suffred for our Sins an evident sign that all those who held the Flesh of Christ to be true Flesh and not Phantastical believed also the Eucharist to be that very true Flesh This is what Protestants themselves confess of the most eminent Fathers of God's Church in each Age from our Saviours time concerning the Doctrin of Transubstantiation as I find them cited in two Treatises the one called The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church the other The Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants whose Authors I never heard were taxed of insincerity in their quotations And if it be true what Dr. Field saith of Bellarmin that if he could prove that Protestants confess the Roman to be the true Church he needed not to use any other arguments I might supersede any farther proof of this matter and leave the Doctor to join issue with his Fellow-Brethren But the Reader perhaps may desire to see the Testimonies themselves of those Fathers which were so pregnant as to force such learned Men of the Protestant Party to confess that they taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation And in order to his satisfaction in this Point I shall set down one Testimony of each Father in the same order as they stand cited above and but One to avoid Prolixity TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION IN the beginning of the Eighth Century St. Jo. Damascen li. 4. de fid c. 14. The Bread and Wine and Water are by the Invocation and Coming of the Holy Ghost changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Christ And with him agrees Theophylact The Bread is transformed by the Mystical Benediction and the coming of the Holy Ghost into the Flesh of our Lord. At the end of the Fifth and beginning of the Sixth Century St. Gregory Our Creator well knowing our Infirmity by that Power with which he made all things of nothing by the Sanctification of his Spirit converts the Bread and Wine mixed with Water their proper species or figure remaining into his Flesh and Blood In the Fifth Eusebius Emissenus and St. John Chrysostome The former saith Before Consecration there is the Substance of Bread and Wine but after the words of Christ it is the Body and Blood of Christ For what wonder that he who created them with his Word should convert or change them after they were created The latter The things we propose are not done by Humane Power We hold but the place of Ministers but he that sanctifieth and changeth them is Christ himself In the Fourth Century St. Ambrose and because this is the Age I suppose the Doctor pitches upon when he saith he will undertake to instance in an Age since the first three Centuries Wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops who lived in it are to be credited Transubstantiation was not believed I shall be somewhat larger in citing the words of St. Ambrose and also add other Testimonies of Fathers of the same time to his that the Reader may see what Issue his Undertaking is like to have in this matter First Then St. Ambrose as if he foresaw my Adversaries objection puts it down in these formal words You will say perhaps How do you prove to me that I receive the Body of Christ when I see another thing And the way he takes to Answer it is by comparing the change made here in the Nature of the Bread with the examples of those miraculous changes which were wrought by Holy Men of Old in the Natures of other things as of Moses's Rodd being turned into a Serpent the Waters of Aegypt into Blood c. From whence he infers that if the Benediction of those who were but pure Men was of such force as to change Nature What must we say of that divine Consecration where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do operate Thou hast read saith he of the works of the Creation how God spake the Word and they were made he commanded and they were created that is produc'd out of nothing The Word therefore of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are viz. Bread and Wine into that which before they were not viz. his own Body and Blood surely it is not a less matter to give new natures to things out of nothing than to change them after they are made Again You will say perhaps my Bread is usual Bread No saith he this Bread is Bread before the Sacramental words When the Consecration is performed of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ He spake the Word and it was made he commanded and it was created And that we may not doubt he meant it was made his true Flesh he saith As our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as Men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as himself hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink This and much more doth St. Ambrose write of this subject so that no Man need to wonder if the Centurists say he wrote not well of Transubstantiation And I have either read or heard it reported of Calvin that he wish'd the Devil had struck the Pen out of St. Ambrose's hand when he wrote those Books of the Sacraments But let us now see what other Fathers of the same Age teach concerning this Point S. Cyril Our Saviour saith he sometime changed Water into Wine and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood S. Gregory Nyssen We do rightly believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word By vertue of his Benediction he changeth the nature of the things which are seen Bread and Wine into that Viz. his own Body S. Gaudentius The Maker Lord of Natures who produceth Bread out of the Earth doth again of Bread because he can and hath promised to do it make his own Body and He who made Water of Wine maketh of Wine his own Blood These are Fathers who lived in the Age immediately following the three first Centuries to whom I might add St. Chrysostome above cited who flourished in this Century though he dyed in the beginning of the next and others but these may suffice to let the Reader see if this be the Age which the Doctor intends to instance in how unlikely it is he should make good what he asserts that Transubstantiation was not believed in it In the Third Century St. Cyprian saith The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape or figure but in nature was by the Omnipotency of the Word made Flesh And Ursinus confesseth There are many sayings in him which seem to affirm Transubstantiation And Tertullian in the same Age saith that our Lord having taken Bread made it his
Idolatry or he must stand to it stifly without flinching that both Catholicks now and the Jews then were Heathen Idolaters For he does but contradict himself whilst he makes us guilty onely of Christian Idolatry and yet does us no kindness at all whilst he charges us to terminate the Worship due onely to God upon the Creature Oh but says he when afterwards the Israelites fell into Heathen Idolatry the particular names of the Gods are mentioned as Baal-Peor Moloch Remphan c. What then Is it the Idol's having a Name that makes the Worshippers Heathen Idolaters Aristotle tells us that words are but the signs of the conceptions of our mind and if they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worshipping it without a Name as the Egyptians for worshipping it under the Name of Apis The onely difference I find is that the Egyptians by long practice were become Masters of their Trade in making Gods whereas the Israelites by this one Act were Novices onely in that Art § 4. What hath been said of the Golden Calf in the Wilderness may in like manner be applied to the Calves which Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel viz. that the People did not look upon them as Symbols onely of the presence of the true God but that as St. Hierom saith they forgat the Law of God and wholly devoted themselves to Egyptian Idols And the same is affirmed by the Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose viz. that the Egyptians worshipped a four-footed Beast whom they called Apis in the likeness of a Calf Which Evil of theirs saith he was imitated by Jeroboam in setting up the Calves in Samaria to which the Jews offered sacrifice But this saith the Doctor was not so agreeable to his End nor so likely to succeed And why not Was not his end to secure the Ten Tribes to himself so that they might not think of returning to unite themselves any more to the House of David And what more likely way to effect it than the making them such Idols as their Fathers had worshipped in Egypt and the Wilderness What he aimed at Achitophel-like was to make the breach irreconcilable and this of making them Calves he look'd upon as the properest means to that end considering the inclination of that People whose eyes as the Scripture saith were after their Fathers Idols I but the Occasion saith he of the Kingdoms coming to him was from Solomon's falling into Heathen Idolatry and this would make him more cautious of falling into it especially at his first entrance And I believe it would have done so had he been a Good Josias and not a wicked Jeroboam But why the Doctor should think him so tender conscienc'd whom God himself upbraids for having made to himself strange and molten Gods and cast him behind his back 3 Kings xiv 9. Or why he should think him so scrupulous when the Scripture saith that he sacrificed to the Gods which he had made 3 Kings xii 32. and that he ordained him Priests for the high places and for the Devils and for the Calves which he had made 2 Paralip xi 15. I cannot imagine The Ingenious Author of the Causes of the decay of Christian Piety chap. 15. made a different Judgment of the matter when to shew that Divinity has long since been made the Handmaid to Policy and Religion modell'd by Conveniencies of State he immediately adds for an example that The Golden Calves became venerable Deities when they were found apt to secure Jeroboam's jealousies But had this been Jeroboam's Intention how much better saith the Doctor had he then argued that they had been hitherto in a great mistake concerning the true God and not meerly as to the place of his Worship which is all he speaks against for he continued saith he the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Jâ—rusalem 1 Kings xii 32. And what wonder if so great a Polititian as he was juâ—g'd it not fit to leave off on the sudden all that had been in use before Sudden Changes from one extream to another whether in the Natural or Politick Body are always look'd upon as dangerous And therefore the first Reformers nere in England when they design'd a Service onely of Bread and Wine thought it expedient to retain the Names of the Body and Blood of Christ and many of the ancient Prayers and Ceremonies which the nicer Brethren boggle at at this day as Pelicks of Popery and Politick Inventions to make the Bread and Wine go down the better But for Jeroboam he told the People plain enough what he meant when pointing to the Calves he bid them behold the Gods which had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt And the Text cited by the Doctor 1 Reg. xii 23. speaks but of one Feast he ordain'd like unto the Feast that was in Juda though the Doctor will have it that he continued the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Jerusalem But Ahab's sin he saith was much greater than that of Jeroboam It was so but will absolve Jeroboam no more from the guilt of Idolatry which the Scripture calls spiritual Adultery than one mans committing adultery with many will free another from the guilt of the same crime who commits it but with one Nor does Jehu's zeal for the Lord nay though it were for his Lord as the Doctor not the Scripture reads it exempt him from Idolatry in following the steps of Jeroboam any more than the lawful Act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery who defiles his Neighbours Bed But How then saith he came the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes to be set in opposition to the Heathen Idolatry in 1 Kings xviii 21 No otherwise surely than by the force of imagination For when Elias said unto the people How long will ye halt between two Opinions If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal then follow him The sence is plain that he meant to recal the people to the Worship of the onely True God whom he preached to them and in the manner he himself did worship him and not that he intended to set the Israelites sacrificing to the Calves at Dan and Bethel which is what the Doctor means by the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes in opposition to the Worship of Baal For in the very next Chapter the Prophet himself supposes such a general Apostacy of the ten Tribes to the Worship of Baal that he complains as if he alone were left alive who had not consented to his Worship as appears by the Answer which God made him that he had yet seven thousand left in Israel which had not bowed their knees to Baal 3 Kings xix 17 18. How then could Elias set the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes in opposition to the Worship of Baal when
of Sense or Reason can digest it Fools as you are what Demonstration So evident as this My God profest it And if you once can prove that He can lie This Wonder and Him too I will deny 89 What thank is it that you can credit that Which your own sense Reason's eye reads plain Heaven 's much to them beholden who will not Believe it higher is than they can strain Who jealous are of God and will not be Induc'd to trust Him further than they see 90 And yet had you these modest eyes of mine You in this gloomy Cloud would see the Sun That Sun who wisely doth disdain to shine On those who with bold prying press upon His secret Majesty which plainly I Because I make no anxious search descry 91 This is the valorous Resolution Of Gallant Faith and this will serve to be The Blessed Rule by which all those must run Who are the Scholars of Humility Yet I must tell thee Psyche itching Pride VVill not hereafter thus be satisfied And then having inveigh'd in the following Stanza's against those who will needs be prying with the skill they take for granted hath fill'd their brains that is with the Doctor 's faculty of discerning Truth and falshood into the manner how this Miracle is brought to pass He concludes with these words in favour of Transubstantiation 99 It is in vain to tell these Wranglers how Jesus could graft cold Stones into the stock Of Abraham and make them fertil grow In Israelites or that the Bread he took In 's daily Diet was not wholly spent But part into his Body's substance went 100 In vain to tell them how into his Blood The Wine he drank was changed day by day For though such speculations understood With prudent Reverence might make easier way Unto the Mystery yet Wranglers will Because they will be so be Wranglers still This and much more to this Purpose which not to surfet the Reader with too many delicacies I omit saith the Author of that Illustrious Poem in which to the satisfaction of all that read it himself hath made appear to the World what his Modesty made him willing to expect rather from others that a Divine Theam is as capable and happy a subject of Poetical Ornament as any Pagan or Humane device whatsoever And would the Gallants of both Sexes employ as many of their precious Hours in reading this excellent Piece as they do in Romances and Play-Books I dare be bold to affirm though perhaps I shall not be credited They would find not only more substance but more delight in this than in the best of them But to return to my present business My design was to let the Reader see how far my Adversary's beloved Principles of Sense and Reason are from being fit Umpires to judge of matters proposed as of divine Revelation particularly in what relates to the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist and I thought I could not do it better than in the words of this learned and Ingenious Author whose whole Discourse seems but a Descant upon those words of St. Chrysostom when speaking of this Mystery to the People of Antioch he saith Let us obey God in all things and not gain-say Him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us than our thoughts or sight And thus let us behave our selves in the Mysteries that is in the most Holy Sacrament not beholding only those things which lye before us viz. the Symbols of Bread and Wine but holding fast his words For his Word is Infallible but our sense is easy to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therfore the Word saith This is my Body let us obey and believe and behold Him with the eyes of our Understanding If the Doctor will not do so but will have his Readers to measure matters of Faith by the Rule of Sense and Reason and not trust God farther than they can see with them I am sure he gives a far greater advantage to the Enemies of the most Holy Trinity and Christ's Divinity by so unChristian a Principle than we can possibly do by asserting a like divine Revelation for his being present in the Eucharist as for his being true God notwithstanding the seeming contradictions that occur in it But perhaps the Doctor wâ—ll say that I am mistaken all this while and that he meant no such thing by the use of Reason For I remember now that when upon his Asserting that Catholicks expose the Faith of Christiaâ—s to a great uncertainty by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to the matters of Faith propâ—sed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church which if it say any thing to the purpose it must be this that because Men must make use of their reason to find out the true Ground of believing which Catholicks affirm to be the Church therefore they must believe nothing which the Church proposes as a matter of Faith but what the Faculty in them called reason of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our belief shall judge to be true in it self for otherwise how doth it follow that they expose the Faith of Christians to uncertainâ—y when I say upon this assertion of his I supposed and clearly enough I think that the use he would have of reason was to believe nothing but what his reason could understand He assures me p. 542. upon his word that he meant no such thing for I believe saith he an Infinite Being and all the Doctrines revealed by it in H. Scriptures although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those Conceptions we call Reason But here I observe first as no very great sign that he means not by the use of Reason what I supposed that he doth not tell us of any one particular Article he believes with that terrible condition unless he mean he cannot reconcile all particulars concerning the existence of a Deity but huddles them up in a blind Universal that he believes all the Doctrines revealed by God in the H. Scriptures as if it were enough for a Christian to believe in general all that God hath revealed in Scripture without troubling himself about the Sense of any thing in particular for fear of over-straining his Reason to swallow something that may seem a Contradiction And I confess the Letter of the Scripture may be a sufficient Rule of such a Faith 2dly This Assertion of his exposes the Faith of Christians to as great uncertainty as that he charges upon Catholicks by its denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith revealed by God in the Scriptures when they must necessarily use them to find out the Scriptures and the existence of a Deity For whether the Scripture or the Church be supposed to be the Ground of believing
the case is the same as to the Point of Reason Men must be allowed the use of their Judgment and Reason in the search of both And therefore he must either acknowledge his Charge to have been groundless when he taxed Catholicks for exposing Faith to uncertainty or he must grant to Men though it be with contradicting himself which is much easier to do than to swallow the least seeming Contradiction in a matter of Faith that they may and ought to make use of their discerning Faculty as to the truth or falshood of matters proposed to our belief which I confess I take to be the same as to believe no more than their Reason can comprehend and so if Reason chance to meet with some seeming Contradiction with which it is not able or willing to grapple the Article ought and must be exploded for such a monstrous Prodigy of hood wink'd and abused Faith as no Man can imagine God would e're obtrude upon the Faith of Reasonable Men. But here again perhaps he will say that although God may impose upon us an Obligation of believing against the Conceptions of our Reason yet he cannot do it against the suggestion of our sense because as he asserts p. 540. This would be to overthrow all certainty of Faith where the matters to be believed depend upon mattâ—r of Fact But here I would desire to know what Angel from Heaven reveal'd this Doctrin to him Suppose in the case of the two Disciples at Emmaus that our Saviour had vanished out of their sight before he brake bread might he not hâ—ve told them afterwards that it was He who had appeared to them in a disguise without overthrowing all the certainty of Faith where matters to be believed depend upon matter of Fact St. Chrysostome above cited I am sure was of another mind in the very point of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament when he bids us obey God in that mystery though what he say seem to contradict our thoughts and eyes And so was St. Cyril too when he exhorts Christians not to consider it as naked Bread and Wine for it 〈…〉 Blood of Christ according to the words of Christ himself And although sense do suggest this to theâ— viz. that it is Bread yet let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the thing by thy tast but know and hold for most certain that this Bread which is seen of us is not Bread though the tast judge it to be Bread but the Body of Christ and that the Wine which is seen by us although it seem Wine to the sense of tasting notwithstanding is not Wine but the Blood of Christ This is what these Holy Fathers teach in this matter and with great reason for as God is not only God of the Hills but also of the Valleys So is he God not onâ—y of our Reason but of our Senses also And if the Antidote his Goodness hath prâ—scrib'd to Cure our Corrupt Nature be prepared in such a manner as requires the captivating of our Sense as well as of our Understanding who shall question either his Wisdome or Power He hath said This is my Body though it appear to us to be bread And this being but one Exception from the General Rule of Sensation why that should overthrow all certainty of Faith more than so many exceptions as the Trinity and other Mysteries lay upon the General Rules of our Reasoning I leave to all Men of sense and Reason to judge O but this is the strangest of Miracles and Miracles ought to be the objects of sense I grant it of such Miracles as are done for the Conversion of Unbelievers but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those who believe already And for these it is enough that Christ hath said It is his Body They know very well the danger of not believing him more than their senses And that others may know it also I shall set it before them in the words of St. Epiphanius no less than 1300. Years ago We see saith he speaking of the Blessed Sacrament that It is neither equal nor like in proportion or Image to his Flesh to the Invisible Deity to the lineaments of a Body for this is of a round forme and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Thus much to the Doctors Principles of Sense and Reason Let us now see what he says against the Grounds and Motives of Transubstantiation CHAP. V. A Check to the Doctor 's bigg words against the Grounds of Transubstantiation with a new Example of reporting faithfully as he calls it the Words and Sense of an Author § 1. TO show there are not the same Grounds and Motives for Christs presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as for his Divinity my Adversary instances in Three 1. The Authority of the Roman Church 2. Catholick Tradition 3. Scripture And for the first of these Viz. The Authority of the Roman Church if it have any at all it stands against the Doctor for Transubstantiation and that so evidently that he is forced to take the confidence p. 130. utterly to deny that to be any ground of believing at all For my part I believe every sober Person of his own Party will judge he had much better have said nothing at all And I cannot but think how St. Austin who calls the Chair of Peter that Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome and professes that the Principality of the Apostolick Chair did always conserve its vigour in the Roman Church would have startled to hear one single Doctor so pertly deny it to be any Ground at all of believing How St. Hierome who writing to Pope Damasus saith I know that upon this Rock the Church is built and whosoever eateth the Lamb out of this House is Prophane c. would have whetted his stile more against him for denying her Authority to be any Ground of believing at all than ever he did against Vigilantius for deriding Invocation of Saints Veneration of Relicks or Lighting Candles at Noon-Day in the Church c. And how St. Irenaeus would have excluded him out of the Society of Christians for this peremptory behaviour when he affirms it necessary for all other Churches convenire to have recourse and agree with the Roman by reason of its more eminent Principality That this was the Dignity and Prerogative of the Roman Church in the time of these Holy Fathers the Doctor himself cannot deny and if he pretend she is fallen from the Purity she then enjoyed it is but what the Donatists his Predecessors in this point said above twelve hundred years ago when as St. Austin tells us they call'd the Apostolick Chair the Chair of Pestilence because it oppos'd their Novelities
unparallell'd fondness of this Comparison there needs no more than to appeal to any married man for his Opinion in the case viz. Whether he think it a matter of like Resentment to find his Wife kissing his Picture as it hangs at her Breast as to surprize her in Bed with a Friend of his though never so like him Some things done out of respect are very well taken and cannot in reason be otherwise by the Person for whose sake the respect is given of this kind I take the wearing of her Husbands Picture to be in a Wiâ—e or her being kind though not too kind to his Friend for his sake But others there are which would be very ill taken though pretended to be done with never so much respect And of this kind I suppose it would be to give the Honour of her Husbands Bed to another though never so like him No man surely well in his Senses can look upon these two with an equal Concern And yet if the Doctor will make his Comparison hold good he must prove the whole state of married Mankind do or ought to do so At least to infer any thing against us he must shew it not possible to give any Honour or Respect even inferiour to the Image of Christ for his sake For if this be possible it will follow that as in a Chaste Wife it is a laudable expression of the Honour and Respect she bears her Husband to kiss his Picture or wear it near her Heart So it will be no less in a Christian towards Christ to give an Honourary Respect â—o his Image for his sake God indeed hath declared himself as the Doctor saith particularly jealous of his Honour in this Commandment that he will not give his Glory to another but hath reserved all Divine Worship as peculiar to himself but where hath he declared that we may not â—estifie the giving Him Divine Worship by kissing his Image or the Books of the H. Gospels or other things relating to Him The Object of Jealousie is a Rival or what hath relation to or union with him not what may serve to express Affection and Respect to the Person who ought to be loved And therefore a Jealous Husband will neither permit his Wife to admit his Rival into her Company nor his Picture into her Closet yet never thinks her an Adulteress for carrying his own in her â—osom The Images which the Precept supposeth were as Mr. Thorndike saith the Representations of other Gods which his people were wont to commit Idolatry with And the Doctor though in the Reply I challeng'd him to do it neither hath nor can produce any Prohibition of giving to the Images of Christ and his Saints a relative Respect oâ— Worship for his sake And in case he could yet that I hope would prove it no more to be Idolatry in a Christian to kiss for example the Image of Christ crucified than it would be Adultery in a Wife out of respect to her Husband though he should forbid it to kiss his Picture Disobedience there might be in either case but Idolatry or Adultery in neither § 2. Having prepared his Reader with so just a Comparison and told him by the by of the distinction of Absolutely and Relatively being very subtilly applied in Scotland to saying the Lords Prayer to a Saint which in reality needed no such distinction as signifying no more than saying the Pater Noster to God with an intention directed to such or such a Saint to desire him to become Joynt-Petitioner with us for what we beg in it He wonders in the next place p. 101. very much we stick at any kind of Worship to be done to Images For his part were he of our mind he should as little scruple offering up the Host to an Image as saying his prayers to it and he doubts not to come off with the same distinctions For if I do it saith he to God absolutely and for himself and to the Image onely improperly and relatively wherein am I to blame This is his Discourse and the Reader may observe in it 1. That he hath not read or at least takes no notice that the answer in the ordinary Catholick Catechism to the Question Whether we may pray to Images is a down-right No by no means and that the Council of Trent Sess 25. hath declared that we are not to ask any thing of an Image Let the Reader judge whether this were ignorance or no. 2. That he cannot contain himself any where within bounds of Mediocrity but must always run into extreams which side soever he take He cannot be a Church-of-England-man but with the Presbyterians he must deny Episcopacy to be of Divine Right and any honour to be due to the Eucharist or Altar c. Neither will he be a Papist without offering up the Host and saying his prayers to an Image So that if He become a Proselyte He cannot content Himself with the Common Idolatry of the Papists in kissing or putting off their Hats to the Images of Christ but will needs make Himself twice a greater Idolater than they are How much He would be to blame in so doing He will better understand when He is become a Proselyte In the mean time it may suffice Him to know that the Church of God hath no such custom for however the material action of Sacrifice may be done for several ends and intentions yet when it proceeds from an intention to profess a total submission of our selves to God as the Supream Author of Life and Death which gives it the formality of a Sacrifice it is used and taken by the publick Use and Custom of the Church for an acknowledgement of the absolute Worship due to God and not of Relative to an Image and that more especially in offering up the Host that is the Body and Blood of Christ the true Christian Sacrifice the Nature and Dignity whereof requireth that it be offered to God alone As for the Rule of St. Basil upon which he would ground his Practise and which I quoted very sincerely though he craftily insinuate the contrary to the Reader viz. That the Worship of the Image is carried to the Prototype Mr. Thorndike hath told him very well that what Signs of Honour or Ceremonies the Publick Worship of God may require the Church is at freedom to determin and so onely such expressions of Honour are to be given to Images as the Church allows What therefore I should advise him were I worthy and would he be of our mind should be to lay aside what the Apostle calls languishing about Questions and strife of Words and as a Modern Author phrases it to use Ecclesiastical good manners to the H. Images of Christ and his Saints and say his prayerâ— and offer Sacrifice as other Catholicks do to God alone â—t is Duty and Discretion in things we cannot understand to follow the Apostle's Rule Sapere ad sobrietatem to be wise unto
defined by the Pope who is Head of the Church Others require the concurrence of a General Council and that this General Council be wholly confirmed by the Pope and doth proceed in the way of a Council Yet I am sure that none of these are wanting in the point of Transubstantiation For it hath been defined long ago both by Popes and Councils and received as lawfully defined by the whole Church Catholick that our Lord Christ is truly and really present in the Sacrament by the conversion of the Elements into his Body and Blood and therefore for any thing the Doctor hath said in this matter I may securely give the same proper divine worship to him there which is due to his Person without fear of Idolatry § 3. But because the Doctor professes that the end why he took this way was a hope he had that it would abundantly add to the discovering the disparity between the worship given to the Person of Christ and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation I shall in the next Place show how he hath failed of this End and there will need no more to do it but to suppose a Socinian to take up his own argument and retort it upon him in the point of the worship of Christ as God And if he approve not my Answer for good it will be expected from him to give a better Behold then a Socinian proposing the argument in Dr. St.'s own Mood and Figure The chimes now ring all in to Church where I must give the same divine worship to Christ as to the Eternal Father But stay saith the Socinian how can I be secure that the Object is such as deserves divine worship If I should chance to believe my senses and hearken to my reason which can discover nothing in him but his Humanity I become an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad man Again if I consider the miraculous union of the Divine and Humane Nature in one Person it seems more strange to me that Man should be God than what the Papists say that Bread should be converted into his Body Must I rely on the bare words of Christ I and the Father are One but I am told by no less a Man than St. Peter that there are certain things in Scripture hard to be understood which the unlearned and unstable deprave to their own perdition and therefore it must needs be dangerous for me to be too confident of the sense of it in so difficult a point I have heard there have been great disputes concerning the meaning of those words among the Primitive Christians And What a case am I in then if those words do not prove it Must I have recourse for the interpretation of them to the unanimous consent of the Fathers Alas what relief is this to my anxious mind For I see the World is full of disputes concerning the sense of their words as well as the Scriptures And I have heard of a late Author one Christophorus Sandius who in a Set-Treatise contends that the greatest part of those Fathers who are esteemed Orthodox deny the Son to be consubstantially One with the Father In this great confusion what ground of certainty have I to stand upon whereby to secure my mind from the Commission of a great sin While I am in this Labyrinth behold a kind Catholick offers to give me case and tells me these are doubts and scruples I ought not to trouble my self about The Authority of the present Church is sufficient for me But how shall I know what he means by the Authority of the present Church For I find Catholicks themselves are not agreed about that neither May I be sure if the Pope who is Head of the Church say it No not unless he defines it But may I be sure then No not unless a General Council concur But may I be sure if a General Council determins it Yes if it be confirmed wholly by the Pope and doth proceed in the way of a Council But how is it possible for me to judge of that when the intrigues of actions are so secret I see then if this or any of these be the only way of satisfaction I must forbear giving the same adoration to Christ as to the Father or be guilty of Idolatry in doing it Behold here the Doctor 's argument return'd upon himself and if it have any force against the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist it must have the same against the worship of Him as God And what a case is Christianity in if it depend upon his solving his own Argument But his scruples are not yet at an End CHAP. III. Of Dr. St.'s Scruple about the Host's not being consecrated for want of Intention in the Priest and His mistake of the true Reason of giving Adoration to Christ in the Sacrament § 1. THe Doctor 's next Scruple is about the Priest's Intention or rather not Intention to Consecrate and I confess I never met with any Man so unevenly scrupulous as he is that is so resolute in some cases were he of our mind as in saying his Prayers to the Sun and offering up the Host to an Image and yet so timorous in others as in this of not daring to adore Christ himself were he of our mind in the Point of Transubstantiation as supposed present in the Sacrament for fear the Host should not be consecrated through defect or malice of the Priest Suppose saith he p. 123. I am satisfied in the Point of Transubstantiation by which you see he set himself to fight against it at the same time that he told us he would suppose it it is not enough for me to know in general that there is such a change but I must believe particularly that very Bread to be changed so which I am to worship And by what means can I be sure of that It is a very evil thing to be troubled with too many scruples While the mind is perplexed with them the tongue runs unawares into Contradictions What is it else to say that he is to worship that very Bread which he must believe to be changed What common sense will charge him to honour that which he must believe not to be there This hath a relish of the old Leaven that Catholicks believe the Bread to be God And I see a custome of any thing though it be self-contradiction will turn by degrees into a second nature But to let this pass and attend to his scruple Here he would seem to return again to his former supposition of a like divine Revelation for Christ's Presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as for his being true God but in reality he does but seem to do it For from his whole discourse p. 111. c. where he supposes the same divine Revelation for Transubstantiation as for Christ's Divinity it is evident he speaks not only of Transubstantiation in general but also in particular What
divine ought abstractedly considered to have any true divine honour given it And what will he infer from hence That therefore he cannot be satisfied that he hath sufficient reason for giving true divine honour to the humane nature of Christ considered alone or abstractedly in the Sacrament Much good may it do him But what is this to the purpose Do Catholicks adore the Humanity of Christ alone or abstractedly in the Sacrament Do they separate or abstract in their minds and thoughts his Body from his Person when they adore him there No more than the Wise-men did when they adored him in the Manger or the Apostles when they adored him after his Resurrection Or than he is adored now at the right hand of his Father All those Precisions and Considerations the Doctor speaks of are only in the Heads of the Schoolmen when they are disputing not in the minds of Christians when they are adoring The Object they adore whether in the Sacrament or out of it is the only-begotten Son of God made Man without separating or abstracting one nature from another any more than we do the King's Body from his Soul when we worship him And as Mr. Thorndike very well observes whosoever proposeth not to himself the consideration of the Body and Blood of Christ as it is of it self and in it self a meer Creature which he that doth not on purpose cannot do cannot but conceive it as he believes it to be being a Christian And consequently the primary reason of his adoration is the divinity there present I but says the Doctor when I worship Christ as in the Sacrament I must worship him there upon the account of his bodily presence for I have no other reason to worship him in the Sacrament but because his Body is present in it And what may this mean Have the Niceties and Precisions of the Schools so perplex'd his understanding that he hath lost the very first Notions of Christianity Is it not Christ's Body Are they not the very words of Christ This is my Body And is not Christ true God How comes it to pass then that he hath no other reason to worship him in the Sacrament but because his Body is present in it This indeed is the reason why his Divinity as hypostatically united to his Humane Nature is present in the Sacrament but the reason of his being adored there is his Divinity and not his Body Philosophy tells us that it is one thing that makes a Man to be in a place and another that makes him to be worshipped in that place and yet he would not be worshipped there for this latter unless he were present by vertue of the former The speculation may not seem so clear to such as are not vers'd in the Schools but an example will make it plain There is a Preacher in the World much admired and honoured by his Party in the Pulpit That which makes him to be present there or is the reason of his presence there is his Quantity or Bodily Dimensions but what he is admired for and honoured is his Wit his Eloquence his Zeal against Papists c. These are the Qualities for which I hear he is applauded and I easily believe it But if my Adversaries discourse be good whom I take to have as much Eloquence and to be of as subtil a wit and of as flaming a Zeal as the other I must tell his Admirers they are in a very great Errour as to the reason of their admiration and I doubt not but to make it appear upon his own Principles For I find it generally agreed by all the old Philosophers and by the Doctors also at present of both Universities that Quantity or corporal dimension considered alone ought not to have civil worship given to it and I find it very uncertain whether the Body it self though united to the Soul ought abstractedly considered to have any true civil honour given it But I am most certain that the only reason why he is present in the Pulpit is his Quantity or Bodily dimensions Therefore if they will honour or admire him in the Pulpit it must be upon the account of his bodily presence or corporal dimensions and not for those other great parts and abilities for which they have hitherto admired him in that place for if they consider well they have no other reason to honour him as in the Pulpit but because his Body is present in it And I am of Opinion that if any thing can cure them of their Error it will be the Parallel Argument he brings against the worship of Christ in the Sacrament Viz. that because worship must be given him there upon the account of his bodily presence as the condition why his divinity as united with his humane Nature is there present Therefore his Bodily Presence and not his Divinity united to it must be the reason of adoration As for what he adds p. 127. That supposing Transubstantiation his Divinity should be there in a particular manner present to no End I suppose he means by that particular manner the hypostatical union with his humane nature wherever it is And doth it not well become a Master in Israel to affirm that such a presence of the Divinity would be to no end when and where himself supposes the Body of Christ to be really and substantially present There wants but one step more to deny that the hypostatical union of the Divine Nature to the Humane was necessary at all either for Christ's offering himself upon the Cross or now at the right hand of his Father for although the Ceremony of offering him upon the Altar be performed by the Priest yet Christ himself is there also both Offerer and Oblation Priest and Victim as the Fathers teach S. Greg. Niss Orat. 1. de Resurr S. Ambr. in Ps 31. 1. Chrysost Ho. 24. in 1. ad Cor. Well but the Divinity of Christ makes not the least manifestation of it self in the Sacrament to our carnal senses And must this hinder us from giving him the worship due to his Person Is it not enough that we know Him to be there by divine Revelation as the Doctor at present supposes we do What other manifestation had the Divinity of Christ made of it self to the Baptist when before the appearing of the Holy Ghost he refused to Baptize him An evident sign that he reverenc'd him as the Son of God Matth. 3. 13 14. Did not our Saviour himself when St. Peter confessed him to be Christ the Son of the living God declare that Flesh and Blood had not revealed this to him but his Father which is in Heaven And upon that very account pronounce Him Blessed Matt. 16. 17. But it seems the Blessing is now revers'd and instead of Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have believed Jo. 20. 29. We must now say Blessed are they who will not believe unless they see Dr. St. p. 561. n. 5. And what will
not content to make a God of This Both Passible and Mortal Jesus try To thrust Him into one substantial knot With his Eternal sire who Him begot 228 Two yet not Two but One these Two must be Nay and a Third into the knot they bring The Spirit must come in to make up Three And yet these Three be but one single Thing Thus fast and loose they play or ev'n and odd And We a juggling Trick must have for God 229 If God be One then let Him be so still Why jumble we we know not what together Did all the World not know their God untill This old blind Age discover'd Him Did neither The Patriarks believe nor Prophets see Aright because They took not One for Three 231 Let Love and Duty make of Christ as high And Glorious a Thing as Wit can reach Provided that against the Deity No Injury nor Sacriledge they preach If only on such terms He lov'd may be Him to neglect is Piety say we And then a little after he concludes 234 For If your Faith relies on Men who are Themselves but founded and built up of dust If yoâ— by Reason's Rule disdain to square Yoâ—r Pâ—ety and take your God on Trust Which Heaven forbid You only are a Prize Unto Impostor's fair-tongu'd Fallacies Thus doth this Ingenious Person represent an Heretick in his true Colours arguing against the Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation upon the Principles with which Doctor St. 〈◊〉 the Doctrin of Transubstantiation aâ—d in terms so equivalent that the Dr. seems but to have resolv'd into Prose what the other wrote in Verse as may appear from this following Parallel 'T is Ignorance and Madness saith the Cerinthian Heretick to believe that God can be Three and One and that Christ is God Stanz 213. 220. 'T is Folly and Madness saith Dr. St. to believe Transubstantiation He becomes an Idolater by not being a Fool or a Mad-man p. 120. The Mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation are monstrous Prodigies of abused Faith saith the Cerinthian Stanz 213. Transubstantiation saith D. St. is so strange and sudden a change that he can hardly say that God becoming Man was so great a wonder as a little piece of bread becoming God p. 120. The Cerinthian affirms of the Trinity and Incarnation that they are against all reason and founded on Contradictions Stanz 214. Dr. St. affirms of Transubstantiation that it is absurd and for a Man to believe it he must swallow the greatest Contradictions to Sense and Reason Imaginable p. 130. In a word the Cerinthian makes his Sense and Reason to be the Rule of his Faith Stanz 234. And Dr. St. will believe nothing that seems to contradict them p. 561. Only the Cerinthian affirms the Doctrine of the Trinity and Incarnation to transcend Pagan-blasphemy which I do not see yet that Dr. St. â—ath ventured to say of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation Perhaps he will reply to this Parallel that the difficulties the Cerinthian objects against the Trinity and Incarnation are but seeming Contradictâ—ons but those in the Point of Transubstantiation are real ones but then he must grant according to his Principles that whilst they seem to be Contradictions they are not to be believed by those to whom they seem so that is by the unlearned who are the greatest part Or if they may notwithstanding believe those Mysteries they may much rather believe that of Transubstantiation since it seems a greater Contradiction that the very self same Nature should be whole and undivided in three distinct Persons than that the same Body should be in many places and that the Invisible Word should be made Flesh than that Bread should be converted into that Flesh How Dr. St. will extricate himself I know not but the way which Dr. Beaumont takes to secure the Soul from being startled with these seeming Contradictions is to introduce her Angel Guardian conducting her to Christ's Catholick Church the Ground and Pillar of Truth And upon this Ground it is For in his Preface he recants aforehand if any thing throughout the whole Poem should happen against his Intention to prove discord to the Consent of Christ's Catholick Church that he makes the Angel perswade his Pupil to contemn all the seeming Contradictions which crafty and subtil Wits object against the Real Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament if not against Transubstantiation it self And because the Book is not every where to be found as not having been so often Printed as Dr. St.'s because there is no Prophane Invective in it against the Persons and Lives of Gods Saints I shall venture to Transcribe another parcel of Verses out of it so proper to the present subject as if written on purpose by the Ingenious Author to crush in the Egg those secret workings of Atheism and Irreligion which the aforesaid Principle is apt to breed in the Wits of this Age under so colourable a pretence as that of not being fool'd out of their Sense and Reason 74 When Jesus by his Water cleansed had His Servant's Feet and by his Grace their Hearts Shewing what Preparation must be made By all who ever mean to have their Parts In his pure Banquet down he sits again And them with Miracles doth entertain And then having described the Institution of the Sacrament he goes on 81 Sweet Jesu O how can thy World forget Their Royal Saviour and his Bounty who Upon their Tables his own self hath set Who in their Holy Cups fails not to flow And in their Dishes lie Did ever Friend So sure a Token of his Love commend 82 Infallibly there dost Thou flow and lie Though mortal Eyes discover no such thing Quick-sighted Faith reads all the Mystery And humble Pious Souls doth easily bring Into the Wonder 's Cabinet and there Makes all the Jewels of this Truth appear 83 Shee generously dares on God rely And trust his Word how strange so e're it be If Jesus once pronounces This is my Body and Blood Far far be it cries she That I should think my dying Lord would cheat Me in his Legacy of Drink and Meat 84 His Word is most Omnipotent and He Can do what e're he says and more than I Can or would understand What is 't to me If He transcends Humane Capacity Surely it well becomes Him so to do Nor were He God if he could not do so 85 Let Him say what He will I must deny Him to be God or else believe His Word Me it concerneth not to verify What he proclaims I only must afford Meek Credit and let Him alone to make Good whatsoever He is pleas'd to speak 86 Gross and unworthy Spirits sure They be Who of their Lord such mean Conceptions frame That parting from his dearest Consorts He No Tokens of his Love did leave with Them But simple Bread and Wine a likely Thing And well-becoming Heavens Magnificent King 88 Ask me not then How can the Thing be done What power
Forb as this could pass for current in the World Is it possible he could have courage enough to cite the place where those words are to be found and not fear a Rat Observe I pray What St. Austin condemns in that place is this that some who brought Wine and Meat to the Sepulchers of the Martyrs took so plentifully of them that they made themselves drunk His words are these As for those who make themselves drunk at the Sepulchers of the Martyrs how can they be approved by us whom sound Doctrine condemns even when they do it in their own private Houses This was the custome of which St. Austin saith that the Governours of the Church did not teach it but bore with till it could be amended And the Doctor had the Conscience by a subtil Insinuation to make his Reader believe that what St. Austin condemned was the desiring or as he calls it wishing the Martyrs to pray for them I shall leave him to make satisfaction to God and the World and proceed to that which he calls the Question between us § 5. The Question between us saith he is not how far such wishes rather than prayers being uttered occasionally as St. Austin doth this to St. Cyprian but whether solemn Invocation of Saints in the duties of Religious Worship as it is now practised in the Roman Church were ever practised in St. Austin's time This he utterly denies and here saith he p. 174. we stand and fix our Foot against all opposition whatsoever Thus expiring Candle gathers up its spirits and forces it self into a blaze before it dies Alas that so many learned Men should all this while have been mistaken in the Question that they should have spent so much oyl and sweat to no purpose The great Question hitherto controverted between Catholicks and Protestants was held to be Whether it be lawful to Invocate the Saints to pray for Us and whether this were agreeable to the practise of the Primitive times But now like a mischievous Card that will spoil the hand this is dropt under the Table and all the show above-board is whether it may be done in the duties as he calls them of Religious Worship He saw how often his Foot had slipt whilst he endeavoured to stand upon the denial of its being the custome of the Fathers to desire the Saints to pray for them and therefore he catches hold of this Twigg to save himself but in vain for Bishop Forbes confesses that it was their custome to do so both in publick and private prayers although he be loath to give it any other name but that of wishing But Chemnitius That great Light of the German Church as our Doctor calls him in his Irenicum p. 396. where he sets him in the Van for asserting the mutability of Church-Government and of whom he saith Brightman had so high an Opinion as to make Him to be one of the Angels in the Churches of the Revelation this great Man without mincing the matter acknowledges freely that Invocation of Saints began to be brought into the publick Assemblies of the Church by Basil Nissen and Nazianzen who lived in the Century before St. Austin and could little doubt of the Continuance of it in St. Austin's time when he witnesseth that Christian People did then celebrate the Memories of the Martyrs with Religious Solemnity to obtain the Assistance of their Prayers But who can tell us what the Doctor means by the duties of Religious Worship If he mean hearing of Sermons which is so much cry'd up by those of his Party as if it were the Pro and Poop of Religion though the Author of the Causes of the Decay of Christian Piety Ch. 18. call it the most lazie of all Religious Offices he knows the Invocation of Saints was both commended and practised in their Sermons by St. Basil Hom. in 40. Mart. S. Greg. Nazianz. Orat. 20. 21. S. Greg. Nissen Orat. des Theodoro and others If he mean the Letanies although the use of them began to be more solemn in the time of Gregory the Great yet Strabo affirms that that form of Invocating the Saints was believed to be much more Ancient Viz. from the time that St. Hierom translated the Epitome of Eusebius his Martyrologe into Latin or as others explicate his meaning before that time but not in so great a number But then again if he speak of that Part of the Mass which was anciently called the Mass of the Catechumeni and serves as a Preparatory devotion both to Priest and People the Priest indeed before he ascends to the Altar desires the B. Virgin and the rest of the Saints as also the People to pray to our Lord God for him and in the Versicles between the Epistle and Gospel there are some Instances though very rare of Holy Mary or Holy Paul pray for us but as these are not excluded by St. Austin who speaks only of the Priest's directing his Invocation to God alone in the offering of the sacrifice so neither can the Doctor give any satisfactory Reason why the Priest may not lawfully use it then especially being appointed by the Church as in his private Oratory But if he mean that Part of the Mass which begins from the Offertory and was anciently call'd the Mass of the Faithful in which the Priest addresses himself expresly to Offer up the sacrifice of the New Testament which Christ hath Instituted in his own Body and Blood Let him if he can for he saith he hath look'd into our Missals produce any one Instance of Formal Invocation to any Saint or Angel There they are named at this day as they were in St. Austin's time in their place and Order but are not Invocated by the Priest that Sacrifices So that in this which is the most proper and peculiar duty of Religious Worship as I have shown in the 3d. Chap. it was accounted by St. Austin there is a most perfect Conformity between the Primitive and Modern Church and the difference in other less solemn parts of Devotion not at all material as hath been shewed § 6. In the last place p. 174. the Doctor saith He is sent from S. Austin to Calvin whose Authority though never owned as Infallible by Him he need not as he saith fear in this point and therefore the Errand if he will have it so could not be ungrateful I may well think his heart leap'd for joy to hear Calvin alledged for a witness that it was the custome in St. Austin's time to say Holy Peter pray for Us and thereupon as if the day were his own he says He cannot but wonder that if I saw the words in Calvin or Bellarmin that I would produce them But hold Have not I more Reason to wonder at his wonder if it be true what Himself makes Calvin to say Viz. That the Council of Carthage did forbid praying to Saints lest the publick prayers should be corrupted by such kind