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
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
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