of one Body, and be said to direct our devotion another way, at the same time we, with the strictest abstraction aim at the substance, assumed by the eternal Word in the Virgin's womb, and now and ever personally united to it. If we should worship the Eucharist whether there be a Substantial presence or no, than we might well pass for Bread-worshippers, if our Lord were not substantially present; but worshipping not so loosely at random, nor without a solid supposition of a substantial presence, demonstrates, we do direct our piety to our Saviour only, never reflecting on what either ceases or remains of the elements, so as to make them partners or rivals with him in our Duty. The truth of the 5th Catholic Assertion is then evinced: our worship is as excusable as the Lutherans, and the new auxiliary Reasons drawn up p. 102. l. ult. to oppose it afresh are indeed nothing to the purpose; and moreover, the former of them is false too. We can be sufficiently sure of due consecration; and anathematising Dissenters does not alter the excusableness of our worship. If our worship be of the same nature with the Lutheran, and have as good grounds, the imposing of it adds not one jot of guilt to it, whatever it do to the imposers. The Answerer than ought to have totally assented to the 6th Catholic Assertion, for the same sound reason which moved him to grant it true of the Lutherans, that their Object is right, ours being certainly as true, or the same with theirs; and if we mistake the substance of Bread, they worship nothing, for Christ. We worship no Host, i.e. neither any substance that ever was, or is, a breaden substance; nor yet the symbols, but only Christ sacramentally existing, who never was, nor can be, a Wafer, nor made of either the substance or accidents of Bread. How then can we possibly mistake what is not Christ for Him, unless the Christ born of the ever-blessed Virgin be not Christ? Perverse therefore is the parallel of our worship to that of a Manichees fancying Christ to be made of the Sun's substance: this, in that Heretic, was both groundless and impossible; whenas ours is quite another sentiment, and founded on motives clear and infallible: so far different in the thing, as the substance born of our Lady is from that of the Bread or the Sun; so far unlike in the ground, as the fiction of a single Persian impostor is less credible than express Revelation, and the constant Tradition of the Catholic Church.  
Much-what the same Chaff is served up p. 106. to show more difference between Us and the Lutherans, than a Trans and Con amount to. So zealous is this Polemic Divine to reduce Christians to an amicable temper, that he exceeds the bounds of discretion and reverence, not only to his own Party, and the Noblest Nations of Christendom, but also to his Prince. For whilst He and others labour for Peace, this man (like seditious Love) represents them irreconcilable. His first reason here is already exposed. There is either no, or an equal, violence done to Sense by Us and the Lutherans. His second Reason is as faulty as his first; if we are at defiance with any Texts that call the Eucharist Bread, are not the Lutherans at as much defiance with those that call it Flesh and our Lord's Body? for both it cannot be, substantially Flesh and substantially Bread. To his third Reason, viz. That the words of Institution afford occasion of inferring a Presence of Christ's Body in the Eucharist, we reply, and as plain an one, That the Eucharist is Christ's Body, and that Bread is substantially absent: and other thoughts cannot enter our minds, till it appear to us possible and revealed, that the same thing can remain perfect Bread and yet be truly the Flesh of Christ; which resolves into being Bread, and not being Bread at the same time. His last Reason of the Symbols, is of the same worth with the rest; and the impertinent application of his own mistakes refuted in our note on p. 96. No Sacrament, no substantial presence of Christ, no sacerdotal Consecration are after all left to the Papists (as He in his fret will needs interpose instead of Catholics). To what straits does his petulant acuteness drive us? In what a poor condition are we left by this meek and compassionate Minister? What does he omit (though trifling, foreign, indecent, false, or impious) that may detract from the excellence of our Religion, and represent us inexcusably erroneous and wicked?  
Pag. 108. l. 7. Does he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation, etc. He does: What then? O then, they must with him stand and fall together. A terrible case! For than he cannot Adore on the account of the Corporal Presence, but he does on the account of Transubstantiation. Wisely concluded! His Argument runs thus: If with Catholics, Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence stand and fall together, than they Adore on the account of both: But with Catholics these stand and fall together; Therefore they Adore on the account of both. The Consequence is denied.  
Ibid. l. 27. The first Ground [why Catholics believe Christ substantially present and Adorable in the Eucharist] is Divine Revelation; for which our Author offers the two usual Instances, etc. The same Instances are offered for Ours, as the Lutherans produce for their corporal presence: If they be not so defeated of them by Zuinglian Expositions as to be inexcusably culpable in their Faith and Worship, no more are we, were this first our only ground. And did not this Minister confess p. 107 to this effect, that the Lutheran Doctrine was deducible from our Lord's words? Now their Faith and Ours is only circumstantially different; that Text therefore that tells them, must needs inform us, of a substantial presence; though of both Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation it cannot.  
As to his vapour, That he has shown above how false a foundation both the words of Institution and the 6th of St. John are to a corporal presence; reviewing his first Chapter, Part 1. I find him there raving against Transubstantiation, as if those Scriptures did not countenance it; and withal laying about him, as such do who are in an Error, with so much confusion, impertinence, rudeness, absurdity, and prevarication, as if Pryn were transmigrated into him: But as his performance against Transubstantiation is ridiculously weak, and an often refuted Plea, published to swell a Pamphlet; so 'tis either nothing at all to a corporal presence and Adoration, or fights as fiercely against all Christians (but the Sacramentaries) as against us. To what he adds about sense and reason, certain contradictions, Principles of Nature, and Universal Sentiments of all Mankind; 'Tis an absurd cant, and a detestable insolence, for him to exclude us (the most of Christians, who preserved and propagated all Law and Learning for many Centuries) from sense and reason, from all skill in contradictions and principles of Nature, and from the universal sentiments of Humanity. What an amazing infatuation and transcendent pride possess this man! He had had nor Letters, nor Religion, nor Liberty, nor yet Being, but for the Professors of our Faith; and yet the ungrateful man repines even that we have the last and meanest of these.  
Pag. 109. l. 30. These are great words indeed; but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable Synods, etc. With such impotence and revile are Councils treated by a Minister; and thus the second Ground of our Faith and Service (whereon the first also in some sort depends, both as to which is a Revelation, and what it is; She being both the Promulger and Expositor of Revelations:) the Church's Conciliary Definition and Command, is lighter than Air, and as contemptible, with this Protestant, as is the most trivial act of the smallest Corporation. The Dignities which he is not afraid to vilify, are Councils, so numerous and comprehensive, so lawful and accepted, that for many Ages not one Bishop dissented from them in this case. Was not the Doctrine of the 2d Council at Nice professed by that at Frankfort? Went not the Nicene Fathers so far, that the Answerer says, they carried-on Transubstantiation? Surely then they held a Real presence, Pref. p. 6. Here we have then above six hundred Eastern and Western Bishops concurring in the Belief of a Corporal presence and Adoration in the Eighth Age: And the Occasion of their declaring the Doctrine of the Church at that time was not that any one did really question that Faith (for Erigena was then unborn) but some new language had been used by the Iconoclasts, in their discourses of the Adoration of the Eucharist, that was both suspicious and dangerous. Nor can one Prelate be named, who did not accept of the Declarations of these two Councils in this matter. All Christians than believed a Real presence, and all Adored. What our Answerer means by particular Prelates I cannot penetrate, for no Council consists of other. Unless he would insinuate, that there wanted Delegates from some National Churches, or that some Patriarch or Pope did not concur with these two, or the other held in the Eleventh Age against. Berengarius; all which yet were held by either the Pope in Person, or by his Legates, and were received by the whole Western Church, and at length by Berengarius himself. Councils these later were far greater than any Protestant Synod ever was or can be, unless it were that at Dort, consisting of at least two Bishops. When ever did an Hundred Protestant Bishops convene in One Assembly, as there did Catholics against Berengarins? A Convocation of a matter of Twenty-six at the most deserves certainly the character of a Miserable Synod better than a Council so much greater, and wherein the Bishops not only of two 〈◊〉, but of many Kingdoms appeared. Nor were these 〈◊〉 any more Parties than was the First at Nice, or the Apostolical One at Jerusalem. To say they were, is as gratis said as if Eutyches had spoken so of that at Chalcedon. And whatever reason this Minister can give, why the Councils against Berengar shall be esteemed Parties, the very same shall the Judaizers, Nestorius, and Socinus, as strongly urge to show the Synods condemning their Opinions to be Parties also. So he may seem to say something, this Man heeds not what he writes; though what he publishes, instead of enervating the authority of the Councils concerned about a Corporal presence alone, does as vigorously attack that of Councils in general. But how could our Councils be Parties, when they Defined no otherwise than they had received from Fathers both Greek and Latin, that had written the same both Synodically and as particular Doctors? How could they be Parties, when they Defined just as all Christians (One single Berengarius, and some perverted by him, excepted;) then believed and professed? Who refused their Determinations? If they had not an universal Presence of Prelates, yet the general acceptation of their Decrees is equivalent to it, and demonstrates their Doctrine, without peradventure, true; unless every Christian may in so great a point of Faith fail, and the Gates of Hell prevail over the Promise of our Saviour, and be more powerful than the conduct of the Holy Spirit; which leads, if not the chiefest and most, yet some Christians into all truth, even to the end of the world. There is neither error nor opposition in the Formulary professed by Berengarius; the difference between them is no disagreement in Doctrine, but only a condemning the different errors of that unhappy Man. That of Nicholas II. established a Real presence against the first error of Berengarius, which was what the Sacramentaries now hold. The Sense wherein the Council intended, and St. Lanfrank explains it, is Orthodox, and owned at this day. That under Greg. VII. defined Transubstantiation against the second error of Berengarius, which was Consubstantiation. This is told our Adversaries by our Divines; particularly by the Cardinal de Sacr. Euch. l. 3. c. 21. as the Form itself, cited by the Answerer in's Margin p. 111. had done his Reader, if he had not shamefully fallifyed it, by omitting both the word substantialiter, and others of singular moment. We shall convict him of his wilful Fraud, if in two Columns we annex, what Berengarius professed, and what this Man says he did.  

BERENGARIUS his Profession in the 6th Council at Rome under Greg. 7. 1079. Lup. pars quinta. p. 312.  
The Form entire. Ego Berengarius corde credo, & ore confiteor panem & vinum, quae ponuntur in Altari, per mysterium sacrae Orationis & verba nostri Redemptoris substantialialiter converti in veram & propriam ac vivificatricem carnem & sanguinem Jesu Christi Domini nostri, & post consecrationem esse verum Christi corpus quod natum est de Virgin, & quod pro salute Mund. oblatum in cruse pependit, & quod sedet ad dextram Patris, & verum sanguinem Christi, qui de ejus latere effusus est, non tantum per signum & virtutem Sacramenti, sed in proprietate Naturae & veritate substantiae. Thus Berengarius professed.  
The Form as mutilated by this Minister. Confiteor panem & vinum— converti in veram ac propriam carnem & sanguinem 1 C. D. N. & post consecrationem esse verum corpus Christi,— non tantum per signum & virtutem sacramenti, sed & in proprietate Naturae, & veritate substantiae. This speaks of a conversion, but of what kind it says not. Thus the Minister castrates the Profession made by Berengarius.   
Does the true Form mention nothing of the manner of the conversion in the Eucharist? Does it not say as clearly, as if written with a Sunbeam, that 'tis a substantial conversion of bread and wine into that body and blood which were born of the Virgin & c? If this be not, not only a corporal presence, (which serves our purpose,) but also transubstantiation, (which this man would suppress,) we must despair of producing expressions intelligible and satisfactory to our Adversaries in any matter. But how can we wonder at this corruption and palpable untruth, when we consider it was necessary to sustain many others industriously written by this Answerer in this very Pamphlet. Such is the Hyperbole in his Praef. p. 6. That Transubstantiation was unknown to the Church for above one thousand years, when not only Paulus Diaconus about 774. relates these words of St. Greg. 1. Praescius conditor nostrae infirmitatis, ea potestate, qua cuncta fecit ex nihilo, panem & vinum aqua mistum, manente propria specie, in carnem & sanguinem suum, Spiritus sui sanctificatione convertit. Strabus Auctor Glossae ord. in Gloss. cap. 11. prioris ad Cor. Nos incerta relinquentes, quod ex authoritatibus certum est, profitemur, sc. substantiam panis & vini, in substantiam corporis & sanguinis Dominici converti: modum vero conversionis nos ignorare non erubescimus fateri. Quae autem remanent de priori substantia accidentia, sc. colour, sapor, forma, pondus, nec ipsum corpus Christi afficiunt, nec in eo fundantur. This Divine lived about 840. and asserts Transubstantiation, and the separate existence of the Accidents; separate, I say, not only from the former substance, but from the Body of Christ, so as not to affect it, or be supported by it. And Stephanus Eduensis also, about 950, writes, Oramus ut oblatio panis & vini transubstantietur in corpus & sanguinem Christi. I say, not only these Writers prove, that Transubstantiation was known to the Church before a thousand years after our Lord's birth, but many more, in Centuries precedent to these, might be produced. As St. Ambrose himself in the 4th Age, l. De iis qui initiantur mysteriis, c. 9 says, etiam benedictione natura ipsa mutatur. His co-temporary St. Greg. Nyss. uses the same expression, as does too the Ancient Sermon de coena Dom. amongst St. Cyprian's Works, cited and much relied-on in the 9th Age, as both very ancient, and very orthodox. It says, the Bread given by our Lord to his Disciples, changed not in effigy, but natura, was by the omnipotence of the Word made Flesh. Nay, our Answerer, that he may consist with himself, within a few lines confesses; that a Monk was laying the foundation of it in the 7th Age; which Monk did not speak so highly of the Eucharist as St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, or St. Chrysostom had done long before him, as may easily be discerned by such as please to compare their expressions: and besides, 'tis ridiculous to fancy such did not believe a substantial presence, (the point in hand,) who are taxed to be founding or erecting the superstructure of Transubstantiation. He goes on confessing against himself, that a General Council carried on Transubstantiation in the 8th, and another Monk (the great Protestant eyesore Paschasius) formed it into a better shape in the 9th century; yet all this while the Founders, the carriers-on, those that furnished features and drapery, never heard of what they were designedly at work about. Nay, though some of the Agents were General Counsellors, and even General Councils themselves, i.e. the whole Church was in a plot against truth and piety, and was ignorant of the conspiracy. This Minister was resolved to be absurd beyond imitation.  
Again, such another Hyperbole is what he says of Peter Lombard, in the Margin of this 111th p. for the Master often professes, that the substance of the Bread and Wine is turned into that of Christ's Body and Blood, and only the manner of that substantial conversion is in question with him, as also with his commentators, Scotus, Durand, and many others misquoted Pref. p. 7. of which falsities ignorance (if it were in fault) cannot excuse him, since either the Authors themselves, or the Letter printed 1665, discovering these amongst 150 false or wrested quotations in Dr. tailor's Dissuasive, might so easily have informed him. As to the irreverent Descants on the Great Council, celebrated at Lateran by the most learned and prudent Innocent 3. it is observed; That when the deposing Power must be imputed to us as an Article of our Creed, than that Council is obligatory, and Mr. Dodwel has proved it so; but when it defines Transubstantiation, than the Canons are surreptitious, and a Papal contrivance, and Du Pin may be found in the Margin. One while that Council enters the Stage, conferring power on the Pope to dethrone Kings, and on Priests (as if there had been no Priesthood before that Council) to make God. Another while, all this was forced upon the Fathers of that Synod, or published as their Act, without their privity, by a pragmatical and intriguing Pope. What would the man be at? Is his Arrogance content with no less than confirming and rescinding General Councils arbitrarily?  
Pag. 113. l. 23.— As to the point of Antiquity, I have already fully discussed it above etc. I suppose he means from p. 24. to 32; where we may find indeed much passion against Transubstantiation, but we are not so  as to confound it with corporal presence, the thing here in discussing. And for the Fathers referred to by the Discourser, where shall we find the Protestant Answers to St. Ambrose, de iis qui init. Mist. c. 9 to St. Hilary, St. Cyril. Alex? Are these spurious too? Are not those ascribed to St. Ambrose, Eusebius Emisenus, sermo de coena Domini, the Epist. of the Presbyt. of Achaia concerning St. Andrew's passion, much more ancient than either Paschasius in the West, or Anastasius Sinaita in the East? Were they ever excepted against as containing Doctrine disagreeable to that of the Church, though, thro' the negligence of Transcribers, the true Authors of them be not very certain? It is not a Book's being attributed, by a mistake, to a wrong Author, but its containing suspicious Doctrine or false Relations, and being fathered on eminent Names to pass it with authority in the world, that chief subjects it to the censure of Apocryphal. But why should a doubt concerning the Author of such Books elude the testimony fetched from them, when St. Ambrose in a Book unquestioned, and others more ancient, coeval, or not much juniors to the questioned pieces, as St. Gandentius, St. Remigius, &c, writ as fully for not only a corporal presence, but also Transubstantiation.  
Pag. 114 l. 9— This Ground [the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time] is not certainly true, and if it were, yet certainly it is nothing to the purpose. 'tis certainly true, if the whole may be determined to be on that side, where all the members of the Church are, for whosoever denied this Faith of a corporal presence was ipso facto an Heretic in opposing an Article so weighty, and so solemnly declared and required of all the faithful, in at least ten Councils before Zuinglius dreamt. But the Apostates from a corporal presence were indeed very few before, and, of those few, scarce one was in being at, Luther's revolt, he also continuing a bitter enemy to the Sect that soon grew upon him. If true, 'tis certainly to the purpose, whilst this is true, That all Christians to a man cannot miscarry in such a considerable part of Religion as the Eucharist is, which they daily frequented, and the belief of which real Presence in it was by many ways continually inculcated and confirmed to them. Such an unanimous and comprehensive Tradition does at least demonstrate the novelty and falsehood of Zuinglianism. What Article in our Creed can have a stronger external motive than universal consent? And as to the perpetuity of it, other Articles have been sooner and longer, and by more numerous Factions opposed than it. For of those who have raised debates about the Eucharist the least part are they who denied a substantial Presence, the other quarrelling either about Transubstantiation, or Communion in both kinds, or some other matter, yet all the while confessing a real Presence. Well, to let the Reader understand more fully the seriousness and judgement of this Minister; the Argument esteemed impertinent, and ridiculed by him here, is this.  
The Authority equi-valent to that of any General Council is a solid Ground of Faith; but the unanimous profession of all Christians in the last Ages is an Authority equivalent to that of a General Council, therefore that unanimous profession is a solid Ground of Faith. The Major is owned by all such Protestants as submit their judgements to the Authority of such Councils as condemned Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Origen and the Monothelites, assenting to their Definitions as the true sense of Divine Revelations, and reciting some of them even in their Creeds. The Minor is founded on not only Protestant concessions, but also their Definition of a true Church; that it has the Word of God rightly preached, and the Sacraments duly administered; according to this character then, if all preached corporal presence, it could not be an error in all, and so not in any, unless there were no true preachers, and consequently no Church, in some times extant. Now if an unanimous profession cannot be erroneous, 'tis doubtless equal to the Authority of any General Council, and also very pertinently pleaded as a solid ground of Faith; for whatever can declare a Divine Revelation infallibly, is so.  
Pag. 115. l. 30. If we did acknowledge this [5th Ground, That since Luther's time no small number of Protestants &c acknowledge a real and adorable Presence, &c,] yet it seems we are mistaken etc. It seems rather that you are extremely conceited, who contend against as well the first, chiefest, and best Protestants, and the genuine Sons and eminentest Superiors in your own Church, as the Catholic Church; and all thro' that proud pretence, that your Sense, Reason, and expositions of Scripture and Antiquity, how wild and unsound soever, are absolutely certain, and not, as we know them to be, mere presumptions. Is not this an advancing of yourself as a standard of truth and science, and a requiring (what you so vehemently decry in the Catholic Church, and shun in your self) submission of all judgements to your Fancies? The Protestant owning of a substantial Presence is not said to be a ground for our believing Transubstantiation; but yet it is an argument against other Protestants for that Faith of a corporal presence, which is common to some of their party with us; and also animates us to persist in it, since those, who have quitted our communion, and relinquished our faith in other matters, discern so strong Motives to retain this, that (though very willing) they cannot, without violence to their consciences, renounce it.  
Pag. 117. l. 20. It is confessed by the greatest men of their Church etc. A forgery. Our great men make the contrary confession; and if any of them seems to speak towards what this Minister feigns, it is with respect to Transubstantiation, not a corporal presence; particularly Scotus, misquoted Praef. p. 6. That most subtle Doctor (as has been often answered to this most impudent objection) lays it down; That the Points discussed by him in his 4ti Dist. 11. q. 3. do all intent to maintain, That the Body of Christ is truly in the Eucharist; because to deny that is plainly against Faith, for it was expressly, from the beginning of the Institution of the truth of Faith, that the Body of Christ is contained there truly and really.— And afterwards in his Reply to Objections, fixing on Transubstantiation as the manner of the substantial presence, he adds; And if you demand why the Church chose this so difficult a sense [i. e. of Transubstantiation being the manner] of this Article, when the words of Scripture may be rendered in a sense easy, and as to appearance truer concerning this Article. To this Objection he returns: I say that the Scriptures are expounded by [the direction of] that Spirit by which they were composed. And so it is to be supposed, that the Catholic Church hath interpreted by the same Spirit by which the Faith was delivered to us, viz. taught by the Spirit of truth, and therefore she chose this sense because it is true. For it is not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true, but of God the Institutor; but the Church directed herein, as 'tis believed, by the Spirit of truth, hath explicated the sense delivered [to Her] by God.— Now 'tis evident, that the Schoolman is here speaking of Transubstantiation, not of the corporal presence: next, that he says, not the facility or appearance of a sense to be that designed in Scripture, is to be regarded in Faith, but the declaration of the Church, in whose custody the traditive sense of Scripture, i.e. what God intended, not what we surmise, is deposited, and by whose mouth the Holy Spirit speaks. Lastly, that the Declaration of the Church is for Transubstantiation, therefore this must be concluded to be the proper sense of Scripture, though that Scripture sound never so plausibly for some other sense. Our Adversaries persevering in an imposture with so much pertinacy and immodesty, extorts this tedious Repetition. All we shall further remark upon it, is; that it yields this Minister a very wholesome Instruction how to interpret Scripture, not by Jewish customs, nor Rabbinical Deliriums, not by the superficial notices of sense, or vain Maxims and cheating suggestions of Science falsely so called, but by the Guidance of the Church, assisted with the Holy Spirit; for of these two Directors in expounding Scripture this Minister seldom has regard: whilst Catholics inquire of the Church what sense the Holy Spirit chief designed, and without hesitancy adhere to that she gives, whether it be literal or mystical: because our Lord's promise of assisting the Church, and leading her into all truth, is so absolute, that we think we may as justly distrust his being the Messiah, as be jealous of his Fidelity or Providence in acquitting himself of this engagement. Should we not be suspicious, if without apprehension, nay with perfect firmness and security we did not acquiesce in her expositions? And how many of those, who have leaped from this Rock and committed themselves to the conduct of a Private spirit, are now carried away by the wind of Socinianism, Judaisme, Mahomatism or irreligion; whilst we, that stand on it, have not only the same Faith still, but cannot possibly fail by misbelief.  
Pag. 118. l. 7. It is undeniable that their Interpretation of those words [of Institution] destroys the certainty of sense etc. If he mean our interpretation of a corporal presence, than he contradicts what he thrice told us, that the Lutherans do no violence to sense: but if he mean the Interpretation of Transubstantiation, his observation is wide of the point contested. But in both meanings 'tis false; for we derogate from sense not in the least, and if we did in one-case, in obedience to Faith, (whereto we think sense may as justly be captivated as the understanding), that will not infer, we may in another, destitute of such a revelation, till a particular premise can support an universal conclusion. The Fallacy and Ignorance of this importunate Argument, so often brought, and so often baffled and exposed, must certainly be used by these men merely to deceive the People. As to the Paradox of Miracles being discoverable by sense only, we refer this Minister to Calvin, Bishop Forbes, and many other, Classic Reformers, for correction, who esteem them stupid that disclaim the Eucharistical Miracles; and truly by sense we discern none there. How then, by your favour, came they to discern Miracles in the Eucharist? But, what? Was there no miracle in the conception of our Lord? What sense acquaints men with it? That he was a Man we might know by sense, but that he was miraculously conceived, only Revelation not Experience assures all besides his Mother. To pass this, how comes it to be collected, that if one of the evidences of the truth of Christianity cannot be had, straight our certainty of the truth of Christianity is destroyed? Tell me I pray, were Miracles its sole evidence? Were accomplishments of Old Testament-prophecies none, or uncertain? Had all Believer's miracles before they assented? Did none believe with certainty, but such as had Miracles to attest what was tendered to them? What's become of the Beatitude, Blessed are those that have not seen (a miracle, Christ risen,) and yet have believed [on the credible relation of others, and because it was foretold he should rise, etc.]? If the performance of something in Nature, otherwise than any created Power uses, or can do, I say, the performance of it by Power Divine be a Miracle, and that such a performance may be effected in spiritual as well as sensible affairs, the knowledge of which may and must be attained, if it be had, by an information not sensible, than the confining of Miracles to be objects of Sense is exploded. Having thus overturned two of his Observations, his Arguings from them vanish as do all other Bubbles.  
Pag. 119. l. 4.— No Papist can have any Reason to believe Transubstantiation to be true, but because he reads those words of holy Scripture, etc. A Papist has the same Reason to believe Transubstantiation, though he cannot read at all, as the first Christians had before the Gospels were written, or a blind man has now. The mistake of Dr. Stillingfleet, Tillotson, Tenison, this Answerer, and others, insisting so eagerly and obstinately on the Authority of Sense, grows (if it be not an Artifice) perhaps from their taking the Maxim, Nothing is in the Intellect which was not before in the Senses, absolutely; as if the only Conveyer of Notices to the Mind were the Senses; or no thought had its birth there without an external promter; whenas (to omit the ill consequences etc. of the later) there are other means of acquainting the Intellect without the concurrence of the Senses; as by Good and Bad Spirits, etc. Now these either convey always the same Notices, as the Senses, or they do not; if they do, than the Mind must ever judge with the Senses; which is against experience: If they do not, how comes the Intellect to determine against the Notices of Sense: e. g. in the Magnitude of the Sun? Surely it neglects the information of Sense, either upon some other more powerful motive and overruling remonstrance than Sense has given, or arbitrarily; but whether way soever it goes, the Maxim is rejected, and the Mind, 'tis clear, does not find itself obliged to determine in all cases as Sense deposes. Sense then is no Judge, but only a conveyer of Intelligence to the Judge, according to which Intelligence (we confess) that Judge is to censure and resolve, except when better Intelligence from Reason or Revelation be interposed, and arrest such a Judgement. Now Sense informs a Catholic Mind (that hath so much Learning as to read, which Protestants think few have, they are so ignorantly educated), that the words of Institution are in that Book the Church tells him are the Gospels, and neither Reason nor Revelation countervening this Notice, a Papist judges with certainty according to the deposition of the Senses; but when a Papist desires to proceed further, and would understand not only that there are such words, but also what is that very meaning, not which may be put upon them, (wherein his sense and reason may assist him), but which the Holy Ghost intended, and the Church holds, than he relies not on his senses or reason only, because he knows the sentiments of Men to be very different, as amongst themselves, so from the Church's and Holy Spirit's; and if he might rely on his own, so might others, and consequently collect opposite truths from their discordant conceptions. Wherefore, he resorts to that hand which reached out to him the words of Institution as God's word, to give him also their true meaning, which he receives, and professes without demur or fear. And thus Papists arrive at all saving-truth; thus they attain Unanimity, and learn not only to think, but speak the same thing; whilst the minds and language of all Sectaries, who pretend to follow sense and reason only in their Interpretation of Scripture, are at wars and Babilonish. For, private Spirits are many, and are Dissenters; but the Church, the Holy Spirit is but One, and at Unity with itself. And, thus, I suppose, not our, but the Minister's, culpable ignorance is apparent.  
Ibid. l 28.— But let us quit this Reflection; etc. Content, If he would not hasten to new untruths. Where is it confessed, that we have neither command, nor example, in Holy Scripture for Adoring our Lord in the Eucharist? If there he any command for Adoring our Lord at all, there is for Adoring him in the Eucharist: For, once Adorable and he is always and  Adorable, in what condition or circumstances soever; and special injunctions or instances are not of necessity to warrant or oblige us to Adore. St. Austin knew there was a command, or he would not have said in Psal. 98. Peccemus non Adorando. Again, though we confess that Defects may possibly happen, yet who grants them to be infinite or difficultly avoidable? Is it not rather difficult (considering the Caution of the Church) that any defects should chance, which are destructive to the Eucharist? Can we not have a moral certainty the Priest has the Orders to which he pretends? Do not our Senses inform us, as to both the matter and Form of the Sacrament, and the serious application of the one to the other? As to the intention, 'tis true, it is deemed necessary (will the Minister profess that none is needful to the performance of a Religious Action?) but what degree or sort of intention, is a Question in the Schools; some Divines requiring more, some less. Of the later kind, if he please, the Reader may view what Contenson writes of it, Theolog. Mentis & Cordis, l. 11. p. 1. Diss. 2. Append. §. 2. etc.— It is undoubtlingly to be asserted, says this Modern Divine, that an Intention of seriously performing the External Rites, amongst Christians counted Religious, suffices for the validity of a Sacrament; and, that being observed, no retention nor perverseness of the Minister's Intention doth void a Sacrament. This Position he confirms by many Authorities, and concludes them with that of the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. Cap. 6. Can. 9 where that Holy Synod declares the Sacrament not to be performed, if a Priest act in Jest, etc. inferring thereupon, that the Council understood by an Intention of doing what the Church does, not (as this Minister) of doing what the Church intends, but a doing with external seriousness what the Church prescribes. Which inference he enforces by Cardinal Palavicini's Reflection on that Passage of the Council, par. 2. l. 12. c. 10.— From these last words, any one reading them may conjecture, that the Opinion of Catherine and other Divines, thinking a Will in the Minister to act seriously suffices for, and that only Jesting (which the Receiver of the Sacrament may discover) does obstruct, the accomplishment of a Sacrament, was not expunged. According to this Doctrine then, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not depend on the Priest's believing Transubstantiation, or secretly intending to Consecrate, etc. but only on an external intention to do seriously what the Church injoins, which is very discernible to the Attendants by the Priest's exterior actions and deportment. How many therefore of the Answerer's Dangers and Defects are blown away? And if Adoration may at any time be paid to our Lord in the Eucharist, it may ordinarily be so, without any scruple, by Catholics.    

Appendix II.  

ANIMADVERSIONS upon the Reply to the two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Holy Eucharist.  
SOME time ago were printed in OXFORD Two Discourses, the one concerning the Alterations in the Church-Service of the Church of England; the second, concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. The Design whereof was to show the incertitude and inconstancy of the Church of England in her Doctrine and Practices. [Whence it will follow, That none can trust or rely upon her Authority, nor safely either believe or practise according to her directions.] Of both these the Author took these two Articles as a manifest and sufficient instance. But because there is nothing so true, against which somewhat may not be spoken, there have been opposed to these two Discourses, an Answer, printed at London; and a Reply, at Oxford: neither of them taking much notice of the Author's intention, but spending their learning chief about Transubstantiation, I cannot say altogether from, but not much to, the purpose. Both of them also declare their own opinions to be against the Real presence of our Saviour's body and blood in that holy Sacrament, and thereby acknowledge themselves members of the modern or present Church of England, and consequently minister another argument of the inconstancy and weakness of that Church. And so let them do. But that they should persuade us, that the ancient Church of England and her best writers were of the same judgement, cannot be performed; it being both against their express writings, and the judgement generally of their new Church, as of Baily, Prin, Hen: Hickman, and as many as have written to justify the Puritans against the Church of England, who all accused the Antipuritans (as Heylin, Laurence, Pocklinton, and the rest) to have been Popishly affected: as also did the pretended Reformers, (in their Doctrine forsaking Calvin, and embracing Zuinglius,) who upon this ground, amongst some others, refused to communicate with those of the Church of England, (though of late they denied not to admit the Lutherans.) To these Reformers the new Church of England-men have been pleased (for reasons well enough perceived) to join themselves. Neither is there any thing considerable in the one, which is not in the other, of these writers. The Answerer seems to have more learning, the Replier is better at cavilling and mockery, and had it not been to show this talon, he needed not to have troubled the world with a new Book. He saith indeed it is in defence of their quarters; but for this, who is bonae, who malae fidei possessor, we appeal to the judgement of our pious and munificent Founders; who will one day declare whether they designed their bounties for them, who hold it not lawful to pray for them, who frustrate their chief intention, count them Idolaters, and members of a false Church.  
It was long deliberated, whether it were worth the labour to take any public notice of these Pamphlets. It was said; that they were so crudely, negligently, and uncandidly written, that no man of parts, learning, or true piety, could be misled by them: That the Discourses (notwithstanding these oppositions) remain not only unshaken and unviolated, but much confirmed and justified, when so many persons (both at London and Oxford) can find no other besides these weak and insignificant exceptions against them, though they take the liberty to say what they please, even to the defamation of their own Church: That, every thing said against another's writing, (as there is nothing more easy than to misrepresent, change, cavil, &c, even against truth itself,) however called, is not an Answer. St. Austin complained of his Adversaries the Pagans, (who writ against his Books, de civet. Dei l. 5. c. 27.) Facile est cuiquam videri respondisse cum, qui tacere noluerit. Quid est loquacius vanitate? quia ideo non potest quod veritas, quia si voluerit etiam plus potest clamare quam veritas etc. The Vulgar, for whose palates these discourses seem cooked, (who make themselves Judges of the most difficult controversies, whereof they are least capable,) pronounce against him who replieth not speedily; and is of his side who is not silent: That our Author's writings carry with them such evidence and satisfactoriness, by the perfection of their d sposition, stile, learning, arguing, &c, (which every ingenious Reader sees by experience,) that we need not fear to suffer those already printed to pass without a vindication, or to publish those, which as yet remain with us, without alteration.  
But because care is also to be taken for young men, for such as are doubting, or weak in the faith, and especially for such as in sincerity seek after the truth, and may be deturned from it either by the craftiness, or confidence, of its Adversaries: and because we would not be altogether wanting to our duty, or leave the defence of the Truth to her self, we have taken this course to print; 1. A short Treatise many years ago written, of the great controversy concerning the Eucharist, wherein in a manner the whole opposition of the Answer and Reply is prevented, and both the truth and diversity of Opinions concerning the presence of our Lord in the Sacrament plainly laid open to such as are desirous to know it. 2. Two Appendices; the first against the Answerer, proving copiously and manifestly, That the Ancient and Learned Divines of the Church of England did acknowledge, as their writings every where set forth, some real and substantial presence of our Lord, such as is ascribed to them by the two Treatises. The second chief aims at as plain and easy an Explication of the Doctrine of the Church in this great mystery as we can; and to remove the prejudices and offences which the Replier, with others of the new Zuinglian Church of England pretend against it. And though the Doctrine of the Catholic Church hath been so often manifestly proved against their exceptions, yet do they continually repeat the old Objections; insomuch that we have no hopes to do good to them, nor to any such as take delight in insolence and scoffery (the most obvious and trivial sort of wit, the daughter of uncharitableness, and mother of libels, and all sort of scurrility) against those, who endeavour themselves to follow, and manifest to others, the true and undoubted Church of God, and way of salvation.  
And they, who for this pious endeavour are mocked and scorned, ought not to make returns in the same nature, (than which nothing is more easy to him that takes liberty of saying what he pleaseth,) but possess themselves in patience; considering, that their condition were very much to he suspected, if they were not thus treated; for these are Indices of a righteous cause, and tracks of their Predecessors. And indeed; what less can they expect, who (according to their duty to the holy Catholic Church, their Prince, and Nation,) spend themselves and their time to reduce their countrymen (for whose sake, as S. Paul for the Jews, they are ready to sacrifice their lives, and all they have) out of the most horrible and fatal sin of Schism to the Unity of the Church? out of the dangerous principles of disobedience and sedition, to a just and due submission unto their own Prince: and out of popular and rebellious Persuasions and suggestions to an establishment of a firm and grounded peace a and unity of the Church and Nation.  
§ 1 1. Note, that there is a Natural body, and there is a Spiritual body: 
Concerning the Real presence of our Lord in the Eucharist.  the same body under several proprieties and conditions. The Natural we call that, which enjoys the same qualities wherewith it was created, and, as the Natural Philosophers treat of it; such are dimensions, figure, weight, impenetrability, circumscription by place, motion, sensibility, and the like. But the same body, quit of those conditions, and now spiritualised, is under far different proprieties, even those which belong to Angels and Spirits, to whom they become 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, pares or aequales, as becoming one Church and oeconomy with them. Those we may best conceive by the histories in the Scripture of the apparitions of Angels, or, if you please, by our own Souls; which, though penetrating every atom of the Body, and communicating to it all its powers, yet is but one in the whole; and yet in every part is it wholly, whether the body be bigger or lesser, mutilated or entire, neither parted, diminished, or doubled, nor yet many but the same soul wholly in every part. For it is not in the body, as in a place; except we (as this Replier seems) bring in Cartesianism, and confine the soul to the glandula pinealis; or if, as is most consonant to his principles, to some one atom of it, (contrary to the doctrine of all Christian Philosophers,) and the virtue and efficacy of it only communicated to the other parts of the body. So a Spiritual body (however this be hard to conceive by imagination, in this state accustomed to sensation and materiality) hath no certain dimensions, figure, weight, sensibility, or alteration, nor circumscription by place, but as itself pleaseth to discover itself. So besides the examples of the Angels, our Lord appeared and disappeared, continued and vanished, passed thro' gross bodies, and the like, as himself pleased. Now from circumscription by place (or an ambient body) ariseth naturally an impossibility to be in several places at once. Naturally, I say, because by the power of God even this quality, as well as the rest, may be separated from the natural body, as it was by his  wisdom freely given unto it. It seems to me little less than blasphemy to say, That the Almighty power, which at first created a natural body with such properties, cannot also suspend the actions of those Properties, or conserve the subject without them; it being the same as saying, that He cannot work a Miracle; all Miracles being a superseding his own rules which he established against all other Natural, but not against his own Divine, Power. And, why not suspend locality, a relative property belonging to the Body, as a Member of the Universe, as well as weight, or motion, which seem more absolute and intrinsecal to the nature of the body? Why cannot he contravene to one Rule as well as to another, especially when there is no contradiction? As there is none in this case of our Lord's presence in the Eucharist, as both our Author and all Catholics affirm, notwithstanding the Repliers shuffling to fasten such an Opinion upon him. To be here and not here, may be a contradiction; but to be here and there, is none. But what more contradiction is it, than that five Loaves carried by a little Boy should feed five thousand men, and much more remain than was at first; a Miracle preparatory to this of the Blessed Sacrament. And without penetration of Bodies (which granted, introduceth the possibility of a Body's being in several places) how can a Camel pass thro' the Eye of a Needle, which yet is possible with God; as is what our Lord saith of himself, when upon Earth, that he was also in Heaven, Jo. 1.18.3.13.7.34.  
But as a Spirit is not at all confined to place, so nothing hinders why it may not coexist with Bodies in distinct places, by which alone we know its being in several locations, (though indeed it is in no location at all in proper speaking, contrary to what our Replier affixeth to Catholics), as Elisha's Spirit went along with his Servant; and St. Paul's joyed in beholding the orderly carriage of the Colossians; and the Evil Spirits also (a whole Legion possessing one, one Spirit inhabiting almost every atom of his Body), and the blessed tutelar Angels continually behold the face of God in Heaven, as well as attend their charge upon Earth. Whereby it seems, exempt from the conditions of Bodies.  
So then Catholics say, That the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not now under the properties of a natural body; nor is it necessary that it should be locally anywhere, nor heavy, nor subject to motion, passibility, or the like. And when Catholics say, that our Lord's natural body, or that he is corporally present; they mean, That his body, even that natural body received of the B. Virgin (for he hath no other) is really, truly, and indeed present, and given to us, in the Eucharist; but not so corporally, i. e. with those properties of, or as a natural body, (for corporally and locally are not the same, as our Replier everywhere stumbles,) but as spiritual, and being now glorified: yet therefore not as dead (an irreverent expression, to say no worse, of the Replier) but yet as given, and having suffered for us; even in the same manner as himself, our blessed Highpriest, continually Offereth it up to the Father for us.  
Again, Note, That the bestowing and receiving of the benefits of our Lord's Passion is giving somewhat real, but that real is not his body and blood, nor in proper speaking are those the benefits of his body and blood (for then they could not be received without the body and blood, whereas now they are, according to our Replier, accidents without a subject, and effects without a cause), but of his passion and sufferings. And therefore our Saviour declares the use and benefit of his body and blood by eating and drinking, which are not compatible to the benefits of his passion by any metaphor, or similitude whatsoever. And therefore the Second Edition of the English Common-Prayer-Book leaves out these words, The body and blood etc. and only says, Take and eat this [Bit of Bread and Sup of Wine] in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by Faith with thanksgiving. And the first Edition of the Catechism saith, Fidem esse os animae, quo cibum hunc plane divinum & salutis juxta & immortalitatis plenum, & Spiritus Sancti gratia communicatum recipimus. Faith is improperly said to receive (except in the sense of those Protestants who take it for application of Christ's personal righteousness to us:) but what resembles eating and drinking in or by Faith, or what actions of Faith correspond to them I cannot imagine.  
But our Saviour represents his body unto us under the notion of meat and its effects, particularly the Manna, whereunto he compares it. Such are, 1. To conserve, nourish, advance, restore in us what by worldly conversation, and the like, is decayed and weakened; and to strengthen us in our Spiritual life and estate, as the Food itself was Spiritual. 2. By uniting us to the Food, (Flesh of his Flesh, Bone of his Bone) (contrary to the Manna and natural meat, which receive life from the nourished) it makes us partakers of his Life, which being immortal and glorious, renders ours such also. And 3. Other Food being either inanimate, or having a Life inferior unto, and differing from ours; this Body of his is become superior, more Divine than ours, and is a quickening Spirit. And therefore we should receive his Body and Blood after the manner of natural bodies (which the Capernaites and our sensual Doctors can apprehend) it would profit us nothing, as to the great effects promised by our Receiving in the Eucharist. And these effects are true and real (not notional or imaginary, or by Faith only apprehended), yea much more than the Manna. Faith being an assent in the understanding, is quite different from enjoyment in the will and affections. And Faith, i. e. a believing either that our Lord was the true Messiah, or Messenger from the Father (for else he could not be the true Bread which came down from Heaven), or that this, which is given us, is the real Body of our Saviour (for else it would be only common Bread), precedes the Receiving, yet is not any part of it, much less the enjoyment of any of the effects of it. Again, If eating by Faith (whatever it signifies) be all that is meant in the Eucharist, how comes it to be preferred before the Manna, which was a continual Miracle, and daily exercise of their Faith? And why would our Lord suffer so many of his Followers to go away from him, when he might in so few words have informed them of the Truth without a Metaphor? Why should he use such sublime and spiritual expressions, repeating it to be his body and blood, that it came down from Heaven, that he would give it for the life of the world, etc. and not once explain the meaning of those, to them, obscure phrases? And if the Church Catholic, and even the Church of England till the last of King Edward VI. had not conceived some great Mystery, why would she keep the words so obscure, and really, as they suppose, improper, of the Institution so precisely, even till the Church of England made the breach, and by the Expressions different from the whole Church, professed herself not to be a Member of it? But of this sufficient is said before, and in the Reformation of the Church of England, from §. 148. Wherefore the Catholics, speaking of the real presence of our Lord, mean●, the very essence, substance, the very thing itself is there present, taken, and eaten by us; and not only the benefits of his Passion believed by us. And in the Church's sense we use in this Discourse the words really, really present, etc. and yet not naturally, locally, or any other manner of its being according to the qualities of a natural body.  
§ 2 And note secondly, That these Writers, and others pretending to be of the Church of England, by their spiritual, by Faith, mystical, eating (which they sometimes also call Sacramental) intent a sense contrary and opposite to eating the natural body of our Lord spiritualised, and that is all the eating they acknowledge. The Catholic Church also useth the same word spiritual in opposition to real, or sacramental; meaning thereby the reception of some spiritual grace or increase of it. As the Fathers in the Wilderness did eat the same meat (Manna and the Rockwater) spiritually, in as much as these were Types of spiritual things under the Gospel, by receiving whereof they also obtained the graces of God's Spirit. And this spiritual reception of Grace is not only in the Eucharist, but in all the other Sacraments, in all actions of Devotion and Piety, and all manner of well-using Grace once given. But this is not all the Sacramental receiving, though contained in it. So that there are two manners of receiving Grace, and our Saviour: 1. Spiritual only, which our Replier says is all. 2. Spiritual and real, or Sacramental; because proper to the Eucharist. The real without the spiritual profiteth nothing, yea it is also damnable. For except a man come to the Eucharist well prepared, i. e. by Mortifications, Devotions, Acts of Religion (i. e. in a state of Grace) he eats and drinks condemnation to himself. The spiritual receiving without the real profiteth indeed, but neither so much, nor in such manner, as when they are joined both together: For spiritual receiving is of more Grace upon well-using the former, is only in general, and in the inner man; therefore difficultly discerned, and more subject are we to be deceived in it. But real receiving (as all other Sacraments) is instituted to help the weakness and imperfect discernment of our spiritual and internal condition by the visible signs of invisible Grace therein bestowed. The spiritual eating gives us a right and title to Grace, but the other is the very instrument of conveying it. Also in that, Grace is given according to the measure of the Receiver's disposition; and that Grace also which is of the same nature with those dispositions. But in the Sacraments are given new and peculiar Graces; as in Baptism, the forgiveness of all sins already committed, and admission into the Church of Christ, and all the rights and benefits thereof: So in the holy Eucharist, there is conferred also forgiveness of sins, and a nearer incorporating us into our Lord himself more intimately, and consequently a more certain hope and confidence of eternal life; by receiving himself into us, who is now become a quickening Spirit unto us, working by his body received (the seed of immortality) all things necessary or useful to our happy progress thither. Be pleased therefore to consider; Whether they, who acknowledge no other than a spiritual receiving, do not either quite evacuate the power and efficacy, or at least diminish much and weaken the force of this divine Sacrament? And also, that whoever they are, who endeavour to subject or reduce Religion to the Rule of Reason, do not in effect deny and despise the wisdom of God declared in the mystery of our holy Religion?  
§. 3 Note Thirdly, That Catholics trouble not themselves to reconcile Religion to Philosophy. Their endeavour is to understand the true sense of what God hath revealed; and to this purpose they make use of all the helps which others do, but principally depend upon what the Church Catholic and her Doctors from time to time have received and declared; i. e. how they, to whom our Lord committed his Mysteries, have from the beginning believed and delivered that charge delivered unto them; how the practice hath interpreted the Law; and how the Holy Spirit, by his Instruments the Clergy of the Catholic Church, hath continued it down to their time. Nor do they regard what either private interpretation, or what Philosophy, or Principles framed by men's understandings out of their experience or frame of Languages suggest. They leave these to them, who affect to diminish the unfathomable knowledge communicated to us by God in his Revelations; to Arians, Socinians, Latitudinarians, and other Doctors of Sensuality. But the true sense of things revealed being settled, they argue and reason thereupon as much as they please, according to rules natural to the Understanding, and perfected by the Art of Logic. The Rules and Artifice of Reasoning, I say, they use and approve; but such principles as are observed out of Nature and her operations, they subordinate to Faith. So that in strict and proper speaking, they do not oppose Faith to Reason, but only to Philosophy. For if the intellect be rasa Tabula, it can argue from nothing (though Arguing and Reasoning be its chiefest work, to which it is naturally directed) but what it receives from without, either by the Senses, and information of others, or by Revelation, [except (which is very rare) that God by himself, or a good Angel, immediately illuminates the Understanding (as in foretelling things future or absent), or by means of some representation received by the Imagination]. Now though the expression, notification, and apprehension of things revealed, is indeed conveyed to us in words comprehended by sense, yet the thing signified is not discovered by the ordinary notions of sensual knowledge, but by the Word and Spirit of God revealing it; which doth not only represent more objects to the understanding, but also enlightens the faculty, and enableth it to discern spiritual things as much clearer than Nature teacheth, as a man can better discern by the light of the midday Sun than by the glimmering of the Moon; or in a clear air than in the thickest mist. The outward sensible Word is of men, and according to humane speech; but the internal Word is known to us only by Jesus Christ, who by these ordinary sounds (the Holy Spirit concurring with them) conveyeth to us the great and otherwise incomprehensible mysteries of our salvation; which are therefore trampled on and despised by the worldly wise, who reduce all our knowledge to, and measure it by, sense and reason.  
So then, it is not reason which the Catholics oppose, but the principles of reasoning taken from Aristotle, experience, humane testimonies, vain Philosophy, and the like. To all which we prefer those propositions of that most Sacred Religion first discovered by our Lord Jesus Christ in his personal conversation here on earth, and after his departure continued and propagated in and to his Church by his holy Apostles, and their Successors, to the end of the world. Nor can it be said that these propositions or principles of Philosophy are more rational than those de fide, any more than the principles of one Science are more rational than those of another. As for contradiction of faith upon the account of sense, (which in effect amounts to the denial of faith,) it hath been so often and clearly answered, (particularly in the preceding short Discourse,) that it seems needless to repeat it. In short, sense teacheth us not that this is (v. g.) bread or a stone, for this is an action of assent or judgement, (whether in the imagination or intellect it mattereth not,) which affirms or denies most frequently as it is accustomed without consideration; and erreth not, except where it too hastily assents against a truer Proposition; i.e. such a Proposition, whose truth is dcelared by or from a more certain Principle. As ordinary understandings conceive the Diameter of the Sun to be no more than of 3. foot, (their sense so informing them,) or that this is bread, which seemeth such: Yet are both these errors controlled, the one by Demonstration, the other by the infallible Word of God in his Church.  
§. 4 Those of the present Church of England, agreeing with the pretended Reformed, and contradicting their own Predecessors, accuse the Catholic Church of Idolatry upon three accounts. 1. For worshipping God before an Image. 2. Using towards God the mediation and intercession of the B. Virgin, Angels, and Saints. And 3. For adoring our B. Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Sacrament. We here speak of the last.  
1. Adoration consists partly in internal, partly external, actions. The external are for the most part the same in all Religions, Christian or Heathen; and are the effects and demonstrations of the internal: the sentiments and affections of the Soul either naturally or out of custom thus expressing themselves. Only true Religion hath reserved Sacrifice as appropriated only to the most High God, and to no creature whatsoever. But the Heathen do not observe this. We shall not speak of it here.  
2. All actions of Adoration must be either to God, or a creature, and the internal actions or intention are those which determine the external to the one or the other. Nor doth, nor can, any one know by the external actions, whether God or the creature be worshipped but by some external and declared interpretation of the intention. Therefore no man ought to judge of another man's adoration without such interpretation; and he that doth so, sinneth.  
3. Whoever gives the worship due to God unto a creature; or, whoever in his devotions gives or attributes that to a creature which belongs to God only, is guilty of Idolatry, as taken in a large sense. The worship due to God consists in acts of faith, [believing whatever he hath, or doth reveal, and by that regularing the understanding,] of hope, [trusting in Him alone both for the things of this and the other world, by this regulating the will,] and of charity, [love God above all things, and all other things for His sake, by this regulating the affections.]  
4. Almighty God may be worshipped in all places, and at all times. but it is required to worship him when we come into his presence, and where are performed actions more solemn, and appropriated unto him.  
5. The person of our Lord Jesus Christ is to be worshipped with the worship due to God alone, because he is God blessed for ever: and the rather, because he is a person only as the humane nature is assumed into the person of the Son of God. Neither is he to be worshipped as here or there, but there is an obligation to worship him in the Eucharist; because he hath both by himself and his Church declared him to be there present. And though he were not there present, yet is the Adoration, being by the intention directed to Him alone, and not to any creature present or absent, an act of devotion, and acceptable to him. And they who call this Idolatry, commit a very great sin; depriving our Lord of his honour, condemning his whole Church of Idolatry, and consequently acknowledging that he had no Church upon earth; making themselves judges of their brethren; and imputing to them a sin which they utterly abhor, yet which cannot be known but by their own confession.  
But, say they, The Church in the Council of Trent hath declared, that we ought to worship the holy Sacrament. (Sacramentum.) To which (though so often answered) we say, that this word Sacramentum hath three significations: 1. It is taken for the thing signified only, res Sacramenti, the body and blood, or person of our Lord; and this is to be worshipped with Divine worship. 2. For the signs, species, or visible accidents, to which no other worship is due besides that reverence which belongs to the instruments of holy worship. 3. For both the sign and thing signified together; and thus understood the Sacrament is not properly said to be worshipped, though improperly it may; because part of it, the res Sacramenti, is to be worshipped: and that which belongs to the principal part is ordinarily attributed to the whole; as a man understands, thinks, argues, &c, though these be only the actions of the Soul. The like distinction serves also for the word Host (Hostia), which these writers seem to lay as a stumbling-block before the ignorant. For it is sometimes used for the outward signs, species, or whatever is visible before consecration, and is not to be worshipped; sometimes for the Lord himself, as in Eph. 5.2. who alone in proper speaking is to be worshipped. But having occasion, by God's blessing, in convenient time to speak more copiously upon this subject, we shall here add no more.  
§. 5 Thus have we briefly set down what we conceive necessary to explicate the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in this great mystery: sufficiently also, we hope, to instruct them who intent their salvation, who are not desirous a lie should be the truth, nor prefer their own uncertain conjectures against God's Church. Whom also we seriously admonish to beware of those teachers, who debase and lower the great grace and mercy of God communicated to us by our Lord, (who is made unto us wisdom as well as justice and sanctification,) by debasing it to their own fancies, which they call reason: as did all the ancient Heretics and Mahomet himself, that great false Prophet. To take away all mystery out of Christian Religion, is to vilify it, and to abolish the virtue of faith and advancement of the understanding, and thereby also of piety and devotion. For it is no wonder, that those sublime and holy passions or operations, experienced by devout persons, are by such people ridiculed, to say no worse. For if the Heroical acts of Faith are denied and despised, it must needs follow, that those great favours bestowed by God upon his best servants must neither be enjoyed, nor credited.  
But omitting these matters, let us proceed to examine some such few particulars in the Replier's Discourse, as seem to contain something considerable. For it would be too much abusing the Reader's time and patience to discover or reprehend all the errors of that Pamphlet, wherein I know not if there be any one period that is not obnoxious.  
§. 6 To omit the first Chap. containing nothing of consequence, we will take notice of the second, which seems to be to purpose. Our Author's chief design was to show the Alterations of the Church of England, after her departure from the Church Catholic, both in Doctrine and Practice, taking this one Article as an instance in both. In this chapter the Replier takes notice of these alterations; and though he would gladly deny them, yet is it a thing so manifest, that he rather thinks fitting to diminish them, and notwithstanding the alterations, to affirm that the Church of England never changed.  
Little alterations he calls them, and yet saith they are the terms of her communion. Nothing certainly is little in the Church's forms, especially in our most venerable and solemn worship, and the very chiefest and most important service of God, even the only holy sacrifice of our Religion, and admitting us to, and feeding us at, his own Table: not little that Article, upon which they chief justify their departure from the Church, and by which they continually keep their subjects in disobedience unto, and alienation from, Her: not little, which contains the terms of the Church's communion; so that he who assents not to these, however differing (in their several seasons,) i.e. he that did not believe the Real presence at the first setting forth the Common Prayer-book, and he that did believe it at the second, was holden as excommunicate. Not little, to the disobedience whereof such severe Penalties were imposed both by Acts of Parliament, and Canons of 1603. Again, if so little, why would they for them change those of the Ancient Church, except it were for an extreme itch of separating from God's Church? the formality and essence of Schism.  
Ib. This design is impertinent. No, it was the very primary intention of the Author, as is plain enough. But admit the Church of England hath wavered in her Doctrines, (as our Author proves irrefragably,) it follows, that she disclaims the authoritative conduct of her subjects, by whose doctrines (except they submit to so many changes) they can never be secure: and they who do change, cannot keep the unity of the faith which themselves alter: but are more like to children, unconstant, uncertain, hurried about with every new blast of doctrine, as a powerful person of a different persuasion or interest pleaseth to command. This is not the end, for which our Good Lord ordained the Clergy his Successors. In the beginning of King Edward VI Reign, at the framing of a new Common prayer-book, was asserted the Real presence of the body and blood of our Lord in the Eucharist, (as hath already, and (by God's assistance) shall be more showed by and by.) In his latter end, this doctrine was changed to Zuinglianism. In Q. Elizabeth's time both were joined in the form of the Liturgy, but the declaration against Real presence was omitted; which, in the Rubric in 1661., was licked up again. Likewise also the Catechism was changed. In King Edward's time the Eucharist was expressed in Zuinglius' notions; which in Q. Elizabth's time were omitted, and in King James' time those for a Real presence inserted. The Articles also were new modelled: the first that I can find were, towards the later end of King Edward, against the Real presence. Q. Elizabeth altered them again, leaving out those things seeming to her scandalous, and against the Real presence. And indeed the Articles were not framed to declare the true doctrine of Religion, according to the word of God interpreted by the Catholic Church, but for avoiding diversities of opinions [amongst themselves] establishing some sort of consent, and healing the increasing ulcers amongst the teachers of the newly changed Religion. Again, why doth she punish Dissenters? since her self dissents frequently from her self, and consequently hath taught that which is false. So who can have confidence, that in believing her faith, or obedience to her commands, he endangereth not his salvation. Even at this day the Replier and his party teach contrary to the former learned men of their own Church, and by their own practice confirm this accusation against their Church.  
Adore the Elements.] Either the Replier knows that all Catholics declare, (which none but God and themselves can disprove) that they detest the adoration of any creature, and of the Elements in the Eucharist, and then he voluntarily calumniates them: or he doth not know it; and then why will he undertake to confute them, whose Doctrine he doth not understand? The same absurd error of local presence of our Lord he every where goes about to confute, which the Catholics disdain as well as the Zwinglians.  
How impertinent to urge out of the Rubrics etc.] What new kind of answering is this, so frequent in the Replier! It is very unreasonable, yet proper to, and frequent with this Replier, that he should teach his Adversary what to say. It is an easy matter to answer what himself suggests, but not so usual to propose what he would confute. But to say somewhat to this also; the Homilies are not quoted, because they are of no authority, having been set on soot (even as some of their own Bishops, disputing against the Puritans, have owned) only pro tempore, and to serve a turn. And what say the Articles of them, but that they contain wholesome and pious doctrine necessary for those times? But do not they also contain some not pious, wholesome, or orthodox? The authorised Catechism is clear enough for the Catholic Doctrine, as is proved, Appendix I. but he means Nowel's Puritanical Catechism; as also Bradford, and Hooper; of whom we know nothing but what Fox (a man of no authority) reports from themselves. He also is angry that Cranmer is not consulted, a man whose character is truly set out in App. I. as may be showed in due time. For the present let it suffice, that we think him of no authority; as neither is Burnet. But is not the Replier in difficulties, when he can find no Patrons but such as these?  
The Church of England hath always held a Real presence, so far as a real participation implies one.] But if there be no real participation of his Body at all, as this Replier afterwards every where confesseth, but only of the Benefits of his Sufferings, then by his own confession there is no Real presence. But this being the main point of the difference upon which this Replier insists; let us search a little deeper. I say then, 1. That in the beginning of the pretended Reformation under Edw. VI the Doctrine of the Church of England was, That our Lord's Body and Blood were really (by really, I mean, essentially, substantially) present in the Eucharist. This is plain by the words of Consecration, and delivery of the Sacrament, where the very form of the Catholic Church was kept, only with the addition of such words as more effectually concluded it. The Catholic form is, Corpus Domini Nostri Jesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam. The English was, The body of our Lord Jesus Christ (which was given for thee) preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life. When the Common prayer-book was sent into Scotland, this Form was reintroduced, and the other addition refused; which kindled a mighty flame in Scotland, they apprehending it to be Popery, as appears by Baily's Ladensium autocatacrisis. Now it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass, and yet intent to give them a quite different signification, without giving any notice of it to the people: That the people, who had been brought up to understand the real body of our Lord by corpus Domini— custodiat animam tuam— the next day should, hearing the same words in English, understand only the real benefits of Christ's passion, and not understand at all how these benefits could be eaten or given by the Priest, or how they were given for (rather than to) the people, as neither how they should preserve the Receiver's body. Truly our Author and the Catholics have too great a kindness for the Church of England, than to impose upon her such an abominable prevarication, sufficient to drive away all men from her communion. But if the words were so to be understood, and no alteration intended, why should they in the next edition, within so few years, altar them after another manner, and quite different intention? But of this by and by. 2ly, I say, that before the death of King Edw. VI they altered their doctrine from a Real presence of our Lord's body, to real effects or benefits of his Passion, or somewhat like it, if yet they acknowledged any benefits at all: for in the first it was, preserve thy body and soul &c, which was a real benefit; but in the second, is none, but, Do this in remembrance of Christ's sufferings, and feed on him &c, but what benefit or benediction is received, is not expressed; for they altered all things in the Liturgy which might any way countenance the benefits of real presence. They kept indeed the words of Consecration, but gave over the handling the Chalice, Patin, &c, so that they left the words, without application to any matter, that every man might understand them as he pleased. Which was also the reason why they omitted the words of delivery, substituting, Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving. This, what? individuum vagum, or perhaps nothing, if nothing consecrated, as it seems; or perhaps something, but they know not what, as not being resolved of that point, but only that it was not the real body of our Saviour. This appears also by the Rubric, by the Articles, and Declaration, all which are set down plainly by our Author, ch. 1. The 3d Alteration was made by Q. Elizabeth, at her coming to the Crown. For she being, as is noted, zealous for the Doctrine of the Real presence, and divers of the Clergy then Genevized against it, they made another change, leaving out many things as the second had done out of the first, and some things established in the second, particularly the Rubric, and the Declaration in the Article; but in the words of delivery joining both forms together. So that it was dressed for all palates, whether according to the simplicity and sincerity of the Gospel, I judge not. But those of the Church of England, who were less infected with Geneva, considering these things, broached a new opinion; That the Body of our Lord was indeed really in the Eucharist, but not with the Symbols, but to the Receiver only: and hereby indeed they salved the words of the form, but whether effectively, and according to truth, I refer you to the first of these Appendices. In King James' time there seems not to be any considerable alteration, save that there was added in the Catechism a few questions concerning the Eucharist, entirely conformable to this Doctrine of the Church of England: which distinguishing the benefits from the thing received, they say that the Body of our Lord is there truly and indeed, and translate it, vere & revera. How realiter and revera differ, I know not; as neither why the Replier should applaud the Church of England for not using the word really, which rather seems a confession of her guilt of Schism: inasmuch as in those doctrines, wherein she agrees with the Catholic Church, she chooseth to abstain from her terms. The 4th Alteration was in King Charles I time, in the Book of Common Prayer sent down into Scotland, wherein most things were reduced to the first edition of King Edward VI. but was most barbarously defamed by the Presbyterians there for Popery. But Archbishop Lawd did not intent any Popery; but vainly imagined to settle a Church, near to, but not conformable with the Catholic Religion, which was impossible; it being not a plant planted by our Lord, but of his own policy, and therefore was to be rooted up; or a branch torn from the Vine of the Catholic Church, and therefore dead and unfruitful. The last Alteration was at the Return of King Charles II. wherein was a contrary course endeavoured, a complying with the Presbyterians; a business somewhat plausible, but not according to Religion. Then was brought in the Rubric against the Real presence. And though (as I have heard) the Clergy at that time made great opposition, yet when by an Higher Power it was established, they all submitted to, and embraced, it.  
The Church hath always held a Real presence, so far as a real Participation implies one.] It is most certain, that if the Body of our Lord be really received it is also really present. But the Replier owns not a real participation of the Body of our Saviour, but a figurative one, of the benefits of his Passion; and those not really, but by faith only, which is only of things revealed, and things not enjoyed: besides, the reception is oral only, and not of the benefits or effects, but of the bread and wine, after which follows a feeding by faith, which is properly spoken neither of the symbols nor the benefits. That the Church of England never acknowledged any other presence is false, as hath been showed both in the precedent Discourse and Appendix; and if these testimonies be not sufficient, he shall have as many more as he pleaseth. But see his Instances p. 14. how a real reception may be of a thing really absent; He that receives a Disciple, receiveth Christ. But this is not a really true, but a figurative, expression; signifying, that he who receives a Disciple, shall be esteemed and rewarded as if he received Christ himself. The Disciples received the Holy Ghost really, if (as some Doctors think) the Holy Ghost descended upon them; if only the graces of the Spirit, (as is more ordinarily said,) it was only a figurative speech, and no real reception. A man receives an inheritance when he receives the writings, livery and seisin, etc. but here is nothing really received but the writings, or some other thing, whereby the inheritance is conceived to be given not properly, but by common custom, and vulgar manner of speaking, grounded upon positive laws, or mutual compact. A Prince receiveth a Kingdom really, if he be present in and to it; but if any other way, he receives it not really. It is no news that the word (receive) is sometimes used figuratively, and in divers manners, but the word (really) is not figurative, nor being applied to receive suffers it to be taken figuratively. And so the Church hath always understood it, i. e. both that receiving and the received were true, and real, and not figurative only: and it is hard to conceive that our Lord in the last and most solemn mystery of his whole life should make use of so dilute and improper an expression.  
Pag. 5. It is easy to assign good reasons for the Alterations]. Be it easy; neither himself, nor any else (that I have seen), have given such good reasons. He refers us to Dr. Burnet, Foxes and Firebrands, etc. dirty Pools which himself also had fished already, and found nothing. 'Tis said first, That it was not thought fit to cast off Superstition all at once. Superstition then that ancient Form was, which notwithstanding had remained so many hundred years already, and the whole Church for all that time was guilty of Superstition: But the new Form (established by a few partial, or also ignorant persons) was void of Superstition. But if they changed the former because of Superstition, what made them so often change the other? Heresy? But how came it to pass, that they tolerated Superstition so long? Must ill be done, that good may come of it? But why would Q. Eliz. introduce Superstition again when once ejected?  
Again, 'tis said, That the Alterations were lawful, because not against Scripture, and in that the Subjects ought to acquiesce, not regarding the prudence of the Changes; for which the true reasons are only guessed, but political ones may be seen in Burnet, etc. It seems the Reformers guided themselves, not by Religion, but Policy; an evil ingredient in Church-matters. But neither indeed were they either political, expedient, or lawful. For certainly it was not good policy, 1. To introduce such a division into the Nation, which at the beginning raised Commotions and Civil Wars in several parts of the Kingdom. 2. To introduce Antimonarchical Principles, and such Opinions as manifestly oppose the Kingly Government: By unhinging their Consciences, and diminishing the Power of the Clergy, [which as long as it was incorporated into the rest of the great Body of the Church, did, and would always have been able to maintain the Power of the King;] and setting up the Power of the People, making them Judges of matters of Religion, thereby exempting them from the Government of the Clergy, by whom they might be, and were kept in Obedience to God and their Sovereign. No● were the Alterations lawful, because not made by the lawful Ecclesiastical Magistrates, or agreeable to the rest of God's Church, but an erecting an Altar against an Altar; a Sacramentary Zuinglian Table against the Altar of God in his Holy Church; and consequently made a breach upon the Unity of the Church, and exposed those who consent to them to the great wrath of Almighty God, and hazard of their own Salvation.  
Another Argument of the Change of the Doctrine, was the Omission of divers Ceremonies, very significant of, if not necessary unto, the perfection of this Sacrament. As first, The omission of taking the Bread, or Patten, into the Hand of the Consecrator; being in itself an application of the words of Consecration to the matter proposed. To this the Replier saith, That the Nature of the Action implies the Ceremony of the Handling the Patten and Chalice: Therefore more the shame of them who made it not necessary, but left it indifferent. Then, 1. The omitting of them denies a Consecration. I say, If that Ceremony was omitted, or not enjoined, 'tis very probable, that neither was Consecration intended, or believed; which secondly, to be the intention of the Framers of the second Liturgy is very likely, because they omitted the words, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ; as also because they changed the Form into, Take and eat this, individuum vagum, something or nothing, Consecrated or not-Consecrated. Tho indeed our Replier's Opinion seems to dislike the word this, and thinks it should rather be these Benefits, which neither can be eaten, nor consecrated, nor require any symbols. But he saith these Ceremonies were practised by divers, but he instanceth only in Bishop Jewel. Mr. Rastal's testimony he groundlessly denies. For we know, that in the late times, till it was recommanded by the Rubric, few practised it, or indeed regarded it as a thing of Consequence. Which doubtless was the reason of that Command in the Margin; it was recalled into use, because disused; and the Replier's Reason insufficient.  
P. 6. Gloria in Excelsis Deo, and Benedictus qui venit] are two Hymns; the first placed in this part of the Mass (as is commonly said) by St. Telesphorus, the Ninth Bishop of Rome from St. Peter, and was the Congratulation of the Angels for the Lord's coming into the world; as the Benedictus was for his Triumphant Entry into Jerusalem; both most properly applied to the beginning of this Office, as rejoicing for his coming to be present upon the Altar. Such universal, ancient, solemn parts of God's Service were not omitted by chance, nor would they have been so, had they not contained an Argument against the new-devised Absence of the Lord from his people.  
The Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus] was not anciently called the Trisagium, but Hymnus Angelicus & Victorialis. The Trisagium, was Sanctus Deus, Sanctus fortis, Sanctus immortalis; not so much used in the Western as in the Eastern Church, which was sung when the Priest approached the Choir, v. Menardum. To which some add after fortis, some after immortalis, Qui Crucifixus es pro nobis. And they (as most of the asiatics) who applied the Hymn to our Saviour, meant no harm; but they who attributed it to the Trinity (as the Constantinopolitans and the West generally) condemned it. But this only obiter, as also that concerning the Receiver's answering Amen; which as our Author proves by irrefragable testimonies (were it worth the pains to vindicate them) not to have been an answer to a Prayer, but an acknowledgement of our Lord's Presence there. We will add notwithstanding what we find in St. Ambrose's Works, l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis, Non otiose, cum accipis, dicis, Amen. Jam in Spiritu confiteris quod accipias corpus Christi. Dicit Sacerdos, corpus Christi, & tu dicis Amen, i. e. verum est. Quod confitetur lingua teneat affectus.  
The omission of these words [these Holy Mysteries] might be purely accidental] And might not be so. For they have a signification contrary to the Opinion of the Reformers, and all other deniers of the real presence of our Lord; nor can they find any mystery in taking, eating, a Morsel of Bread, and a Sup of Wine, and remembering our Lord's death and sufferings; and then by faith feeding upon him not received: This perhaps is a mystery, for I do not understand it.  
P. 7. No fault with the second Form] Faulty enough certainly, because contrary to the former Book (which to prove was the Author's chief intention), and consequently from that of the Church of Christ. 2. Because either nonsense, or to most unintelligible, either what is meant by this, or by feeding on our Saviour's benefits by Faith.  
P. 8. These words— that these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine may be to us the Body and Blood of thy dear Son, in the Reformation of the Liturgy were left out, because manifestly owning a real change; and were not restored in Qu. Elizabeth's Liturgy. For She (probably) could not examine all the Alterations by her own self; and her Bishops, being inclined to Zuinglianism, did not willingly restore any thing against their own Opinion. Afterward Archbishop Laud restored it in the Scottish Liturgy. For which he was severely censured by Baily's Laudensium Autocatacrisis. This being, as he saith, a notable Argument for Transubstantiation; at least for the real presence to the Receiver it was. Tho it is most certain, the Archbishop did not incline to defend Transubstantiation, but only the real presence to the Receiver, according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, misunderstood by that Puritan.  
Pag. 10. Dishonestly or ignorantly worded.] False. They are natural Deductions, or rather Propositions almost verbatim taken out of the Declaration; whereas those the Replier (after his new way of answering) would rather have them modelled into, are Nonsense.  
Pag. 11. Calvin and Beza are mentioned, because by them were the English Reformers much directed; though our Author doth not tie himself up to speak only of the Church of England-men. The Author makes use of Conciliators, as being less biased, and therefore better disposed, to understand the truth, and obliged by their design to a more accurate examination of the Doctrines of both parties, and a more strict declaration of them; as being assured to be opposed by both parties. Mr. Thorndike, he saith, had in this matter opinions of his own, agreeable neither to the Catholic, nor Church of England. The like he saith of our Author p. 1. I am afraid the fault is not in the object, but the organ; his endeavour to blast so learned a person, shows him to have been rightly quoted by our Author. But why should I spend more pains to vindicate the opinions of the Doctors of the English Church, which is sufficiently performed in the discourse, in the History of the English Reformation from §. 148, and by the Discourse here newly printed, and the first Appendix to it.  
Pag. 12. The quotations out of Dr. Taylor are most true; but if that Doctor was not constant to himself or his own opinion; or if by forget fullness he speaks one thing in one place, and otherwise ●n another; or if he did not throughly understand the difference, and therefore vented many undigested and incoherent notions, (as he seems to most men to have done;) what is that to us? May not we make use of the good wheat, because tares are mingled with it? Yet I do not remember that he any where sustains, (as our Replier doth,) that the Protestants may use the same terms as the Catholics, and yet in a quite different sense. But are we come in this great question, to may use the terms of the Church in a quite different notion than Antiquity and the Church hath and doth still use them? but let them use them as they please, only they should give notice of their meaning, and tell the world that their words are like Jacob's, but their intention like Esau; and so plainly confess their heresy, and not seek to coyer it with such sorry fig-leaves.  
Pag. 13. Of those (to say no worse) irreverent expressions of our receiving the dead body and dead blood of our Lord, let the Replier and his Capernaits enjoy the honour: we content ourselves to believe and know, that our Lord (in this Sacrament) is become to us a quickening Spirit. How our Lord's body now glorified is received by us, as representing his death and sufferings, is sufficiently declared in the precedent Discourse. Let it suffice here, that we receive it by the hands of his Priests, united to him in this office, as Himself offereth it to the Father, the only true and acceptable sacrifice, in the heavenly Temple; and whereof, we invited to God's own Table, are partakers, as of the Sacrifice of peace and reconciliation. The same body, which was immolated whilst upon earth, remains (though now glorified) till the end of the world; when they that pierced, or deny, or disbelieve his words, shall with shame and everlasting remorse look upon him.  
Pag. 14. There is as great a difference, (especially concerning the real presence of our Lord) as the Catholics charge them with all. Those, truly called, Protestants assert Consubstantiation. The Zwinglians or Sacramentaries (to whom our Replier joins himself) not real presence of our Lord's Body at all, but of the benefits only of his Passion. The Church of England and her Doctors say, that the body and blood of our Lord are really, and not only by the benefits and effects, received by us. These things are plainly said in the former Discourse. What is the meaning of our union and communion with Christ's glorified body, and how this is, or can be performed or imagined according to our Repliers and the Zuinglian Scheme, I confess I cannot understand; how according to the Catholic doctrine, is explained before. Tho I know also the Zwinglians do pretend to such benefits, and all others, though they do not expressly own a real presence.  
Pag. 16. So much for the use of the word Really.] He hath blundred a long time upon the notion of Really; how it signifies, how used, how it may be used by the learned etc. as if the word used so many years by the Church, should stand or fall to his may-bees, and sorry conjectures: at length he saith, a thing may be really present two ways; Physically, and Morally. Where ranks he a Divine presence, a Spirtual presence, besides many other sorts of presence? A physical presence is a local presence.] Not, if we speak of a spiritual body; not, if we speak of a miraculous presence, effected by the power of Almighty God. A Moral presence is called Sacramental.] This is a confession of his own novel, and therefore of a suspicious interpretation. The Church used sacramental for real, as opposed to receiving by faith, as is said before. But what is it to be morally present, if not that a moral entity, (as grace, holiness, &c,) are present? The benefits of our Lord's Passion are present to, and enjoyed by, us; but what is this to the real true presence of his Body? But neither are these benefits given us in the Sacrament, but only are apprehended of us by faith. In sum, this Replier seems to flutter, as if he were fast limed; partly, by the constant doctrine of the Church, and a desire to seem no Zuinglian. Wherefore he heapeth up such a parcel of insignificant words, and distinctions, that it is lost time to examine them. There is a real presence of a body which is always local.] This is false, as is showed before. There is also a spiritual and virtual presence.] Distinct from real and moral? Spiritual we acknowledge as before, but this is real, and not virtual only; and what is virtual, if not the effects of our Lord's Passion? What are all these to the real presence of our Lord's body, the only question?  
Pag. 17. At last he sits down with this conclusion; that if rightly understood it is not material what Adverbs we use; we may say it is really, essentially, corporally present.] I had thought it had been the custom, and necessary to express the Church's doctrine in her own words, and not to have used the known words of the Church in an arbitrary signification. This is facere quidlibet ex quolibet; or a most horrible equivocation, mental reservation, or material elocution; with which at another time he will raise much dust; not remembering his own doctrine, that we may put what signification we please upon usual words; a salvo, which at once takes away all veracity, and the use of language. I am weary of this confusion as well as himself, and therefore he sums up all thus. The Papists always acknowledge a local presence.] The contrary whereof is true. For the Papists never acknowledge a local presence of the body of our Lord in the Eucharist. And we Protestant's (whatever term we use) mean only a spiritual and virtual presence, and explain the term (whatever it be we make use of) to that effect.] Is not this making the real presence of our Lord only figurative, and Zuinglianisme? Answ. No.  
Pag, 18. 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 put in actual possession of it.] Well then, the Body of our Lord is really present and received. Answ. No. Whatever we say, we mean only a virtual presence.] Which is indeed only a figurative presence, and is owned by the Zwinglians and Figurativists; and which the Replier, seeking to avoid, really condemns; as the Church hath done in those two or three, who in the course of so many centuries, set abroach such or the like opinion. Let the Replier also take notice, that Zuinglius doth not deny eating by faith, or in a mysterious and ineffable manner, by which mist of words the Replier in vain thinks to pass for orthodox.  
Pag. 20. Stumble.] No, it is the Replier's cavil. The Rubric saith not, as he pretends, a true natural body cannot be &c but, it is against the truth of a natural body to be &c, which is not very good sense, (we not knowing what a false natural body is,) except the meaning of it be, that this Proposition, A natural body can be in several places, is not true, which is the very same which our Author saith.  
Ineffable mystery.] The Replier dare not deny that the Divines of the Church of England, as well as those of the Catholic Church, acknowledge the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist to be a mystery: but saith, they acknowledge our union with Christ to be a mystery; which is not opposite to the other, though indeed it is too mysterious to know how this Union follows from his Doctrine.  
Opposite and contradictory.] To persuade the Reader that our Author alloweth contradictions to he true, he leaves out the word seemingly, as also §. 21. which seemeth to us to include a contradiction. Take notice therefore, that no Catholic affirms, That God can make two contradictories to be true, and that there is no contradiction in their doctrine of the Eucharist. But they believe it to be plainly revealed by our Saviour's own words, and St. Paul's. (v. foregoing Discourse, p. 18.)  
Pag. 21. The doctrine of the Trinity doth as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation.] But Transubstantiation is a contradiction.  
Pag. 25. Bishop Andrews' famous saying, (which the Replier would falsely translate or interpret;) The real presence which we hold, is as real as the corporal which the Papists hold. Which Proposition is both false in itself, and falsely fathered upon Bishop Andrews. For they who believe only a figurative presence, believe not so much as they who believe a real also. For it is to say, That he who believes a real absence, believes a real presence.  
Pag. 27. Marg. Christ was made in all things like to us.] In his Incarnation, that we might be made like to him in his glorification. In his Incarnation a natural body, with the like imperfections, sufferings, etc. in his Glorification a spiritual body.  
The Heavens must contain him.] The word is not contain, but receive him. That his body, which is not now endowed with natural properties, but spiritual, is in Heaven, no Catholic denies, for that would be against the Creed. But they say, that he is both in Heaven, and in the Eucharist: or else what needs all this discourse about his being in several places at once.  
Pag. 28. Would he not wonder that St. Austin.] Our Author's quotation out of St. Austin, de cura pro mortuis, is true and pertinent. Our Replier himself p, 29. seems not to dare affirm, that a Spirit cannot be in several places or ubi's: but if it be a contradiction, S. Austin needs not inquire; if not a coutradiction, neither is it for a spiritual body to be so. So that it matters not, whether the Martyr's bodies are spoken of by St. Austin. Nor doth the quotations brought by our Replier out of St. Austin Ep. 57 ad Dardanum, nor that of Tract. 31. in Johan. in the least contradict the doctrine of the Church. But that in Tract. 30. in Joh. is perfectly against the Replier. For after that S. Austin had said, that our Lord was in divers places (in heaven and earth) in his life time, by the omnipotence of Almighty God; he saith, that homo, indeed, secundum corpus in loco est, & de loco migrat; & cum ad alium locum venerit, in eo loco, unde venit, non est. He speaks here of men in this natural state, which is most true, if no miracle interposed; but concerning our Saviour he had said before, that he was whilst upon earth in heaven also by the power of God.  
Pag. 29. A contradiction for a body to be locally in one place, and really received in another.] What the Author saith is most true; what the Replier substitutes, is neither the Author's, nor common, sense. But it is most certain, that to say the real substantial body of our Lord is only in heaven, and the same body to be really received upon earth, is as much a contradiction as to say; the natural, essential body of our Lord is really in several places; which is none at all.  
Thus have I with very great taedium justified our Author against the Replier; what remains, is either repetition of what is said before, or concerns the subject of Adoration; concerning which, if it please God to continue our strength, we shall not be long in his debt.    

Corrigenda & Addenda.  
Pag. line.  11. 20. p. 54. 72. 18. 28. to body. 28. 2. deal (in the quotation set down above p. 50.) 34. 35. Obs. 3. p. 13. 51. 28. p. 49. 50. the places. 52. 14. before, p. 35. 54. 4. deal p. 123. 54. 23. opinion p. 69. 64. 13. Christus non jubet. 71. 6. etc. See p. 60. 71. 19 observation p. 19  21. cross p. 75. 80. 17. taken passively 87. 23. quotation p. 48. 108. 19 of Suarez p. 105. 110. 24. above, p. 102. 129. 33. there confuting it 133. 1. cometh more peace 148. 13. Bishop Poinet.