A manuel of controversies clearly demonstrating the truth of Catholique religion by texts of Holy Scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first 500 yeers, common sense and reason, and fully answering the principal objections of Protestants and all other sectaries / by H.T.

The major is proved, because the pronoune demonstrative this, after the words of conse∣cration are spoken, signifies of necessity the substance then present, as all, grant.

The minor is proved, because if it should then demonstrate the substance of bread and wine, the proposition would be evidently false, and signifie bread and wine to be the bo∣dy and blood of Christ, which is impossible.

Fathers for this point.

IN the second age S. Cyprian, the bread which our Lord gave to his disciples being changed, not in shape (outward forme) but in nature (sub∣stance) by the omnipotency of the word is made flesh, Sermon. de coena Dom.

In the third age Origen, We eat the bread of∣fered by prayer made a certaine holy body (the body of Christ) l. 8. cont. Celsum.

In the same age Tertullian, The bread taken and distributed to his disciples, he made his body, l. 4. cont. Marcion. c. 40.

In the fourth age S. Ambrose, If humane bene∣diction could change & convert nature (he had ex∣emplified in Moses converting a rod into a Serpent) what say we by the divine consecration where the very words of our Saviour do work, &c.

shall not the word of Christ prevaile so far as to change the species or nature of the Elements, l. 4. de Sacram. c. 4. De iis qui myster. c. 9.

In the same age S. Cyril; Once in Cana of Galil•••• he changed water into wine, &c. and shall he not be worthy to be belcived of us, that he has chang∣ed wine into his blood, Cateches. Mystagog. 1. c. 4.

In the same age S. Gregory Nissen; Christ through the dispensation of his grace, enters by his flesh into all the faithfull, &c. and these things he bestows, transelementing (transubstantiating) by vertue of his blessing the things that are seen, into it, Orat. Catechist. c. 37.

In the fifth age S. Augustine; they (the rest of the disciples) did eat the bread which was our Lord himselfe, he (Judas) did eat the bread of our Lord against our Lord. Tract. 59. in Joan.

If you infer out of this text, that Judas did not at all eat the Bread which was our Lord, be∣cause he wanted true faith; Therefore no man receives the Body of Christ in the Sacrament by the mouth, but by faith only. I Answer; Judas had before at least, if not in this place, received the Bread which was our Lord himself, according to S. Augustine, Our Lord (saith he) suffers Judas, a divel, a thief, he that sold him, he lets him receive among the innocent desciples, that which the faith∣full know to be our price, l. 5. De Baptism. c. 8. when he saies Judas ••at the bread of our Lord a∣gainst

our Lord▪ 'tis probable he speaks not of the Sacrament (though Judas eat that also a∣gainst our Lord, because unworthily to his own damnation) but rather of the dipped s••p which Judas is said to eat against our Lord, because he then renewed his purpose of betraying him, so that the Divil entred him, and he went forth im∣mediately to act his treason, Judas did not then (saith S. Augustine) receive the body of our Lord, as some, who read negligently, think; for we must understand that our Lord had already given the Sa∣crament of his body to them, where Judas also was, (tract. 62. in Joan.) So that your consequence is null.

The Council of Folrence defined, that by vertue of the words of consecration, the substance of the bread is converted into the body of Christ, and the substance of the wine into his blood, decet sup. union. Jacobinorum, & Armenorum. Anno 1439.

The Lateran councel under Jnnocent the third defined, that bread is by divine power transul∣stantiated into the body, and wine into the blood of Christ, ca. 1. an. Dom. 1215.

Objections out of Scripture solved.

Ob. VVHat Christ promised in the sixt of S. John, is bread and flesh too. The bread which I will give is my flesh. There∣fore

the Sacrament is bread and flesh too; ther∣fore transubstantiation.

Answ. 'Tis bread (in the outward likeness) and flesh too (in the inward substance) thus I grant your antecedent. 'Tis bread in the in∣ward substance, so I deny it, or 'Tis heavenly bread and flesh too, I grant it, earthly or common bread, I deny it: and so granting also your first consequence, I deny your second.

Ob. If by those words this is my body, the whole substance of the bread be chang'd into the substance of Christs Body, you cannot prove by any good reason▪ that the accidents of the bread are not changed by the same, into the accidents of his body. Therefore since the ac∣cidents are not changed, neither is the sub∣stance.

Answ. Nor need I take much pains to prove by reason that the accidents remain, since they are evident to sense, however I deny your antecedent; one reason is, because the word hoc or this signifies only substance indetermi∣natly and as abstracting from all time or acci∣dents, so that when the Predicate my body is added, the whole proposition is sufficiently verified, by the only change of the substance in∣to his body, without any change of the acci∣dents.

A second reason is, because, if the accidents were also changed into the accidents of his

body, it were an identical and not a formal pre∣dication, and would signifie only my body is my body, there being no difference at all betwixt the subject and the predicate, whereas the acci∣dents remaining the same, and the substance only being changed, it makes this sense, the substance contain'd under these accidents is my body, which imports an accidental diffe∣rence betwixt them, and sufficeth to a formal predication, these reasons we have from the very words of the institution. And for reasons of convenience, one is, because we should have a horror to eat Christs flesh in its own proper shape, nor could we do it without mangling it, and therefore he hath given it us in the out∣ward shape of bread, in which we may eat it without any such inconvenience. A second reason is, that so there might be somthing frangible in the Sacrament, to signifie and re∣present the real breaking of his body on the Cross. These and many other reasons may be given, without much rubbing our foreheads, wherefore I deny your consequence.

Objections out of Fathers solved.

Ob. SOme primitive Fathers say, We must undoubtedly believe the real presence, but ought not to inquire how, or search into the manner of it; therefore the Church did ill in defineing Transubstantiation.

Answ. They say well, but you infer ill. So we must humbly believe the mystery of the B. Trinity, without curiously enquiring how three distinct persons can be in one indivisible nature, and yet the Church did well both in defining that there are three, and how there are three, against the Arians, and Antitrinita∣rians, and therefore I deny your consequence. A general Councel, assisted by the Holy Ghost, may safely enquire into and define those things, which private men and Doctors ought rather to believe, without enquiring. Had not the inquisitive and overcurious why's and how's of Sectaries inforc'd her to it, by obtru∣ding their false glosses on the words of conse∣cration, 'tis more then probable to me, the Church had never defined so far in it as now she hath.

Ob. Tertullian sayes, God in the Gospel called bread his body, that hence we might understand, he gave to bread the figure of his body, whose body an∣tiently the Prophet figured by bread. Lib. 3. cont. Marcion.

Answ. The sense of Tertullian is plain: His question against Marcion was, whether Christs body were true and real, which he proves by this argument; That which is not true cannot have a figure, but bread is the figure of Christs body, therefore Christs body is true. Now this Father (as it is confessed by all) having a

cross manner of expression, delivers himself in the words alledg'd, whose sense is, that Christ, by saying, This is my Body, verified the saying of the Prophet, who had figuratively called his body bread; for bread could not be truly a figure, till there was made a body, whose figure it might be, which was then done. This he calls, that he gave bread the figure of his body, not meaning to that particular bread which he had taken in his hand, but the nature of bread, of which the Prophet spake, and by which he figur'd the body of our Saviour; So that if our Saviour had done nothing but cal∣led the body his bread in words, he had done no more then the Prophet, and not fulfilled the figure of the Prophesie, but repeated it. But Tertullian will have us understand, that by these words of our Saviour, the nature of bread, which the Prophet spake of, got truly to be the figure of Christs body, to wit, be∣cause Christs body by these words became tru∣ly alimental to us, and therfore with great propriety to be figur'd by bread, as the Pro∣phet had done. Tertullians argument there∣fore speaks of the figure which the Prophet made (which now began truly to be a figure) not of a new figure which our Saviour made. And by this you may understand that other place objected out of him, viz. The bread ta∣ken and distributed to his Disciples he made his bo∣dy

by saying, This is my body; that is, a figure of my body, l. 4. cont. Marcion. c. 40. That Christ made bread his body, he plainly and positively affirms; how he made it his body, is no less plain, viz. by saying, this is my body; and that he made it likewise a figure, signe, or Sacra∣ment of his body, is agreed upon by all: The difference is, that you would have these words, that is a figure of my body, relate to the predi∣cate, my body, whereas indeed they relate to the subject, hoc, or this, and make this con∣struction. This, that is, a figure of my body, is my body. Bread was a figure of his body in the old Law, and he made the outward form or accidents of bread, to be a figure, or Sacrament of his body in the new, at his last supper: Nor is this form of speech unusuall in him. He sayes in another place, Christ is dead, that is, the Annointed, for, Christ, that is, the Annointed, is dead, l. cont. Prax. c. 19. Or if nothing will serve you, but your own way, know that we allow his very body, as unbloudily offered in the Sacrament, to be a figure of his body as bloudily offered on the cross; what does this place advantage you, or prejudice us?

Ob. Clemens Alexandrinus sayes, The bloud of Christ is twofold, the one is carnall by which we are redeemed from death, the other spirituall, by which we are annointed. Paed. l. 2. c. 2.

Answ. He calls the Bloud of Christ carnall,

as it was shed on the cross, because it was there shed in a carnal manner; He calls it spiritual, as it annoints us in the Sacrament, because it is there after a spiritual manner, all this we hold. Neither doth he deny it to be the same bloud in substance in both places; the diversity is only in the manner of being.

You reply, That in the same chapter he brings in Christ saying, Take, drink, this is my bloud, the bloud of the vine.

Answ. He means of a heavenly, not of an earthly vine.

You urge, it follows, But that the thing which had been blessed was wine, he shewed again, saying to his Disciples▪ I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, untill I drink it new in my Fathers King∣dome.

Answ. It was heavenly wine, proportiona∣ble to the Vine it came from, as appears by those words, Ʋntill I drink it new in my Fathers kingdom: the fruit of no earthly vine is drunk there.

Ob. S. Cyprian sayes, Christ, at his last Supp••r with his Disciples, gave bread and wine with his own hands, but on the cross he gave the souldiers his body to be wounded. Tract. de Unct.

Answ. He calls the things signified (viz. his body and bloud) by the names of the signes: He expounds himself, saying, Christ did this, that in the Apostles the sincere truth, and true

sincerity being more secretly imprinted, he might explain to the Gentiles how bread and wine should be his flesh and bloud (mark what it was that he called bread and wine) and by what reasons di∣vers names and kinds (bread and wine, flesh and bloud) might be reduced into one essence (one Sa∣crament) and the signifying and the signified be reckoned by the same words, (viz. bread and wine.) Thus his own exposition, which to my best understanding is rather for, then against us. We know the Fathers somtimes call the consecrated Hosts symbols, types, figures, but never so as to exclude the verity of the thing typified and figured, as Sectaries do. So that Objections of this nature are meer trifling and of no strength against us.

Ob. S. Chrysostome sayes, For as before the bread is sanctified we name it bread, but the di∣vine grace sanctifying it by means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of bread, and deemed wor∣thy to be called the Lords Body, although the na∣ture of the bread remain in it. Epist. ad Caes. cont. haeres. Apolin. ••itat. p••r Damascen.

Answ. This Objection is clearly against you, excepting only those words, Although the nature of the bread remains in it, by which he only means the Qualities or Accidents of the Bread, not the Substance of it, as appears by those precedent words, The bread is sanctified by the divine grace, by means of the Priest, it is

freed from the name of bread, and deemed worthy to be called our Lords Body, (which could not be, if the substance of bread remained.) The word Nature is often taken for the qualities and properties of a thing. So we say in com∣mon speech, he's of a good nature, he's of an ill nature, I love his nature, I hate his nature, mean∣ing his good and evil qualities, or properties, not his substance.

Ob. S. Ambrose sayes, It is a wonderfull power of God that makes the bread remain what it is, and yet be changed into another thing. ••. 4. de Sacra∣ment. c. 4.

Answ. The sense of S. Ambrose is, that the bread perishes not, but remains virtually in that into which it is changed; an effect that certainly requires no less then a wonderfull power. But it were no wonderful power if it should make the bread no other thing, then what nature and the Baker made it, but onely change it into a signe or figure of his Body▪ This requires no omnipotence for doing it. You might in much modesty have spared this Objection, as also that of the same Father: How much more operative is the word of Christ, that the things be what they were (viz. in the out∣ward shape) and yet be changed (viz. in the sub∣stance) into another thing (the body of Christ) and so that which was bread before consecration is now the Body of Christ, (he tells you plainly

what it is changed into.) L. 4. de Sacrament▪ c. 4. What frontless confidence is it in you to tri∣umph in these texts?

Ob. Some of your Schoolmen, as Du∣rand, Scotus, Peter Lombard &c. say, Transub∣stantiation was not heard of till of later times.

Answ. They quarrel at the newness of the word, not at the meaning of it; but tell not us in controversies of Faith of the placita of Schools, or what this or that particular Schoolman sayes, who deliver but their own private opinions, and those also with submis∣sion to the Churches judgment. Tell us what is plainly said in Scripture, and so expounded by the Church, or what hath been delivered by Apostolicall tradition from age to age, or what the Fathers have plainly and unanimously taught, or what hath been defined in Councile perfectly oecumenicall. These, and nothing less are testimonies sufficient, to prove a contro∣verted point to be of faith, or not.

Ob. Transubstantiation was not heard of til the Council of Lateran.

Answ. The word was not agreed upon in any general Council before that, I grant; the meaning or thing signified by the word, I de∣ny it: that was believed and taught from the first institution of the Sacrament, as hath been proved; see the Councils above.

Objections from reason, and sense, answered.

Ob. TRansubstantiation is not expresly in the Scripture. Therefore we have no reason to believe it with divine faith.

Answ. The meaning of the word is, though the word be not, and it sufficeth to a point of faith, that it be any way in the Scrip∣ture, either plainly or obscurely, expresly or implicitly, the Churches authority and expo∣sition, or definition being added. Otherwise the mistery of the Trinity, the necessity of infants Baptisme, &c. would not be points of faith, they be not expresly and plainly in the Scrip∣ture; nor be the words there at all, no more then transubstantiation, therefore your conse∣quence is false.

Ob. It is imposible for one whole substance to be chang'd into another, ergo.

Answ. Naturally, or by a mere natural agent, whose activity is limited and alwaies presupposeth a subject to work upon, I grant it; By a supernatural agent, whose power is infinite, and unlimited, I deny it; Christ is al∣waies the principal agent in this work, the Priest is but his instrument only.

Ob. If the whole substance of the bread were changed into the Body of Christ, the acci∣dents of bread could not remaine as they do,

they cannot be without a subject.

Answ. Naturally or by the force of nature, I grant it, by miracle and the omnipotency of God, I deny it. Actual inherence in a subject is not of essence, of quantity, or any other ac∣cident, but only to be apt to be in a subject; to be in, in all absolute entities (such as quan∣tity is) must of necessity presuppose to be; at least, in the essential notion of it.

Ob. The same body cannot be in many places at once.

Answ. Circumscribed, or locally extended, I grant; In a spiritual and Sacramental man∣ner, I deny it.

Ob. Quantity is essential to a body. There∣fore if his body be in the Sacrament, his quan∣tity must needs be there.

Answ. I distinguish your antecedent, quan∣tity extended metaphisically, inwardly or in order to it selfe, is essentiall to a body I grant; Quantity extended phisically, or in order to place, I deny it, that is only a property of Quantity, and therefore separable from it by Gods omnipotence. It is most proper to quanti∣ty (saith Aristotle) to be equall, 5▪ Metaphis. that is to be locally extended with some determi∣nate figure. Quantity is an absolute entity, and therefore cannot essentially consist of or∣der to place, which is a mere relation, I give the same distinction to your consequence.

Ob. For the same body to be here and there at the same time implies a contradiction.

Answ. You mistake; for the same body to be here & not to be here, implies a contradiction, or for the same body to be here, and to be there properly (that is locally extended) at the same time & according to the same thing, implies a contradiction true, but not to be here and to be there, improperly (that is sacramentally) and according to divers things (to wit divers quantities) as Christs body is in the Sacrament. The soul is here (in the head) and there (in the foot) at the same time, improperly and spi∣ritually, by reason of the divers parts of the body, without any contradiction.

Ob. A body is destroid, if it be not in some determinate place.

Answ. That Proposition is not universally true. Aristotle saies and proves, that the uni∣verse, or highest heaven is in no place, because nothing is without, or above it, to contain it, 4. Phis. text. 45. Yet we grant that Christs body in the Sacrament is alwaies in some determinate place improperly and by accident, viz. in the place of the quantity, under which it is, it is so determinated to place by the dimensions or outward formes of bread and wine as ne∣ver to be out of the place of the said dimensi∣ons or outward formes.

Ob. nothing can be in two divers times at

once. Therefore nothing can be in two divers places at once.

Answ. I deny your consequence; the dis∣parity is because divers times cannot be toge∣ther or at once, (by me being essentially suc∣cessive) but divers places may, and are.

Ob. A spirit which is naturally indivisible, cannot be made divisible even by Gods omni∣potence. Therefore quantity which is natural∣ly divisible in order to place, cannot be made indivisible in order to place even by Gods omnipotence.

Answ. I grant your antecedent but deny your consequence, the disparity is, that it is not only natural, but essential to a spirit, to be indivisible, and have no parts, but it is not essential, though it be natural to quantity to be divisible, or have parts extended in order to place, but only in order to it selfe. And he that could make the Sea a solid path to his own feet, S. Math. 14. enter to his disciples the doores being shut, S ••o. 20. make a bush burne and not consume, Exod 3. make Iron swim on the water, 4. Kings. 6. make the Sea stand like a wall about his people Exod. 14. can doubtless change the natural, and common manner of being which things have, and yet be able to conserve their essences, your Scholars know this to be possible and confess it, and so do you when you forget your selfe, as I have shewed above;

your shifts in eluding these places are too poor to merit an answer▪

He that can make material substances, which of their own nature are indivisible in order to place, divisible by means of quantity, even by his ordinary power, and way of working, can doubtless by his extraordinary, make quantity, which naturally is divisible in order to place, become indivisible, by giving it a supernatural, and sacramental manner of be∣ing.

Ob. Bread might be called the body of Christ by only being made one thing with his body, although it were not transubstantiated into his body.

Answ. No it could not. The soule of man is made one thing with his body, and yet the body cannot be call'd▪ the soule, nor the soule the body.

Ob. Man in Christ is called God, and God man. Therefore bread in the Sacrament may be call'd the body of Christ.

Answ. I grant your antecedent, but deny your consequence, the disparity is, because God and man in Christ are united in one person. Bread is not so united to the body of Christ in the Sacrament.

Ob. The thing containing may be call'd the thing contained; so we call a barr••l, sack, a purse, Gold &c. Therefore bread containing

only the body of Christ, may be call'd the body of Christ, though it remaine unchanged.

Answ. Your antecedent is true in a figura∣tive sense, because a barrel, and a purse are of their own nature made to containe, and sup∣pose for sack and gold, but bread was not of its own nature and primary institution, made to contain and suppose for the body of Christ, (this was superadded to the accidents or outward formes of bread only by Christ at his last Supper) but to contain and be the nourish∣ment of mans body.

Ob. S. Austine saies, it is impossible for Christ to be at once according to his corporal presence, in the Sun, and in the Moon, and on the Cross.

Answ. We maintaine not his corporal, but real and spiritual presence in the Sacrament, the manner of being is spiritual, and sacra∣mental, you have been often ••old it. He speaks there against the Mani••hees, who held the body that was ••rucified to be a fantastical body, and that the corporal light of the Sun and Moon were the true body of Christ, which S. Augustine proves to be false, because a body cannot be in many places at once, after a bodily manner; this is not against us,

Ob. Sense cannot be deceiv'd in its proper object, and sense tels us 'tis bread after conse∣cration, ergo.

Answ. Substance is not the proper and

immediate object of sense, but colour, quan∣tity &c. nor can sense judge at all of substance, though it be under sensible accidents, unless it be the subject of those accidents, and have a sensible and corporal manner of being; which the body of Christ neither is, nor hath in the Sacrament. It hath a spiritual manner of being, and is not the subject of the accidents of bread, they are without a subject by miracle, therefore no wonder if sense be deceived in this matter. Here sense and reason must vaile bonnet to faith, and submit to the authority of God revealing and the Church propound∣ing; they are no competent Judges, what God can do by his omnipotence.

Ob. S. John proved the verity of the incar∣nation, and God made man, against Cerinthus and his complices, by the evidence of sense. That which we have seen with our eyes, and our hands have handled, we declare unto you, &c. 1. Jo. 1.

Answ. You deceiptfully leave out the first, and principal part of his proofe, viz. That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, &c. v. 1. his chiefe probation of that mistery was not grounded on seeing and feel∣ing only, as you pretend, but on hearing, faith is by hearing, and hearing by the word of God reveal∣ing. He had heard that which was from the begin∣ning, viz. Christ revealing those things, and

therefore believed them, and declared them to us to be beleived. The other part of his proofe from seeing and feeling, was only ad Hominem, against Cerinthus, and such as you are, who will believe nothing, without a sensible experiment of it; whereas true faith is an ar∣gument of things not appearing.

Ob. If the notions and evidence of sense be not infallible about its own proper object, there can be no certainty in the knowledg of bodies, and sense must needs be the perpetual cause of deception in this mistery to all the world, which is absurd, ergo.

Answ. They are infallible about the pro∣per objects of sense, if they be duly propos'd, and reason consider rightly of all circum∣stances, but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense, but of faith, it hath a spiritual, and supernatural manner of being, and we have a more infallible assurance then that of sense, to regulate our assent by, in this matter; viz. the divine authority reveal∣ing; he that will credit that, & captivate the uncertain notions of sense to the obedience of faith (as all good Christians ought to do) is n•••• in the least dainger of being deceived by sense in this mistery, but such as will obstinately pre∣fer the seeming evidence of sense, before the certain authority of God revealing, and his Church propounding (as you do) are worthy

to be slaved for ever to the deception and fal∣lacy of sense, may God deal better with you, then you deserve, which is my hearty prayer for you.

Ob. If the doctrine of Transubstantiation were true, and Christs body were whole in the whole host, and whole in every part of the host, if you divide, or break it, it would fol∣low, your Laicks can consecrate, as well as Priests, because when they divide the host in their mouthes, they make Christ (who before was present only in one place) to be now pre∣sent in many; riddle mee this riddle.

Answ. You please your self with your own mistakes. I deny the sequel of your argument, that action of the Laicks of it selfe and pro∣perly speaking reaches only to the division of the signes, or accidents, not to the presence of Crists body to the signes, or in many places, the efficient and proper cause of that, are the word•• of consecration spoken by the Priests, by which the whole substance of his body is made present in place of the whole substance of the bread, and by a necessary consequence, in every part of the signes or accidents if you divide: the Laities division of them is only Conditio sine qua non, a condition, without which the effect of his presence in many places is not put, not the efficient cause thereof.

Ob. Christ proved the verity of his own Re∣surrection

by the evidence of sense, when he said to his disciples: see my hands and feet, that it is I my selfe, handle and see, S. Lu. 24. 39.

Answ. The evidence of sense was infalli∣ble in that case, to prove the Body of Christ to be his true body, and not a phantasme, as the mistaken disciples thought his body had there a sensible, corporal, and natural manner of being, not so in the Sacrament; nevertheless the verity of his resurrection, as it is an article of faith, hath a much higher and more infalli∣ble proofe then that of sense, viz. the autho∣rity of the Prophets and Christ himselfe reveal∣ing it. They will kill him, and on the third day he shall rise againe, S. Lu. 18. 33.

Ob. In the profession of faith prescrib'd to Berengarius by the Pope, it is said; That the Body of Christ is sensibly touched by the hands and chew'd by the teeth. Therefore the manner of its being is sensible, and not spiritual.

Answ. I deny your consequence, the words of the Profession run thus. I Berengarius pro∣fess, &c. The bread and wine which are set on the altar after consecration, to be not only a Sacrament, but also the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and I profess it (the consecrated bread and wine saies the relection of that Council) to be sensibly touch'd by the hands of Priests, and chew'd by the teeth of the faithful, not only in the Sacrament, but in verity, &c. all this we grant

in a sound sense. His body is said to be sensibly chew'd by the teeth and touch'd by the hands in this respect, that the whole substance of his body remains and is present in verity and without fiction under every part of the devided host; that is, his body is said to be sensibly touch'd by the hands, and chew'd by the teeth, not by it selfe or according to its own entity, but by acci∣dent and by meanes of the signes or acci∣dents of bread under which it truly is; thus the relection of that very Council expounds the Council. Berengarius was there condemned for denying the true and real presence of Christs body in the Sacrament or signes, not for hold∣ing it to be there after a spiritual manner of being, this was ever most true and Catholique doctrine, therefore it cannot without absur∣dity be imagined that the meaning of his pro∣fession should be, that Christs Body is in the Sa∣crament after a sensible, & corporeal manner.

You reply; His body is sensibly touch'd and chew'd not only in the Sacrament, but in verity.

Answ. We grant it; for by the words▪ In verity, is meant no more, then truly and without fiction. That which we sensibly touch & chew is not only a Sacrament or signe, but also the body and blood of Christ in verity, that is, truly and without fiction, and therefore his body may be said to be sensibly touch'd & chew'd in verity, that is, without fiction, not by it self, or according

to its own entity, but by means of the Sacra∣ment or signes, which are so touch'd and chewd, and under which it is in verity, that is truly and without fiction. I declare this by an example: Jonas was sensibly swallow'd by the Whale, both soul and body, and this in verity, that is truly and without fiction; yet he was not sensibly swallowd according to both, but according to his body only, & his soul is said to be sensibly swallow'd by means of the bo∣dy, in which it was in verity & without fiction.

You reply, though Jonas his soul may be said to be sensibly swallow'd by means of his body in which it was, or by accident, yet it can no waies be said to be sensibly eaten or chew'd. Therefore though Christs body be in the Sacrament, yet it cannot be said to be sensibly chew'd or eaten in it, seeing the man∣ner of its being is spiritual.

Answ. The disparity is, that Ionas was not chew'd or eaten either according to his soul or body; But Christs body is sensibly chew'd or eaten in the Sacrament, according to the Signs or Sacrament, though not according to its own substance.

Now let any impartial Christian judge what good meaning Doctor Taylor could have, in enumerating such a rabble of seeming con∣tradictions, (which are indeed none) upon fals imaginary suppositions: Or in exaggera∣ting

such an imminent danger, nay moral cer∣tainty, (if he may be our judge) of gross and horrible Idolatry in our doctrine and wor∣ship of the B. Sacrament (the known and con∣stant beliefe not only of this Nation, but the whole world, except some few Sectaries in the last Age, even from its first conversion to Christianity:) What other end could he pro∣bably propose to himself (especially in this conjuncture of time) then to lay his whole weight of malice upon persons that live in∣nocently by him, and who for their Reli∣gion, have already burthens enough to satis∣fie the uncharitablenesse of any ordinary envy. He is one that pretends sometimes to much moderation and charity in his wri∣tings: I wish he had them in his heart, but am sure he hath shew'd neither in this Treatise; let him that judgeth all things be his judge; I only set this Motto on our Tenet, Veritas in aeternum stat, and God can finde protection for his people, or if it be his wil to have us sufferers for justice sake, we know he wil re∣ward our sufferings with a most full and overflowing measure. His wil be done: Amen.