the fourth Chapter of this Reply Disc 2. pag. 23 â— 25. The next Ground is the definition of severall Councils which he calls the Declaration of the most Supreme and Vniversall Church-authority not considering how harsh these expressions will â—ound at Rome and he tels us that seven or eight of these Councils if we take in the second Nicene are reckon'd up in the first Discourse of the Guide and all of 'em before that of Trent I must confess the Arch-Bishop replyes to but one of these for men were more wise and modest in those days then to challenge the other seven He says indeed en passant of the Roman one under Pope Nicholas that the Papists themselves were then asham'd of Berengarius's first recantation a very good reason one would think to wave an appeal to that Synod and in truth the Lateran under Innocent III. was the only Council that intelligent Papists could at that time pretend to Now to this the Arch-Bishop excepts p. 251. as a Synod pack'd and overaw'd by that exorbitant Pope which neither had nor alleg'd any Scripture to vouch their definitions A truth of which the whole world is by this time very well satisfi'd But to speak distinctly of these eight Supreme Universall Church-Authorities * See Bp. Cosins History of Transubstantiation c. 7. §. 7 8 9 10. two of 'em those at Rome and Vercelli under Leo IX were Italian Conventicles manag'd by Humbert and Hildebrand whereof the first condem'd Berengarius without hearing the second without understanding him Wherefore the Gallican Churches defy'd 'em both and Victor was fain to send Hildebrand into France where he pick'd up another little Synod at Tours and once more condemn'd Berengarius The express Judgment of these three small Universal meetings is not certainly known But if we may guess by the decision of the next Roman Synod under Nicholas II they believ'd according to the form which Humbert and Hildebrand then contriv'd for Berengarius to recant in About 18 years after when Hildebrand himself was Pope and his infallibility began to blome he conven'd another Roman Synod and propos'd a more correct form which he forc'd Berengarius to subscribe to * Labbe Concil Tom. 10. col 378. not without some feud which arose in that little assembly like a tempest in a bason and continu'd three days till at last the Pope outbluster'd it After all this Hildebrand himself * See Pref. to Determin Jo. Paris lately printed at Lond. p. 7 as appears by his own work in manuscript was not fully satisfi'd what was fit to resolve upon the question So that five of these eight Supreme Universal Church-authorities were govern'd by one man who scarce knew his own mind and one whose character as many of the Papists give it would have made Sr. Thomas More say of him too that he would not for the world heare him say the Creed Now for the second Nicene Council our Author seems to make but a faint and doubtfull appeal to it whether it be that the places he refers to are fairly capable of another meaning then he aims at or whether he had a Just notion of the reverence due to such a Council * See Bp. Andrews upon the 2 d. Command c. 3. p. 203. A Council conven'd by an Empress that had liv'd a Heathen till her marriage and was then but a kind of a Si quis dixerit-Convert to Christianity A Council manag'd by Tarasius an old courtier of the Queens and one John of the East whom his own Patriarch that sent him affirm'd to have some devotion but little Learning A Council that defin'd Angels to be Corporeal and Stocks and Stones to be worshipped in short a Council that should have defin'd Transubstantiation though it did not for the world never saw an assembly better fitted to define a condradiction to Scripture Sense and Reason * See Bp. Cosin's History of Transubstantiation cap. 7. §. 30. Yet even this Council came not up to our Author's terms any more then the Council of Florence which he quotes to as little purpose For 't is certain that Council did neither decree nor treat of Transubstantiation the Instructio ad Armenos being foysted into the Decrees three months after the Council was dissolv'd and so much with the Armenians approbation that to this day they believe the Consecrated elements to retain their nature in the Eucharist And will not our Author 's private and truly humble Christian be finely holp up now with the Supreme Universal Authority of eight Councils in Buckram which at last amount to but one Lateran under Innocent III and that too infamous for establishing the Deposing Doctrine * See F. Walsh's Letter to the Bp. of Linc. §. 22. so that all honest and loyal Papists reject the Lateran Canons affirming they were only propos'd but never ratifi'd by the Council but shuffled into the Decretals by Pope Innocent's Nephew when he came to be Gregory IX But perhaps the Council of Trent may salve all and help to settle a wavering man Truly no as this Author expounds it * See c. 9. par 3. of his Reply for it only defin'd Si quis dixerit i. e. the Council it self says nothing but only what you shall not say do but hold your tongue and believe your pleasure you may still be as good a disciple as Nicodemus was Now to muster up the forces of these nine Generall Councils here are seven of 'em nothing to the purpose the Eighth of very doubtfull if not very scandalous Authority the Ninth leaves our Faith at liberty and would only bridle our Tongues proposing no grounds of believing but a swinging curse for talking Our Author himself seems a little diffident of this ground Disc 2. pag. 29. §. 26. for a better reason too then a man would expect from him He says these Councils are not so ancient as some may expect and truly Novelty in Religion is allow'd by all sober men too be a great persumtion of Falshood Wherefore he endeavours to goad up his pretensions some two or three hundred years higher though all in vain as long as he is destitute of truly primitive Antiquity The Authors he remits us to are every one of 'em explain'd and vindicated by the Arch-Bishop except those mystagogicall Catecheses which I think were not printed perhaps not made till after the Arch-Bishop's death But these * Of whom I doe not speak more particularly because the Discourser himself but names them without laying claim to any particular passages or expressions in them waving also with his accustom'd prudence all pretence of proving them authentic though whether they are so be a disputable point or rather 't is indisputably certain that several of them are spurious Authors and abundance more are effectually consider'd in that Just and admirable work of Monsieur Aubertine de Eucharistia which if the Defender's humble Christian when he goes into the public library
Spiritual and Virtual Presence and explain the term we make use of to that effect Thus the Protestants in K. Henry the Eighth's time that sufferd upon the six Articles deny'd the Real Presence i. e. the Popish sense of it but meant the same thing with us who think we may lawfully use that term On the other side that excellent Person and glorious Martyr Mr. Bradford * Acts and Monuments p. 1608. I do believe says he that Christ is Corporally present at and in the due Administration of the Sacrament But he adds this explication By this word Corporally I mean that Christ is present Corporally unto Faith It is likewise evident that when we say Christ is Present or Adorable in the Sacrament we do not mean in the Elements but in the Celebration We affirm his naturall Body to be Locally in Heaven and not here and that we who are here and not in Heaven ought to Worship it as Locally present in Heaven while we celebrate the Holy Sacrament upon Earth Lastly it is evident that this Doctrine is sufficiently remov'd from what the Pamphlet calls Zuinglianism how truly I will not now inquire For we do not hold that we barely receive the Effects and Benefits of Christ's Body but we hold it Really Present in as much as it is Really receiv'd and we actually put in possession of it though Locally absent from us So that while we Spiritually eat Christ's Flesh and drink his Blood we through Faith in a mysterious and ineffable manner dwell in Christ and Christ in us we are one with Christ and Christ with us and by virtue of this Spiritual and Mystical yet Real participation we receive the Benefits consequent to it even the remission of our Sins and all other benefits of Christs Passion This in short is our meaning and to this effect all true Church-of-England-men declare it Whether we express our selves in proper and accurate terms is another question wherein if the Editor think fit to ingage we are ready to answer him In the mean time we desire him and the rest of his Communion not to catch up our words and bait them in their own sense which is too like the dealing of the Old Romans with the Primitive Christians It remains that we say a word or two concerning Mr. Thorndike's Testimony and so dismiss this Chapter The reader may please to take notice that the whole design of this Pamphlet is to furbish and rig out a notion of Mr. Thorndike's in his Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England The notion is neither the Church of Englands nor as I believe any other Churches nor does he so much as pretend that any other man much less any Church ever taught it He only thinks it is * consistent with the analogy of Faith not trenching as he says upon any ground of Christianity and seems to propose it as a peaceable expedient for complying outwardly with the Popish adoration of the Euchâ—â—â—â—â— a practice which when he wrote his 〈…〉 thought adviseable if it could be warranted for he was then upon a project of Uniting all Christians in one Communion and wrote his Epilogue on purpose to serve that design not pretending to give the true sense of any party but so to blanch the opinions of them all that the difference of their Judgment might not hinder their Uniting Wherefore he professes to expect * Preface to the Epilogue p. 45 c. the Lot of Reconcilers to be contradicted by all parties and owns that he sayes those things which he should have dissembled had the Church of England continu'd But it seemes he thought as some others did when the King was Murther'd that the Church of England was utterly and irrecoverably dissolv'd and that it was necessary to hold Communion with some Church and if it were honestly practicable with the Church of Rome rather then another 'T is probable the Editor was of the same mind for I remember to have heard this very plea made in his defence by a friend of his about some Eighteen years since But whatever Mr. Thorndike's opinion was when he wrote his Epilogue 't is certain when the King return'd he was a member of that Convocation that revis'd the Liturgy that he constantly attended there and had a hand more then ordinary in the Edition of sixty one That he declar'd his unfeign'd assent and consent to all things in the Liturgy as it was then alter'd that he conform'd to it all the rest of his Life and at last dy'd in Communion with the Church that impos'd the use of it So then we have here quoted out of the Epilogue a private opinion of a private man and what 's that to the Church especially since for ought then appear'd he was singular in it while he held it when occasion offer'd he forsook it professing his unfeign'd assent to that Rubrick which the Pamphlet would confront with his Authority CHAP. IV. A Reply to the third Chapter of the first Discourse Disc 1. §. 19 p. 13. The Author's purpose in the third Chapter is to combat this assertion in the Rubric that it is against the truth of a natural body to be i. e. as he explains it that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once Here is a kind of inauspicious stumble at the very entrance For 't is one thing to say as the Rubric does that a true natural body cannot be and another as he does that a natural body cannot truly be in two places at once For should we suppose as he would have us that God should make one of our bodys be in two places at once when God had done this it would truly be in those places but before he did it he must change the nature of the body and make it cease to be a true natural body This is but a slip but in the next Paragraph 't is neck or nothing Ibid §. 20. n. 1. He finds there that Protestants confess Christs presence in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery they own indeed our Vnion and Communion with him to be so but supposing that the Reall Presence is easily explain'd But admit the Reall Presence be ineffable what then Ibid. He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradictory to reason Now any Protestant Child could have told him tho' perhaps he will take it more kindly from the Catholic * Part 2. Cap. 6. pag. 41. Representer that the mysteryes of Faith are above reason not contrary to it A little farther nihil magis incredibile says Calvin therefore says the Author not this more incredible that Idem Corpus c. Away you Wagg what thrice in one Paragraph § 20. n. 3. Dr. Disc 1. § 20. n. 3 p â—4 Taylor is Quoted saying that if Transubstantiation were plainly reveal'd he would burn all his arguments against it and believe it without more adoe And so say I too
Ibid. will be but so humble as to make the companion of his studies he 'll find that no art can make Transubstantiation look so old but that the persent Roman Doctrine will appear too young by above twelve hundred years Disc 2. pag. 29. §. 27. Instead of securing his next deceitfull ground and giving us something we may rest our foot upon He sends his humble Christian to a Discourse and a Digression in the Guide to Mons Blondell's Eclaircissement and the endless Controversy between Claud and Arnaud which when he has consulted he will find he has been upon an Aprill errand But to save him that labour if we can let us first see what will become of us if we grant this ground viz. the Universal Doctrine and Practice of the later both Eastern and Western Churches till Luther's time Now to this ground likewise the Arch-Bishop has effectually reply'd in divers places p. 11. p. 380. and especially from p. 405. to the end of the Book The summ is that the true Church Doctrine are to be judg'd by their agreement to Scripture Antiquity not always to be measur'd by the majority of visible Professors For that may be often overrun with dangerous error as de facto it was among the Jews even by our Authors own confession in his book of the benefits of our Saviour cap. 9. Wherefore the general Example is not always a rational ground of Practice and a reasonable man will consider the reason of the practice he complies with and bring a Doctrine * Isa VIII 20 to the Law and to the Testimnyo before he yields up his assent to it This we presume * Rom. XI 4 1 King XIX 18 the seven thousand did which were the true though secret Church of God when all the rest of the visible Jewish Church had bow'd the knee to Baal and kissed him Thus the rest of that * Luke XII 32 little flock which God hath ever had and will have to the end of the world not swimming with our Author's stream though never so impetuous Disc 2. §. 27. p. 31. but weighing all things in the ballance of the Sanctuary For if prevalence and prescription were a rational and sufficient ground of practice and the visible majority of the Church should fall into a Damnable error which thing certainly may be because it has been the Church might lawfully persist in that Damnable error nor would it be oblig'd to eject the most scandalous corruption that had once got peaceable possession This we think a sufficient and give it as the shortest answer to this ground consider'd with the utmost advantage whereof it is capable viz. supposing * See Dr. Feild's Appendix to his third Book of the Church wherein he proves that the Latin Church was and continu'd a true Orthodox and Protestant Church and that the maintainers of Romish Errors were only a Faction in the same at the time of Luther's appearing what is falsly challeng'd the universal doctrine and practice of the later Church till Luther But otherwise we could both tell him and prove beyond all possibility of a fair Reply that the controversy lasted above three hudred years before Transubstantiation could be lick'd into any shape and that at last it was setled in an age of which the Papists themselves give so scandalous a Character that no History can tell us of a majority more unlikely to sway a knowing or a virtuous man We could shew him that the Universality he talks of must exclude the Abissines the Armenians the Maronites and abundance of other Christians nay the much more valueable part of the Latin Church it self For though the Pope when he was strong enough to exercise the Plenitude of his Power made his Enemies and their Writeings as invisible as fire and smoke could yet still there remain the undoubted Monuments of a long visible Succession all declaring against Transubstantiation for a collection of whose Testimonies the world has lately been oblig'd to a member of the Roman Communion His last ground is the same with the foremost of his firsts viz. the Concessions of Protestants Disc 2. § 28. p. 31. For he 's at it once more that the Genuine Sons of the Church of England hold our Saviour to be Really Present and Adorable in the Sacrament Which has been so often sayd I hope so fully answer'd before that I shall take no farther notice of it now I shall only tell him as the Archbishop often tells Gardiner upon the like occasion that he seems to be in great distress when he flyes for refuge to those Authors whom at other times he abhors as Heretics but his application to them is in vain for they are far from meaning any such thing as he pretends Ibid. p. 32. In the close of this Paragraph he looks back upon all these Pleas of Catholics and invites us to see if they will not make up at least a reasonable Ground or motive of their Adoration Now I must profess that I see nothing like it as he has order'd the matter For though I believe a man of art out of these five grounds might have made a plausible though not a rational plea to my apprehension this Author has left the Papists in a much worse case then he found them For 1. he offers nothing to excuse them from Idolatry but the Concessions of one or two Protestants which 't is evident come not home to his purpose because they whom the Protestants excuse are suppos'd inculpably mistaken and not at all mistaken in the object of their Adoration 2. He ingages the Papists upon a very difficult or rather an impossible precision both because it is contrary to what they have been taught and because they are all bound under a severe Anathema to believe Transubstantiation so that a Papist can never explain this term Reall Presence to himself but by this other of Corporal Presence effected by Transubstantiation 3. Having invited the Papists to wave that Corporal Presence for which they think they have a great many arguments he proposes Adoration founded on another notion for which he has not offer'd them so much as one argument So that in short he proposes what no body is like to practice upon the sole strength of a Doctrine for which he has nothing to say In the next place he complains that these five Rational grounds are not strictly examin'd by the Protestants Disc 2. §. 29 p. 32. But we think otherwise and must leave the indifferent Reader to Judg between us We think they were effectually answer'd by the Arch-Bishop above an hundred years agoe and by divers other writers since especially the Author of a late Incomparable Discourse against Transubstantiation which all the Posse of the Church of Rome will never be able to answer any otherwise then they did the Arch-Bishop Wherefore the Defender must allow us to retain our old opinion of those Protestants
with whom we have taken sweet councel together and walked in the house of God as friends * Ps LV. 14 15. These are such cutting circumstances as no armor of patience is sufficient proof against For these Reasons and not for any worth in the Book I have ventur'd to answer it and comply'd with the severe task the Author sets me to make brick and find straw too For the Pamphlet duly consider'd will not furnish sufficient matter for a Treatise Strip it of its garniture and it comes to no more then this That the Author supposes the Church of England to hold such a Real Presence of Christ's natural body in the Eucharist as he thinks a sufficient ground to adore the Elements To which we need only reply That as the Church ever held a real so she ever deny'd a corporal i. e. a local presence and for that reason forbid the adoration of the Symbols For to say no more at present the same arguments that will justifie our adoring them upon the score of any but a local presence of Christs natural body will excuse not only the Popish but even the grossest Heathen Idolatry This I take to be a full and sufficient answer to what our Author has spun into two Discourses However that I may leave no room for cavil I shall take a distinct view of the whole Pamphlet and reply particularly to the Chapters and Sections of each Discourse as they lie in order CHAP. II. A Reply to the first Chapter of the first Discourse THIS Chapter is taken up chiefly in recounting some little Alterations that have been made at several times in our Rubricks and Articles from which the Pamphlet would infer that our Church has waver'd in her Doctrine Now to my apprehension this Design let it be executed how it will is very impertinently undertaken For admit that the Church had waver'd as she has not what 's that to his purpose of proving that a Real tho' not Corporal presence is ground enough to adore the Elements in the Eucharist Again admit it were pertinent to prove that the Church had waver'd in her Doctrine how impertinent is it to allege no proof save out of the Rubricks and Articles which contain only terms of her Communion omitting the Homilies and Catechisms set forth by her Authority as a solemn declaration of her Doctrine We grant that the Church having always held a Real Presence so far as a Real Participation imply's one but always deny'd it if by Real we mean Corporal and Local has not always thought it requisite to make the declaration and subscription of this Doctrine a term of her Communion and if the Author has any thing to object to her upon this score it may possibly be to the purpose and then we are ready to answer it Allways provided he forbear that shrewd way of arguing which he gives us a tast of in the second paragraph of his second section for to such kind of sequels as he makes there we shall not think fit to reply but leave 'em to be seen through and despis'd by the Freshmen But a man that is not mov'd by those arguments may perhaps be put in mind by the premisses to enquire why these Alterations were made I answer that 't is easy to assign good reasons * The reasons here assign'd are it may be not the true ones why the changes were made but may serve to make a sober man acquiesce in these alterations nay prefer them now they are made and the Lawfulness not the Prudence of the Churches constitutions is the main point to be consider'd by the members of her communion 'T is no matter what Politick reasons might induce the Government to make these changes as long as in making them it did not deviate from the rule of Scripture But the Reader that is so dispos'd may gratify his curiosity as to this point too by consulting Dr. Burnets History of the Reformation vol. 2 pag. 170.190.392.394.405 Foxes and Firebrands par 2. pag 10.11 12 13. Discourse of the holy Eucharist newly printed at London pag 72 73. c. but for want of the authentick Records we can but guess at the true Perhaps they might be as follows 1. It has ever been the practice of all conformable Church of England-men to handle both the Patin and the Chalice when they Consecrate And indeed the very nature of the action implyes the use of that ceremony so that there seems to be no need of a Rubrick to enjoyn it In K. Edward's first book there was a marginal note to direct the more ignorant and unpractic'd * In the present Liturgy there are divers such marginal notes which are not injunctions to perform but directions when to perform some ceremonies which the Rubrick elswhere enjoyns or the nature of the action supposes As for instance in the office of Baptism Here says the margin the Priest shall make a Cross upon the Childs forehead the Rubrick for this ceremony went before And in the office of the Eucharist Here the Priest is to take the Patin into his hands c. that he should break the Bread and take the Cup into his hands is suppos'd in the precedent Rubrick which only directs his standing that he may do it readily and decently for the very nature of the act of Consecration implyes it But when this note of direction when to take the Patin c. was omitted the practice of takeing it did not cease For Rastall himself takes notice that Jewell usâ—d to take the Bread into his hands and we may better learn the mind of our Church from his Practice then the Pamphlets surmises if there were any thousands as Rastall supposes though I beg his pardon for some of his thousands and without a better reason then his supposal won't suppose one thousand omitted it they were of those half-conformists whom the Church has always complainâ—d of as the most disingenuous and dangerous of all her enemies And for their sake in the review of sixty one it was necessary to restore these directions which were not so necessary when the mangling of the service was less common when to use it which was afterwards omitted when the usage was in all appearance sufficiently secur'd by common practice But when false brethren took advantage from the omission to perform the ceremony awkwardly and lamely the directions were restor'd in the edition of sixty one 2. The Gloria in excelsis is a hymn and therefore most properly put in the Postcommunion because most conformably to our Saviour's own practice who when supper was done * Matt. XXVI 13 Mark XIV 26. sung a hymn with his Disciples 3. The Trisagium as it now lies after Holy thrice repeated in honor of the three Persons of the Trinity concludes very properly and pertinently with Glory be to the O Lord acknowledging the Unity This the Benedictus qui venit does not but is rather lyable to the same