was the metropolis of the Christian world. Afterwards for the very same
reason the Patriarch of New Rome or Constantinople claimed it; and never
ceased to assert at least a co-equality. Had the Apostolic foundation
been the cause, Jerusalem and Antioch must have had priority; not to add
that the Roman Church was not founded by either Paul or Peter as is
evident from the epistle to the Romans.


Append. B. III. p. 205.

I do not think the attack on Transubstantiation the most successful
point of the orthodox Protestant controversialists. The question is,
what is meant in Scripture, as in 'John' vi. by Christ's body or flesh
and blood. Surely not the visible, tangible, accidental body, that is, a
cycle of images and sensations in the imagination of the beholders; but
his supersensual body, the 'noumenon' of his human nature which was
united to his divine nature.

In this sense I understand the Lutheran ubiquity. But may not the
"oblations" referred to by Field in the old canon of the Mass, have
meant the alms, offerings always given at the Eucharist? If by
"substance" in the enunciation of the article be meant 'id quod vere
est', and if the divine nature be the sole 'ens vere ens', then it is
possible to give a philosophically intelligible sense to Luther's
doctrine of consubstantiation; at least to a doctrine that might bear
the same name;--at all events the mystery is not greater than, if it be
not rather the same as, the assumption of the human by the divine
nature.

Now for the possible conception of this we must accurately discriminate