A Vindication of the OXFORD Reply, &c.

IT is now a twelvemonth, since there was publisht at Oxford a Reply to two Dis­courses there printed, concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Savior in the Eucharist; and a Copy of that Reply presented to the Publisher of those Discourses. Since he cannot pretend to the common excuse of avocations (for he has not so much business God be thanked as he once expected) I ought not to think it fair, that he has stay'd his Answer till the Pamphlet he replyes to would in all probability be forgotten; and now returns such costive animadversi­ons upon a piece of it: yet I neither complain of the fewness of his exceptions taking it for granted he could make no more; nor yet of his delay, because what we have at last, is I hope the more consider'd and the Gentleman has now done his best. His whole Appen­dix contains twenty six pages whereof near one half is taken up with a long Harangue very wide from the purpose of answering my Reply; and fitter to create a new Controversy than determine the old. What it will doe we shall see in due time; but first let us ex­amine in what condition the Reply is.

‘The Appendix tells us there were printed at Ox­ford, * Ad. p. 191. two Discourses, the Design whereof was to shew the incertitude and inconstancy of the Church of England, from whence it will follow that none can [Page 48] trust or rely upon her authority &c.’And then com­plains p. 191. that both the London Answerer, and I ‘ spend our Learning against Transubstantiation, he cannot say altogether from, but not much to the purpose.’ The harder our fate, who must be led out of the way by the Discourser, and then accus'd of straying by the Publisher. But how should we fathom such a deep contrivance, as the writing of a Book with a design which the Book never says one word to? Dull as we were! we guess'd at the Design by the Title! and thought we were to confute the Book, which we did, Paragraph by Paragraph; and now it seems we might do so without ever hurting the Design. This it is to deal with men of intrigue, that have Designs and Re­ligions which cannot be discover'd by any thing they say or do. Yet as luck would have it, the word wa­veringly though but once mention'd, gave the Reply­er some suspicion; who thereupon invited the Pub­lisher to produce what he could upon the subject, with assurance it should be Answer'd. Now after a twelve­months consideration out it comes— the Author took ‘ those two articles to be a manifest and sufficient instance.’ We that have not a twelvemonth to be­think our selves, must return this sodain answer, that as we take it the case is otherwise; and so for ought I see it must rest, till our Author is at leisure for something else besides taking. As for Transubstanti­ation▪ I confess I thought and so I told him, it was nothing at all to his purpose; but why should he say so? For if he be the Papist he pretends, he ought to think it very much to the purpose: which I hope will be consider'd by them whom it may concern; that hereafter they may gauge his head, before they trust a Controversy in his hands.

[Page 49]These unhappy miscarriages have put him into ve­ry ill humor, which breaks out so often and so indecent­ly, 'twill go near to spoyl the sale of his Book of E­ducation. Sometimes it entertains him to think we shall be Damn'd; at others, that we may be turn'd out; or at least reproach't by our Founders at the day of Judgment, as malae fidei possessores: which hint would have better become another mouth; for if his rule hold, Sr. Simon Bennet will have something to object to University Colledge, which St. Cutbert will not be able to answer. Sometimes he is trans­ported beyond the temper he affects, and falls into downright scolding, when he thinks upon the free­dom wherewith his follies were expos'd in the Reply. Tho' 'tis I if any one that have reason to complain; who had much rather meet a man with whom I might be serious; but am forc't by a trivial objecter to fall into a low way of answering; and to weigh against my adversary am fain to waste. But for my part I pardon him my share of all his hard thoughts and speeches, since he owns I am a true member of the present Church of England; an honor I preferr to whatever can be offer'd by him that tempted my An­tagonist to desert her; and think it will more than ballance all the calumnies that either of them can invent. Our Church too will pardon him the reproach­ful appellation of New, since he seemes to bestow it at random; and gives it in the same breath to his own old Church the Puritans. Neither shall we be con­cern'd when he reminds us of our Antipuritan Pre­decessors, whom it seems ‘the Puritans accus'd as be­ing Popishly affected;’ as if those good men could not slander, nor those wise men be mistaken, Our pre­sent Church has been traduc'd upon the same score by [Page 50] the Party that set on the Puritans: but thanks be to p. 191. God, the scandal is now so manifest that even this Gentleman with all the liberty he takes, dares not fasten it upon our present Church. When the edge of these Satyrs is rebated; there remains nothing but the cry of Zuinglianism, which recurrs in these pa­pers like the Ave Maria in the Rosary, repeated as often in proportion to as little purpose. To answer it once for all we must acquaint our Author, that if the Zuinglians hold as Mr. Hooker says they do (whose authority for once we may safely preferr to the Discourser's) they and we are agreed about the Eucharist in all that is essentially necessary: but then they hold more than a bare reception of the Benefits of our Savior's passion. But if they hold no more than such a bare reception (which is often affirm'd in this Apendix, but never reconcil'd with the note upon Reply p. 14.) then the name of Zuinglian is im­pertinently and falsly put upon the Church of Eng­land, for She holds more as is prov'd at large in the Reply.

It seems ‘ it was long deliberated,’ whither it were p. 192. requisite to answer the Reply; upon which occasion we have a very Catholic discourse; for 'tis equally fitted for all Books and Arguments whatever; I find my selfe no farther concern'd in it than to thank him for the word deturned; because till now I wanted a name for his Conversion. At last it was resolv'd, ‘ not to leave his Religion (which he calls Truth) to defend it self;’ which would have been hard upon it, being weak and all alone; and therefore he has pub­lish'd ‘ first, a short Treatise written many years agoe,’ of an hundred and two and forty pages, which con­tains nothing but the two Discourses shortned into [Page 51] five times more room, and so may now be call'd old, p. 192. for one reason more than he assigns. To this he has added two Appendixes: in which he says so little to his Adversaries, that we must correct the Title of his Book, and call it a Discourse with two Compendious Appendixes; The second of these which is level'd a­gainst half my Reply, is short and meek in compari­son of that of the first; but as short as the Enter­tainment is, it has a long grace of six leaves before it: wherein I allow the Author to shew his modesty p. 193 in applauding his own ‘ pious indeavors;’ and his pru­dence in collecting the ‘ righteousness of his Cause;’for if ‘ to be ridiculous be the Index of a righteous Cause’ he has acquir'd a Title that admits of no competiti­on: but of all loves let him not twit us with his Loyal­ty; because we know when it was objected, Do you hold then that Kings may be depos'd? and who it was that answer'd Why what should we do with 'em else?

Reserving the Harangue to be consider'd in its pro­per Ad. p. 203. place, let us now pass to his Examen of some few particulars of the Reply; which begins p. 203. He omits the first Chapter, and he does prudently; there's a great deal in it too notorious to deny, which yet it is not wisdome to own. To the second he's so very oblig­ing as to grant it seems to be to purpose; but he dis­likes the words little alterations, and that for divers reasons.

‘1. Nothing is little in the Churches Terms; espe­cially in our most venerable and solemn worship &c.’ True; but if the greatness lye not in the words, but in the end and meaning; that being preserv'd, we want to be instructed, why it is so great a matter to change the words; especially when the words have been a­bus'd, and deturned from their genuine signification.

[Page 52] ‘2. Not little that Article upon which they cheifly p. 203. justify their departure from the Church &c.’ It seems then, we do justify our departure; should we grant that He can justify his desertion, we would own it were no little concession. But to come to his Argument, it will then be sense, and not before, when he proves that our Churches practice in reference to that Article argues a change in her Doctrine; which it does not, as we shall see immediately.

‘3. Not little, which contains the Terms of the Churches Communion, &c.’ This looks the likest sense, and pertinence, of any thing this Paper urges; and shall therefore receive the more full and distinct Answer. And first to prevent all cavil about words, it must be noted, that Terms of Communion are of two sorts. 1. Terms of Catholic Communion: i. e. such as are ne­cessary to our holding Communion with the whole Catholic Church. 2. Terms of particular Communi­on; i. e. Such as any particular Church may require her Members to submit to. The former are Essenti­als of Faith and Worship; appointed by God himself; which no Church has power to add to, alter, or di­minish: the latter, are a kind of By-Laws; such as every particular Church has power to make, and does make, for the sake of Order, and the well governing those of her Communion, in things left undetermin'd by Almighty God. These in accurate speaking are Rules of Government; but are call'd Terms of Com­munion; because the Church that makes them, has pow­er to exclude from her Communion all her Members that obstinately refuse them; as all Government es­sentially implyes a power to punish the transgression of its just Laws. 'Tis with reference to the former, that we justly accuse the Papists for imposing devices [Page 53] of their own, some unnecessary, other ungodly Articles, p. 203. as Terms of Communion in the first sense: and with reference to the latter, that we justify our Churches power of imposing, against the exceptions made by Protestant Dissenters. For 'tis evident that Terms of Communion in the first sense, are of unchangeable ob­ligation; but taken in the second, they are variable, according as the exigence of affairs in a Particular Church shall require, and the wisdom of its Governors direct.

Now an explicit Declaration and Subscription of the Article of the Real Presence, is at most but a Term of Communion in the second sense; because that Arti­cle contains not the essentially-necessary Doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the Eucharist but only a Co­rollary drawn from that Doctrine: which though it be true as the Church of England holds it, and the Popish no­tion be very false; yet an explicit knowledge and profes­sion of either of these things, is not necessary to Salvation: nor is any Church bound to extend the Terms of her Com­munion so far as the explicit owning every truth; or ex­plicit rejecting every thing that is false. From whence it follows 1. That our Church might lawfully require or wave an explicit Declaration and Subscription of this Article: require it, because true; wave it, because not essentially necessary. 2. That her doing either one, or t'other, or both alternately, argues no change or wa­vering in her Doctrine; for to take or not take no­tice of a Corollary, does not change the Proposition it depends upon.

But to justify yet farther the Proceedings of our Church in this matter, the Replyer told him (p. 4.) that she had not allways thought it requisite to make the Declaration and Subscription of this Article a Term [Page 54] of her Communion; as indeed she had not; but rather p. 203. us'd it like a Civil Test, to discern who were quali­fy'd to bear Office in the Church; And to make and impose such Tests as may inable the Government to confide in them they imploy, is a piece of wisdome which all Governments practice; and which no man can accuse if the matter of the Test be not evil. Be­sides our Church did not do this out of pure choice, but absolute necessity. For finding all indeavors us'd to ruine her, by two seeming contrary Partyes; which alternately prevail'd as the Court-Interest vary'd; she saw it necessary to cut these Diamonds with one ano­ther; and so far countenance the weaker, as might help to ballance the prevailing party: not despairing, but in time, by God's blessing upon good indeavors, the honest-minded men on both sides might be brought to see their Error, and return to the Unity of the Church. Now the Article of the Real Presence was at that time a very proper Test, to discover who in­clin'd to either Party: for men had not yet learn'd to hold Communion with Us, and receive our Sacra­ments against their Conscience; nor to declare their Assent and Consent to our Establishment, and make the most solemn protestations that they are of Us, while their heart is at Rome: though we have since learn'd that all this may be done; and I wonder the Examiner knowing by whome, never urg'd it for a Spirits being in two places at once; since it seems to be a better instance than any he has given in his Pamphlet.

4. 5. His two last Reasons are in effect already answer'd. For [4.] Whatever it is lawful to impose, it is lawful to secure the observance of by what Pe­nalties the Government thinks fit. And [5.] If the [Page 55] Church did vary from any old Form, it was because p 203. that Form had been abus'd to conntenance Supersti­tion and Idolatry.

In the next Paragraph He's griev'd, that we think p. 204. that design impertinent, which he says ‘ was the very primary intention of the Author as is plain enough.’ It might be impertinent for all that: and it was so plain and primary that the Author never spoke to it; so that to know it we must know his heart; ^* which the Publisher of all men living ought not to expect of us. He adds, that ‘ the Author proves irrefragably, that our Church has waver'd in her Doctrine:’ I suppose he means unanswerably; for nothing being urg'd he might well conclude nothing could be answer'd. After this, he repeats his old Nar­rative of what befell the Real Presence; the Doctrine whereof was according to him thrown out, and in his cleanly phrase ‘ lick'd up again:’ thus desparing to con­vince our understandings he tryes to work upon our Stomachs. But we have already said enough to the charge of wavering; and Tautology which is nause­ous in it self, becomes more so by his example. Hav­ing finish'd his Narrative, he adds a politic, tho' not so pertinent a Reflexion about persecuting Dissenters; who if they would be eas'd, must fee him to hold his tongue; for if such a manager undertake it, their cause is irrecoverably lost.

His next Remark is, that ‘ Either the Replyer knows p. 205. that all Catholicks declare they detest the adoration of any creature, &c.’ The Replyer never judges of the Examiners Catholicks by what they declare. But if all true Papists detest the adoration of a creature, that Gentleman is none, who proffer'd for a halfpenny [Page 56] to declare that he terminated his worship upon the p. 205. very Image it self.

I reserve the next Paragraph till I come to the fel­low of it pag. 209. and must now admire the Exami­ners constancy, who having been so often taken in the very act of misquoting, follows the trade still with so great assurance as to falsify my own Reply, to my face. ‘If there be (says he) no real participation, as this Replyer afterwards every where confesseth &c.’ I wish for the Readers ease he had nam'd somewhere; but to supply that defect I will name him a place or two.— ‘The Body which now exists, whereof we par­take—is therefore verily and indeed receiv'd, and by consequence said to be really present; because a real participation &c.’ Reply p. 14. ‘And by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet real participation we re­ceive the benefits consequent to it.’ p. 18.— ‘the Church of England, which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits but a real participation of the Body &c.’ p. 31. Which passages (to name no more) confess no real participation just as he confest Popery, when he writ and sign'd a paper (yet in being) that deny'd it. If the Reader desire a farther taste of his sincerity, the note upon p. 13. will furnish him sufficiently. We are p. 213. there rank'd among them that ‘ pierced, or deny, or disbelieve our Savior's words,’ though the charge be as false as the English. We are there charg'd with ‘ own­ing our receipt of the dead Body, and dead Blood of our Lord;’ though in the place by him quoted we say expressly, ‘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 receive them, &c.’ It is there found necessary to declare that ‘ that the same Body [Page 57] which was immolated whilst upon earth, remains (tho' now glorify'd) till the end of the world;’ as if the Replyer had deny'd this, or had not said that ‘the Glorify'd Body now sits at the right hand of God, and shall there continue till the restitution of all things pag. 13. and the Body that is glorify'd, is nu­merically the same that was broken pag. 14.’ Nay he spares not his own dear self, but in kindness to the Replyer for whome App. p. 193. ‘ he is ready to sacrifice his life and all that he hath,’he says that he and his Ca­tholics ‘ content themselves to believe and know that our Lord in this Sacrament is become to us a quick­ning Spirit;’ tho' they know they shall scarce content the Pope and the Council of Trent, unless they be­lieve and say a great deal more. These and many more such passages that occurr in this Appendix will probably amaze the Reader, if he know not the Exa­miner's avow'd principle, which he says is to lye, and to forswear himself deliberately for a good purpose.

We have seen in this last Paragraph how he proves p. 205. ‘ by the Replyer's own confession that there is no Real Presence. But this being the main point of difference upon which this Replyer insists, the Examiner resolves to search a little deeper:’ that is, to repeat the old Tale, with as little truth and judgment as he told it us before. Though to do him right, he has added some Sentences which afford a large field of fresh mat­ter. For a sample, wee'l run over one of 'em. ‘ Now p. 206. it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass—’ Why the words of the Mass? if the Form was older than the Mass? as it must be if it were of that Antiquity he allows it: or Why translate? when he just before owns the ‘addition of divers words,’ which is contrary to the [Page 58] rule of translating, unless the words added explain and p. 206. illustrate the Original. He says indeed these words ‘ more effectually conclude the Popish notion;’ but it is by asserting the quite contrary. For the form is The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee &c. i. e. the Body which was offer'd for thee upon the Cross, the Sacrament whereof the Priest holds in his hands. But to return to his charge against the Liturgy-makers; 'tis that ‘ they should intend to give the English words a quite different signification from the Latine, without giving any notice of it to the People.’ Should we for argument's sake suppose, we cannot with truth grant, that the true signification of the Latine is as he pretends; because that form was in use before Transubstantiation was thought of; and in­deed the Reformers did not introduce a new meaning of the form, but restor'd the old. But of this too ‘ they should have given notice.’ So they did, if Writ­ing, Preaching, Printing▪ suffering Imprisonment and Martyrdome were sufficient to give notice: at least they gave such effectual notice, that the very Me­chanicks in those days understood both the Popish and Reform'd Doctrine, much better than the Publisher and his Catholicks do in ours. He goes on;— ‘ That the people who had been brought up to understand’ (not the Latine Service I hope, 'twas well if the Priest did that; no, but) ‘ the Real Body of our Lord by corpus Domini—custodiat &c.’ (as they still understand by the Body of our Lord in the English Form, if they are of the Church of England) ‘ that they the next day should hearing the same words in English understand only the Real benefits &c. (which they never were taught to understand) and not understand how these benefits could be eaten’ (which they need not and [Page 59] perhaps no man can understand) ‘ or given by the p. 206. Priest or how they were given for, rather than to the people’ (since they knew that only the Elements were given by the Priest, to the people, as Symbols of the Body and Blood which were given for the people) ‘ as neither how they should preserve the receivers Body’ ( i. e. to everlasting Life, which they knew they did not; but that it was one of the benefits of receiv­ing Christ's Body that it should preserve the Receiver's Body and Soul to everlasting Life; which neither the Elements, nor the natural Body it self if receiv'd on­ly by oral manducation could do)—that all these things should be done, (of which not one was pre­tended) looks so heynous that ‘ truly our Author and the Catholics have too great a kindness for the Church of England than to impose upon her (He means charge her with) such abominable prevarication, suffi­cient to drive away all men from her Communion.’ In good time. I suppose the false English was put in to salve the lyes: for not only our Author but our Editor too, has both for the Church and himself too great a kindness than to accuse her for prevaricating: No; he detests pre­varication, more than Image-worship: no halfpenny shall induce him to declare for that; for he knows by ex­perience what it is; and left the Church of England's Communion only to avoid it.

Thus we see how much work a man of art can cut us out, when he searches a little deeper. The Rea­der who I doubt before this is tir'd as well as I am, will dispence with so particular a search of the rest of this deep Paragraph; wherin every sentence in pro­portion to it's length is no less obnoxious than this. The aim of the whole is to convict the Church of Eng­land of wavering, and the proof is, that He says it; p. 205. p. 2 [...]. [Page 60] which to any man that knows him, is a sufficient argu­ment he does not mean it.

And so we might dismiss this Paragraph, if it were not p. 2 [...]7. for one passage, in which it is hard to determine whither Folly or Blasphemy be most conspicuous. To K. Ed­ward's second, which is the latter part of the present form, Take and eat this &c. He excepts and says ‘ This what? Individuum vagum, or perhaps nothing, if no­thing consecrated as it seems.’ But why it should seem so to Protestants, who have not renounc'd their senses he does not tell us. They see well enough, that This is a piece of the Consecrated Bread, which the Priest holds in hand when he says take and eat; and are astonisht that a seeming Christian should object to their form, what will equally make against our blessed Saviors own words. When he said Take, eat, this is my Body; do this &c. they are satisfy'd none of the Apostles ever sayd This what? individuum vagum, or perhaps no­thing; or if any one did, it was Judas.

The Examiner repeats this irreverence p. 211. where he says this form is ‘nonsense, or to most unintelligible.’ And tho' our Blessed Savior said This is my Body which is given (or broken) for you, our Examiner calls the dead body ‘ An irreverent (to say no worse) expression p. 196.’ repeats the censure p. 213. and cannot forbear to call the use of this expression an honor; of which let him enjoy the shame, for never was Irony more unseasona­ble. Such irreverence is too great a crime to be cha­stis'd by a private hand; 'tis an iniquity to be punisht by the Judge. But what better can wee hope for from that bold man, who alleging in behalf of Popery that our Savior said this is my body; and being answer'd that according to the Fathers, he meant the Figure of his body; reply'd without more ado Why then he ly'd.

[Page 61]I cannot now stay to inquire the meaning of that p. 207. uncouth word Genevized which he afterwards inter­prets by being infected with Geneva, but leaves us to seek what disease Geneva is the name of. Nor shall I accuse, but applaud him for his false English; for a man that can write no Sense, is safest when he writes no Language. But I hasten to the next Paragraph, p. 208. which begins with a few untruths, said and answer'd before; and so proceeds to examine the Replyer's in­stances ‘How a real reception may be of a thing really absent:’ Locally absent good Sr. if it be possible for once to leave an old wont; for Locally was the word the Replyer us'd in the place cited ^*; and thought it the properer word for this purpose, having no design till he becomes one of your Catholics, to prove that a thing can be really present at the same time that it is really absent. You might have spar'd your attemt to explain away the instances, had you consider'd what the Re­plyer says p. 14. ‘ That there may be a real reception, though the thing receiv'd be not locally or circumscrip­tively present, or literally grasp'd in the arms of the receiver.’ And again p. 16. ‘ That a thing may be said to be really receiv'd, which is so consign'd to us, that wee can readily imploy it to all those purposes for which it is usefull in it self, and wee have occasion to use it.’ For if these things be true, as till they are confuted I must think they are, the Reader will easily perceive, that the instances retain their force, notwith­standing your different exposition; and that it will not serve your purpose to pretend they may bear another interpretation, unless you prove that they cannot bear mine.

^* A leaf or two before he takes it ill to be taught what he should say; and we that he should put us upon the [Page 62] hopeless task of instructing him. I know no remedy p. 205. but either his saying what he should say, or ceasing his pretences to be what he is not. But if this advice dis­please him, may we tell him what he should not say? If we may, wee will advise him not to say those men he cannot answer are men of no authority, without a better reason than that it must suffice he thinks 'em so; for we doubt in this particular he imploy's his avow'd Principle. Cranmer, Bradford, and Fox are so justly valu'd by all men of understanding, that it would be too assuming in a puny Discourser to scorn their autho­rity in any case: but in this, where all the question is about their opinion, to reject them as incompetent wit­nesses of what they hold▪ is a plain indication to what straits the Examiner is driven. So likewise the Book of Homilyes whose authority is so venerable with us, is by him disregarded as a book ‘design'd only pro tem­pore to serve a turn.’ It has serv'd that turn above one Century, and I hope will serve it many more; after the Discourses have serv'd another turn. To carry on the humor the Book call'd Foxes and Firebrands, which p. 209. gives us the account we quote, from original papers of Qu. Marye's own, is ‘ a dirty pool, which the Replyer has fish'd and found nothing.’ Not so much indeed as he finds in this dirty Appendix; but something, which it seems the Author of it cannot answer. Howe­ver Dr. Burnet shall not scape for saying that ‘ It was not thought fit to cast off Superstition all at once. Su­perstition then (says the Examiner) that ancient form was, which notwithstanding had remained so many hundred years already, and the whole Church for all that time was guilty of Superstition.’ No; the form was not superstition, but had been abus'd to coun­tenance superstition and something worse, for as many [Page 63] of those hundreds of years, as had pass'd since the De­fining p. 2 [...]9. of Transubstantiation: though not by the whole Church neither; but only by a Faction in the corrupt Roman part of it— ‘ But how came it to pass that they tolerated Superstition so long?’ Because they were to wait their Superiors time to abolish it; and not re­form by Bellarmine's Popish rule, of Rebelling quando aderant vires.— ‘ But must ill be done that good may come of it?’ Not by our Principles; but by other mens it may, unless lying and forswearing be no ill.— ‘ But why would Q. Elizabeth introduce superstition again when once ejected?’ Q. Elizabeth did no such thing; but took care when she restor'd the form, that the people should be taught the wholesome use of it, according to the sense of Antiquity, long before Popish superstition was devis'd.

In the next place he condems ‘ Policy (that is com­mon Prudence) as an evil ingredient in Church-mat­ters ;’ and if we may judge by his Conduct, is in earnest. And will now prove that ‘ They ( i. e. in Gram­matical construction the Reformers, though I suppose he means their Proceedings) were neither Political, Expedient, nor Lawful,’ ‘’ For 1st. ‘It was not Poli­tical, to introduce a Division which—rais'd Commotions and Civil wars.’ The Alterations were not Pa­pists; and ^a wee read of no Rebellion then rais'd in En­gland, upon that score, but what was rais'd by Papists. Perhaps it was not Policy in the Church of England not to suspect them; but it was Charity; and 'tis no [Page 64] great Policy at this time, to reproach her with it tho' it were impolitic. ‘2d. Not expedient, to introduce Antimonarchical Principles;’ By what? by the alte­rations of the Rubric? this consequence is as obscure as the Design of the Discourser. ‘ Unhinging mens con­sciences;’ an effect the Examiner never felt; his, turns so easily, we may conclude it is well hinged, and the hinges very well oyl'd. But the Reformers ‘ diminish'd the power of the Clergy.’ i. e. They would not let them pretend to make God, and trample upon the neck of his Vicegerent: but how this ‘ does manifestly oppose Kingly Government,’ will remain a secret, till Popery has banish'd common sense out of the world. When that's done, probably we may know too, how ‘ the people might be, and were kept in obedience to God and their Sovereign by the Popish Clergy;’ notwith­standing the men that adher'd to them were the only Rebels that we read of. 3d. ‘ Nor were the alterations lawful; because not made by the lawful Ecclesiastical Magistrates.’ This argument, were it sifted to the bottom, would go near to be ill taken; but I shall con­tent my self with what is sayd to it in the Answers to Church Government. part. V.

‘ Another argument of the change of the Doctrine was p. 205. the omission of divers significant if not necessary Ce­remonyes, particularly taking of the Bread or Pat­ten &c.’ This argument is out in matter of fact; for we deny that the true Church of England men did omit this Ceremony. Particularly Bishop Jewell did not; in whome the Replyer instanc't, both as a competent wit­ness of the Churches sense; and one who by our Ad­versaryes own confession, was not guilty of that omis­sion. He will oblige us if he name but one so Authen­tic a man that did omitt it. If he cannot we shall con­clude [Page 65] they all practic'd it; especially since ‘ the nature p. 210. of the action(as the Replyer told him) implyes the use of that Ceremony,’ But ‘ Therefore the more shame (says the Examiner) on them who made it not ne­cessary.’ No; the sillier they (if there were any) that needed an express direction; and the wickeder they, that with design consecrated so aukwardly as to omit it. Such particularities are not requisite, unless to di­rect some Monks who scarce know their right hand from their left; and accordingly we meet 'em in the Mass-Book: or to some such Conformists as the Exami­ner once was, who perverted the common usage with a dishonest intent; and so made it afterwards necessary to restore even this direction. Which (as the Replyer farther told him) now it is restor'd, is but as it was in K. Edward's first book, a marginal note, directing when to use the Ceremony, not a Rubric to injoyn the use of it. For even in the present Common Prayer Book the use is not injoyn'd, but suppos'd, as is manifest from the Rubric before the Prayer of Consecration.

That ‘ Telesphorus put the Gloria in Excelsis in the Mass, is a Monkish legend, younger than the Mass, which is yet much younger than Telesphorus.’That ‘ this hymn was the Angels congratulation for our Sa­vior's coming into the world;’ or rather that the hymn now so call'd begins with the Angelical congratulation, we need not to be told, for we are allow'd to read the Bible: but that ‘ the Benedictus qui venit was their (i. e. the Angels) congratulation for our Saviors tri­umphant entry into Jerusalem,’ is a thing I did not know before. Had the Examiner consulted Aquinas, he might have sav'd this blunder, and learn'd a better reason why these two Hymns are made use of. Popu­lus devote laudat divinitatem Christi cum Angelis di­cens [Page 66] Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus; & humanitatem cum pueris dicens Benedictus qui venit, &c. Aquinas apud Cassandrum. Liturg. cap. 25. pag. 54. But I am not yet satisfy'd that Benedictus qui venit &c. is so perti­nently put into the beginning of the Office, if according to the Examiner it be said ‘ to congratulate Christ's coming to be present upon the Altar.’ For the Pa­pists say he does not come till a good while after: at the precise nick of time when the Priest has pronounc'd the last Syllable of Hoc est enim Corpus meum. Wherefore Benedictus qui venit would do better in the Postcom­munion, when they think he is there; than to congra­tulate his being there when they declare he is not.

'Tis impertinent to tell me what the Sanctus has been p. 211. call'd, since it is commonly call'd the Trisagium now; as is manifest to any one that reads, unless we must re­nounce our senses in every thing relating to the Eucha­rist. And there's very good reason to call it so, if [...] signify thrice, and [...] holy; which perhaps the Exa­miner might have known, but that Graecum est &c. is an old Maxim of the Monks. He should have known too, or not pretended to any skill in Antiquity, that ^a the name Trisagium is given to two several forms; both mention'd in a Synodical Epistle of Felix III. ^b where he likewise tells a fine tale that has past upon divers o­ther writers, how the later (the Examiner's) Trisagi­um, being miraculously sent from Heaven, the use of it [Page 67] was first appointed by Proclus Arch-Bishop of Constan­nople: p. 211. though the Reader that is not fond of Legends may find a more rational account in Photius's Collections ^a out of Jobius Monachus. But the Trisagium most anciently us'd in the Celebration of the Eucharist, is yet extant in the Apostolic Constitutions ^b and is this; [...]. So exactly does the truly ancient agree with our present form: and so little truth is there in what the Examiner would insinuate, that the other (in­troduc'd by Proclus) was the ancienter form; as if (to use a Convert's expression,) he were fated to be allways in the wrong.

The Replyer doubted ( p. 7.) that some of the Discour­ser's quotations were not very judiciously chosen, tho' the thing for which they were quoted, at the same time he granted to be true. The place in Eusebius he expresly shew'd to be impertinent; which made him suspect the other two, which he had neither leisure nor the books by him to examine. Now the Appendix saying no­thing of Eusebius, the Author plainly gives him up: and he says ‘it is not worth while to Vindicate the others,’ and for once is not mistaken. ‘ Notwithstanding he will add what he finds in S. Ambrose's works, l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis.’ I will not now return that this book is so notoriously spurious that the Examiner himself durst not ascribe it to S. Ambrose; nor will I except to the matter quoted, which is true, and agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of England, if we take it in the Author's, not the Quoter's sense: for our present inqui­ry must be, not whether it be true, but pertinent; which it cannot be, if the form to which we answer Amen be [Page 68] a prayer: and the form is The body of our Lord Jesus p. 211. Christ which was given for thee, preserve the Body and Soul to everlasting life. Now admitting the form im­plyes this assertion, what thou now receivest is the body of our Lord, which he that answers Amen, confesses to be true: yet still the whole form is a prayer, and he that says Amen to it, answers Amen to a prayer; unless the Examiner believe that the implying something asser­tory, makes a petition cease to be a prayer; which would be so ridiculous a notion as never dwelt in the same head with common sense.

Concerning the omission of these words [ in these ho­ly mysteries] the Replyer who pretended only to guess the true reason, said it might be purely accidental. ‘And it might not be so says the Examiner: For they have a signification contrary &c.’ If they have so, the Re­ply there told him, ‘ that was cause enough to omit them, because they would assert an Opinion contrary to sound doctrine, and the declar'd judgment of the Church:’ to which I find nothing return'd.

The Replyer observ'd ( p. 7.) that no fault was found with the second form, which is intirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution. Wherefore now it is decreed that some fault shall be found with it. And first it is ‘ Faulty enough certainly because contrary to the former book; which to prove was the Author's chief intention;’ wherefore he never urg'd one word in proof of it. But we want from the Examiner a bet­ter reason than the variety of expression, to prove a con­trariety in the matter; least among other inconvenien­ces, this Appendix which is all Tautology, prove only a heap of contrarieties. Of his second exception I have given my opinion already; and shall neither repeat that, nor consider the two next Paragraphs wherein there is as [Page 69] much truth and pertinence as there is good manners. p. 211. The Examen gives me no occasion to add to what I sayd in my Reply. I say and prove; the Examiner denyes and calls names; and who takes the better method must be left to the Reader to determine.

He proceeds and tells us that ‘ Calvin and Beza are p. 212. mention'd, because by them were the English Reformers much directed, though our Author does not tye him­self to speak only of the Church of England men.’ No; if he did he would speak to some purpose, which to do is no part of his Character. Whither our Reformers were so much directed by Calvin and Beza may be question'd: the Replyer fish'd a shrewd reason, out of that dirty pool Foxes and Firebrands why they were less directed, than otherwise they might have been. But if they were so much directed, 'tis the more probable, their direction was not approv'd where it was not follow'd. And if this be true 'tis still the more trifling and impertinent to op­pose their judgment to the Church of England, which is all that the Reply contended for. That which follows about Conciliators in general, I dare trust to do it's own business; and come to Mr. Thorndike, for whose memory I have a great and just esteem, though I think him no proper man to determine the point in question, for the reasons mention'd, pag. 19. and 61. of the Reply. What I say of him, is partly from his writings, and partly of my own certain knowledg, as, if it be requisite, I can prove: but the Examiner only pretends that ‘ he was rightly quoted’ by the Discourser; which I think I acknowledg'd plain enough in the Reply; and I now acknowledg it again, not without some satisfaction, that the Examiner dares not say so much of any other Au­thor quoted by him. For what relates to Dr. Taylor in the next Paragraph, viz.

[Page 70] ‘ The quotations out of Dr. Taylor are most true,’ is p. 212 undoubtedly a fault of the Compositor, and would have been among the Errata, if the Printer as well as the Writer had delcar'd against Prevarication. The Discour­ser was charg'd with misquoting Dr. Taylor; because he quoted him by halves, and as Patron of an opinion he expressly declares and writes against. If this be true, the quotations out of Dr. Taylor are most false: If the Examiner did not think it true, what need of bringing off the Discourser by a Calumny upon Dr. Taylor? But since it is lawful to calumniate for a good end, we are told that ‘ Dr. Taylor was an inconstant, forgetful, igno­rant man, and one that vented many indigested and in­coherent notions.’ Well but how is this prov'd? No, it is not to be Prov'd, but ‘ it seems so.’ But perhaps we are once more mistaken in our Author's Design: we thought him to be quoting, and he good man, was only weeding, and picking out the tares from the wheat: and he was in the right of it; for if what he calls tares be suffer'd to grow among the wheat, it will go near to spoyl his harvest.

‘ He does not remember Dr. Taylor any where su­stains p. 213. (as this Replyer doth) that Protestants may use the same terms as the Catholics, and yet in a quite different sense.’ Great judgments have sometimes bad memories; the more the pity that the trade the Examiner drives, requires a very good one. But to help his memory, I referr him to Dr. Taylor's book of the Real Presence; the first section; from the eighth Paragraph to the end: where he will find that Dr. Taylor considers one by one the Terms that the Papists use; and shews that Protestants use the same but in another sense which he defends; from whence we gather, that he sustain'd they might do this; and very good reason they had for it, since the Fathers did so before them. For the truth [Page 71] is (as abundance of Protestant books, that neither are p. 213. nor can be answer'd, have demonstrated) that the Popish Faction in the Latin Church, having perverted the lan­guage of Antiquity, and given it a novel and absurd meaning, the Reformers as in other cases so in this too restor'd the primitive usage, and taught the people what the Fathers meant as well as what they said. Now in­stead of this the Examiner would have had them ‘ tell the world that their words were like Jacob's, but their intention’ (which is vulgar Latin for their hands) like Esau, for then they had come over to his Party, which now looks melancholy for want of company ‘ and plainly confess their haeresy;’ for else they are never like to be convicted.

In the entrance of the next Paragraph, he gives us an ill name; in the close he comforts himself with the hope of our damnation; which is the best argument I find in him, of his being a true Papist. I wonder what has discompos'd him; but sure his passion has a little hurt his understanding, he gives so perverse an account of the Doctrine asserted in the Reply. To prevent the errors into which he may betray the common Reader, I shall once more give him this short and plain account of what I said there. The words of institution require us to eat the Body broken, and drink the Blood shed; which we cannot do literally, because the body broken and the blood shed neither do nor can now really exist. But the worthy receivers of the Sacrament, do figuratively eat that body, and drink that blood, when they really eat and drink the Symbols of them. And the good effect, which God has annext to this by his gracious institution, and accomplishes by his marvelous power, is a real Union with the living, glorify'd body, whereby the Communicants are made partakers of the [Page 72] Spirit of Christ their Head; and receive the benefits p. 213. purchas'd by the Sacrifice of the dead body, by being united by that Spirit to the living body. Which living glorify'd body is therefore verily and indeed receiv'd; and by consequence may be said to be really present in the Eucharist. This I thought had been declar'd and prov'd plain enough in the Reply. The Examiner con­futes it by saying ‘ he does not understand it.’ But if all must be rejected that is lyable to that exception, there will be as little sense in the world, as there would be honesty if his other Principles prevail'd. For a farther explication (if it be requisite) I referr him to the famous Sermon Preach'd by Archbishop Usher before the house of Commons Feb. 18. A. D. 1620. And to a late admirable Treatise call'd a Summary of the Controversyes between the Church of England, and the Church of Rome. Sect. IV. and V. which when he has perus'd, if he does not yet un­derstand, I can only tell him in his own words ‘ that the fault is in the organ, not the object.’ For to under­stand his notion, is not more impossible to a man of sense, than not to understand our Doctrine after so much plain Demonstration.

If the Lutherans are the only men that are ‘ truly call'd Protestants,’ then the Papists call the rest of their Adversaries out of their names. But this reflexion is something worse than that upon the Trisagium; for Pro­testant comes a protestando, and that is not Greek.

‘ The Zuinglians assert no real presence of our Lord's body at all, but of the benefit only of his passion:’ but they believe all that is requisite to assert it; all the grounds that the assertors pretend for it: and it seemes the Examiner knows this, and gives notice of it to the Replyer, as if he had not said it himself in the Paragraph under consideration.

[Page 73]The note upon pag. 16. is so choice a heap of Confusion, p. 214. that it seemes to be the Author's Masterpiece. If it be not too presumtuous to guess at his Design (which it may be, like that of the Discourses, would be incognito) I should think he had a mind to confute the latter part of the sixteenth page of the Reply. His method confirms my suspicion; for he neither gives my words, nor my meaning, nor confutes what he substitutes in their room. For example. ‘ A thing may be really present two ways,’ is the point the Examiner incounters. ‘ A thing thus really receiv'd may be said to be really present two ways,’ are the words of the Reply. The objection is ‘ there are many other ways of presence.’ But are there not those that I assign? which are sufficient for my pur­pose of explaining how the Sacrament and the res Sacra­menti, are, the one Physically, the other Morally but both really present? To this he answers with his leg. A Physical presence is a local presence says the Exami­ner. ‘ A Physical presence (now we speak of a natural body) is local,’ says the Replyer. And is this true? If it be, (as I find it not deny'd) I am safe though it should be true, that the presence of a Spiritual body is not lo­cal: which answer and the other that is tack'd to it, are yet more absurd upon another score; because they assert the point that I contend for, viz. that our Savior's body is not locally present.

But to wave the impertinence, and examin the truth of this Argument. That there is both a natural and a spiritual body; and that each of 'em has properties di­vers from the other; we are very well satisfy'd; because this is very intelligible in it self, and plainly reveal'd in Scripture. But still both the one and the other is a body; and therefore must have all the Essential properties of a body. A body devested of these, yet a body still (i. e. [Page 74] the Examiners spiritual body) is no real being, but an p. 214. absurd inconceivable notion; and no more a body than one of his many passages that have neither Grammer nor meaning in 'em is a Proposition. Now one of those Essential properties without which a body cannot really exist, is to have dimensions; for matter and quantity are not really distinct. Another is to be finite; for e­very body is a creature. A third is to be Unum numero; for whatever really exists is so. And it is utterly inconcei­vable how these three essential properties can be attribu­ted to a body, unless that body be suppos'd to exist in some one determinate finite space: which space the Phi­losophers (speaking of a body) call a circumscriptive Ubi, or in one word, place; so that locality or being in a place, cannot possibly be remov'd from a body, without removing those properties, without which a body can­not exist. We may indeed allow a precisive, but not a negative abstraction of them; for a body may be consi­der'd, but cannot exist by halves: we may choose whi­ther we will consider more than one or two properties; but the body really existing cannot choose but have them all: wherefore though we may consider it, not as having them; we cannot consider it as not having them. But cannot God by his Omnipotence, remove all these properties of a body? Yes undoubtedly; but then it ceases to be a body. God can create, annihilate, and change at his pleasure: he can make that which is a body cease to be so; but he cannot continue it a body, when he has remov'd that which makes it be a body, unless he can verify a contradiction. Now the question depend­ing is concerning a body really existing, and continuing still a body; which the Examiner would (as he calls it) spiritualize; that is, abstract it into nothing. For if a body occupy no place, it has no dimensions; if no di­mensions, [Page 75] no quantity; if no quantity, no matter; if no p. 214. matter, it is no body. If it be not unum numero it does not really exist. Abstract all these, and what remains is the Examiner's notion of a body really existing.

And as no man of sense can ever frame a notion of such a body, so no Philosopher ever thought of a name for the Ubi that belongs to it. We read of a circum­scriptive Ubi, that belongs to a body; a definitive Ubi to a spirit; the repletive Ubi of Almighty God. But the Ubi that belongs to the Examiner's spiritual body wants a name: and if I were to give it one, I would borrow a phrase from the Discourser, and call it an Au­tocatacritical Ubi, which being explain'd proves a Nul­libi; wherein nothing exists but the Examiner's Body of Divinity.

Now for the second evasion, of ‘ a miraculous pre­sence, effected by the power of Almighty God.’ The Protestants (we have often told him) dispute not the power but the will of God in this particular. Our ar­gument proceeds not upon what God can do, but upon what he will, and what he has reveal'd. Wherefore it is nothing to the purpose though it were prov'd, that God can do what the Examiner contends for, unless it appear he will do it, which we doubt is impossible to be prov'd. So that it were better to let alone the subject of God's omnipotence, upon which they often talk Bla­sphemy, and never advantage their cause. Of God's not verifying contradictions, we shall have farther occa­sion to speak by and by. In the mean time if to be some­thing and nothing be a contradiction; it implyes one that the Examiner's spiritual body should exist.

To proceed. ‘ A Moral presence is call'd Sacramen­tal,’ says the Examiner:— ‘ either Physically or Morally, to which we reduce Sacramentally,’ are the words of the [Page 76] Reply. Now for his objections. ‘ This (viz. what he p. 214. quotes) is a novel interpretation.’ First how does this appear? secondly if it did, what's that to the Reply? ‘ The Church used Sacramental for real, as opposed to receiving by Faith.’ If he mean the primitive Church this is false too; but how does he pretend to prove it? ‘ it is said before:’ but by whome or where it is not said: ‘ But what is it to be morally present, if not that a mo­ral entity (as grace holiness &c.) are present? The be­nefits of our Lord's passion are present to, and injoy'd by us; but what is this to the real true presence of his Body?’ ‘The benefits of our Savior's passion are con­ferr'd on us, by virtue of our real union with his glori­fy'd body which is therefore verily and indeed receiv'd, and by consequence said to be really present, notwith­standing it's local absence; because a real participation and union, must needs imply a real presence, though they do not necessarily require a local one.’ Reply. p 14. ‘ But neither are these benefits given us in this Sacrament, but are only apprehended of us by Faith.’ I cannot distinguish whether he advance this as his own doctrine in opposition to ours; or as ours in opposition to our selves; though 'tis so inconsistent with the do­ctrine of all Churches, that 'tis fit for him to affirm. One would think he should not deny that the Sacraments con­ferr grace; or that grace is one of the benefits purchas'd by our Savior's passion; or say that grace is not conferr'd at all, unless it be conferr'd all at once: yet some of these things must be done to make this objection sense. ‘ In summe this Replyer seems to flutter,’ if he does but seem so, 'tis well enough; for 'tis odds but what seems to the Examiner, neither really is, nor seems to any o­ther man. ‘ Wherefore he heapeth up such a parcel of insignificant words and distinctions that it is lost time [Page 77] to examine them.’ And 'tis little better to examine p. 214. the reasoning of one that can no more make a Syllogism than he can a Convert.

However I will not leave this Paragraph yet; 'tis so very honest, pertinent and judicious. ‘ There is a real presence of a body which is always local.’ This is false, but that which the Reply maintains, That the Physi­cal real presence of a natural body is always local, is true, and not deny'd. ‘ There is also a spiritual and virtual presence:’ Who doubts it? ‘ Distinct from Re­al and Moral?’ Who ever sayd it? ‘ Spiritual we ac­knowledge as before; but this is real and not virtual only.’ And when we say a spiritual and virtual, we neither say virtual only, nor exclude real. ‘ And what is virtual if not the effects of our Lord's passion? what are all these to the real presence of our Lord's body,’ the only question? the effects of his passion are communicat­ed in such a manner as inferrs a real presence of his body. This is prov'd at large in the Reply, pag. 13. & seqq. where this Real presence is call'd virtual, not in opposi­tion to real (as this fond man seemes to fancy) for 'tis mention'd as one sort of real presence; but to distinguish it from Local which is another sort; and the reason of calling this virtual, is because it is effected by the com­munication of the bodie's virtue, as the other is call'd lo­cal because effected by the bodie's being in loco: and be­cause our Savior's very body is really in Heaven as in loco; yet really united to us, and receiv'd by us, and so imparts it's virtue upon earth; it is said to be Physical­ly and Locally present in Heaven only, yet morally and virtually present upon earth; and really present both in heaven and on earth. Which being observ'd, we may dismiss the two next Paragraphs that pretend to [Page 78] take the Replyer in a contradiction; for all that is p. 215. farther said in them has been consider'd already.

Only there remains this passage ‘ The Papists allways acknowledge a local presence; The contrary whereof is true,’ And so it may be for any thing said by the Replyer. His words are ‘ They, however they express themselves, understand a Local Presence;’ which they may do, and not acknowledg the Term. He does not say they own the word; for he knew it was deny'd in the Catechism ad Parochos and he never allows himself to lye for a good purpose; but he says that however they express themselves they understand the thing; and so they must do if they see to the bottom of their own no­tion; because they assert such a presence as cannot be corporal unless it be local too. Not that I take corpo­rally and locally for the same; or can think him that ^* says I do, so shallow as to believe himself; but corpo­rally in their sence unavoydably inferrs locally. This ^* Bucer was aware of; and by his example I chose to as­sign this as the difference between us and the Papists be­cause it is both a necessary consequent of their Doctrine, and a most manifest conviction of their error. For re­ally, essentially, substantially, corporally, may all be us'd in a sound sence, but locally can not: yet a Popish Corporal presence must be local; though a local presence be so manifest an absurdity, that even they disclaim it, who are not asham'd to renounce both sence and reason, in other points relating to the Eucharist.

In the note upon pag 20. he has found out a pleasant excuse for the Discourser's stumbling. We talk of the truth of a body, and he turns it to the truth of a Pro­position. 'Tis pitty his Talent went no farther than the Printing of a Logic; a little Metaphysics would [Page 79] have been serviceable; and prevented this second stum­ble. p. 215. The note upon Ineffable mystery, is to me an ex­ample of one; for I cannot imagine what it drives at. The Discourser misapplyes the words of our Divines; the Replyer gives their true meaning; the Examiner is angry that the words they use, and the meaning we assign, ‘ are not opposite to one another.’

What a choice Remark the next is will appear by p. 216. setting down the words of the Reply and the Dis­course which are as follows. ‘But admit the Real Presence be ineffable; what then? He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradicto­ry to reason. Reply. Cap. 4. pag. 20.—Here also I find Protestants, and especially our English Divines ge­nerally to confess the presence of our Savior in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery (which I con­ceive is said to be so, in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to, and therefore incom­prehensible and ineffable by human reason) For thus Calvin &c.’ Disc. concerning the Rubric. cap. 3. p. 13. §. 20. n. 1. 1. Where is the Replyer's fault now? ‘Why he leaves out the word seemingly,’ which was never in; ‘ as also he omitts it where it does come in a good while after,’ §. 21. upon another occasion; where it seems to be nothing to the purpose. For the que­stion there is, ‘ Why we may not believe one Con­tradiction as well as another?’ And 'tis granted that we may; ‘ because we can believe none at all.’ That which is a contradiction is impossible; and therefore that which seems one is incredible: the being, or only seeming may signify something to the possibility; but to be or seem is all one in respect▪ of the credibility. But now to give a full decision in this point ‘ Take notice (says our Exami­ner) [Page 80] that no Catholic affirms, God can make two p. 2 [...]. Contradictories to be true.’ Here I doubt the word seemingly is left out not altogether out of inadver­tency; as also in that which follows ‘ that there is no Contradiction in their Doctrine of the Eucharist.’ But if no Papist believe that God can effect any thing which implyes, and not only seems a Contradiction; and if no points of their Doctrine really are, but on­ly seem contradictory; how comes it to pass that when we charge them with holding things that con­tradict, they instead of denying the charge, accuse us of limiting God's power? why do they bestow all their pains in setting forth God's omnipotence, which would better be bestow'd in taking of the seemingness of the Contradiction? The Examiner (to do him right) makes an offer or two ^a in his Harangue; let us see with what success.

‘ To be here and not here (he says) may be a Con­tradiction, but to be here and there is none.’ But to be here and there is to to be here and not here—. We must know that he has Printed a book of Ora­tory; and that a ^b ‘ Contradiction in terminis is a thing not unusual with Orators to make the acuter ex­pression.’ But if this will not pass; what say we to the Miracle of the five Loaves? This I take to be an Argument ad hominem; and am sorry I was not more particular when I mention'd it to one of the Exami­ner's Correspondents, and said I wonder'd that the Pa­pists did not urge it in the dispute about the Eucha­rist. But I meant it as a plausible Argument against the testimony of sense; and now it is judiciously ap­ply'd as an instance of a seeming contradiction. It may be the Examiner sees where the Contradiction lyes; but to grieve us keeps the secret to himself; [Page 81] For if we solve it, we must first find it; which without p. 195. his assistance we cannot doe, and so he's safe enough. In another Discourse, ^* he publish'd an acute project for ‘threading of Camels;’ He is now upon the same design, and says the thing is ‘ possible with God.’ I am loth to think that any thing that wears a gown, is either so weak or so ill read, as not to know that our Saviour's words are a proverbial expression of an extreme diffi­culty, not an absolute impossibility. But does not the Text add that ‘ the things which are impossible with men are possible with God?’ Yes it does; but it speaks of things, not of contradictions: God is able to doe any thing; but whatever he does is something; and what a contradiction pretends to mean is just nothing. And least the Examiner should cavil because S. Luke says in another place [...], no word shall be impossible with God; we must tell him, that passage is quoted from the Septuagint version of Gen. XVIII. 13. and that as [...] in Hebrew, so [...] in their version frequently signifies a thing; and [...] to do a thing, as any man will quickly find that looks but in Kircher's Concordance. To conclude, the Scrip­ture teaches us, and all Christians are agreed, that God can do many things which man can neither do nor conceive; but it never teaches us he can do a thing which is nothing; that is, verify a contradiction; I may say, a seeming contradiction, if we mean that which seems one to a thinking man; for nothing in Scripture can seem one to a man that considers. And the summe of what we hold in this particular is briefly this. That which seems a contradiction, while it seems so, is incre­dible; because all men are agree'd that if it really be one, 'tis impossible: and he that will convince us that a seeming contradiction is possible, must prove that it [Page 82] only seems one, but really is none at all; which is p. 195. more than any man does or can do for the seeming con­tradictions in the Popish Doctrine of the Eucharist.

His last refuge is from three places in S. John to col­lect that ‘ our Savior when upon Earth, was also in Heaven; i. e. his natural body was in Heaven and Earth at the same time.’ There's another place in S. John, viz. VIII. 58. of which he will do well to learn the meaning, and then perhaps in time, he may come to understand these. And that's all that I think requisite to say at present. For as for himself, his very quoting these places by an old rule (taken notice of Reply p. 8.) is to me an argument he mistrusts them: and for other men I'm pretty well assur'd, that none who are able to tell twenty, can read the texts and allow the in­ference.

To return to the Examen. The Close of the Paragraph p. 216. last consider'd looks as if it were a waggish artifice to be­tray the common Reader into a distrust of his senses, the better to prepare him for digesting Transubstantia­tion. For the words are ‘ They (the Papists) believe it (their Doctrine of the Eucharist to be plainly re­veal'd by our Savior's own words and S. Paul's (v. fore­going Discourse. p. 18)’ yet neither in the 18th, nor any other page of that Discourse, is there one argument from our Savior's or S. Paul's words to prove a Popish Corpo­ral Presence: at least I found none; tho' (to borrow an elegance from the Author) ^* I made a Cursory over it. Men may fancy he referrs like other writers, and had now promis'd to be awake, and speak to purpose: but he that thinks him capable of fair dealing, Wou'd to God he wou'd but try him.

The Author may pardon me this resentment, since he has his revenge before hand; for it cost me the reading [Page 83] his Discourse to find my error, and be fully satisfy'd the p. 216. Press was not in fault, but the Writer; who design'd his Reference to belong, neither to the Clause it was sub­joyn'd to, nor yet to the whole Paragraph, but only to the former part of it concerning seeming Contradi­ctions. Of these indeed he speaks in that eighteenth page; and determines very learnedly p. 19. that ‘ God cannot verifie a formal contradiction; but no man can tell what does formally Contradict without an express revelation.’ This proves a mighty comple­ment to a late Writer; whome I allways took to be a great master of Reason, but not till now to be in­spir'd; I mean the Author of the absolute impossibi­lity of Transubstantiation demonstrated. When I hear how the Examiner evades the formal contradictions that Book exposes, he shall know more of my mind; till then I leave his Compendious Discourse in those better hands that have already undertaken it.

Dr. Taylor had said, that ‘ The Doctrine of the Tri­nity does as much violence to Philosophy, as Tran­substantiation:’ which words being capable of an in­nocent meaning, the Reply explains it, and assents to 'em so explain'd. The Examiner objects that ‘ Tran­substantiation is a Contradiction,’ and wisely leaves it with the Reader; who he hopes will be heedless enough to inferr, that therefore the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Contradiction too. This, your thorough­pac'd Papists do not scruple to affirm in print; but our Author is a Neophyte, and modest; or perhaps he was aware, the Consequence will not hold. For if one does as much violence as the other, it by no meanes follows that both of 'em do the same; no more than he that kills a man with a Sword, does the same violence to his life, or does it in the same [Page 84] way, though he does as much as he that beats out p. 216. his brains. Every Fresh-man knows the meaning of as much in this kind of speech; and if You tell him that a Straw is as much a substance as Goliah, has more witt than to return, But Goliah was a giant of six Cubits and a span high. Nor will any of 'em be persuaded Dr. Taylor meant more than this, that the Do­ctrine of the Trinity is as truly too hard for Philosophy to explain, as that of Transubstantiation; because (as the Reply said p. 22.) ‘ natural reason cannot frame an adaequate notion of either:’ so they both offer ab­solute, and in this respect equal violence; tho' they do it upon different accounts, and in divers ways; which makes a vast alteration in the case, when we come to talk of credibility. For example; Transub­stantiation involves millions of millions of contradi­ctions, and is therefore both inconceivable, and incre­dible; for no man can conceive, or assent to, a thing that has no meaning at all. Again, there are some Mathematical notions, which no man can fully com­prehend; which are therefore inconceivable, tho' not only credible, but demonstrable. Once again, there are some Divine supernatural truths which transcend a finite capacity; and are therefore inconceivable, yet not therefore incredible, but rather the contrary: for nothing is more rational than to think that the infi­nite nature of God must needs surpass man's finite Understanding; and the narrowness of human capa­city can by no meanes be the standard of Divine truth. But of this passage of Dr. Taylor's enough is said in the Reply, without any answer yet return'd: I referr my Reader to it, (p. 21.) and proceed.

'Tis a strange antipathy our Examiner has to Greek, and Latin; if he meet but a line of either it puts [Page 85] him into fits, and makes him talk idly for a whole p. 216. Paragraph. There's a line in Bishop Andrews ‘(Prae­sentiam credimus; nec minus quam vos veram)’ which the man had most grievously mistaken; ^a the Replyer ‘ without taking advantage of his blundering’ did but give him the words, and set him right in the mean­ing; and see what a remark this produces.

‘ Pag. 25. Bishop Andrews's famous saying (which the Replyer would falsly translate or interpret;) The Real Presence which we hold is as Real as the Cor­poral which the Papists hold. Which proposition is both false in it self, and falsly father'd upon Bishop Andrews. For they who believe only a figurative presence, believe not so much as they who believe a real also. For it is to say, That he who believes a real absence, believes a real presence.’

The Bishops saying wou'd have been a very famous one indeed, had he said what the Examiner reports; but he never us'd to word things so unskilfully: so that tho' the proposition be not false, yet 'tis falsly father'd upon Bishop Andrews, as our Author very honestly confesses. I dare say he neither did, nor ownes this thing with design; but his fit is strong upon him; else he would not have betray'd so important a secret, as that he and his Catholicks ‘believe a presence that is only figurative and real also:’ which is just as Mr. Hobbs, ( ^b to whome he went to school with Bishop Cranmer) held more than Bishop Bramhal; because the Bishop held only Liberty Mr. Hobbs held that, and Necessity besides. But the Conclusion of the Paragraph solves all: there we find that a presence only figura­tive is a real absence; a few lines before, it was a real presence; and he that thus takes 'em for [...] same may very well hold 'em both. If our [...] [Page 86] would have taken advice, and consulted honest Wal­ker's p. 216. Particles, he had probably found the difference between nec and non, which might have prevented these mistakes. Or even Mr. P. (as I fancy) could have serv'd him as far as this goes: who perhaps may have Greek too, enough to construe [...], which will answer half the next Remark. For the case is this. Of the words [...] Act. III. 21. I gave this meaning That the heaven of heavens must contain him (i. e. his Natural body) till the times of re­stitution of all things: not aiming at a literal version, but to give the sense of the Original. Now says our Examiner, with an eye as I suppose on our Transla­tion ‘ The word is not contain, but receive.’ Nei­ther is it the heaven of heavens, nor his Natural body, but only whome the heaven must receive. Yet the whome here signifies Christ's natural body; and the heaven, means the heaven of heavens; and to re­ceive in this case is all one as to contain. This mean­ing of the Text and the Argument from it, are so ve­ry plain and common, that I need not farther insist on 'em. If any man think they are evaded by say­ing ‘ That our Savior's body is not now indu'd with natural properties, but spiritual; such as being at once in two places, having no dimensions and the like;’ I give him joy of his Understanding; but shall never offer to dispute with him. Wherefore neither shall I meddle with the former part of this Remark; which only tells us that ‘Christ in his Incarnation had a natural organical body such as ours; but now in his Glorification has a spiritual body, such as the Examiner has devis'd for him;’ a veryer Phantome than Marcion made him in his Incarnation.

In the next Note, (which to our exceeding great [Page 87] comfort is the last but one) we are told that ‘ our p. 216. Author's quotation out of St. Austin's cura pro mor­tuis is true and pertinent.’ But if our Author had so manag'd it, that St. Austin might seem to say what he did not say in that place, and plainly contradicts in divers others, the quotation is not true; and if St. Austin did not speak of the Martyrs bodies, it is not pertinent; because the point in question was, Whi­ther a body might be in two places at once? and St. Austin was quoted in favor of the Affirmative. But ‘ it matters not (says our Examiner) whither the Martyrs bodyes are spoken of by St. Austin. For our Replyer p. 29. seems not to dare affirm, that a Spirit cannot be in two Ubies: but if it be a contradicti­on S. Austin needs not inquire; if not a contradi­ction, neither is it for a spiritual body to be so.’ The Replyer indeed wav'd disputing about a Spirit's Ubiety, because it was nothing to the purpose; for* (as he had already intimated) though a Spirit could be in two Ubies, it will not follow that a Body may be in two places at once. And the crutch that is now brought to support this lame consequence (I mean the Exami­ner's notion of a spiritual body) is the staff of a brok­en reed, which instead of removing the absurdity ob­jected, introduces a great many worse. But to put this case beyond seeming, the Replyer dare and does affirm, that neither a Spirit nor any other creature either is or can be in two discontinu'd Ubies or Places at the same time; for he's very well assur'd he can prove when there is occasion, that the contrary opini­on implyes a formal contradiction. ‘ If it be a con­tradiction (says our honest Examiner) S. Austin need not inquire;’ leaving us (if we are so careless) to sub­sume, that he did inquire; and therefore thought it ¹⁴⁷ [Page 88] no contradiction. This is a very great piece of ad­dress; p. 216. for 'tis certain S. Austin did inquire; but not if a body might be in two places at once (that, in for­ty other places he peremtorily denyes) but taking it for granted that the Martyrs did releive their Votaries, and could not do this without a Miracle; the thing that he inquir'd of, was the modus how this Miracle was wrought. For solution, he assigns divers modi; of which the most difficult may (as far as concerns this case) be explain'd without a contradiction; or as­serting that a Spirit is at one and the same time in two discontinu'd Ubies: but still the point is so in­tricate, he professes 'tis past his understanding; he can­not determine, and therefore cares not to dispute, but contents himself with the certainty of the thing. Up­on the whole matter, the point in debate is; Whither S. Austin favor this opinion that a body may be in two places at once? and it appears, 1. That St. Au­stin says directly and frequently that a body cannot. 2. That he no where affirms a spirit can, but rather the contrary. 3. That if he had sayd a spirit could, yet the consequence from a spirit to a body will not hold; 4. That it is not pretended to hold, except in the case of the Examiner's spiritual body, which is prov'd an absurd inconceivable nothing; which there is not the least shadow of appearance that either St. Au­stin or any man of reason ever thought of. I know that Cutbert Tonstall in his dotage about An. 1554. imploy'd his notion of a spiritual body, to defend the Corporal presence; ^a and for ought I find, he was the first that did so: and he did it with a tenderness which argu'd his distrust of it; tho' his was but a phlegmatic [Page 89] absurdity in comparison of our Author's highly recti­fy'd p. 216. nonsense. But Cutbert stood alone, till the Dis­courser joyn'd him, and refin'd upon him; and if none beleiving, yet none expressly confuted him, 'twas be­cause he did what our Author and Publisher shou▪d have done, he put his age to his book.

And since we are so near a Conclusion, that we may the more easily part friends, wee'l suppose the Exa­miner to have done this; and allow the infirmities of age to plead for those following mistakes, which would hardly be forgiven to a younger pen. When he said that my quotations from S. Austin ‘ do not in the least contradict the doctrine of the Church;’ good man he meant the Church of England, and only for­got he had declar'd; and 'twas only the frailty of an old memory made him say and forget to prove ‘ that p. 217. the quotation from Tract. 30. in Joh. is perfectly a­gainst the Replyer.’ Perhaps it may be difficult to excuse his telling us that ‘ S. Austin says that Homo secundum corpus &c. after having first sayd that our Savior was in divers places (in heaven and earth) in his life time by the omnipotence of Almighty God; and that he was whilst upon earth in heaven also by the power of God;’ since no such thing appears in the context of any of my quotations; nor indeed in any other passage of S. Austin's writings. However wee'l impute even this mistake to old age (which impairs a man's other faculties as well as his memory) and con­tent our selves to set both him and the Reader right, by giving him S. Austin's own words ^a. For the truth [Page 90] is I'm so heartily tir'd, that I willingly quit the ad­vantage this Paragraph affords me, to be at quiet: For the same reason I return nothing to the last angry re­mark, but only desire him to put on his Spectacles, and once more read and consider the places I referr him to ^b. Perhaps the wisdom of second thoughts may shew him his mistake; if not, I'll instruct him in my next.

Having said what I thought was requisite in my own Vindication, some may possibly now expect my Reflections upon our Examiners Harangue. But I can­not easily persuade my self to deal with a man of his Character any more than I needs must: and I hope it may be time enough to consider that Harangue, when the rest of my Reply is Examin'd and Vindicated. I am incourag'd to expect another Appendix very speedily; and it may be as this first has in great mea­sure prevented, so the next may wholly supersede the trouble of a set Answer. For this Harangue is made up of two parts, answerable to the two Discourses; the former concerns the Real presence; the latter, the A­doration of our Savior in the Eucharist. What we have in the Former depends wholly upon a new and [Page 91] singular notion of a Spiritual body, which (besides ma­ny other pretty tricks it has) can be at once in two places, notwithstanding the seeming Contradiction. Now of this, the Examen has already given me occasion to say what I hope may be sufficient: and if it ap­pear to my Reader that there neither is nor can be such a body, the Examiner may take his new nothing and hang it on his sleeve, with the rest of his Discourse that hangs upon it; for wee have no farther obliga­tion to trouble our selves about it.

Thus the first part of the Examen has afforded me great relief; if the second be but as obliging, what would otherwise prove a double trouble 'will then be dispatch'd at once, to the Readers ease as well as mine. For I think we may be equally willing to be rid of an unthinking man, who talks as if his Soul were a match for his Spiritual body, and as this has neither quantity nor quality, so that had neither sense nor reason. Where­fore I attend the motions of his next Examen; and he promises fairly not to weary my expectation. For he says ‘ if it please God to continue their strength, they will not be long in my debt.’ Whenever they come out of it, I'll take care (God willing) to give 'em a receipt; but I hope they will not make such payment as they have done now, all in clip'd money, and three parts in four of it brass.