IT is somewhat surprising that one, who has left the Church of England to go over to that of Rome, should attempt to justifie his desertion by pretending both Churches are agreed; and if they are so, his conduct is the more amazing, who quits the Prin­ciples of 'em both, and goes to settle the point he con­tends for upon new Notions of his own: which by the way is so plain a confession, that he thinks the Popish Principles cannot justifie their Practice, that I doubt the Gentlemen of that Communion will scarce thank him for his undertaking. One would likewise have expected, that a man of the Editors reputation, the famous Com­piler of an ^* Art of Reason, should neither have writ nor published any thing, wherein the Author did not reason like a man of art; or at leastwise talk as coherently as ordinary men use to do by the pure strength of natural reason. Yet it pleases the Author of the Pamphlet to dis­play his great search and quickness, in such illations as these; Disc I. ch. I. §. 2. pag. 2. Gloria in excelsis, is put in the Post communion, Ergo, The Church that put it there disowns the Real Presence, Disc. I. ch III. § 20. pag. 13. Nihil magis incredibile: Ergo Not this more incredible that Idem corpus potest esse in diversis locis simul. Ibid. This thing is above our reason, Ergo 'Tis contrary to it: with other such deep discoveries; to shew us that his talent in Logic is as sin­gular as his judgement in Religion.

[Page [2]]But I have no commission to question any man for making bold with himself; or exposing his own under­standing to what degree he thinks fit: and should there­fore have taken no notice of this Pamphlet, had it been any where printed but at Oxford. I should not have thought my self obliged to censure the extravagant sin­gularities of a private fancy; such especially as are not likely to do any mischief to the Public: and such I esteem the notions of this Pamphlet; which is too perplex'd for a common Readers understanding, and too sophistical to impose upon the more intelligent. But considering the false and scandalous reports, that are of late so industri­ously spread about the Nation: as if Oxford Converts came in by whole shoals, and all the University were just ready to declare: I have reason to believe this Pamphlet was designedly printed at Oxford, to countenance those reports. For no doubt the Popish Presses were at the E­ditors service; and to use them, instead of setting up a new one, hand been less trouble and better husbandry. But the secret is, these Papers are to pass with unwary people for a specimen of the Universities judgment: much such a one indeed as the Tile was, which Hierocles's Scholar brought to market for a sample of the House he had to sell. Now there are diverse agravations of this foul play, which make it yet more insupportable. As why is this question now reviv'd which the members of our Church have of late so carefully declin'd out of pure respect to those ears, which if it be possible they are not willing to offend? Or why are we of the University attacqu'd in our own quarters? and so defy'd to our teeth, that we can nei­ther in honor nor honesty decline an answer, tho, we are well aware with what designe the scene of the Controver­sie is laid in Oxford? Or how can we brook this usage from our companion? our own familiar friend whom we trusted? [Page [3]] with whom we have taken sweet councel together? and walked in the house of God as friends ^*? These are such cutting cir­cumstances, as no armor of patience is sufficient proof against.

For these Reasons, and not for any worth in the Book, I have ventur'd to answer it; and comply'd with the se­vere task the Author sets me to make brick and find straw too. For the Pamphlet duly consider'd will not furnish sufficient matter for a Treatise. Strip it of its garniture, and it comes to no more then this, That the Author supposes the Church of England to hold such a Real Presence of Christ's natural body in the Eucharist, as he thinks a suf­ficient ground to adore the Elements: To which we need only reply; That as the Church ever held a real, so she ever deny'd a corporal i. e. a local presence; and for that reason forbid the adoration of the Symbols. For, to say no more at present, the same arguments that will justifie our adoring them upon the score of any, but a local pre­sence of Christs natural body, will excuse not only the Popish, but even the grossest Heathen Idolatry.

This I take to be a full and sufficient answer to what our Author has spun into two Discourses: However that I may leave no room for cavil, I shall take a distinct view of the whole Pamphlet, and reply particularly to the Chapters and Sections of each Discourse as they lie in order.

THIS Chapter is taken up chiefly in recounting some little Alterations that have been made at several times in our Rubricks and Articles: from which the Pamphlet would infer that our Church has waver'd in her Doctrine.

Now to my apprehension, this Design let it be ex­ecuted how it will, is very impertinently undertaken. For admit that the Church had waver'd (as she has not) what's that to his purpose of proving, that a Re­al tho' not Corporal presence is ground enough to a­dore the Elements in the Eucharist? Again, admit it were pertinent to prove, that the Church had waver'd in her Doctrine; how impertinent is it to allege no proof, save out of the Rubricks and Articles, which contain only terms of her Communion? omitting the Homilies and Catechisms set forth by her Authority, as a solemn declaration of her Doctrine? We grant that the Church having always held a Real Presence, so far as a Real Participation imply's one; but always deny'd it if by Real we mean Corporal and Local; has not al­ways thought it requisite, to make the declaration and subscription of this Doctrine, a term of her Commu­nion: and if the Author has any thing to object to her upon this score; it may possibly be to the purpose, and then we are ready to answer it. Allways pro­vided he forbear that shrewd way of arguing, which he gives us a tast of in the second paragraph of his se­cond section: for to such kind of sequels as he makes [Page [5]] there, we shall not think fit to reply; but leave 'em to be seen through and despis'd by the Freshmen.

But a man, that is not mov'd by those arguments, may perhaps be put in mind by the premisses, to en­quire why these Alterations were made? I answer that 'tis easy to assign good reasons ^*; but for want of the authentick Records we can but guess at the true. Per­haps they might be as follows.

1. It has ever been the practice of all conformable Church of England-men to handle both the Patin and the Chalice when they Consecrate. And indeed the very nature of the action implyes the use of that ceremo­ny, so that there seems to be no need of a Rubrick to enjoyn it. In K. Edward's first book there was a mar­ginal note to direct the more ignorant and unpractic'd ^* when to use it; which was afterwards omitted; when the usage was in all appearance sufficiently secur'd [Page [6]] by common practice. But when false brethren took advantage from the omission to perform the ceremo­ny awkwardly and lamely, the directions were restor'd in the edition of sixty one.

2. The Gloria in excelsis is a hymn; and therefore most properly put in the Postcommunion; because most con­formably to our Saviour's own practice, who when sup­per was done ^* sung a hymn with his Disciples.

3. The Trisagium as it now lies after Holy thrice repeated, in honor of the three Persons of the Trini­ty, concludes very properly and pertinently with Glory be to the O Lord acknowledging the Unity. This the Benedictus qui venit, does not; but is rather lyable to the same misconstruction for which the ^* Council in Trullo ( Can. 81.) condemn'd the addition of [...] to that hymn.

4. The omission of these words [ in these holy myste­ries] might be purely accidental; and pass undiscover'd, because as they signifie no more then [ in this celebra­tion of the Eucharist] they have no material influence upon the sense. But if we understand, as perhaps a perverse man may, that [ these mysteries] signifie the same with [ these elements] that is cause enough to omit them: because they would assert an opinion which is contra­ry to sound Doctrine, and the declar'd judgment of the Church.

Disc. I. §. 3. n. 1. pag 3.What is farther observable in the two first Sections, is repeated and back'd in the third, and might be safe­ly pass'd over, as containing nothing material but what we again meet with there. For concerning the Form prescrib'd in delivering the consecrated Elements he tell's us that in K. Edwards first book the Form was [Page [7]] The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ &c. in his second Take and eat this in remembrance &c. in Qu. Elizabeths both these put together as they still continue in the English Liturgy. But withal he tells us, the first of these Forms descends to us from Antiquity: and he finds no fault with the second, which is entirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution. So that we are yet to seek, where the harme lies of using either Form sin­gle, or both of them together? and yet farther to seek to what purpose this observation is made? since 'tis manifest that neither Form single nor both of them to­gether, either owns a Corporal or denyes a Real Pre­sence.

He addds that the Scotch Rubrick keeping the first Form requires the Communicant to answer to it Amen: which without a Rubrick ever was and is still the Pra­ctice of the Church of England (for what more natu­ral then to answer Amen to a prayer?) and so were divers other things (as for instance standing up at the Gospel, and saying Glory be to thee O Lord,) which the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy having good reason to approve, thought fit to injoyn by a Rubrick; that the Puritans might have no pretence for Nonconfor­mity.

But to return to the Communicants answering Amen. the Pamphlet truly observes it to be according to cu­stome of Antiquity: but I doubt the proofs it quotes are not very judiciously chosen. The place in Eusebius belongs plainly to another thing. The words are ( Hist. VII.9.) [...] (not [...]) [...], &c. Which evidently shews that That Amen, was answer'd to the Doxology before the distributi­on of the Elements, as not only Justin Martyr could have [Page [8]] taught him, but even Valesius himself in his Notes upon that passage of Eusebius. I leave the examen of the other two Quotations to them that have leisure and the Books by them, 'tis probable they may prove as pertinent as this. For I find it a common practice in this man's other Works to quote those passages at length which he thinks will bear the stress of an Argument, and barely refer to such places, as contain only a hint which perhaps an unwary Reader may go near to swallow.

This Amen was spoken says the Pamphlet as the Com­municants confession that what he receiv'd was Corpus Domini. But I shall rather learn the meaning of it from Justin Martyr, ^* who observes that Amen in Hebrew sig­nifies so be it, wherefore according to His notion the Communicant answering Amen only joyns with the Priest in praying that the Body and Blood of Christ may preserve his Body and Soul to everlasting life.

The Pamphlet farther observes that in K. Ed­wards first book there was this passage in the prayer of Consecration. ‘[And with thy holy Spirit and Word vouch­safe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ]’ which was afterwards left out of the English Liturgy, and re­stor'd in the Scotch. This omission by the way is some­thing injudiciously observ'd; because it shews us that the Clergy of Q. Elizabeth had no such thoughts of the Real Presence as the Pamphlet would suggest they had. But I refer him for answer to his own quotation out of Laudensium Autocatacrisis. From these words (saith he) all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation; wherefore the English Reformers scrap'd them out of their [Page [9]] Books] tho' his Gloss upon Restoring them in the Scocth Liturgie is a manifest cavil; for no man of sence can in­terpret them as they lie there in favor of Transubstan­tiation. see Arch-Bishop Cranmers answer to Gardiner. p. 70. p. 289. ^*

I must beg the Readers pardon, if out of a desire to leave nothing unreply'd to, I have particularly spoken to these inconsiderable observations, which the Author himself does but skirmish with. But we are now come to the Rubrick, before which he intends to sit down: viz. that for explaining why we Kneel at the Sacrament. This he tells us in K. Edward's book deny'd a Real and Es­sential, but now denyes only a Corporal Presence. To which I answer that K. Edward's Rubrick by Real and Es­sential means (as the Papists then us'd to do) a Real and Bodily Presence: as is plain by the Articles set forth about the same time, and quoted by the Pamphlet it self pag. 2.

He observes farther that ‘both this Rubrick and the explanatory Paragraph in the 28 ^th Article were expung'd in the first of Q. Elizabeth.’ To which we have already answer'd, that this at the utmost implyes but a change in the terms of our Communion: and if he think fit to challenge the Church upon that score we are ready to give him satisfaction.

In the fourth Section he falls on in earnest upon the [Page [10]] declaration about adoration as he calls it, [...] I. §. IV. pag. 4. and from it as it now lyes, draws three Observables, which are either very dishonestly or else very ignorantly worded. They need no other answer then a bare amendment of the expressi­ons; which if they were intended to give the sense of the Church of England, should have been to this effect.

1. Observable. That the Clergy do profess and teach, that the natural body and blood of Christ, are not corpo­rally i. e. locally present in the Eucharist.

2. Observable. That they have diverse reasons for this assertion: one especially wherein Scripture, Philosophy, and common sense are agreed, viz. that a true humane body cannot locally be in two places at once.

3. Observable. That in consequence hereof they declare, that the Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament, is in­deed reall but spirituall, and therefore the Elements are not to be ador'd, because adoration ought not to be dire­cted to the natural body of Christ, but where it is locally present.

Had our Author had the ingenuity to express himself after this manner, he had been no less kind to himself then just to the Church of England; for he might have avoi­ded divers errors he commits in the three next Chapters, by avoyding the grand impertinence of having written them at all.

Disc I. §. VII. pag. 5.THe design of the second Chapter is to prove by a­bundance of quotations, that Learned Protestants heretofore have held, that the same body of Christ, which [Page [11]] was born of the Virgin Mary, crucify'd &c. is present as in Heaven so here in the Holy Sacrament, either to the worthy receiver, or the Symbols.

By learned Protestants I presume he means those of the Church of England; for so he should mean since he draws his Observables from a Rubric in their Liturgie. Now he would have told us some news, had he mention­ed but one of these learned Protestants, who pretending to give the sense of the Church of England does not hold, that the same numerical body which was born of the Virgin Mary, crucify'd &c. is locally present in Heaven, and virtually present in the Eucharist; not to the Symbols, but the Faith of the worthy receiver: or if by those words, as in heaven so here he means locally in both; as in­deed he must mean, if his next Chapter be at all perti­nent; he would have told us no less news, had he brought but one quotation that could be honestly taken in that sense. But if he have any third meaning it would have been a favour to explain himself, for we pretend not to any talent in divination.

Now supposing he designs to combat the Church of England, I would gladly know to what purpose he al­leges Calvin and Beza? Disc. I. §. VIII.IX. for let their doctrine be what it will, to quote it to us who are not to be concluded by their authority, is very trifling and impertinent. When the sense of the Church of England was the question, one would have expected to heare what the Church-Ca­techism says? What the Homilies? What Nowells Cate­chism? Books allow'd and publish'd by the Churches au­thority, and authentick witnesses of her judgment, or if private Doctors were the game, what Archbishop Cran­mer's book of the Sacraments? what Bradford, Philpot and the rest of Q. Mary's Martyrs? what Bishop Jewell in his Apology and the Defence of it? what Bishop Ʋsher in [Page [12]] his Sermon before the House of Commons? But instead of these we have only the testimonies of some other e­minent, but private men; all miserably mangled and disjoynted; some of them Conciliators too, whose very design obliges them to a looser kind of expression, then a true and adequate standard of the Churches judgment will allow. Now should any of our private writers, either in heat of disputation, or out of zeal to peace, or desire to explain a great mystery; a little deviate in their expressions; we can easily forgive an error, that proceeds from so allowable a cause; but still the Church is not bound to justify that error.

But the quotations in the Pamphlet will not put us upon this Apology. Not an author he quotes (except only Mr. Thorndike, of whom we shall say more by and by) but speaks the sense of the Church; and industri­ously drives at a point quite contrary to the Pamphlets design; which discovers a great flaw either in the Au­thors judgment or honesty. I grant the authors as he has mangled 'em looke as unlike those worthy champi­ons of our Church, as the shape that appear'd to Aenaeas did to the true and whole person of Hector. But I desire the Reader neither to trust the Pamphlet nor me but his own eys; to consult the quotations as they lye intire in the authors themselves; and consider 'em with their several contexts. For my own part having taken that pains, I profess to find such dealing as I do not care to report, because I cannot expect to be believ'd.

'Tis somewhat unaccountable that a man of sense, having read the book of Bishop Taylor's, which the Pam­phlet quotes; should split upon the very Fallacy, which that Bishop spends allmost the whole first Chapter in de­tecting. He makes it his business there to shew, that Protestants in explaining the Real Presence may lawfully [Page [13]] use the same terms that Papists doe. But they neither can nor doe use them in the Papists sense, and he that will urge the Protestants with those words, must take the Protestants meaning along with him. This seems to be a very equitable proposal. How far the Pamphlet com­plyes with it, I dare leave to the meanest Reader, when he has perus'd this short and plain account of our Chur­ches doctrine in this point.

The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a twofold consideration in the Eucharist. 1. As a body dead; under which notion we are said to eat it in the Sacrament, and to drink the blood as shed; as appears by the words of the Institution, Take and eat, this is my body which is given or broken for you; Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood which is shed for you: in which words ( ^* as Mr. Bradford long agoe observ'd) what God has joyn'd we are not to put asunder. 2. As a glorify'd body; in which condi­tion it now sits at the right hand of God, and shall there continue till the restitution of all things, imparting Grace & Influence and all the benefits purchased by the Sacrifice of the dead body, to those that (in the holy Eucharist most especially) are through Faith and by the marvel­lous operation of the holy Ghost incorporated into Christ; and so united to him that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them; they are one with Christ and Christ with them; they are made members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones: and by partaking of the Spirit of him their head, receive all the graces and benefits, purchased for them by his bitter death and passion.

Wherefore it is evident that since the body broken and the blood shed neither do nor can now really exist, they neither can be really present, nor literally eaten, or drank, nor can we really receive them, but only the be­nefits [Page 14] purchased by them. But the body which now exists whereof we partake, and to which we are united, is the glorify'd body: which is therefore verily and indeed received (as we shall see anon) and by consequence said to be Really present notwithstanding its Local Absence; because a real participation and union, must needs im­ply a Real presence, though they do not necessarily re­quire a Local one. For 'tis easy to conceive how a thing that is Locally Absent may yet be Really Receiv'd, as he that receives a Disciple is said to receive Christ; as the Di­sciples themselves receiv'd the Holy Ghost; as the King in the Gospel receiv'd a Kingdom; or as we commonly say a man receives an Estate or Inheritance when he re­ceives the Deeds or Conveiances of it. In all which cases the reception is confessedly real, tho' the thing it self is not locally or circumscriptively present, or literally grasp'd in the arms of the receiver.

This by the way may serve to shew the vanity as well as falshood of Transubstantiation, which was first devis'd to solve the literall eating of the glorify'd body of our Sa­viour: whereas though the body that is glorify'd, be nu­merically the same that was broken; yet the body which is eaten as dead, and the body which is present as glori­fy'd, are two as different things as can well be imagin'd.

This may likewise serve to shew, that there is no great disagreement among those Protestants, whom the Pa­pists too hastily charge with it. For they all agree that we spiritually eat Christ's Body and drink his Blood: that we neither eat nor drink nor receive the dead body nor the blood shed, but only the benefits purchased by them: that these benefits are deriv'd to us by virtue of our Union and Communion with the glorify'd body: and that our partaking of it, and union with it, is effected by the my­sterious and ineffable operation of the holy Spirit. The [Page [15]] only difference is, that one part from the premisses in­fer, that Christ may be truly said to be Really Present in the Eucharist; whereas the other scruple at the use of that expression (because the local absence of his body is confessed on both sides) notwithstanding they agree in all the points which the other party think requisite to defend it.

Now tho' it be easy as I said before to conceive how a natural substance may be said to be Really Receiv'd though not Locally Present: it is not so easy to conceive it Really Present when at the same time it is Locally Absent. There­fore the Church of England has wisely forborn to use the term of Reall Presence in all the Books that are set forth by her authority. We neither find it recommended in the Litugy, nor the Articles, nor the Homilyes, nor the Churches, nor Nowell's Catechism. For although it be once in the Liturgy, and once more in the Articles, it is mention'd in both places as a phrase of the Papists and rejected for their abuse of it. So that if any Church of England-man use it, he does more then the Church directs him, if any reject it he has the Churches example to warrant him: and it would very much contribute to the peace of Chri­stendom if all men would write after so good a Copy.

Yet it must not be deny'd but the term may be safely us'd amongst Scholars; and seems to be grounded upon the language of Scripture it self. For when our Saviour promises to be in the midst of them that call upon him; and to be with his Church always to the end of the World, no doubt he promises to be really present with them, though he does not mean that his Naturall Body shall be locally present amongst them. So S ^t. Paul speaks of his own be­ing absent in Body but present in Spirit, 1. Cor. V.3. The Romans us'd to call their Gods Praesentes Deos, not as locally present but always ready to assist them: and what­ever [Page [16]] is in readiness when we want it, to answer our oc­casions may be properly said [...], to be at hand, to be present. A man does truly repraesentare pecuniam when he gives a good bill for it, though he does not pay it down in specie. The Holy Ghost is said to abide and dwell in us; which words imply a continual presence; no doubt Reall, though not Physicall and Locall, but only by his grace and influence. In short whatever we enjoy, use, and reap the benefit of, as truly as if it were prae sensibus, is as Really present as if it were Physically so: nay no doubt when virtue went out of our Saviour's body to heal the woman in the Gospel; though the Jews throng'd him, and she did but touch his garment, yet his body was more really present to her whom the virtue of it heal'd then to them whom the substance of it touch'd.

So much for the use of the word: which when we of the Church of England use, we mean thus. A thing may be said to be really receiv'd, which is so consign'd to us, that we can readily imploy it to all those purposes, for which it is usefull in itself, and we have occasion to use it: And a thing thus really receiv'd may be said to be really present two ways, viz. either Physically or Morally, to which we reduce Sacramentally. A Physicall presence (now we speak of a natural Body) is locall; antecedent to the reception and independent upon it: the thing is first really present and then really receiv'd; and though it were not receiv'd, would be still really present. A morall presence is only virtuall consequent to the reception and dependent upon it: the thing is first really receiv'd, and by conse­quence said to be really present; but it is not at all present, to them that do not really receive it. Thus in the holy Eucharist, the Sacrament is Physically, the res Sacramenti, Morally present: the elements Antecedently and Locally, the very body Consequentially & Virtually but both Really present.

[Page [17]]From hence it is evident, that if we rightly under­stand the Presence, it is not material with what ad­verbs we affirm it. We may say it is Really, Essenti­ally, nay Corporally present: that is, it is present in as much as it is Really receiv'd to all intents and purposes, for which the Res ipsa the Essence the Substance the ve­ry Body would be useful to us, if it were Physically and Locally present. And the difference between us and the Papists is plain. They (however they express them­selves) understand a Local presence, which we deny and therefore reject their expression. We (whatever term we use) mean only a Spiritual and Virtual Presence, and explain the term we make use of to that effect. Thus the Protestants in K. Henry the Eighth's time, that sufferd upon the six Articles, deny'd the Real Pre­sence (i. e. the Popish sense of it) but meant the same thing with us, who think, we may lawfully use that term. On the other side that excellent Person and glorious Martyr Mr. Bradford ^*, I do believe (says he) that Christ is Corporally present, at and in the due Ad­ministration of the Sacrament. But he adds this expli­cation, By this word Corporally I mean that Christ is present Corporally unto Faith.

It is likewise evident, that when we say Christ is Present, or Adorable in the Sacrament, we do not mean in the Elements but in the Celebration. We affirm his naturall Body to be Locally in Heaven and not here; and that we, who are here and not in Heaven, ought to Worship it as Locally present in Heaven while we celebrate the Holy Sacrament upon Earth.

Lastly it is evident that this Doctrine is sufficient­ly remov'd from what the Pamphlet calls Zuinglianism, how truly I will not now inquire. For we do not hold that we barely receive the Effects and Benefits of [Page [18]] Christ's Body: but we hold it Really Present in as much as it is Really receiv'd, and we actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us. So that while we Spiritually eat Christ's Flesh and drink his Blood, we through Faith, in a mysterious and ineffable man­ner, dwell in Christ, and Christ in us; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us: and by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet Real participation, we receive the Benefits consequent to it; even the remission of our Sins and all other benefits of Christs Passion.

This in short is our meaning; and to this effect all true Church-of-England-men declare it. Whether we express our selves in proper and accurate terms is ano­ther question, wherein if the Editor think fit to in­gage, we are ready to answer him. In the mean time we desire him and the rest of his Communion, not to catch up our words, and bait them in their own sense, which is too like the dealing of the Old Romans with the Primitive Christians.

It remains that we say a word or two concerning Mr. Thorndike's Testimony, and so dismiss this Chap­ter. The reader may please to take notice, that the whole design of this Pamphlet is to furbish, and rig out a notion of Mr. Thorndike's in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England. The notion is nei­ther the Church of Englands, nor as I believe any o­ther Churches: nor does he so much as pretend that any other man, much less any Church ever taught it. He only thinks it is * consistent with the analogy of Faith, not trenching (as he says) upon any ground of Christiani­ty, and seems to propose it as a peaceable expedient, for complying outwardly with the Popish adoration of the Euch [...] a practice, which, when he wrote his [...] thought adviseable if it could be war­ranted, [Page 19] for he was then upon a project of Uniting all Christians in one Communion: and wrote his Epilogue on purpose to serve that design: not pretending to give the true sense of any party; but so to blanch the opinions of them all, that the difference of their Judg­ment might not hinder their Uniting. Wherefore he professes to expect ^* the Lot of Reconcilers, to be contra­dicted by all parties; and owns that he sayes those things which he should have dissembled had the Church of England continu'd. But it seemes he thought as some others did, when the King was Murther'd, that the Church of England was utterly and irrecoverably dis­solv'd: and that it was necessary to hold Communion with some Church: and if it were honestly practicable with the Church of Rome rather then another. 'Tis probable the Editor was of the same mind, for I remem­ber to have heard this very plea made in his defence, by a friend of his about some Eighteen years since.

But whatever Mr. Thorndike's opinion was when he wrote his Epilogue, 'tis certain when the King return'd, he was a member of that Convocation that revis'd the Liturgy; that he constantly attended there; and had a hand more then ordinary in the Edition of sixty one. That he declar'd his unfeign'd assent and consent, to all things in the Liturgy as it was then alter'd: that he conform'd to it all the rest of his Life, and at last dy'd in Communi­on with the Church that impos'd the use of it.

So then we have here quoted out of the Epilogue, a private opinion of a private man, and what's that to the Church? especially since for ought then appear'd he was singular in it while he held it; & when occasion offer'd, he forsook it: professing his unfeign'd assent to that Rubrick, which the Pamphlet would confront with his Authority.

Disc. 1. §. 19 p. 13.The Author's purpose in the third Chapter, is to ‘combat this assertion in the Rubric, that it is against the truth of a natural body to be ( i. e. as he ex­plains it, that a natural body cannot truly be) in two places at once.’

Here is a kind of inauspicious stumble at the very en­trance. For 'tis one thing to say as the Rubric does, that a true natural body cannot be; and another as he does that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once. For should we suppose as he would have us, that God should make one of our bodys be in two places at once; when God had done this, it would truly be in those places; but before he did it he must change the nature of the body, and make it cease to be a true natural body.

This is but a slip: but in the next Paragraph 'tis neck or nothing. Ibid §. 20. n. 1. He finds there that ‘Protestants confess Christs presence in the Eucharist to be an ineffable my­stery’(they own indeed our Ʋnion and Communion with him to be so, but supposing that, the Reall Presence is easily explain'd. But admit the Reall Presence be ineffable) what then? Ibid. ‘He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradictory to reason.’ Now any Prote­stant Child could have told him, tho' perhaps he will take it more kindly from the Catholic ^* Representer: that the mysteryes of Faith, are above reason not contrary to it. A little farther nihil magis incredibile says Calvin: there­fore [Page 21] says the Author not this more incredible that. Idem Corpus &c. Away you Wagg; what thrice in one Paragraph?

§. 20. n. 3. Dr. Disc. 1. § 20. n. 3 p [...]4. Taylor is Quoted saying ‘that if Tran­substantiation were plainly reveal'd he would burn all his arguments against it and believe it without more adoe.’ And so say I too: yet I would not believe that a contradiction could be verifyed; but rather that they were deceiv'd who thought that doctrine to imply a contradiction: for if it were plainly reveal'd, it would be certainly true; and if it were true it would not imply a contradiction. For a true proposition has a true meaning: but a contradiction has no meaning at all: 'tis an empty sound of words without any res substrata: whatever one part of it means, the other unmeans again, and so the whole means nothing▪ Besides of two contradicto­ries one is always fals, so that to assert a contradiction is to affirm a falshood for a truth, and this we are sure God cannot do, because he has told us he cannot lye. To con­clude the Author himself seems to own that God cannot verify a contradiction and he gives a very wise and per­spicuous reason for it which I leave to the Reader to con­sider.

Again Dr. Taylor is Quoted saying, Ibid. ‘that the doctrine of the Trinity does as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation.’ And so say I too: yet I profess I can easier conceive it then I can Transubstantiation. For this supposes that a natural body being unum numero, is at the same time fifteen hundred bodies all numerically distinct: whereas the Doctrine of the Trinity says the three per­sons are one God, but it does not say they are one person: so that here's no ad Idem as there is in the other case, which implyes a manifest contradiction, while the Do­ctrine of the Trinity implyes none at all. The Doctrine [Page 22] of the Trinity transcends natural reason; Transubstantia­tion contradicts it in its own sphere: both of them do equal i e. both of them do alike so far offer violence to na­tural reason, that it cannot frame an adequate notion of either. Yet still it can conceive what obstructs the cre­dibility of both; and that more things do so in one case then another: it can easily discern that what transcends it may for all that be true; but what contradicts it in its own sphere must needs be false. And this it can do without Scripture: but by Scripture it can further disco­ver that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true, and Tran­substantiation utterly false. These things are so plain and common, that it is nauseous to be forced by an un­thinking writer to inculcate them. Whoever knows any thing of the reason of his Religion, knows all this and how to apply it to Dr. Taylor's words without my telling him: and yet if I had trusted to that, these Quotations might perhaps have gone for unanswer­able.

In the next Section we come to a point. ‘ For since all contradictions are equally possible and credible why (says he) may not this contradiction that Idem corpus potest esse &c. Disc. 1. §. 21. p. 14. bid as fair for our belief as another?’ No doubt it may; and that for this reason that all contradictions are equally, i. e. all of them absolutely, impossible, and incre­dible; we may as well believe this as another, because we can beleive none at all. ‘Why then (says he) I cannot ap­prehend how you believe a real presence.’ If he cannot ap­prehend it, Ibid. §. 22. p. 15. we cannot help it; we do all that a reasona­ble man need desire to make him apprehend it; we speak in plain and intelligible terms; We tell him that we think it implyes no contradiction to believe God can do things far above our comprehension; and therefore when God tells us, that the bread which we break is the [Page 23] Communication of Christ's body, tho' we cannot explain this mystery, we can believe it without believing a con­tradiction; and granting this communication, the Real Pre­sence may be easily understood and explain'd: at least it is no contradiction to say, that a body thus mystically com­municated, may be really present when 'tis locally absent as was shew'd before.

‘But the Author who has a peculiar way of thinking, Ibid. and §. 23, 24. can think but of two expedients to evade a contradicti­on, in affirming a real and substantial, contra distinct to a Zuinglian Real presence: one of which is by holding a Zuinglian Real Presence. ( compare §. 22. with §. 24. n. 1.) and so let that pass.’ The other is by an incompre­hensible continuation of Christs body. Bishop Ʋsher would have told him a third; and other learned Protestants a fourth; but the major part of them will ^* tell him 'tis needless to enquire after any. For the Union of Christ's body to the Soul of a worthy communicant being an inex­plicable mystery, yet plainly affirm'd in Scripture; they with the fathers conclude, we have all the reason in the world to believe it; but none to attemt explaining it: and we can certainly believe it without believing a con­tradiction, tho' he that attemts to explain it, may chance to run himself into an inconvenience.

Notwithstanding some Protestants hold that Christ's Body may be present by an ineffable continuation; Disc. I. § 23. p. 16. and what has he to say to them? Why He thinks he may as probably suppose it Present by an ineffable discontinuation. Perhaps not; for their Opinion may be an Error, but his I doubt is a Bull: at least if I rightly understand that ab­struse [Page 24] notion of Presence by discontinuation; which looks so like a cont [...]adiction in terms, that to me it is almost in­conceivable, not for the mystery of it but the non­sense.

Perhaps the example he gives may a little clear this difficulty. ‘The Soul he tells us is totally in the head and foot: and if a Spirit may be in two Ubies, who can tell but a Body may be in two Places? Ibid.’ That's a Consequence which I leave to shift for it's self among the Freshmen: But I would fain know what the Souls Ubiety makes here? for if it serve to any purpose in this question 'tis to illustrate a Zuinglian Real Presence as he calls it, for as the substance of the Soul not being coextended to the dimensions of the Body, is lodg'd but in some one part; but the virtue informs them all as effectually as if it's proper Ʋbi were in each of them; and in this sense the Soul is said to be tota in toto & tota in qualibet parte: so (to make a just parallel) the natural Body of Christ which is Locally only in Heaven, does as effectually impart its virtue to every worthy Communicant, as if it were Locally present to each of them upon earth; and is there­fore sayd to be Really Present in the Eucharist. But to proceed. If this be a true account of the Souls Ubiety, I see no occasion of conceiving it ‘ to manage the Body with one foot in the water and the other out like a broken Ob­licer’, Ibid. for the placing of the Body alters nothing in the Presence of the Soul. ‘ Oh but what if the Legs be cut of? Ibid. and the same Soul suppos'd still to inform them as be­fore, per potentiam divinam?’ why I think they might as well have staid on; for the Soul will be Present as be­fore; the Substance where it was before, and the Virtue in the Legs as it was before. Well but let him suppose what he can't explain, that God by his Omnipotence may make a Soul be in too Ʋbies, what will he get by it? [Page 25] Not that the Soul is or may be so, for a thing is never the truer or more possible for his supposing it, but only that if a man suppose God can make a soul be in two Ʋbies, then he must suppose that a soul may be in two Ʋbies; which is a great truth, and no less a secret. Now dos he say any thing to induce a man to this strange supposal? Not a Syllable that I can find to shew the equity or de­cency of it; not a Syllable to take of the impossibility. But here is the Divine Omnipotence unaccounta­bly summon'd to vouch an impertinent Bull, which if it be granted we are never the nearer. So per­fect a tally is this Authors understanding to his Judg­ment.

I have already spoke of what is most material in the next Section, if any thing be farther observable, Ibid §. 24. n. 1. p. 17. it is this question, viz. ‘ If Dr. Taylors exposition of the real presence be Orthodox, what becomes of — praesentiam non minus quam illi veram quoted out of Bishop Andrews.’ If a man would take advantage of this Quoter's blunder­ing, he might translate those words. We believe a real presence as well as they. But we take the Bishop's words ^* praesentiam credimus; nec minus quam vos, veram; and his meaning, that the Spiritual presence which we hold is as Real as the Corporal which the Papists hold: and I hope we need not stay to prove a thing so manifest, and so uni­versally agreed on, Disc. 1. §. 24. n. 2, 3, 4. as that what is Spirituall is as Real as what is Corporal.

‘From this Passage to the twenty fifth Section, he re­ports the disagreement of the School-men, Ibid. §. 25, 26. in whose quarrels we are no way concern'd. After this digres­sion he spends two Sections to shew that the Real and Es­sential presence in the old Rubric, must mean the same with the Corporal presence in the new.’ To which we [Page 26] have already answerd, that K. Edwards Reformers not only thought but said so. ‘In the twenty seventh Section he is at it again, Disc I. pag 20. that the absurdity of Idem Corpus, &c. presses us as much as the Papists: and again in the twenty eighth that all he has been saying from the twenty second is to shew that to his apprehension, we must either hold this contradiction, or another equivalent, or cease to hold a Real Presence contradistinct to that of the Zuinglians.’ To this we have likewise answer'd, that if he will apprehend things aukwardly, we cannot help it. We have told him very plainly how we hold a Real Presence, and shewn it to be far enough from what he calls a Zuinglian presence: and all this without hold­ing any contradiction; or so much as medling with that question whether two Contradictories may be both true? But the Papists (and he if he were one of them) neither do nor can explain their Presence without holding a con­tradiction; which is one of the very many arguments, we urge against that prodigious doctrine.

Disc I. §. 29 30.The two next Sections are quotations out of Prote­stant "writers to this effect. ‘That we care not to di­spute the Extent of God's Absolute Power; that it is not pertinent to this question; that some men are too bold in setting bounds to the Almighty; and others too forward in pronouncing what implyes a contradi­ction; and therefore the safest way is to wave these points, and stick to what is reveal'd. All this is most undoubtedly true, and constantly maintain'd by our best writers.’ We grant that no Judicious or Pious man would discours of Gods absolute power more then he has reveal'd; or press the Papists with Idem Corpus, &c. were it only a Philosophical argument: much less would a Judicious man speak to either of the points, when they were not pertinent to his purpose. But when God has [Page 27] declar'd he cannot verify a contradiction; ^* and the maxim of Idem Corpus, &c. is apply'd in Scripture to our Saviours natural body; when we wave this where it is not necessary; to wit in explaining our own doctrine; and imploy it only against those that do, and must main­tain the contrary; we presume that neither the Judg­ment nor Piety of our Writers will be question'd by any man that has but a grain of either. Though it would not be altogether impertinent, even while we confine our selves to revelation, if finding that Idem Corpus, &c. is a truth allow'd in Scripture, we inferr that the contradicti­on of it must be false and therefore cannot be reveal'd. And certainly did a man that consider'd what he said apply himself to answer this argument, he would endeavour to take off the contradiction, and shew it was not real but apparent only; and not, as this unthinking Author does, maintain that contradictions may be verify'd; which position were it once granted, 'twere in vain to dispute or but assert any thing; and impossible to give a firm assent to any conclusion either in Reason or Religion. Wherefore it is ridiculous and impious in this man & Bel­larmin and the rest of them to invoke the Divine Omni­potence when they run their heads against a contra­diction. But they that pretend to make God when they please, may by the same reason make him do what they please.

[Page 28]This I hope is a sufficient guard, against the untoward application of any Protestant writings, wherewith the Pamphlet either does or can abuse the common Reader in this matter. Disc. I. pag. 22. Ibid. §. 19. p. 13. In the end of the thirtieth Section, he palms upon us a passage out of S. Austin, which is very surprizing. He professes to forbear quoting the Fathers, because the Protestants have done it for him; though we may take leave to suppose another Reason; but here when he thought he could delude the Reader with S. Au­stin's authority, he is willing to make his best of him. It seems that excellent Father in his ^* Cura pro mortuis having prov'd that Martyrs cannot interesse rebus viventium, without a Miracle; immediately adds that Quemadmodum, the modus whereby this Miracle is wrought is beyond his capa­city, too sublime, too abstruse for him, he had rather inquire of them that know, Ʋtrum ipsi per seipsos adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis? or whether they reliev'd their votaries by the Ministry of Angels? or whether it be both these wayes? Which shews as the Pamphlet tells us this Father believ'd no impossibility of a Martyrs being uno tempore in diversis locis. Would not any man imagin now, who knows what point the Author drives at, that he would have S. Austin say a a Martyr's Body might be in two places at once? and would he not wonder that S. Austin should be quoted for this purpose, who is ^* elsewhere so express and peremp­tory that the Naturall Body of Christ himself cannot be in two places at once? But the Author is wary; for he knew very well that by ipsi per seipsos S. Austin meant, as [Page 29] he explains himself, ipsorum animae in figura corporis sui. But did not S. Austin then believe that a Spirit might be in two places at once? Perhaps not; but was therefore at a loss because he knew not how to believe it; and this put him upon search of other solutions. I will not now inquire whether a Spirit may be sayd to be in two places at once? as the Souls of the Martyrs were by some per­haps suppos'd to have been; though the affirmative may be explain'd without holding a contradiction: but ra­ther observe how S. Austin concludes this point, viz. If the man whom he consulted should tell him out of Scripture, This thing is above your reach and therefore forbear your en­quiry; he would thankfully receive this answer and and ac­quiesce. So upon the whole matter S. Austin delivers him­self like a true Church-of-England-man; Here's a point started which is past my understanding; the difficulties and wayes of solution are these: I cannot determine and therefore do not care to dispute; I submit to Scripture, and content my self with the Certainty of the thing, with­out inquiring into the modus. I wish other Writers would follow this example; and then perhaps we might keep our Religion without parting with our common sense.

The thirty first Section containing only old matter has been spoken to before. Disc. I. pag. 23. I only add that if the Author allow Dr Heylin's reason, why does he give a different one of his own? if not, why does he quote it?

In the thirty second Section he repeats the old blunder about Real and Corporal; Ibid. and adds two or three to keep it company. ‘He cannot discern he says why it should not be a contradiction for a Body to be Locally in one place and Really Receiv'd in another?’ He should read Mr. Walker's Logic which will tell him that two contra­dictories have the same Subject and Predicate. ‘He [Page 30] says it is insidious in the Rubrick not to say that the Body Locally Absent is Really Receiv'd, and may tempt a man to doubt whether the Church thinks it to be so. Now I fancy not; because the Catechism is very express. He is troubled we refuse other mens contradictions, and expect our own should pass cur­rently.’ But we have told him that we neither hold nor meddle, that we know of, with any contradiction in explaining our own Doctrine, and he has not yet vouchsafed to make it appear we doe.

From hence to the end of the Chapter he is as busy as if he were playing with ^* Thesauro's Bees. Five wayes he has found out of explaining Really and Essentially, and no man Living, that I know of, either sayes or meanes any one of them as they are there deliver'd. Disc. I. §. 33. He sayes he does this to express his disquisition more fully

The three first explications are three such unaccount­able Whimsyes, as need no other disquisition, but whe­ther the words are capable of a rational meaning. For example. Ibid. ‘ If by Really and Essentially be meant such a Presence of Christs body to our souls as the Papists hold there is to the Elements, i. e. by abolishing the substance of the Soul and substituting Christ's body in the room of it &c. and so for the two next.’ The fourth speaks imper­fectly, §. 36. pag. 25. Ibid. but seems to say something of truth, viz. that the body becomes Really present by reason of the same Spirit uni­ting us here on earth as members to it in heaven. ‘To this he objects that then Christ would be no more present in the Eucharist then in any other Sacrament, wherein the Spirit is confer'd.’ In which I see no inconvenience; nor do I believe the Fathers did, when they said Christ is pre­sent in the Eucharist as he is in Baptism. He objects far­ther "that such presence is properly of the Spirit: Ibid. which [Page 31] I hope for his credit is onely a mistake of the Press; and that the written copy had it by the Spirit. The fifth ex­plication is likewise imperfect, if he apply it to the Church of England; which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits; but a Real participation of the body, & by con­sequence of the effects and benefits. But the great and killing objection against all explications, he dislikes, is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism. Whether the opini­on, which he brands by that name, be truly ascribed to Zuinglius, and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend, I need not now stay to inquire; 'tis sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it. Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our obser­vation. ‘It seemeth (saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308.) much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramenta­ries so many invective Discourses are made, all running upon two points, that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only, and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament. For no man having read their Books and Writings, which are thus traduced, can be igno­rant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true, they do not so interpret the words of Christ, as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signifie his Blood. They grant that these Holy mysteries Receiv'd in a due manner, do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood, which were given for the Life of the World, and besides also impart unto us, even in True and Reall though Mystical manner, the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and intire as hath been shew'd.’ These words may re­ceive farther light from Bishop Cosins's History of Transub­stantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17, 18. Now they that ac­knowledge thus much, hold a Real Participation and [Page 32] Ʋnion; which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence. And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be us'd; but perhaps be better let alone. The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius, was as Bucer reports the tenent of the Anabaptists; and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puri­tans in the beginning of the late Rebellion. And by them 'tis most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours, who at that time was observ'd to be their great associate and favourer.

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

TO the third Observable lay'd down in the first Chap­ter which now comes to be consider'd, the Author has three things to say.

1. ‘That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist, Disc. I p. 27. §. 39. it ought to be, then, ador'd; which we grant him and had he design'd to dispute for the Papists, he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present.’

[Page 33] 2. Ibid §. 40. ‘ That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be reveal'd, which is as Real and Essential, as if it were Corporal; adoration will be no less due to it thus, then so Present.’ That is, (if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow) that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent, yet as Truly and Really Present, as if it were Locally Present; she is as much bound, to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence, which she owns, as she would be if she likewise own'd that Corporal and Local Presence which she deny's. I say to adore the Elements: for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body, abstracting from the hypostatical Union, be more then a creature, which is not adora­ble with Divine worship; For all understanding men are agreed it is not: Or whether Christs person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or how­soever present, is to be ador'd both in and out of the Sa­crament, viz. in the performance of all religious offices; still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present; for this is allow'd by all true Christians whatsoever. This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it; in the mean time we deny it.

3 ‘He undertakes to shew that the Church of England (i. e. five writers of her Communion, Disc. I. pag. 28. §. 41, 42, 43, 44, 45. whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue) have heretofore believ'd and affirm'd such a Presence, to which they thought adoration due.’ To adore a pre­sence is an odd kind of expression; for 'tis to adore an extrinsic denomination. To adore Christ present in the my­steries, is a phrase we better understand; though that too be lyable to misconstruction. If the author dare to speak plain, the point that pinches, and the true thing [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page] [...] [Page 34] to be prov'd, is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist, that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshiped upon that account. And if this be so, as I think I have plainly shewn, I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose, who ex­pressly in the very quotation declares himself against him, saying ‘ Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus’; or Bi­shop Taylor saying likewise, ‘ We give no divine honour to the Signs’, or Bishop Forbes saying, ‘ Haec adoratio non pani, non vino, non sumptioni, non comestioni debetur’; or the Arch-Bishop of Spalato, since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Arch-Bishop. I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion.

Disc. I. pag 29. §. 47.Having given us this taste of his other good quali­ties, he concludes with a spice of his Logic, and infers ‘1. That notwithstanding what he has said, the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist; contrary to the forecited Doctrine, and K. James's and Bishop Andrews's Religion.’ I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions; but tell him that the King's, the Bishop's, and the Churches meaning is very plain, viz. that since Christs Natural Body is not to be ador'd but where it is Corporally & Locally Present; & it is not so Present in the Eucharist: that therefore in the Sacra­ment (i. e. in the celebration) the worthy Communicant, to whose Soul that Body is really present, is to adore the person of Christ in heaven where alone his Body is Locally Present. This I doubt the Author very well knew, and saw it was no way contrary to the Declara­tion. Wherefore he seems to lay no great stress upon this first inference, but goes on Or at least 2 ly. ‘And [Page [35]] here hee would have it bee infidious in the Church to deny that Adoration is due to a Corporal presence, Ibid. and not declare though she believes that there is another adorable presence.’ Now I cannot imagin that even this Author has the confidence to say the Church of England has not sufficiently taught that Christ in Heaven is a­dorable; or the ignorance to think that any good Chri­stian is not sufficiently assur'd of that point. But as for adoring Christs Body any otherwise then by directing adoration to his person where his body is suppos'd to be Locally present, neither the Church of England nor any other Church ever dreamt of it.

THe fifth is the kindest Chapter in all this Discourse: for the six first Sections require no manner of an­swer, and the last seemes at first sight to shew some little ingenuity; which with this Author is a thing so extraor­dinary, that had he not retracted, I think we must have given him publick thanks for it.

‘He tells us that perhaps some other passages may be collected out of the Authors he has quoted, Disc. I. pag. 32. §. 55. that may seem to qualify those he has set down, and better suit with the expressions of the Declaration.’ For it seems his Conscience flew in his Face, because he very well knew, that if the Reader consulted the Authors them­selves, not only the passages he omitted, but those he mangled, would be found intirely agreeable to the Decla­ration. The only way left to escape discovery, was to prevent, if he could, the search as unnecessary. ‘Where­fore [Page [36]] he says tnat if the unquoted passages come over to the quoted, we are then but where we were: and the quoted accommodated to the unquoted will appear to abett but bare Zuinglianism.’ To this I have answered as much as is necessary already and therefore shall not re­peat or add to it.

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

THE Title of this second Discourse does but ill a­gree with the design of it. For all the world knows that Papists, who should be the Catholics this Author means, by a Real and Substantial understand a Corporal Presence, and ground their Adoration upon it. Whereas the scope of this Discourse is to shew, that the Papists in Adoring either do or may prescind from Tran­substantiation; and ground their Adoration precisely upon the Reality of the Presence: and by consequence that Protestants especially of the Church of England, who hold Christ Truly Present and Adorable in the Eucha­rist; ought upon their own Principles to joyn in the Po­pish adoration; or at least absolve them that do so from the guilt of Idolatry.

What the Writers of the Church of England mean when they hold a Real Presence, and in what sense they teach us to Adore Christ's Body in the Sacrament; I hope I have already explain'd so fully, that I need make no repetition: so that the first six leaves of this Defence, will afford us little new matter, being chiefly taken up in re­peating some quotations in the first Discourse; and aim­ing at no more then a specimen of Protestant concessions, which by what we have said are sufficiently guarded a­gainst the Sophistry of his interpretations. Wherefore waving for the present a distinct examen of all his Prote­stant quotations, as a thing tedious, and no way necessa­ry, serving chiefly to divert and amuse the Reader, and [Page [38]] thereby puzzle the cause, I shall make it the business of this Chapter to speak briefly to those other passages that are most observable in the eight first Sections of this Defence.

Disc II. pag. 1. §. 1, 2, 3.His two first Suppositions we grant him, being convinc'd of the truth of them by much better reasons then he as­signs. Nor should we have demurr'd to the third, if we were not now acquainted with his insidious and shuf [...]ing way of talking. But if we may explain our selves we grant him that ‘ Wherever the Body of our Lord is Locally Present, it is supremely Adorable’. We likewise grant him ‘that the Omnipresent God may be ador'd, before or in the Presence of any Creature’, (we on earth cannot wor­ship him but in the presence of some Creature) provid­ed allways we direct our Adoration immediately and solely to him; not considering the Creatures present, nor ad­dressing the outward act, much less the inward worship of the Heart, to any Creature upon the score of Gods presence. For (taking Adoration for divine Worship) it is certainly Idolatry not only to adore a Creature, but even to make it (as I may so say) the vehicle of that adoration which wee direct to God, and terminate upon him alone. 'Tis true Christs natural Body abstractedly consider'd is a creature: but then it is for ever hypo­statically united to the Deity; so that the whole person of Christ is that very Lord our God, whom wee must wor­ship, and whom alone wee must serve. But no other crea­ture is so united by virtue of God's presence to or in or with that creature: and even that body is not so (i. e. hypostatically) united, but as it exists like other human bodies within some determinate local circumscription: wherefore no other creature may bee ador'd; nor even Christ's Body but as it exists and is united, and there­by becomes adorable, where it is Locally present.

[Page 39]I pass by the place in the Corinthians which the Pam­phlet most impertinently refers to, Disc. II. pag 2. § 3. having already ta­ken notice of the Author's practice in such cases. Nor shall I much insist upon that passage; that ‘Christ's hu­manity abstractively considered is adorable with a Worship not exceeding that due to a Creature’: Ibid. for wee are not now talking of Inferior Adoration, but supreme Divine Worship. Wee know that adorare is by some taken for manum ori admovere; to kiss the hand (or any thing els) in token of respect, which, as some Papists would perswade us, is all they do to their Images. But 'tis certainly foppery if it be no worse to do so to any thing but an intelligent being. Besides wee know it was a ^* ceremony of the heathen Idolatry, and Job is of opinion, Ibid. that if he had us'd it to the sun (in which our author newly instanc'd) it had been an iniquity to be punish'd by the Judg, for he should have deny'd the God that is above. Job. XXXI.26.27.28.

‘In the fifth Section he tells us that Protestants, Disc. II. pag. 2. § 5. n. 1. of the Church of England especially, grant the body and blood of Christ to be Really Present in the Eucharist not in Vertue only but in Substance: and that this body and blood of our Lord which is not sever'd from his person is then to bee worshipped with Supreme Ado­ration.’ This we likewise grant him, as we have al­ready explain'd it according to the mind of those Pro­testants, and so pass over the quotations which take up the two next sections, together with abundance of ad­vantage that an adversary might take: for we are now in pursuit of an argument, that is in some danger to be lost in this mist of quotations.

These are all the Concessions wherein the Church of [Page 40] England is concern'd: and therefore we might pass o­ver the two next; which I cannot imagin to what pur­pose he mentions. Disc. II. pag 10. § 7. For though ‘the Lutherans grant (as some, not all of 'em do) that during the action of the Eucharist, Christs body is to be ador'd, as by Consub­stantiation present to the Consecrated Symbols:’ I see not what advantage this concession gives to his cause, or how it is any way prejudiciall to ours. For the Lutherans hold a Local Presence; wherefore some of them think they may adore; and if we could believe their Presence we should not contest their Adoration.

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

Ibid. p. 12.Once more this Judicious Author appeals to M. Daillè, who believing as the Church of England does, that to Worship any Host is Idolatry, yet grants if the case were otherwise, and if a Consecrated Host were truly adorable, [Page 41] it were possible to adore one that is not Consecrated, with­out committing formal Idolatry. Likewise He and Dr. Stillingfleet grant that when Christ was upon Earth (where his person was confessedly adorable) a man that by inculpable mistake had ador'd another person for him, might have likewise been absolv'd from the guilt of formal Idolatry. And both these concessions are as certainly true, as certanly alleg'd to no purpose. But per­haps the Author means the reason only, not the instances, to be pertinent, and would infer no more but that Papists by our own concessions may be no Idolaters though they Worship a Creature; because they may do this by an inculpable mistake. This I grant may be something (not to his but) to the Papists purpose, if he prove them incul­pably mistaken; but that We should suppose them so, I cannot see why he should pretend. For he knows that we think Transubstantiation to be more then a mistake; a flat and manifest defyance of Sense and Reason, Scrip­ture and Tradition; and in that respect more culpable then the grossest Heathen mistake: for they (to mention no other disparity) wanted the Light of Scripture, which the Papists have, and shut their eyes against; and this in our opinion makes a vast difference between the Popish and Heathen Idolatry.

SO much for the Protestant Concessions. The Defender in the six next Sections, pretends to lay down Ca­tholic Assertions; which I doubt will be no more allow'd by the Church of Rome, then his Protestant Concessions are by the Church of England. First he tells us tha [...] [Page 42] ‘Catholics affirm there is in the Eucharist after conse­cration, a Sign distinct and having a divers existence from the thing signify'd. Disc. II. pag. 13. §. 9. Whence he concludes that Dr. Stil­lingfleet does them wrong, when he says they grant the Signs to be hypostatically united to the Thing signify'd.’ A Sign there must be, says his own quotation out of Bel­larmin, or there can be no Sacrament. Wherefore we presume they hold a Sign. But then the Sign as they explain it, is neither the Sign instituted by Christ, (which doubless a Sacramental sign ought to be) nor indeed any other Sign, but a Sign that signifies nothing. Then for the separate Existence of it, some Papists do not hold that neither; as the Author could not but see in that very place of Dr Taylor, which he refers to in this Section: which makes it somewhat strange, that so liberal a quoter should here be so unseasonably sparing, as not to afford us one testimony that expressly owns this separate Exi­stence. But all Papists that will talk consistently must deny it: not only because an accident cannot exist with­out inherence; but because they hold the Species uni­ted to the Body to make one intire object of Adoration; which cannot be without a Hypostatical Union. Where­fore Bellarmin and Valentia though they do not use the term [ Hypostatically] yet find themselves obliged to say the thing; and explain the Ʋnion of the Species to the Bo­dy in the same manner as they do the Hypostatical Ʋnion. Valentia indeed is so much a Jesuit as having sayd the thing, to deny the word: but Bellarmin is more consider­ing. And this is all, that excellent Person says, whom the Author therefore traduces for slandering the Catho­lics: to which I can only say, that he certainly slanders Dr Stillingfleet; and I know not how to count him a Pa­pist who will not allow Bellarmin to be one of his Catholics

[Page 43]He adds that his Catholicks affirm this Sign, we are speaking of, to be all that of the Bread and Wine which is perceptible by any sense: ‘and therefore when they tell us that the Substance is done away, Disc. II. pag. 14. §. 10. they take Substance in such a sense as is non-sense; For so he says though in more and other words’: but 'tis good to be as brief as may be when we talk unintelligibly. And non-sense is a sort of sense very proper for this subject being the re­maining species and accidents of sense when the substance of it is done away. Wherefore our Author proceeds in the same strain, and tells us that ‘ his Catholics allow Local positions to be predicated of Christ's Body, indivisibly present; but to taste, to be digested to nourish▪ to be press'd with the Teeth, to be burnt, or gnaw'd by brutes, these belong only to the Species, and not to Christ's Bo­dy which is impassible.’ All this is to be understood in the Sense last mention'd; wherefore he wisely forbears to give a reason; and only quotes Bellarmin, who is now become one of his Catholics. But Bellarmin at best was but a fallible Cardinal, and infallible Pope ^* Nicholas II. with his Cardinals made Berengarius tell another tale. And though Hildebrand differ'd from Nicholas, and Inno­cent III. from them both; yet we must not inquire how all these Popes were Infallible, and their several Adhe­rents Orthodox, and yet our Authors Doctrine good Ca­tholic Doctrine still. For the Book of Education tells us, that ^* Acuteness & Sagacity are apt to dispose men to Heresy: and 'tis certain that no man can become a Thorough Convert of this Authors, till his Brains be Case-hard­ned to be proof against all manner of contradictions.

In the eleventh Section he says ‘that the word Sacra­ment is not allways taken in the same sense.’ Disc 2. pag. 14. §. 11. We al­low [Page 44] him to take it in any sense provided it be sense that he takes it in. Wherefore we except not to his taking Sacramentum for Res Sacramenti when he explains how his Catholics adore the Sacrament. It seems that ‘they to the Sacramentum give an inferior cult; but Divine adora­tion (which I wonder why he would not call latry) to the Res Sacramenti only, Ibid viz. only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in the Sa­crament (for so he says) and to him precisely as Really present, abstracting both from Transubstantiation and the belief of a Corporal presense;’ for so he explains himselfe afterwards. Now if there be no Popery Lurk­ing under that sly word cult, I am afraid this Catholic Defender will go for as rank a Heretick as any Calvinist that now rows in the Gallies. For to give the Papists sense in the words of ^* Suarez. Non solum Christus sed totum visibile Sacramentum, unico cultu, adoratur. 'Tis not an inferior cult to the Species that will serve the turn; nor Duly nor Hyperduly neither, but ^* Henriquez says it must be Latry; speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent. In short ^* the remaining Spe­cies of Bread and Wine together with the Natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them, make one intire object of the Papists adoration which they call Sacramentum. And this they tell us the Councell of Trent means, when it requires ^* Omnes Christi fideles Latriae cultum huic Sanctissimo Sacramento adhibere. ^* Nor is this Deny'd that I know of by any that understand ei­ther the Doctrine or the Practice of the Church of Rome. So says the Great & Learned Dr Stillingfleet in the place here quoted by our Author: who should have confuted this pas­sage instead of nibling at an unanswerable argument: else [Page 45] the meaning of the Council will allways be judg'd, by the Doctrine and Practice of the Church; and the most artificial disguise the Defender has in his Wardrobe will never make his Catholics pass currently for true Papists.

I am not sollicitous what the words of the Council of Trent are, nor I think ever shall be, till I forget the two famous controversies that ^* Soto had with Vega and Catharinus. Disc 2. pag 15. § 12. For if they who were members of the Coun­cil, and so eminently concern'd in wording the Decrees, were for all this ignorant of the true sense of those De­crees; 'tis now I doubt too late for a Protestant to give 'em a determinate meaning; nor need any man regard 'em any more then those other Oracles that were dictated with the like ambiguity. But to guide us in this Laby­rinth, the Defender gives us a Judicious Observation, as he calls it, out of Sancta Clara which is this. Disc. 2. §. 13. p. 17. ‘The substance of the Catholic Faith is declar'd both in the Chapters and Canons; but yet the Canons we must stick to, where the form is exceeding exact, though the manner of ex­pression sometimes different from that in the Chapters.’ How Judicious this remark is, and how much for the Council's honor, may perhaps be question'd: but how well 'tis apply'd to the present case, where the Canon is more ambiguous and therefore less exact then the Chapter; is a thing will admit of no dispute: nor will any man contest this Author's title to so Judicious an application.

After a leafe's insignificant pother, he comes to this final Resolution. Disc. 2. §. 14. p. 18. ‘That to adore the Sacrament is at most but an improper expression. And says as magisterially as e­ver Soave did, that dutifull Children ought to learn of their Mother how to speak’; Disc. 2. p. 17. provided always (say I) that their Mother do not teach them to abuse their Father; and if they cannot come at their Mother, or cannot un­derstand [Page 46] her language, I hope 'tis no offence to ask her meaning of their Brethren that know her mind. But af­ter all it is not the expression but the practice that we com­plain of; 'tis not talking improperly, but committing Idola­try that we fear; 'tis not his inferior cult, but Suarez's u­nico cultu that we cannot digest. And if the Defender would not urge us by pardoning an expression to allow a great Sin, we would not only suffer, but advise him to talk improperly and singularly, that so his language might the better correspond with his notions.

HItherto the Author has been ranging; in the fif­teenth Section he seems to make a set. Disc. 2. pag. 19. ‘He deny's that the Protestants give a true state of the que­stion and his instance is in Dr. Stillingfleet, whom his evill Genius ever prompts him to attacque; notwith­standing his briskest attempts so constantly & scandalous­ly miscarry.’ To him he joyns Bishop Andrews and Bi­shop Taylor; whose words if they be pertinently apply'd here, are so disingenuously quoted in other parts of this Pamphlet, that I doubt the Author's dealing will a­mount to a very improper expression.

But if Protestants state the question wrong; let us heare how this Author himself states it. ‘He reduces the whole controversy to these two questions 1. Ibid. p. 20. Whi­ther the Body and Blood of Christ ( prescinding from whatever symbol is or may be there) is adorable, as be­ing present in the Sacrament with the symbols? 2 ly Whither the adoration of Christ's Body (and so of Christ) as present, if it should not be so, will amount [Page 47] to Idolatry? allways supposing as he adds in the 17 th Section, that we continue to adore the self same object as the Papists now do, in the self same place, pag 21. with all the same circumstances wherewith their adoration is now perform'd.’

To this I answer, that I cannot take it upon this Au­thor's word, that Popes and Councils with the most and best of the Romish writers, have so abandon'd all com­mon sense and ingenuity, as to say and practice what they have done, if they really meant no more then he pretends. For this were an improper expression with a witness; an insincerity that an honest Heathen would tremble at. Nor if one or two School-men were really of his mind, should he that in the Guide is so great a stick­ler for majorities, here propose the opinion of a few for­lorn members, for the standing Judgment of the whole Church. The true sons of the Church of Rome are more ingenuous; and own that they believe, the species together with the Body, to make one intire object, to which they pay one intire act of adoration. For the truth of this together with a full state and decision of this que­stion I refer the Reader to a ^* late excellent Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host. For it is not my pre­sent business to dispute with Honest minded Papists, whose errors I heartily lament, and beseech God to open their eyes; but with this shuffling writer, who being in­deed of no Church, would fain pin himself now upon the Church of Rome. ‘ This (says he) is affirm'd by Catholics; more then this need not be so, and again, Disc 2. pag 20. l. 7. Ibid l. 2 Disc 2. pag. 16. The Roman Church owns or imposes no more. So likewise §. 13. The definition of this Council in the sixth canon, ( more then which is not requir'd to be profess'd by any Son of the Roman Church) is this Si quis dixerit &c. That is (as is declar'd more [Page 48] at large in the fifth discourse of the Guide) the stress of all lyes upon si quis dixerit & si quis negaverit. §. 186. p. 133. So that if a man be but a little complaisant in his practice and keep a good tongue in his head, let him be what he will in his heart, he may still be one of this Author's Catholics, though I doubt none of the Church of Rome's.’ For though the greatest sins are with him but improper expressions, yet all honest men of the Roman or any other communion, will call his dealing by a proper expression which I do not now care to name.

Wherefore the Controversy between us and this Au­thor (for the Church of Rome is no way concern'd in his dreams) is briefly this. ‘Whether prescinding from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence, and allow­ing only a Real Presence as the writers of the Church of England do, it is Idolatry to pay the self same adora­tion, with the self same ceremonies to the self same object in the self same place and manner, that the Papists now pay it to the Consecrated Elements?’ To this I answer Affirmatively; and hope I have already ^* given a good and sufficient reason why I do so. It remains that I examin what the Author has to say for the Negative.

First he saies ‘those Protestants who absolve the Lu­therans from Idolatry, Disc. 2. §. 19. may, as he has stated the matter, as well absolve his Catholics.’ To which I am not concern'd to answer, tho' tis false and easily confutable, because his own state excludes the consideration both of a Popish and Lutheran Presence as farr as either of them differ from the Church of England's Real Presence.

Come we therefore 2 ly to the twenty first section, where he supposes both Papists and Lutherans in an error; both ‘mistaking Christ the true object of supreme Adoration to be in a place where he is not.’ Ibid. p. 25. He should add, and the Papists upon that mistake adoring an object that is not at [Page 49] all Adorable. ‘Now this he says cannot be term'd any such Idolatry, as is the Worship of an object not at all Ado­rable.’ Such or not such is not properly the question, but whether it be Idolatry? Wherefore I pass by his imper­tinent trifling with his Angel and his Serpent; for the ar­gument he should answer is this. The Israelites and Ma­nichees, who directed the outward act of adoration to a Crea­ture, were accounted Idolaters by God and the Primitive Church; notwithstanding their own supposing, or the Author's supposing for them: and we by the same rea­son say that whoever pays the adoration aforesaid to the Consecrated Elements, let him suppose what he will, will for all his supposition commit an improper expression which God and the Church will account Idolatry.

His third assertion must be taken in pieces. Disc. 2. pag. 26. §. 22. ‘He says Whatever Fault or Idolatry it may be in a Manichee to Wor­ship the Sun, or an Israelite the Calf, yet &c.’ where I won­der he talks so mincingly, whatever fault, and may be, when St. Paul 1 Cor. X.7. is peremtory that the Worshipers of the Calf were Idolaters. Ibid. ‘He says his Catholics freely grant, that a good intention grounded upon culpable ig­norance can excuse none from Idolatry.’ We accept this Concession and desire to know if Popish ignorance be not Culpable how 'tis possible any Ignorance should? 3. ‘ He says that Mons. Ibid. Daillé (and he supposes other Prote­stants with him) allow that a Ground or Motive of a­doration which is Reasonable though not absolutely certain, but actually mistaken, is sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry. Whence he infers that if Catholics can produce a rational ground of their ap­prehending Christ present in the Eucharist, tho' possibly mistaken in it, they are to be excus'd from Idolatry’: at least by those Protestants who excuse the Lutherans: and so he proceeds to shew his Rational Grounds.

[Page 50]I think it an easy undertaking to shew a vast disparity between the Papists and Lutherans in this point; but not very pertinent at this time. For neither of those parties is concern'd in the question as 'tis now stated by our Au­thor. 'Tis with him and with his Catholics we have to do; with them that prescind from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence; and not with the Lutherans or Papists who both stick to a Corporal Presence, & are not so ill advis'd as to quit their hold to run the hazard of this man's idle suppositions· But here's the juggle I expected, here's the Main Point lost in a mist. We that have been drill'd on through one whole Discourse, and twenty and six long pages of another, and all in hopes to have seen it prov'd, that supposing no Corporal, but precisely a Real Presence, to adore the Elements is no Idolatry; are now to be put of with five stale grounds for beliefe of Transub­stantiation. I say of Transubstantiation though he only names a Corporal presence: For he calls himself the Catho­lic Defender, and the grounds he alleges are the Popish ar­guments for Transubstantiation; and he disclaims being a Lutheran; and we know of no party besides these two that now holds a Corporal Presence.

SInce my present undertaking obliges me no farther, then to answer the Defender's arguments upon the question as he has stated it; I might very well pass over his grounds for beliefe of Transubstantiation: which were before offer'd in the Guide; and in other Authors before that Guide could go alone; and may be easily trac'd from Author to Author up to Archbishop Cranmer, who has re­ported and answer'd every one of them in his Book of the Eucharist.

[Page 51]Our Author delivers in his list of them like a bill that begins with Item. Disc. 2. pag. 27. sect;. 24. ‘For he says his first ground for a Corporal presence (after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants) is Divine Revelation, viz. the words hoc est corpus meum, so often iterated in the Gos­pel; and again by S. Paul without any variation, change, or explication: as also the discourse of our blessed Sa­viour in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel.’

Now to this second and foremost argument, the ^* Arch-Bishop has punctually reply'd: viz. to the words of the institution p. 8.23.253 and elsewhere, and the an­swers are now so well known that they need not be re­peated, and whereas the Pamphlet insists upon S. Paul's repeating them without any variation or explication; the Archbishop plainly shew's p. 254. ^* that S. Paul both va­ries and explains them as will be evident to any man that consults 1 Cor. X.16. so likewise to the Popish explication of our Saviours discourse Joh. 6. the Archbishop answers in divers places ^* p. 18.31.37.111.217.329. in all things speak­ing consonant to the sense of the primitive Fathers: accor­ding [Page 52] to whose notions the true and plain meaning of that Chapter has been so fully express'd in a late Paraphrase that no more need be sayd of that matter. And whereas this Author farther says that no argument from our senses is valid against plain revelation; (though the case was some­thing otherwise in the fourteenth page of the first Discourse,) to this likewise the Arch-Bishop answers p. 263. ^* in the very same manner that we do to this day; and have all­ready answer'd in the fourth Chapter of this Reply.

Disc. 2. pag. 23 [...] 25.The next Ground is the definition of severall Councils which he calls ‘ the Declaration of the most Supreme and Ʋ ­niversall Church-authority, not considering how harsh these expressions will [...]ound at Rome: and he tels us that seven or eight of these Councils, if we take in the second Nicene are reckon'd up in the first Discourse of the Guide and all of 'em before that of Trent.’

I must confess the Arch-Bishop replyes to but one of these; for men were more wise and modest in those days then to challenge the other seven. He says indeed en passant of the Roman one under Pope Nicholas, that the Papists themselves were then asham'd of Berengarius's first recan­tation; a very good reason one would think, to wave an appeal to that Synod: and in truth the Lateran under In­nocent III. was the only Council that intelligent Papists [Page 53] could at that time pretend to. Now to this the Arch-Bi­shop excepts p. 251. as a Synod pack'd and overaw'd by that exorbitant Pope, which neither had nor alleg'd any Scripture to vouch their definitions: A truth, of which the whole world is by this time very well satisfi'd. But to speak distinctly of these eight Supreme Universall Church-Au­thorities; ^* two of 'em, those at Rome and Vercelli under Leo IX were Italian Conventicles, manag'd by Humbert and Hildebrand, whereof the first condem'd Berengarius without hearing, the second without understanding him. Wherefore the Gallican Churches defy'd 'em both, and Victor was fain to send Hildebrand into France; where he pick'd up another little Synod at Tours, and once more condemn'd Berengarius. The express Judgment of these three small Universal meetings is not certainly known: But if we may guess by the decision of the next Roman Synod under Nicholas II they believ'd according to the form, which Humbert and Hildebrand then contriv'd for Berengarius to recant in. About 18 years after, when Hil­debrand himself was Pope, and his infallibility began to blome, he conven'd another Roman Synod, and propos'd a more correct form; which he forc'd Berengarius to sub­scribe to; ^* not without some feud, which arose in that little assembly like a tempest in a bason, and continu'd three days till at last the Pope outbluster'd it. After all this, Hildebrand himself, ^* as appears by his own work in manuscript, was not fully satisfi'd what was fit to re­solve upon the question. So that five of these eight Su­preme Universal Church-authorities, were govern'd by one man, who scarce knew his own mind: and one whose character; as many of the Papists give it; would have made Sr. Thomas More say of him too, that he would not for [Page 54] the world heare him say the Creed. Now for the second Nicene Council, our Author seems to make but a faint and doubt­full appeal to it; whether it be that the places, he refers to, are fairly capable of another meaning then he aims at; or whether he had a Just notion of the reverence due to such a Council. ^* A Council conven'd by an Em­press that had liv'd a Heathen till her marriage; and was then but a kind of a Si quis dixerit-Convert to Christiani­ty. A Council manag'd by Tarasius an old courtier of the Queens; and one John of the East, whom his own Patri­arch, that sent him, affirm'd to have some devotion but little Learning. A Council that defin'd Angels to be Cor­poreal, and Stocks and Stones to be worshipped: in short a Council that should have defin'd Transubstantiation, though it did not: for the world never saw an assembly better fitted, to define a condradiction to Scripture Sense and Reason. ^* Yet even this Council came not up to our Author's terms, any more then the Council of Florence, which he quotes to as little purpose. For 'tis certain that Council did neither decree nor treat of Transubstantiati­on; the Instructio ad Armenos, being foysted into the De­crees, three months after the Council was dissolv'd, and so much with the Armenians approbation, that to this day they believe the Consecrated elements to retain their na­ture in the Eucharist. And will not our Author's private and truly humble Christian be finely holp up now with the Supreme Universal Authority of eight Councils in Buck­ram, which at last amount to but one Lateran under In­nocent III? and that too infamous for establishing the De­posing Doctrine? ^* so that all honest and loyal Papists re­ject the Lateran Canons; affirming they were only pro­pos'd but never ratifi'd by the Council, but shuffled into the Decretals by Pope Innocent's Nephew when he came [Page 55] to be Gregory IX. But perhaps the Council of Trent may salve all and help to settle a wavering man. Truly no; as this Author expounds it; ^* for it only defin'd Si quis di­xerit: i. e. the Council it self says nothing but only what you shall not say: do but hold your tongue and believe your pleasure, you may still be as good a disciple as Nico­demus was. Now to muster up the forces of these nine Generall Councils; here are seven of 'em nothing to the purpose; the Eighth of very doubtfull, if not very scan­dalous Authority; the Ninth leaves our Faith at liberty, and would only bridle our Tongues; proposing no grounds of believing, but a swinging curse for talking.

Our Author himself seems a little diffident of this ground, Disc. 2. pag. 29. §. 26. for a better reason too then a man would expect from him. ‘He says these Councils are not so ancient as some may expect’; and truly Novelty in Religion is allow'd by all sober men too be a great persumtion of Falshood. Wherefore he endeavours to goad up his pretensions some two or three hundred years higher; though all in vain as long as he is destitute of truly primitive Antiquity. The Authors, he remits us to, are every one of 'em ex­plain'd and vindicated by the Arch-Bishop; except those mystagogicall Catecheses, which I think were not printed, (perhaps not made) till after the Arch-Bishop's death. But these ^* Authors and abundance more are effectually consider'd in that Just and admirable work of Monsieur Aubertine de Eucharistia: which if the Defender's humble Christian " when he goes into the public library, Ibid. will be but so humble as to make the companion of his studies, he'll find that no art can make Transubstantiation look so old, but that the persent Roman Doctrine will ap­pear [Page [56]] too young by above twelve hundred years.

Disc. 2. pag. 29. §. 27.Instead of securing his next deceitfull ground, and giv­ing us something we may rest our foot upon; ‘He sends his humble Christian to a Discourse and a Digression in the Guide, to Mons. Blondell's Eclaircissement; and the endless Controversy between Claud and Arnaud’: which when he has consulted he will find he has been upon an Aprill errand. But to save him that labour if we can; let us first see what will become of us if we grant this ground; viz. the Universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time. Now to this ground likewise the Arch-Bishop has effectually re­ply'd in divers places. p. 11. p. 380. and especially from p. 405. to the end of the Book. The summ is that the true Church & Doctrine are to be judg'd by their agreement to Scripture & Antiquity; not always to be measur'd by the majority of visible Professors. For that may be often overrun with dangerous error; (as de facto it was among the Jews even by our Authors own confession, in his book of the benefits of our Saviour cap. 9.) Wherefore the general Example is not always a rational ground of Practice; and a reasonable man will consider the reason of the practice, he complies with; and bring a Doctrine ^* to the Law and to the Testimnyo, before he yields up his assent to it. This we presume ^* the seven thousand did which were the true though secret Church of God, when all the rest of the visible Jewish Church, had bow'd the knee to Baal and kissed him. Thus the rest of that ^* little flock which God hath ever had and will have to the end of the world; not swimming with our Author's stream though never so impetuous, Disc. 2. §. 27. p. 31. but weighing all things in the ballance of the Sanctuary. For if prevalence and prescription were a rational and sufficient ground of practice, and the visible [Page [57]] majority of the Church should fall into a Damnable er­ror, (which thing certainly may be, because it has been) the Church might lawfully persist in that Damnable er­ror, nor would it be oblig'd to eject the most scandalous corruption that had once got peaceable possession. This we think a sufficient, and give it as the shortest, answer to this ground consider'd with the utmost advantage whereof it is capable; viz. supposing ( ^* what is falsly challeng'd) the universal doctrine and practice of the later Church till Lu­ther. But otherwise we could both tell him, and prove beyond all possibility of a fair Reply, that the controversy lasted above three hudred years before Transubstantiati­on could be lick'd into any shape; and that at last it was setled in an age, of which the Papists themselves give so scandalous a Character, that no History can tell us of a majority more unlikely to sway a knowing or a virtuous man. We could shew him that the Universality, he talks of, must exclude the Abissines, the Armenians, the Maronites, and abundance of other Christians; nay the much more valueable part of the Latin Church it self. For though the Pope, when he was strong enough to exercise the Pleni­tude of his Power, made his Enemies and their Writeings as invisible as fire and smoke could; yet still there remain the undoubted Monuments of a long visible Succession all declaring against Transubstantiation; for a collection of whose Testimonies the world has lately been oblig'd to a member of the Roman Communion.

His last ground is the same with the foremost of his firsts; viz. the Concessions of Protestants. Disc. 2. § 28. p. 31. ‘For he's at it once more that the Genuine Sons of the Church of England hold our Saviour to be Really Present and Adorable in [Page [58]] the Sacrament.’ Which has been so often sayd, &, I hope, so fully answer'd before, that I shall take no farther no­tice of it now. I shall only tell him as the Archbishop of­ten tells Gardiner upon the like occasion, that he seems to be in great distress, when he flyes for refuge to those Au­thors, whom at other times he abhors as Heretics; but his application to them is in vain; for they are far from meaning any such thing as he pretends.

Ibid. p. 32. ‘In the close of this Paragraph he looks back upon all these Pleas of Catholics, and invites us to see if they will not make up at least a reasonable Ground or motive of their Adoration.’ Now I must profess that I see no­thing like it, as he has order'd the matter. For though I believe a man of art out of these five grounds, might have made a plausible though not a rational plea; to my ap­prehension this Author has left the Papists in a much worse case, then he found them. For 1. he offers nothing to excuse them from Idolatry, but the Concessions of one or two Protestants, which 'tis evident come not home to his purpose; because they whom the Protestants excuse are suppos'd inculpably mistaken; and not at all mistaken in the object of their Adoration. 2. He ingages the Papists upon a very difficult, or rather an impossible precision, both because it is contrary to what they have been taught; and because they are all bound under a severe Anathema to believe Transubstantiation; so that a Papist can ne­ver explain this term [ Reall Presence] to himself, but by this other of [ Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantia­tion] 3. Having invited the Papists to wave that Corpo­ral Presence, for which they think they have a great many arguments; he proposes Adoration founded on an­other notion; for which he has not offer'd them so much as one argument. So that in short he proposes what no body is like to practice, upon the sole strength [Page [59]] of a Doctrine for which he has nothing to say.

‘In the next place he complains that these five Ratio­nal grounds are not strictly examin'd by the Protestants.’ Disc. 2. §. 29 p. 32. But we think otherwise; and must leave the indifferent Reader to Judg between us. We think they were effectu­ally answer'd by the Arch-Bishop above an hundred years agoe; and by divers other writers since; especially the Author of a late Incomparable Discourse against Tran­substantiation: which all the Posse of the Church of Rome will never be able to answer any otherwise then they did the Arch-Bishop.

Wherefore the Defender must allow us to retain our old opinion of those Protestants, whom he censures so freely in the remaining part of this paragraph. Ibid. p. 33. We shall still think that Mons. Daillé had reason; and made a true reso­lution of Popery into Passion and Interest; that Bishop Taylor has prov'd as well as said, that the Papists pretences to the Fathers are but few and trifling; that what the De­fender quotes out of Liberty of prophecying, is a very good argument against the literall sense; and that the Bishop while he pleaded for the Papists did prudently to omit Ca­tholic tradition; which he knew was not on theyr side. We shall still profess with Dr. Stillingfleet, that the gros­sest Idolatry in the world has as fair a plea as the Popish; and conclude that this Trifler finding fault with him, has not ex- but inexcuseably mistaken the Doctor's argument; as will appear by comparing his words with what the Dr. says Rom: Idolatry cap. 2. §. 7. pag. 132.133. Lastly we a­gree that if Transubstantiation were warranted by Catho­lic tradition, Adoration were sufficiently grounded; and cannot but smile, as Crassus did upon a like occasion, to see how gingerly the Defender nibbles at this concession. ‘He seems to say that Tradition is for Transubstantiation, Ibid. yet he waves that, and pleads only for a Corporal Pre­sence;’ [Page [60]] which for any thing he says here may be taken in a Lutheran sense; though (to talk with him in his own language) if Trans— be true Consubstantiation must needs be fals. And what's all this to his purpose, who pretends to abstract from both? and ground his Adoration pre­cisely upon a Real Presence?

And now 'tis my turn to address to the indifferent Rea­der; and if he have either read Mr. Thorndike's Epilogue, or but carefully consider'd this Author's quotations out of it, to ask his opinion about these two or three questi­ons. 1. Whether this Author has in all this whole Pam­phlet expressly own'd himself a Roman-Catholic? or rather skulk'd under the general name of Catholic taken in the same latitude, Mr. Thorndike takes it in his Epilogue? 2 Whether all his shuffling be not only to advance Mr Thorndike's new and singular notion of a presence of Christ's body in, or with, or under the Elements (§. 28. p. 32.) distinct from the Church of Englands Real, and the Papists and Lutherans Corporal Presence? In short, not a Virtual, nor Spiritual, but a Corporal Presence, effected neither by con — nor Transubstantiation, but after some other unknown manner distinct from both? (§. 17. p. 21.) 3 Whether a new and upstart doctrine which was probably never thought of before Mr Thorndike's time, ought to pass for a doctrine of the Primitive Church? 4 Whether the man that plays these tricks be an honest Papist? And whether the humble Christian that swallows them must not have a very hum­ble understanding?

Disc. 2. pag. 33. ‘OUr Author §. 30. imputes it to the strength of his Grounds not to excess of Charity, or the singular fancies of some few learned men, that of late the Pro­testants [Page [61]] do either not at all, or but very faintly charge the Papists with Idolatry.’

This confident assertion he very well knows is false, as the Reader will find it by & by; & if it were true, it will not serve him to shelter his peculiar notions under the Patronage of the Church of England. Wherefore I must return him a quotation out of ^* the same Preface, which him­self quotes, viz. That our Church is not now to be form'd ‘according to the singular fancies of some few tho' learned men: much less to be modell'd by the Copricio's of super­stitious Fanatics; who prefer some odd opinions and wayes of their own, before the receiv'd Doctrine of the Church they live in. Such as these, we rather pity their weak­ness then regard their censures: and are sorry when our Adversaries make such properties of them as by their means to beget in some a disaffection to our Church.’

But to come to those Protestants, Disc. 2. §. 30. p. 33, 34. who (our Author tells us) neither out of singularity, nor charity, but pure con­viction are of late so kind to Popery. The first he quotes is Mr. Thorndike in his Epil. wherein he is not only a Con­ciliator, and so oblig'd by his very design, to strain his cha­rity; but his terms of Reconciliation are, by his own confes­sion, peculiar notions of his own; which he seems to have propos'd, as not thinking that other Reconcilers had suf­ficiently clear'd the Papists from Idolatry. For it must be confessed that this Pious and Learned Man was zealous to his last hour to acquit the Church of Rome from Idolatry: partly out of the natural sweetness of his tem­per, which made him unwilling to lay so grievous a sin to the charge of any Church; but chiefly upon a mistaken principle, that all Idolatry unchurches. So that the charge of it would in his opinion light heavy upon the Papists; and at the rebound equally hurt the Church of England, [Page [62]] which derives her Succession and Ordination from the Church of Rome. This mistaken opinion the Defender greedily lays hold on; and ask's with great briskness ‘ What Church or Sect of religion can be apostate at all, Ibid. p. 34. if not a Church committing and commanding Idolatry?’ I must desire him to reconcile this pert question with another as pert, in the book of the Benefits of our Saviour chap. 9. §. 14. ‘ And now (says he) what can hinder God's goodness, or de­cay the Church, since 'tis plain that sin cannot?’ even the sin of Idolatry as is proved at large in the two foregoing Se­ctions. For when he does this, he will return the com­mon answer to that objection wherein he now sides with Mr Thorndike.

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

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

Ibid.Fourthly 'tis notorious that Bishop Taylor wrote his Li­berty of prophecying to serve the interest of the Church of England; which at that time was to obtain a general to­leration. Wherefore it concern'd him in that book to be more then a Conciliator, and represent Popery with the utmost favour it would bear. Yet he could not even in that book so dissemble his Zeal against Popery, but that in the very Paragraph, our Author quotes, he accuses the Papists confidence, and Fancifull Opinion, which makes them [Page [63]] doe violence to all Philosophy, and the Reason of man, and undoe and cancel the Principles of two or three Sciences. And these words, which, one would think, are not so very fa­vourable and absolving, lye just between the two senten­ces the Defender has transcrib'd. In the next paragraph he calls Idolatry the crime which Papists formally hate, and we materially avoid. And again, in the next to that, says If they who do as the Papists do, are not formally guilty of Idola­try there is no danger their disciples should be so. So that he plainly owns them guilty of material, and dares not ven­ture to acquit them even of formal Idolatry.

‘Notwithstanding the Defender goes on at all adven­tures, Disc. 2. pag. 31. §. 35. and will have it a fault in Dr. Taylor to say in one book, that if Papists are deceiv'd in Transubstantiation, it is certain they commit an act of Idolatry; whereas he says in another that 'tis evident the Object &c. is the on­ly true and Eternal God &c.’ which seems to be a very course Complement to his Reader; for it either supposes him so Lazy as not to look back, what words those & ce­tera's stood for, or (if he did) so dull as not to see, that Dr. Taylor in both these quotations only charges the Papists with material Idolatry. Ibid. ‘He will likewise have M. Daillé to be faulty, for opposing the Papists with such a form of ar­gument, as would prove the Lutherans to worship a mite.’ But instead of his miserable that-which solution, let him in­terpret the word [ joyned] in the major of his own Syl­logism, by [ Consubstantiate] (as he must do, if he mean to oppose the Lutherans) and hee'll find that it has four terms. In the third place, faulty with him is Dr. Stil­lingfleet for two or three reasons, ‘which as they have been urg'd, so they have been answer'd before.’ But he tell's us in good time, ‘that Catholics grant as much as the Dr. that the Presence of the Divine Nature in any thing is no good ground to pay Divine Worship [Page [64]] to that thing.’ For he hop'd we had forgot his abstract­ing from a Corporal, and grounding his adoration precise­ly upon a Real Presence, we desire he will stick to this grant and that supposal, and then shew what trick he has left to evade Idolatry. Disc. 2. pag. 36, 37. § 31. "He concludes, All these are faul­ty I say. ‘Why so Positive good Sir? why because they charge the Papists with worshiping a Creature instead of Christ, from which other Protestants cleare them.’ But what if the Chargers give better reasons then the Clear­ers? Or what if the Chargers are the far greater number? is a majority the Guide's beloved argument, grown out of Favour? Or what if the Chargers and the Clearers both agree in the matter of fact? as indeed they do: for the one part only says that the Papists worship Bread; and the other that 'tis true they do so, but 'tis more then they mean to do. To conclude, the Papists direct the act of adoration to the species, supposing Christ to be Locally present under them: but if Christ be not so, but the sub­stance of Bread instead of him (as the Protestants affirm and prove) then the Papists who intentionally worship Christ, do actually pay their Worship to Bread instead of him; which is all the Protestants accuse them of: For that act is as certainly a species of Idolatry, as the object has the species of Bread.

Disc. 2. pag. 37. §. 35.The fifth and last Protestant Author, that is quoted, is the Reverend and Learned Dr. Hammond; ‘who accord­ing to the Defender seems to Charge the Papists rather with a material then Formal Idolatry: and this mate­rial Idolatry, we are told, like material Adultery may in many cases be committed without Sin.’ This latter Do­ctrine I believe is none of Dr. Hammond's, for tis contrary to plain Scripture. For when Abimelech (Gen, XX.) had like to have committed material Adultery with Sarah and being reprov'd in a Dream, pleaded the innocence of his in­tention; [Page [65]] God acknowledges this innocence, and says, For I also with-held thee from sinning against me therefore I suffer'd thee not to touch her v. 6. so that it seems the act had been a sin against God, v 5. notwithstanding Abimelech's doing it in the integrity of his heart and the innocence of his hands. But to re­turn to Dr. Hammond; 'tis plain he has heartily endea­vour'd to strain his charity, and yet for all that censures the Papists as severely as any sober Protestant ever did. And the Reader will be fully satisfy'd of this truth; if he please to consult (for it would be too much to transcribe) the ^* nine Sections which the Dr has writ upon this Sub­ject; beginning §. 63. of his discours of Idolatry, I assure my self the mildest censure, that can be passed upon the Defen­der, will be, that he never read that Discourse. But he thinks he has launc'd us to the quick: Disc. 2. pag. 37. § 32. ‘when he puts us in mind of our Forefathers, who for many centuryes were such Idolaters, as we make the present Papists.’ Poor man! where has he been sleeping these fifty years? that he knows not this stale objection has been so often urg'd and answer'd, that all understanding Papists are now asham'd to make use of it.

Yet for all this we are likely to part good friends for he tells us ‘ his Catholics grant it is unlawful to worship the bread, if we do not believe it to be God; Ibid. §. 33. or direct the outward act to our Lord as [Corporally] present in the Sacrament, if we do not believe him so present.’ Thus instead of defending his Catholics for adoring, he gracious­ly absolves the Protestants for not adoring. As for what he adds of submitting our Judgment to the Church; that is no­thing [Page [66]] to the present purpose: For he knows that we insist upon it that Popery in this point, does directly and mani­festly overthrow all the principles of Sense, of Reason, & Religion, and we are not so singular in this opinion, but that Papists themselves own, they cannot in this question pretend to Scripture without first defying Sense & Reason.

In the last Section the Defender proposes two Questi­ons, which he thinks the most material in this dispute. ‘1. Disc. 2. pag. 38. § 34. Whether the Popish grounds of believing Christ's Cor­poral Presence [viz: as effected by Transubstantiation] be Solid and true? to which we answer Negatively. 2. Whether the Church of Rome, as a term of communion in this point, exact any more then the acknowledgment of a Real Presense? to which we answer, that to our ap­prehension she does.’ For she requires us under an Ana­thema to believe Transubstantiation: which whoever does, must define a Real Presence to be a Corporal Presence ef­fected by Transubstantiation. So that the prescinding ex­pedient this Author offers, would have us prescind from the definition of the object, i. e. to consider a thing, prescinding from the thing that we consider; which the Papists have more wit then to propose to us. 2 that if she did not, Disc. 2. §. 17. p. 21. it would not serve the turn. For she requires us even by this Author's confession, to bow down before the Elements; which, if Christ's Body be not Locally Pre­sent in the Eucharist, we have prov'd to be Idolatry, be the bow never so prescinding. For to worship the true God by an Host, is in effect all one as to worship him by an image; which is as truly, though not so gross, Idolatry as to worship an image instead of him.

And now (as the Defender says) Hitherto of this Contro­versy: wherein if I have chiefly consider'd my Adversa­rye's management, 'tis because a Scholar should be an­swer'd; but a Jugler need only be detected.

Having taken so distinct a view of both the Discour­ses, I know not whether I must beg the Reader's pardon for considering so much of 'em; or demand the Author's thanks for sparing what I have pass'd over. The Controversy it self would have lain in a little room; but the Author's handling it gives an adversary so large a field of matter, as would easily furnish a very voluminous Re­ply. My aim in this was to make it as short as was possi­ble, without omitting any thing material; and I'm con­fident I have not, I'm sure I have not willingly, omitted or dissembled the force of any one line, that seem'd to make against the Church of England.

The Quotations in the Pamphlet are many and gene­rally tedious; none of 'em sincere, and most of 'em twice or thrice repetaed. To have-publish'd 'em intire, would have taken up more paper then this answer does: nor would a recitall have suffic'd, without some reflexion▪ & after all the Reader is no more bound to trust me then him; but for full satisfaction must recurr to the Authors themselves. Wherefore I concluded it the shorter & better way, to give the sense of our Church and those Authors in plain & easy terms; so that the common Reader might be his own inter­preter; and without any farther assistance make a right construction of what the Pamphlet would pervert.

Some perhaps may fancy my Reflexions are sometimes too severe, upon so little seeming provocation; and at o­ther times too light for so serious a subject as I treat of. I confess I could not always dissemble my just abhorrence of the Author's insincerity; which I take to be the Sin in the world that an honest man can least pardon. Had the Author been a true sincere Papist, as well my inclination [Page [68]] as my duty would have made me treat him with respect, for simple error is an object of compassion to be dealt with in the spirit of meekness: but Hypocrisy is the common aversion of God and Man; and ought to be abhor'd and stigmatiz'd. As for lighter Answers, I think I have never given them, but when they were requisite in reply to Co­mical objections; for nothing can be more ridiculous then a solemn confutation of a Jest. The Author indeed seems to talk with great gravity all the way; but his matter for the most part is of a quite contrary Character: and in such a case the Grimace does but add to the Comedy and make it the more necessary to return an answer in kind.

What I have said has been the shorter, because my Ad­versary has been twice answer'd already: both professedly by the Author of the late Reply printed at London; and oc­casionally by those other worthy men that have consider'd the several parts of the Guide in Controversy. For there is not an argument, nor a quotation, nor scarce a sentence in either of these Discourses, but is almost verbatim in that Guide aforesaid; which contains the whole stock of the Fra­ternity; the summ and substance of all they have to say, if they write as many books as Tostatus. 'Twas but t'other day that a great part of these Discourses was again prin­ted in the Book of Church-Govenment; and for ought I find we must expect the same stuff word for word, in every book they are to publish. But at this rate instead of being answerd they deserve to be indicted for extortion. For the buyer of their book pays unconscionable use upon use, be­sides the nauseousness of the tautology. Wherefore for my own part I now take my final leave of them; and resolve, not so much as to inquire what other books the Editor's press is big with. And perhaps when other Readers are a­ware of his proceedings, the edition of his books will not need to be stinted to twenty thousand of a sort in a year.