of the Mass Colain Print 1620. dedicated to our late Soueraign Charles the first then Prince of wales Tract 2. Sect. 8. P. 208. and sect 11. page chiefly 252. Hauing perused both the Gentleman wondred his little book passed ouer so slightly the main thing considerable in this Dialogue and that no word of answer was returned to the obseruations of Mr. Brereley adding it would do well to make the truth à little better known which is my intent at present 13. First it cannot be doubted but that the Eutychian Two Contrary positions Heretick concealed vnder the name of Eranistes held our Lords whole Sacred body after his Ascension changed into his Diuinity Contrariwise Theoderet called Orthodoxus oppugn's the Heresy and saith Christs body remain's as it was before true humane nature most glorious and not conuerted into the Diuinity Again all who haue read the Dialogue know well that the context to our present purpose is as followes After the Orthodox had professed his belief of the Holy Eucharist to be the true body and blood of Christ Eranistes the Heretick begin's his plea. In good time has't thou mentioned these Diuine Mysteries for from them I will shew Where the Hereticks seek's aduantage thee that our Lord's body is changed into an other nature Answer therefore to my question Ortho. I will answer Eran How call'st thou that which is offered before the inuocation of the Priest Ortho I may not speak plainly for it is likely some are present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Eran Answer darkly or aenigmatically Ortho It is yet when offered that meat which is made vp of such seeds Eran And how do we call the other sign or Symbole Ortho That is also à common name which signifies à kind of drink or cup. Eran But after the Sanctification how dos't thou call them Ortho The body and blood of Christ Eran And dos't thou belieue that thâ—â— What the Orthodox and the Heretick belieued receiues't the body and blood of Christ Ortho 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So I belieue Here vpon Eranistes infer's As therefore the Symbols of our Lords body and blood are one thing before the Priests inuocation and after his inuocation are changed and made other things euen so the Lords body is changed into the Diuine substance 14. Stay à little Gentle Reader and speak your thoughts freely Is it not euident from this part of the Dialogue the rest you shall haue presently that both the Heretick and the Orthodox did here suppose the verity of Christs real presence in the sacrament as à known Doctrin receiued in the Church The Heretick supposed it otherwise he had been more than sensless to haue proued his pretended Transubstantiation of Christs humane nature into the Godhead by vrging à parity taken from that other Doctrin of the Transubstantiation of bread into Christs body His inference had been without life most languishing had he drawn the false Doctrin of his conceited change from an other as false viz. From no real change made in the bread after consecration For how lame an inference would this haue been Bread in the Sacrament remain's as it was before substantially bread only deputed to à holy vse that is not really changeâ— The Heretick supposes à true Change in bread according to the Catholick Principle at all yet from thence I will conclude that Christs humane nature is really changed into the substance of his Diuinity As who should say Because bread is not substantially changed into Christs body I will infer that the humane nature is changed into the Godhead which is pure nonsense And as greâ— Nonsense would it haue been had he only supposed the extrinsid sacramental change of Protestants or from thence drawn his inference that Christs body was really changed into his Diuinity For the most which can be inferred out of this sacramental changâ— only is that Christ's humane nature admit's in like manner oâ— some new extrinsecal denomination 15. Now that Theoderet or the Orthodox supposes also the known Doctrin of the Church in this Mystery is manifest vpon these grounds 1. You see how he was prouoked by the Heretick to deny the real presence and change of bread into Christs body After sanctification how do'st thou call them Again Do'st thou belieue that thou takes the body and blood of Christ c Obserue I beseech you Might not Theoderet thus strongly pressed haue quite ouerthrown his Aduersaries argument had he belieued as Protestants belieue that the inward substance of bread is not changed into Christs body For vpon this supposition he should haue replied Thou ask'st me what these things are after sanctification I answer they are substantially bread Theoderet also supposes à real change and wine though signes of Christs body and blood I answer I take not Orally the true body and blood of Christ but bread and wine only made à Sacrament If therefore they still remain bread and wine as before I acquit my self clearly and render thy argument forcelesse for thou cans't not infer because I and the Church hold bread and wine not substantially changed in the Sacrament That Christs humane nature is really and substantially changed into the Diuinity But Theoderet as you hear return's no such answer but positiuely asserts the contrary plainly enough They are the body and blood of Christ I receiue that body and blood c. Though he warily forbeares to express the change too significantly because perhaps of some present not yet admitted to the Mysteries Again And here is my 2. ground Theoderet who was an Orthodox Father penned this Dialogue and therefore as the learned Brereley obserues neither could nor would haue propounded Clear reasons proue that supposâ—tion the hereticks Argument vpon the Churches then receiued Doctrin of Transubstantiation which we see manifestly done had that Doctrin been then strange vnknown or reputed false Much less could he haue wrote as he doth That the Symbols after the Priest's inuocation are changed and made other things had our Sectaries Doctrin of no Transubstantiation been then taught by the Church and reputed true 3. Theoderet's great circumspection was needlesse I may not speak openly for it is likely some are present c. If he had belieued no other presence of Christ in the Sacrament than that which Protestants call Sacramental He might well without scruple in that opinion haue declared their sense and said openly The Sacrament before consecration was à plain piece of bread and so it is substantially bread afterward Thou speakest improperly Erâ—nistes whilst thou supposest the Symbols changed and made other things I tell thee they are not changed intrinsecally but totally remain in their inward substance as they were only signifying Christ body and blood as they are deputed to à holy vse Thus the Orthodox should haue both answered and excepted against his Aduersary had Protestant Doctrin been in those dayes owned by Christians but he goes on in à quite different
neither the words nor the sense bear S. Cyril saith Do not consider them as meer bread and wine Then he tell 's you positiuely what they are For they are the body and blood of Christ Now your Gloss designed for à higher vse to exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers first Deads the very life of Cyrills words and then run's into nonsense I therefore Ask whether What is bread and wine to exhibit the body and blood of Christ this gloss Bread and wine exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers saies Bread and wine really changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee are after that change as really Christs body and blood as that water was really wine after Christs Miracle If your gloss say thus much you are à plain Papist if lesse it s none of S. Cyrills Doctrin for the Saint deliuers this as significantly yea and more fully then I now express it I well vnderstand S. Cyrills sense by his words but for my life I know not what you mean by your particle Exhibit Tell us I beseech you How do bread and wine Exhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Do they only mind vs of his body and blood A Crucifix representing our Lord bleeding on à Crosse can well serue for so much Do they shew or point vs out à Real presence of the same body and blood vpon the Altar which are now in heauen If so Belieuers haue an obiect of Faith and that truth to fasten on which the Church teaches but if your word Exhibit saies or signifies less then this or only expresses your euer yet concealed Sacramental presence you cheat the world with ambiguous dark Term's and in good earnest know not what you say 15. Answer therefore What is Christs body and blood to be Sacramentally present when really they are not vpon the Altar but absent in Heauen only The question deserues an Answer For you Sr distinguish between à Sacramental and à Corporeal Presence you grant the first and deny the second That which you grant is à Presence of Christs body and biood distinguished from the Catholick Real or as you call it Corporeal Presence Vouchsafe to enlighten vs à little concerning it which you page 574. seem to Our Aduersary is vrged to declare his sense make real There is say you à Real presence of Christ in and with them that is in and with bread and wine to the souls of Belieuers Very good Giue vs I beseech you the total Obiect which these Souls haue before them when they belieue à Real presence of Christ in and with bread and wine vpon the Altar Is this obiect Christ himself whom they pull as it were by Faith out of Heauen at the time they receiue your piece of Bread No. Christ still in Heauen is yet Locally distant and therefore not really present in and with bread and wine Vnless he be in two places at once And Consequently the Faith of these Belieuers has no real Obiect present to fasten vpon Is it that Christ is present in the Signes of bread and wine as Caesar is in his Image Pitiful He is thus present in euery Crucifix though really distant millions of Miles This no way makes him actually there in and with bread and wine as you Assert Doth finally this your Obiectiue presence imply only thus much that Christ by his power though really absent work 's the same effects in à worthy Receiuer as if he were actually there No. For he works the same effects and though absent produceth grace by the Sacrament of Baptism as if he were present dare you Therefore say he is in as peculiar à manner Really present in and with the water of Baptism as he is in this Sacrament in and with bread and wine Yet more Such à Moral The Sectaries Sacramental Presence contradict's all Authority Presence directly contradict's Christ's words This is my body It directly contradict's S. Cyrills words Though it seem to the tast to be bread it is not bread but the Body of Christs It directly contradict's that vnanswerable Truth As water was changed into wine so wine is changed into blood c. 16. And thus Sr you see how impossible it is to giue your poor Belieuers any thing like à Real obiect which may be called à true Real Presence though I hold you obliged to help both them and me to à clear Notion of it Because Christ's Sacred body and blood are Real things you attribute to these two Real things à true real Presence in and with bread and wine which cannot but denominate them really present with these two Substances vpon the Altar Therefore you are obliged to tell me what that is A parte rei which I once more say is impossible For as your Sacramental presence in your sense is à word no man vnderstand's so your Doctrin is as wholy vnintelligible Yet I haue not said all In this your discourse of à Sacramental and Real presence you would fain take some aduantage against vs by other words of S. Cyril Do not consider them as meer bread and wine for they are the body and blood of No aduantage giuen Sectaries by any other words of S. Cyril Christ according to his own word Hence you infer it is plain He speaks of à Sacramental presence for he doth not oppose the body and blood of Christ to the substance of bread and wine but to meer bread id est That they should not look on the bread and wine as naked signes but as Signa efficacia or efficacious signes Answ First The Saint has not à Syllable of either Signes or Signae efficacia Next your Speculation about meer bread is à meer nothing For meer bread is bread without Consecration S. Cyril opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to meer bread Ergo He opposeth them to bread without Consecration but bread without Consecration or meer bread is the very Substance of bread Therefore he opposeth the body and blood of Christ present to the substance of bread vnless you can find the Meerness might one speak so or nakednes of bread distinct from its substance which is not only improbable but impossible 17. Vpon this solid and vndeniable Ground it imports your A meer quibble about à word cause nothing whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Cyril signifies Species as it is commonly rendred by Interpreters or as you say that which doth figure or represent for as long as this verity stand's vndoubted that vnder the Type or Species of bread Christ gaue his own body and That that body is opposed to the very Substance of bread the expression is so clear and the same with our Catholick Doctrin that were à hundred Glosses more laid vpon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 All would not do nor rack it to any contrary meaning You Reply S. Cyril speak's of such à presence as hath relation
so high as to giue fall satisfaction herein though he is pleased to plead euidence drawn from sense and reason against the B. Sacrament as if forsooth the full portion of both were like à legacy Mr stillingfleet argues Improbably bequeathed him and à few Sectaries whilst so many Fathers so many Schoolmen soo many profound Doctors of our renowned Church must haue no small share allowed in either but are as you see censured like men sensless and vnreasonable 2. Say I beseech you Who can perswade himself that those three worthy eminent Cardinals Bellarmin Perron and Richelieu all haue writ on this subiect and are famous the whole world ouer for their great wisdom and learning who dare I say without à measureless audacity cast these could we vrge no more into the Catalogue of dull sensles and vnreasonable men None would haue ventured on such à vast improbability but one who either knowes not or cares not what he saies Now add to these the consent and acknowledgment of the whole Orthodox world you may iustly say it is much harder or there is more violence offered to mans vnderstanding in conceiuing that God who is essential Verity and therefore inclined to preserue the Church he founded in truth should permit all those millions of Christians who haue belieued the Real presence to be so long deceiued in their Faith than to submit vpon so great authority to the very mystery we belieue Reason more rack'd by denying then belieuing the Mistery For by submitting to the mystery we proceed rationally and prudently iudge that an infinite power can do more than our weak capacities reach vnto but if we say his Goodnes hath permitted the Church to be seduced by à gross errour age after age or that so many Christians haue been cheated into à false belief of so high à Mystery we force our vnderstandings more we clash with an euident Principle and must assert that God has no care of his Church or of mans saluation The blame therefore if we be in errour would at last redound to God as I shall amply proue in the next Discourse 3. Thus much noted Let vs look à little into the strength of Mr Stillingf weak argument which must run thus What I see seem's or is bread to the Eye and tast yet t' is not bread but Christs sacred body therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense One distinction ouerthrowes this lame discourse I answer in à word What I see seems or is the inward substance of bread I deny it What I see seems yea really is the outward accidents or species of bread I grant that Therefore the Mystery is contrary to sense I deny the consequence The Argument purely fallacious supposeth Our Aduersaries fallacy solued the immediate obiect of our sense to be the inward substance of bread which yet as euery Puny knowes is not so in common Philosophy for the immediate obiect of the Eye is colour or light and so much remain's after consecration as well as other accidents doe but these sensible obiects are in known Philosophy distinct from the inward substance of bread which is not immediatly visible tangible or tastable Mr Stilling therefore gain's little by this dreaming way of arguing Now à word to his plea of Reason 4. He may say Reason tell 's me there is bread still after consecration Why so surely the answer must be because sense vpon the discouery of its immediate obiects colour quantity c. induceth reason to conclude there is bread vnder these accidents I answer Reason thus far would well conclude were it not that à stronger Principle enters here which ouerawes as it were weak reason and bids it yeild Pray you tell me Did not sense and reason also assure Christs Disciples Matth 14. before S. Peter was seen walking on the water that that liquid substance could not bear vp à weighty body without sinking yes most assuredly yet they saw him walk and reason following the guidance of their eyes checked that other natural discourse and acknowledged à Miracle And thus weak reason must yeild in the present Mystery when à Stronge Principles where vpon our Faith relies stronger Principle interuen's and forceth it to submit Thanks be to God Habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem 1. Petr. 2. we haue yet à stronger Principle to vp hold our cause than weak discourse is The spirit of eternal truth The express words of Christ which the wit of man shall neuer draw to any other sense but what we Catholicks own 2. The constant professed Doctrin of the two Churches Greek and Latin yea and I say more of all other called Christians as is now declared 3. Might we here introduce the known Testimonies of most ancient Fathers They are so numerous and so fully significant that would à Catholick study to set down the truth of this Doctrin he cannot do it in clearer language 5. Good God saith S. Chrysostome lib. 3. de Sacerd Cap. 4. What à wonderful miracle is this how great is Gods loue towards mankind Behold who sitreth aboue with his Father in one and the same moment of time is touched by the hands of vs all and giueth himself to such as are desirous to receiue and imbrace him Theophilact c. 4. in 26. Matth. Bread is transelemented or transformed by an ineffable operation The ancient Fathers speak in our behalfe although to vs it seem's bread Because we are weak and haue horrour to eate raw flesh especially the flesh of man for this reason bread appears but in the essence and substance it is not bread Again Christ said not this is à figure but this is my body for by an ineffable operation bread is changed c. Indeed it appears Bread but it is really flesh Yet more How often do the Fathers S. Cyril of Hierusalem S. Chrisostome and others exhort vs not to come vnto the Eucharist as vnto simple bread and wine for say they it is the body and blood of Christ according to our Lords affirmation Although sense suggest the Contrary yet let faith confirm thee Iudge not of the thing by thy tast c. Again know this and with full certitude belieue that the bread seen is not bread though it seems so to the tast but the body of Christ and that wine seen is not wine though tast iudge it to be wine but the blood of Christ Though saith S. Chrisostome what we see seem's to our sense and thinking to be bread Let Gods saying This is my body Master our sense and reason Let vs doe this in all things especially in the Mysteries not regarding alone the things which lie before vs but holding fast to his words For by his words we cannot be-cousened our senses may be deceiued his words cannot be vntrue our sense is often time beguiled c. Thus these Fathers known to euery one to omit in numerable others speak and belieue thus the Church of Christ speaks and belieues also
and both as you see stand opposite to Mr Stilling weak plea drawn from Sense and Reason 6. I might yet cite S. Chrisostome In. 1. Cor hom 24. Other Authorities Chrisostom Pachasius Damascan who saith The kingly body in heauen is set before vs on earth We touch it and do not only touch it but eate it This body the barbarous Magi after à long iourney adored with fear and trembling Thou add's the Saint See'st him not now in the manger but on the Altar not held in à womans arms but by à Priest present c. Therefore in his Oration of S. Perhilg he explain's himself further Truly this table supplies the place of the manger for here also is our Lords body laid Paschasius à latin author who liued about the year 800. is so express for the real Presence à nd Transubstantiation in his book De Corp. Sanguine Dm'i that the Centurist's Cent. 9. C. 4. Col. 215. Praetorius de Sacramen Pag 288. and other Sectaries charge him with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation and oral eating of Christs body No less plain and express is S. Iohn Damascen lib. 4. Ortho. Fid. whose discours on this subiect though long is most significant As bread saith he naturally meat and wine and water by drink are changed into the body and blood of him that eates and drink 's So this bread proposed the wine and water also by the inuocation and comming of the Holy Ghost are in à miraculous manner conuerted into Christs body and blood neither are they two but one and the same Our Lord himself hath said This is not à sign of my body but my body This is not à sign of my blood but my blood Hence Praetorius now cited P. 288. reiects the Doctrin and call's this miraculous Transubstantiation held by S. Iohn Damascen slight and fabulous sodo other Sectaries with him also 7. There are yet more ancient authorities most pressing to our purpose were it not Actum agere to say again what has been so often The Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr clear noted First the Testimony of S. Ignatius Martyr who liued with our Sauiour and was Scholler to S. Iohn seem's to me vnanswerable Epist ad Smirnen not far from the beginning They saith he that is certain Sacramentarians admit not Eucharists and oblations because they do not Confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Sauiour Iesus Christ which flesh suffered for our sins and his Father graciously raised from the dead So Theoderet 12. ages since Tom. 4. Dialogo 3. reads And Iaac Vossius who followes the Florentine Copy differs little or rather nothing at all None can reasonably call the Epistle into doubt which Vossius places before the other Epistles and the sense as you see is most clear 8. The second authority as pregnant is taken out of S. Iustin Martyr in his Apology for Christians vsually called the 2. S. Iustin's also most significant Apology Paris print 1615. Towards the end at those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For we take not this Eucharist as common bread and common drink but as Iesus Christ our Sauiour by the word of God was made flesh and haed for our saluation flesh and blood so also after the same manner we are taught that the food which by the prayer of the word is by him consecrated with thanksgiuing of which food our flesh and blood are by transmutation nourished is the flesh and blood of that Iesus Christ which was Incarnate And for proof hereof he allegeth Christs own words This is my body This is my blood Thus S. Iustin speak's who liued not long after the Apostles about the year 150. and nothing can be more express in behalf of Catholick Doctrin I know some Sectaries Cauil at the expression 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by transmutation The sectaries Cauil answered and think Iustin held the Eucharist to be food for the body but his sense is clear for he saith only That the same food which nourishes our bodies by real transmutation is made after consecration the very body of Christ and therefore Gaspar Laurentius à learned Caluinist in his Orthodoxus Consensus Pag 368. translates Iustins S. Iustin's true sense words out of the Greek thus Sumimus autem hunc panem hunc potum non vt Communem sed eo modo quo edocti sumus Iesum Christum seruatorem nostrum habuisse pro salute nostra carnem sanguinem sic etiam cibum illum ex quo nostra Caro sanguis aluntur post benedictionem ipsius esse carnem sanguinem Domini That is in plain English The bread or food which naturally nourishes our bodies is by vertue of Consecration made the sacred body of our Incarnate Sauiour Conformable hereunto Gelenius also quoted in the Annotations vpon S. Irenaeus aduersus Haereses lib. 4. C. 24. n. 26. renders S. Iustins words Sic per verbum precationis gratiarum actionis sacratam ab ipso alimoniam quae mutata nutrit nostras carnes sanguinem Illius Incarnati Iesu carnem sanguinem esse didicimus The Interpreter also I follow significantly renders the same sense Alimoniam vnde c. The food from whence from which or where with we are nourished this very aliment is by Consecration made the body of our Incarnate Iesus Well but admit that Iustine call's the Eucharist nourishment to our bodies How some Fathers call the Eucharist Nourishment to the body he makes it not therefore Corporal food but Spiritual which nourishes them to à ioyful resurrection or to immortality and thus the other Fathers chiefly S. Irenaeus now cited c. 24. versus finem speakes Quomodo saith he rursus dicunt c How do these Hereticks plead again that our flesh shall come to corruption and not take life from the body and blood of our Lord where with it is nourished Again Sic corpora nostra c. and thus our bodies receiuing the Eucharist are not corruptible hauing hope of à ioyful resurrection But enough of these authorities Whoeuer desires more may peruse Cardinal Perron in his 2. book of the Holy Eucharist Out of what is said already I argue 9. Either the now quoted Fathers and the Church also haue most impiously betrayed Christs cause in deliuering false Doctrin contrary to sense and reason or worthily defended à Christian verity Grant this second we haue our intent But if Sectaries say these Fathers cheated the world into à false belief and impiously erred in their expressions Ponder first what à frontles impudence accompanies the reply Next make this true inference It is impossible that such à supposed vniuersal errour should euer be rased out of A Conuincing Argument the minds of men by the force of any thing which has the likelyhood of à receiued Principle For what proofs or vndoubted Principles can possibly outweigh the express words of Scripture our Tradition the sentiment of the Church and the iudgement
of the Fathers which Sectaries Cannot answer now alleged Therefore if we be in errour the wit of man cannot vnbeguile vs vpon rational proofs and Principles And here I vrge Mr Silling to bring to light his contrary Principles as full and significant that is Scripture as clear Fathers as clear Tradition as clear the Iudgement of some owned Orthodox Church as clear and vndoubted for the opinion he hold's as we now allege in the defense of our Catholick verity Belieue it if he suppose as he certainly doth the Church to haue erred so grosly for à thousand years The Fathers to haue beguiled the world with their mistaken and most improper expressions on this subiect when they meant no such thing He ought to fasten vpon sound Principles indeed before we yeild and must not think to ouerthrow What sectaries are obliged to our Doctrin or foile vs with à few gleanings pick't here and there out of antiquity set forth with à hundred false and fancied glosses Volumes may be filled with such slight stuff which comes no neerer to Principles than improbability to Euidence Will you hear in passing one of his improbabilities If à man saith he P. 567. may be bound to belieue that to be false which sense iudges to be true he means which weak reason vpon the discouery of sense iudges true for our outward senses make no iudgement What assurance can be had of any Miracles wrought to confirm the Christian Doctrin A word to our Aduersaries strange demand Or what assurance had the Apostles of Christs resurrection if their sight might be deceiued about its proper obiect c I am astonished to read this and answer briefly Christ's Resurrection the like I say of Miracles was most vndoubted vpon the discouery which sense and reason made in the presence of such obiects because no contrary Principle so much as weakly stood against that euidence and therefore reason could no more doubt of what was obiected to sense then I now doubt of writing these lines But all is contrary in the present Mystery For here the vnanswerable words of Scripture the Authority of my Church the Clear Testimonies of Fathers the voice and vote of Christianity force submissions on me to belieue the Diuine Reuelation which is either certainly known vpon these grounds or we boldly say no Christian verity was euer yet known vpon any sure Principle What if sectaries deny Church authority and explicate the Fathers 10. Perhaps Mr Stilling may roundly grant that the Greek and Latin Church erred in this Doctrin of the real presence for many ages and consequently that innumerable learned Doctors haue not only been besotted them selues but moreouer haue basely drawn millions of Christians into à damnable heresy of belieuing that to be Christs body which really is not Howeuer he will honour the Fathers so far as to afford them the fauour of his glosses Contra 1. If the Church and all Christians erred so vast à time in professing this Doctrin Mr Stilling is obliged to name some Churh reputed Orthodox 3. or 4. hundred years past for then there was à true Church in the world which held his opinion or as expresly denyed the real Presence as our Church both then and now mantains it and this will cost him more pains than to writ an other Account of Protestancy for I am sure there was neuer any such Church on earth Contra. 2. If He interpret's the The Church and Fathers speak alike of this Mystery Fathers He may as well interpret our Church Doctrin and make all belieue that we Catholicks hold not yet the real presence Obserue the same language in all That wich in seen is not bread though it seem's so to the tast But the body of Christ Our sense may be deceiued Gods word cannot deceiue vs. The bread indeed â— made the flesh of Christ and the wine his blood c. Thus the Fathers deliuer their sense and it is the Churches language also If therefore Mr Stilling can so gloss these words of the Fathers as to make them speak Protestancy or not to deliuer our Catholick Doctrin I should not wonder if in the next book set forth he aduentures to draw the very Definitions of the Council of Trent to his Protestant opinion of no real presence If he did so I am sure his attempt would proue as vnsuccesful in the one case â— in the other 11. Well But permit him to interpret the Fathers and to fall foule as he is wont to do vpon our supposed Church errours what is the vtmost that followes Thus much only Meer talk without Principles For I ask vpon what Principle may I or any know that his glosses which striue to dead the very obuious sense of the Fathers plain words implie not altogether as little satisfaction as little assurance as the very Doctrin doth which he would defend by it If so and so it is most euidently as his Doctrin before his glosses was improbable to the rest of Christians so his interpretations goe no higher but are euery whit as improbable 12. I must therefore tell Mr Stilling that vnless his explanation Sectaries glosses vnprincipled worth Nothing of Scripture and Fathers rely on à certain Principle distiâ—ct from and extrinsick to his glosses they are worth nothing For what auail's it me to read his glosses when no receiued Principle vp hold's them but fancy Reflect à little I read in Scripture This is my body My Church tell 's me the literal sense is true The Fathers as you haue heard and the Tradition of two Churcheâ— confirm this sense Now comes Mr Stillingfleet and first reiect's my Churches authority then begins to strain the Fathers Testimonies with his glosses Stay Sr say I. I except against your glosses and iustly ask whether they are true or Counterfeit Coynâ— If true they stand vpon Principles now briefly hinted at Proue this and I 'le reuerence your glosses but if you fail and fail you must your Doctrin and glosses are both alike Counterfeit and thoughts of fancy only 13. Hee may reply When Protestants cite the Fathers against the Real presence For example That of S. Austin or Theoderet mentioned aboue we Catholicks explicate them and now which seem's foul play we except against his Glosses For If we interpret An Obiection why may not Hee doe so also A word only in passing conformable to what is noted aboue If to decide this one Controuersy of Christ's Real Presence recourse be had to the Fathers and the two aduerse Parties do no more but load such Testimonies as are alleged with their priuate interpretations the Dispute will neuer be ended Because priuate glosses leaue the two Dissenters as much at iarrs as they were before God therefore as I haue often said affords an easier means to know his reuealed Truths Now my Answer to the obiection is The Catholick then only blames the Protestant's wilful interpretation when it sham fully out-faces the
can cite Snares as if he fauored your late inuented Accidental mutation for you say he affirms these expressions of Fathers are more accommodated to that Sr. I haue read this learned Author in the place you quote 3. part Disp 50. sect 3. and perused also his 4 th Section where he Snares abused treat's largely of the Conuersion of bread into Christs body and expresly mantain's à Real action necessary in this Conuersion and calls the change Real and Substantial and it must be called so when the Terminus à quo and ad quem are as they are in this Mystery Real and Substantial T' is true he cites Diuines who say the Adduction of Christs body vnder the formes of bread is sufficient to verify à Real change Bread ceasing to be because of Christs body present without à new action or production terminated vpon that body and it is à probable opinion in Schools but as remote from your Accidental extrinsecal mutation as Heauen is from earth and to as Little purpose as an other wise question is when you Ask whether those who are changed by Regeneration A quaestion answered may be said to be Transubstantiated by it Friuolous Sr. when the Terminus ad quem in conuersions is substance it beares properly the denomination of Transubstantiation or Transelementation when it s meerly an Accident or quality as in Regeneration the denomination followes the nature of the quality produced and is rightly called an intrinsecal accidental change but not Transubstantiation Had you reflected on what is here said your pretty Criticism where you torture à poor Greek word and learnedly examin whether 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in S. Gregory comes from the Noune 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or from the verbe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might well haue been spared I giue you your Choise take whether you will your cause lies where it was nothing at all aduanced But really I am weary of this sport which is more irksome to me then to kill the flies you so often talk of Howeuer I must haue patience and briefly say à word to one or two authorities more pitifully abused by you 13. That known passage of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Catech The Testimony of S. Cyril of Hierusalem Mystag 4. occurr's next in your 573. page The words are He Christ our Lord changed water into wine at cana in Galilee by his sole will and is he not worthy to be belieued that he changed wine into blood For if inuited to à marriage he wrought then that stupendious Miracle viz of changing water into wine shall we not Confess that much more he has giuen his body and blood to the Sons of the Spouse wherefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let vs take with all certainty the body and blood of Christ And he giues this reason 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. For vnder the Type or Species of bread his body is giuen thee and vnder the type or species of wine his blood is giuen thee that by taking this body and blood of Christ thou mayst be made partaker of his body and blood 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and so we shall be Christophori Carrying Christ when we receiue his body and blood into our members Soon after he saith Do not therefore consider this as meer bread and meer wine for it is the body and blood All along most clear and significant of Câ—rist according to his own words for although sense suggest that it is bread and wine yet let faith Confirm thee and do not iudge of the thing by thy tast but hold this most certain by thy Faith that the body and blood of our Lord are giuen thee so that there arise no doubt at all in thee Again towards the end of this 4. Catechesis he repeat's and most energetically the verity he would haue vs learn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Knowing and holding it most certain that the bread which is seen by vs is not bread but the body of Christ and the wine which is seen by vs although it seem to the sense of our tast to be wine The Church Speak's not in clearer terms yet is it not wine but the blood of Christ Thus this ancient Father and worthy Bishop speaks so significantly that the witt of man shall neuer force on him any other sense but that which the Roman Catholick Church taught in the Council of Trent and teaches to this day 14. Now listen à little to Mr Stilling glosses and say in Conscience whether they haue so much as à seeming probability Mr stilling glosses improbable First he tells vs it is euident and it was for his purpose to cry Euidence at the begining that Cyrills design here is to perswade the Catechumens from whom the Mysterious presence of Christs body in the Sacrament was wont to be concealed that the bread and wine were not meer common Elements but designed for à higher vse to â—xhibit the body and blood of Christ to Belieuers Is this Sr your Euidence Is it euident that Cyril here intended to instruct the Catechumens only We read that the Saint was à laborious Preacher and complyed with that Charitable duty euery Sunday and day in Lent Surely all who heard him were not Catechumens and why may not these instructions contain part of that Doctrin he publickly deliuered to his Auditors All you can proue is that his first Catechesis was to the lately Baptized but that this of the B. Sacrament concerned them only is not probable Turn to the Edition of S. Cyril Paris print 1609. You will find after the Dedicatory Epistle vnder this Title De scriptis Cyrill That in his last fiue Mystagogical institutions he gaue solid food and explicated the Diuine Mysteries of our Faith of Baptism Chrism the Eucharist and that great Sacrifice of the Mass which Certainly belong to Christians of riper knowledge than Catechumens were Again I' ft be euident that S Cyrill is made to mâ—sse of his ayme the Saint in this Catechesis concealed the Mysterious presence of Christ in the Sacrament He missed extreamly of his intent for no Catholick can speak now with greater clearity of the Mystery or more fully express the Churches sense then S. Cyril did aboue thirteen ages since Yet one word Say I beseech you what need was there then of concealing this Mysterious presence i' ft be no more but as you say à piece of bread deputed to à holy vse or à meer sign of Christs body present Such à Mystery requires no secrecy at all Catechumens might as well haue heard of it without torturing their vnderstandings as now they hear of the Sacrament of Baptism Lastly is it euident that S. Cyril aimed at nothing but to show that bread and wine were not meer common Elements but things designed for à higher vse or as you say to Exhibiâ— the body of Christ to Belieuers T is improbable First because you add that to the Text which
to the Receiuer Speak out Sir What is it that has relation to the Receiuer only The very body and blood of Christ vnder the Type of bread and wine which are changed out of their nature as water was at Cana in Galilee These substances of his body and blood as really present work their effect in à worthy Receiuer where you euidently see that the Real Presence of Christ's Sacred body and blood is presupposed to the effect or to grace wrought in à Soul Therefore to talk of à presence which hath relation to à Receiuer only without the true supposed real verity of Christ body and blood present is no more then à peruerse and an improbable Gloss if S. Cyril speak sense 18. Your next Gloss vpon these words It is not bread though it seem to the tast to be bread but the Body of Christ is worse if worse can be For you only frigidly say Hereby is meant no alteration i◠the Substance of it but only that it is not That common Bread it was before Sir the contrary is now demonstratiuely proued against The change made in Chrism wholly different from that in the Eucharist you But you hope to help your self by an Instance which S. Cyril hath of Chrism in his 3. Mystag Pag. 525. where he Seem's to Parallel the change made in Chrism or holy oyntment with the Change of bread in the Eucharist By the way If Chrism be so sacred à thing it is à shame you haue no more vse of it in your Church but let that pass and mark the Parallel and your own mistake with it A change there is in both bread and common ointment but as different in Themselues as they are differently expressed by this Father The one change is Real and intrinsecal made in the Substance of bread and wine The change of common ointment is not so but Moral into à grace or Gift or Christ S Cyrills words take away all ambiguity See saith he That thou think not this ointment to be common or meer ointment For as the bread of the Eucharist after the Inuocation of the Holy Spirit is no longer common bread but the body of Christ here is the real change So this holy ointment is no longer naked or common ointment after it is consecrated 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 S. Cyrill's words denote the difference but à grace or Gift of Christ and the Holy spirit which operates through the presence of the Diuinity Here is the other and à quite different change Bread is made the body of Christ Chrism his holy and sacred Gift The Parallel or parity therefore as I now said lies in this That both bread and Common ointment are changed from what they were and this is enough for Cyrills intent who only proues Chrism to be à holy thing but it fail's when he positiuely and expresly diuersifies the nature of these changes of bread into Christs body of Common ointment only into à grace or à gift of Christ And Hence Sr your Question whether we may not as well proue à Transubstantiation in the Chrism as we do in the Eucharist is both fond and friuolous We Answer No because the real change of bread into Christ's body fully expresseth Transubstantiation the Terminus à quo and ad quem being Real and Substantial The other Change of ointment into à Gift of Christ denotes à moral change quite different and nothing like the other which is most real S. Ambrose next cited no less abused then others 19. Your next and last Gloss abuses S. Amb. De ijs qui initiantur C. 9. who saith Bread is no longer that which Nature has framed it but that which the Benediction of Consecration has made it You Answer It is the body of Christ but not in our gross sense Pray Sr Inform vs à little of your more quaint meaning Say how bread is Christs body if it still remains as substantially bread after the Benediction as water in Baptism remain's substantially water Doth the water wherewith an infant is washed cease to be water because it is à Sacrament No certainly yet bread if S. Ambrose speak truth ceaseth to be that which nature framed it You endeauour to make These words forceles because S. Chrisost in Act Hom. 23. saith of Baptism I'ts virtue is so great that it suffer's not men to be men and then you wisely ask whether we will grant it Transubstantiat's them Friuolous The Saint only speaks of the virtue of Baptism which as he obserues makes vs sons of Adoption That is it Changes à soul from the miserable state of Sin into à happy state of grace and so permit's not men once infected with that leprosy to be men as they were before vnregenerate And therefore he adds in the ensaing words The great power of the Holy Ghost is that it Transform's our Manners and makes them composed What is here of any thing like Transubstantiation or of à ceasing of that which nature hath framed But enough and fully enough of Mr Stillingfleets most improbable glosses so I must and will term them vntil some surer Principle than fancy giues them more strength which shall neuer be 20. To end I 'le say à great Truth Had this Gentleman twenty Cyprians twenty Cyrills twenty Austins as clear and express for his Opinion of the Sacrament as the Testimonies Had this Aduersary so much Authority for hy opinion as wee Produce in behalfe of Catholick Doctrin No man Could belieue any thing now cited are significant for Catholick Doctrin Had he à Church reputed Orthodox which as indubitably mantain'd his Opinion fiue or six ages since as the Catholick Church then held and yet hold's our Catholick Doctrin Finally had he Scripture as plain for his Sign or Figure of Christs body as it is euidently clear for the Real Presence I verily think no prudent man could or would belieue any thing of this great Mystery And consequently all might rationally doubt of euery article in Christian Religion Because Fathers vpon the Supposition are directly contrary to Fathers Church stand's against Curch and Scripture against Scripture But now when he hath not one Clear Testimony of à Father much less the Sentiment of any Orthodox Church nor so much as à word of Scripture contrary to our Catholick Position I must Conclude that his Glosses already laid on these Fathers are not only improbable but more than highly improbable 21. Perhaps Mr Stillingfleet may reply His glosses T' is true because they are the Sentiments of à fallible man are indeed lyable to errour but He bidds me look well to my Refutations and beware of setting to high à value on them whilst I oppose him For my Opposition because I may mistake amount's to no more but to à weake degree of Fallibility so that Hitherto He and I stand vpon equal Terms Answ If the contest be thus much only whether his Glosses are not clearly refuted the Iudicious Reader after à due
strain as is already declared Hence I say this part of the Dialogue is so inuincible à proof against Protestants in behalf The Centurist's Censure Theoderet of the real Presence that it cannot be answered and therefore the Centurist's with other Hereticks quoted by Brereley pag. 111. and pag. 258. hauing charged S. Chrisostome with the Doctrin of Transubstantiation censure Theoderet vpon the same score as one that speak's dangerously in the matter These men it seem's saw no great force in the later part of the Dialogue which our modern Protestants so much vrge and followes thus 16. When Eranistes had asserted that the Symbols by the inuocation of the Priest are changed and made other things and from that change inferred that our Lords body after his Ascension was conuerted into the Diuine substance The Orthodox Answer 's Thou art caught in the netts thou hast wouen Theodoret's Assertion For the Mystical symbols after Sanctification go not away from their nature For they remain in their former essence and figure and form and â—â—y be seen and touched aâ— before But yet they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored to be those things as they are belieued Thus the Latin interpreter render's Theoderet's words you shall haue presently an other Lection though truely to read them as you see here after due reflection made vpon the precedent part of the Dialogue is so fully enough to ascertain euery one of this learned Father's meaning that I wonder any iudicious Man can scruple at it The genuin sense is Thou Eranistes maintain's that the visible circumscribed body of our His whole sense declared Sauiour was after his Ascension swallowed as it were vp or totally changed into his Godhead To illustrate this thy Doctrin thou takest à proof from the Mystical signes or Symbols of the blessed Sacrament and not only from the inward substance of bread which thou acknowledgest changed I tell thee thou art caught in thy own net the parity fail's there for the Mystical signes remain to sense as before in the same exteriour form and substance they are seen felt c. Darest thou Eranistes say Christ's sacred body retain's yet the same exteriour form it had on earth Has it yet in Heauen the same dimensions as these symbols haue after Consecration Is it visible or extended Answer as thou pleasest Here is an vnanswerable Dilemma for thee Either thou maintains't that A dilemma Chris'ts glorious body is now visible and extended as the Symbols of the Sacrament are Or contrariwise not sensible not seen not extended Grant the first Thou denies't thy own Doctrin and must assert that his whole glorious body is not conuerted into the Godhead Grant the second or say it has not the same exteriour form the same visibility and extension Thy instance and proofs taken from the Symbols of the Sacrament are Eo ipso made null and forcelesse for these signes keep the same form as before they are perceptible to sense extended c. and thus thou art both caught and conuinced 17. By what is now said you find Theoderet's discourse most solid against the Heretick who would needs infer grounding himselfe vpon the change made in the Sacrament that Christ's whole humane nature was conuerted into the Diuinity Thus much saith Theoderet is euidently false for these Symbols remain in their exteriour form vnaltered but Chris'ts humane body with thee remain's not so for all in it the very exteriour is changed into the Godhead Therefore thy proof taken from the symbols Theoderet only speak's of the Species or accidents remaining of the Sacrament not changed at all is void of strength faint and weightlesse Now that Theoderet speak's only of the outward symbols of the Sacrament is manifest First by what is noted already where he saith we are partakers of the true body and blood of Christ 2. By his answer to the Heretick where he openly professeth that though these symbols are seen and handled as before yet to the vnderstanding and Faith they contain the things we truely belieue That is Christ's real body and blood And thus much He proues in the following words where he asserts that they are to be adored no otherwise than Christ's immortal body is now adored sitting at the right hand of His Father for in both places as you may read in the text the same word of Diuine honour is referred to Christ in the Sacrament and now glorious in heauen 18. You must here haue à word of the other Lection already hinted at which clear's all and takes away the least shadow of à difficulty The most eminent and learned Cardinal Perron propound's it and proues it also absolutely the best by six stronge Arguments Liu. 2. De L'Eucharistie Chap. 12. P. 539. First Theodorets Text dubious saith he There is certainly in Theoderet's Greek Text à dubious form of speaking perhaps vsed on set purpose because of some Auditors present not yet initiated or first instructed in these Mysteries The Original words are thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is The symbols remain in their former essence and figure and form and may be seen c. But read them thus saith the Cardinal by à Transposition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. That is For they remain and iâ— the form and in the figure of the first substance and all difficulty How the Cardinal read's ceases For by this construction Theoderet only sayes the accidents or species of bread and wine remain intimating nothing at all of any inward substance of bread remaining nay his whole context supposes the inward substances changed into Christs body 19. If this Construction be admitted so that the Genitiue case 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be as it is à Genitiue and the other two follow in form of Latin ablatiues you haue this Connatural sense Manent in priâ—â—â— essentiae formâ figurâ The Symbols remain in the form and figure of their first essence which preiudices nothing the real Transmutation of bread into Christ's body but much confirm's it But such à Construction add's the learned Cardinal or Transposition of words is not only possible but very frequent in the Greek Language whereof he giues examples and one out of Theoderet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is The body of our Lord of the nature In lieu of saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id est The body of the nature of our Lord. 20. The Cardinal maintain's the construction now giuen both as the more elegant and most agreable to Theoderet's whole context for many sound reasons Here is one taken from the Authors very next words But they are vnderstood to be those things which they are made and belieued and adored How Adored As they are truely belieued That is as containing the true body and The reason why he read's so blood of Christ For were this not really so Christ could not be adored For as
true signification in this place giuen 22. Ab omni specie mala abstinete vos The sense is Abstain not only from inward malice but and here mark the opposition from all Shew or semblance of euil And when S. Cyril saith Orat 4. Mystag vnder the Type or species of bread is giuen the body of our Lord he euidently distinguisheth the Form or shape of bread from its substance And so S. Cyprian doth in the words alleged Corporalis Substantiae retinens Speciem retaining the exteriour shape or form of à Corporeal substance and mote plainly thus The bread being changed not in its outward Form and semblance but in it's inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh 8. Mr Stilling again page 570. in his Answer to S. Cyprian This common bread is changed into flesh and blood saith we Protestants do not deny à Sacramental change of the bread into the flesh and blood of Christ but only that substantial change which ye Papists assert Pray you Sr tell me what is the Terminus à quo and the Terminus ad quem of this your mysterious change You acknowledg some thing Protestants cannot say what is changed into Christ's body changed into the flesh and blood of Christ Is the substance of bread the terminus à quo or that which is changed into the flesh No t' is too plain Popery Is bread made à Sacrament or à Sign of Christ's body changed into the flesh of Christs Euidently no for neither the Sacrament nor that which you call à Sign of Christ's body is changed into flesh Note well the Emphasis of your own words of something changed into the flesh of Christ and say on Gods name what it is You may reply you speak only of à Mystical and Sacramental change That 's not to the purpose now the Emphasis of your words point at something created or increated changed into the flesh and blood of Christ tell vs plainly what that is or in good earnest your expression fal's too short of any intelligible sense 9. In case you run on trifling with your Mystical and Sacramental change only made vpon the accidents or substance of bread the Author now cited positiuely asserts more viz. Panis non effigie sed naturâ mutatus The bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed not in Outward form and appearance but in its inward nature and substance by the Omnipotency of the word is made flesh where 't is plain your extrinsecal sacramental change passing only vpon the accidents of bread or on the substance S Cyprian reiects the Protestants extrinsecâ—l Change which you say remains is excluded and à Real Conuersion of the inward substance of bread is positiuely asserted by S. Cyprian You Answer Some great Criticks haue assured you that the place is corrupted and that the ancient Manuscripts read otherwise Non effigie nec naturâ mutatus neither changed in outward form nor substance You see to what desperate shifts these men are driuen T is wonderful they cite not some great Criticks for à Contrary lection of Christs words Hoc non est corpâ— meum This is not my body Well I say first if those nameless and vnknown Criticks err and the Author speak sense as we now read without the Critiscism Non effigie sed naturâ mutatus not changed in outward form but in its nature Transubstantiation is asserted and your contrary Doctrin is condemned I say 2. This Criticism is improbable and not only turn 's the words out of sense into pure Nonsense but moreouer implies an impossibility I 'le shew you how The Criticism will haue vs read thus Panâ— iste quem Dominus Discipulis porrigebat non effigie nec naturâ mutatâ— Omnipotentiâ verbi factus est Caro. This bread which our Lord gaue to his Disciples being changed neither in its outward form nor inward substance is by the Omnipotency of the word made flesh Obserue well This bread remaining bread in outward shew and inward A Criticism exploded substance is made the flesh of the Son of God An vtter impossibility For no more can bread remaining bread in shape and substance be made flesh factus est caro than Lots wife remaining what She was flesh and blood in outward form and inward substance be made à pillar of salt The Omnipotent power of God cannot change one substance remaining what it is into an other T' is true Luther said Christs body was really present with bread but neuer thought of making bread remaining bread to be that other substance of Christs body 10. Mr Stillingfleet tell 's vs more P. 572. that Substance and nature with the Fathers and we confess it are not alwayes taken properly but sometimes more largely for Accidents Why therefore may not these words Sed natura mutatus in S. Cyprians Context bear that improper sense I Answer and ask first Why may they not also be taken properly When they clearly deliuer à Doctrin conformable to à whole learned Church and your contrary forced gloss hath no Principle to stand on but fancy Had you any ancient Orthodox Church vniuersal Tradition or the plain consent of Fathers for what you assert you might speak more boldly and I would then say S. Cyprians words are false but without such helps to torture à Text as you do to turn good sense into nonsense and this without proof or Principle is more then intolerable Now here reflect à little on what hath been often noted You say the words are improper and render your sense I say they are proper and significantly speak what the Church teaches Pray Answer By what Principle shall you and I come to à decision of this one difficulty Hitherto if nothing be added we haue no more but our two contrary iarring opinions And are not Controuersies may this strain hold made an endles work To add more I Answer 2. If this Author speak sense Not changed in its outward form but in nature Your gloss is Nonsense Obserue well He speakes of The reason why we reiect it bread held in à Priests hand and saith first This bread is not changed in its outward form or Accidents Then he put 's his Aduersatiue Sed. but it is changed in nature and substance If therefore Nature here signifies as you would haue it the outward form or accidents of bread you must read the words thus Bread is not changed in its nature and Substance yet it is changed in nature and substance which is non-sense I proue it Nature and substance with you import the exteriour form or Accidents of bread bread is not changed in this exteriour nature and substance saith the Author yet you say it is changed in this very nature and substance Yet more S. Cyprian asserts à change in one thing not in an other I ask what is changed and what is not changed If the exteriour Accidents of bread as contra distinguished from the Sectaries cannot say what
it self deriues from that Oracle of Truth I say Contrary As such Opinions when true Add no more weight or certainty to that Doctrin than it had antecedently from the The Fundamental ground of our Answer Church So if false They make not the Doctrin less certain Take one instance God reueals this Truth The Diuine word assumed Humane nature One preaches the Truth but Adds no degree of certainty to the Doctrin in it self which in the highest degree was most certain before his Preaching An other falsly as Arius did opposes the verity it is not Therefore less certain in it self because He contradicts it And thus we discourse of our Church Tenets indubitably most certain vpon Church Authority whether Hereticks deny or grant That Matters not the Doctrin stand's firm still as before And as we see by daily experience neither riseth higher in certainty nor fall's lower in the iudgement of Catholicks because Sectaries side with it or bend against it 22. Thus much proued The Paralogism is at an end The Catholicks held The Donatists Baptism valid so they would haue done had these Hereticks duely Ministred it and with all which is possible afterward denied it valid So independent Church Doctrin is of dissenting mens opinions The Donatists again slighted our Catholick Baptism the Church regards it not For as the Opinions of the Goodnes of their own Baptism heightned not the Churches certainty concerning it So their Contrary Opinion of its insufficiency made not the Truth less certain to the Catholick Apply what is here noted to our present case and you will see the like Conclusion Protestants Say we may be Sectaries Siding with vs neither Lessens nor increases our Certainty saued in Catholick Religion The Opinion is true But as asserted by them is no more but an Opinion which therefore Add's not one grain of more Certainty to Catholick Doctrin For had they denied vs à possibility of Saluation as now by meer Chance they grant it Catholicks would haue giuen as little eare to That as They now doe to their many other false Opinions So it is Church Doctrin as I now said neither fall's nor riseth in certainty vpon the account of our Sectaries Opinions 23. You will Ask what then gain we by the Concession of Protestants when it giues vs no more Assurance in this particular than we had before from the Church I haue answered aboue We gain thus much That they cannot rationally impugn any Catholick Doctrin without contradicting Them selues For if confessedly This bring 's men to Heauen the Religion is sound And implies no essential Errour The concession then as I said serues well as an Argument ad Hominem to stop the mouths of Sectaries And showes withall That they end controuersies For its What their Excession Serues for horridly vniust to dispute against à Faith which all grant saues souls We pretend no more nor can pretend it And here is the Reason 23. No Catholick nor indeed any other doth or can belieue à Christian Verity vpon this ground or Motiue that Sectaries say its true for their saying so is neither Gods Reuelation nor the Churches Doctrin But à meer Opinion as taught by them But an opinion chiefly theirs is to weak to ground any faith vpon Therefore if I belieue as I do Saluation most safe in the Roman Catholick Church I belieue it vpon à Motiue totally distinct from the Protestants Assertion It is true their Assertion or siding with vs may induce one to reflect on the great power Truth has in working vpon men most refractory Though it Adds no new degree of certainty to Catholick Doctrin I haue insisted longer vpon this point because it vtterly destroies what euer Mr. Stillingfleet can say against vs vnless he will quarrel vpon this score that I here suppose my Church Doctrin most certain which is not the Question now But may well be supposed in all good law of disputation And shall God willing be proued in the next Discourse 24. Page 619. you proceed to à second Answer of his Lordship And Argue thus If that be the safest which both Parties agree in the Principle makes much for the Aduantage of Protestants And why We Catholicks are bound Say you to belieue with you in the Point of the Eucharist For all sides agree The Sectaries Argument taken from the Eucharist in the faith of the Church of England That in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made Spiritually partaker of the true and Real body and blood of Christ truly and really c. Answ 1o. If we belieued As you do The motiue of our Faith would be As is now said quite different from the Motiue of your Opinion And so it is de facto in the belief of euery Catholick Mystery But I waue this And say Your Principle is ill applyed For you and we agree in iust nothing concerning the Eucharist but thus far only That what we see look's like bread We say that very Christ who was born of the Virgin and suffered on the Cross is really and substantially present vnder the form's of bread after true Consecration You by à strange fancy lay hold of Christs Presence existing in Heauen And think thereby to make your selues partaker of his real body We say Christ is rruly Worth nothing and why and really in two and more places at once you make this vtterly impossible We put the real Presence or local being of Christ in the very Obiect before our eyes vpon the Altar you put it in your faith or Fancy rather Hence your question afterward viz. Whether we do not allow any real and Spiritual presence of Christ besides the Corporal you mean the Real manducation is soon answered For we distinguish what you confound together And say if by these Terms Spiritual Presence you would exclude the real obiectiue Presence of Christs sacred body we dissent from you And absolutly hold that Real obiectiue Presence which may be rightly called Spiritual because by it Christ is placed Totus in toto totally in the whole host and totally in euery part of it Contrariwise if you make it only à fancied Presence of Christ or say Hee is not really vnder the Forms or Accidents of bread wee leaue that lean Sacramentarie Doctrin to you vtterly disanow it and still dissent from you 25. The whole cheat lies hudled vp in those vnexplicated words The worthy Receiuer is by his Faith made spiritually partaker of the true and real body c. As if forsooth your two terms The fallacy discouered Faith and Spiritual could make vs agree in one Tenet whereas we most vary about this very Faith and the obiect of it And also disclaime your fancied Spiritual Presence Hence we say you haue neither true Sacrament nor true Faith nor receiue worthily nor really partake of Christs true body nor of any benefit of his Passion We say you feed not spiritually but only tast natural
Set once more pen paper and proue vs guilty of damnable Errour and you 'l damn so many that very few of your Protestants will be left in à state of Saluation I 'le make the Assertion good hereafter In the interim you Tell vs Wee palpably beg the Question whilst we suppose the whole Church is on our side and against you which is à notorious falshood Sr words are but wind I shall by the Grace of God Euidence this Truth so notoriously in the next Discourse that you if reason may haue place must confess Catholicks are the only Orthodox Church And Consequently grant that Controuersies are ended between vs. THE SECOND DISCOVRSE OF The Church and Rule of Faith HEre wee come to handle à main Matter in Controuersies And first Euidence the true Church by Her Marks and Glorious Miracles The Roman Catholick Church is proued the only Orthodox Society of Christians and Rule of Faith also VVee Euince Her absolute Infallibility and shew by Reason That if She hath taught but one false Doctrin and obliged Christians to belieue it there is now no true Faith in the world CHAP. I. Necessary Principles premised relating to the Controuersy now in hand concerning the true Church And Rule of Faith 1. THE first Principle God whose eternal designe is to bring man to true Faith in this short pilgrimage and after to endles Happines afford's means to acquire both And hath as Principles presupposed well laid open the means whereby true Faith may be attained As made our final End known 2. The second Principle Those want the means leading to the last happy End who are Aliens from the true Church of Christ or Separated from that Catholick Society The Assertion is so plainly deliuered not only by most Ancient Fathers But by the more learned Sectaries also That it is needless to produce many Testimonies S. Cyprian Lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Saith Quisquis ab Ecclesia separatus est c. Who euer is separated from the Church is ioyned to an Adulteress And diuorced from all the Promisses of the Church He comes not to the reward which Christ has promised who leaues the Church of Christ He is an Alien Prophane an Enemy and cannot haue God for his Father who hath not the Church for his Mother S. Austin lib. 4. de Symb. C. 13. Speaks fully this sense Citing those last words of Cyprian And Lib. 4. de Baptis C. 17. Saith Out of the Church there is no Saluation Yet more Epist 152. Whoeuer is or shall be separated from The Fathers Testimonies preduced this Catholick Church although he thinks himself to liue most laudably For this one wickednes alone that he is disioyned from the vnity of Christ shall haue no life Sed ira Dei manet super eum But the wrath of God remains vpon him S. Fulgentius Lib. de fide ad Petrum C. 39. Hold this most certain and no way doubt of it That an Heretick or Schismatick baptized in the name of the Father of the Son and Holy Ghost if he be not in Vnion with the Catholick Church Although he giues neuer so great Alms And shed his blood for Christ yet he cannot be saued I waue other excellent Authorities known to euery one versed in the Fathers And need not to take more pains when Protestants themselues own the Doctrin The Ark was à type of the Church saith Perkins in Symb. Colum with me 785. extra quam omnes interibant out of which Ark All dyed and all are damned who are out of the Church Again In Caput 9. ad Sectaries Consent Galat. Those who are not members of the visible Church are not members of the Catholick Church Humfred Ad Ration 3. Campiani We condemn all who are not aggregated to the visible Church of God Finally Caluin the Master of Sectaries Lib. 4. Institu C. 1. 4. makes it absolutly necessary to be in vnion with Christs visible Church 3. The ground of this Truth is so solidly laid down in Scripture that none can contradict it For here the Church is called the Kingdom the Body the Inheritance of Christ purchased at à dear The Ground of our Catholick Truth rare the effusion of his sacred blood A Citty built vpon à Mountain The House the Temple of God the Hierusalem the Pillar and firmament of Faith c. Whereby it appears That whoeuer is out of this Kingdom out of this Citty out of this house and Temple of God whoeuer is not à member of this Mystical body or shares not in this purchased Inheritance or in à word out of the true Church be it where you will I yet define nothing is in à damnable condition A sad thought for all Sectaries because it is certain that Christ has not composed his Church of such Members as rightly belieue the reuealed Doctrin taught by the true Church and of such as oppose it Vnity and Diuision in Vnity and Diuision in Faith haue no place in the true Church points of Faith ase inconsistent in the same Orthodox Church and destroy the essential forme of it which is one Faith Now if our Aduersaries talk of à vnity in Fundamentals they are not only euidently conuinced of Errour in the other Treatise But vpon this very Account become Separaters from the Church and without Principles Assert that which neither Church nor Scripture teaches Who euer hold's not the Catholick faith entire shall Perish eternally saith S. Athanasius in his Creed but an entire Belief excludes all distinction between fundamentals and others as is manifest I little value some Protestants Glosses made vpon this Text for Glosses with me are weightles when they stand vnprincipled 4. The 3. Principle What the true Church of Christ teaches concerning the sense of Scripture That 's the sense intended by the Holy Ghost and Consequently most true The reason is Truth cannot be contrary to truth The Church and Scripture neuer Clash But alwaies speak one and the same verity This Sectaries must grant who define the Church to be an Assembly of men professing the pure Word of God Therefore it cannot deceiue or teach an Errour contrary to that pure word Or if it doth so it ceaseth eo ipso to be God's Oracle And the true Church of Christ 5. If these men still go on trifling with their wonted distinction of Fundamentals and not Fundamentals And allow à Perfect vnity of Doctrin between the Church and Scripture in The Distinction between Fundamentals and others friuolous things absolutly necessary to Saluation but not in others This is to define and not to define to build and destroy to teach and cheat in one breath For à definition which makes known the nature of à Thing must stand in its open sense without restraint and exactly agree to the thing defined Mark now Christs true Church is the Thing defined and the Definition charged with endless restrictiue Terms is drawn to Non-sense fot it tells vs the Church
say Antiquity erred no less than we do now And therefore Caluin professeth he followes none of the Fathers but S. Austin Though when He pleases he is too bold with the Saint and scornfully reiect's his Authority also See Bellar de notis ecclesiae lib 4. What Sectaries Nouelties are Cap. 9. I might also show that our Sectaries Nouelties for the greatest part are nothing els but à List of old long since dispersed and condemned Heresies now brought to light again and knit together in one bundle to poison the world withall They haue renewed the Heresy oâ— the Donatists who taught that the Church of God had perished throughout the world except in some few obscure Corners They renew the Heresy of the Arians teaching it vnlawful to offer Sacrifice for the dead They renew the Heresy of the Eunomians saying that by Faith only man may obtain life Euerlasting You haue with These men the Heresy of the Iconomachians in breaking down the Images of Christ our Lord and His Saints reuiued again Of the Berengarians denying the true Body and blood of our Lord Iesus Christ really present in the Eucharist as likewise of the Vigilantians that slighted the Inuocation of Saints denying Honour due to the Relicks of holy Martyrs But I need not to insist vpon these and many more reuiued Heresies they are things Vulgarly known to all largely laid forth in the writings of our Catholick Authors Se Bellar now Cited CHAP. VII Manifest and most vndeniable Miracles peculiar to the Romani Catholick Church only prone Her Orthodox withall show that She still retain's the Primitiue Doctrin 1. BY this word Miracle or Miracles I vnderstand à supernatural work done by Almighty God aboue the power and force of Nature For there is no doubt but that God who What is meant by Miracles created Nature has within his boundles Omnipotency Supereminent effects of Grace which far surpass the little Might of all Creatures made by him These are finite The Author of them infinite And can do more 2. 2. This Principle is certain God hath wrought innumerable Miracles not only to Testify He can do more then Nature Why Miracles are wrought but with this express Designe also that by the Manifestation of such wonders All may come to the knowledge of those Oracles whereby He speaks and Reueals most sublime Mysteries far aboue the reach of our weak Reason Now whether these Oracles be Prophets Church or Apostles seems one and the same thing If they be equally Manifested by miraculous Effects and speak in his name who Assumes them to teach the world 3. I say manifâ—sted Oracles by Signes And say it for this End That all may reflect vpon the depth of Diuine wisdom which may on the one side Seem too rigorous in obliging vs to belieue most Difficult Mysteries neither seen by Eye nor heard by eare They facilitate Faith Were it not That on the other side the burden is lessened and our Faith much facilitated by the Euidence of most prudent and conuincing Motiues For t' is à great Truth Non sine testimoniâ— reliquit Semetipsum benefaciens de Caelo His Goodnes so fauorably condescend's to our weaknes that though he remoues not Vneuidence and Obscurity from the Mysteries belieued Yet he makes them all so euidently Credible to prudent Reason Benefaciens de Caelo by the Lustre of Signes and Wonders That the man who belieues not after à Sight had of such glorious Marks stand's guilty before Gods Tribunal of damnable Sin 4. The third Principle Miracles eminently great in number and quality for example the raising of the dead to life Chiefly when wrought by Persons of Singular virtue to Confirm our Christian Faith are from God and euident Signes leading to the knowledge of true Religion None can doubt of the Assertion seing Christ our Mord. Matt. 11. When Questioned whether He was the true Messias proued the Affirmatiue by his Signal Miracles The blind see the lame walk Lepers are Cleansed And lead to the knowledge of true Religion the deaf hear the dead rise again c. Which is to say in other Terms These wonders speak in my behalfe and plainly Testify that I am the Messias For only to say I am à Prophet sent from God without prouing the Truth to Reason by Signes and wonders Conuinces nothing Induces none to Belieue Therefore Iohn 10. Christ remitted the vnbelieuing Iewes not to the Euidence of his Doctrin for really no Doctrin of Mysteries aboue Reason though most true is or can be its own Self-euidence But to his manifest Miracles The Works which I do in the Our Sauiour pleaded by His Miracles name of my Father These giue Testimony of me Again If you wâ—st not belieue me belieue my works Blessed S. Paul might haue Long preached the Sublime Doctrin of Christ and without Fruit vnless Miracles had confirmed it which he call's the Signes of his They were Signes of Pauls apostleship Apostleship 2. Cor. 12. And How long think ye would Nabuchodonozer haue remained in his Idolatry vnless He had beheld that prodigious Wonder wrought by God vpon the three Israelites in the fiery Fournace Daniel 3. But when he saw them walk in the flames nothing hurt He cryed out Blessed be the God of Sydrack Misack and Abdenago who hath sent his Angel c. Miracles therefore are powerful Inducements to Beliefe which Truth might be yet more largely demonstrated by the Wonders of Moses of Elias of the Prophets and Apostles But these I waue and briefly take notice of our Sauiours sacred words Iohn 15. If I had not come and spoken to them they should not haue finned but now they haue no excuse of their sin c. And to show that Speaking only was no sufficient Conuiction The Text add's If I had not done among them works which no other man hath don they should not haue sinned but now they haue seen and hate me and my Father c. 5. Three things follow from hence First That eminent Miracles of their own Nature are Marks of Christ's Doctrin and true Religion 2. That Our Sauiour most iustly condemned Why the Iewes were taxed of Incredulity the Iewes of infidelity not so much for reiecting his word or Preaching as for not belieuing after they had seen it confirmed by Wonder 's from Heauen For t' is Said plainly Had they not seen they had not sinned A Doctrin Therefore attested by Miraculous signes and wonders renders the Vnbelieuer guilty of Infidelity Consider it alone deuested of such Marks what haue we High Mysteries preached But without Proofs antecedently laid forth to Reason Truths taught but yet vnknown whether so or otherwise In à word we haue the Decrees of à great Monarch obliging all to submission but without his Seal or Signature 6. And Hence it is that our blessed Lord impowred those first great Masters of the Gospel Matt. 10. not only to teach his Sacred Verities but to teach
Apostle writes Ephes. 14. 11. of the Continuance of Pastors and The Apostles words also and Doctors in the work of the Ministery for the edifying of Christ's Mystical body till we meete in one Vnity of Faith most Certainly he Spake not of any deluded or Idolatrous Pastors are likewise vtterly false Nay more that Article of our Creed The Creed falsifyed I belieue the Holy Catholick Church ceased to be true in those dismal dayes when the whole Roman Catholick Church made Idolatrous went to wrack and the res't of Christians if not Idolatrous were all Professed Heretiques 19. Contrarywise if there was at that time another Orthodox Church in Being when Luther Separated from the Roman Catholick What followes if then there was à true Church Society One of these two Consequences necessarily followes Viz. That Luther and his Associates the Protestants either made themselues Members of that Imagined pure Spotles and Orthodox Church Or founded à new One vpon their own Authority neuer before heard of in the Christian world Now further It is most impossible to nominate any such Christians as Luther and Protestants made à new Church Constituted à pure Orthodox Church distinct from the Roman Catholick Therefore Luther and Protestants haue by their own Authority made à new One neuer before known to the world 20. There is yet à third Inference which methinks pinches such Protestants as Say They and we make but one Church Orthodox in fundamentals How can this Doctrin stand if the The Church if Idolatrous err's in the fundamentals of Faith Roman Catholick Church teaches flat Idolatry For vpon this Supposition She err's grosly in that fundamental Point of Idolatry And consequently Protestants must either leaue her as horridly erroneous or maintain Idolatry with Her If it be replyed though thus tainted She yet teaches some few Truths and Sectaries can exactly tell vs which and how many they are They Sectaries improbable Supposition first argue vpon an improbable Supposition and secondly make the louely Spouse of Christ beautiful and vgly treacherous and loyal false and true together whereof enough is sayd in the former Discourses 21. The last question proposed is that the Doctor giue Satisfaction concerning the Mission of Protestants In à word we demand who sent them to teach as they doe that the Roman Catholic◠Church is fallible and Idolatrous That man hath no free will That the Body and blood of our Sauiour are not really in the blessed Sacrament with à number of other Nouelties Our demand A difficult Question Concerning the Mission of Sectaries is grounded vpon the Apostles words Rom. 10. 15. How Shall they preach vnless they be sent Say therefore who commissioned these men who countenanced them to preach such Doctrins Dare they tell vs that as their English Bishops receiued Orders from the Supposed Idolatrous Catholick Prelares So also they had Commission from them Idolatrous as they were to teach Idolatry They neuer had nor can haue Commission to teach Protestancy Grant this and they make their Mission not only ridiculous but null also and vtterly void of Credit Whither will they run next think ye Can they pretend to haue had their Mission from the Arians from the Hussits or Waldenses c No certainly For they teach not in all things as these Hereticks taught And besides neuer receiued Commission from them or The Assertion proued from any men called Christians to teach at all Therefore they are vnsent Preachers and consequently in the Apostles Iudgement ought no more to be heard than the Arians or Pelagians 22. Some Sectaries tell vs its needles to Question their A reply answered Mission whilst the Testimony of the Spirit assures them that they teach the true Doctrin of Iesus Christ. Here is first à Supposition for à Proof because The whole world excepting themselues deny what is now assumed of their teaching truth Howeuer admit gratis this false Supposition The meer speaking truth giues them no Commission to teach it For Children Vagabonds and Diuels also may Speak eternal truths yet are not therefore authorized to preach or made Christ's lawful authorized Ministers The Reason hereof seem's manifest To teach truth argues no Lawful Mission To preach truth is an effect of à lawful Mission and not the cause of it Wherefore this Causal or Inference is good I teach truth because I am lawfully Commissioned to teach it and exactly Comply with my Duty Not the Contrary I teach truth therefore I am Authoritiuely sent to teach it 23. By what is hitherto briefly noted you se in what The desperate condition of Sectaries case Sectaries are who first suppose à long interruption of Orthodox Pastors in the Roman Catholick Church and consequently neuer receiued Commission from them to teach and though which is true they continued Orthodox yet these Catholick Pastors neuer gaue them any Authority Again They No Church Orthodox or Heretical sent them to teach scorn to receiue their Commission from known Hereticks nor can they pretend it because being in most Essential points opposite to Protestants Such Hereticks could not impower them to teach Protestancy For these Reasons Sectaries are obliged to renounce all claim to that Mission which is called Ordinary because No Church No Society of Christians whether Orthodox or Heretical sent these Nouellists abroad to teach as they do their reformed Gospel 24. Now if with Luther they challenge to themselues à Calling Some with Luther plead à Mission Extraordinary and Mission extraordinary Not by men or from men but by the Reuelation of Christ Iesus Their Plea no less Proofles then Presumptuous is highly improbable vpon this ground that neuer any since the beginning of Christianity was sent as extraordinary by Almighty God to preach who made not his Doctrin Credible by manifest Supernatural wonders So Christ our Lord did and the Apostles also Others that followed in the after Ages laid forth the Miracles and signal Marks of the Church whereof they were Members and euinced by Signs the They haue neither extraordinary nor Ordinary Mission Authority of that Oracle which sent them But Sectaries who began with Luther to teach extraordinary Doctrin neither plead by extraordinary wonders hauing none to produce nor can so much as hint at any Church false or true which commissioned them to publish Protestancy Therefore they are vnlawful Ministers neuer sent to preach Christ's true Doctrin nor so much as their own false Nouelties of Protestanism CHAP. XIX The supposed grounds of our Protestants Reformation manifestly ouerthrown Protestancy no Religion but an improhable Nouelty The conclusion of this whole Treatise 1. I Say the Supposed Grounds for in very truth Protestancy What Sectaries pretend to hath not any real Ground to Stand on as is amply proued in the forecited Chapters Howeuer because Pretences are not wanting to such as Oppose God's verities and our Aduersaries seem to build the whole Machin of their