to a sublimer pitch for by the participation of the Body of our Lord and his Presence in the blessed Eucharist we anticipate as it were the Joys of Heaven even in our mortal Bodies Homil. 24. whence St. Chrysostome tells us that Dum in hac vita sumus ut terra nobis coelum sit facit hoc mysterium Eightly That from the Consideration of our blessed Saviours Love who being touched even in the Bowels of Tenderness towards us left us at his departure his Sacred Body to nourish our Souls and Bodies unto Life Everlasting we also might return the purest Love and Affection toward him and Charity toward one another who are thus substantially united by the Communication of this Spiritual Food according to that of S. Paul 1 Cor. 10. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are all partakers of that one Bread And Ninthly That it is a Commemoration of our Lords Passion a Confirmation of his Testament and a propitiatory Sacrifice not only for the living but for the dead These and many more weighty Considerations of this kind together with the Testimony of the Fathers Authority of General Councils and universal practice of all Christians until these two last Centuries will enable us I hope to encounter the supposed absurdities of our Discourser We shall engage therefore this uncircumcised Philistine I mean this Goliah Argument with all its boasting train of sensless Questions And First I know not how Philosophy can be much concern'd on either side for what Philosopher will tell me how the Divine Nature identified in the Person of the Father should be Communicated to the Son without also communicating the Person Or how the Unity or Individuality of Nature should be in a diversity of Persons neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance How in the Mystery of the Incarnation God separateth from the Humanity of Christ his manner of subsistence inserting it in his Divinity How the Son should be Consubstantial and Co-eternal with the Father How something may be made out of nothing and that something reduc'd again to nothing How Eternity which is instans durationis non fluens an instant of duration may be demonstrated to subsist without respect to time past or time to come How God Almighty who is one simple and indivisible Being should be at once substantially present in all places and things A Mystery so inexplicable that it forced St. Augustin to say Miratur hoc Mens humana quia non capit fortasse non credit Nay more how our Soul which is the Light of our Bodies in this our Pilgrimage upon Earth can be totally in the Head and totally in the Feet and totally at the same time in the whole Body and in every part of it Or how the Needle which is our Common Guide through the paths of the deep should point always towards the North or if sometimes it varies whence should proceed its variation When Philosophy hath explain'd all these with many more hitherto invincible Difficulties I make no doubt but She will then free also Transubstantiation from the Calumny of our Discoursers monstrous Absurdities In the mean time that we may the better deal with them we shall divide them into such as seem to appear so First to Reason and Secondly to Sense For the First our Discourser seems to have been modest since of a thousand insinuated he is pleased to name but two First the gross contradiction of the same Body being in so many several places at once And Secondly of our Saviours giving away himself with his own hands and yet keeping himself to himself p. 37. The latter hath received a particular Answer from S. Augustin in his Comment upon Psal 33. as hath been already shewn and I shall not presume to mend it Nor will this Fathers own quodammodo in another place or that of Bedes upon the same Psal 33. help him in the least for all Catholics willingly accept the word and most justly interpret it to be modo Spirituali which manner they all profess and teach But for the First which as much concerns the Real Presence a Doctrine own'd by Bishop Andrews and the Church of England and at present by all Lutherans as Transubstantiation believ'd by Catholics I shall speak of That and the rest of his Questions about Sense which are common Objections in all Protestant Authors against this Subject when I come to the Conclusion to which I hasten Our Discourser hath one Argument more to countenance the Novelty of Transubstantiation which being more particularly urg'd by himself than some others I shall endeavour to give a reasonable Answer to it and so take my leave of him until we meet again in the Conclusion backt with the Objections of some other late Authors which are common to them all He tells us p. 26. That the first-rise of this Doctrine was about the beginning of the Ninth Age tho it did not take firm root until towards the end of the Eleventh And this time he says was the most likely of all others it being by the consent of their own Historians the most dark and dismal time that ever happened to the Christian Church both for Ignorance and Superstition and Vice And then illustrates all this by the Parable of the Tares which he conceives the Enemy might have sown in so dark and long a night The Conjecture is very plausible until it be well consider'd and then I am perswaded his Argument will not only vanish but be turn'd against himself as many others have been with no small advantage to our Cause I readily grant that some part of the time assigned by him for the introducing of this Doctrine was dismal enough upon those three accounts mentioned by him But I also affirm That such a Doctrine could never have met men in Circumstances more contrary and averse to its establishment than to be thus overwhelmed with Ignorance Superstition and Vice And first for Ignorance It is Evident to all Mankind and therefore the more strongly Objected against us by our Discourser and all Protestants That Transubstantiation is a Doctrine which highly contradicts our Common Senses Now as such the abuses of it must needs have been First most notoriously visible to the most Vulgar and illiterate for they seldom looking further into things than the Common appearances would certainly have taken the first and strongest Alarm upon the Proposition only of so new and insupportably senseless a Doctrine as our Discourser calls it if they had not from Age to Age suckt it in with their first nourishment and seen it so universally receiv'd that they no more consider'd the consequences of it than they did those of some other Mysteries of their Religion which they equally alike received as matter of Faith from the Authority and veracity of their Spiritual Guides and Governours But when as Berengarius about the Tenth Century was bold enough to teach and write against it shewing
World and at present by at least eight parts in ten and amongst these some persons extreamly above him in Place and Authority and thousands for ought we know equal if not above him in Learning Piety and Reason Thus I say to ridicule and burlesque so great a Doctrine of the Christian Faith is much more dangerous and scandalous to the Christian Religion than that stupid absur'd and monstrous Doctrine as he calls it against which he writes For my part I profess if so many Men of Sense and Reason and these improv'd to the heigth by Study and Learning may not only be deceiv'd in so great a Point of Religion but mistaken even to folly madness non-sense and Contradiction I know not what will become of Christianity it self for if these can so grosly Err in Matters which are as equally Evident upon all accounts to their Sense and Reason as to the Sense and Reason of any other I am sure a Man is much less secure in trusting to this single Discourser or any belonging to him and so farewel to Both. But Secondly It is without Charity for since he hath made as he thinks the Catholic Doctrine so demonstrably false and absur'd all Catholics who believe it tho never so Learned Honest and Pious must be either Knaves or Fools Thirdly Without Sincerity because all his material Objections and many more have been Printed formerly above Seventy years since And Lately within these Seventeen years by Catholics themselves with their Substantial Answers to them Now to have dealt sincerely he ought to have replied to these Answers which would have set us forward and drawn us to some Point and not have run round as in a Magical Circle without ever endeavouring to break through the infatuation of Deluded Reason And next to have dealt Sincerely he ought not to have produc't a scrap of a Sentence from a Father and left out those immediate preceeding or succeeding Words which explicated the whole Sense For Instance His first is from Justin Martyr whom he produces saying these Words Our Blood and Flesh are nourished by the Conversion of that Food which we receive in the Eucharist p. 11. But the whole Sentence runs thus For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for the sake of our Salvation just so are we taught that That Food over which Thanks are given by Prayers in his own Words and whereby our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished Is the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jesus For the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them call'd the Gospels have recorded that Jesus so commanded them This I think altogether makes little for our Discourser especially if he had been sincere enough to have told us how the Fathers generally as St. Irenaeus Cyril Chrysost Greg. Nyss and others expound the nourishment of the Body and as shall be shewn hereafter So also he quotes Theodoret saying The mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance And may be seen and handled p. 19. Theoderet goes on The mystical Signs are understood to be that which they are made and they are believed and ador'd as being those very things which they are believed Now if they may be adored I suppose they mean somewhat more than Signs and Figures or else the Adoration of holy Images is more Ancient than Protestants have hitherto allowed And had our Discourser been Sincere he might have told us how the Catholics interpret all this to be most consistent with their Faith and confuted them if he could But Fourthly His Discourse is writ without Good Manners for setting aside his disrespect to a Religious Duty methinks when he knew so many Princes Kings Emperors Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs and most Learned Men of all Sorts received this Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation he ought to have forborn such words as Impudence p. 2. Nonsense p. 24. Monster of Transubstantiation p. 25. Monstrous insupportably absur'd stupidity of this Doctrine p. 33. Absur'd and Senseless Doctrine Legerdemain and Jugling Tricks of Falshood and Imposture Hocus Pocus a cheat and foolish Doctrine p. 34. But here the Discourser is very angry and indeed Fathers I should even from hence shrewdly suspect that our Discourser is no true Son of the Church of England for they are generally more moderate and civil but we shall have further occasion to speak of this hereafter In the mean time I thought fit to take thus much notice of these things that we might consider whether such a Writer notwithstanding all his Magisterial dashes be probably endued with that Christian humble Temper which we might expect from a Doctor of Christs Church pretending also without other Miracles than his wonderful Reason to reform almost the whole Christian World but let us see whether his good Reasons will make us amends by giving us some better Satisfaction Several Impertinences and Quibbles appear in many parts of his Discourse as for Instance He proves in p. 4. That a Sacrament may be instituted by figurative Expressions because a Sacrament is a Figare it self of some Invisible Grace c. Now I had always thought that a Man might deliver a Sign or Figure exhibiting some Invisible kindness in the most plain and literal Terms that possibly could be invented for Example I am perswaded the Discourser might have exhibited or deliver'd his Pamphlet or Picture which are Figures of his Mind or Person as a Token of his love to his Friend in a most plain litteral Speech without the necessity of a figurative Sentence except for the sake of his Quibble For my part I think the delivery of a Figure or any thing else is best in plain words But then the Pains he takes and Wit that is spent first to obtrude upon Catholics the false Belief of a Miracle according to his acceptation of a Miracle and then to laugh at his own Jest together with the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle as to make God Pag. 31. is really such Stuff as certainly he never design'd for any other use than to rub the itching Ears of the most illiterate among the Vulgar I confess Fathers it workt no good effect upon me nor never will I should think upon any sober Christian for every body sure understands his Fallacy concerning the power of the Priest and his Miracles But instead of that had he replied to some solid Discourse of Catholics concerning the Doctrine of the Sacrament it self I know not how far the Authority which my Reason had fixt in the Church of Rome would have supported me against his Arguments Having thus separated the loose Accidents of his Discourse from the more substantial part I will now examine that as far as is necessary according to the
stumbling block to the World had he intended only a figurative Interpretation that his Cruelty which is most impious to imagine would have exceeded his Mercy especially if it be true as I believe it is and hope shall be able to prove that the whole Christian World for a thousand years together after his Ascension universally concurr'd in the firm Belief of a literal Sense and practis'd accordingly Good God! So many reputed Saints so many Martyrs and so many holy Men dying in the guilt and many of them in defence of gross Idolatry This to me to use the expression of our Discourser is more than ten Thousand Demonstrations He tells us indeed that some Learned Catholic Authors have declar'd their Opinions that the Doctrine which holds the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor Scripture p. 5. And what then They do not exclude the Doctrine of the Real presence in a literal sense nor do I know that they did ever doubt of Transubstantiation But most of them have written particularly in defence of it and Durandus wrote a Book consisting of nine parts against Berengarius who oppos'd it Now tho this might be the private Opinion of these Men yet there are it may be thousands as Learned as themselves of another Opinion and all this without either prejudicing or helping the Doctrine it self Our Discourser cannot think any Man so senseless to believe that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands and gave away himself from himself with his own hands and yet we find a very sensible Father and one much esteemed by all parties I mean S. Augustin made no such difficulty to believe all this For in his Comment upon these words Et ferebatur in manibus suis and he was carried in his own hands he speaks thus of Christ And can this be possible in Man Was ever any Man carried in his own hands c. How this can be literally understood of David we cannot discover Comm. in Ps 33. but in Christ we found it verified for Christ was carried in his own hands when giving his own very Body he said This is my Body But if Christ carried only the Figure of his Body it was not only possible for David but for any Man else to have done the same Methinks our Discourser should have replied to this obvious Answer when he made his Objection And thus much for the Authority of Scripture Next he tells us that this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual Belief of the Christian Church and for this he produces many Authorities of the Fathers which may be reduc't to these Heads either where they tell us That the Elements are a Sign and Figure of Christs Body or that they remain in their former Substance or that they go into the Draught and our flesh encreased by them or that they are not to be taken according to the Letter for all which he brings some Citations Now altho' the Fathers have been their own best Interpreters shewing plainly in other places how these are to be understood agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine yet that it may appear more Evident I shall instance in some other plain expressions and leave the Ballance to the Judgment of the Reader First then wheresoever it is said that the Elements are Signs or Figures there no more is said than what the Catholics believe and profess nay more that it is a part of the Definition of a Sacrament to be a Sign That is to say that the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Sacrament offer'd in a spiritual manner is a Figure or Sign of the bloody Sacrifice offer'd once for all upon the Cross after a natural manner answerable to the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. Ye shall shew the Lords death until he come About the words we agree concerning the interpretation our Discourser may dispute as long as he pleases Next That the Elements remain in their form and substance This passage of Theodoret hath been in part answer'd before where he tells us That they are to be ador'd And from thence we may conclude that he means the nature of the Accidents for those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which this Greek Father useth contain every kind of Essence and Nature as well of Accidents as of Substances And so again he expounds himself saying that we may see and touch the said Colour and Form which have reference only to those Accidents and in this sense the Elements may admit of Co-adoration with the Body of our Saviour as when himself was Cloth'd upon Earth otherwise not And Theodoret is blam'd by the Centurists Cent. 5. c. 10. Because he affirms That the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the Invocation of the Priest are chang'd and made other things than they were before They mean not Signs I hope for more than that they believed themselves But let us hear St. Augustin As with a faithful heart and Mouth we receive the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus who gives us his Flesh to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk altho' it seems to be a thing more full of horror to eat Mans flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans blood than to shed it L. 2 Contr. adv Leg. Proph. But sure it is not more horrible to eat Mans flesh in figure than to kill a man in good earnest c. Let us hear him again We have heard says he our Master who always speaks truth recommending to us our Ransom his Blood for he spoke of his Body and Blood which Body he call'd Meat and his Blood Drink But there are some who do not believe they said This is a hard saying who can hear it 'T is hard but to the obstinate that is incredible but to the Incredulous L. de verb. Apost Serm. 2. But is the Figure so hard a saying I think not Next St. Ambrose a co-temporary and particular Friend of St. Augustin It may be you will say De his qui Myst Init. c. 9. why do you tell me that I receive the Body of Christ when as I see quite another thing We have this therefore yet to prove How many Examples therefore do we produce to shew that it is not what Nature fram'd but what the Benediction hath Consecrated and that the force of Benediction is greater than of Nature because by Benediction Nature her self is chang'd Moses held a Rod in his hand he cast it from him and it became a Serpent Where he tells of all those real Transmutations and Miracles made by Moses After which he goes on We see therefore that the power of Grace is far beyond that of Nature and yet we have only mention'd hitherto the effects of Grace in the blessing of Prophets now if the blessing of men were of so great efficacy as to change the Nature of things what shall we
But to tell us we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ as a Memorial of him when you profess we do no such thing is the most extravagant of all Metaphors and unparallell'd in History That some have eaten their deceased Friends and that others have drank their Ashes I have already hinted but to say eat and drink the Body and Blood of King Charls that is remember that he was Martyr'd would be such an expression as stands single at least as far as I have read from all the Allegories of the most phantastical Poets Why then do you tells us That we indeed eat and drink his Body and Blood and not rather and only say that we break Bread in remembrance that Christ was so broken and pour forth Wine as a Memorial that his Blood was so shed for us Give me leave to return the Answer I fear that whilst you want Faith to believe the truth intended by the words you are ashamed to neglect the words themselves lest you should become a scandal and reproach to all sober Christians who had ever read the Holy Bible or the best of Fathers Deceive not therefore your selves and those poor Souls who depend upon you but either give them in truth the last Sacred Legacy of our most dear and ever Blessed Master or tell them plainly he is departed and hath left them nothing for a Body which is no Body and Blood which is no thing is at least as absur'd and sensless a Proposition as your so often objected Smelling Tasting nourishing Accidents without a Substance The Answerer hath given us a long Beadroll of Objections in p. 32. Et sequent Which he says contradicts right Reason I could have furnisht him with a great many more and much more pertinent from an Ancient Catholic Author call'd The Christians Manna where he would also have found their Answers to which I must recommend him In some of his repugnancies as he calls them he shews himself so ignorant or malicious that he is either way inexcusable So p. 35. In p. 33. he seems neither to understand Catholic Divinity nor common Philosophy but talks so crudely of both that he deserves not a sober Reply What he from Blondel tells us of the Fathers p. 34. I do not rightly understand nor did I think it worth my pains to procure Blondel upon that account but if either of them would make us believe that the Fathers thought it absurd and impossible that God should act beyond and above the Power of Nature the Fathers are much obliged to them for their good Opinion but if he would make them say that naturally a thing cannot exist act or be produc'd contrary to or above Nature he hath made a wise Speech for them which he may keep for his own use In his 36 P. he is come to his Senses but because he hath only a slight touch of them and those the same with our first Discourser I shall consider them as far as I intend at present together The first Objection is that what we tast and smell and see and touch and which nourish our Bodies should be Nothing and as it is reduced to an Objection against Sense it runs thus That what we see in the Sacrament is not Bread but the Body of Christ I have told you that I must defer my more particular Answer to a particular Treatise upon that Subject in which I hope to reconcile all difficulties not only to Sense and Reason but to the words of Consecration to the Canons of the Council of Trent and to the Fathers and the Fathers to themselves quite throughout In the mean time I will give you the general Faith of all Catholics and so conclude The indispensable Faith of all Catholics is this That the Substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration is converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ united with his Soul and his Divinity No good Catholics dispute this altho' several Opinions also there are concerning the manner how this is done The great Question is concerning the Accidents which remain and it is the more receiv'd Opinion that they are real tho' not properly call'd substantial things and that as such they may nourish the Body suffer digestion and corruption and are the true Objects of our Senses in which we say all the vertues and qualities of Bread exist This we are told is consistent with Aristotles Philosophy but if you think otherwise dispute your Opinion as long as you please and if you can oblige your Adversaries to find out some more satisfactory Answer for there are some others as I shall shew hereafter The Faith in the mean time remains inviolably among all which their different Opinions pretend not to destroy All believe the Substance is converted but for the Accidents whether they be more or less whether they exist with or without a Subject what that Subject is or whether they may not have Substances of themselves these are Matters of Opinion and Philosophy and we must remember that Christ came not to teach us Philosophy and Logic but Faith and Obedience unto Good Works But I shall enter no further upon this Discourse at present nor shall I here answer our Discoursers four last Questions which depending upon the Doctrine of Accidents shall be consider'd together with them in our designed Treatise I shall only therefore add my hearty Prayers that you would once lay aside your prejudices and affections and many other temporal considerations and sincerely and calmly endeavour with us to find where the truth lies I know no Body intends any harm to you or other good to themselves than that we might be all United under one Head Christ Jesus holding the Unity of Faith in the Bond of Peace It would be a defect of Charity not to be pardon'd should you believe all Catholics to be Knaves or Fools or that they did not see and know or would not know what can be said against them as well as Protestants since your greatest Objections which I have ever read against us are found in our own Authors and their Answers to them of which you are pleased to be silent It were besides a strange Instance of Spiritual Pride to think yourselves the only Children of Light and this grounded upon no other Authority than your own private Opinions and a partial Judgment past upon your selves against the much greater part of the whole Christian World The Glorious Epinikeas and lofty Triumphs which you sing in all your Papers might become the Buskins of a Pagan Conqueror but in me they move only my Compassion to see you so wonderfully pleas'd and insulting in the wrong Alas you mistake the Scâ—â—â— for in our Case the Conquered wins the Prizâ—â— and yet the Victor loseth not his honor What would it profit him says our Saviour If a man should gain the whole World and lose his own Soul It is a serious consideration and deserves a sober thought or two free from passion or prejudice Now whether it be adviseable to venture so great a Treasure upon the single Bottom of every mans private Opinion Whether our Saviour Christ would leave his own Church in a much more dangerous condition than that in which he found the Jewish Church Whether Certainty was to be had among the Jews from the Chair of Moses concerning what they were to believe and do but no Certainty to Christians from the Chair of S. Peter or any other Christian Church upon the face of the Earth Whether Heresie and Schism be terms to affright us and only different names for Knavery and Hypocrisie Or whether a man who truly believes himself to be in the right may not be desperately and dangerously in the wrong and highly punishable for his presumption and disobedience to lawful Authority And Lastly whether you will tell us roundly and plainly That to believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God and to live a moral Life be all that is required of us as some of you have very boldly insinuated These things I recommend to your pious and ingenuous Examination until we meet again FINIS