that our Doctrin if it had been new should ever have come in in any Age and been received in the Church and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual Belief of the Church in all Ages For if it had not been always the Doctrin of the Church when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bussle about it and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it But you have shewn no such time when first it came in and when any such opposition was made to it and therefore it was always the Doctrin of the Church It is true you would fain have me believe that Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz and Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre and Bertram opposed this Doctrin with all their might But what you have alledg'd from their Writings do not convince me Bertram indeed says the Writers of that Age talked according to their several Opinions differently about the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood and were divided by no small Schism But what was this Schism This Schism or difference according to Bertram precisely consisted in two Questions First Whether there was a Figure in the Mystery Secondly Whether the Bread that was chang'd into Christ's Body was the Natural Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary Bertram in the first part of his Treatise undertook to shew that there was a Figure in the Mystery as the conclusion of his Discourse in the end evidences in these Terms From what I have heitherto spoken 't is clear that the Body of Christ which the Faithful receive into their Mouths is a Figure if we regard the visible Species And lest any one should impeach him of Error in the Sacrament he straight added But if we consider the invisible Substance the Body and Blood truly there exist Grounding himself upon this Principle that the Substance of Bread was changed and the outward appearance only remained he could not conceive how his Adversaries who though they faithfully believed with Bertram and the Church that the Bread was changed into the true Body of Christ yet they deny'd there was any Figure in the Sacrament could reconcile Faith with their Opinion And this was his Reason For if the Bread and Wine were another thing than they were before Consecration they were changed And if the Substance was changed the visible species which remained must be a Figure Rabanus speaking of the Second Proposition viz. Whether the Bread which was changed into the Body of Christ was the Natural Body of Christ declares that it was not the Body of Christ received from the Virgin Mary in its natural existence but that it was the true Body which he received from the Virgin after a Supernatural and Sacramental Permanency The first Opinion which he rejects he charges with Novelty in the passage you cite Saying Some of late not having a right Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord have said that this is the Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the Cross and rose from the Dead which Error we have opposed with all our might The other which was the belief of the Church he thus delivers God effected whatever he would in Heaven and on Earth From hence he deduces that Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ and therefore adds it is no other Flesh no other truly than what was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross and rose from the Sepulcher And who does not believe this if he had seen Christ upon the Cross in the likeness of a Servant how would he have understood he was God unless Faith had prevailed with him to believe And in the 42 Chapter of the same Book he speaks thus It is the same Flesh which was given for thee and for all and hanged upon the Cross because truth testifies This is my Body which shall be given for you and of the Chalice This is my Blood which shall be spilt for you for remission of Sins From hence it is plain that what is now the very Doctrin of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament the two Learned Authors you have alledged Bertram and Rabanus never oppos'd But you tell us though for a more clear and satisfactory Answer to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Arnauld you have consented to untie the knot yet you could without all these pains have cut it If you strive to cut it with no more skill than you have endeavor'd to untie it the work must be the labor of some Nobler Champion 'T is true you make use of in hopes to do the business Diogenes plain stroke of experience o'recoming Zeno's denial of Motion by walking before his Eyes Is then the Doctrin of Transubstantiation not the belief of the Primitive Church because Diogenes walked before Zeno 's Eyes A wilder Proceeding I never heard of from any Christian Divine and the bare relation of this matter of Fact is a full confutation thereof From the Pagan Philosophers you run for assistance to the Servants in the Parable who could not give any punctual account when the Tares were sown or by whom Yet it was manifest they were mingled with the good Wheat From hence you hasten to the Civil Wars of our Nation where at length our King his Gracious Majesty Charles the Second of Great Brittain was happily restored to his Crown without a great deal of fighting and Bloodshed From this place you take your journy into Turky and bring down the Grand Visier invading Christendom and besiegeing Vienna who was not opposed by the Most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness Whilst I ruminate these Similitudes I cannot easily conceive how you can joyn our Great Monarch's happy Restauration in a Simily with Tares where Wheat was sown and with the Grand Seigneur invading Christendom and not give occasion to the Reader to think you either wanted circumspection in the choice of your Arguments or imprudently left a suspicion of your Loyalty And I wonder how a man of your great Wit and Judgment could prevail with himself to conclude the Nullity of Mr. Arnauld's solid reasoning from Experiences or matters of Fact that have nothing at all to do with the Sacrament Why must Mr. Arnauld's Demonstration be weak and insufficient because the Christian King not long since reposed in peace with his great Army or some time ago our Gracious Monarch of happy memory was restored to his Crown or because St. Mathew wrote the Parable of the Tares All the Reason in the World is too weak to make good any such way of proceeding But to answer precisely to what you assimilate them in viz. from these Comparisons you would prove that the Controverted Doctrin might silently have come in and without opposition although the particular time and
occasion of its first rise could not be assigned Did not a considerable part of Christendom with all their might oppose the Turkish Invasion and if all had been quiet would not Vienna have been surprised and pilledged Was all England ignorant of the Restauration of our Gracious Monarch and were there none to be found to witness his coming in were not the Tares as soon as they sprung up seen and discovered But no body except Heretics ever opposed Transubstantiation No body but Rebels rofe against the right Prerogative of their Prince And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Blessed Sacrament The same confidence is sufficient to extend the same Comparison to the rest of our Christian Mysteries and proves just as much that is nothing at all except Christianity be nothing else but Tares SECT III. Of the Infallible Authority of the Present Church for this Doctrin YOU say the Roman Church made and obtruded upon the World this Article merely by vertue of her Authority Seeing not any sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Children that She had Power from God to make an Article of Faith. But She teaches us that two Conditions are required for the constitution of an Article of Faith. First Revelation from God. Secondly The Declaration of an Oecumenical Council Where these two agree that we are taught is part of our Belief And I shall desire you will only peruse these words of the Council of Trent which intimate the Reason why the Church of God declared for Transubstantiation and I am persuaded you 'l believe She did not define this Doctrin neither warranted with Scripture nor Tradition For the Council says Because Christ our Saviour truly said that was his Body which under the Species of Bread he offered therefore the Church of God was always persuaded and this Holy Council declares again the same that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of our Lord and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood which Conversion is conveniently and properly called by the Council Transubstantiation SECT IV. Of the Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of the Receiver THE Spiritual Efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon receiving the thing which our Lord instituted and a right preparation and disposition of mind which makes it effectual to those Spiritual Ends for which it was appointed As God might without any Baptismal Water without any visible Elements have washed away the Stains of Original Sin and given Spiritual Regeneration So could he have made the worthy Receivers true Partakers of the Spiritual Comfort and Benefit design'd to us in the Lord's Supper without any substantial change made in the nature of Bread and Wine But as we cannot say the Water in Baptism and Symbols are unprofitable as things are instituted by God and useless for the cleansing of Original Sin so likewise ought we not to pretend that the Flesh of Christ is useless and profiteth nothing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament because Christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament God might have pardon'd the World if his only begotten Son had not undergon so many griefs and anguishes so much pain and that ignominious death of the Cross Yet who dare say this Flesh was not true Flesh or profited nothing which redeemed all the World If it profited on the Cross why does it not profit in the Sacrament And if it profit not without Faith how can it profit those who believe not The very thought of our Saviour's Substantial Presence in the Sacrament strikes much a deeper impression of Devotion in my Soul than if I reflected on bare Symbols or Signs weakly exciting Faith in me And even when a Terrene Prince visits Prisons or in a Solemn Pomp enters the Capital City his Corporal Presence customarily frees many Criminals from Chains Fetters and Imprisonments which the Law would otherwise not have granted nor the King consented too And yet one word of command is sufficient to do greater execution SECT V. Of the Power of the Priest WE acknowledge a Power in the Priest which is not in the People All were not constituted Apostles all were not Doctors But we do not acknowledge a Power in the Priest to make God as you calumniate us we acknowledge a Power in God to change one Substance into another Bread into his Body Till you prove this impossible which is impossible to be done you 'll give us leave to believe God is in the right possession of his Omnipotency and loses nothing of his Power by your Detraction And if you count this Miraculous change no Miracle give it what Title you please we will not dispute the Name if you contradict not the thing And thus I have dispatched the first part of my Answer which was to vindicate the real Grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin PART I MY Second Part was designed to answer your Objections which are of so much the less force because I have already shewn this Doctrin sufficiently warranted with Divine Authority and this easily weighs down and overthrows whatever Probabilities Sense can suggest or Reason invent These Probabilities you reduce to these two Heads First The infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion And Secondly The monstrous and insupportable Absurdity of it CHAP. I. Of the infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion AND this upon four accounts First by reason of the Stupidity of this Doctrin Secondly The real barbarousness of it Thirdly The Bloody consequences of it Fourthly The danger of Idolatry Article I. Of the Stupidity of this Doctrin TUlly the Roman Orator says When we call the Fruits of the Earth Ceres and Wine Bacchus we use but the common Language but do you think any man so mad as to believe what he eats to be God I am of Cicero's Opinion And all reasonable People look upon Poetical Fancies as Extravagant Reveries But I hope the Law of Christ is neither Poetical nor Fabulous I remember the Poets sing how Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom was born of Jupiter's Understanding Harken says Tertullian a Fable but a true one like to this The Word of God proceeding from the Thought of his Eternal Father This Likeness or Similitude of Poetical invention diminishes not in the least the truth of the Son's Divinity Nor ought the Stupidity of eating God in Tully's Opinion ridicule our Saviour's own Words Take eat this is my Body Averröes the Arabian Philosopher acknowledging in his time this Doctrin to be the Profession of all Christians ought to make not what you say the Church of Rome the Church of England blush objecting that the whole Society of Christians then every where admitted Transubstantiation I have
travelled says he over the World and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of Christians because with their own Teeth they devour God whom they worship It was great stupidity in the People of Israel to say Come let us make us Gods but it was civilly said of them Let us make us Gods that may go before us in comparison of the Church of England who calumniously make the Catholics say let us make a God that we may cat him when we only say God has power to change Bread into his Body But the greatest Stupidity of all is that in all Probability you think those common Jugling Words of Hocus Pocus are nothing else but a corruption of Hoc est Corpus by way of a ridiculous Imitation of the Priest of the Church of Rome I grant this Imitation is very ridiculous And you are the first Juggler with this Divine Mystery and with our Saviour's own Words that ever I read of in my life But with all the Legerdemain and Jugling tricks of Falsehood and Imposture you l never make me believe you sooner than I do the Scripture Nay if Averröes Cicero and a whole Progenie of Heathen Philosophers were as great Jugglers as your self and altogether design'd to put a Trick upon me you should never juggle me by the Grace of God out of my Faith in Christ And Lastly If I should ask counsil of the Philosophers as you do in the concern of the Sacrament to know the true cause of this Universe Heraclitus would tell me Atoms produced it Pythagoras would send me to the Marriage in Numbers The Valentinians would bring me to the four Principles which made the Treatise of Peace between Verity and Silence Light and Profoundness But whilst I let them enquire one of another what gave being to these Atoms who thought these Numbers whence came this Verity what is the Origin of this Silence the Source of this Light the Prop of this Profoundness I rest contented in mind and instructed with this Passage of Moses In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth God is the Cause of all things Cicero may dispute with his false Gods And Averröes may deride Christians A Jugler may laugh at our Saviour's Institution These words this is my Body silences them all and excites me to say with St. Austin Dispute You I will believe Article II. Of the Barbarousness of this Doctrin THE eating Man's Flesh in its proper shape is no doubt very barbarous But I think the eating our Saviour's Flesh under the Species of Bread and Wine appears barbarous neither to Sense nor to Reason Theophilact asks in John 6. Why does it not appear Flesh to us but Bread and Answers lest we should have horror to eat it And what you call horrible St. Chrysistom calls amiable For what more Kind than to give himself But you cannot imagin the Ancient Christians ever own'd any such Doctrin because then we should have heard of it from the Adversaries of our Religion in every Page of their Writings This cannot be expected For very few Pagans concern'd themselves with the Rites of Christianity And of these the most Famous complain Christians conceal'd the Doctrins they professed Hence that Murmur of Cecilius in Minutius Felix Why are the Christians carefull to hide and steal their Worship from Mens eyes since Honesty is never asham'd to face Light And Celsus disgusted upon the same account calls our Religion a Clandestin or hidden Doctrin To which Origen occurs T is true there are some Points among us not communicated to all the World nor is this peculiar to Christians The Philosophers observ'd two sorts of Principles some were public and common to all others were private and the Science of particular Disciples 'T is therefore in vain Celsus undertakes to discover the Secrets of Christians not knowing in what they consist St. Austin and St. Denys the Areopagite teach the same And yet whether the Pagans knew them or knew them not you will have them revile our Mysteries in every Page of ther Writings Nor are you contented with this for you add With what confidence would they have set the Cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament against their God Saturn's eating his own Children but that no such Argument was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrin was believed Now sure I am nonplust For how can I solve an Objection which stands instead of a thousand Demonstrations What Author will happily fall into my hand or dictate how our Adversaries gathered from Slaves and Captives a rude Relation of this Mystery which was matter enough for them to hit us in the Teeth in requital of Saturn's eating his Children with the killing and feasting on Flesh and Blood This Passage perchance of Tertullian may suffice any sober Understanding that the Pagans did not omit such a return you seek after We are says he called wicked Infanticides Child killers and nourished with raw Flesh Athanagoras comes nearer and reminds us how the Pagans with confidence set the cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament if not against the God Saturn's at least against Thyestes's another like History eating his own Child We are impeach'd says he by Pagans of Three horrible Crimes of taking away the Gods of Thyestean Banquets eating of a Child and of Incests St. Justin Martyr fits you with Saturn's own Fable 'T is reported says he to the Pagans we practice Saturn's Mystery and killing Man exercise with hands full of goar all the cruel and bloody Rites of your Idolatry Now sure I may conclude with you that because such a thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians it is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was believed in Primitive Ages and then modestly vindicated from these foul Aspersions Article III. Of the Bloody Consequences of this Doctrin IF this Doctrin had been the occasion of the most Barbarous and Bloody Tragedies to use your words that ever were acted in the World the Enemies of Christianity would have hit them in the Teeth with these Cruelties of terrour fury and rage and what endless Triumphs would they have made upon this Subject But that no such thing was objected by the Heathens is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations And what you want here of Authority you supply and make up in a zealous appearance of Devotion breaking into this Exclamation O Blessed Saviour who can imagine that ever Men should kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their Senses for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most barbarous things that can be imagined a Principle of thy Religion for not flattering the Presumption of the Priest who says he