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
Nature by means of the Eucharist doth make it all to rise Immortal and glorious The same may be seen in Iraen l. 8. contr Haer c. 34. And many others who understand the encrease of the Flesh to be a raising of the Flesh towards a state of Immortality and disposing it towards a happy Resurrection according to that of S. John c. 6. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath life Everlasting and I will raise him up at the last day But if these Interepretations should not happen to please you I shall then recommend you to a late Catholic Author and leave you to himself or his Excellent Treatise The Defence for the Adoration of the Body and Blood of our Lord p. 14. For further satisfaction his words are these ' This External Sign or Symbol they the Catholics affirm to be all That of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any Sense And tho' after Consecration the Substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is Substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive vertue of the Bread nor nothing visible nor tangible or otherwise perceptible by any sense are involved in it All which at last we shall endeavour to explain The last Head is That the words of Consecration are not to be taken in a literal Sense To prove this our Discourser brings several killing Testimonies as he calls them but I know not whom they hurt except the Caphernaites for all Catholics own both the Authorities and the Doctrine contained in them as absolutely necessary to the true and Orthodox understanding their Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament That is to say That the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not there after a Natural and Corporeal manner as it was upon the Cross that is specifically and according to the outward Form and local Existence but spiritually supernaturally and without Circumscription that is external Commensuration of or Co-extension with Place And if Pascasius meant otherwise of the Sacrament than what is here exprest then Rabanus Maurus did well to oppose him with all his might as another Anonymus did if not the same Rabanus in a Tract extant in Codice Gemblacens Cosnobij cum Heregeri Opusculo But that this good Arch-Bishop did so understand him is plain for these two Reasons First because he hath always been acknowledged an Orthodox Bishop among all Catholics and next because his own words have with good reason confirm'd Catholics in this their Opinion of him and they are these Who says he would ever believe that Bread could be turn'd into Flesh or Wine into Blood except our Saviour himself had said it who Created Bread and Wine and made all things out of Nothing but it is easier to make one thing out of another than all things out of Nothing L. 7. de Sacris ordin ad Theatmanum c. 10. Now after all these Authorities from the Fathers and a Hundred more which might be produc't to shew that they believ'd the Real Presence together with the agreable concurrent sense of them all running through their whole Works besides their constant practice of Adoration and Belief of an unbloody Sacrifice and many Learned Protestants confessing that they did so believe After all this I suppose I need not enquire of our Discourser when this Doctrine of the Real Presence came into the World for I am convinc't that it was in the very days of the Apostles themselves or to use the words of Sebastianus Francus and Hospinian two Eminent Protestants jam tum primo illo tempore viventibus adhuc Apostolis c. But because our Discourser hath made use of the name of the good Arch-Bishop of Mentz to countenance and support his false Chronology it is Just that I take off this scandalous imputation from Rabanus Maurus Now altho his own words before recited are more than sufficient to clear this Excellent Person yet at present I shall only make use of our Discourser's own computation to destroy the probability of his unreasonable Supposition which he calls a plain Testimony He tells us P. 21. That in the Second Council of Nice Anno Dom. 787. The Sacrament was declar'd to be properly the Body and Blood of Christ and that thence this Opinion got footing among the Greeks And that in the year 818. Pascasius first broacht this Doctrine in the Latin Church insinuating that until that time this Doctrine was not receiv'd among the Latins and that thereupon Rabanus Maurus in the year 847 wrote against this Pascasius for introducing this new Error Thus far the Story is very well laid but here are these hard difficulties to be digested before we can give it that credit which he expects First it is certain that Peter Arch-Presbyter of the Roman Church and Peter the Monk were present in the said Council in behalf of Pope Adrian That the said Pope wrote Letters to the Emperour Constantius and also to Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople which were received by the said Council And lastly that the Popes Supremacy was confirmed in this very Council in these words Quod Ecclesia Romana sit Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Act 2. Now from this Council to Rabanus Maurus there was an Interval of 60 years from the Council to Pascasius of one and Thirty years and can we believe that this Doctrine of the Real Presence which was declared in this Council in the presence of the Popes Legats and confirm'd by the Pope himself should be one and Thirty years a getting over from Nice into the Latin Church Or that so Learned a Man as Rabanus and so esteem'd by our Discourser should be ignorant sixty years after this Council was held That this Doctrine had been there declared And so grosly mistake Pascasius for the first broacher of it Truly for my part altho' Rabanus had not explain'd himself concerning his Faith according to those expressions before related yet would I not easily have believ'd that he could have been so ignorant of the Transaction of this Council or would have accus'd Pascasius of introducing so gross an Error into the Latin Church when he knew that he writ no otherwise than as had been Thirty years before determin'd in a General Council It is plain therefore that Rabanus quarrell'd with some Expressions of Pascasius as importing the Erroneous sense before mention'd Our Discourser being confident that he hath found out the date of Transubstantiation falls a little foul upon Mr. Arnauld because he cannot believe that such a Doctrine should have been impos'd upon the Christian World and yet so universally receiv'd except there had been some extraordinary if not an universal Opposition and indeed our Discourser of all mankind ought to have believ'd so too for if every man should have had as ill an Opinion of it as himself its establishment had been impossible But that he
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury who among other things hath these words This Faith speaking of the Real Presence according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Church which being spread over the whole World is call'd Catholic now holds and hath held from the Primitive Times But you saith be to Berengarius believe that the Bread and Wine of our Lords Table remain unchanged as to their Substance after Consecration c. If this be true which you believe and maintain concerning the Body of Christ then that is false which is believed and taught of it by the Church over the whole World for as many as own the name of Christians and are really such do profess that in the Sacrament they receive the true Flesh of Christ and his true Blood the same which he took of the Virgin Most wonderfully strange that so absurd a Doctrine should have spread so universally in so short a time as our Discourser is pleas'd to allow it Guitmundus Rupertus Algerus and other Learned Men writ against him to the same effect And moreover this his Doctrine was condemn'd as false and himself as an Innovator in no less than Eight Councils and Synods before that of Lateran which miserable Synods as the Answerer proudly calls them may be supposed to have had as much Learning and Honesty and I am sure much more Authority than Twenty two such Sheets as his tho' stampt with an Imprimatur before them Now let us observe This Monstrous Absurd Barbarous and Impious Doctrine of Transubstantiation as our Discourser calls it in somewhat more than two Hundred years was so throughly establisht all over the Christian World that these Learned Authors and the Fathers of these Eight Councils assembled in several Kingdoms were so totally ignorant that their own Doctrine had its date from the Council of Nice or that the Opinion of Berengarius had been ever before publickly profest that they make no scruple of alledging the Antiquity Vniversality and Constant Practice of their own Doctrine as a most convincing and unanswerable Argument against his Interroga Graecos Armenios says Lantfranc seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubst se testabuntur habere I profess that if after this my most serious and impartial Enquiry concerning the Belief of the Ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church touching the Real Presence it should possibly be true that they all or generally agreed with our Discourser and his figurative Interpretation excluding the Substance I would lay aside all my Books and conclude once for all That even the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self is more easie and rational than the true sense of the Fathers concerning it intelligible or attainable And tho I will not say with the Booksellers Wife at Paris That if the Primitive Fathers believ'd Transubstantiation She would no longer believe Christianity yet I may say if they did believe it and were mistaken a Christians Faith any further than it may be productive of good Works is the most indifferent thing in the World Our Discourser tells us of one John Scotus and Ratramnus and I know not who writing I know not what against this Doctrine of the Real Presence at least according to his Interpretation tho I know many Catholics understand some of them in a very Orthodox sense But to me it seems as impertinent to bring two or three private persons advancing their private Opinions against the Concurrent Testimonies of all Authors prior present and others since they wrote posterior to them besides the Definitions and Decrees of General Councils as it would be among us to produce the Authorities of John Milton and Junius Brutus to prove that it was lawful among the Jews for the People by their own Supream Power to murder their Kings and that in all Governments the People have the same Sovereign Authority to judge and punish even by Death their lawful hereditary Kings and Governours if they shall so think fit Now having the History of the Bible as well as they together with the express Command of God and constant Testimony and Practice of Learned Men through all Ages and publick Laws with Acts of Parliament to the contrary these Men may write till their Hands and Hearts ake to use out Discourser's expression before they shall perswade me to renounce the strongest Evidence imaginable in favour of their private Sentiments Whether our Discourser be of my mind or not I cannot tell but if he be I see no greater reason to believe John Scotus than John Milton Come we now to the Church Authority which so much offends him Our indulgent Mother according to her favourable Discipline permitted the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as she had done for many years that of the Consubstantiality to pass upward of Twelve Hundred years without any other judicial determination of the Modus as they call it than such as had been Originally planted in the hearts and minds of the Faithful and cultivated in every Age by Pious and Learned Men in their Sermons Catechisms and other Discourses as occasion hapned But Berengarius a Man fond of his own Notions and valuing himself much upon his own Reason resolved to set up for a new Light of the Church and among other Errors taught the figurative acceptation of the Words of Consecration as hath been before related Upon this he was admonisht by several Pious and Learned Catholics to retract betimes so new and pernicious a Heresie But the Arguments of sense procuring him a party among the Vulgar he prosecuted his design with great vigor until at last he was taken notice of by the Supream Church-Governors and in a Council at Rome An. Dom. 1050. his Doctrine was condemn'd and himself excommunicated At length having several times abjur'd this his Heresie and as often return'd to his Vomit he burnt the Book of Scotus from whence he confest to have suckt part of his Poyson renounc'd for the last time with all Sincerity his former Opinions and spending the residue of his days in Piety and Devotion died in the Unity of the Roman Catholic Church full of sorrow and repentance Jan. 6. An. Dom. 1088. as may be seen in Membranis Taureacens in Chronic. Clarii Floriacens Monach. S. Petri vivi in Will of Malmesbury l. 3. de gestis Reg. Angl. In Baldrico Burgaliensi Abbate and in the Manuscript B. Martini Turonensis Notwithstanding all this the Seeds of Heresie thus sown were not easily rooted out And besides some Catholics themselves taking occasion from this Heresie had writ-concerning this great Mystery according as they best apprenended it But sometimes the obscurity of their Expressions the double sense which they admitted and not clearly shewing what they themselves believed Misfortunes which happen to most men who write concerning such high Mysteries without Authority the Governours of the Church thought fit as the best means to obviate these Inconveniences to call a General Council under Pope Innocent the Third which was
the greatest that ever had been since the Apostles and therein it was determined by near 1300 Fathers that according to the Doctrine of the most Ancient and Holy Fathers Tradition of the Church and former Councils the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration into the Substance of the Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Accidents of Bread and Wine only remaining should thenceforward be call'd Transubstantiation which had been sufficiently before exprest and explain'd by that wonderful Transmutation and Transelementation asserted by the Fathers This our Discourser believes with Scotus to have been the necessary consequence of the Council of Lateran p. 21. and so do I too Tho' in truth this explicative Term was I think more particularly establisht as here exprest in the Council of Trent Now to me the Church seems so far from being worthy of blame for decreeing what appears almost the necessary consequence of the real Presence I mean Transubstantiation that as the Case and Circumstances then stood the Church had been very negligent if she had not so decreed For it being always believ'd which I think is also fully proved That the Elements of Bread and Wine after Consecration were most wonderfully and by the Omnipotence of God converted into the Body and Blood of Christ It is clear then that either the Accidents or the Substance of Bread and Wine must be changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ But the Accidents are not so changed therefore the Substance Besides the Substance of the Body of Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament either with the Substance of Bread or without the Substance of Bread If the first then Catholics and our Discourser are in the wrong If the last then Luther and our Discourser are in the wrong So which way our Discourser should happen to be in the right I cannot comprehend except Zuinglius should have been more than Athanasius and our Discourser the Disciple of Zuinglius greater than St. Andrew the Apostle of our Lord. Now besides that the choice is easie in this Case even from the Authority of one side greater than of the other yet whosoever shall endeavour to reconcile the Real Presence with the Doctrine of Consubstantiation or Impanation will find harder difficulties in these than of that of Transubstantiation so much condemn'd The Authorities therefore which he brings from Durandus Erasmus Tonstal and some others to shew that before this Council of Lateran Men were at liberty concerning the modus or manner of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament might have been some kind of Argument for a Lutheran But how our Discourser becomes concerned in it I see not since quite through his Discourse and more particularly in p. 35. he hath with scorn excluded Both. Our Discourser hath yet one Argument relating to the time when he supposeth this Doctrine of Transubstantiation to have come into the World which is very remarkable He tells us That the Iconomachi or opposers of Images were very zealous against the Reverence due to them in the Synod of Constantinople about the year 750 arguing That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make no other Image of our Lord But in the year 787. in the Second Council of Nice these scrupulous Greeks in thirty seven years time were grown so hardy in their Faith and so extreamly fond of this new Doctrine concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament that they swallow'd it immediately and from that time were very solicitous and careful to admonish us that the Eucharist is not the Figure or Image of the Body of our Lord but his true Body as appears from the seventh Synod and he brings Bellarmin to vouch for him p. 21 22. Here we see these nice Greeks who were so very exact and curious in smaller Matters were contented to make so great a passage in one Council as from the Figure of Christ in the Sacrament to admit of his Substance nay and were so pleased with it that from thence and that time they took care to admonish us concerning it But the squeamish Latins notwithstanding the Greeks had advanc'd so far in one single Council were little less than three hundred years according to our Discoursers computation licking this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation such is the Elegancy of his Style into that Form in which it is now setled in the Church of Rome Indeed he hath been over generous to the Latins in allowing them so considerable a time to relish and digest only the Mode of a thing when the easse Greeks at one sitting had dispatcht the thing it self in which according to our Discoursers Opinion the great Barbarousness and Impiety consists For says he The Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe that they verily eat and drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ In truth the Latins are obliged to him in confessing them to have been so extream cautious about the lesser part but how he will come off with the Greeks for being so rash and inconsiderate about the greater and principal part must be his care if he pleaseth I am perswaded had Bellarmin said this to have proved that the Greeks did then and not till then receive the Doctrine of the Real Presence Our Discourser could he make any advantage of it with good Reason would have cast it out as the most improbable and ridiculous conjecture in the World And yet here because he thinks it may help to favour his false account he produceth it with as much gravity as if he knew Catholics had less sense to see a blot than himself rashness to make one I come now to his fourth pretended Ground of this Doctrine that is The necessity of such a Change in the Sacrament to the Comfort and Benefit of those who receive it p. 30. To this my Answer at present is very short If I be satisfied that our Saviour commanded the thing I am convinc'd there was a good Reason for it without over-curiously examining what or why in this Case more than why he cured not those who touched the Hem of his Garment without that Ceremony or the blind with out clay and spittle And yet the Fathers and many late Authors will furnish those who are more inquisitive with many very good Reasons why this Change in the Sacrament is more advantageous to the worthy Receiver than the Figure would be and I shall say somewhat of it my self hereafter The last pretended Ground of this Doctrine is as he tells us to magnifie the Power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle Indeed if the great Council of Lateran did make this a Ground of
with his figurative expression in the Sacrament he had gon somewhat farther towards the Point he aim'd at But if we take them both in a literal sense and so in reason the Parallel ought to run Alas his consequence is confounded and all his Parallels come to little or nothing But granting him the benefit of his Clerkship and Reading in its utmost Latitude will this save him truly I think not for these Reasons First it hath been the received Opinion of all Parties that the Jewish Passover was a Type of the Christian Sacrament and my self was present when a Learned * Bishop of Rochester Bishop made a whole Sermon before the late King at White Hall upon this Supposition If so how comes it then to pass that this Type or Figure should be no more than a Figure of a Figure It was what the Fathers could not endure to hear But Secondly according to our Authors Parallel the Sacrament is no more at most than a Figure of the Memorial that is of the Figure of this Figure that is the Passover But in truth it appears not clear to me that the eating of unleavened Bread had any particular relation to the Passover it self but that they were the Memorials of two distinct and different actions The one That God did Pass over or spare the Children of Israel when he slew the Children of the Egyptians The other That God brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt which is thus fully exprest in Exod. 13. v. 8. and 9. And thou shalt shew thy Son in that day saying This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand and for a memorial between thine eyes that the Lords Law may be in thy mouth for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt This our Author confesseth himself in his Introduction p. 4. and it is again set forth in Exod. c. 12. If this be so and with submission I am apt to believe it is what then becomes of our Answerers Parallels Since now they have no relation to the Passover or Paschal Lamb Why since they lie thus fair for us we will presume to make use of them to prove still further the undoubted Truth of the Catholic Doctrine The Body of Christ then in the Sacrament is the Substance signified by the Paschal Lamb which was a Figure of it by means of which holy Sacrifice God is pleased to spare us and pass over us as he did the Children of Israel and take us into his particular Protection The Elements Symbols or Accidents may be the Substances signified by the unleavened Bread and among other significations are the Memorials of our deliverance from the bondage of Sin and Satan Thus the Parallels run right upon all four and when our Answerer shall have better consider'd of it possibly he may not think so well of what he calls almost a Demonstration Introd p. 6. The next Remark from our Answerers Discourse is this That he hath brought several Learned Catholics professedly remaining such not only not to have believed but also to have written against Transubstantiation If this be really true as I perceive he imagines it is then surely if their Judgments were no greater than their Honesty their Testimonies will not do him much honor for to profess a Doctrine of that Importance and yet not to believe it must unavoidably convince the World that they were false interested hypocritical Knaves and in this Character will I include the late Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome but with this additional aggravation of partiality that he admits of the English Real Presence Consubstantiation Impanation Zuingliâ—â—â—sâ— or any thing rather than Transubstantiation And had he been honest and sincere he should have produc'd the Authorities of the same Fathers plainly asserting what he would make them deny and have reconcll'd them to his Interpretation if he could But Secondly we have nothing but his word for the truth of his Protestant Relics now if we should ridicule those as most probably he hath done some Popish Relics which he might have met withal in his Travels I know not how he will help himself we shall have reason to question his own Sincerity as immediately shall be shewn Thirdly It is a great question whether all these Eminent persons whom he hath named did really deny the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self or rather some particular manner among the School Men of explaining it which is a considerable difference and may render them totally excusable And Lastly it is Evident That some of these persons did certainly believe the Doctrine it self and moreover have explain'd it most conformable to the Canons of the Council of Trent And First Monsieur de Marca the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris taking our Answerers own Account in his Preface p. 13. hath given an admirable Explication of it and however Mr. de Baluze or the Sorbon Doctors might misunderstand him my Opinion as there set down is much the same with Monsieur de Marca's and in the Conclusion I shall endeavour to make it consistent with Scripture the Fathers and General Councils and most agreeable to Sense and Reason The same I believe of Cardinal Perron rather than make him such a Villain as Drelincourt a profest Enemy hath represented him to the Lantgrave of Hesse Our Answerer for want of a right understanding mistakes Monsieur de Meaux and others whose Reputations he hath ignorantly not to say maliciously endeavour'd to blast which if it were much to my present purpose I would further make appear The last particular which I shall observe for others who shall think it worth their pains may enlarge if they please is his great disingenuity and partiality in his Answer to the Learned Oxford Discourser concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Sacrament The Discourser proposeth and one would think with very good Reason That Catholics here our Answerer tells us P. 99. he means Papists still and this he childishly repeats so often that it is ten times more insupportable than the Crambe bis cocta or Cabbage twice boil'd which the Poet says was so nautious to the Masters The Discourser I say proposeth That Catholics grounding their adoration not upon Transubstantiation but on a Real Presence with the Symbols which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans together with them ought to be freed from Idolatry therein as well as the Lutherans What says the Answerer That if by this assertion he means only to make this discovery That Christs Real Presence together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration as if he mere there only with the Species of the Bread the Substance being changed into his Body I have no more to say it Here then he grants it for the one is as good
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
you may not believe I have err'd through Popish Affectation I will produce also for my Justification the sound Judgment of your best Reformers Luther tells us I do not deny but that the Bishop of Rome is Resp tred propos hath been and ought to be first of all I believe he is above all other Bishops it is not lawful to deny his Supremacy Melancton the Phaenix of learning says That the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church Epist ad Card. Belay that it is his Office to Judge in Controversies to govern to watch over the Priests to keep all Nations in Conformity and Vnity of Doctrines Somaisius The Pope of Rome hath been without controversie the first Metropolitan of Italy and not only in Italy nor only in the West but in all the World The other Metropolitans have been Chief in their respective Districts but the Pope of Rome Tract ad Sermondum hath been Metropolitan and Primate not only of some particular Diocess but of All. Grotius for whom I have a great respect and think him a very learned Man says the same thing and proves this Supremacy belongs to the Pope de Jure divino Annot. Sup. Nov. Test This also inferr'd from Episcopal Government by Jacob Cartwright Husse Beza and many others Now Fathers you cannot say but these Eminent Protestants were Men of great Learning and that they had searcht and understood Scripture and History as well as your selves and if my Judgment concurs with them in this Point as I profess it doth then have I found that lawful Supream Authority which I searched and where this Authority is there is Infallibility Or if you can shew me Infallibility elsewhere there also I am sure I will believe a sufficient Authority The differences between them I cannot easily discern Infallibility is from God and therefore we believe what is dictated thereby as from God Supream Ecclesiastical Authority is also from God and therefore we obey what it commands us as the Ordinance of God Infallibility concludes our Reasons and binds our Consciences Supream Church Authority binds also our Consciences and Supersedes all private Reason Infallibility is above all humane Authority The highest Church Authority can have no such Authority upon Earth above it Infallibility establisheth and supports Authority Authority declares and makes manifest the Infallibility Infallibility and the Promises of Christ fail when Authority is destroy'd Authority lives not when Infallibility ceaseth In a word were there no Infallibility as I believe there is I would still submit my Reason and regulate my Conscience according to the Decrees of the Supream lawful Ecclesiastical Authority This is my Belief pray blame me not I am humble and have read Scripture and upon my word I am Sincere You may believe otherwise I presume not to Judge you After all this worthy Fathers I must not forget to tell you that I still lay under some Difficulties before I could throughly assent to this Authority now believ'd in the Church of Rome For you had often told me that She had fallen from her Primitive Purity and separated her self from that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Answ to Prot. Quaeries p. 10. Declar'd also to be Antichristian and the true Church Latent and Invisible by that famous Napper to King James Brocard Fulk Sebast Francus Hospinian and many others Now good Fathers if She was once a pure and uncorrupted Church I presume She remains so still for give me leave to tell you I do not well see how She can separate from her self for Mr. Chillingworth an Eminent Author among you lookt upon it as a thing ridiculous if not impossible for says he In the Case of the Church of England p. 174. We have not forsaken but only reformed another part of it the Catholic Church which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion Nor yet can She separate from the Catholic Church for the same Learned person tells us immediately after And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore were separated from the whole I say it follows not inasmuch as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves But next supposing a part may separate from it self or from the whole pray be plain with me worthy Fathers and tell me where that part or that whole remain'd from whence the Church of Rome separated For Separation first supposes the Existence of the thing from which Separation is made and is a deadly fault and foretold by the Apostles as a mischief which would happen in the last days Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ how that they told you that there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts these be they who Separated themselves sensual Jude v. 17 18 19. having not the Spirit Let us confider one another to provoke unto love and to good works Heb. 10.24 not forgetting the assembling our selves together and so much the more Act. 20.30 as ye see the day approaching Also of your selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them Now the Church of Rome was not only visible but a very Eminent Church St. Paul tells us Rom. 1. That her Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World And certainly that pure Church frâ—m which She Separated must needs be by so much the more Eminent as Her Apostacy was notorious which forsook her Tell me therefore where that pure Church remain'd that we may retrieve the true Christian Doctrine If she Separated from her self then besides Mr. Chill answer I add these Contradictions must be reciev'd as Truths The Church of Rome was at the same time Orthodox and Heterodox pure and corrupt sound but yet rotten Or if you can distinguish them shew me the Orthodox Pure and Sound part which was left by the Heterodox corrupt and rotten Church of Rome declare the time when the Separation was made and where both were to be found These are plain Questions and I must have a plain Answer if it can be had If you say She Separated from the Catholic Church then tell me where that Catholic Church remain'd from which She Separated and where She may be found for in good faith Fathers my Salvation is highly concern'd in this Question and I must be satisfied If you tell me She is invisible as others have done you plainly abuse me for I have long since learnt from your selves as a Maxim in Philosophy that de non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio It is the same thing not at all to be as not at all to appear Besides excuse me if I take the word of our Saviour and his Apostles and all the
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
a true and real tho' Mystical Manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Next we offer the Testimony of Bishop Ridley quoted by Arch-Bishop Laud set down in Fox p. 1598. You says he the Transubstantialists and I agree in this That in the Sacrament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father c. only we differ in Modo in the way and manner of being there Dr. Taylor who hath written one of the last on this Subject is very clear and particular concerning this Real Presence Sect. 1. N. 11. p. 18. It is enquired says he whether when we say we believe Christs Body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that Body that Flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was Crucified Dead and Buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one Body of Christ Natural and Glorified But he that faith that Body is Glorified which was Crucified says it is the same Body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth for there is no other Body no other Blood of Christ But tho' it is the same we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that was Crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament As Bertram as St. Heirom as Clemens Alexand. expresly affirm The meaning is easie They intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense c. That Body which was Crucified is not that Body that is eaten in the Sacrament is true if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being But that Body which was Crucified the same Body we do eat is also true if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several Manners of being and Operating Some also may turn all this into a meer figurative sense excluding the Corpus Domini or Real Presence of Christs Natural Body in the Sacrament and it may be they may think that this Doctor himself from some other of his expressions may have given them just reason so to do I shall then only observe these two things First that concerning this Real Presence a Catholic could not have written more justly nor more plainly than the Doctor hath done in what hath been above recited And Secondly That if after all this the Doctor should mean no more than a Spiritual efficacy or virtue excluding the Corpus Domini or Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body tho' indeed after a Spiritual manner as we confess then doth the Doctors Opinion seem as contradictory to it self and as incomprehensible to me as the great Mystery of Transubstantiation it self or as if he had written in Characters totally unintelligible But let us now hear Bishop Forbes de Eucharist L. 2. c. 2. Sect. 9. The sober Protestants doubt not but that Christ is to be ador'd in the Sacrament for in the taking of the Eucharist Christ is to be ador'd with Divine Worship because his Living and Glorious Body is present by an unexpressible Miracle to the Worthy Receiver and this Adoration is not due or performed to the Bread or Wine or the taking or eating but to the very Body of Christ immediately exhibited to us in the taking of the Eucharist And again L. 3. c. 1. Sect. 10. The holy Fathers often tell us That the very Body of Christ is Offer'd and Sacrificed in the Eucharist as appears by almost innumerable passages but not that all the properties of a Sacrifice are properly and really observ'd but it is done by a Commemoration and Representation of that which being once offer'd in that only Sacrifice of the Cross Christ our High Priest did thereby consummate all other Sacrifices and by pious Supplications by which the Ministers of the Church for the sake of the perpetual Oblation of that one Sacrifice assisting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father and present after an unexpressible manner on the holy Table most humbly pray God the Father that he would please to grant that the Vertue and Grace of this perpetual Victim may become profitable and efficacious to his Church for helping all the necessities both of the body and Soul The Archbishop of Spalato says much the same thing in his Rep. Eccles L. 7. c. 11. Only he will not admit the Body of Christ to be corporally in the Bread or under the Bread but to be taken with the Bread Sumitur cum Pane Christi Corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy L. 3. c. 3. Says thus That which I have already said is enough to Evidence the Mystical and Spiritual Presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the Same before any Man can suppose that Spiritual Presence of them to his Soul which the eating and drinking Christs Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth And ibid. c. 2. where it follows He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Unless a man discern the Lords Body where it is not of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be And l. 3. c. 5. Having maintained that the Elements are really changed from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament and that in vertue of the Consecration not by the Faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth namely that the Elements so consecrated are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them c. And then p. 46. he further collecteth thus And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is also both propitiatory and impetratory You may consult Archbishop Laud Bishop Montague Bishop Bilson and many other Learned Protestants too long to be here recited for further satisfaction in this Matter Now worthy Fathers what would you advise me to do in this Case would you have me follow the Judgments of these Learned and Pious Men who wrote not only their private Opinions but some of them in the Name of the King and whole Church of England Or would you have me believe our Discourser and some others of our late Sacramentary Pamphleters If the first then Transubstantiation will not appear so absurd ridiculous senseless and foolish a Doctrine as he
by himself nor any Man yet that I have met with let him therefore learn to understand the Catholic Faith before he writes such magisterial Impertinences against it But let us hear the Bishop himself who telling us That the Sacrament of Christs Body is not meant of his glorified Body but of his Body when it was Offer'd Rent and Slain and Sacrificed for us he goes on We are says he in this action not only carried up to Christ sursum corda but we are also carried back to Christ as he was at the very instant and in the very act of his offering So and no otherwise doth this Text teach So and no otherwise do we represent him By the Incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit not he alone but he as at the very act of his Offering is made present to us and we incorporate into his death and invested in the benefits of it Our Answerer to do him Justice is modest enough in this place to say he thinks the Real Presence cannot be otherwise meant than either figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive him But I think that had this Learned Bishop believed the manner as they call it of the Real Presence Transubstantiation No man could have written more Orthodoxly of it than this Bishop here hath done P. 64. The Answerer includes the Opinions of Casaubon and the Archbishop of Spalato in the sense of this passage of Bishop Andrews but why not in that produc'd by the Discourser However if it will gratifie him I willingly so accept them He makes Archbishop Laud to sing much after the same Tune He says little to Bishop Hall Montague and Bilson because he hath not their works by him but how he will excuse their pacific design as he calls it we shall consider by and by Bishop Forbe's Charitable undertaking has made him too favourable to many corruptions of the Church of Rome p. 65. And now he tells us but of two of all the Divines left to prove this new Fancy which the Discourser would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England one is Doctor Taylor whom he makes say a great deal more than I am willing to Transcribe for I am very weary of the Employment and besides all signifies no more at most than to prove Doctor Taylor contradicts himself or is otherwise as I hinted before the most unintelligible Writer that ever put Pen to Paper The truth to me seems to be this the Doctor in some places meant very plainly that which he as plainly wrote in others that he was over cautious considering the times and circumstances in which he liv'd to write more plainly that which he truly meant However upon the Ballance of the whole I take him to have been much rather a Defender than an Opposer of the Real Presence we speak of And now we are got to Mr. Thorndyke where I cannot but smile at the confidence of our Answerer who is not asham'd to say notwithstanding his own pretended confutation is a strong confirmation of that Real Presence asserted by the Discourser that he fears his Cause will be desperate except Mr. P. 69. Thorndyke can support it Well what says Mr. Thorndyke The Answerer tells us first of a certain Answer to one T. G. in which he seems to say That if the Church I suppose he means the English Church did ever pray the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them which is plain Transubstantiation then he is contented to call this the Sacramental Presence of them in the Eucharist What is this to the purpose He then tells us P. 70. that Mr. Thorndyke had a particular Notion in this Matter and a long Story in which he seems to deny Transubstantiation We do not affirm it of him And at last a great way off in p. 90. he puts Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato into a Sack together and makes them as errand Knaves in a reconciling way as his Protestant Minister whom just before he mentions but with this difference the Protestant Minister only dissembled his own Opinion that is conceal'd it but these two great Men have strenuously defended the Real Presence and not by consequence but positively an Adoration due when as our Answerer would perswade us that they did not believe the Real Presence but did believe the Adoration of it to be Idolatry That a pacific design and a charitable undertaking might engage some Men to relax somewhat of Ceremonies or Discipline I neither wonder at nor censure but that there should be any justifiable cause to oblige Men wittingly and willingly to profess and teach Idolatry is I confess beyond my understanding I shrewdly suspect that our Answerer from his rare Historical Relicts may have imbib'd some of Monsieur De Marolle's Principles and from thence think damnable Hypocrisie in Religion no great Sin otherwise I cannot imagine how with Charity he can suppose it in these two great Men who I am perswaded were they alive would spit in his Face for so scandalous an Imputation unworthy either of a Christian or a Gentleman His last stroke P. 90. is at the Learned Mr. Thorndyke whom he leaves to shift for himself with this Brand upon him as deep as he can make it That his Notion of the Real Presence was widely different both from theirs and ours and by consequence from the Truth but give me leave to tell you Sir had you been worthy to have carried Mr. Thorndykes Papers after him at least as far as I may judge by these twenty two Sheets you would have writ much less and yet much more to the purpose Thus Reverend Fathers I have given you a Tast of this fresh Author I fear it hath not proved a boccone Saporito but it was necessary in Vindication of my Testimonies and by Consequence of that Learned Oxford Discourser upon whose Authority I produc't them Begging your pardon then for this Digression I return to my first Discourser If it be true that the Doctrine of the Real Presence in a literal Sense was believed from the Primitive Times to this great Council of Lateran let us consider whether this Council exceeded its just Authority or introduc't any Erroneous Doctrine into the Christian Church For the clearer understanding of this Matter we are to note that one Berengarius about the year 1060. besides other Errors maintain'd that the Eucharist was not truly and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but only a Figure and Shadow of them and that the Bread and Wine upon the Altar were not Substantially converted into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ by the Mystery of holy Prayer and the words of our Redeemer Upon this several Learned Men employed their Pens against this new and strange false Doctrine as Adelmannus Bishop of Brixia formerly Schoolfellow of Berengarius Hugo Lingonensis Epis Durandus before-mention'd Lantfrancus
Hocus Pocus and Cheat of this Doctrine for so he is pleas'd to call Transubstantiation p. 34. I name not Luther among the great Reformers as to this Point for he agrees with Catholics as to the Real Presence tho' he differs in the Modus and with his whole heart Anathematizes and Curses the Doctrine of our Discourser under the name of Zuinglius and all his Adherents Epist contr Art Iovan Thes 27. Tom. 2. in these words We censure in earnest the Zuinglians and all the Sacramentaries for Hereticks and alienated from the Church of God And again Cursed be the Charity and Concord of the Sacramentaries for ever and ever to all Eternity Tom. Wittemb fol. 381. Now upon the best enquiry I could make concerning the Establishment of this Doctrine I found but Four tolerable good Reasons how it came to get so great credit among Christians The First is because our Blessed Saviour who is the Fountain of Wisdom and Truth did institute this Sacrament in such plain words as This is my Body That no Proposition upon Earth can be made to us in more express and positive Terms Secondly Because the Apostles did believe our Saviour spake in earnest and really meant as he said at least if we will believe the aforenam'd Justin Martyr who tells us That the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them have recorded that Jesus so commanded Thirdly Because all the Ancient Fathers who have written of the Holy Eucharist have exprest themselves so fully concerning their firm Belief of the Real Presence in a literal Sense That I defie Zuinglius and all his Works allowing me some Sense or preserving that little which I have to understand them totally in a figurative Sense And Lastly Because General Councils taking notice that some vain-glorious self-conceited Men had impudently presum'd to interpret those words of our Saviour contrary to the sense of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers and practice of the whole Christian Church had authoritatively decreed That the Judgment of the blessed Apostles and holy Fathers should be follow'd in this Matter that is That the Substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration was converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ and that the Heresie of these new Upstarts should be condemned and themselves excommunicated Now these Reasons methinks might be sufficient to shew that a Doctrine thus instituted and recommended to us might very probably be generally received among Men who own the Authority of the Institutor and Fidelity of those who being Witnesses of the Action have assured us of its meaning Nor can I perswade my self there is any Man so prejudiced and uncharitable upon Earth except those whose Charity Luther curst as to believe That so many Learned Men in such August and Sacred Assemblies should solemnly wittingly and willingly impose upon the World so pernicious and damnable a Doctrine if they themselves knew or could believe that this Doctrine was false Except some vast and wonderful temporal Interest should prevail with these Fathers and Doctors whose reputations have been high in the World thus dangerously to expose their own Souls and the Souls of all who belonged to them or depended upon them for the obtaining this supposed worldly Satisfaction A learned Protestant in his Answer to some Queries seems to have a great respect for General Councils but tells us p. 3. That Men are liable to hopes and fears and therefore we cannot depend upon them Now hopes and fears in this place relate only to Temporal Concerns which we will suppose Interest in its largest acceptation But in the name of God what Interest is this for which so much is thus desperately engaged Why truly our Answerer says nothing to it But our Discourser who hath left no Stone unturn'd but flies at all tells us at last p. 30. That it is to magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle I have already hinted how much these Fathers have been all along mistaken if this was their design But Secondly from the disproportion between the poorness of the reward and inestimable price that is paid even eternal Silvation I might most convincingly argue the impossibility of the design and fix it only in the mean and unworthy thoughts of our trifling Discourser But that I may clear these holy Fathers and Councils beyond all further doubt or dispute I do affirm this little design to have been so far from their thoughts that they have constantly declar'd this wonderful transmutation to proceed not from any power of the Priest but by the sole Omnipotency of Almighty God And because our Discourser seems to have some value for St. Augustin I shall produce his Testimony as it is cited be Consecratione Dist 2. c. 72. His words are these In the Mystery of the Body of Christ performed within the holy Church there is nothing more done by a good Priest and nothing less by a wicked one because what is wrought there is not by the Merit of him who Consecrates but by the word of our Creator and the power of the Holy Ghost for if it were by the merit of the Priest 't would not at all belong to Christ c. If St. Augustin could have prophesied that a malicious Discourser Twelve Hundred years after his death should have propos'd such a foolish Cause to have produc'd so absur'd a Doctrine in the Language of our Discourser I know not how he would have answer'd him more pertinently I shall not trouble you therefore with the Authorities of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. St. Ambr. l. de his qui mist init and several other Fathers together with General Councils particularly that of Florence de Sacram. Euch. to the same purpose but conclude that the Apostles Fathers and Councils having no design or prospect of any valuable consideration for so great a risque as their Eternal Salvation must have impos'd this Doctrine upon mankind either through gross Ignorance or meer wilful and devilish premeditated Malice But having no manner of reason to believe the first and from my heart detesting so cursed a thought as the last we will next consider what inducements they might have had from the consideration of Spiritual advantages arising from thence to the Christian World to have prest this Doctrine believing it to be true with the greater earnestness And indeed the advantages are very many and very great As First That the Eucharist is a pledge of our Salvation Secondly That we are not only by Faith but even Corporally united with Christ Thirdly That in regard of this Union the Eucharist is a Seal to us of our Resurrection Fourthly That through it we are made partakers of the Divine Nature Fifthly That by being thus truly and really united with Christ we cannot be altogether divided from such influences as proceed from Christ Sixthly That our Faith is encreased proportionable to the difficulties which encompass this Doctrine Seventhly That our Hope is raised hereby