grounds of believing Christ's Corporal Presence viz as effected by Transubstantiation be Solid and true to which we answer Negatively 2. Whether the Church of Rome as a term of communion in this point exact any more then the acknowledgment of a Real Presense to which we answer that to our apprehension she does For she requires us under an Anathema to believe Transubstantiation which whoever does must define a Real Presence to be a Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantiation So that the prescinding expedient this Author offers would have us prescind from the definition of the object i. e. to consider a thing prescinding from the thing that we consider which the Papists have more wit then to propose to us 2 that if she did not Disc 2. §. 17. p. 21. it would not serve the turn For she requires us even by this Author's confession to bow down before the Elements which if Christ's Body be not Locally Present in the Eucharist we have prov'd to be Idolatry be the bow never so prescinding For to worship the true God by an Host is in effect all one as to worship him by an image which is as truly though not so gross Idolatry as to worship an image instead of him And now as the Defender says Hitherto of this Controversy wherein if I have chiefly consider'd my Adversarye's management 't is because a Scholar should be answer'd but a Jugler need only be detected CHAP. XII The Close Having taken so distinct a view of both the Discourses I know not whether I must beg the Reader 's pardon for considering so much of 'em or demand the Author's thanks for sparing what I have pass'd over The Controversy it self would have lain in a little room but the Author 's handling it gives an adversary so large a field of matter as would easily furnish a very voluminous Reply My aim in this was to make it as short as was possible without omitting any thing material and I 'm confident I have not I 'm sure I have not willingly omitted or dissembled the force of any one line that seem'd to make against the Church of England The Quotations in the Pamphlet are many and generally tedious none of 'em sincere and most of 'em twice or thrice repetaed To have-publish'd 'em intire would have taken up more paper then this answer does nor would a recitall have suffic'd without some reflexion after all the Reader is no more bound to trust me then him but for full satisfaction must recurr to the Authors themselves Wherefore I concluded it the shorter better way to give the sense of our Church and those Authors in plain easy terms so that the common Reader might be his own interpreter and without any farther assistance make a right construction of what the Pamphlet would pervert Some perhaps may fancy my Reflexions are sometimes too severe upon so little seeming provocation and at other times too light for so serious a subject as I treat of I confess I could not always dissemble my just abhorrence of the Author's insincerity which I take to be the Sin in the world that an honest man can least pardon Had the Author been a true sincere Papist as well my inclination as my duty would have made me treat him with respect for simple error is an object of compassion to be dealt with in the spirit of meekness but Hypocrisy is the common aversion of God and Man and ought to be abhor'd and stigmatiz'd As for lighter Answers I think I have never given them but when they were requisite in reply to Comical objections for nothing can be more ridiculous then a solemn confutation of a Jest The Author indeed seems to talk with great gravity all the way but his matter for the most part is of a quite contrary Character and in such a case the Grimace does but add to the Comedy and make it the more necessary to return an answer in kind What I have said has been the shorter because my Adversary has been twice answer'd already both professedly by the Author of the late Reply printed at London and occasionally by those other worthy men that have consider'd the several parts of the Guide in Controversy For there is not an argument nor a quotation nor scarce a sentence in either of these Discourses but is almost verbatim in that Guide aforesaid which contains the whole stock of the Fraternity the summ and substance of all they have to say if they write as many books as Tostatus 'T was but t'other day that a great part of these Discourses was again printed in the Book of Church-Govenment and for ought I find we must expect the same stuff word for word in every book they are to publish But at this rate instead of being answerd they deserve to be indicted for extortion For the buyer of their book pays unconscionable use upon use besides the nauseousness of the tautology Wherefore for my own part I now take my final leave of them and resolve not so much as to inquire what other books the Editor's press is big with And perhaps when other Readers are aware of his proceedings the edition of his books will not need to be stinted to twenty thousand of a sort in a year FINIS
a Real participation of the body by consequence of the effects and benefits But the great and killing objection against all explications he dislikes is their not advancing us beyond Zuinglianism Whether the opinion which he brands by that name be truly ascribed to Zuinglius and really so great a bugbear as this Author seems to apprehend I need not now stay to inquire 't is sufficient to my purpose that the Church of England does advance beyond it Yet the words of the Judicious and Venerable Mr. Hooker are very well worth our observation It seemeth saith he lib. 5. Sect. 67. pag. 308. much amiss that against them whom they term Sacramentaries so many invective Discourses are made all running upon two points that the Eucharist is not a bare Sign and Figure only and that the efficacy of his Body and Blood is not all we Receive in this Sacrament For no man having read their Books and Writings which are thus traduced can be ignorant that both these Assertions they plainly confess to be most true they do not so interpret the words of Christ as if the Name of his Body did import but the Figure of his Body and to be were only to Signifie his Blood They grant that these Holy mysteries Receiv'd in a due manner do instrumentally both make us Partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in True and Reall though Mystical manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and intire as hath been shew'd These words may receive farther light from Bishop Cosins's History of Transubstantiation cap. 2. Sect. 13.17 18. Now they that acknowledge thus much hold a Real Participation and Vnion which is all that is requisite to affirming a Real Presence And if they deny a Real Presence they only reject a Term which may well enough be us'd but perhaps be better let alone The truth is what the Pamphlet attributes to Zuinglius was as Bucer reports the tenent of the Anabaptists and as Mr Thorndike says of some Puritans in the beginning of the late Rebellion And by them 't is most probable this notion was imparted to a friend of ours who at that time was observ'd to be their great associate and favourer Disc I. §. 37 p. 25. What the Remonstrants and Socinians say does no way concern us much good may they do the Author they who set up for so great masters of reason will but ill resent it that a man of his head should pretend to them Ibid. §. 38. Who W.H. is and who his Answerer I know not having never seen either of their Books And being so well acquainted with this Author's sincerity I cannot depend upon his Credit I meet with nothing quoted but what 't is easy to give an account of but to do it as it should be one ought to have the Books by him for I vehemently suspect this Answerer has far'd no better then his Brethren CHAP. V. A Reply to the Fourth Chapter of the first Discourse TO the third Observable lay'd down in the first Chapter which now comes to be consider'd the Author has three things to say 1. That if Christ's Natural Body were Corporally Present in the Eucharist Disc I p. 27. §. 39. it ought to be then ador'd which we grant him and had he design'd to dispute for the Papists he ought to have insisted that it is Corporally Present 2. Ibid §. 40. That if we reject a Corporal Presence yet if any other Presence be reveal'd which is as Real and Essential as if it were Corporal adoration will be no less due to it thus then so Present That is if he mean to oppose us and not barely fight with his own shadow that since the Church of England holds the natural body of Christ to be Corporally and Locally absent yet as Truly and Really Present as if it were Locally Present she is as much bound to adore the Elements for the sake of the Real Presence which she owns as she would be if she likewise own'd that Corporal and Local Presence which she deny's I say to adore the Elements for otherwise there is no dispute whether Christ's body abstracting from the hypostatical Union be more then a creature which is not adorable with Divine worship For all understanding men are agreed it is not Or whether Christs person i. e. his body hypostatically united to his Deity wheresoever or howsoever present is to be ador'd both in and out of the Sacrament viz. in the performance of all religious offices still addressing our adoration to him in heaven where his body is Locally Present for this is allow'd by all true Christians whatsoever This his second position we are to debate when he speaks to it in the mean time we deny it 3 He undertakes to shew that the Church of England i. e. five writers of her Communion Disc I. pag. 28. §. 41 42 43 44 45. whereof one is Mr Thorndike as he delivers himself in his Epilogue have heretofore believ'd and affirm'd such a Presence to which they thought adoration due To adore a presence is an odd kind of expression for 't is to adore an extrinsic denomination To adore Christ present in the mysteries is a phrase we better understand though that too be lyable to misconstruction If the author dare to speak plain the point that pinches and the true thing to be prov'd is that Christ according to the quotations is so Really Present in the Eucharist that the Elements ought to be Divinely worshiped upon that account And if this be so as I think I have plainly shewn I leave the Reader to consider with what confidence the Author quotes either Bishop Andrews for his purpose who expressly in the very quotation declares himself against him saying Sacramentum tamen nulli adoramus or Bishop Taylor saying likewise We give no divine honour to the Signs or Bishop Forbes saying Haec adoratio non pani non vino non sumptioni non comestioni debetur or the Arch-Bishop of Spalato since this passage in Bishop Forbes is a quotation out of the Arch-Bishop I can only say that to me these passages seem to argue that the Author is very Singular in something besides his Religion Disc I. pag 29. §. 47. Having given us this taste of his other good qualities he concludes with a spice of his Logic and infers 1. That notwithstanding what he has said the Church in her Declaration seems clearly to deny Adoration due to Christ's body as any way Present in the Eucharist contrary to the forecited Doctrine and K. James's and Bishop Andrews's Religion I will not take advantage of his ambiguous expressions but tell him that the King 's the Bishop's and the Churches meaning is very plain viz. that since Christs Natural Body is not to be ador'd but where it is Corporally Locally Present it is not so
misconstruction for which the * Pandectae Canonum c. publish'd at Oxford by Dr. Beverege Council in Trullo Can. 81. condemn'd the addition of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that hymn 4. The omission of these words in these holy mysteries might be purely accidental and pass undiscover'd because as they signifie no more then in this celebration of the Eucharist they have no material influence upon the sense But if we understand as perhaps a perverse man may that these mysteries signifie the same with these elements that is cause enough to omit them because they would assert an opinion which is contrary to sound Doctrine and the declar'd judgment of the Church Disc I. §. 3. n. 1. pag 3. What is farther observable in the two first Sections is repeated and back'd in the third and might be safely pass'd over as containing nothing material but what we again meet with there For concerning the Form prescrib'd in delivering the consecrated Elements he tell 's us that in K. Edwards first book the Form was The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ c. in his second Take and eat this in remembrance c. in Qu. Elizabeths both these put together as they still continue in the English Liturgy But withal he tells us the first of these Forms descends to us from Antiquity and he finds no fault with the second which is entirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution So that we are yet to seek where the harme lies of using either Form single or both of them together and yet farther to seek to what purpose this observation is made since 't is manifest that neither Form single nor both of them together either owns a Corporal or denyes a Real Presence He addds that the Scotch Rubrick keeping the first Form requires the Communicant to answer to it Amen which without a Rubrick ever was and is still the Practice of the Church of England for what more natural then to answer Amen to a prayer and so were divers other things as for instance standing up at the Gospel and saying Glory be to thee O Lord which the Compilers of the Scotch Liturgy having good reason to approve thought fit to injoyn by a Rubrick that the Puritans might have no pretence for Nonconformity But to return to the Communicants answering Amen the Pamphlet truly observes it to be according to custome of Antiquity but I doubt the proofs it quotes are not very judiciously chosen The place in Eusebius belongs plainly to another thing The words are Hist VII 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Which evidently shews that That Amen was answer'd to the Doxology before the distribution of the Elements as not only Justin Martyr could have taught him but even Valesius himself in his Notes upon that passage of Eusebius I leave the examen of the other two Quotations to them that have leisure and the Books by them 't is probable they may prove as pertinent as this For I find it a common practice in this man 's other Works to quote those passages at length which he thinks will bear the stress of an Argument and barely refer to such places as contain only a hint which perhaps an unwary Reader may go near to swallow This Amen was spoken says the Pamphlet as the Communicants confession that what he receiv'd was Corpus Domini But I shall rather learn the meaning of it from Justin Martyr * Just Mart. Edit Steph Apol. 2. pag. 162. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who observes that Amen in Hebrew signifies so be it wherefore according to His notion the Communicant answering Amen only joyns with the Priest in praying that the Body and Blood of Christ may preserve his Body and Soul to everlasting life The Pamphlet farther observes that in K. Edwards first book there was this passage in the prayer of Consecration And with thy holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of Bread and Wine that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ which was afterwards left out of the English Liturgy and restor'd in the Scotch This omission by the way is something injudiciously observ'd because it shews us that the Clergy of Q. Elizabeth had no such thoughts of the Real Presence as the Pamphlet would suggest they had But I refer him for answer to his own quotation out of Laudensium Autocatacrisis From these words saith he all Papists use to draw the truth of their Transubstantiation wherefore the English Reformers scrap'd them out of their Books tho' his Gloss upon Restoring them in the Scocth Liturgie is a manifest cavil for no man of sence can interpret them as they lie there in favor of Transubstantiation see Arch-Bishop Cranmers answer to Gardiner p. 70. p. 289. * The Archbishop the most competent Judge in this case thus interprets this passage p 79. of his answer to Gardiner And therefore in the Book of the Holy Communion we do not pray absolutely that the Bread and Wine may be made the Body and Blood of Christ but that unto us in that holy mystery they may be so that is to say that we may so worthily receive the same that we may be partakers of Christ's Body and Blood and that therewith in Spirit and Truth we may be Spiritually nourished And again p. 289. We do not pray c but that they may be to us the Body and Blood of Christ that is to say that we may so eat them and drink them that we may be partakers of his Body Crucified and his Blood shed for our redemption Wherefore this was the sense of our Reformers that compil'd the Communion-office and thus they understood it that restored it in the Scotch Liturgy and so must any man understand it that is not too partially addicted to Popery I must beg the Readers pardon if out of a desire to leave nothing unreply'd to I have particularly spoken to these inconsiderable observations which the Author himself does but skirmish with But we are now come to the Rubrick before which he intends to sit down viz. that for explaining why we Kneel at the Sacrament This he tells us in K. Edward's book deny'd a Real and Essential but now denyes only a Corporal Presence To which I answer that K. Edward's Rubrick by Real and Essential means as the Papists then us'd to do a Real and Bodily Presence as is plain by the Articles set forth about the same time and quoted by the Pamphlet it self pag. 2. He observes farther that both this Rubrick and the explanatory Paragraph in the 28 th Article were expung'd in the first of Q. Elizabeth To which we have already answer'd that this at the utmost implyes but a change in the terms of our Communion and if he think fit to challenge the Church upon that score we are ready to
give him satisfaction In the fourth Section he falls on in earnest upon the declaration about adoration as he calls it 〈◊〉 I. §. IV. pag. 4. and from it as it now lyes draws three Observables which are either very dishonestly or else very ignorantly worded They need no other answer then a bare amendment of the expressions which if they were intended to give the sense of the Church of England should have been to this effect 1. Observable That the Clergy do profess and teach that the natural body and blood of Christ are not corporally i. e. locally present in the Eucharist 2. Observable That they have diverse reasons for this assertion one especially wherein Scripture Philosophy and common sense are agreed viz. that a true humane body cannot locally be in two places at once 3. Observable That in consequence hereof they declare that the Presence of Christs body in the Sacrament is indeed reall but spirituall and therefore the Elements are not to be ador'd because adoration ought not to be directed to the natural body of Christ but where it is locally present Had our Author had the ingenuity to express himself after this manner he had been no less kind to himself then just to the Church of England for he might have avoided divers errors he commits in the three next Chapters by avoyding the grand impertinence of having written them at all CHAP. III. A Reply to the second chapter of the first Discourse Disc I. §. VII pag. 5. THe design of the second Chapter is to prove by abundance of quotations that Learned Protestants heretofore have held that the same body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is present as in Heaven so here in the Holy Sacrament either to the worthy receiver or the Symbols By learned Protestants I presume he means those of the Church of England for so he should mean since he draws his Observables from a Rubric in their Liturgie Now he would have told us some news had he mentioned but one of these learned Protestants who pretending to give the sense of the Church of England does not hold that the same numerical body which was born of the Virgin Mary crucify'd c. is locally present in Heaven and virtually present in the Eucharist not to the Symbols but the Faith of the worthy receiver or if by those words as in heaven so here he means locally in both as indeed he must mean if his next Chapter be at all pertinent he would have told us no less news had he brought but one quotation that could be honestly taken in that sense But if he have any third meaning it would have been a favour to explain himself for we pretend not to any talent in divination Now supposing he designs to combat the Church of England I would gladly know to what purpose he alleges Calvin and Beza Disc I. §. VIII IX for let their doctrine be what it will to quote it to us who are not to be concluded by their authority is very trifling and impertinent When the sense of the Church of England was the question one would have expected to heare what the Church-Catechism says What the Homilies What Nowells Catechism Books allow'd and publish'd by the Churches authority and authentick witnesses of her judgment or if private Doctors were the game what Archbishop Cranmer's book of the Sacraments what Bradford Philpot and the rest of Q. Mary's Martyrs what Bishop Jewell in his Apology and the Defence of it what Bishop Vsher in his Sermon before the House of Commons But instead of these we have only the testimonies of some other eminent but private men all miserably mangled and disjoynted some of them Conciliators too whose very design obliges them to a looser kind of expression then a true and adequate standard of the Churches judgment will allow Now should any of our private writers either in heat of disputation or out of zeal to peace or desire to explain a great mystery a little deviate in their expressions we can easily forgive an error that proceeds from so allowable a cause but still the Church is not bound to justify that error But the quotations in the Pamphlet will not put us upon this Apology Not an author he quotes except only Mr. Thorndike of whom we shall say more by and by but speaks the sense of the Church and industriously drives at a point quite contrary to the Pamphlets design which discovers a great flaw either in the Authors judgment or honesty I grant the authors as he has mangled 'em looke as unlike those worthy champions of our Church as the shape that appear'd to Aenaeas did to the true and whole person of Hector But I desire the Reader neither to trust the Pamphlet nor me but his own eys to consult the quotations as they lye intire in the authors themselves and consider 'em with their several contexts For my own part having taken that pains I profess to find such dealing as I do not care to report because I cannot expect to be believ'd 'T is somewhat unaccountable that a man of sense having read the book of Bishop Taylor 's which the Pamphlet quotes should split upon the very Fallacy which that Bishop spends allmost the whole first Chapter in detecting He makes it his business there to shew that Protestants in explaining the Real Presence may lawfully use the same terms that Papists doe But they neither can nor doe use them in the Papists sense and he that will urge the Protestants with those words must take the Protestants meaning along with him This seems to be a very equitable proposal How far the Pamphlet complyes with it I dare leave to the meanest Reader when he has perus'd this short and plain account of our Churches doctrine in this point The natural body of our blessed Saviour comes under a twofold consideration in the Eucharist 1. As a body dead under which notion we are said to eat it in the Sacrament and to drink the blood as shed as appears by the words of the Institution Take and eat this is my body which is given or broken for you Drink ye all of this for this is my blood which is shed for you in which words * Acts and Monuments pag. 1611. as Mr. Bradford long agoe observ'd what God has joyn'd we are not to put asunder 2. As a glorify'd body in which condition it now sits at the right hand of God and shall there continue till the restitution of all things imparting Grace Influence and all the benefits purchased by the Sacrifice of the dead body to those that in the holy Eucharist most especially are through Faith and by the marvellous operation of the holy Ghost incorporated into Christ and so united to him that they dwell in Christ and Christ in them they are one with Christ and Christ with them they are made members of his body of his flesh and
of them to invoke the Divine Omnipotence when they run their heads against a contradiction But they that pretend to make God when they please may by the same reason make him do what they please This I hope is a sufficient guard against the untoward application of any Protestant writings wherewith the Pamphlet either does or can abuse the common Reader in this matter Disc I. pag. 22. Ibid. §. 19. p. 13. In the end of the thirtieth Section he palms upon us a passage out of S. Austin which is very surprizing He professes to forbear quoting the Fathers because the Protestants have done it for him though we may take leave to suppose another Reason but here when he thought he could delude the Reader with S. Austin's authority he is willing to make his best of him It seems that excellent Father in his * Tom. 6. p. 515. Seqq. Edit nov Paris Cura pro mortuis having prov'd that Martyrs cannot interesse rebus viventium without a Miracle immediately adds that Quemadmodum the modus whereby this Miracle is wrought is beyond his capacity too sublime too abstruse for him he had rather inquire of them that know Vtrum ipsi per seipsos adsint uno tempore tam diversis locis or whether they reliev'd their votaries by the Ministry of Angels or whether it be both these wayes Which shews as the Pamphlet tells us this Father believ'd no impossibility of a Martyrs being uno tempore in diversis locis Would not any man imagin now who knows what point the Author drives at that he would have S. Austin say a a Martyr's Body might be in two places at once and would he not wonder that S. Austin should be quoted for this purpose who is * Epist 57. ad Dardanum carnis forma atque substantia cui profecto immortalitatem dedit naturam non abstulit Cavendum enim est ne ita divinitatem astruamus hominis ut veritatem corporis auferamus Una enim pâ—rsona Deus Homo est Utrumque est unus Christus Jesus Ubique per id quod Deus est in Coelo autem per id quod Homo Idem Tract 31. in Joan. Homo enim secundum corpus in loco est de loco migrat cum ad alium locum venerit in eo loco unde venit non erit Et Tract 30 in Joan. Corpus enim Domini in uno loco esse oportet so Ivo Gratiam Lombard Aquinas quote it not potest as 't is Printed veritas ubique diffusa est elsewhere so express and peremptory that the Naturall Body of Christ himself cannot be in two places at once But the Author is wary for he knew very well that by ipsi per seipsos S. Austin meant as he explains himself ipsorum animae in figura corporis sui But did not S. Austin then believe that a Spirit might be in two places at once Perhaps not but was therefore at a loss because he knew not how to believe it and this put him upon search of other solutions I will not now inquire whether a Spirit may be sayd to be in two places at once as the Souls of the Martyrs were by some perhaps suppos'd to have been though the affirmative may be explain'd without holding a contradiction but rather observe how S. Austin concludes this point viz. If the man whom he consulted should tell him out of Scripture This thing is above your reach and therefore forbear your enquiry he would thankfully receive this answer and and acquiesce So upon the whole matter S. Austin delivers himself like a true Church-of-England-man Here 's a point started which is past my understanding the difficulties and wayes of solution are these I cannot determine and therefore do not care to dispute I submit to Scripture and content my self with the Certainty of the thing without inquiring into the modus I wish other Writers would follow this example and then perhaps we might keep our Religion without parting with our common sense The thirty first Section containing only old matter has been spoken to before Disc I. pag. 23. I only add that if the Author allow Dr Heylin's reason why does he give a different one of his own if not why does he quote it In the thirty second Section he repeats the old blunder about Real and Corporal Ibid. and adds two or three to keep it company He cannot discern he says why it should not be a contradiction for a Body to be Locally in one place and Really Receiv'd in another He should read Mr. Walker's Logic which will tell him that two contradictories have the same Subject and Predicate He says it is insidious in the Rubrick not to say that the Body Locally Absent is Really Receiv'd and may tempt a man to doubt whether the Church thinks it to be so Now I fancy not because the Catechism is very express He is troubled we refuse other mens contradictions and expect our own should pass currently But we have told him that we neither hold nor meddle that we know of with any contradiction in explaining our own Doctrine and he has not yet vouchsafed to make it appear we doe From hence to the end of the Chapter he is as busy as if he were playing with * Book of Education part 1. chap. 11. pag. 145. printed 1677. Thesauro's Bees Five wayes he has found out of explaining Really and Essentially and no man Living that I know of either sayes or meanes any one of them as they are there deliver'd Disc I. §. 33. He sayes he does this to express his disquisition more fully The three first explications are three such unaccountable Whimsyes as need no other disquisition but whether the words are capable of a rational meaning For example Ibid. If by Really and Essentially be meant such a Presence of Christs body to our souls as the Papists hold there is to the Elements i. e. by abolishing the substance of the Soul and substituting Christ's body in the room of it c. and so for the two next The fourth speaks imperfectly §. 36. pag. 25. Ibid. but seems to say something of truth viz. that the body becomes Really present by reason of the same Spirit uniting us here on earth as members to it in heaven To this he objects that then Christ would be no more present in the Eucharist then in any other Sacrament wherein the Spirit is confer'd In which I see no inconvenience nor do I believe the Fathers did when they said Christ is present in the Eucharist as he is in Baptism He objects farther that such presence is properly of the Spirit Ibid. which I hope for his credit is onely a mistake of the Press and that the written copy had it by the Spirit The fifth explication is likewise imperfect if he apply it to the Church of England which does not hold a bare reception of the benefits but
whom the Author therefore traduces for slandering the Catholics to which I can only say that he certainly slanders Dr Stillingfleet and I know not how to count him a Papist who will not allow Bellarmin to be one of his Catholics * See Dr. Stillingfleet of the Idolatry of the Ch of Rome cap. 2. § 4. pag. â—25 He adds that his Catholicks affirm this Sign we are speaking of to be all that of the Bread and Wine which is perceptible by any sense and therefore when they tell us that the Substance is done away Disc II. pag. 14. §. 10. they take Substance in such a sense as is non-sense For so he says though in more and other words but 't is good to be as brief as may be when we talk unintelligibly And non-sense is a sort of sense very proper for this subject being the remaining species and accidents of sense when the substance of it is done away Wherefore our Author proceeds in the same strain and tells us that his Catholics allow Local positions to be predicated of Christ's Body indivisibly present but to taste to be digested to nourish to be press'd with the Teeth to be burnt or gnaw'd by brutes these belong only to the Species and not to Christ's Body which is impassible All this is to be understood in the Sense last mention'd wherefore he wisely forbears to give a reason and only quotes Bellarmin who is now become one of his Catholics But Bellarmin at best was but a fallible Cardinal and infallible Pope * See the Preface to Determinatio Jo. Parisiensis lately Printed at London p 5 6. Nicholas II. with his Cardinals made Berengarius tell another tale And though Hildebrand differ'd from Nicholas and Innocent III. from them both yet we must not inquire how all these Popes were Infallible and their several Adherents Orthodox and yet our Authors Doctrine good Catholic Doctrine still For the Book of Education tells us that * Part. I. cap. 9. p 92. Acuteness Sagacity are apt to dispose men to Heresy and 't is certain that no man can become a Thorough Convert of this Authors till his Brains be Case-hardned to be proof against all manner of contradictions In the eleventh Section he says that the word Sacrament is not allways taken in the same sense Disc 2. pag. 14. §. 11. We allow him to take it in any sense provided it be sense that he takes it in Wherefore we except not to his taking Sacramentum for Res Sacramenti when he explains how his Catholics adore the Sacrament It seems that they to the Sacramentum give an inferior cult but Divine adoration which I wonder why he would not call latry to the Res Sacramenti only Ibid viz. only to our Lord's Body and Blood and so to our Lord himself as present in the Sacrament for so he says and to him precisely as Really present abstracting both from Transubstantiation and the belief of a Corporal presense for so he explains himselfe afterwards Now if there be no Popery Lurking under that sly word cult I am afraid this Catholic Defender will go for as rank a Heretick as any Calvinist that now rows in the Gallies For to give the Papists sense in the words of * Theol. quaest 79. disp Suarez Non solum Christus sed totum visibile Sacramentum unico cultu adoratur 'T is not an inferior cult to the Species that will serve the turn nor Duly nor Hyperduly neither but * Moral l. 8 cap. 32. Henriquez says it must be Latry speciebus Eucharistiae datur Latria propter Christum quem continent In short * Disc concerning the Adoration of the Host lately reprinted at London the remaining Species of Bread and Wine together with the Natural Body and Blood of Christ invisibly yet carnally present under them make one intire object of the Papists adoration which they call Sacramentum And this they tell us the Councell of Trent means when it requires * Sess 13. cap. 5. Omnes Christi fideles Latriae cultum huic Sanctissimo Sacramento adhibere * Dr. Stillingfleet Idolatry of the Church of Rome cap. 2 pag. 116. Nor is this Deny'd that I know of by any that understand either the Doctrine or the Practice of the Church of Rome So says the Great Learned Dr Stillingfleet in the place here quoted by our Author who should have confuted this passage instead of nibling at an unanswerable argument else the meaning of the Council will allways be judg'd by the Doctrine and Practice of the Church and the most artificial disguise the Defender has in his Wardrobe will never make his Catholics pass currently for true Papists I am not sollicitous what the words of the Council of Trent are nor I think ever shall be till I forget the two famous controversies that * See F. Paul's History lib 2. pag. 216.228 Soto had with Vega and Catharinus Disc 2. pag 15. § 12. For if they who were members of the Council and so eminently concern'd in wording the Decrees were for all this ignorant of the true sense of those Decrees 't is now I doubt too late for a Protestant to give 'em a determinate meaning nor need any man regard 'em any more then those other Oracles that were dictated with the like ambiguity But to guide us in this Labyrinth the Defender gives us a Judicious Observation as he calls it out of Sancta Clara which is this Disc 2. §. 13. p. 17. The substance of the Catholic Faith is declar'd both in the Chapters and Canons but yet the Canons we must stick to where the form is exceeding exact though the manner of expression sometimes different from that in the Chapters How Judicious this remark is and how much for the Council's honor may perhaps be question'd but how well 't is apply'd to the present case where the Canon is more ambiguous and therefore less exact then the Chapter is a thing will admit of no dispute nor will any man contest this Author's title to so Judicious an application After a leafe's insignificant pother he comes to this final Resolution Disc 2. §. 14. p. 18. That to adore the Sacrament is at most but an improper expression And says as magisterially as ever Soave did that dutifull Children ought to learn of their Mother how to speak Disc 2. p. 17. provided always say I that their Mother do not teach them to abuse their Father and if they cannot come at their Mother or cannot understand her language I hope 't is no offence to ask her meaning of their Brethren that know her mind But after all it is not the expression but the practice that we complain of 't is not talking improperly but committing Idolatry that we fear 't is not his inferior cult but Suarez's unico cultu that we cannot digest And if the Defender would not urge us by pardoning an expression
mistaken is sufficient for avoiding the just imputation of Idolatry Whence he infers that if Catholics can produce a rational ground of their apprehending Christ present in the Eucharist tho' possibly mistaken in it they are to be excus'd from Idolatry at least by those Protestants who excuse the Lutherans and so he proceeds to shew his Rational Grounds I think it an easy undertaking to shew a vast disparity between the Papists and Lutherans in this point but not very pertinent at this time For neither of those parties is concern'd in the question as 't is now stated by our Author 'T is with him and with his Catholics we have to do with them that prescind from Transubstantiation and a Corporal Presence and not with the Lutherans or Papists who both stick to a Corporal Presence are not so ill advis'd as to quit their hold to run the hazard of this man's idle suppositions· But here 's the juggle I expected here 's the Main Point lost in a mist We that have been drill'd on through one whole Discourse and twenty and six long pages of another and all in hopes to have seen it prov'd that supposing no Corporal but precisely a Real Presence to adore the Elements is no Idolatry are now to be put of with five stale grounds for beliefe of Transubstantiation I say of Transubstantiation though he only names a Corporal presence For he calls himself the Catholic Defender and the grounds he alleges are the Popish arguments for Transubstantiation and he disclaims being a Lutheran and we know of no party besides these two that now holds a Corporal Presence CHAP. X. A Reply to the six next Grounds of the second Discourse begining at sect 24. SInce my present undertaking obliges me no farther then to answer the Defender's arguments upon the question as he has stated it I might very well pass over his grounds for beliefe of Transubstantiation which were before offer'd in the Guide and in other Authors before that Guide could go alone and may be easily trac'd from Author to Author up to Archbishop Cranmer who has reported and answer'd every one of them in his Book of the Eucharist Our Author delivers in his list of them like a bill that begins with Item Disc 2. pag. 27. sect 24. For he says his first ground for a Corporal presence after a possibility thereof granted also by sober Protestants is Divine Revelation viz. the words hoc est corpus meum so often iterated in the Gospel and again by S. Paul without any variation change or explication as also the discourse of our blessed Saviour in the sixth Chapter of S. John's Gospel Now to this second and foremost argument the * I choose to refer here to the Archbishop's book that the Reader may the better see these Arguments are stale and have been baffl'd above a hundred years since Arch-Bishop has punctually reply'd viz. to the words of the institution p. 8.23.253 and elsewhere and the answers are now so well known that they need not be repeated and whereas the Pamphlet insists upon S. Paul's repeating them without any variation or explication the Archbishop plainly shew's p. 254. * Pag. 254. S. Paul is not afraid for our better understanding of Christ's words somewhat to alter the same least we might stand stifly in Letters and Syllables and err in mistaking the sense and meaning For whereas our Saviour Christ broke the Bread and sayd This is my Body S. Paul say'th that the Bread which we break is the Communion of Christ's Body Christ said his Body and S. Paul said the Communion of his Body meaning nevertheless both one thing that they which eat the Bread Worthily do eat Spiritually Christs very Body that S. Paul both varies and explains them as will be evident to any man that consults 1 Cor. X. 16 so likewise to the Popish explication of our Saviours discourse Joh. 6. the Archbishop answers in divers places * Pag 20. The Spiritual eating of his Flesh and drinking of his Blood by Faith by digesting his Death in our minds as our only price ransome and redemtion from eternal Damnation is the cause wherefore Christ say'd that if we eat not his Flesh and drink not his Blood we have not Life in us and if we eat his Flesh and drink his Blood we have everlasting Life And if Christ had never ordain'd the Sacrament yet should we have eaten his Flesh and drunken his Blood and have had thereby everlasting Life as all the Faithful did before the Sacrament was ordain'd and dayly do when they receive not the Sacrament See more Ibid and again p. 112. These words what if you see c. Joh. VI. 62.63 our Saviour Christ spake to lift up their minds from Earth to Heaven and from Carnal to Spiritual eating that they should not Fantasy that they should with their teeth eat him present here on earth for his Flesh so eaten saith he should profit them nothing and yet so they should not eat him for he would take his Body away from them and ascend with it into Heaven and there by Faith and not with Teeth they should Spiritually eat him sitting at the right hand of his Father and therefore saith he the words which I do speake be Spirit and Life that is to say are not to be understood that we shall eat Christ with our teeth grossly and carnally but that we shall Spiritually and Ghostly with our Faith eat him being carnally absent from us in Heaven p. 18.31.37.111.217.329 in all things speaking consonant to the sense of the primitive Fathers according to whose notions the true and plain meaning of that Chapter has been so fully express'd in a late Paraphrase that no more need be sayd of that matter And whereas this Author farther says that no argument from our senses is valid against plain revelation though the case was something otherwise in the fourteenth page of the first Discourse to this likewise the Arch-Bishop answers p. 263. * Pag. 263. Let us now consider how the same Transubstantiation is against natural reason and natural operation which although they prevail not against God's word yet when they be joyn'd with God's word they be of great moment to confirm any truth not that they add any authority to God's word but that they help our infirmity p. 266. where giving divers instances out of Scripture of Faith confirm'd by sense he concludes Which sensible proofs were so far from derogation of Faith that they were a sure establishment thereof Again p. 270 concerning arguments drawn from the Schoolmen I make saith he no foundation at all upon them but my very foundation is only upon God's word and mine arguments in this place I bring in only to this end to shew how far your imagin'd Transubstantiation is not only from Gods word but also from the order of nature in the very same manner that we do to this day and have allready answer'd in
Ibid. will be but so humble as to make the companion of his studies he 'll find that no art can make Transubstantiation look so old but that the persent Roman Doctrine will appear too young by above twelve hundred years Disc 2. pag. 29. §. 27. Instead of securing his next deceitfull ground and giving us something we may rest our foot upon He sends his humble Christian to a Discourse and a Digression in the Guide to Mons Blondell's Eclaircissement and the endless Controversy between Claud and Arnaud which when he has consulted he will find he has been upon an Aprill errand But to save him that labour if we can let us first see what will become of us if we grant this ground viz. the Universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time Now to this ground likewise the Arch-Bishop has effectually reply'd in divers places p. 11. p. 380. and especially from p. 405. to the end of the Book The summ is that the true Church Doctrine are to be judg'd by their agreement to Scripture Antiquity not always to be measur'd by the majority of visible Professors For that may be often overrun with dangerous error as de facto it was among the Jews even by our Authors own confession in his book of the benefits of our Saviour cap. 9. Wherefore the general Example is not always a rational ground of Practice and a reasonable man will consider the reason of the practice he complies with and bring a Doctrine * Isa VIII 20 to the Law and to the Testimnyo before he yields up his assent to it This we presume * Rom. XI 4 1 King XIX 18 the seven thousand did which were the true though secret Church of God when all the rest of the visible Jewish Church had bow'd the knee to Baal and kissed him Thus the rest of that * Luke XII 32 little flock which God hath ever had and will have to the end of the world not swimming with our Author's stream though never so impetuous Disc 2. §. 27. p. 31. but weighing all things in the ballance of the Sanctuary For if prevalence and prescription were a rational and sufficient ground of practice and the visible majority of the Church should fall into a Damnable error which thing certainly may be because it has been the Church might lawfully persist in that Damnable error nor would it be oblig'd to eject the most scandalous corruption that had once got peaceable possession This we think a sufficient and give it as the shortest answer to this ground consider'd with the utmost advantage whereof it is capable viz. supposing * See Dr. Feild's Appendix to his third Book of the Church wherein he proves that the Latin Church was and continu'd a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the maintainers of Romish Errors were only a Faction in the same at the time of Luther's appearing what is falsly challeng'd the universal doctrine and practice of the later Church till Luther But otherwise we could both tell him and prove beyond all possibility of a fair Reply that the controversy lasted above three hudred years before Transubstantiation could be lick'd into any shape and that at last it was setled in an age of which the Papists themselves give so scandalous a Character that no History can tell us of a majority more unlikely to sway a knowing or a virtuous man We could shew him that the Universality he talks of must exclude the Abissines the Armenians the Maronites and abundance of other Christians nay the much more valueable part of the Latin Church it self For though the Pope when he was strong enough to exercise the Plenitude of his Power made his Enemies and their Writeings as invisible as fire and smoke could yet still there remain the undoubted Monuments of a long visible Succession all declaring against Transubstantiation for a collection of whose Testimonies the world has lately been oblig'd to a member of the Roman Communion His last ground is the same with the foremost of his firsts viz. the Concessions of Protestants Disc 2. § 28. p. 31. For he 's at it once more that the Genuine Sons of the Church of England hold our Saviour to be Really Present and Adorable in the Sacrament Which has been so often sayd I hope so fully answer'd before that I shall take no farther notice of it now I shall only tell him as the Archbishop often tells Gardiner upon the like occasion that he seems to be in great distress when he flyes for refuge to those Authors whom at other times he abhors as Heretics but his application to them is in vain for they are far from meaning any such thing as he pretends Ibid. p. 32. In the close of this Paragraph he looks back upon all these Pleas of Catholics and invites us to see if they will not make up at least a reasonable Ground or motive of their Adoration Now I must profess that I see nothing like it as he has order'd the matter For though I believe a man of art out of these five grounds might have made a plausible though not a rational plea to my apprehension this Author has left the Papists in a much worse case then he found them For 1. he offers nothing to excuse them from Idolatry but the Concessions of one or two Protestants which 't is evident come not home to his purpose because they whom the Protestants excuse are suppos'd inculpably mistaken and not at all mistaken in the object of their Adoration 2. He ingages the Papists upon a very difficult or rather an impossible precision both because it is contrary to what they have been taught and because they are all bound under a severe Anathema to believe Transubstantiation so that a Papist can never explain this term Reall Presence to himself but by this other of Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantiation 3. Having invited the Papists to wave that Corporal Presence for which they think they have a great many arguments he proposes Adoration founded on another notion for which he has not offer'd them so much as one argument So that in short he proposes what no body is like to practice upon the sole strength of a Doctrine for which he has nothing to say In the next place he complains that these five Rational grounds are not strictly examin'd by the Protestants Disc 2. §. 29 p. 32. But we think otherwise and must leave the indifferent Reader to Judg between us We think they were effectually answer'd by the Arch-Bishop above an hundred years agoe and by divers other writers since especially the Author of a late Incomparable Discourse against Transubstantiation which all the Posse of the Church of Rome will never be able to answer any otherwise then they did the Arch-Bishop Wherefore the Defender must allow us to retain our old opinion of those Protestants