his Service although he forbad them to make the likeness of any of those things he had created to worship them for Gods yet he commanded Moses Exod. 25. 10 17 18. to place in the Temple where they were to worship him a representation of his Footstool and Throne the Ark and the Propitiatory with two Cherubins of beaten Gold attending on each side of the Seat to raise their thoughts to a more venerable apprehension of his Majesty and Greatness Lastly the fulness of time being come in which he would shew the excess of his mercy towards Mankind he was pleased as S. Paul saith Phil. 2. 7. to take upon him the form of a Servant and be made in the likeness of Man that is to become indeed true Man not onely to work our Redemption by shedding his most precious Blood but also by that visible form as the Church sings upon the day of his Nativity to carry or rather ravish our hearts to the contemplation of his Invisible Deity Ut dum visibiliter Deum cognoscimus per hunc ad invisibilia rapiamur And if this were the means made choice of by God himself as most efficacious because most connatural to conduct us to the knowledge and love of Him then certainly the Pictures or Images of his Nativity Passion Resurrection c. which serve to put us in mind of what he did and suffered for us in that form of a Servant cannot but conduce very much to work the like effects in us And after all this can any man not to use his own phrase in his Senses but who is serious ask What can such an Image do to the heightning of Devotion or raising Affections S. Gregory Nissen says of himself Orat. de Deitate Filii Spiritus Sancti That he often beheld but never without Tears the Picture of Abraham ready to sacrifice his Son Isaac though but a repâ—esentation onely of a Type of the Son of God upon the Altar of the Cross And can any man whose heart is not of Stone behold attentively the Image of his dying Saviour himself with his Hands and Feet Nailed to the Cross and not be touched with a sense of Devotion towards Him Surely he must have lost the notion of Humane Nature who can soberly affirm that the making such an Image with respect to His Worship tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship unless to remember that he dyed for us be to think meanly and dishonourably of him But whither will not a Resolution to maintain an Errour once espoused hurry the subtillest Wit The Doctor 's eagerness to make us Idolaters had made him fancy that where God forbids to give his Worship to Idols he forbad to make any Image with respect to his own Worship and this forced him for I cannot believe he did it without force to his own thoughts to assert that an Image can do nothing to the heightning of Devotion or raising Affections If he think I strain his words too far though no farther than what his discourse gives me cause to do let him vindicate himself by professing candidly that the Images of Christ according to his Humane Nature may serve to raise our Affections and heighten our Devotion to him as God But then he must renounce the patronage of his Constantinopolitan Fathers and retract or answer his own Reason that if this be done by calling to our mind the Being we are to worship there must be supposed some Likeness or Analogy or Union between the Object represented and the Image every one of which tends highly to the dishonour of the Deity and suggests mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship and particularly that among Christians nothing can tend more effectually to it than the bringing down the representations of him to the figure and lineaments of a man drawn upon a Table or carved upon an Image But what ought we not to do to free our selves from Mistake much more from Errour The Mistake at present if I may give it so gentle a name lies in this That he considers not that if one thing hath connexion with or analogy to another although Invisible when the former is represented to a Person that understands the analogy or connexion there is between them it is apt to bring to his remembrance the later Hence it is that although the Soul of man cannot be drawn in colours yet when the Body to which it is united is represented in Picture the Representation serves as a means to bring to our minds the Perfections or Graces of the Soul which informs it and not to bring them down as against Nature and Experience he aâ—firms to the figure and lineaments of a Body drawn upon a Table or carved in an Image Had the rest of Mortals been imbued with this Principle they had never caused either their Pictures or Images to be made lest they might be occasion to their Friends from whom they expected Love and Honour to entertain too lâ—w and unworthy thoughts of them Much less ought Princes to permit any Chair of State to be placed in the Presencâ— Chamber for fear of bringing down the representations of them to the uncouth figure of four or five sticks put awkwardly together But this is not all § 3. On this account he saith p. 59. it seems much more reasonable for him to worship God by prostrating himself before the Sun or any of the Heavenly Bodies nay to an Ant or a Fly than to a Picture or an Image And I have more kindness for him if he should do it than to suppose him therefore as he supposes himself p. 70. to be a Heathen Idolater unless he take the Sun for a God Philosophy and Experience having given me so much insight into the nature of humane actions as to know they go whither they are intended and Religion so much Charity as to believe his intent was onely to worship the true God by it But why does it seem much more reasonable for him to worship God by prostrating to the Sun nay to an Ant or a Fly than to a Picture or an Image The reason he says is because in those he sees great evidences of the Power and Wisdom and Goodness of God which may suggest venerable apprehensions of God to his mind so then now it seems that analogy doth not always tend highly to the dishonour of the Deity nor suggest mean thoughts to us of the God we are to worship whereas a Picture or an Image can have nothing worthy admiration unless it be the Skill of the 〈…〉 If this be the reason he ought in my Judgment to have given the precedence to the Ant and the Fly or to the Ape the Ass and the Tyger brought in by him in a former comparison for all these have two degrees of Perfection beyond the Sun viz. Life and Sense If the danger be that he is more like
present in his Ascension after he was intercepted from his Disciples sight by a Cloud Was he not so present before he opened the Eyes of the two blind Men who sate by the way side Matth. 20. 30. And is he not believed by all Christians to be so present at the right hand of his Father And might none of these worship him because they could not see him If he pretend a difference in the cases because in all them he was the Object of sense either before or after but as he exists in the Sacrament he can be no Object of sense he must grant his presence there to be a matter of pure Revelation and so falls upon the other edge of his distinction that in matters of pure Revelation where the matter proposed to our Faith can be no Object of sense there firm credit is to be given to the divine Revelation and worship also suitable to his presence But to go one step further In case a thing be knowable by evidence of sense May it not also be made known by Divine Revelation And will not God's Revelation ascertain us as well if not much better than our Eyes Who saw the World rise out of nothing No less a Philosopher than Aristotle not to speak of others held it never had any beginning And yet what Christian does not believe it had more firmly upon the account of God's Revelation than if he had been present in some corner of the spatium Imaginarium and beheld the foundation of it with his Eyes Upon the whole then which way soever the Doctor turn himself unless he will maintain what he seems indeed to suppose all along in this discourse that we are to give more credit to our sense then to God's revealed word he must confess that wherever there is a Divine Revelation of Christ's presence which at present he supposes in the Sacrament there is the same if not greater Reason to believe and worship him than if he saw him as clearly as the Wise-men did in the Manger or the Thief upon the Cross And consequently that he was but too too Prodigal in granting that supposing a like Divine Revelâ—â—ion for Christ's presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as for his being true God yet there would not be the same reason to worship him there as when he dwelt visibly among us All that he could devise to elude the Parallel argument I urged from the Pen of an Arrian Viz. that the Argument he brings to conclude Catholicks to be Idolaters for their adoration of Christ in the Eucharist would be of as much force from the Arrians against the adoration of him as God All I say he could devise to elude this argument with standing to the true state of the Question and supposing as he does a like divine Revelation for both was to say there was not an express command to worship him in the Eucharist which how pitiful an Evasion it is I have shewed above And yet as pitiful as it is it may serve well enough to make an unwary Reader believe he concludes all the Papists in the World Idolaters for worshipping our Lord Christ himself in the Sacrament But why it should do so when nothing less than an express Prohibition could make them Idolaters in the matter of Images I cannot imagin § 6. The Second Proof he brings to show that Supposing a like divine Revelation for Christ's being present in the Sacrament as for his being true God yet there is not the same reason of adoration is p. 112. because the One he saith gives us a sufficient reason of our Worship viz. his Divinity but the other doth not because all that He can believe then present supposing Transubstantiation is the Body of Christ and that is not the Object of our Adoration But this is altogether as weak as the former for however that be all he can believe and more than he does believe God encrease his Faith yet Catholicks believe much more viz. that together with his Body in the Eucharist are present his Soul his Person his Divinity in a word whole Christ and to his Person it is they terminate their worship as hypostatically united with his Body For as the Dr. himself saith very well p. 114. although the humane nature of Christ of it self can yield us no sufficient reason of adoration yet being considered as united to the Divine Nature that cannot hinder the same Divine Worship being given to his Person which belongs to his Divine Nature any more than the Robes of a Prince can take off from the honour due unto him To elude this Answer for now his chiefest hope consists in seeking out ways to escape instead of rejoining to it upon the supposition of Transubstantiation he falls to dispute down-right against Transubstantiation it self where he tells the Reader that this Answer of Christ's Body being hypostatically united with the Divine Nature is indeed a good argument to prove the Body of Christ cannot be there by Transubstantiation And I desire the Reader to be very attentive to the argument as it is propos'd by the Doctor for otherwise perhaps it may cost him the labour of a second reading If the Bread saith he p. 113. be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature then the Conversion is not meerly into the Body but into the Person of Christ and then Christ hath as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements consecrated and so all the accidents of the Bread belong to that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature Therefore the Body of Christ cannot be in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation This is his argument which he calls a Good One. I am sure I may call it a sublime One and so sublime that there wants only an Adversary of the same humour with Mr. J. S.'s to set it out for a notable piece of new Mystical Divinity For I do verily believe that neither Harphius nor Rusbrochius nor the profound Mother Juliana have any thing in their writings so seemingly un intelligible and contradictory as this discourse of the Doctor 's is really such For beside the hard words of hypostatical union consecrated Elements Conversion into the Person of Christ c. which quite put down Mr. J. S.'s vulgar ones of Potentiality Actuality Actuation supervene subsume c. First He will have it to be the same Body because it is that Body which is hypostatically united with the divine nature Then he will have it not to be the same Body because Christ would have as many Bodies as there are Elements consecrated And then again it must be the same Body because all the Accidents of Bread belong to that Body which is hypostatically united with the Divine Nature But this way of refining a discourse into Mystical Divinity is proper only to confute demonstrations and the argument I have to deal with is so far from that
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
doth sanctifie a place to so high a degree that we may lawfully testifie our reverence towards it and yet that presence or union is not equal to that of the Divine Nature of Christ with his Humane It is not onely Union but Representation also that may occasion Worship and so we see the King is worshipped by his Picture as representing him though it have not so close an union with his Soul as his Body hath But what sticks in the Doctors mind if I mistake not is how Christ God and Man can be worshipped by an Image which represents him onely according to his Humane Nature To this I have spoken already in the fifth Chapter and himself may satisfie his Reader in the point by telling him how the King who consists of Soul and Body can be worshipped by a Picture which represents him onely according to the Lineaments of his Body § 7. In the fourth place his Constantinopolitan-Fathers urge that If the Humane Nature of Christ be represented in the Image of Christ to be worshipped as separate from the Divine this would be plain Nestorianism And what says Epiphanius to this That never any man well in his wits when he saw the Picture of a man thought that the Painter by drawing him had divided his Soul from his Body that is that he had not onely drawn the man but hang'd and quarter'd him too Was ever time so fondly mispent as in proposing and refuting such pitiful kind of Sophistry as this of the Doctors Constantinopolitan-Fathers And yet He says the Good Nicen Fathers where he means by Good what he meant before by Wise not knowing what to answer deny the Conclusion and cry They Nestorians No. They lie in their Teeth Thus He. But what the Nicen Fathers answered like Good men and True was this that though the Images of Christ like other Images represent onely the external Lineaments of his Humane Nature yet when they look upon them they understand nothing but what is signified by them For example When he is represented as born of the Virgin which is I suppose what the Doctor means by the Birth of the Virgin p. 81. what they conceive in their Minds is not his Humane Nature as separated from the Divine but one Emmanuel true God and Man and therefore were far enough from bâ—ing guilty of Nestorianism in the use of Images Here the Doctor cries out Alas for them that they should ever be charged with the Worship of Images who plead for nothing now but a Help to their profound Meditations by them And may not I much better say Alas for him who if they Worshipped the same which they conceived in their Minds could not see their Worship which is an Act of the Will must be as free from Nestorianism as their Understanding But he had had nothing to reply if he had not thrust in those Words of his own to be Worshipped as separate from the Divine Nature For they are not in the Objection as it stands Recorded in the Council However they signifie little to his purpose because the Will is carried to the Prototype as it is conceived in the Understanding nor doth it give to the Image tâ—e Worship due to the Principal because the Image is not Worshipped at all for its own sake but for the Principal 's § 8. The Fifth Argument which he makes his Constantinopolitan Fathers produce is from the Institution of the Eucharist which they call Christs Image because instituted in Commemoration of him And whereas he said Do this in remembrance of Me He did as it were tell them That no other Figure or Representation under Heaven was chosen by Him as able to represent His being in the Flesh This they say was an HONOURABLE Image of his Quickning BODY made by Himself which he would not have of the shape of a Man to prevent Idolatry And as the Body of Christ was really sanctified by the Divine Nature so this Holy Image is by Adoption Deified or made Divine through sanctification of Grace This is the sense of the Argument to which Epiphanius answers that from the Fury they were possess'd with against the making of Images they were driven into another madness of calling the Eucharist an Image contrary to the Scriptures and Fathers And the Doctor knows that it is a sufficient Answer to an absurd Objection to shew that the Objector was driven to run into an Absurdity to maintain his Cause What the Constantinopolitans would have inferr'd from thence was that because Christ as They asserted made the Eucharist an Image of his Body therefore no other Image might be made or Worshipped But this They did not but left it perhaps as too hard a Task for Themselves to be undertaken by so Great an Admirer of Them and their Doctrine as my Adversary and at his Door it lies Onely he is desired to bear in mind against a fit season that the Eucharist with Them is an HONOURABLE IMAGE made by Christ Himself and therefore if he will not desert his Leaders he must give honour to it nay Divine Honour because although his Beloved Constantinopolitans call the EUCHARISTICAL BREAD an IMAGE yet they confess it in the same place to be NO FALSE IMAGE of Christs Natural Flesh but by virtue of the Priestly Consecration it is made his Divine Body § 9. In the sixth and last place he jumbles together no less than Eight Arguments or rather Bare Assertions of his Constantinopolitan Fathers all which Epiphanius denies and refutes as frivolous and false as any one may see who either considers the Objections in themselves or will take the pains to read the Answers to them at large in the sixth Action of the Council of Nice Which though my Adversary call weak and trivial yet it is no sign he thought them so when he omitted to set them down CHAP. VIII The Doctors Objection from the Council of Frankford examined and shewn to be no Advantage to his Cause § 1. AFter the matter of the Veneration due to Holy Images had been discussed and defined as you have seen in the second General Council of Nice the Doctor fearing that his Irony of that Wise Synod would not stick fast enough unless backed with a greater Authority than his own tells his Reader that it was condemned by the Council at Francford called together by Charles the Great Anno 794. He should have added By the Command of the Apostolick See as it is in Hinâ—marus but that had been an apparent disadvantage to his Cause and therefore better left out Nevertheless the fact it self he looks upon as an apparent advantage to it And thereupon he endeavours to show by many Conjectures that the Fathers at Francford did expresly reject the Council of Nice and that not out of misunderstanding its Doctrine as some rashly he saith imagine but that really they intended to condemn the Doctrine it self there defined His proofs are p. 84. Because the Acts of that Council
that it carries not the show of a Probability For if the Bread be converted into that Body of Christ which is hypostatically united with the divine nature and not meerly into that but into the Person of Christ does it follow that he hath as many Bodies hypostatically united to him as there are Elements consecrated No more than because the Bread the Flesh the Fish which he eat upon Earth were converted into the substance of his Body and hypostatically united to him it follows that he had as many bodies hypostatically united to him as there were several meats eaten by him Before Digestion or Conversion they were distinct by Conversion they were made the same body But if this will not serve the turn he wants not a false supposition to blind his Reader with Viz. that we make the Elements i.e. the Accidents of Bread for we we will have nothing else remain after Consecration in spight he says of all the reason and sense of the World the Object of divine worship But the falsity of this supposition I shall make appear in the next Chapter together with his mistake if it be no more of the meaning of the Council of Trent CHAP. II. The true State of the Controversy laid open together with the Doctor 's Endeavours to misrepresent it His manner of arguing against the Adoration of Christ in the Eucharist equally destructive to the adoration of Him as God § 1. IN pursuance of his former design my Adversary will now undertake p. ii4 to prove yet further that upon the Principles of the Roman Church no Man can be assured that he doth not commit Idolatry every time he gives adoration to the Host And this he hopes will abundantly add to the discoâ—ering of the disparity between the worship given to the Person of Christ and that which is given to the Eucharist upon supposition of Transubstantiation But before he can come to this he must needs mistake or rather mis-state the Controversy which he does in most ample manner when after a great many Preambles for three whole Pages together no more to the purpose than the Flourishes of a great Text-letter are to the force of a Bond he tells the Reader at length that the state of the Controversy between us is whether proper divine worship may be given to the Elements i. e. the Accidents on account of Christ's corporal presence under them But whatever Divines dispute concerning the Worship of the Accidents the Object of Catholicks Adoration as Dr. Taylor ingenuously confesses Viz. What is represented to them in their mind their thoughts and purposes in the B. Sacrament is the only true and Eternal God hypostatically joined with his Holy Humanity And consequently the Question between us is Whether supposing our Lord Christ to be really present under the Sacramental signs the same proper divine worship be not to be given to him there which is due to his Person wherever it is present by hypostatical union with his sacred Humanity Let the Doctor do thus and we have no quarrel with him which is an evident sign that the Question between us is not as he says whether the same Adoration ought to be given to the Accidents which we would give to the very Person of Christ But what may not be venture to say who had the confidâ—nce to advance so notorious a calumny as that it is our common answer in this matter to excuse our selves from Idolatry that we believe the Bread to be God I told the Reader what he was like to find neer the bottom of the Sack when he met with such sophistical Ware at the very top But the Doctor pretends he hath something to say here in his defence and it is this that the Council of Trent hath expresly determin'd that there is no manner of doubt left but that all Christians ought to give the same worship to this Holy Sacrament which they give to God himself For it is not therefore less to be worshipped because it was Instituted by Christ our Lord that it might be taken But who tells him that the Council here by the word Sacrament means only the Signs or Accidents of Bread Why may it not mean the Holy Victime which is dispensed from the Altar as St. Austin did when he said that his Mother St. Monica had tied her Soul fast to this Sacrament by the bond of Faith If the Council may be allowed to explicate its own meaning we shall find the sense of the word to be the Body of Christ and with it his Divinity under the Sacramental Veil for the reason it gives in the words immediately following which the Doctor conveniently leaves out of this adoration is because we believe the same God to be present in it of whom the Eternal Father said Let all the Angels of God adore him And this is yet more plain from the 6th Canon where the Anathema is denounced against those who shall say that in the most H. Sacrament of the Eucharist the only begotten of God is not to be adored with the worship of Latria But let the Council say what it will Dr. St. says that by the Sacrament it must understand the Elements or Accidents as the Immediate term of that divine worship or else the latter words that the Sacrament ought not less to be adored because it was instituted to be taken signify nothing at all And why so Do Catholicks understand nothing by the Sacrament but the Accidents Or was nothing instituted to be taken but the bare signs of Bread and Wine Dr. St. is or would be an Author of great Authority and from his own Confession we have it p. 111. that the Holy Sacrament according to Catholicks is the Body of Christ under the Accidents of Bread These are his own words and if he will not believe the Council let him believe himself whether he do so or no 〈◊〉 proceeding upon his supposition that proper divine worship is to be given to the Accidents he affirms p. 118. that this is not denied that he knows of by any who understand the Doctrine or Practise of the Roman Church I leave to the Reader to judg when he shall have heard what Bellarmin an Author not unacquainted with the Doctrin and Practise of the Church says in this matter There is not saith he any one Catholick who teaches that the External Symbols per se that is absolutely and properly are to be adored with the worship of Latria but only to be reverenced with a certain inferiour worship which is due to all Sacraments What we affirm is that Christ is properly and per se to be adored with the worship of Latria and that this adoration belongs also to the Symbols of Bread and Wine under which he is contained as they are apprehended united with him in such manner as those who adored him apparl'd upon Earth did not adore him alone but quodammodo in a certain kind his Garments also For neither
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
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
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
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
own Body by saying This is my Body and St. Ignatius in the first confesseth the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ which suffred for our sins And now let the Reader judge whether those learned Protestants above cited had reason to affirm of these Fathers though they taxed them of error for it that for what appears by their words they believed and taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation I know the Doctor will not want many a pretty artifice to obscure if possible and elude the force of these Testimonies but the Confession of his Brethren will still be a Potent Prejudice against him Nor can he ever have the courage to deny but that the words taken as they sound seem evidently at least to teach the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet what is highly observable in this case this being a matter of so great consequence that Dr. Morton confesseth if it be defensible Protestants must stand chargeable of Heresie but if it may be confuted the Romanists must necessarily be condemned of Idolatry None of those Fathers who are cited by Protestants as Abettors of Transubstantiation were ever taxed of Errour for what they asserted by any of their Contemporaries whom we know to have been very jealous not only of new doctrines but of any new forms of words or by those who lived in the Ages after them nor yet did the Greeks move any dispute about this Point in the Council of Florence whereas Berengarius no sooner began to broach the contrary but immediately the whole Church as the Writers of that time witness was startled at the Novelty and condemned it as Heresie as Mr. Fox above cited witnesseth § 4. But what if the Doctor shall deny all this that is both the Testimonies of the Fathers and the Confession of his Brethren to be sufficient to prove Transubstantiation to have been a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from Christ's time To show the unreasonableness of such a denyal I would propose this case to his Consideration and the Readers Viz. In supposition that a Controversy arise in this present Age about the sense of a Law which was made 500. Years ago and that a considerable number of those who started the Controversy should confess that for the last two hundred years the contrary to what they maintain was generally received in the Kingdom as the sense of the Law and should further confess that the most eminent Lawyers of the former Ages from the first enacting of the Law held the same with the latter Nor had there ever been any disagreement or opposition among them in that Point whether it be not a sufficient proof that what they taught to be the sense of the Law was generally received to be the sense and meaning of it from the beginning The Testimonies themselves of those Ancient Lawyers would be conviction enough how much more when strengthned by the Confession of the Adverse Party it self Now if this be so in the delivery of the sense of a humane Law where it happens very often that great Lawyers may be and often are of different judgments how much more in the delivery of a divine Doctrine where the Pastors of the Church are bound to deliver what they received and the succeeding Age is stil bound to receive what they delivered Surely if we add to this the Confession of the very Adversaries themselves the Proof as St. Irenaeus saith must be true and without contradiction § 5. But if the Doctor will still persist in the denyal of so Evident a Proof because the Proposition is comparative between the Doctrine of Transubstantiation and that of Christ's Divinity as to its general reception in the Church I must desire him soberly to consider how much less St. Athanasius thought sufficient to prove this latter to be a Catholick Tradition For having cited the Testimonies of four Fathers only for the Consubstantiality of the Son with his Father viz. Theognostus Dionysius Alexandrinus Dionysius Romanus and Origen he concludes with an Ecce Behold we demonstrate saith he this Doctrine to have been delivered from Fathers to Fathers as it were by hand And St. Austin using the like Argument in the point of original sin first makes this Preface I will alledge saith he a few Testimonies of a few of the Fathers with which nevertheless our Adversaries will be constrained to blush and yield if either any fear of God or shame of Men can over-power in them so pervicacious an obstinacy And then having produced the Testimonies of five or six of the Latin Fathers he tells Julian against whom he wrote that that part of the World ought to suffice him that is to make him yield it to be the Catholick Faith in which our Lord was pleased to crown with a most glorious Martyrdome the First or Prince of the Apostles And then to show that the Faith of the Greek Church was the same with that of the Latin in this Point he cites the Testimonies only of three Greek Fathers and to the first of them viz. St. Greg. Nazianzen he immediately adds This is so great a Man that neither he would say this but from the Christian Faith most notorious to all neither would they have esteemed him so Venerable if they had not acknowledged that he spake these things out of the rule of the most known Truth And now let the Reader judg whether when we produce a far greater number of most manifest Testimonies of the Fathers of several Ages teaching without any Contradiction that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ by Consecration and this confessed of some of the most Eminent of them in every Age by Protestants themselves we do not more than sufficiently prove that it was a Doctrine received in the Universal Church from our Saviour's time And if he think yet he can produce greater Evidence for the Doctrine of Christ's Divinity being universally received in the Church from Christ's time the early contest of the Arrians about that Point their Power and Continuance for so many Ages compared with the open and undisturbed delivery of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation may soon convince him of the vanity of such an undertaking § 6. The 3d. and last Ground he instances in is Scripture and this he saith he doth and shall acknowledge for his only Rule of Faith in spight of all pretences to infallibility either in Church or Tradition When he hath considered well what Mr. E. W. hath said to him upon this Subject in his two Learned Treatises Protestancy without Principles and Religion and Reason I hope this spight of his may be abated But in the mean time what doth he alledge out of this his only Rule of Faith as he will have it against Transubstantiation Not so much I can assure you as one single Text. But because Bellarmin produces One and but One for that Point viz. the words of Christ This is my Body whereas he cites many for