[ 46 ] " but in thatdid alfo leave aLatitude " to Menof Afferent Perfuafions. This charitable and ufeful Latitude, as to the real, Prefence, is unhappily another Obje lion with Mr. N.." The P. 138, " Rubric, fays he, that declared that " by kneeling at the Sacrament, no Adoration was intended to. any Çor- cc poral Prefènce of Chrift, was EX cc punged." What then, ? why for this and other Reafons as weakand;ground- P. 139. lefs, QueenElizabeth's Common Pray- er Book was hardly equal to King Ed- ward's ! Dr. Humphreys and S ,ipfon, twoHeads of the NonconfortáiLs, men- tion it in a Letter to Zurich, as a Grievance ('tis their own Word.) The P. 197; Article which explain'd the Manner of Chrift's Pre/ence is taken away Had the Calvinifls or, Puritans been obliged to acknowledge any corporal Prefence, or had it been declared there was any in the Sacrament, the Objection would have had fome Weight : But as. the Lutheran Senfe was not forced upon them, it was very unrenfonable..Nar- rownefs to be difpleafed, that their Senfe was not impofed upon the Lu- therans. Why lhould one be ddcluded more than another by a part liar. Ex- plication ? Each thought thef.lves in the Right, and it was a more can- did
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=