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
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
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
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
Point then indeed this Instance would be impertinent But we must not thus leave our admirable Author for from this his well consider'd Doctrine we may observe 1. That according to this Rule there can never be Schism or Heresie in the World until a man can divide from himself or a man condemning himself obstinately stand out against his clear Evidence of Scripture and so sin wilfully and without excuse and in this last Point Bishop Bromhall and Dr. Still unanimously concur with our Author Now believing in Charity that these wonders have seldom or never hapned therefore I ought to conclude that St. Paul mistook when he said 1 Cor. 11.19 There must be Heresies among you and St. John much to blame when he wrote his Gospel many years after the death of our Saviour against the Heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus 2. That all Men of understanding whether learned or unlearned are in the direct road to Heaven and found Members of the true Catholic Church provided they be lovers of God and of Truth and follow their own Sense of Scripture altho they differ in some of the most Fundamental Points of Faith Now besides the extravagancy of this Opinion in general it seems particularly levell'd against the poor Papists because they often submit their own private Interpretations with great reason to the Judgment and Interpretation of the Church But if this be so damnable a fault in Papists pray take care not to exact this resignation from your own Subjects and so farewel to Authority 3. And Lastly That there are some ambiguous Terms which lie indifferent between divers Senses whereof the one is true and the other false This we readily grant for the truth of it is so manifest that there is never a Point in the Câ—â—istian Faith howsoever by you and us esteem'd Fundamental but hath been denied by whole Bodies of Learned Men who as you do made Scripture their Rule But when you tell us further that the true Sense of them is not necessary to Faith or Salvation for if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known why should he speak obscurely Then methinks Fathers you not only make the Apostles write Impertinently and to no purpose but you have brought all sorts of Sectaries Schismatics and Heretics if any such have been and also the Turks themselves provided they read the Scripture within the Pale of the Christian Church Nay more you have made them in such Case equal with the best true Members in it And indeed if the good wishes and prayers of our Teckelites might prevail as much on one side as the Principles of your Champion have capacitated the Turks on the other side I know no reason they have to despair of seeing the Cathedral of St. Paul Consecrated by the Mufti of Mahomet By this time most Reverend Fathers I should think that you as well as my self should be very weary of this Learned Author Being fixt therefore to my Authority and the more from the Eminent danger of his loose and pernitious Principles I am resolved that nothing shall move me except the absur'd and monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation as you are pleas'd to call it may have of it self force enough to ruine and overturn so solid a Foundation REMARKS Upon some late DISCOURSES AGAINST Transubstantiation I Must confess that this great Point seem'd the most difficult to me of any that are Controverted between the two Churches and for these Reasons First because I did not rightly apprehend the Catholic Explication of the Natural Body of Christ in the Sacrament Secondly Because from this misunderstanding of mine I believed that the Body of Christ being in two places at the same time imply'd a contradiction which I suppos'd the Omnipotency of God could not support And lastly because I thought the Fathers had been express against this Doctrine I apply'd my self to the reading of Controversies and discoursing with some Learned Men on both sides and found first from the Catholics That altho they Profess and Believe the Natural Body of Christ to be truly and substantially in the Sacrament yet they tell us That it is not there after a Natural manner as it was upon the Earth or upon the Cross but after a Spiritual Supernatural and Vnbloody manner Secondly That it is indeed a Contradiction to say a Body is here and not here at the same time but to say that the Glorified Body of Christ may be by accident and by the power of God in many places or ubi's at the same time is so far from a Contradiction that it gives it not a more sovereign Existence than what we allow to Angels or to the Soul in a Mans Body which altho it be a Substance is yet really substantially and at the same time totally in the Finger of a Man and totally in his foot and totally in every part and yet totally in the whole Body tota in toto tota in qualibe parte And Lastly for the Fathers I found in them not only most plain demonstrable and Invincible Authorities asserting the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament after a substantial manner but also that those very Citations produc'd by Protestants to destroy this Doctrine of the Real Presence were most of them if not all so fully answer'd or so agreable to the Catholic Faith that if any of them remain'd still obscure there wanted not twenty plain places to Interpret them by But more of these hereafter Here I consider'd the Protestant Arguments against this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and found them generally dissatisfactory and insufficient chiefly upon this account that they brought continually the same Objections which tho they had been answer'd a hundred times over by Catholics both Ancient and Modern yet I found no Reply tothese Answers or at least such as handled those which were most material so that I perceiv'd they danc't always in a Ring without advancing a step towards a substantial and convincing Demonstration At last I was recommended to a late Discourse against Transubstantiation which treating particularly of that Subject and being wrote as I was inform'd by an Eminent Protestant Divine I resolv'd to pitch upon that and from thence take my Measures how far I ought to receive this great Catholic Doctrine I read it over and over with great attention and before I speak particularly of any thing contained in it I think it Just to give this Character of it in general viz. that it seems to be writ without Modesty Charity Sincerity or Good Manners Without Modesty In that a private Person upon presumption of his own Parts and Learning shall dare to ridicule so great a Mystery of the Christian Religion I speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament according to the Doctrine of Catholics and Lutherans excluding at present the Mode as they term it or Manner Transubstantiation and this Doctrine own'd and profest not two Hundred years since generally through the Christian
World and at present by at least eight parts in ten and amongst these some persons extreamly above him in Place and Authority and thousands for ought we know equal if not above him in Learning Piety and Reason Thus I say to ridicule and burlesque so great a Doctrine of the Christian Faith is much more dangerous and scandalous to the Christian Religion than that stupid absur'd and monstrous Doctrine as he calls it against which he writes For my part I profess if so many Men of Sense and Reason and these improv'd to the heigth by Study and Learning may not only be deceiv'd in so great a Point of Religion but mistaken even to folly madness non-sense and Contradiction I know not what will become of Christianity it self for if these can so grosly Err in Matters which are as equally Evident upon all accounts to their Sense and Reason as to the Sense and Reason of any other I am sure a Man is much less secure in trusting to this single Discourser or any belonging to him and so farewel to Both. But Secondly It is without Charity for since he hath made as he thinks the Catholic Doctrine so demonstrably false and absur'd all Catholics who believe it tho never so Learned Honest and Pious must be either Knaves or Fools Thirdly Without Sincerity because all his material Objections and many more have been Printed formerly above Seventy years since And Lately within these Seventeen years by Catholics themselves with their Substantial Answers to them Now to have dealt sincerely he ought to have replied to these Answers which would have set us forward and drawn us to some Point and not have run round as in a Magical Circle without ever endeavouring to break through the infatuation of Deluded Reason And next to have dealt Sincerely he ought not to have produc't a scrap of a Sentence from a Father and left out those immediate preceeding or succeeding Words which explicated the whole Sense For Instance His first is from Justin Martyr whom he produces saying these Words Our Blood and Flesh are nourished by the Conversion of that Food which we receive in the Eucharist p. 11. But the whole Sentence runs thus For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for the sake of our Salvation just so are we taught that That Food over which Thanks are given by Prayers in his own Words and whereby our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished Is the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jesus For the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them call'd the Gospels have recorded that Jesus so commanded them This I think altogether makes little for our Discourser especially if he had been sincere enough to have told us how the Fathers generally as St. Irenaeus Cyril Chrysost Greg. Nyss and others expound the nourishment of the Body and as shall be shewn hereafter So also he quotes Theodoret saying The mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance And may be seen and handled p. 19. Theoderet goes on The mystical Signs are understood to be that which they are made and they are believed and ador'd as being those very things which they are believed Now if they may be adored I suppose they mean somewhat more than Signs and Figures or else the Adoration of holy Images is more Ancient than Protestants have hitherto allowed And had our Discourser been Sincere he might have told us how the Catholics interpret all this to be most consistent with their Faith and confuted them if he could But Fourthly His Discourse is writ without Good Manners for setting aside his disrespect to a Religious Duty methinks when he knew so many Princes Kings Emperors Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs and most Learned Men of all Sorts received this Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation he ought to have forborn such words as Impudence p. 2. Nonsense p. 24. Monster of Transubstantiation p. 25. Monstrous insupportably absur'd stupidity of this Doctrine p. 33. Absur'd and Senseless Doctrine Legerdemain and Jugling Tricks of Falshood and Imposture Hocus Pocus a cheat and foolish Doctrine p. 34. But here the Discourser is very angry and indeed Fathers I should even from hence shrewdly suspect that our Discourser is no true Son of the Church of England for they are generally more moderate and civil but we shall have further occasion to speak of this hereafter In the mean time I thought fit to take thus much notice of these things that we might consider whether such a Writer notwithstanding all his Magisterial dashes be probably endued with that Christian humble Temper which we might expect from a Doctor of Christs Church pretending also without other Miracles than his wonderful Reason to reform almost the whole Christian World but let us see whether his good Reasons will make us amends by giving us some better Satisfaction Several Impertinences and Quibbles appear in many parts of his Discourse as for Instance He proves in p. 4. That a Sacrament may be instituted by figurative Expressions because a Sacrament is a Figare it self of some Invisible Grace c. Now I had always thought that a Man might deliver a Sign or Figure exhibiting some Invisible kindness in the most plain and literal Terms that possibly could be invented for Example I am perswaded the Discourser might have exhibited or deliver'd his Pamphlet or Picture which are Figures of his Mind or Person as a Token of his love to his Friend in a most plain litteral Speech without the necessity of a figurative Sentence except for the sake of his Quibble For my part I think the delivery of a Figure or any thing else is best in plain words But then the Pains he takes and Wit that is spent first to obtrude upon Catholics the false Belief of a Miracle according to his acceptation of a Miracle and then to laugh at his own Jest together with the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle as to make God Pag. 31. is really such Stuff as certainly he never design'd for any other use than to rub the itching Ears of the most illiterate among the Vulgar I confess Fathers it workt no good effect upon me nor never will I should think upon any sober Christian for every body sure understands his Fallacy concerning the power of the Priest and his Miracles But instead of that had he replied to some solid Discourse of Catholics concerning the Doctrine of the Sacrament it self I know not how far the Authority which my Reason had fixt in the Church of Rome would have supported me against his Arguments Having thus separated the loose Accidents of his Discourse from the more substantial part I will now examine that as far as is necessary according to the
stumbling block to the World had he intended only a figurative Interpretation that his Cruelty which is most impious to imagine would have exceeded his Mercy especially if it be true as I believe it is and hope shall be able to prove that the whole Christian World for a thousand years together after his Ascension universally concurr'd in the firm Belief of a literal Sense and practis'd accordingly Good God! So many reputed Saints so many Martyrs and so many holy Men dying in the guilt and many of them in defence of gross Idolatry This to me to use the expression of our Discourser is more than ten Thousand Demonstrations He tells us indeed that some Learned Catholic Authors have declar'd their Opinions that the Doctrine which holds the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor Scripture p. 5. And what then They do not exclude the Doctrine of the Real presence in a literal sense nor do I know that they did ever doubt of Transubstantiation But most of them have written particularly in defence of it and Durandus wrote a Book consisting of nine parts against Berengarius who oppos'd it Now tho this might be the private Opinion of these Men yet there are it may be thousands as Learned as themselves of another Opinion and all this without either prejudicing or helping the Doctrine it self Our Discourser cannot think any Man so senseless to believe that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands and gave away himself from himself with his own hands and yet we find a very sensible Father and one much esteemed by all parties I mean S. Augustin made no such difficulty to believe all this For in his Comment upon these words Et ferebatur in manibus suis and he was carried in his own hands he speaks thus of Christ And can this be possible in Man Was ever any Man carried in his own hands c. How this can be literally understood of David we cannot discover Comm. in Ps 33. but in Christ we found it verified for Christ was carried in his own hands when giving his own very Body he said This is my Body But if Christ carried only the Figure of his Body it was not only possible for David but for any Man else to have done the same Methinks our Discourser should have replied to this obvious Answer when he made his Objection And thus much for the Authority of Scripture Next he tells us that this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual Belief of the Christian Church and for this he produces many Authorities of the Fathers which may be reduc't to these Heads either where they tell us That the Elements are a Sign and Figure of Christs Body or that they remain in their former Substance or that they go into the Draught and our flesh encreased by them or that they are not to be taken according to the Letter for all which he brings some Citations Now altho' the Fathers have been their own best Interpreters shewing plainly in other places how these are to be understood agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine yet that it may appear more Evident I shall instance in some other plain expressions and leave the Ballance to the Judgment of the Reader First then wheresoever it is said that the Elements are Signs or Figures there no more is said than what the Catholics believe and profess nay more that it is a part of the Definition of a Sacrament to be a Sign That is to say that the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Sacrament offer'd in a spiritual manner is a Figure or Sign of the bloody Sacrifice offer'd once for all upon the Cross after a natural manner answerable to the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. Ye shall shew the Lords death until he come About the words we agree concerning the interpretation our Discourser may dispute as long as he pleases Next That the Elements remain in their form and substance This passage of Theodoret hath been in part answer'd before where he tells us That they are to be ador'd And from thence we may conclude that he means the nature of the Accidents for those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which this Greek Father useth contain every kind of Essence and Nature as well of Accidents as of Substances And so again he expounds himself saying that we may see and touch the said Colour and Form which have reference only to those Accidents and in this sense the Elements may admit of Co-adoration with the Body of our Saviour as when himself was Cloth'd upon Earth otherwise not And Theodoret is blam'd by the Centurists Cent. 5. c. 10. Because he affirms That the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the Invocation of the Priest are chang'd and made other things than they were before They mean not Signs I hope for more than that they believed themselves But let us hear St. Augustin As with a faithful heart and Mouth we receive the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus who gives us his Flesh to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk altho' it seems to be a thing more full of horror to eat Mans flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans blood than to shed it L. 2 Contr. adv Leg. Proph. But sure it is not more horrible to eat Mans flesh in figure than to kill a man in good earnest c. Let us hear him again We have heard says he our Master who always speaks truth recommending to us our Ransom his Blood for he spoke of his Body and Blood which Body he call'd Meat and his Blood Drink But there are some who do not believe they said This is a hard saying who can hear it 'T is hard but to the obstinate that is incredible but to the Incredulous L. de verb. Apost Serm. 2. But is the Figure so hard a saying I think not Next St. Ambrose a co-temporary and particular Friend of St. Augustin It may be you will say De his qui Myst Init. c. 9. why do you tell me that I receive the Body of Christ when as I see quite another thing We have this therefore yet to prove How many Examples therefore do we produce to shew that it is not what Nature fram'd but what the Benediction hath Consecrated and that the force of Benediction is greater than of Nature because by Benediction Nature her self is chang'd Moses held a Rod in his hand he cast it from him and it became a Serpent Where he tells of all those real Transmutations and Miracles made by Moses After which he goes on We see therefore that the power of Grace is far beyond that of Nature and yet we have only mention'd hitherto the effects of Grace in the blessing of Prophets now if the blessing of men were of so great efficacy as to change the Nature of things what shall we
say of the Divine Consecration where the very words of Christ our Saviour are operative Then he speaks of the Creation of the World out of nothing and goes on If therefore Christ by his word was able to make something of nothing shall he not be thought able to change those things which are into other things which they were not But what need of Arguments Let us propose his own Example and assert the truth of this Mystery by that of his Incarnation When our Lord Jesus was born of Mary was it a Natural generation c. This Body which we make in the Sacrament is that which was born of the Virgin Why do ye here require the order of Nature in the Body of Christ when as above all Nature Christ was born of a Virgin The true Flesh of Christ which was crucified which was buried And are all these real Transmutations and Miraculous Supernatural Examples produc't only to prove a figurative Change conferring some invisible Blessing Can our Discourser understand it so and no otherwise Indeed I think he had best retreat to the first three Hundred years after Christ as some others of your late Writers have done contrary to what I had ever been taught among you who generally extended the Purity of the Roman Doctrine as far as the first Five Hundred years and accordingly in my Discourses with Catholics I always asserted that we did receive the Roman Doctrine until about that time but the Truth would glare too much in our Discoursers Eyes if he should walk in the light of those two latter Centuries when the Church began to be freed from her Persecutions and holy Fathers had greater liberty of Preaching and Teaching the true Christian Faith in its Extent But we shall follow him as high as he pleases We produce next St. Cyril of Jerusalem who liv'd in the Age before St. Ambrose and St. Augustine his words are these Do not then consider it as bare Bread or bare Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to the word of our Saviour himself For tho' sense should suggest this to thee yet let thy Faith so confirm this as that thou judge not the matter from the Tast And again Hoe Sciens c. This knowing and accounting it as most certain that this Bread which we see is not Bread tho' our Tast do tell us that it is Bread but it is the Body of Christ and the Wine which we behold tho' it seem Wine to our sense of Tast yet it is not Wine but the Blood of Christ Catech. 4. This was spoke after a Catechistical manner in which high Metaphors and Figures are not generally very frequent he was besides esteem'd by all as a learned Person and of this Book none ever doubted We come now to the third Age in which S. Cyprian treating of our Lords Supper says The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples is changed not in outward appearance but in Substance and by the Omnipotency of the Word It is made Flesh And as in the person of Christ the Humanity did appear and the Divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the Divine Essence hath ineffably infused it self Serm. de coena Dom. This is so clear a passage that some of the Sacramentaries for want of a better Answer pretend it was not writ by St. Cyprian altho' at the same time they are forc't to confess that it is of great Antiquity and had a Learned Author But something must be said and Confidence goes a great way I have already spoken of Justin Martyr in the second Age and come now to the first Age even in the days of the Apostles let us hear then the holy Martyr S. Epist ad Smyrnaeos Ignatius the Disciple of S. John who speaking of the Heretics of his time says thus They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffer'd for our Sins and which the Father in his Mercy raised again from the dead A strange concurrence through all Ages of most extraordinary Tropes and Figures I name not St. Andrew because the Authority is suspected Nor is it necessary to multiply Testimonies of the Fathers which we might have done because they are in truth but like dead Weights on both sides until we shall have put life into them by such reasonable Interpretations as reconciling them first to themselves may make them plainly speak forth the Catholic Doctrine which I refer to the Conclusion But what do Protestants think of all these Fathers Why truly they blame them All and tell us that they were mistaken Dr. Humphrey says Gregory and Austin brought Transubstantiation into the English Church Jesuit part 2. p. 627 The Centurists charge S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and Eusebius For not writing well of Transubstantiation Peter Martyr for the same reason blames S. Cyril Vrsinus S. Cyprian The Learned Melancton writes thus upon this Subject L. 3. Ep. Zuing Oecol f. 132. There is no care says he that hath more troubled my mind than this of the Eucharist And not only my self have weighed what might be said on either side but I have also sought out the Judgment of old Writers touching the same And when I have laid all together I find no good reason that may satisfie a Conscience departing from the propriety of Christs words This is my Body Many other Testimonies of Learned Protestants I omit at present for Brevity sake In the mean time I suppose all these may be sufficient to ballance the Substance of Theodoret even when you have made the most of it that in reason you ought or else my Reason and Sense are much more deceived in this Case than in that of the Sacrament But come we to the Third Point That the Elements go into the draught and our flesh encreased by them Hear what St. Chrysostome says Do you see Bread Do you see Wine Do these go into the draught like other common meat Far be it from thee to imagine it Hom. do Euchar. in Encoen When our Discourser hath reconcil'd his passage of Origen with this of S. Chrysostome let him then read any Catholic Author and he will tell him how he shall understand the Authority which he hath here produc't of which more hereafter Now for the encrease of the flesh I find this Explication in St. Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. c. 36. and 37. Even as a little Leaven doth make the whole Mass like it self so that Body which is made Immortal by God entring into our Body doth transfer and change it into its self And after That Body is joyned with the Bodies of the faithful that by the Coujunction with the same Immortal Body Man may be made partaker of Immortality So S. Cyril of Alexandria As a spark of fire lighting upon Hay or Straw doth presently inflame it all so the Word of God joyned to our corruptible
introducing Transubstantiation never did 1200 Learned Men take wronger Measures For notwithstanding a due respect be generally paid by all good Catholics to Priests as their Character requires yet I will be judged by all such as have travell'd abroad Whether a Presbyterian Parson in his Conventicle or a London Minister in his Parish or a Calvinist Predicator in Amsterdam who make nothing of the Sacrament Do not yet pretend both Males and Females to have as much respect paid them as ere a Priest of equal quality in France Italy or Spain who nevertheless are the Instruments by which this unexpressible Change is made But our Discourser labours hard here to prove that this Change is no Miracle to Sense But had he advis'd with any Catholic he might have spar'd his pains for I will engage they would have confest it to him at the first word Our Discourser having hitherto with great success destroy'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation yet to make sure work he kills it again with four deadly Objections drawn from the infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion As 1. The Stupidity 2. The Real Barbarousness of this Doctrine supposing it be true 3. The bloody Consequences And 4. The danger of Idolatry if it be not true p. 33. To prove the Stupidity of this Doctrine our Discourser produceth two Learned Heathens Tully and Averroes wondring that any Men should be so stupid as to pretend to eat their God Now that there is Stupidity in the Case is most certain But whether it be in the Doctrine Or in Tully and Averroes Or in our Discourser who brings two Heathens Testimonies against a Mystery of the Christian Religion I leave to Judgment I suppose he may have heard of such an Epistle as the first of St. Paul to the Corinthians I would recommend to him the first Chapter and particularly Vers 18.19 20. where it is written For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness Where is the wise where is the scribe where is the disputer of this world hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world And vers 27 God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise Now whether Averroes and our Discourser were the Wise Men or the Foolish here intended I must leave again to Judgment But I have not yet done with Averroes for his words cited by our Discourser p. 34. are very observeable I have travel'd 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 the Christians because with their own Teeth they devour the God whom they worship What ill luck it was that this great Philosopher should not have met with the Disciples of Rabanus Maurus or some One other of our Discoursers Predecessors in Opinion at least in some Corner of the World who might have convinc'd him of his mistake and reconcil'd him a little better to the Christian Religion But not to have found one Christian over the whole World neer six Hundred years since after Rabanus had writ against Pascasius less sottish than the rest will serve at least to prove a Sottishness also in this Case but whether in those Christians or in our present Discourser who hath brought so strong a Testimony to prove the Universality of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation even of so learned a Man who had travell'd all the World over I must once more leave to Judgment But sure I am from Averroes his own Works and the knowledge which he had of that vast difference between Bodies in their Natural Gross and Earthly Composition and the pure Substances of these Bodies separated from their foeces or accidents by corruption or putrefaction distillations digestions and sublimations until they become Essences or pure Principles I say from his Experimental Philosophy of Common Bodies thus alter'd and sublimated he would have made no difficulty to have solv'd most of our Discoursers absurdities concerning this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet there is no Comparison between these Common Bodies tho never so purely defoecated and exalted which can bear any proportion with the glorified Body of our Saviour united with his Divinity So that I am verily perswaded had Averroes been satisfied concerning the other Mysteries of Christian Religion and rightly inform'd concerning the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would have been as good a Christian in that Point as Pope Innocent 3d. or Pius 4th But our Discourser tells us that the stupidity of this Doctrine breeds Atheists and Infidels Even so the warmth of the Sun breeds Maggots and many other Insucts but the Matter must be first disposed to Corruption Now altho the Sun be much hotter in France Spain Portugal and Italy than in England or in Holland yet I appeal to all Men who have any knowledge of those Kingdoms whether there be not as many reputed Atheists in these two last Governments where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not so publickly nor generally profest as in any other part of the Christian World proportionably where it is And what indeed have been the true parents of Atheism and Infidelity but the devilish pride of Sense and Reason set up against the blessed Humility of Faith and Obedience But our Discourser in this Page begins to be very seriously idle and impertinent out of some respect therefore to himself we will pass it over and come to p. 35. where he most grievously accuseth this Sacrament of Barbarousness upon the Supposition of the truth of this Doctrine But sure if this Doctrine be true then it is impossible that it should be barbarous except our Saviour himself who commanded it and is there voluntarily present in it should have instituted a barbarous Sacrament which whether our Discourser can believe I know not but sure I am if the Doctrine be not true it cannot be barbarous to eat him in imagination only except our Discoursers opinion be also barbarous He tells us 't is very unworthily done to our friend and barbarous to feast upon his Flesh and Blood I am glad to find our Discourser capable of so much Tenderness But he might have read of very many Provinces in the East and West Indies who count it their greatest glory to eat their best deceased Friends perswading themselves that thereby they do as it were regenerate or reanimate those to whom they were first obliged for their own lives by transforming them thus into their own Nature and Substance With indignation therefore they reproach our manner of Burials as most inhumane O pauvre Gens saith my Author comment laissez vous manger cette chair precieuse aux Sales vers de la terre Et que monument plus digne lui pouvez vous donner que celuy de vos propres entrailles And upon this consideration it was that the renowned Artemise drank the Ashes of her dear departed Husband The Barbarousness therefore objected by our Discourser suppose this
as the other But if he goes on he would hereby make us believe That 't is all one whether Christ be adored as supposed here by the Lutherans in this holy Eucharist and as imagined there by the Papists P. 100. I must then deny his Assertion What ill luck is this but why Truly because the one offers more violence to the Senses than the other I could wish our Answerer would offer less violence to his own and his Readers Senses for what have Senses to do with an equal supposition of Christs Invisible Presence tho after a different manner For Instance Suppose one man should adore Christ under a Veil believing that that which Supported the Veil was the real Natural Body of Christ the other equally ador'd Christ under the some Veil but upon the Supposition that Christs Natural Body was under it or with it but together with some other Substance which totally Supported this Veil would not any Man judge that the first is at least as excusable as the latter But Secondly He tells us That the Lutheran do undoubtedly right in the object and in that he is not mistaken But the Papist altho' he terminates his Adoration upon the same Object Christ as supposed really Present and no otherwise would adore yet he is mistaken so the one only adores Christ as in a place where he is not the other as in a thing in which he is not and this makes the vast difference A difference there is I confess for one adores nothing for Christ the other Christ believed in or under something but both upon the same Supposition of Christs Invisible Presence and this is the State of the Case in Short The question is Whether they be both equally excusable or guilty of Idolatry Here the Answerer passeth Sentence clearly against the Papist but had he writ less and closer he would not surely have so easily forgot what himself from Bishop Taylor was pleas'd to urge in p. 68. Where he lays it down for a Rule and gives reasons for it That to worship Christ where he is not is to worship nothing a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry Well but still it may be the Bishop says the Answerer does not intend to exclude the Corpus Domini but only the Corporal or Natural manner of that Body Let us therefore hear how he goes on P. 69. for Idolum nihil est in Mundo saith St. Paul and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament or with the Sacrament is a Non Ens For it is not true there is no such thing What says the Answerer not as Christ there no way as to his Humane Nature No he is saith the Bishop present there by his Divine Power and his Divine Blessing c. But for any other Presence it is Idolum It is nothing in the World It seems then to worship nothing for Christ in the Bishops Judgment produc'd by the Answerer is Idolatry The Question is only concerning Idolatry therefore sure both are equally culpable or equally innocent of that Crime What a deal of Stuff then hath our Answerer heapt up to no other purpose than to snew himself a partial Scribler Let him not be offended then if I most justly apply to himself what he produces in reference to another P. 96. That for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning it hath the least in it of any I ever met with But I leave the Learned Oxford Discourser to manage his own Defence against this Answerer if he shall think it worthy of a thought The last publick Enemy to Transubstantiation that I shall mention is The Defender of the Dublin Letter I must confess he seems to be a Man of Learning and Judgment tho equally unknown to me as the rest but because his Defence depends chiefly upon the Authorities of Fathers whose Sense I humbly conceive he mistakes or misapplies I shall endeavour to reconcile them in the Conclusion to other expressions of the Fathers and all to the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation Thus Reverend Fathers I have made such particular Remarks upon these Authors against Transubstantiation as I thought necessary toward the clearing our way to the right understanding of that great Mystery and if I have said ought which might hitherto offend you or them I know not how to ask your Pardons for as being ignorant of their Persons I can have no malice towards them so when I find Men writing magisterially and pragmatically against Learned Men and Christian Doctrines when as I believe they are themselves in the wrong I thought it a part of my Duty to present the Glass to them that by seeing how ill their Reflections appear they might call to mind that admirable Rule of Justice and Equity Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne feceris The CONCLVSION HAving endeavour'd to remove some prejudices against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which every Author had kept as particular Reserves over and above those Vulgar Objections which are common to them all I should now totally apply my self to the reconciling part and I have made some considerable Progress in it but finding that I have already exceeded the limits which I at first proposed to my self and that the weightiness of this Subject together with the variety of Objections against it and of Opinions concerning it will engage me in a larger Discourse than is proper for this time and place I resolv'd to make a Treatise of it by it self and this I am the rather inclin'd to do because we may probably see something of this kind in public done by a better hand which likely may save both you and me a further labor I shall content my self therefore at present to say something in General and for Particulars must refer you to what I further design if need require and God shall enable us The main Objections against Transubstantiation are chiefly these two I. That the natural Body of Christ cannot be in several places at the same time II. That it is against the Evidences of our Senses to believe that what we see and feel and tast and smell and which nourisheth should not be what it seems to be Or that Accidents should exist without a Subject after the manner of a Substance and yet be nothing These and many others which are the consequences of these bating several gross mistakes are obvious in most Protestant Authors To the First The Reasons given why the Natural Body of Christ cannot be in several places at the same time are Because a Body cannot exist after the manner of a Spirit That a Body cannot be invisible and impossible Answ p. 34. Or as it is in the Rubric Because it is against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one Now if we can Evidently shew out of Scripture that the Body of Christ here upon Earth did sometimes exist after the manner of a Spirit