their true and adequate objects and the mind about those which are proper to it is rational But to advance sense above reason and even Faith it self the Beast above the Man and the Christian too as the Author doth is such a piece of stupidity as is not to be parallel'd DISCOURSE It might well seem strange if any Man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to be put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a Man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Blood And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do not see why any Man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the Sense and Reason of Mankind ANSWER Here the Author like another Lucian renouncing the Christian Faith begins to ridicule the most Sacred Mystery of our Religion I confess I am very unwilling to follow him in such dirty way as he takes It is not at all suitable to the retiredness wherein our Devout minds should be entertained when we conceive of a thing so truly Divine to speak slightly I must intreat therefore the Candid Reader to abstract his thoughts wholly from the Blessed Sacrament at such time as any of this froth is cast back again upon the Author which I heartily wish he had spared me the pains of doing and that he had kept his Egg and his Elephant to himself The Analogy would have been more easily made out by those who maintain that Grace and Vertue are the Body and Blood of Christ verily and indeed received for so an Egg is vertually at least an Elephant if according to the principle of the Philosopher Omnia animalia generantur ex ovo every Animal is generated out of an Egg then by such as hold with the Catholic Church that the Sacrament is not Bread and Wine but what verily and indeed it is the Real Body and Blood of Christ Now how to change a Musket-bullet into a Pike I confess I know not The Dragoons better understand that piece of Martial exercise Howsoever I must needs acknowledge with the Author that it seems strange that any Man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike therefore it is a thousand pities that so curious a Wit as his should be concern'd in so absurd an enterprise as he believes his to be And yet Good God what will not the confident presumption of some Men put them upon he undertakes a task fully as impossible to be performed as that and of infinitely more dangerous consequence to prove that not to be which by the power of God is really made to be in the Sacrament The Author knows that the Catholic Church grounds this wonderful change made in the Elements upon Divine Revelation which depends upon the Veracity of God So that it will not be so very hard a case to maintain by a discourse much shorter than this of the Author even our Lords Words of Institution that what we see and handle and taste as Bread is not Bread in substance but the Body of Christ and what we see and taste as Wine is not Wine in substance but the Blood of our Saviour And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any further proof I do not see why any Man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not since the Word of God is more Infallible than our senses and this without all possibility of being farther confuted for he that denies the Veracity of God can no ways conclude his senses to be veracious The denial then of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation is not a Controversy of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down-right impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the sense and reason of Mankind DISCOURSE It is a most Self-evident Falsehood and there is no Doctrin or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true than Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-Catholic Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other Society of Christians to be any part of it So Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth for it cannot be true unless our Senses and the Senses of all Mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this be true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing ANSWER The Doctrin of the real Presence or Transubstantiation is a Truth that is evident upon the Authority of the Revealer and there is no Opinion that the Author holds is more evidently false than this is evidently true For Faith is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. and the best natur'd truth in the World it is which conveys us infinite blessings Which unless it be so we have no reason to believe any thing else to be true a Truth like that of the Catholic Church which unless it be that which hath lived in Communion with and just obedience to her chief Pastors especially St. Peter and his lawful Successors in the See of Rome then there hath been no true Church upon the face of the Earth For so the real Presence or Transubstantiation unless it be true we cannot be assured of any truth It must be so if God be veracious that is unless what he reveals be false since the very truth of our Senses and all our Faculties depends upon his Veracity and if we be not certain of what he hath revealed though it seem to contradict our Senses we are certain of nothing DISCOURSE And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Error and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these
disapprove of the Definition made in King Edwards time and that they were for a Real Presence And of this we can make no doubt when we peruse the Writings of those Pastors who succeeding them till this very time have given so full an account of their Faith in this weighty instance and yet have past uncensur'd nay have been of greatest esteem in their Church And how indeed can we imagin that Men of the least sincerity would leave an Article of infinite concern to Mens Immortal Souls in so undeterminat a Sense that Christians might believe which they pleas'd either that Christs Body was thus Really present in the Sacrament which if it were not they incurr'd the guilt of gross Idolatry or that it was not so which if Really it was they were guilty of Infidelity in not believing Our Lord upon his Word and a breach of the first Commandment in not Worshipping the second Person in the Trinity presenting himself to us in this Sacrament according to that saying of the Great St. Augustin concerning this matter Peccamus non adorando We sin in not Worshipping Such an Equivocation as this in an Assembly of Christian Pastors upon the proposal of so great a Point must needs have been of far more dangerous consequence to Christians than the Ambiguous Answers of the Delphic Oracle were to the Heathen World. This far then the business is clear'd that the Real and not Virtual Presence only of Christs Body in the Sacrament was the Doctrin of the English Church for what some Men amongst them of great Latitude in Belief have maintain'd to the contrary doth not prejudice the truth which the more sound of that Communion have generally asserted And notwithstanding that their Late Clergy in the Year 1661. in compliance to the Dissenting Party by the chief management of the late Lord Shaftsbury's Politic Spirit were induced after hard solliciting to receive an Additional Declaration tho' not Printed in their Rubrick Letter at the end of their Communion Service yet since they would not by any means be brought to receive the former Declaration of King Edward the Sixth's time without the change of those words It is here declared that no Adoration is here intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood into these which follow It is here declared that no Adoration is here intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there Bodily Received or unto any Corporal Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood the words Real and Essential as you see being changed into Corporal this cannot but reasonably be imagin'd to be done out of Caution to the Present Church her maintaining still a Real and Essential Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament whereas those in the latter time of King Edward seem to have denied it Moreover tho' it be said in this last Declaration that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances and therefore may not be Adored yet if by Natural Substances or Essences here is no more meant as the words may very well be understood and are shewn by Catholics to be understood in the Authorities of Theodoret and Gelasius than the external and sensible Essences or properties of Bread and Wine and not the internal Substance or Essence this Declaration will not be repugnant either to the Real Presence or to Transubstantiation and the Adoration will be terminated neither on the Internal or External Essences of Bread and Wine but upon Christ the only begotten Son of God Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament which the Council of Trent it self hath declared to be the Sense of the Catholic Church as to the Point of Adoration Again if the last part of this Declaration wherein it is said that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one be yet urg'd to prove that the above mention'd Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist is not at present the Doctrin of the English Church I answer that whereas it is there said that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here meaning in the Sacrament if by Natural Body be there understood Christs Body according to the Natural manner of a Bodies being present and according to which tho' in a glorified state it actually exists in Heaven we do not say that the Body of Christ is here in this Sacrament in that natural manner any more than the Doctors of the English Communion but if no more be mean't by the words Natural Body but the very true and as we may call it Essential Body of Christ tho' present in a supernatural manner proper to the Sacrament it is a very bold assertion to say absolutely that it is against the Truth of it to be so or that this cannot possibly be true since we know so little to what the Omnipotence of God which could convey this very Body into the Room where the Disciples were the Doors being fast shut can extend it self and yet the Body be the very same Body in verity of Nature which is in Heaven the Presence of which in the Sacrament a late Eminent Author of the English Church sufficiently intimates that some he might have said very many of their Divines have maintain'd notwithstanding the vain endeavors which the Answerer to the Treatise Printed at Oxford to shew the sentiment of the Church of England Divines in this Point has us'd to wrest them to another Sense For after having told us his own Opinion viz. that all which the Doctrin of his Church meaning the Church of England implies is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the Faithful receiving of them to convey Spiritual and Real Effects to the Souls of Men he subjoyns if any one yet thinks that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this i. e. do seem to speak of the Presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven let them know says he it is the Doctrin of our Church I am to defend and not of every particular Divine in it Now altho' by those wary terms of every particular Divine and seeming to speak he endeavors what he can both to diminish the number and their clear acknowledgment of the Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament which is in Heaven yet he could not but know that the Asserters of it were very many and still are even since the Declaration and such as may be presumed to know the meaning of it as cunningly worded as it is as well if not better than himself and for this besides what I have had by particular converse with divers I will appeal to the sincerity of those who have heard the Determinations which
vertue of it as Protestants do since it is clear from all their Writings that they did hold it as proved from Scripture Altho I might have saved my self the trouble of clearing this point so largely had I not thought it convenient rather for the vindication of these Writers whom the Author hath so grosly abused than for the defending the Doctrin of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation For what if seven Authors should before the Solemn Declaration of the Church have denied it to be necessarily proved from Scripture tho' really they have not Are there not seventy times seven of another mind Were not the Arian Bishops the Semi-Pelagians and other Heretics who at several times oppos'd the Articles of the Christian Faith vastly more numerous And the Author knows that Catholic Christians are not to rely upon the Judgment of any inconsiderable number of private Doctors Opinions concerning the Sense of an Article of Religion but upon the Judgment of the generality of Catholic Fathers which is discerned in their Writings and in the Decisions of the most General Councils and in the constant and general Tradition of the Church DISCOURSE Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the Sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whether we consider the like Expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour says he is the Door and the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said This is my true Body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's Body and the Rock which follow'd the Israelites to be Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that rock which follow'd them and that rock was Christ All which and innumerable more like Expressions in Scripture every Man understands in a Figurative and not in a strictly Literal and absurd Sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so than to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph Expounding Pharaoh's Dream to him Gen. 41. 26. says The seven good Kine are seven years and the seven good Ears of Corn are seven years that is they signifi'd or represented seven years of plenty and so Pharaoh understood him and so would any Man of Sense understand the like Expressions nor do I believe that any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Blood and this which you see mee now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have entred into any man's Mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his Hand and give away himself from himself with his own Hands ANSWER Secondly Since there is a necessity of understanding our Saviours words in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation I am sure there can be no reason given to understand them otherwise For if we consider the expressions which the Author produceth out of Scripture as resembling these they are so far from being like them that from thence we shall prove the quite contrary to what the Author alledgeth them for Therefore to reduce this Head of Discourse to some Method I shall first lay down the Principles by which it is to be governed that I may the better afterwards draw my Conclusion 1. Christ ever spake reasonably and in a manner conformable to good Sense nothing escaping him through imprudence or mistake 2. His Power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our minds therefore it is against reason that we should confine it to the narrow bounds of our understanding or pretend that God cannot do what we cannot conceive 3. When the Sense of the words which Christ speaks if taken properly is not contradictory to Right Reason tho' above it and the Rules of human Discourse oblige us to take these words in the proper Sense then we are not to doubt of the Truth of them as so taken That we may the better apply these Principles and the ensuing Discourse to the Case in hand I shall endeavor to State it as precisely as may be and draw it into as narrow a compass as I can Christ in the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament said THIS IS MY BODY Which words Those of the English Church that do not believe the Presence of Christs Real Body in the Sacrament yet Attribute the efficacy thereof to the due Reception of the Sacramental Elements and I will Charitably suppose the Author to be one of these interpret thus This thing which you see to be Bread in Substance is a Sign of my Real Body wherein the vertue of my Body tho' it self be absent is contained or whereunto this vertue is conjoyned or together with which it is exhibited which several sorts of expressions I am forc't to use that I may by some of them reach that Sense which they have not yet sufficiently explained Catholics thus This thing which by the means of your Senses is represented to the mind under the Species or Appearance of Bread is my Body in Substance In these Explications I say that by This in the Proposition This is my Body is meant this thing because this is a Pronoun Demonstrative that doth not express any particularly determinate and distinct Nature or Substance For it may be applied to any thing that is the object of Sense or of pure Understanding when it is but confusedly represented to the mind As we say pointing to a person before us This is John or this is Thomas pointing to an Animal we say This is a Lamb this is a Dove after we have discoursed of the nature of the Soul we may say of Cogitation conceiving it in our minds This is the property of the Soul. But because it would be great rashness of judgment and that which is strictly called prejudice to conclude fully of the nature of any thing which another that is presumed to know it better than we do should be shewing to us before he hath fully pronounced his Proposition by which he is to discover it's nature As for instance if any one holding up a Gilt Shilling or a Counterfeit Guiny should be about to inform us truly that this was but a Shilling or a Counterfeit piece of Gold which notwithstanding appeared to the Senses like Gold we should rashly conclude before he tells us fully what it is he shews us that it is a true piece of Gold Or on the other hand if any