Martyr Anno Dom. 203. Now Fathers besides these great Marks of the true Catholic Church I perceived also that according to the Command and Institution of our Saviour his Vicegerent here did send out his Disciples Preaching and Baptizing through all Nations Insomuch that since Gregory the Great before whose time you tell us that this Holy Church began to fall there have been converted to the Christian Faith otherwise call'd the Roman Catholic Faith neer Thirty great Kingdoms or Provinces among which Our Saxon Ancestors help to make up the number besides infinite multitudes in the East and West Indies And so much pains should be taken in obedience to our Saviours commands and promise of his assistance so much blood of holy Martyrs spilt and all this to bring Heathens and Pagans from the worship of their false Gods into another Idolatrous and damnably corrupted Religion may possibly to your Reasons appear consistent with the Mercy and Goodness of Almighty God but pray excuse me if I tell you that to my Reason it seems altogether repugnant but this is matter of Opinion Having got thus far toward that Sovereign Ecclesiastical Authority in Matters of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation and believing according to the strongest Evidences of Sense and Reason that it must be in the Church of Rome or no where which last Opinion must dissolve that whole Fabrick against which our Saviour promis'd the gates of Hell should not prevail I resolved to make yet one step further and enquire Whether this Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church could have so far forfeited her great Priviledges and Prerogatives by the practice of damnable Doctrines and pernicious Errors of which your selves and others have most greivously accused her as to render her not only unworthy of the name and Title to which She pretends but also to make her Communion most unsafe and desperately dangerous to all honest and pious Christians I confess Fathers when I consider'd what some of your selves had often told me and what I found in many of your Eminent Authors concerning the late Innovation of those Doctrines controverted between the two Churches I began to have hard thoughts of the present Roman Catholic Communion Much more when enquiring how late these Doctrines were introduced into the Church you generally told me that they were not impos'd upon the Faithful before the Council of Trent which hath not been ended much above an Hundred and twenty three years But when I compar'd the date of your Reformation with that of this Council I plainly perceiv'd that the protesting against these Errors was begun and well nigh perfected before these Errours were as you say then impos'd which tho it seem'd somewhat strange and might have past with others for a reasonable Answer to this Objection of Novelty yet I resolv'd to peruse the Councils themselves and de point en point note the time when these Doctrines were in Council Establisht 1. I began with the Popes Supremacy which I found confirm'd in the Council of Chalcedon Act. 16. one of the first four General Councils own'd by Protestants above Twelve Hundred years since Six Hundred and thirty Fathers present and about the year of our Lord 451. and relation had to the first Council of Nice Can. 6. This Supremacy also allow'd profest and taught by the most Ancient Fathers after the Apostles and confest so to have been by Melancton Luther Bucer Bilson Dr. Cooper Bunny Fulk Middleton Osiander the Centurists and many others too long to mention 2. Those Books which you call Apocrypha were taken into the Canon of the Old Testament in the Third Council of Carthage Signed by St. Augustin Baruch only not named because an Appendix to Jeremiah whose Secretary he was Can. 47. 3. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass in the Sixth Council of Constantinople a Thousand years since Can. 32. And also in the Ninth Council of the Apostles Decreed That a Bishop c. shall communicate when Sacrifice is made 4. Veneration and worship of Saints Relicks according to Apostolical Tradition as also of Martyrs and holy Images in the Second Council of Nice Three Hundred and Fifty Fathers present Act. 3. Anno Dom. 780. See more in Act 7. With the general Concurrences of Ancient Fathers 5. Communion under one kind sufficient in the Council of Constance Sess 13. and practis'd in the Church Twelve Hundred years since 6. Purgatory and many more too long to relate in the Council of Florence and believed in the Primitive times 7. And lastly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation confirmed in the great Council of Lateran in which neer Thirteen Hundred Fathers assisted And in Seven or Eight other Councils before that of Trent and all the controverted Points particularly and by name declared by some of your selves to have been brought into England by Augustin the Monk above a Thousand years since Indeed Fathers when I had diligently examin'd this Truth and found it most Evident beyond the possibility of any just or reasonable Contradiction I was much scandaliz'd at the disingenuity of your Writers who whilst they accuse others of Fallacy Imposture and Impudence dare advance so great and demonstrable a Falsehood in Matter of Fact that nothing but Ignorance can excuse them so they expose themselves to the greatest Censure of rashness and indiscretion as uncharitable and unjust to those whom they call their Enemies as also unsafe and abusing the Credulity of their Friends It will not consist with the Brevity here intended to speak fully of every particular Point in dispute between us I shall content my self therefore to affirm as I do that there are but few of them which have not been tolerated and practis'd more or less by some Eminent Members of the Reformed Churches and which have not undeniable Authority and Antiquity to support them I shall fix therefore upon two only and consider how far they may bear and appear reasonable to an Impartial Reader 1. The Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church 2. The Doctrine of Transubstanpiation For the two firsts I think them so necessarily involv'd one within the other that in proving one we prove both for if the Supream lawful Ecclesiastical Authority resides in the Church of Rome as representing in its General Councils the Catholic Church assembled then we have the promise of our Saviour that his holy Spirit shall ever assist them and guide them into all Truth This I believe not only with a Popish but with a Protestant Faith for you have always told me and I think you do not now deny it that the Catholic Church cannot err in Fundamentals or hold the Faith corrupt the difficulty only lies in finding the Chatholic Church which to avoid some unlucky consequences that might disturb your quiet you prudently tell us Is not certainly to be found It remains therefore that we find this Supream lawful Authority which represents the visible Catholic Church I have given you my Judgment already And that
you may not believe I have err'd through Popish Affectation I will produce also for my Justification the sound Judgment of your best Reformers Luther tells us I do not deny but that the Bishop of Rome is Resp tred propos hath been and ought to be first of all I believe he is above all other Bishops it is not lawful to deny his Supremacy Melancton the Phaenix of learning says That the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church Epist ad Card. Belay that it is his Office to Judge in Controversies to govern to watch over the Priests to keep all Nations in Conformity and Vnity of Doctrines Somaisius The Pope of Rome hath been without controversie the first Metropolitan of Italy and not only in Italy nor only in the West but in all the World The other Metropolitans have been Chief in their respective Districts but the Pope of Rome Tract ad Sermondum hath been Metropolitan and Primate not only of some particular Diocess but of All. Grotius for whom I have a great respect and think him a very learned Man says the same thing and proves this Supremacy belongs to the Pope de Jure divino Annot. Sup. Nov. Test This also inferr'd from Episcopal Government by Jacob Cartwright Husse Beza and many others Now Fathers you cannot say but these Eminent Protestants were Men of great Learning and that they had searcht and understood Scripture and History as well as your selves and if my Judgment concurs with them in this Point as I profess it doth then have I found that lawful Supream Authority which I searched and where this Authority is there is Infallibility Or if you can shew me Infallibility elsewhere there also I am sure I will believe a sufficient Authority The differences between them I cannot easily discern Infallibility is from God and therefore we believe what is dictated thereby as from God Supream Ecclesiastical Authority is also from God and therefore we obey what it commands us as the Ordinance of God Infallibility concludes our Reasons and binds our Consciences Supream Church Authority binds also our Consciences and Supersedes all private Reason Infallibility is above all humane Authority The highest Church Authority can have no such Authority upon Earth above it Infallibility establisheth and supports Authority Authority declares and makes manifest the Infallibility Infallibility and the Promises of Christ fail when Authority is destroy'd Authority lives not when Infallibility ceaseth In a word were there no Infallibility as I believe there is I would still submit my Reason and regulate my Conscience according to the Decrees of the Supream lawful Ecclesiastical Authority This is my Belief pray blame me not I am humble and have read Scripture and upon my word I am Sincere You may believe otherwise I presume not to Judge you After all this worthy Fathers I must not forget to tell you that I still lay under some Difficulties before I could throughly assent to this Authority now believ'd in the Church of Rome For you had often told me that She had fallen from her Primitive Purity and separated her self from that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Answ to Prot. Quaeries p. 10. Declar'd also to be Antichristian and the true Church Latent and Invisible by that famous Napper to King James Brocard Fulk Sebast Francus Hospinian and many others Now good Fathers if She was once a pure and uncorrupted Church I presume She remains so still for give me leave to tell you I do not well see how She can separate from her self for Mr. Chillingworth an Eminent Author among you lookt upon it as a thing ridiculous if not impossible for says he In the Case of the Church of England p. 174. We have not forsaken but only reformed another part of it the Catholic Church which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion Nor yet can She separate from the Catholic Church for the same Learned person tells us immediately after And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore were separated from the whole I say it follows not inasmuch as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves But next supposing a part may separate from it self or from the whole pray be plain with me worthy Fathers and tell me where that part or that whole remain'd from whence the Church of Rome separated For Separation first supposes the Existence of the thing from which Separation is made and is a deadly fault and foretold by the Apostles as a mischief which would happen in the last days Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ how that they told you that there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts these be they who Separated themselves sensual Jude v. 17 18 19. having not the Spirit Let us confider one another to provoke unto love and to good works Heb. 10.24 not forgetting the assembling our selves together and so much the more Act. 20.30 as ye see the day approaching Also of your selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them Now the Church of Rome was not only visible but a very Eminent Church St. Paul tells us Rom. 1. That her Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World And certainly that pure Church frâ—m which She Separated must needs be by so much the more Eminent as Her Apostacy was notorious which forsook her Tell me therefore where that pure Church remain'd that we may retrieve the true Christian Doctrine If she Separated from her self then besides Mr. Chill answer I add these Contradictions must be reciev'd as Truths The Church of Rome was at the same time Orthodox and Heterodox pure and corrupt sound but yet rotten Or if you can distinguish them shew me the Orthodox Pure and Sound part which was left by the Heterodox corrupt and rotten Church of Rome declare the time when the Separation was made and where both were to be found These are plain Questions and I must have a plain Answer if it can be had If you say She Separated from the Catholic Church then tell me where that Catholic Church remain'd from which She Separated and where She may be found for in good faith Fathers my Salvation is highly concern'd in this Question and I must be satisfied If you tell me She is invisible as others have done you plainly abuse me for I have long since learnt from your selves as a Maxim in Philosophy that de non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio It is the same thing not at all to be as not at all to appear Besides excuse me if I take the word of our Saviour and his Apostles and all the
External Government and that but in some particulars with which I meddle not If you tell me a story of the Abbot of Bangor I answer the particular ground of it is evidently false and forg'd and at best all circumstances consider'd of little consequence The plain Truth is this The Brittains received the Christian Faith even in the days of the Apostles But being persecuted at home by the Romans Picts and Saxons Religion fled to the Mountains and bordering parts of Wales At the same time the Church of Rome was no less afflicted by the Heathen Emperours and no wonder if in these days and circumstances there was but little Correspondence between Rome and Wales But when the Church brought forth from her subterraneous Refuges and set upon a Hill began to enlarge her self and propagate the Gospel according to the Commands of our Saviour Go ye and Preach unto all Nations Gregory the Great sent Augustin the Monk into England somewhat before the year Six Hundred to see how Matters went here in this long interval of silence and distractions In short the Brittains knew him not and no wonder until he had confirm'd his Commission by Miracles and such as none yet ever denied The great Errors which he found among them were chiefly two Their Asiatic Error concerning the keeping of Easter and dissent from the use of the Roman Church in the administring of Baptism And altho in some other Matters they differ'd from the Church of Rome yet Augustin promised to tolerate those provided they would rectifie these which the Brittish Bishops consented to and confessed That it was the right way of Justice and righteousness which Austin taught Si his tribus mihi obtemperare vultis ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut ministerium Baptizandi juxta morem Rom. Apost Ecolesiae compleatis Ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis Verbum Domini Caetera quae agitis quamvis Moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus Cum Brittones confitentur Intellexisse se veram esse viam Justitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus Beda Hist l. 2. c. 2. Hence we may observe That the two great faults which Austin found with the Brittains were about Easter and Baptism that the Brittains at first highly oppos'd this Innovation but that in all other Substantials they agreed That Austin is severely accus'd for bringing into England the Popish Superstition and all other Points by name controverted between us at this day is plain from neer twenty Eminent Protestant Authors both at home and abroad And that the Brittish Bishops did not except against any of these save only Easter and Baptism is confest Now after all this can we believe that the Brittains who earnestly contradicted Austin in these smaller Points and were so tenacious of their own Customs would have silently recieved so many and imcomparably much greater Points of Faith had they in like manner disagreed from him therein Credat Judaeus Apella The consequence which I draw from all this is that the same Doctrines these two Points excepted which Austin taught the Saxons had been deliver'd to the Brittains from the Apostles If you understand otherwise I shall be glad to be better informed Or if you can give us a better Authority than venerable Bede you will do well to produce it In the mean time when we consider the great Learning and Holiness of St. Gregory so esteem'd by all sober men the Piety of Austin himself and of Bede who writes the Story He must be a bold man who without better proof than I have hitherto seen dares accuse these three great Persons and the whole Christian World at that time of Idolatry and all those other damnable Crimes then taught of which you are pleased to say the Church of Rome at present is guilty If you go higher and object a Letter of Pope Eleutherius to King Lucius I demur But I take it for granted that these old Arguments are thredbare and will not hold Water otherwise I would humbly advise you to insist totally upon them for if you can make out your Lawful Supream Independent Authority in determining Matters of Faith without Appeal trouble not your selves nor abuse your Friends with Sophistical Artificial Pamphlets about Judges and Guides in Controversies Reason and Sense against Faith and Obedience and I know not what to that purpose but stick close to your Authority make it out plain and you carry all before you In good earnest Reverend Fathers I see but one way how you 'l evade these Difficulties which press hard upon you and it is this That you have an Infallible Rule Gods Holy Word containing all things necessary to Salvation And Mr. Chillingworth tells us p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently Perfect so sufficiently Intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Now if the Scripture be a Guide and a Judge as well as a Rule Then have you been to blame all this while that you have not told us particularly where the Catholic Church was for certainly where the Bible is and where all men that have understanding whether learned or unlearned by reading it hold all things necessary to Salvation there the Catholic Church is whether at Rome or in London and I will not believe so ill of any who in such Case read the Scripture as to imagine that they wilfully oppose a Truth which is clear to them and Mr. Chillingworth tells me p. 367. That Believing all that is clear to me in Scripture I must needs believe all Fundamentals and so I cannot incur Heresie which is opposite to some Fundamental In a word wheresoever there is or was a Bible and a Man of understanding whether learned or unlearned that read it there was a certain number of the true Catholic Church pure and uncorrupt For the same hand again tells us p. 101. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is Faith must also of necessity teach me what is Heresie that which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked So here is not only a Member but according to my understanding the Representative of the whole Catholic Church for here is Authority and Infallibility and further than that I seek not But if the holy Bible be a certain Rule but withal that this Person of understanding whether learned or unlearned be not sufficiently qualified to find out certainly all things necessary to Salvation and of necessity to teach what Heresie is and I confess I shrewdly suspect that there may be many in the World who cannot with a wet Finger perform all this then are we to seek again for a Judge and an Authority and are got no further than we were sixteen Hundred years since when the Scripture was first acknowledged to be the Word of God But to do Justice worthy Fathers to you and to my self let us further consider these and many other seeming Absurdities which appear at first sight such
Nature by means of the Eucharist doth make it all to rise Immortal and glorious The same may be seen in Iraen l. 8. contr Haer c. 34. And many others who understand the encrease of the Flesh to be a raising of the Flesh towards a state of Immortality and disposing it towards a happy Resurrection according to that of S. John c. 6. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath life Everlasting and I will raise him up at the last day But if these Interepretations should not happen to please you I shall then recommend you to a late Catholic Author and leave you to himself or his Excellent Treatise The Defence for the Adoration of the Body and Blood of our Lord p. 14. For further satisfaction his words are these ' This External Sign or Symbol they the Catholics affirm to be all That of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any Sense And tho' after Consecration the Substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is Substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive vertue of the Bread nor nothing visible nor tangible or otherwise perceptible by any sense are involved in it All which at last we shall endeavour to explain The last Head is That the words of Consecration are not to be taken in a literal Sense To prove this our Discourser brings several killing Testimonies as he calls them but I know not whom they hurt except the Caphernaites for all Catholics own both the Authorities and the Doctrine contained in them as absolutely necessary to the true and Orthodox understanding their Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament That is to say That the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not there after a Natural and Corporeal manner as it was upon the Cross that is specifically and according to the outward Form and local Existence but spiritually supernaturally and without Circumscription that is external Commensuration of or Co-extension with Place And if Pascasius meant otherwise of the Sacrament than what is here exprest then Rabanus Maurus did well to oppose him with all his might as another Anonymus did if not the same Rabanus in a Tract extant in Codice Gemblacens Cosnobij cum Heregeri Opusculo But that this good Arch-Bishop did so understand him is plain for these two Reasons First because he hath always been acknowledged an Orthodox Bishop among all Catholics and next because his own words have with good reason confirm'd Catholics in this their Opinion of him and they are these Who says he would ever believe that Bread could be turn'd into Flesh or Wine into Blood except our Saviour himself had said it who Created Bread and Wine and made all things out of Nothing but it is easier to make one thing out of another than all things out of Nothing L. 7. de Sacris ordin ad Theatmanum c. 10. Now after all these Authorities from the Fathers and a Hundred more which might be produc't to shew that they believ'd the Real Presence together with the agreable concurrent sense of them all running through their whole Works besides their constant practice of Adoration and Belief of an unbloody Sacrifice and many Learned Protestants confessing that they did so believe After all this I suppose I need not enquire of our Discourser when this Doctrine of the Real Presence came into the World for I am convinc't that it was in the very days of the Apostles themselves or to use the words of Sebastianus Francus and Hospinian two Eminent Protestants jam tum primo illo tempore viventibus adhuc Apostolis c. But because our Discourser hath made use of the name of the good Arch-Bishop of Mentz to countenance and support his false Chronology it is Just that I take off this scandalous imputation from Rabanus Maurus Now altho his own words before recited are more than sufficient to clear this Excellent Person yet at present I shall only make use of our Discourser's own computation to destroy the probability of his unreasonable Supposition which he calls a plain Testimony He tells us P. 21. That in the Second Council of Nice Anno Dom. 787. The Sacrament was declar'd to be properly the Body and Blood of Christ and that thence this Opinion got footing among the Greeks And that in the year 818. Pascasius first broacht this Doctrine in the Latin Church insinuating that until that time this Doctrine was not receiv'd among the Latins and that thereupon Rabanus Maurus in the year 847 wrote against this Pascasius for introducing this new Error Thus far the Story is very well laid but here are these hard difficulties to be digested before we can give it that credit which he expects First it is certain that Peter Arch-Presbyter of the Roman Church and Peter the Monk were present in the said Council in behalf of Pope Adrian That the said Pope wrote Letters to the Emperour Constantius and also to Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople which were received by the said Council And lastly that the Popes Supremacy was confirmed in this very Council in these words Quod Ecclesia Romana sit Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Act 2. Now from this Council to Rabanus Maurus there was an Interval of 60 years from the Council to Pascasius of one and Thirty years and can we believe that this Doctrine of the Real Presence which was declared in this Council in the presence of the Popes Legats and confirm'd by the Pope himself should be one and Thirty years a getting over from Nice into the Latin Church Or that so Learned a Man as Rabanus and so esteem'd by our Discourser should be ignorant sixty years after this Council was held That this Doctrine had been there declared And so grosly mistake Pascasius for the first broacher of it Truly for my part altho' Rabanus had not explain'd himself concerning his Faith according to those expressions before related yet would I not easily have believ'd that he could have been so ignorant of the Transaction of this Council or would have accus'd Pascasius of introducing so gross an Error into the Latin Church when he knew that he writ no otherwise than as had been Thirty years before determin'd in a General Council It is plain therefore that Rabanus quarrell'd with some Expressions of Pascasius as importing the Erroneous sense before mention'd Our Discourser being confident that he hath found out the date of Transubstantiation falls a little foul upon Mr. Arnauld because he cannot believe that such a Doctrine should have been impos'd upon the Christian World and yet so universally receiv'd except there had been some extraordinary if not an universal Opposition and indeed our Discourser of all mankind ought to have believ'd so too for if every man should have had as ill an Opinion of it as himself its establishment had been impossible But that he
Aristides St. Augustin Grotius and many excellent Scholars counted it more Madness insolentissimae Insaniae est to contradict the Judgment of All or the Most or the most Wise and of the most wise All or Most or the most Excellent for says one of them as in matter of Fact we ought to believe the most and most proper and credible Witnesses so in matters of Opinion we are obliged to submit to the most and most Excellent Authors Now sure these praestantissimi Auctores are those who write with best Authority and have Commission from the Highest Powers so to do Yet notwithstanding all this I followed my own private Reason in my particular Points until a stronger Reason I mean the joint and common Reason of Mankind and my Conscience too daily dictating that my Judgment in particular Cases might fail that all had not equal strength that God therefore had not left the World without Government nor given us Laws without lawful Judges and Interpreters that these Judges ought to be obeyed These I say and such like considerations interrupted the quiet of my life until at last my united Reason made its last effort and fully and totally convinc'd me that if any such Authority was to be found upon Earth I ought in reason to submit my particular Reasons to it Truly Fathers when upon deliberate counsel I had determin'd to take this most reasonable course Give me leave to tell you that I began to wonder how your selves tho most learned most reasonable and most pious Men could be satisfied under the conduct of your private Reasons if there may be found any legal Supream Judge which might ultimately and Authoritatively guide and direct you Pardon me I do not presume to measure my Reason against the meanest among yours for I question not but yours would err much less than mine but yet lest your own should err at all methinks it were safest and by consequence most reasonable to seek some Authority if any such there be under which you might be secur'd from all Errour at least as far as humane nature is capable of it For my part my Reason and Conscience forc't me to take that method and I resolved either to find that Authority and submit to it or keep to my own Principles how erroneous soever they might be esteem'd by others My first enquiry after this Authority was in the Church of England for tho you had often told me that it was not there yet I was more inclin'd to suspect your Modesty than condemn your want of Prudence in pretending to subsist securely without it But when I had again examined the holy Scriptures together with the best Records and Histories concerning your legal Title to this Supream Jurisdiction I found indeed you had reason and were very ingenuous in disowning what did not of right belong unto you For if the Church of England enjoys this Power by the same Rule and for the same Reasons Holland Denmark Swedeland France Italy and Spain would have the same Title to it as your selves nay perhaps Turks and Pagans But my Reason told me from the sad effects which we daily see that this must needs be most contrary to the Unity of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church I then recollected how you had often told me that the Catholic Church could never Err but that it would always hold the purity of Faith uncorrupt I remember then to have askt of your Reverences where this Catholic Church was to be found and you told me That it was dispers'd all over the Christian World I was troubled that your answer was so wide however I resolved to search and first I enquired in the Roman Church Indeed they assured me that I should there find what I lookt for 'T is true I found them all of one mind in necessaries but when I examin'd their Doctrines I perceived as you had often declar'd that if yours were true their 's was much corrupt or if they dissembled they must needs be under as great a condemnation Among them therefore there could be no part of the Catholic Church Then I went into the Greek Church but found there also the same objections and difficulties In a word I went through the Asian and African Churches the Denmark Swedeland Lutheran and Socinian Churches yet found nothing but Hypocrisie or the true Faith according to your Standard notoriously corrupt I name not Holland because among them I saw such a Medley of Faiths that it look't to me as Babel might have done when God confounded their Language but certainly if the Catholic Doctrine had been practis'd in those parts where I had been Holland surely of any Nation would best have represented the Universal Church But believe me Fathers it must then have quitted its Titles of Unity and Holiness except Vnity can consist with Division or Holiness with the World the Flesh and the Devil At last I return'd to your selves and acquainted you how unsuccessful my Journey had been you still replied that there was undoubtedly a Catholic Church Militant upon Earth and that this Church did also hold the true Faith of Christ uncorrupt but withal that it was not necessary it should be visible quoting at the same time the complaint of Elijah that he only he was left to whom God answered that he had seven Thousand left in Israel unknown to Elijah who had not bent the knee to Baal And that this was a Type of the Christian Church Truly Fathers may it not displease you I began to think that you had trifled with me all this while and pleas'd your selves to send me of an April Errand for to look for a thing which is invisible is a kind of a foolish Message Perceiving that you had not us'd me kindly I resolved to set out once more upon my own strength especially since I believ'd with you that there was an unerring Catholic Church and more than you that this Church was certainly and easily visible This my Belief was also the more confirm'd when I had well consider'd the Story of Elijah for I found that this defection and falling away from the worship of the true God was in Israel only a rebellious Kingdom separated from the chosen Tribe of Judah God knows how like our Case in England but in Jerusalem God had a public Temple a public High Priest and public true Worshippers and so they continued except some little time they were punisht with Captivity until the coming of Christ I made my first step as I had done before into the Church of Rome and indeed I there found all the marks and signs of a true Catholic Church As 1. Universality and Visibility And it shall come to pass in the last days Isa 2.2 that the Mountain of the Lords house shall be established in the top of the Mountains and shall be exalted above the Hills Micah 4.1 And the people shall flow unto her Mat. 18.17 And if he shall neglect to
hear them tell it to the Church 2. Uninterrupted continuance and Succession This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is upon thee Isa 59.21 and my word which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy Seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth and for ever And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists Ephes 4.11 And some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the ministery for the edifying the body of Christ Till we all come in the unity of faith unto a perfect man c. 3. Unity and Uniformity Now I beseech you brethren that ye all speak the same thing and that there be be no divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joyned together in the same mind 1 Cor. 1.10 and in the same Judgment That ye stand fast in one spirit with one mind Phil. 1.27 striving together for the faith of the gospel 4. Holy Fathers and Martyrs General Councils and Synods a High Priest and a Holy Sacrifice Vndoubted Miracles and Divine Sacraments Holy Orders and Religious Colledges Abstinence and Pennance Faith and Obedience Charity and Good Works And in a word fundamental Doctrines Authoritatively impos'd and Vniversally receiv'd throughout the whole Christian World Be not offended Fathers that I speak so largely of their Doctrine for having well examin'd I say again that nere eight parts in ten among Christians agree in those very Articles or most of them which are controverted between your selves and them And these believ'd from the beginning of their Conversions whether in Europe Asia Africa or America Having met with these great inducements to perswade me I had found the true Catholic Church and believing that a visible Body could not subsist without a visible Head I made it my next business to enquire after this Supream Vicegerent or Representative of the whole And indeed methought there was no great difficulty in it I began at the Head I mean Christ Jesus and found 1. That he was a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec That he instituted a new Law and gave Commissions to his Apostles to promulgate and interpret it and promised the assistance of his holy Spirit to the end of all Ages Next that of these he appointed one to be Chief I mean St. Peter so reputed and unanimously esteemed by the Fathers in the Eldest times of Christianity the Fathers so understood by many among your selves and not to be disputed without manifest injury and violence to their plain Writings and so received by the whole Catholic Church His Succession for many years deliver'd to us by St. Augustin and brought down even to our present Age and Pope These worthy Fathers are pregnant Arguments of a lawful Authority I wisht you could have shewn me such another in your own Church I next lookt into this Ecclesiastical Government as far as it concern'd me and found that all Points of Faith were determin'd in General Councils which represent the Catholic Church assembled and in which our Saviour promis'd his holy Spirit should ever assist That they were always as General as the Circumstances of Times and Places would permit or the weight of the Matters to be debated required and free and indisputable when secur'd from violence and force that their Decrees were then made with deliberation and according to the received Doctrines of the Apostles and their Successors preserv'd in the Writings of Fathers or constant Apostolical Tradition kept inviolable in the Church And when thus made that they were obligatory to bind our Consciences and conclude our private Reasons I examined further whether this Vicegerent and Successor of St. Peter was received as such in these General Councils or Catholic Church and found his Authority own'd and confirm'd by them and that he was many hundred of years in the peaceable possession of it no man upon Earth pretending a Superiority or if any did that he was thereupon condemn'd as an Intruder or Usurper Hence I concluded as the nature and necessary Laws of Government requir'd that the Pope himself or General Council or Both united could not possibly grant this Supream Authority to any other Mortal Man or Men to hold independently of him or them because this must constitute another Supream independent Head of the same Body which is monstrous or a Head without a Body which is ridiculous or else there would be two distinct Heads and two Bodies which is directly contrary to the Vnity and Essence of Christs Church as frustrating or obstructing the main End and design of Christ that is of preventing Heresies or condemning them when they arise for par in parem non habet Imperium Two equal Sovereign Authorities have no Jurisdiction one over the other Besides this Vicegerent is but a Trustee or Fidei commissarius and can have no greater Power than what is given him by his Principal or Fidei Commissor now this is a personal Trust and cannot be alienated or divided because he holds not this Power in his own right as a Property or in pleno Jure Proprietatis he hath only the administration of it in trust for another So neither can he alienate the Patrimonium Ecclesiae or St. Peters Patrimony all Contracts therefore in these Cases would be fraudulent Tanquam facti de re alienâ and the Grantees become malae fidei possessores or unjust Possessors of what they could not lawfully purchase Lastly all Sovereign Power in the same Government is Indivisible and can only be delegagated in the Executive part for the administration of Justice but accountable still to the Head from whence it derives The Equal priviledges therefore or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 granted to the Patriarck of Constantinople prove nothing against this Supremacy of St. Peters Successor For First They were only honorary in consideration that Constantinople was become the Seat of the Empire Secondly Patriarchal or quatenus Patriarcha but not quatenus Caput Ecclesiae or as Head of the Universal Church And lastly it is particularly exprest in the same Canon that these Honours or Priviledges should be held and enjoy'd post Pontificem Romanum after the Bishop of Rome and it appears de facto that during the Third General Council held at Ephesus and allow'd by Protestants Pope Caelestine the First did by his substitute Cyril authoritatively depose and Excommunicate Nestorius then Patriarch of Constantinople And Pope Victor who lived Anno Dom. 198. Excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for their keeping of Easter contrary to the Institutions of St. Peter and St. Paul tho tolerated therein by St. John Nor could Ambition or Avarice in those days of Persecution move the Supream Heads of the Church to exercise such Jurisdiction for they got little by being Eminent and Conspicuous but Martyrdom and so it hapned to this Pope Victor who died a
surprising Doctrines that they make a Man gape and stare as if he were Thunder struck or had some strange Apparition Why truly your great Champion the Learned Chillingworth brings you still off with flying Colours I 'l give you his own Excellent words in p. 102. Where he says For me to believe further this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to my Faith or Salvation for if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his Wisdom to be wanting to his own Will and End as to speak obscurely Or how can it consist with his Justice to require of Men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed p. 18. For my Error or Ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such Errors who am a lover of Him and lover of Truth is to rob Man of his Comfort and God of his Goodness is to make Man desperate and God a Tyrant But he goes on p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently Perfect so sufficiently Intelligible in things necessary to all who have understanding whether learned or unlearned neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly reveal'd for to say that when a place in Scripture by reason of ambiguous Terms lies indifferent between divers Senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through Error and humane Frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainly to attain that End for the attaining whereof we have no certain means What an easie compendious and certain Rule of Faith is this But before we proceed let us consider what our Author understands by His meaning in these places speaking obscurely plainly contain'd in Scripture things necessary ambiguous Terms lying indifferent between divers Senses By all which he seems to insinuate that there may be some ambiguous Terms in Scripture which because they are not plain to every Understanding therefore not necessary to be truly understood and believ'd Indeed had he told us what was not ambiguous and what not necessary he had made our work much shorter I shall presume therefore to reduce the Question and affirm that if he means any thing by all this he must mean the whole New Testament to be ambiguous for let him shew me any one Text of Doctrine from the first of St. Matthew to the last of the Revelations the Moral Law and the Law of Nature only excepted which he thinks to be the most clear and I will produce whole Bodies of learned Christians who dispute it and believe contrary to one another in it If so then it appears demonstrably and by matter of Fact that all is ambiguous and by consequence every Man is safe in the Belief of the most opposite Doctrines if he useth his best Endeavours to which also he hath given a great Latitude to understand it aright For says he By my best endeavour I mean such a measure of industry as humane Prudence and ordinary Discretion my abilities and opportunities my distractions and hindrances and all other things consider'd marry and a great consideration it is shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence Chill p. 18.19 The whole Sense as far as it concerns my purpose runs thus There are some ambiguous Terms which lie indifferent between divers Senses whereof one is true and the other false but if a Man of understanding whether learn'd or unlearn'd uses his best endeavour to understand them that is by reading Scripture he will safely Err or not Err at all or else God is a Tyrant That there are ambiguous Terms is most certain for we find many most Learned Pious Men differing from and contradicting one another in most Points generally reputed Fundamental Secondly That in Fundamentals no man can safely Err because it is of the Essence of Christs Church to hold the Unity of Faith in Fundamentals uncorrupt And Lastly Most Christians are inclined to believe that God is no Tyrant Our Author from his own Promises and by what hath been already said seems evidently to draw this Conclusion that possibly and very probably a Man may safely Err in Fundamentals or God must be a Tyrant Now for my part when I read his excellent Works lately and some years since I always drew from the same Premises a most different Consequence that is That since there are ambiguous Terms in Points highly Fundamental therefore lest we should damnably Err in these or more impiously think God to be a Tyrant I concluded that God in his Wisdom and Goodness had certainly left us some infallible visible Authority which might unerringly deliver to us the true Sense of these ambiguous Terms Now besides the strong Evidences which we have from Scripture to believe this As for Example when our Saviour says Go ye into all the World Mark 16.15 and Preach the Gospel to every Creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned As thou hast sent me into the world John 17.18 even so have I also sent them into the world And again 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set some in the Church first Apostles Secondarily Prophets Thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then gifts of healing helps Governments Ephes 14.11 diversities of Tongues So also And he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers And Lastly that this Authority was to continue to the End of the Word All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations Mat. c. ult teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you always even unto the End of of the World I say besides this and much more to this purpose let all sober Christians witness for me whether it be not more pious more rational more comfortable to our selves and respectful to God to conclude as I have done that God hath left us such an Authority especially since such an Authority with good Reason offers it self to us than to agree with our Author That either God is a Tyrant or we may safely Err in Fundamentals Since therefore from our Authors own Premises notwithstanding the weight and plainness of them I should have made so contrary a Conclusion it may happen that in reading the Bible we might make as different Interpretations and whilst he believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God Consubstantial and Equal with the Father as to his Divinity I may affirm Christ to be meer Man and only Divinely Inspired Such things I have heard of but it may be worthy Fathers you may not think this a necessary
might find a fit parallel for Mr. Arnauld he takes a long Journey to Vienna the rather I suppose that he might pay his respects to the King of France and his Army as he return'd home again for he tells us That by the like Demonstration as Mr. Arnauld's one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him Now our Discourser without crossing the Seas might have given as proper an instance even from his own Doors for who could easily imagine that the Real Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body in the holy Sacrament should have been believ'd and profest by the Church of England in the days of King James the First and yet that in the Reign of King James the Second the figurative Doctrine in exclusion of the Real Presence should be so firmly and peaceably establisht among us as that not so much as one single Church of England Man at least that I have heard of tho highly dignified by honourable and profitable Employments in and by the said Church of England should write one word in Vindication of their ancient Church Nor one small Pamphlet to oppose the Innovation of these usurping Sacramentories But these things worthy Fathers concern you more than me and lest you should quite forget that there ever had been any such Doctrine profest by your Church of England I shall humbly take the liberty by and by to refresh your memories Much more might be said to shew from what loose Conjectures our Discourser would prove the Innovation of the Doctrine of the Real Presence and that it entred not into the Latin Church before the Eighth Century But since I design nothing of Answer more than to satisfie you worthy Fathers and my self that I have not rushly rejected the Authority of so Learned a Person as our Discourser seems to be without good reason and due consideration this which is already said is I suppose sufficient for that purpose I come now to what he calls the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation that is The infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith First there is a great difference between making an Article of Faith and declaring and Article of Faith I know no power upon Earth that can do the first but certainly the second is within the Jurisdiction of the lawful Church Governours or otherwise General Councils would be very insignificant Assemblies Now if Transubstantiation should prove to be no more than the true Faith concerning the blessed Sacrament declar'd or explain'd then our Discourser hath no reason to quarrel with Church Authority or fear any Inconveniences should happen from the Exercise of such a Power First I have sufficiently shewn at least in my Opinion that the Doctrine of the Real Presence that is of the Natural Body of Christ substantially truly and literally existing in the Sacrament tho' not after a Corporal and Natural manner to have been the constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church from the Apostles to the great Council of Lateran when in the presence of the Ambassadors of the Greek and Roman Emperours as also of the Kings of Jerusalem England France Spain and Cyprus this word Transubstantiation was agreed upon by neer Thirteen Hundred Fathers to be a proper Explicative Term of the Apostolical Doctrine and belief of the Real Presence or change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of this enough hath been said But because our Discourser is pleas'd to call the Doctrine of the Real Presence barbarous and impious p. 35. I have thought fit to add to the rest the Testimonies of Bishop Andrews and the Learned Casaubon in the name of King James the First and the Church of England and some others of the most Learned Fathers and Professors of the true English Church I will begin with Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. The Cardinal says he cannot be ignorant except wilfully that Christ said This is my Body but not after this manner This is my Body We agree in the object and differ only in the manner Concerning the Hoc est or this is We firmly believe that it is Concerning the after this manner i.e. by the Bread Transubstantiated into the Body of the manner how it is done as by or in or with or under or through there is not a word concerning it We believe the true Presence no less than your selves but we dare not confidently define any thing concerning the manner of this Presence nor are we over curious to enquire into it c. Again ib. c. 8. p. 194. Speaking of the Conjunction of Christs Body with the Symbols he says There is that Conjunction between the visible Sacrament and the Invisible Thing of the Sacrament as between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ where except you would savour of Eutychianism the Humanity is not transubstantiated into the Divinity And a little further The King hath establisht it that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and to be truly there ador'd And we with Ambrose adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries Some possibly may be ingenious enough to interpret all this to signifie a meer figurative Presence as they have done many clear passages of the Fathers but they must interpret for themselves not for me But let us hear what Is Casaubon writes to Cardinal Perron by the Kings Command concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist who saying that the Contest was not about the Truth but only the Manner of the thing returns this reply p. 50. His Majesty wonders since your Eminence confesseth that you do not so solicitously require that Transubstantiation should be believed as that we should not doubt concerning the Truth of the Real Presence That the Church of England should not long since have satisfied you in that particular which hath so often profest to believe it in her public Writings And then for Explication of the Doctrine of the Church of England recites the fore-mention'd words of Bishop Andrews Quod Cardinalem non latet Come we next to Mr. Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. Sect. 67. p. 357. Wherefore should the World continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversie saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very Consecrated Elements themselves Again p. 360. All three Opinions do thus far accordin one That these holy Mysteries received in 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
booty with you for if this be a confutation of what was before alledged from Beza I profess I shall never quarrel with him about it nor desire any other hand than Beza's even in this very passage to express my Belief of the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament What a strange Answerer is this sure he thinks because Catholics submit their Sense and Reason in some things to Divine Revelation and the Authority of the Church therefore they have not Reason enough to judge in other Cases that three and one make four as well as two and two Next he brings in Cranmer and Ridley when he was among his Geneva Brethren I suppose and he might as well have nam'd himself and his Eminent Discourser against Transubstantiation And what if these two first were of the same opinion concerning the Real Presence with these two last It only proves that one at London contradicted himself at Geneva and the other Men ten times more learned than himself Our Answerer that he may take breath before he comes to our English Divines above-named for I perceive he finds that he is like to have a tough piece of work on 't charges the Oxford Author with disingenuity chiefly in favour of Doctor Burnets History of the Reformation Alas I am apt to believe tho' I know neither the Discourser nor this Answerer not so much as by Name but only by their Works I am apt I say to believe that this Discourser is much better acquainted with Church History than the Doctor and applies it with much more Sincerity and Truth than he hath done I confess were I worthy to advise I should counsel this Answerer to flesh himself first upon some Authors of a lower Classis for I doubt he is here over-match'd and hath got as we say a Bear by the Tooth What the Learned Historian means by the Wisdom of that time P. 58. in leaving a liberty for different speculations as to the manner of the Presence I cannot understand except that they did in that time generally believe the Real Presence as hath been before exprest but would not certainly determine the manner that is as Bishop Andrews hath said before whether it was per or in or cum or sub or trans but if there be no such Real Presence in any manner I know not what this Liberty of Speculations signifies as to the manner when the thing is not really after any manner and if not as our Answerer seems all along to affirm this then might indeed be great Wisdom or humane Policy not too rudely to choke the tender Ears of their late establisht Reformation But how it can consist with true Piety and a Church pretending to reform Errors we shall best find by this consideration If Men had liberty to believe that Christ was really present after any manner it follows necessarily that Christ was adorable there where he was so present But if the Church in its Wisdom did certainly know that Christ was not really present after any Manner then the Church in its Wisdom gave Men liberty to be Idolaters for our Answerer hath been pleas'd to deliver us his Opinion from Doctor Taylor p. 69. who there says That to give Divine worship to a Non Ens must needs be Idolatry For Idolum nihil est in mundo saith St. Paul and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens for it is not true there is no such thing he is there by his Diviner Power and Blessing c. but for any other presence it is Idolum And that the practice of the Learneder part of the Church of England nay of the whole Church of England it self if we will believe the Articles of Henry the Eighth in the beginning of the Reformation or King James in the strength of the Reformation was accordingly Idolatrous I am most abundantly satisfied until some stronger Pen than our Answerers shall fully confute what is already extant to that purpose In the mean time leaving the Matter of Fact to the Doctors Conscience we will follow our Answerer He is come now to Bishop Jewel who tells us p. 60. That Christs Body and Blood indeed and verily is given unto us that we verily eat it that we verily drink it c. yet we say not either that the substance of Bread and Wine is done away that is Transubstantiation which is not our Dispute or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament If by really he means fleshly I subscribe to all this as to the Real Presence He goes on That spiritually i. e. modo spirituali and with the mouth of our Faith we eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood even as verily as his Body was verily broken and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross If the Bishop was not an Eutychian then certainly his Body was verily that is substantially and truly broken upon the Cross Thus far then we punctually agree But the Bishop explains himself The Bread he tells us is an earthly thing and therefore a Figure as Baptism in Water is also a Figure 'T is confest Now lest we should think that by this Figure the Bishop intended to exclude the substance he adds immediately But the Body of Christ that thereby is represented and is there offer'd to our Faith most true is the thing i. e. the Body of Christ it self and not the Figure As much of this as the Answerer pleases we have reason to be thankful to him for it But he now comes to Answer for the venerable Mr. Hooker You have heard what hath been offer'd from the Discourser The Answerer tells us from Mr. Hooker p. 61. That the parts of the Sacrament are the Body and Blood of Christ because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth And that the Real Presence of Christs most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament All this is most consistent with the Protestant Notion of the Real Presence here contended for Next Bishop Andrews comes upon the Stage and first the Answerer tells us as from himself only that this Bishop insinuates P. 62. That the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was much the same as in Baptism the very Allusion which the Holy Fathers were wont to make to express his Presence by in this holy Sacrament That the Bishop and the Holy Fathers might mean that Christ is present in the Sacrament as in Baptism Catholics do not deny for they also constantly affirm the same thing as much as either But if our Answerer pretends to perswade us that either the Bishop or Fathers or Catholics mean him only so present as to exclude the presence also of his natural Body in the Sacrament that remains to be prov'd which hath not been done
by himself nor any Man yet that I have met with let him therefore learn to understand the Catholic Faith before he writes such magisterial Impertinences against it But let us hear the Bishop himself who telling us That the Sacrament of Christs Body is not meant of his glorified Body but of his Body when it was Offer'd Rent and Slain and Sacrificed for us he goes on We are says he in this action not only carried up to Christ sursum corda but we are also carried back to Christ as he was at the very instant and in the very act of his offering So and no otherwise doth this Text teach So and no otherwise do we represent him By the Incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit not he alone but he as at the very act of his Offering is made present to us and we incorporate into his death and invested in the benefits of it Our Answerer to do him Justice is modest enough in this place to say he thinks the Real Presence cannot be otherwise meant than either figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive him But I think that had this Learned Bishop believed the manner as they call it of the Real Presence Transubstantiation No man could have written more Orthodoxly of it than this Bishop here hath done P. 64. The Answerer includes the Opinions of Casaubon and the Archbishop of Spalato in the sense of this passage of Bishop Andrews but why not in that produc'd by the Discourser However if it will gratifie him I willingly so accept them He makes Archbishop Laud to sing much after the same Tune He says little to Bishop Hall Montague and Bilson because he hath not their works by him but how he will excuse their pacific design as he calls it we shall consider by and by Bishop Forbe's Charitable undertaking has made him too favourable to many corruptions of the Church of Rome p. 65. And now he tells us but of two of all the Divines left to prove this new Fancy which the Discourser would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England one is Doctor Taylor whom he makes say a great deal more than I am willing to Transcribe for I am very weary of the Employment and besides all signifies no more at most than to prove Doctor Taylor contradicts himself or is otherwise as I hinted before the most unintelligible Writer that ever put Pen to Paper The truth to me seems to be this the Doctor in some places meant very plainly that which he as plainly wrote in others that he was over cautious considering the times and circumstances in which he liv'd to write more plainly that which he truly meant However upon the Ballance of the whole I take him to have been much rather a Defender than an Opposer of the Real Presence we speak of And now we are got to Mr. Thorndyke where I cannot but smile at the confidence of our Answerer who is not asham'd to say notwithstanding his own pretended confutation is a strong confirmation of that Real Presence asserted by the Discourser that he fears his Cause will be desperate except Mr. P. 69. Thorndyke can support it Well what says Mr. Thorndyke The Answerer tells us first of a certain Answer to one T. G. in which he seems to say That if the Church I suppose he means the English Church did ever pray the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them which is plain Transubstantiation then he is contented to call this the Sacramental Presence of them in the Eucharist What is this to the purpose He then tells us P. 70. that Mr. Thorndyke had a particular Notion in this Matter and a long Story in which he seems to deny Transubstantiation We do not affirm it of him And at last a great way off in p. 90. he puts Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato into a Sack together and makes them as errand Knaves in a reconciling way as his Protestant Minister whom just before he mentions but with this difference the Protestant Minister only dissembled his own Opinion that is conceal'd it but these two great Men have strenuously defended the Real Presence and not by consequence but positively an Adoration due when as our Answerer would perswade us that they did not believe the Real Presence but did believe the Adoration of it to be Idolatry That a pacific design and a charitable undertaking might engage some Men to relax somewhat of Ceremonies or Discipline I neither wonder at nor censure but that there should be any justifiable cause to oblige Men wittingly and willingly to profess and teach Idolatry is I confess beyond my understanding I shrewdly suspect that our Answerer from his rare Historical Relicts may have imbib'd some of Monsieur De Marolle's Principles and from thence think damnable Hypocrisie in Religion no great Sin otherwise I cannot imagine how with Charity he can suppose it in these two great Men who I am perswaded were they alive would spit in his Face for so scandalous an Imputation unworthy either of a Christian or a Gentleman His last stroke P. 90. is at the Learned Mr. Thorndyke whom he leaves to shift for himself with this Brand upon him as deep as he can make it That his Notion of the Real Presence was widely different both from theirs and ours and by consequence from the Truth but give me leave to tell you Sir had you been worthy to have carried Mr. Thorndykes Papers after him at least as far as I may judge by these twenty two Sheets you would have writ much less and yet much more to the purpose Thus Reverend Fathers I have given you a Tast of this fresh Author I fear it hath not proved a boccone Saporito but it was necessary in Vindication of my Testimonies and by Consequence of that Learned Oxford Discourser upon whose Authority I produc't them Begging your pardon then for this Digression I return to my first Discourser If it be true that the Doctrine of the Real Presence in a literal Sense was believed from the Primitive Times to this great Council of Lateran let us consider whether this Council exceeded its just Authority or introduc't any Erroneous Doctrine into the Christian Church For the clearer understanding of this Matter we are to note that one Berengarius about the year 1060. besides other Errors maintain'd that the Eucharist was not truly and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but only a Figure and Shadow of them and that the Bread and Wine upon the Altar were not Substantially converted into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ by the Mystery of holy Prayer and the words of our Redeemer Upon this several Learned Men employed their Pens against this new and strange false Doctrine as Adelmannus Bishop of Brixia formerly Schoolfellow of Berengarius Hugo Lingonensis Epis Durandus before-mention'd Lantfrancus
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury who among other things hath these words This Faith speaking of the Real Presence according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Church which being spread over the whole World is call'd Catholic now holds and hath held from the Primitive Times But you saith be to Berengarius believe that the Bread and Wine of our Lords Table remain unchanged as to their Substance after Consecration c. If this be true which you believe and maintain concerning the Body of Christ then that is false which is believed and taught of it by the Church over the whole World for as many as own the name of Christians and are really such do profess that in the Sacrament they receive the true Flesh of Christ and his true Blood the same which he took of the Virgin Most wonderfully strange that so absurd a Doctrine should have spread so universally in so short a time as our Discourser is pleas'd to allow it Guitmundus Rupertus Algerus and other Learned Men writ against him to the same effect And moreover this his Doctrine was condemn'd as false and himself as an Innovator in no less than Eight Councils and Synods before that of Lateran which miserable Synods as the Answerer proudly calls them may be supposed to have had as much Learning and Honesty and I am sure much more Authority than Twenty two such Sheets as his tho' stampt with an Imprimatur before them Now let us observe This Monstrous Absurd Barbarous and Impious Doctrine of Transubstantiation as our Discourser calls it in somewhat more than two Hundred years was so throughly establisht all over the Christian World that these Learned Authors and the Fathers of these Eight Councils assembled in several Kingdoms were so totally ignorant that their own Doctrine had its date from the Council of Nice or that the Opinion of Berengarius had been ever before publickly profest that they make no scruple of alledging the Antiquity Vniversality and Constant Practice of their own Doctrine as a most convincing and unanswerable Argument against his Interroga Graecos Armenios says Lantfranc seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubst se testabuntur habere I profess that if after this my most serious and impartial Enquiry concerning the Belief of the Ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church touching the Real Presence it should possibly be true that they all or generally agreed with our Discourser and his figurative Interpretation excluding the Substance I would lay aside all my Books and conclude once for all That even the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self is more easie and rational than the true sense of the Fathers concerning it intelligible or attainable And tho I will not say with the Booksellers Wife at Paris That if the Primitive Fathers believ'd Transubstantiation She would no longer believe Christianity yet I may say if they did believe it and were mistaken a Christians Faith any further than it may be productive of good Works is the most indifferent thing in the World Our Discourser tells us of one John Scotus and Ratramnus and I know not who writing I know not what against this Doctrine of the Real Presence at least according to his Interpretation tho I know many Catholics understand some of them in a very Orthodox sense But to me it seems as impertinent to bring two or three private persons advancing their private Opinions against the Concurrent Testimonies of all Authors prior present and others since they wrote posterior to them besides the Definitions and Decrees of General Councils as it would be among us to produce the Authorities of John Milton and Junius Brutus to prove that it was lawful among the Jews for the People by their own Supream Power to murder their Kings and that in all Governments the People have the same Sovereign Authority to judge and punish even by Death their lawful hereditary Kings and Governours if they shall so think fit Now having the History of the Bible as well as they together with the express Command of God and constant Testimony and Practice of Learned Men through all Ages and publick Laws with Acts of Parliament to the contrary these Men may write till their Hands and Hearts ake to use out Discourser's expression before they shall perswade me to renounce the strongest Evidence imaginable in favour of their private Sentiments Whether our Discourser be of my mind or not I cannot tell but if he be I see no greater reason to believe John Scotus than John Milton Come we now to the Church Authority which so much offends him Our indulgent Mother according to her favourable Discipline permitted the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as she had done for many years that of the Consubstantiality to pass upward of Twelve Hundred years without any other judicial determination of the Modus as they call it than such as had been Originally planted in the hearts and minds of the Faithful and cultivated in every Age by Pious and Learned Men in their Sermons Catechisms and other Discourses as occasion hapned But Berengarius a Man fond of his own Notions and valuing himself much upon his own Reason resolved to set up for a new Light of the Church and among other Errors taught the figurative acceptation of the Words of Consecration as hath been before related Upon this he was admonisht by several Pious and Learned Catholics to retract betimes so new and pernicious a Heresie But the Arguments of sense procuring him a party among the Vulgar he prosecuted his design with great vigor until at last he was taken notice of by the Supream Church-Governors and in a Council at Rome An. Dom. 1050. his Doctrine was condemn'd and himself excommunicated At length having several times abjur'd this his Heresie and as often return'd to his Vomit he burnt the Book of Scotus from whence he confest to have suckt part of his Poyson renounc'd for the last time with all Sincerity his former Opinions and spending the residue of his days in Piety and Devotion died in the Unity of the Roman Catholic Church full of sorrow and repentance Jan. 6. An. Dom. 1088. as may be seen in Membranis Taureacens in Chronic. Clarii Floriacens Monach. S. Petri vivi in Will of Malmesbury l. 3. de gestis Reg. Angl. In Baldrico Burgaliensi Abbate and in the Manuscript B. Martini Turonensis Notwithstanding all this the Seeds of Heresie thus sown were not easily rooted out And besides some Catholics themselves taking occasion from this Heresie had writ-concerning this great Mystery according as they best apprenended it But sometimes the obscurity of their Expressions the double sense which they admitted and not clearly shewing what they themselves believed Misfortunes which happen to most men who write concerning such high Mysteries without Authority the Governours of the Church thought fit as the best means to obviate these Inconveniences to call a General Council under Pope Innocent the Third which was
the greatest that ever had been since the Apostles and therein it was determined by near 1300 Fathers that according to the Doctrine of the most Ancient and Holy Fathers Tradition of the Church and former Councils the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration into the Substance of the Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Accidents of Bread and Wine only remaining should thenceforward be call'd Transubstantiation which had been sufficiently before exprest and explain'd by that wonderful Transmutation and Transelementation asserted by the Fathers This our Discourser believes with Scotus to have been the necessary consequence of the Council of Lateran p. 21. and so do I too Tho' in truth this explicative Term was I think more particularly establisht as here exprest in the Council of Trent Now to me the Church seems so far from being worthy of blame for decreeing what appears almost the necessary consequence of the real Presence I mean Transubstantiation that as the Case and Circumstances then stood the Church had been very negligent if she had not so decreed For it being always believ'd which I think is also fully proved That the Elements of Bread and Wine after Consecration were most wonderfully and by the Omnipotence of God converted into the Body and Blood of Christ It is clear then that either the Accidents or the Substance of Bread and Wine must be changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ But the Accidents are not so changed therefore the Substance Besides the Substance of the Body of Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament either with the Substance of Bread or without the Substance of Bread If the first then Catholics and our Discourser are in the wrong If the last then Luther and our Discourser are in the wrong So which way our Discourser should happen to be in the right I cannot comprehend except Zuinglius should have been more than Athanasius and our Discourser the Disciple of Zuinglius greater than St. Andrew the Apostle of our Lord. Now besides that the choice is easie in this Case even from the Authority of one side greater than of the other yet whosoever shall endeavour to reconcile the Real Presence with the Doctrine of Consubstantiation or Impanation will find harder difficulties in these than of that of Transubstantiation so much condemn'd The Authorities therefore which he brings from Durandus Erasmus Tonstal and some others to shew that before this Council of Lateran Men were at liberty concerning the modus or manner of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament might have been some kind of Argument for a Lutheran But how our Discourser becomes concerned in it I see not since quite through his Discourse and more particularly in p. 35. he hath with scorn excluded Both. Our Discourser hath yet one Argument relating to the time when he supposeth this Doctrine of Transubstantiation to have come into the World which is very remarkable He tells us That the Iconomachi or opposers of Images were very zealous against the Reverence due to them in the Synod of Constantinople about the year 750 arguing That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make no other Image of our Lord But in the year 787. in the Second Council of Nice these scrupulous Greeks in thirty seven years time were grown so hardy in their Faith and so extreamly fond of this new Doctrine concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament that they swallow'd it immediately and from that time were very solicitous and careful to admonish us that the Eucharist is not the Figure or Image of the Body of our Lord but his true Body as appears from the seventh Synod and he brings Bellarmin to vouch for him p. 21 22. Here we see these nice Greeks who were so very exact and curious in smaller Matters were contented to make so great a passage in one Council as from the Figure of Christ in the Sacrament to admit of his Substance nay and were so pleased with it that from thence and that time they took care to admonish us concerning it But the squeamish Latins notwithstanding the Greeks had advanc'd so far in one single Council were little less than three hundred years according to our Discoursers computation licking this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation such is the Elegancy of his Style into that Form in which it is now setled in the Church of Rome Indeed he hath been over generous to the Latins in allowing them so considerable a time to relish and digest only the Mode of a thing when the easse Greeks at one sitting had dispatcht the thing it self in which according to our Discoursers Opinion the great Barbarousness and Impiety consists For says he The Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe that they verily eat and drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ In truth the Latins are obliged to him in confessing them to have been so extream cautious about the lesser part but how he will come off with the Greeks for being so rash and inconsiderate about the greater and principal part must be his care if he pleaseth I am perswaded had Bellarmin said this to have proved that the Greeks did then and not till then receive the Doctrine of the Real Presence Our Discourser could he make any advantage of it with good Reason would have cast it out as the most improbable and ridiculous conjecture in the World And yet here because he thinks it may help to favour his false account he produceth it with as much gravity as if he knew Catholics had less sense to see a blot than himself rashness to make one I come now to his fourth pretended Ground of this Doctrine that is The necessity of such a Change in the Sacrament to the Comfort and Benefit of those who receive it p. 30. To this my Answer at present is very short If I be satisfied that our Saviour commanded the thing I am convinc'd there was a good Reason for it without over-curiously examining what or why in this Case more than why he cured not those who touched the Hem of his Garment without that Ceremony or the blind with out clay and spittle And yet the Fathers and many late Authors will furnish those who are more inquisitive with many very good Reasons why this Change in the Sacrament is more advantageous to the worthy Receiver than the Figure would be and I shall say somewhat of it my self hereafter The last pretended Ground of this Doctrine is as he tells us to magnifie the Power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle Indeed if the great Council of Lateran did make this a Ground of
with his figurative expression in the Sacrament he had gon somewhat farther towards the Point he aim'd at But if we take them both in a literal sense and so in reason the Parallel ought to run Alas his consequence is confounded and all his Parallels come to little or nothing But granting him the benefit of his Clerkship and Reading in its utmost Latitude will this save him truly I think not for these Reasons First it hath been the received Opinion of all Parties that the Jewish Passover was a Type of the Christian Sacrament and my self was present when a Learned * Bishop of Rochester Bishop made a whole Sermon before the late King at White Hall upon this Supposition If so how comes it then to pass that this Type or Figure should be no more than a Figure of a Figure It was what the Fathers could not endure to hear But Secondly according to our Authors Parallel the Sacrament is no more at most than a Figure of the Memorial that is of the Figure of this Figure that is the Passover But in truth it appears not clear to me that the eating of unleavened Bread had any particular relation to the Passover it self but that they were the Memorials of two distinct and different actions The one That God did Pass over or spare the Children of Israel when he slew the Children of the Egyptians The other That God brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt which is thus fully exprest in Exod. 13. v. 8. and 9. And thou shalt shew thy Son in that day saying This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand and for a memorial between thine eyes that the Lords Law may be in thy mouth for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt This our Author confesseth himself in his Introduction p. 4. and it is again set forth in Exod. c. 12. If this be so and with submission I am apt to believe it is what then becomes of our Answerers Parallels Since now they have no relation to the Passover or Paschal Lamb Why since they lie thus fair for us we will presume to make use of them to prove still further the undoubted Truth of the Catholic Doctrine The Body of Christ then in the Sacrament is the Substance signified by the Paschal Lamb which was a Figure of it by means of which holy Sacrifice God is pleased to spare us and pass over us as he did the Children of Israel and take us into his particular Protection The Elements Symbols or Accidents may be the Substances signified by the unleavened Bread and among other significations are the Memorials of our deliverance from the bondage of Sin and Satan Thus the Parallels run right upon all four and when our Answerer shall have better consider'd of it possibly he may not think so well of what he calls almost a Demonstration Introd p. 6. The next Remark from our Answerers Discourse is this That he hath brought several Learned Catholics professedly remaining such not only not to have believed but also to have written against Transubstantiation If this be really true as I perceive he imagines it is then surely if their Judgments were no greater than their Honesty their Testimonies will not do him much honor for to profess a Doctrine of that Importance and yet not to believe it must unavoidably convince the World that they were false interested hypocritical Knaves and in this Character will I include the late Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome but with this additional aggravation of partiality that he admits of the English Real Presence Consubstantiation Impanation Zuingliâ—â—â—sâ— or any thing rather than Transubstantiation And had he been honest and sincere he should have produc'd the Authorities of the same Fathers plainly asserting what he would make them deny and have reconcll'd them to his Interpretation if he could But Secondly we have nothing but his word for the truth of his Protestant Relics now if we should ridicule those as most probably he hath done some Popish Relics which he might have met withal in his Travels I know not how he will help himself we shall have reason to question his own Sincerity as immediately shall be shewn Thirdly It is a great question whether all these Eminent persons whom he hath named did really deny the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self or rather some particular manner among the School Men of explaining it which is a considerable difference and may render them totally excusable And Lastly it is Evident That some of these persons did certainly believe the Doctrine it self and moreover have explain'd it most conformable to the Canons of the Council of Trent And First Monsieur de Marca the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris taking our Answerers own Account in his Preface p. 13. hath given an admirable Explication of it and however Mr. de Baluze or the Sorbon Doctors might misunderstand him my Opinion as there set down is much the same with Monsieur de Marca's and in the Conclusion I shall endeavour to make it consistent with Scripture the Fathers and General Councils and most agreeable to Sense and Reason The same I believe of Cardinal Perron rather than make him such a Villain as Drelincourt a profest Enemy hath represented him to the Lantgrave of Hesse Our Answerer for want of a right understanding mistakes Monsieur de Meaux and others whose Reputations he hath ignorantly not to say maliciously endeavour'd to blast which if it were much to my present purpose I would further make appear The last particular which I shall observe for others who shall think it worth their pains may enlarge if they please is his great disingenuity and partiality in his Answer to the Learned Oxford Discourser concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Sacrament The Discourser proposeth and one would think with very good Reason That Catholics here our Answerer tells us P. 99. he means Papists still and this he childishly repeats so often that it is ten times more insupportable than the Crambe bis cocta or Cabbage twice boil'd which the Poet says was so nautious to the Masters The Discourser I say proposeth That Catholics grounding their adoration not upon Transubstantiation but on a Real Presence with the Symbols which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans together with them ought to be freed from Idolatry therein as well as the Lutherans What says the Answerer That if by this assertion he means only to make this discovery That Christs Real Presence together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration as if he mere there only with the Species of the Bread the Substance being changed into his Body I have no more to say it Here then he grants it for the one is as good
But to tell us we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ as a Memorial of him when you profess we do no such thing is the most extravagant of all Metaphors and unparallell'd in History That some have eaten their deceased Friends and that others have drank their Ashes I have already hinted but to say eat and drink the Body and Blood of King Charls that is remember that he was Martyr'd would be such an expression as stands single at least as far as I have read from all the Allegories of the most phantastical Poets Why then do you tells us That we indeed eat and drink his Body and Blood and not rather and only say that we break Bread in remembrance that Christ was so broken and pour forth Wine as a Memorial that his Blood was so shed for us Give me leave to return the Answer I fear that whilst you want Faith to believe the truth intended by the words you are ashamed to neglect the words themselves lest you should become a scandal and reproach to all sober Christians who had ever read the Holy Bible or the best of Fathers Deceive not therefore your selves and those poor Souls who depend upon you but either give them in truth the last Sacred Legacy of our most dear and ever Blessed Master or tell them plainly he is departed and hath left them nothing for a Body which is no Body and Blood which is no thing is at least as absur'd and sensless a Proposition as your so often objected Smelling Tasting nourishing Accidents without a Substance The Answerer hath given us a long Beadroll of Objections in p. 32. Et sequent Which he says contradicts right Reason I could have furnisht him with a great many more and much more pertinent from an Ancient Catholic Author call'd The Christians Manna where he would also have found their Answers to which I must recommend him In some of his repugnancies as he calls them he shews himself so ignorant or malicious that he is either way inexcusable So p. 35. In p. 33. he seems neither to understand Catholic Divinity nor common Philosophy but talks so crudely of both that he deserves not a sober Reply What he from Blondel tells us of the Fathers p. 34. I do not rightly understand nor did I think it worth my pains to procure Blondel upon that account but if either of them would make us believe that the Fathers thought it absurd and impossible that God should act beyond and above the Power of Nature the Fathers are much obliged to them for their good Opinion but if he would make them say that naturally a thing cannot exist act or be produc'd contrary to or above Nature he hath made a wise Speech for them which he may keep for his own use In his 36 P. he is come to his Senses but because he hath only a slight touch of them and those the same with our first Discourser I shall consider them as far as I intend at present together The first Objection is that what we tast and smell and see and touch and which nourish our Bodies should be Nothing and as it is reduced to an Objection against Sense it runs thus That what we see in the Sacrament is not Bread but the Body of Christ I have told you that I must defer my more particular Answer to a particular Treatise upon that Subject in which I hope to reconcile all difficulties not only to Sense and Reason but to the words of Consecration to the Canons of the Council of Trent and to the Fathers and the Fathers to themselves quite throughout In the mean time I will give you the general Faith of all Catholics and so conclude The indispensable Faith of all Catholics is this That the Substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration is converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ united with his Soul and his Divinity No good Catholics dispute this altho' several Opinions also there are concerning the manner how this is done The great Question is concerning the Accidents which remain and it is the more receiv'd Opinion that they are real tho' not properly call'd substantial things and that as such they may nourish the Body suffer digestion and corruption and are the true Objects of our Senses in which we say all the vertues and qualities of Bread exist This we are told is consistent with Aristotles Philosophy but if you think otherwise dispute your Opinion as long as you please and if you can oblige your Adversaries to find out some more satisfactory Answer for there are some others as I shall shew hereafter The Faith in the mean time remains inviolably among all which their different Opinions pretend not to destroy All believe the Substance is converted but for the Accidents whether they be more or less whether they exist with or without a Subject what that Subject is or whether they may not have Substances of themselves these are Matters of Opinion and Philosophy and we must remember that Christ came not to teach us Philosophy and Logic but Faith and Obedience unto Good Works But I shall enter no further upon this Discourse at present nor shall I here answer our Discoursers four last Questions which depending upon the Doctrine of Accidents shall be consider'd together with them in our designed Treatise I shall only therefore add my hearty Prayers that you would once lay aside your prejudices and affections and many other temporal considerations and sincerely and calmly endeavour with us to find where the truth lies I know no Body intends any harm to you or other good to themselves than that we might be all United under one Head Christ Jesus holding the Unity of Faith in the Bond of Peace It would be a defect of Charity not to be pardon'd should you believe all Catholics to be Knaves or Fools or that they did not see and know or would not know what can be said against them as well as Protestants since your greatest Objections which I have ever read against us are found in our own Authors and their Answers to them of which you are pleased to be silent It were besides a strange Instance of Spiritual Pride to think yourselves the only Children of Light and this grounded upon no other Authority than your own private Opinions and a partial Judgment past upon your selves against the much greater part of the whole Christian World The Glorious Epinikeas and lofty Triumphs which you sing in all your Papers might become the Buskins of a Pagan Conqueror but in me they move only my Compassion to see you so wonderfully pleas'd and insulting in the wrong Alas you mistake the Scâ—â—â— for in our Case the Conquered wins the Prizâ—â— and yet the Victor loseth not his honor What would it profit him says our Saviour If a man should gain the whole World and lose his own Soul It is a serious consideration and deserves a sober thought or two free from passion or prejudice Now whether it be adviseable to venture so great a Treasure upon the single Bottom of every mans private Opinion Whether our Saviour Christ would leave his own Church in a much more dangerous condition than that in which he found the Jewish Church Whether Certainty was to be had among the Jews from the Chair of Moses concerning what they were to believe and do but no Certainty to Christians from the Chair of S. Peter or any other Christian Church upon the face of the Earth Whether Heresie and Schism be terms to affright us and only different names for Knavery and Hypocrisie Or whether a man who truly believes himself to be in the right may not be desperately and dangerously in the wrong and highly punishable for his presumption and disobedience to lawful Authority And Lastly whether you will tell us roundly and plainly That to believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God and to live a moral Life be all that is required of us as some of you have very boldly insinuated These things I recommend to your pious and ingenuous Examination until we meet again FINIS