Christ's Body in the Eucharist we reply and as plain an one That the Eucharist is Christ's Body and that Bread is substantially absent and other thoughts cannot enter our minds till it appear to us possible and revealed that the same thing can remain perfect Bread and yet be truly the Flesh of Christ which resolves into being Bread and not being Bread at the same time His last Reason of the Symbols is of the same worth with the rest and the impertinent application of his own mistakes refuted in our note on p. 96. No Sacrament no substantial presence of Christ no sacerdotal Consecration are after all left to the Papists as He in his fret will needs interpose instead of Catholics To what straits does his petulant acuteness drive us In what a poor condition are we left by this meek and compassionate Minister What does he omit tho trifling foreign indecent false or impious that may detract from the excellence of our Religion and represent us inexcusably erroneous and wicked Pag. 108. l. 7. Does he believe the Corporal Presence in the way of Transubstantiation c. He does What then O then they must with him stand and fall together A terrible case For then he cannot Adore on the account of the Corporal Presence but he does on the account of Transubstantiation Wisely concluded His Argument runs thus If with Catholicks Transubstantiation and Corporal Presence stand and fall together then they Adore on the account of both But with Catholicks these stand and fall together Therefore they Adore on the account of both The Consequence is deny'd Ibid. l. 27. The first Ground why Catholicks believe Christ substantially present and Adorable in the Eucharist is Divine Revelation for which our Author offers the two usual Instances c. The same Instances are offer'd for Ours as the Lutherans produce for their corporal presence If they be not so defeated of them by Zuinglian Expositions as to be inexcusably culpable in their Faith and Worship no more are we were this first our only ground And did not this Minister confess p. 107 to this effect that the Lutheran Doctrine was deducible from our Lord's words Now their Faith and Ours is only circumstantially different that Text therefore that tells them must needs inform us of a substantial presence tho of both Consubstantiation and Transubstantiation it cannot As to his vapour That he has shewn above how false a foundation both the words of Institution and the 6th of St. John are to a corporal presence reviewing his first Chapter Part 1. I find him there raving against Transubstantiation as if those Scriptures did not countenance it and withall laying about him as such do who are in an Error with so much confusion impertinence rudeness absurdity and prevarication as if Pryn were transmigrated into him But as his performance against Transubstantiation is ridiculously weak and an often refuted Plea publish'd to swell a Pamphlet so t is either nothing at all to a corporal presence and Adoration or fights as fiercely against all Christians but the Sacramentaries as against us To what he adds about sense and reason certain contradictions Principles of Nature and Universal Sentiments of all Mankind 'T is an absurd cant and a detestable insolence for him to exclude us the most of Christians who preserved and propagated all Law and Learning for many Centuries from sense and reason from all skill in contradictions and principles of Nature and from the universal sentiments of Humanity What an amazing infatuation and transcendent pride possess this man He had had nor Letters nor Religion nor Liberty nor yet Being but for the Professors of our Faith and yet the ungrateful man repines even that we have the last and meanest of these Pag. 109. l. 30. These are great words indeed but I wonder who ever heard before that a few miserable Synods c. With such impotence and revilings are Councils treated by a Minister and thus the second Ground of our Faith and Service whereon the first also in some sort depends both as to which is a Revelation and what it is She being both the Promulger and Expositor of Revelations the Church's Conciliary Definition and Command is lighter than Air and as contemptible with this Protestant as is the most trivial act of the smallest Corporation The Dignities which he is not afraid to vilifie are Councils so numerous and comprehensive so lawful and accepted that for many Ages not one Bishop dissented from them in this case Was not the Doctrine of the 2d Council at Nice profest by that at Frankfort Went not the Nicene Fathers so far that the Answerer says they carried-on Transubstantiation Surely then they held a Real presence Pref. p. 6. Here we have then above six hundred Eastern and Western Bishops concurring in the Belief of a Corporal presence and Adoration in the Eighth Age And the Occasion of their declaring the Doctrine of the Church at that time was not that any one did really question that Faith for Erigena was then unborn but some new language had been used by the Iconoclasts in their discourses of the Adoration of the Eucharist that was both suspicious and dangerous Nor can one Prelate be nam'd who did not accept of the Declarations of these two Councils in this matter All Christians then believ'd a Real presence and all Adored What our Answerer means by particular Prelates I cannot penetrate for no Council consists of other Unless he would insinuate that there wanted Delegates from some National Churches or that some Patriarch or Pope did not concur with these two or the other held in the Eleventh Age against Berengarius all which yet were held by either the Pope in Person or by his Legates and were receiv'd by the whole Western Church and at length by Berengarius himself Councils these later were far greater than any Protestant Synod ever was or can be unless it were that at Dort consisting of at least two Bishops When ever did an Hundred Protestant Bishops convene in One Assembly as there did Catholicks against Berengarins A Convocation of a matter of Twenty-six at the most deserves certainly the character of a Miserable Synod better than a Council so much greater and wherein the Bishops not only of two 〈◊〉 but of many Kingdoms appear'd Nor were these 〈◊〉 any more Parties than was the First at Nice or the Apostolical One at Jerusalem To say they were is as gratis said as if Eutyches had spoken so of that at Chalcedon And whatever reason this Minister can give why the Councils against Berengar shall be esteemed Parties the very same shall the Judaizers Nestorius and Socinus as strongly urge to shew the Synods condemning their Opinions to be Parties also So he may seem to say something this Man heeds not what he writes tho what he publishes instead of enervating the authority of the Councils concern'd about a Corporal presence alone does as vigorously attack that of Councils in general
Christ so that neither for her Faith nor the imposition of it was her communion to have bin broken unless it were unlawful for her to impose the worshipping of What is no creature which is God. Ibid. l. 32. I cannot see what his cause would gain by it the certainty of the six Concessions The advantage gain'd by these concessions is considerable because thereby the Dispute is reduced to narrower and certain bounds and so many Objections prevented as also Opponents silenced such as hold a substantial presence surely that I see not what the Conceders have further to alledge against Adoration Can they plead we want a due object occasion precept or president to adore All then but Zuinglians a few of the latter brood of Protestants are on our side and these by the so much greater suffrage of Christendom are convicted of obstinacy in resisting so credible a judgment Pag. 96. l. 14. This t is true the Papists affirm c. In a kind fit we are allowed by this liberal man to affirm a sign to remain in the Eucharist after consecration distinct from the thing signified but then he speedily retracts so much as will make his concession a cypher For tho we affirm That nothing can outwardly and visibly signify in any Sacrament but what is perceivable by some sense or other and next That whatever is perceivable by any sense together with all the natural properties remains unchanged in the Eucharist And 3ly That we consecrate in the same elements wherein our 0203 069 Lord instituted the Sacrament yet because in defiance to Tradition Reason Revelation and the universal profession of all times and Churches till Luther arose we cannot believe that the same thing can be substantially Bread and Flesh and because we cannot think that substance to be there which sense cannot tell us is there and Scripture c assures us is not there therefore this Minister denies ours to be such a symbol as our Lord instituted and to be brief declares it really nothing Thus nothing must be an object of sense and all that is symbolical in the Eucharist must be the substance of the Elements which no sense can immediately perceive Pag. 97. l. 32. This is indeed a sort of new Divinity I always thought c. Alass That People should be so disrespectful as not to conform their Notions to this Answerers and so rude as to write Divinity wherein he is not vers'd But Old Divines reply The incivility or oversight is not in them but in this Minister who mounts the chair when he should be in a lower Form and will needs be scribling controversie before he has stay'd a due season in his Study For to their knowledg the word Sacrament has a manifold sense and is a complex term used therefore variously with respect to the subject of which Authors treat just as they do Christ Emanuel c. sometimes signifying by them God alone sometimes Man sometimes both Whereupon Bishop Bramhall and Mr. Thorndike tho more knowing are less nice than this Minister and without scruple admit the word Sacrament to be capable of more than one sense which might have protected the former part of the Assertion from derision as the 6th Canon of the 13th Sess of the Council of Trent does advance the other part viz. that by worshiping the Sacrament Catholicks understand worshipping Christ in the Sacrament beyond a private which the Man concedes to a Catholick Assertion which he is loath to yeild How shall we assure Protestants concerning our Faith if a Canon of the Council of Trent so sacred and authentick amongst us in matters of Faith be refused Here 's a Canon accurately publishing what all the Members of the Catholick Church must assent-to and profess and yet lest he be depriv'd of the opportunity of slandring us this Minister will not resolve that we believe as it prescribes Hard is our case since neither our selves nor our Divines nor yet our Councils must be regarded but any silly conceited Sectary shall be better able to tell what we believe than we our selves or those that guide our Souls What we do not hold that is our Faith and what we do believe that is not our Faith according to our Adversaries and why so if not that their false Accusations may continue and improve an odium on us and delusion amongst the Multitude Pag. 100. l. 6. I must then deny his Assertion viz. That the ground of our Adoration is Christ present not present after this or that manner The Answerer will have the 3d Assertion capable of being taken two ways passing the one and opposing the other But what if they be coincident If Christ be the object of our worship as seems tho saintly to be granted under the 2d Assertion then a Real presence of him and not the manner of that presence is the ground and occasion of our adoration without any regard whether He be solitary or attended by another substance Christ we say not the manner of existence in the Virgin 's womb in a Manger on the Cross in the Grave in Glory or in the Eucharist is the motive and object of our worship For if any one manner of existence were our inducement to adore when that ceases we should owe no adoration whereupon it must necessarily follow that we should as much adore if Consubstantiation were as now Transubstantiation is the mode of Presence we believe because this is not the presence it self but a circumstance of it not at all considered in the act of adoring neither as object which nor as reason why we adore Or thus to Jesus Christ existing substantially in the Eucharist we direct our adoration without respect to the coexistence or absence of any other substance for if we worship'd him upon the account that another substance is or is not coexistent we must condemn worshiping in either our selves or the Lutherans which we do not they worshiping with a belief that another substance is we that no other is there Whereupon as if no substance of the elements remains after consecration they are only mistaken in their faith not in their worship only misbelieve do not commit Idolatry so if the substance do remain this will only affect our perswasion not impair our adoration we err about a creature we do not idolize it Nay were our worship directed to Jesus Christ as alone and so confusedly or in general to the whole substance of the Eucharist and it should chance to be true that our Lord is not the only substance present under the species yet hence a just charge of Idolatry could not be drawn against us because the precise object of our worship is not any created substance but the divine person of our Redeemer and the other concomitant substance whatever it may by accident does intentionally no more share in the honor we pay than would the Scarlet Robe should our Lord have bin adored instead of derided therein He that adored him at
substance of the Bread and Wine is turn'd into that of Christ's Body and Blood and only the manner of that substantial conversion is in question with him as also with his commentators Scotus Durand and many others mis-quoted Pref. p. 7. of which falsities ignorance if it were in fault cannot excuse him since either the Authors themselves or the Letter printed 1665 discovering these amongst 150 false or wrested quotations in Dr. Taylor 's Disswasive might so easily have informed him As to the irreverent Descants on the Great Council celebrated at Lateran by the most learned and prudent Innocent 3. it is observed That when the deposing Power must be imputed to us as an Article of our Creed then that Council is obligatory and Mr. Dodwel has proved it so but when it defines Transubstantiation then the Canons are surreptitious and a Papal contrivance and Du Pin may be found in the Margen One while that Council enters the Stage conferring power on the Pope to dethrone Kings and on Priests as if there had bin no Priesthood before that Council to make God. Another while all this was forced upon the Fathers of that Synod or publisht as their Act without their privity by a pragmatical and intriguing Pope What would the man be at Is his Arrogance content with no less than confirming and rescinding General Councils arbitrarily Pag. 113. l. 23. As to the point of Antiquity I have already fully discuss'd it above c. I suppose he means from p. 24. to 32 where we may find indeed much passion against Transubstantiation but we are not so short-sighted as to confound it with corporal presence the thing here in discussing And for the Fathers referr'd to by the Discourser where shall we find the Protestant Answers to St. Ambrose de iis qui init Myst c. 9. to St. Hilary St. Cyril Alex Are these spurious too Are not those ascribed to St. Ambrose Eusebius Emisenus sermo de coena Domini the Epist of the Presbyt of Achaia concerning St. Andrew's passion much more ancient than either Paschasius in the West or Anastasius Sinaita in the East Were they ever excepted against as containing Doctrine disagreeable to that of the Church tho thro the negligence of Transcribers the true Authors of them be not very certain It is not a Book 's being attributed by a mistake to a wrong Author but its containing suspicious Doctrine or false Relations and being fathered on eminent Names to pass it with authority in the world that chiefly subjects it to the censure of Apocryphal But why should a doubt concerning the Author of such Books elude the testimony fetcht from them when St. Ambrose in a Book unquestioned and others more ancient coeval or not much juniors to the questioned pieces as St. Gandentius St. Remigius c write as fully for not only a corporal presence but also Transubstantiation Pag. 114 l. 9. This Ground the universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time is not certainly true and if it were yet certainly it is nothing to the purpose T is certainly true if the whole may be determined to be on that side where all the members of the Church are for whosoever denied this Faith of a corporal presence was ipso facto an Heretick in opposing an Article so weighty and so solemnly declared and required of all the faithful in at least ten Councils before Zuinglius dreamed But the Apostates from a corporal presence were indeed very few before and of those few scarce one was in being at Luther's revolt he also continuing a bitter enemy to the Sect that soon grew upon him If true t is certainly to the purpose whilst this is true That all Christians to a man cannot miscarry in such a considerable part of Religion as the Eucharist is which they daily frequented and the belief of which real Presence in it was by many ways continually inculcated and confirmed to them Such an unanimous and comprehensive Tradition does at least demonstrate the novelty and falshood of Zuinglianism What Article in our Creed can have a stronger external motive than universal consent And as to the perpetuity of it other Articles have bin sooner and longer and by more numerous Factions opposed than it For of those who have raised debates about the Eucharist the least part are they who denied a substantial Presence the other quarrelling either about Transubstantiation or Communion in both kinds or some other matter yet all the while confessing a real Presence Well to let the Reader understand more fully the seriousness and judgment of this Minister the Argument esteemed impertinent and ridiculed by him here is this The Authority equi-valent to that of any General Council is a solid Ground of Faith but the unanimous profession of all Christians in the last Ages is an Authority equivalent to that of a General Council therefore that unanimous profession is a solid Ground of Faith. The Major is own'd by all such Protestants as submit their judgments to the Authority of such Councils as condemned Arius Macedonius Nestorius Eutyches Origen and the Monothelites assenting to their Definitions as the true sense of Divine Revelations and reciting some of them even in their Creeds The Minor is founded on not only Protestant concessions but also their Definition of a true Church that it has the Word of God rightly preacht and the Sacraments duly administred according to this character then if all preach'd corporal presence it could not be an error in all and so not in any unless there were no true preachers and consequently no Church in some times extant Now if an unanimous profession cannot be erroneous t is doubtless equal to the Authority of any General Council and also very pertinently pleaded as a solid ground of Faith for whatever can declare a Divine Revelation infallibly is so Pag. 115. l. 30. If we did acknowledge this 5th Ground That since Luther's time no small number of Protestants c acknowledge a real and adorable Presence c yet it seems we are mistaken c. It seems rather that you are extremely conceited who contend against as well the first chiefest and best Protestants and the genuine Sons and eminentest Superiors in your own Church as the Catholick Church and all thro that proud pretence that your Sense Reason and expositions of Scripture and Antiquity how wild and unsound soever are absolutely certain and not as we know them to be meer presumptions Is not this an advancing of your self as a standard of truth and science and a requiring what you so vehemently decry in the Catholick Church and shun in your self submission of all judgments to your Fancies The Protestant owning of a substantial Presence is not said to be a ground for our believing Transubstantiation but yet it is an argument against other Protestants for that Faith of a corporal presence which is common to some of their party with us
quem Pater introducens c. If therefore the Church enjoyns these three 1. to believe Christ's corporal presence in the Sacrament 2. to believe Transubstantiation for the manner of that presence 3. to adore Christ as being there present it follows not that she enjoyns the third in order to the second but may only in order to the first as it being without the second a sufficient ground thereof As is observ'd in the former Discourse of the Eucharist § XXXII Sâ—â—â—ose Transubstantiation to be an error â—eâ— Adoration lawful if corporal presence true These considerations premised 1. Therefore now suppose Transubstantiation an error yet if the tenent of corporal or real presence as held by the Lutherans or others be true the same adoration is no way frustrated but still warrantable and to be continued Suppose Cornoral presence an error yet their Adoration no Idolatry 2. Suppose not only Transubstantiation but real presence an error suppose the Bread after consecration to remain in substance unchanged and our Saviour after no manner at all present corporally yet I do not see after the foregoing concessions and qualifications well weighed especially that wherein they profess adoration not of the Sacrament or any part thereof but of Christ in the Sacrament how the adoration of Christ as present there and that as under the accidents and in the room of the substance of the bread tho I have shewed that such a quatenus is required of none in their adoration can amount to idolatry which to shew 1. First compare this mistaking worship of the Transubstantialists with any other granted idolatries of the Heathens Jews or Christians and we shall find no instance of any the subtlest idolatry that ever was but in its guilt or error much differing from this The most subtil of Idolatry Heathen I think is that as it is expounded by Maximus Tyrius dial 39. mentioned in Dr. Ham. Idol 17. s. that they bestowed their worship only on the Gods to humane eyes invisible and used Images only as signs and tokens of their honouring them and helps of their infirmity to remember them c. Of Jewish Idolatry was that of worshiping the true God in the golden Calf and those other set up afterward in ' Dan and Bethel Of Christian Idolatry I find these mentioned that of worshiping the B. Virgin for a Goddess of the Sun as being Christ of Saints or Angels if ever any such worship were for I find only such a case put in Dr. Hammond Idol 47. s. communicating God's attributes unto them as is expressed above p. of Omniscience Omnipotence which thing makes indeed not one but many Gods. But as for the first of these the Heathens whatever respect they gave to the Images it 's certain the Gods they worshiped were not one and the true but many and false whilst they grosly and stupidly erred even Tyrius amongst the rest in many of the Divine Attributes tho also as Dr. Hammond saith the actions of the many were very unlike Tyrius his speculations As for that of the Jews Dr. Hammond's opinion is sect 34 35 36. that they worshiped not God only but the Idol-calf also as upon Aaron's Consecration animated and inspirited by God as the Heathen also conceited of their Idols and so fitted to supply Moses's place and go before them and be their Conductor and the same is to be thought of Jeroboam's Calves see 1 Reg. 12.28 As for that of the Christians those who worshiped the Sun for Christ were not excused by their good intentions because most wilfully and groundlesly mistaken in their judgments in which I shall shew the Transubstantialists not to run parallel with them The worshippers of Angels as such err also grosly in the Divine Attributes but no such thing is imputed to the Transubstantialists 2. Again These Idolaters generally in their worshipping when they took such a visible thing to be God they deny'd it not to be the thing still They affirm'd the Images the Calves the Sun they worshipped to be Calves and Gold to be the Sun and Images still without supposing them to be annihilated and God not misunderstood by them in any of his Attributes to be instead thereof An Error therefore only like theirs would it be If any in the Eucharist should acknowledg the Bread to remain and worship that Bread no way supposed alter'd for his Christ Which none do or if they do they are confess'd by all to be Idolaters 3. But yet further These Idolaters in worshipping a Creature for the Creator grosly imagined in their blind Judgments a thing no way possible And God not only was not but could not be such a thing as they supposed but a Creature may be the Body of our Lord and many of those who deny Transubstantiation yet grant a possibility thereof And when we worship the true Body of our Lord it is a Creature we Adore tho by the Hypostatical Union to the Deity it is capable of such Honour So that in all the Idolatrous Worships that can be nam'd tho their intentions might be good in directing their Adorations only to what they thought the true God yet were their Judgments incomparably beyond the Transubstantialists culpably and stupidly Rom. 1.22 23. erroneous to think so And extremely were they also mistaken from which the Transubstantialists are granted most clear in many of the Divine Attributes and Properties 4. But now in the last place Suppose that the Israelites did in no manner direct their worship to the Calf but only to the God of Israel as suppos'd by them after some peculiar manner there present or suppose that they held the Calf no more to be there at all but the God of Israel under the outward appearance thereof So likewise That the Christians worshipping the Sun held first a Transubstantiation thereof into the Body of our Lord Yet will it not follow That if their worship thus qualified would still be Idolatry therefore the Transubstantialists Adoration is so because according to Mr. Daille's fifth Concession from the probability or unreasonableness of the grounds and motives of our perswasion the like practice is or is not Idolatry For as the Israelites Adoring God as present after a peculiar manner in the Golden Calf was Idolatry So the Israelites Adoring God as after a peculiar manner present or dwelling between the Cherubims or upon the Ark call'd his Footstool was not so Or to instance in mistaking worships Tho the Israelites worshipping God as peculiarly present in the Calf when as there was no such matter was Idolatry yet the Lutherans worshipping Christ suppose they did it as present after a peculiar manner in the Eucharist tho indeed he be not there is not so but only an Adoration vaine inutile tombant en neant Again tho the Christians worshipping the Sun for Christ tho suppos'd by them not the Sun but Christ were Idolatry yet when our Saviour was on Earth a Disciple's worshipping a meer man
the pillar stript and in the common Hall arrayed in 's Mock Regalia without an actual distinction of his garments from himself had the same object of his piety Ibid. l. 18. I must tell him that the adoration of those among the Lutherans is infinitely more excusable than theirs the Catholicks And this Good Man he is forced to assert not out of prejudice but by the cogency of some reasons The Reader will admire his assurance if he weighs his arguments As first because we Catholicks violate sense which the Lutherans preserve entire Now to wave both the impertinence and falshood of this leading Reason as intimating that we violate sense and that either the nature or heinousness of Idolatry depends thereon t is enough to quash it to affirm that the Lutherans violate sense as much as we Do they not believe the Body of our Lord present with the Bread Do not our senses tell us as experimentally there is no flesh present as they do that Bread is there He that says there are ten men in a Room where sense informs there are but five must needs treat sense with as much violence as he that says there are but five when ten are seen The violence done to sense therefore if any be done and so the inexcusableness is equal on the Lutheran to that on our side We descend to his next Reason the former part of it viz. that the Lutherans are right in their Object himself has overthrown in 's 89th pag. if he approve what he cites out of Dr. Taylor For the Lutheran object is a non Ens if Jesus Christ be not substantially present and if He be not in ours how can He be in their Eucharist since our Priesthood whereon all grant his being there in some sort depends is more undoubted valid and canonical than theirs they deriving Sacerdotal Orders from a Presbyter's Ordination which all Antiquity and Prelatick Protestants in their seuds with Presbytery and by their present practice in ordaining such Ministers anew damn not only as spurious but as null we from Episcopal legitimately communicated If then the Lutherans be right in their object much more are we Have we not more assurance that our Lord is there and He only is there We run therefore a less risque of missing him than they The other part of his 2d Reason seems to be an Ignoratio Elenchi the common Fallacy imploy'd by Protestants and this Minister especially in this dispute to amuse and deceive his Reader for if I comprehend him he proceeds on this ground that we hold the substance of the Bread to be the material of which the Body of Christ is made whenas we believe nothing like it Our Doctrine is that by Sacerdotal consecration the substance of our Lord's Body which now resides in Heaven and shall enjoy that glorious condition till his second Advent becomes however existent also under the species of Bread and Wine in a Spiritual manner and that the substance of Bread and Wine wholly ceases to he under those species as before consecration it was but further notice our faith takes not of the Breaden substance whether it be annihilated or how it ceases If the Breaden substance be absent then we do not adore that substance for Christ's body which is not his and if it be present we do not adore it unless we can be supposed to adore what we think not of or what we think to be nothing or to believe and adore two substances of one Body and be said to direct our devotion another way at the same time we with the strictest abstraction aim at the substance assumed by the eternal Word in the Virgin 's womb and now and ever personally united to it If we should worship the Eucharist whether there be a Substantial presence or no then we might well pass for Bread-worshippers if our Lord were not substantially present but worshiping not so loosly at random nor without a solid supposition of a substantial presence demonstrates we do direct our piety to our Saviour only never reflecting on what either ceases or remains of the elements so as to make them partners or rivals with him in our Duty The truth of the 5th Catholick Assertion is then evinced our worship is as excusable as the Lutherans and the new auxiliary Reasons drawn up p. 102. l. ult to oppose it afresh are indeed nothing to the purpose and moreover the former of them is false too We can be sufficiently sure of due consecration and anathematizing Dissenters does not alter the excusableness of our worship If our worship be of the same nature with the Lutheran and have as good grounds the imposing of it adds not one jot of guilt to it whatever it do to the imposers The Answerer then ought to have totally assented to the 6th Catholick Assertion for the same sound reason which moved him to grant it true of the Lutherans that their Object is right ours being certainly as true or the same with theirs and if we mistake the substance of Bread they worship nothing for Christ We worship no Host i.e. neither any substance that ever was or is a breaden substance nor yet the symbols but only Christ sacramentally existing who never was nor can be a Wafer nor made of either the substance or accidents of Bread. How then can we possibly mistake what is not Christ for Him unless the Christ born of the ever-blessed Virgin be not Christ Perverse therefore is the parallel of our worship to that of a Manichee's fancying Christ to be made of the Sun's substance this in that Heretick was both groundless and impossible whenas ours is quite another sentiment and founded on motives clear and infallible so far different in the thing as the substance born of our Lady is from that of the Bread or the Sun so far unlike in the ground as the fiction of a single Persian impostor is less credible than express Revelation and the constant Tradition of the Catholick Church Much-what the same Chaff is served up p. 106. to shew more difference between Us and the Lutherans than a Trans and Con amount to So zealous is this Polemic Divine to reduce Christians to an amicable temper that he exceeds the bounds of discretion and reverence not only to his own Party and the Noblest Nations of Christendom but also to his Prince For whilst He and others labour for Peace this man like seditious Love represents them irreconcilable His first reason here is already exposed There is either no or an equal violence done to Sense by Us and the Lutherans His second Reason is as faulty as his first if we are at defiance with any Texts that call the Eucharist Bread are not the Lutherans at as much defiance with those that call it Flesh and our Lord's Body for both it cannot be substantially Flesh and substantially Bread. To his third Reason viz. That the words of Institution afford occasion of inferring a Presence of