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
best assistance of my impertial Reason and Understanding and shall follow him according to his own Method He supposes five Grounds or Reasons for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence according to a literal Sense which he pretends to confute The first is from the Authority of Scripture and among other things as little to the purpose he tells us p. 7. That he doth not believe any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been This Bread signifies my Body c. And do this for a memorial of me Where you may observe worthy Fathers that he excludes also the Real Presence in a litteral sense as shall be shewn hereafter He goes on But sure it would never have entred into any Mans mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and gave away himself from himself with his own hands Now altho I dare not pretend to interpret all Scripture a lawful sufficient Interpreter being the thing I look for yet since he hath put the Case I presume to say thus much That if a sensible Turk or Pagan who had never heard of the great Mysteries of Christianity should seriously read the New Testament possibly he would not have understood these words This is my Body in a literal sense neither do I think he would ever have establisht the Doctrine of the Hypostatical Union The Consubstantiality of the Son The Trinity Predestination and Free-will with many other Mysteries of Christian Religion especially if he were govern'd only by his humane Reason as our Discourser seems to be and yet all this while he might have had a great esteem of the moral part and have believed Christ a Person divinely inspired For my part I fear I should never have overcome these Difficulties upon my own strength and yet I believe the Trinity as firmly as I believe there is a God Whether the Discourser doth so or not I cannot say But supposing a Man already well grounded in the Christian Religion and having heard that the Doctrine of the Real Presence had been believed in a literal sense by the greatest part of most Learned and Pious Christians through all Ages And that the Scriptures containing this Doctrine were writ several years after the death of our Saviour in which time the Sacrament had been celebrated by them and by consequence if the Apostles had not understood this Mystery according to a literal Sense they had time and reason plainly to have expounded it otherwise and have given us warning of this difficulty as was done to the Carnal Caphernaites and not all three punctually agreed in the same Expressions without any caution of a dangerous Figure in them In such Case I say the Doctrine of the Real Presence to such a Person having laid aside all prejudices is as clear in Scripture as most of those other great Mysteries are and that for these Reasons First because I cannot imagine why our Blessed Saviour should ever have made use of these Terms This is my Body besides many other such like Expressions except he really intended a literal Interpretation for what necessary relation hath a Body and Blood to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more than to the Sacrament of Baptism Why a Consecration in that Sacrament yet none either in Baptism or others Might not Christ with reverence be it spoken have said much more plainly and yet sufficiently to the same purpose Take this Bread and Cup of Blessing in remembrance of that Passion of mine which is now at hand and as often as ye take it worthily it shall conveigh to your Souls invisible Grace and many other Benefits Would not this have fully answered the End of Zuinglius and our Discourser's Doctrine concerning this Sacrament But why doth the God of Mercy and Truth command us to eat his Body and drink his Blood assuring us that except we eat his Flesh we have no life in us if he did not really intend we should do so But except he be really and substantially present in the Sacrament we can neither eat his Body nor drink his Blood for to take the Figure for the Substance is idle in any Command which positively orders the Substance if the Substance possibly can be had and in this Case it is impious because he that commanded the Substance is able to give it us and if he did not design to give it us we have reason to believe he would not have commanded it in such express terms Especially since there was no necessity no nor conveniency of using those words according to our Discourser's Interpretation For if by his Body he meant the Figure only of his Body what good doth that Figure do us Or how doth it satisfie the Command or why should Bread be the Figure of his Body Since Figures of this Figure that is to say the Paschal Lamb and Manna descending from Heaven were much more noble and proper Representing than the thing Represented and yet neither was Manna nor the Lamb called his Body as the Bread is in the Sacrament The Expression therefore of Justin Martyr saying This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge p. 7. Is nothing at all to the purpose nor could the Paschal Lamb be taken really and truly for God their Saviour or their expected Messian because there was no such thing mention'd or â—â—â—â—ted in the Institution of the Passover On the contrary it was instituted in the plainest Manner and most intelligible and so free from all figurative Expressions that there are no less than 12 Verses in explaining every Circumstance of the Action They shall take to them every Man a Lamb c. Exod. c. 12. And can we believe that the Passover which was indeed a Figure of the Sacrament should be exprest and understood in an unquestionable literal Sense and that the Sacrament which was the Substance of the Figure should be instituted in such a prodigious wonderful Figure according to our Discourser's acceptation as to involve the greatest part of the Christian World not only in most pernicious Mistakes but also in the most detestable Sin of Idolatry Sure the imagination of it must be totally inconsistent with the Veracity Mercy Goodness and the main design of our blessed Saviour To institute a Figure literally and the Substance figuratively is a strange Method and not easily suppos'd in the God of Truth and Wisdom Nay more our Saviour who establisht a Law and a Church to interpret it who suffer'd the Indignities of humane Life and Death of the Cross on purpose to save Sinners He to whom the past and future was always present and who knew what would happen to his Spouse the Church after his Death had left so great a
the greatest that ever had been since the Apostles and therein it was determined by near 1300 Fathers that according to the Doctrine of the most Ancient and Holy Fathers Tradition of the Church and former Councils the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration into the Substance of the Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Accidents of Bread and Wine only remaining should thenceforward be call'd Transubstantiation which had been sufficiently before exprest and explain'd by that wonderful Transmutation and Transelementation asserted by the Fathers This our Discourser believes with Scotus to have been the necessary consequence of the Council of Lateran p. 21. and so do I too Tho' in truth this explicative Term was I think more particularly establisht as here exprest in the Council of Trent Now to me the Church seems so far from being worthy of blame for decreeing what appears almost the necessary consequence of the real Presence I mean Transubstantiation that as the Case and Circumstances then stood the Church had been very negligent if she had not so decreed For it being always believ'd which I think is also fully proved That the Elements of Bread and Wine after Consecration were most wonderfully and by the Omnipotence of God converted into the Body and Blood of Christ It is clear then that either the Accidents or the Substance of Bread and Wine must be changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ But the Accidents are not so changed therefore the Substance Besides the Substance of the Body of Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament either with the Substance of Bread or without the Substance of Bread If the first then Catholics and our Discourser are in the wrong If the last then Luther and our Discourser are in the wrong So which way our Discourser should happen to be in the right I cannot comprehend except Zuinglius should have been more than Athanasius and our Discourser the Disciple of Zuinglius greater than St. Andrew the Apostle of our Lord. Now besides that the choice is easie in this Case even from the Authority of one side greater than of the other yet whosoever shall endeavour to reconcile the Real Presence with the Doctrine of Consubstantiation or Impanation will find harder difficulties in these than of that of Transubstantiation so much condemn'd The Authorities therefore which he brings from Durandus Erasmus Tonstal and some others to shew that before this Council of Lateran Men were at liberty concerning the modus or manner of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament might have been some kind of Argument for a Lutheran But how our Discourser becomes concerned in it I see not since quite through his Discourse and more particularly in p. 35. he hath with scorn excluded Both. Our Discourser hath yet one Argument relating to the time when he supposeth this Doctrine of Transubstantiation to have come into the World which is very remarkable He tells us That the Iconomachi or opposers of Images were very zealous against the Reverence due to them in the Synod of Constantinople about the year 750 arguing That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make no other Image of our Lord But in the year 787. in the Second Council of Nice these scrupulous Greeks in thirty seven years time were grown so hardy in their Faith and so extreamly fond of this new Doctrine concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament that they swallow'd it immediately and from that time were very solicitous and careful to admonish us that the Eucharist is not the Figure or Image of the Body of our Lord but his true Body as appears from the seventh Synod and he brings Bellarmin to vouch for him p. 21 22. Here we see these nice Greeks who were so very exact and curious in smaller Matters were contented to make so great a passage in one Council as from the Figure of Christ in the Sacrament to admit of his Substance nay and were so pleased with it that from thence and that time they took care to admonish us concerning it But the squeamish Latins notwithstanding the Greeks had advanc'd so far in one single Council were little less than three hundred years according to our Discoursers computation licking this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation such is the Elegancy of his Style into that Form in which it is now setled in the Church of Rome Indeed he hath been over generous to the Latins in allowing them so considerable a time to relish and digest only the Mode of a thing when the easse Greeks at one sitting had dispatcht the thing it self in which according to our Discoursers Opinion the great Barbarousness and Impiety consists For says he The Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe that they verily eat and drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ In truth the Latins are obliged to him in confessing them to have been so extream cautious about the lesser part but how he will come off with the Greeks for being so rash and inconsiderate about the greater and principal part must be his care if he pleaseth I am perswaded had Bellarmin said this to have proved that the Greeks did then and not till then receive the Doctrine of the Real Presence Our Discourser could he make any advantage of it with good Reason would have cast it out as the most improbable and ridiculous conjecture in the World And yet here because he thinks it may help to favour his false account he produceth it with as much gravity as if he knew Catholics had less sense to see a blot than himself rashness to make one I come now to his fourth pretended Ground of this Doctrine that is The necessity of such a Change in the Sacrament to the Comfort and Benefit of those who receive it p. 30. To this my Answer at present is very short If I be satisfied that our Saviour commanded the thing I am convinc'd there was a good Reason for it without over-curiously examining what or why in this Case more than why he cured not those who touched the Hem of his Garment without that Ceremony or the blind with out clay and spittle And yet the Fathers and many late Authors will furnish those who are more inquisitive with many very good Reasons why this Change in the Sacrament is more advantageous to the worthy Receiver than the Figure would be and I shall say somewhat of it my self hereafter The last pretended Ground of this Doctrine is as he tells us to magnifie the Power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle Indeed if the great Council of Lateran did make this a Ground of
introducing Transubstantiation never did 1200 Learned Men take wronger Measures For notwithstanding a due respect be generally paid by all good Catholics to Priests as their Character requires yet I will be judged by all such as have travell'd abroad Whether a Presbyterian Parson in his Conventicle or a London Minister in his Parish or a Calvinist Predicator in Amsterdam who make nothing of the Sacrament Do not yet pretend both Males and Females to have as much respect paid them as ere a Priest of equal quality in France Italy or Spain who nevertheless are the Instruments by which this unexpressible Change is made But our Discourser labours hard here to prove that this Change is no Miracle to Sense But had he advis'd with any Catholic he might have spar'd his pains for I will engage they would have confest it to him at the first word Our Discourser having hitherto with great success destroy'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation yet to make sure work he kills it again with four deadly Objections drawn from the infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion As 1. The Stupidity 2. The Real Barbarousness of this Doctrine supposing it be true 3. The bloody Consequences And 4. The danger of Idolatry if it be not true p. 33. To prove the Stupidity of this Doctrine our Discourser produceth two Learned Heathens Tully and Averroes wondring that any Men should be so stupid as to pretend to eat their God Now that there is Stupidity in the Case is most certain But whether it be in the Doctrine Or in Tully and Averroes Or in our Discourser who brings two Heathens Testimonies against a Mystery of the Christian Religion I leave to Judgment I suppose he may have heard of such an Epistle as the first of St. Paul to the Corinthians I would recommend to him the first Chapter and particularly Vers 18.19 20. where it is written For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness Where is the wise where is the scribe where is the disputer of this world hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world And vers 27 God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise Now whether Averroes and our Discourser were the Wise Men or the Foolish here intended I must leave again to Judgment But I have not yet done with Averroes for his words cited by our Discourser p. 34. are very observeable I have travel'd says he over the world and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of the Christians because with their own Teeth they devour the God whom they worship What ill luck it was that this great Philosopher should not have met with the Disciples of Rabanus Maurus or some One other of our Discoursers Predecessors in Opinion at least in some Corner of the World who might have convinc'd him of his mistake and reconcil'd him a little better to the Christian Religion But not to have found one Christian over the whole World neer six Hundred years since after Rabanus had writ against Pascasius less sottish than the rest will serve at least to prove a Sottishness also in this Case but whether in those Christians or in our present Discourser who hath brought so strong a Testimony to prove the Universality of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation even of so learned a Man who had travell'd all the World over I must once more leave to Judgment But sure I am from Averroes his own Works and the knowledge which he had of that vast difference between Bodies in their Natural Gross and Earthly Composition and the pure Substances of these Bodies separated from their foeces or accidents by corruption or putrefaction distillations digestions and sublimations until they become Essences or pure Principles I say from his Experimental Philosophy of Common Bodies thus alter'd and sublimated he would have made no difficulty to have solv'd most of our Discoursers absurdities concerning this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet there is no Comparison between these Common Bodies tho never so purely defoecated and exalted which can bear any proportion with the glorified Body of our Saviour united with his Divinity So that I am verily perswaded had Averroes been satisfied concerning the other Mysteries of Christian Religion and rightly inform'd concerning the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would have been as good a Christian in that Point as Pope Innocent 3d. or Pius 4th But our Discourser tells us that the stupidity of this Doctrine breeds Atheists and Infidels Even so the warmth of the Sun breeds Maggots and many other Insucts but the Matter must be first disposed to Corruption Now altho the Sun be much hotter in France Spain Portugal and Italy than in England or in Holland yet I appeal to all Men who have any knowledge of those Kingdoms whether there be not as many reputed Atheists in these two last Governments where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not so publickly nor generally profest as in any other part of the Christian World proportionably where it is And what indeed have been the true parents of Atheism and Infidelity but the devilish pride of Sense and Reason set up against the blessed Humility of Faith and Obedience But our Discourser in this Page begins to be very seriously idle and impertinent out of some respect therefore to himself we will pass it over and come to p. 35. where he most grievously accuseth this Sacrament of Barbarousness upon the Supposition of the truth of this Doctrine But sure if this Doctrine be true then it is impossible that it should be barbarous except our Saviour himself who commanded it and is there voluntarily present in it should have instituted a barbarous Sacrament which whether our Discourser can believe I know not but sure I am if the Doctrine be not true it cannot be barbarous to eat him in imagination only except our Discoursers opinion be also barbarous He tells us 't is very unworthily done to our friend and barbarous to feast upon his Flesh and Blood I am glad to find our Discourser capable of so much Tenderness But he might have read of very many Provinces in the East and West Indies who count it their greatest glory to eat their best deceased Friends perswading themselves that thereby they do as it were regenerate or reanimate those to whom they were first obliged for their own lives by transforming them thus into their own Nature and Substance With indignation therefore they reproach our manner of Burials as most inhumane O pauvre Gens saith my Author comment laissez vous manger cette chair precieuse aux Sales vers de la terre Et que monument plus digne lui pouvez vous donner que celuy de vos propres entrailles And upon this consideration it was that the renowned Artemise drank the Ashes of her dear departed Husband The Barbarousness therefore objected by our Discourser suppose this
Fathers my reason notwithstanding the best assistance I could procure was put to a great plunge I will not tell you how I got off from these and many other such like difficulties but proceed and acquaint you how I ventur'd upon the Bible When I examined the first Chap. of Genesis I observed that many great Men were scandaliz'd at Mose's Philosophy and yet upon the Truth of his History concerning the Creation and fall of Adam depends the greatest Mystery of our Salvation I proceeded further and found some strange Mistakes and for ought I could see irreconcileable Errours in that History insomuch that many Learned men well read in the Hebrew Language and History of the Jews positively affirm by very strong Arguments That the Penteteuch or five Books of Moses such as they appear to us were so far from being writ by Moses himself that they were writ say they by Esdras the Scribe many hundred of years after the death of Moses Indeed Reverend Fathers when I heard this I began heartily to wish that God Almighty in his Providence and Goodness to mankind infinitely fallen from that knowledge in which our first Parent was happily created would have pleased as some reparation for so great a loss to have left us some unerring Authority and Sovereign Guide who might have conducted all that truly sought the way to that blest Paradice from whence long since we had been banished With great pains I broke through many rubs how successfully I cannot say and came to the New Testament Here I hoped that my Reason would find an easier passage through those Divine Authors as being of a later date and the last Testament of our blessed Saviour I began with the first Chapter of St. Matthew and found the Genealogie of Jesus deduc't through Joseph his reputed Father from David out of whose Royal Root the long expected Messiah was to Spring Would not a Man reasonably believe that the holy Evangelist to prove Jesus to be the Messiah who was to be the Son of David made him rather appear the Son of Joseph than the Son of God But if he was not the Son of Joseph neither doth it appear from thence that he was the Son of David Nay more when I would have proceeded further I found that of the New Testament the 2 Epistle of Peter 2 and 3 of John the Epistle to the Hebrews the Epistles of James Jude and the Revelations maintain'd to be Apocryphal by Chemnitius Luthers great Scholar and many important Texts left out or something added or different Translations by your first great Protestant Reformers And that some of these were not received even by the Orthodox into their Canon till nere Two hundred years after the death of our Saviour However I past this by and to be short I read over the New Testament such as we have fit with great attention But truly Faâ—hers either your Reasons and the Reason of every particular Christian is infinitely above my poor Judgment or else you must not tell me that every Christian upon a sincere perusal of this holy Book would certainly have compos'd the Creed of St. Athanasius such as you receive and profess in your Common-Prayer Books But before I examined every particular Point of Faith contained in that sacred Writ I resolved to consider what Religion was in general and in particular the Christian In that what Faith was and how esteem'd when compar'd with Obedience and good Works under the Gospel and oppos'd to Works under the Law of Faith what were the great and necessary Articles Then I presum'd to look into the great mystery of the Incarnation and blessed design of our Saviour in submitting to the indignities of humane life and shameful death of the Cross and I extended the great benefits of his Passion as universally as I judged He himself intended them Next I ventur'd to examine with my Reason the great Doctrines of the Trinity Consubstantiality Transubstantiation Predestination and Free-will and many other main Points of Divinity and as a help to my Reason I diligently perused your learned Comments upon particular Texts and Chapters as also the Comments of Catholics Lutherans Socinians Calvinists Zuinglians and I did not totally neglect the Censure of the Jews and Heathens concerning the whole History in General When I had done all this I began to make up my account and drew a Scheme of Divinity in which abstracting from all Authority I receiv'd and rejected what seem'd most agreeable to my Reason But I must ingenuously confess that this was not done without some kind of force upon my Judgment in general for methoughts the Authority of General Councils Ancient Fathers and the most universal concurrence of learned Men ought to sway a private Reason altho it were not scientificè or intuitively convinc'd of every particular Point which they had determin'd However being taught by your selves to suspect General Councils to Judge the Works of the Fathers whether they were genuine or supposititious and of the truest to interpret them according to our own private Opinions or condemn them as erroneous when they differ'd from our Sentiments I stuck close to my Reason finisht my Scheme and my Reason subscrib'd to it When this was done I compar'd it with your Thirty nine Articles with the Catechisms of Catholics Lutherans Calvinists Socinians and observ'd that in the whole I disagreed from them All even in Doctrines commonly reputed absolutely necessary to Salvation But yet this my confused Babel of Religion was built up with some particular Points taken from all the Heretics and Professors of Christianity even from Ebion and Cerinthus to Naylor and Muggleton Now I thought my self sufficiently stockt to set up for a Heresiarch and a New Light in the Church but when I seriously confider'd how grievously our poor Nation was already torn and divided with such Sects and Schisms to the great disturbance of our temporal Peace and Happiness and scandal to Christianity I resolv'd to keep my Reasons to my self and censur'd in my heart that great Liberty and Supream Authority in these matters which you your selves and as you say God Almighty had been pleas'd to allow us You may blame my Reason for all this and extol your own who it may be have interpreted Scripture otherwise but I had learned Men to back me possibly as learned tho not so lucky as your selves and we thought we had as strong Reasons to condemn you as you to accuse us I return'd then to a Second and a Third more diligent perusal of my Scheme and tho I still found every particular Point corresponding with my Reason yet altogether I soon perceiv'd by what I had read that the whole Christian World of all Sorts and Sects universally condemn'd it I profess Fathers I was strangely stumbled at this consideration and my Reason began strongly to insinuate that possibly and very probably I might be all this while in the wrong for I had learnt that Aristotle
hear them tell it to the Church 2. Uninterrupted continuance and Succession This is my Covenant with them saith the Lord my spirit that is upon thee Isa 59.21 and my word which I have put in thy mouth shall not depart out of thy mouth nor out of the mouth of thy Seed nor out of the mouth of thy seeds seed from henceforth and for ever And he gave some Apostles and some Prophets and some Evangelists Ephes 4.11 And some Pastors and Teachers for the perfecting of the Saints for the work of the ministery for the edifying the body of Christ Till we all come in the unity of faith unto a perfect man c. 3. Unity and Uniformity Now I beseech you brethren that ye all speak the same thing and that there be be no divisions among you but that ye be perfectly joyned together in the same mind 1 Cor. 1.10 and in the same Judgment That ye stand fast in one spirit with one mind Phil. 1.27 striving together for the faith of the gospel 4. Holy Fathers and Martyrs General Councils and Synods a High Priest and a Holy Sacrifice Vndoubted Miracles and Divine Sacraments Holy Orders and Religious Colledges Abstinence and Pennance Faith and Obedience Charity and Good Works And in a word fundamental Doctrines Authoritatively impos'd and Vniversally receiv'd throughout the whole Christian World Be not offended Fathers that I speak so largely of their Doctrine for having well examin'd I say again that nere eight parts in ten among Christians agree in those very Articles or most of them which are controverted between your selves and them And these believ'd from the beginning of their Conversions whether in Europe Asia Africa or America Having met with these great inducements to perswade me I had found the true Catholic Church and believing that a visible Body could not subsist without a visible Head I made it my next business to enquire after this Supream Vicegerent or Representative of the whole And indeed methought there was no great difficulty in it I began at the Head I mean Christ Jesus and found 1. That he was a High Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec That he instituted a new Law and gave Commissions to his Apostles to promulgate and interpret it and promised the assistance of his holy Spirit to the end of all Ages Next that of these he appointed one to be Chief I mean St. Peter so reputed and unanimously esteemed by the Fathers in the Eldest times of Christianity the Fathers so understood by many among your selves and not to be disputed without manifest injury and violence to their plain Writings and so received by the whole Catholic Church His Succession for many years deliver'd to us by St. Augustin and brought down even to our present Age and Pope These worthy Fathers are pregnant Arguments of a lawful Authority I wisht you could have shewn me such another in your own Church I next lookt into this Ecclesiastical Government as far as it concern'd me and found that all Points of Faith were determin'd in General Councils which represent the Catholic Church assembled and in which our Saviour promis'd his holy Spirit should ever assist That they were always as General as the Circumstances of Times and Places would permit or the weight of the Matters to be debated required and free and indisputable when secur'd from violence and force that their Decrees were then made with deliberation and according to the received Doctrines of the Apostles and their Successors preserv'd in the Writings of Fathers or constant Apostolical Tradition kept inviolable in the Church And when thus made that they were obligatory to bind our Consciences and conclude our private Reasons I examined further whether this Vicegerent and Successor of St. Peter was received as such in these General Councils or Catholic Church and found his Authority own'd and confirm'd by them and that he was many hundred of years in the peaceable possession of it no man upon Earth pretending a Superiority or if any did that he was thereupon condemn'd as an Intruder or Usurper Hence I concluded as the nature and necessary Laws of Government requir'd that the Pope himself or General Council or Both united could not possibly grant this Supream Authority to any other Mortal Man or Men to hold independently of him or them because this must constitute another Supream independent Head of the same Body which is monstrous or a Head without a Body which is ridiculous or else there would be two distinct Heads and two Bodies which is directly contrary to the Vnity and Essence of Christs Church as frustrating or obstructing the main End and design of Christ that is of preventing Heresies or condemning them when they arise for par in parem non habet Imperium Two equal Sovereign Authorities have no Jurisdiction one over the other Besides this Vicegerent is but a Trustee or Fidei commissarius and can have no greater Power than what is given him by his Principal or Fidei Commissor now this is a personal Trust and cannot be alienated or divided because he holds not this Power in his own right as a Property or in pleno Jure Proprietatis he hath only the administration of it in trust for another So neither can he alienate the Patrimonium Ecclesiae or St. Peters Patrimony all Contracts therefore in these Cases would be fraudulent Tanquam facti de re alienâ and the Grantees become malae fidei possessores or unjust Possessors of what they could not lawfully purchase Lastly all Sovereign Power in the same Government is Indivisible and can only be delegagated in the Executive part for the administration of Justice but accountable still to the Head from whence it derives The Equal priviledges therefore or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 granted to the Patriarck of Constantinople prove nothing against this Supremacy of St. Peters Successor For First They were only honorary in consideration that Constantinople was become the Seat of the Empire Secondly Patriarchal or quatenus Patriarcha but not quatenus Caput Ecclesiae or as Head of the Universal Church And lastly it is particularly exprest in the same Canon that these Honours or Priviledges should be held and enjoy'd post Pontificem Romanum after the Bishop of Rome and it appears de facto that during the Third General Council held at Ephesus and allow'd by Protestants Pope Caelestine the First did by his substitute Cyril authoritatively depose and Excommunicate Nestorius then Patriarch of Constantinople And Pope Victor who lived Anno Dom. 198. Excommunicated the Bishops of Asia for their keeping of Easter contrary to the Institutions of St. Peter and St. Paul tho tolerated therein by St. John Nor could Ambition or Avarice in those days of Persecution move the Supream Heads of the Church to exercise such Jurisdiction for they got little by being Eminent and Conspicuous but Martyrdom and so it hapned to this Pope Victor who died a
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
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
REASON AND AUTHORITY OR THE MOTIVES OF A LATE Protestants Reconciliation TO THE Catholic Church TOGETHER With Remarks upon some late Discourses AGAINST Transubstantiation Publisht with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty For his Houshold and Chappel 1687. Reason and Authority OR THE MOTIVES OF A LATE Protestants Reconciliation TO THE Catholic Church THAT I may pay my due Respects to the Church of England to which I am indebted for a considerable part of my Education I think it just to publish those Motives which obliged me to take my leave of Her And if it shall appear that I have not rashly quitted her Communion but have used herein the utmost strength and dictates of my most Impartial Reason I hope She will excuse me if I have followed that light which She her self so pressingly recommends I shall therefore most Reverend Fathers communicate my Motives to you in a short but plain Method and if my Brevity in this shall not sufficiently express the strength of my Arguments censure not from thence the Faith which I profess For having perused many Excellent Authors which have treated more particularly and fully of it I purposely avoided a long Repetition of those things which you may find more largely and better handled in the Originals themselves I have been guided I hope by the grace of God and reason reducing things almost to Demonstration I have no Charm nor Conjuration upon me that I know of but shall be always ready to follow the strongest Evidence of common Reason I will not trouble you with all those circumstances which made me doubt but only tell you in short that by reading and discoursing with Catholic Men and Authors I did really doubt concerning the truth of my Protestant profession One main Reason of my Diffidence was this That I did not find in the Church of England a lawful Authority sufficient to oblige my reason and conscience to submit to her Decrees in matters of Faith necessary to Salvation Pag. 133. For Dr. Stillingfleet tells me All men ought to be left to Judge according to the Pandects of the Divine Laws because each Member of this Society is bound to take care of his Soul and of all things that tend thereto And Dr. Pag. 48 49. Ferne in his Case between the two Churches says further That in matters proposed by my Superiours as Gods Word and of Faith I am not tied to believe it such till they manifest it to me to be so and not that I am obliged to believe it such unless I can manifest it to be contrary because my Faith can rest on no humane Authority but only on Gods Word and Divine Revelation This is your constant Doctrine as to our faith or internal assent as may be proved by many of your best Authors and indeed the Justice of your Reformation cannot consist with stricter Principles for how can you bind our Consciences by a late usurpt Authority I speak as to declaring Articles of faith not of discipline when you would not submit your own to the greatest Authority under which our Ancestors were born and which was incomparably the most lawful the most esteem'd the most certain and most universal that ever appear'd in the Christian Church since the Apostles And accordingly Mr. Chillingworth of the just Authority of Councils and Synods says Any thing besides Scripture and the plain irrefragable indubitable consequences of It well may Protestants hold it as matter of Opinion but as matter of Faith and Religion neither can they with coherence to their own ground believe it themselves nor require the Belief of it of others without high and most Schismatical presumption Now these plain irrefragable and indubitable consequences must need be plain to every man who is not mad or a fool and so need no Authority But in all those which are less plain and such must be the Points controverted between Catholics and your selves I have my liberty for I am fully assured from the same hand that God doth not and that therefore Man ought not to require any more of any Man than this to believe the Scripture to be Gods Word to endeavour to find the true sense of it and to live according to it Having therefore worthy Fathers been taught English and Latin in your Grammar Schools and keeping the Holy Bible with me which contains all things necessary to Salvation and to which according to your Instructions I must at last appeal I resolved to give you no further trouble in this matter especially since as I said you could not teach me infallibly nor impose your Interpretations by vertue of any legal Authority which might ultimately conclude my Reason and secure my Conscience Finding that I was not only at liberty but advised also by your selves to work out my own Salvation and to stand upon my own bottome I thought it reasonable that my Enquiry should Set out from the very beginning and examine whether there was a God and indeed I found some learned men even among the greatest Philosophers speaking very doubtfully concerning this matter if not denying it 'T was not only the Fool had said in his heart there is no God but hear what Cardan Writes of our famous Aristotle L. 3. de Sap. Aristoteles says he tam callidè mundi ortum animae praemia Deos Daemones sustulit ut hae◠omnia apertè quidem diceret argui tamen non posset And the great Pontif Cotta to Velleius upon the same Question concerning a God Credo inquit si in concione quaeratur But in private it seems he was very easie in his Belief I will not mention Epicure and Lucretius their names are grown generally too scandalous but if you examine Anaxagoras Anacharsis Protagoras Euripides Diagoras and many others whose reputations carry no small Authority along with them you will observe such a suspension of mind concerning a Deity that if they were afraid positively to deny so neither would they confidently affirm Next supposing a Deity whether the World was govern'd by God The Epicureans totally deny it nullam omninò habere humanarum rerum procurationem Deos which Ennius also plainly professeth in these words Ego Deûm genus semper esse dixi dicam Coelitum Sed Eos non curare Opinor quid agat humanum genus Which opinion Grotius takes care to confute in his Cap. de poenis l. 2. And no wonder if the Heathens denied a Point full of so many difficulties since the Royal Prophet himself was almost stumbled at it My feet says he were almost gone my steps had well nigh slipt Then the Souls Immortality a very considerable Point seem'd so hard to Reason especially when I found it disputed in some Set philosophical Discourses and it's Mortality proved almost to a physical Demonstration and besides that the Christian Doctrine concerning it had not been determin'd above two hundred years in any Council that truly
Point then indeed this Instance would be impertinent But we must not thus leave our admirable Author for from this his well consider'd Doctrine we may observe 1. That according to this Rule there can never be Schism or Heresie in the World until a man can divide from himself or a man condemning himself obstinately stand out against his clear Evidence of Scripture and so sin wilfully and without excuse and in this last Point Bishop Bromhall and Dr. Still unanimously concur with our Author Now believing in Charity that these wonders have seldom or never hapned therefore I ought to conclude that St. Paul mistook when he said 1 Cor. 11.19 There must be Heresies among you and St. John much to blame when he wrote his Gospel many years after the death of our Saviour against the Heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus 2. That all Men of understanding whether learned or unlearned are in the direct road to Heaven and found Members of the true Catholic Church provided they be lovers of God and of Truth and follow their own Sense of Scripture altho they differ in some of the most Fundamental Points of Faith Now besides the extravagancy of this Opinion in general it seems particularly levell'd against the poor Papists because they often submit their own private Interpretations with great reason to the Judgment and Interpretation of the Church But if this be so damnable a fault in Papists pray take care not to exact this resignation from your own Subjects and so farewel to Authority 3. And Lastly That there are some ambiguous Terms which lie indifferent between divers Senses whereof the one is true and the other false This we readily grant for the truth of it is so manifest that there is never a Point in the Câ—â—istian Faith howsoever by you and us esteem'd Fundamental but hath been denied by whole Bodies of Learned Men who as you do made Scripture their Rule But when you tell us further that the true Sense of them is not necessary to Faith or Salvation for if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known why should he speak obscurely Then methinks Fathers you not only make the Apostles write Impertinently and to no purpose but you have brought all sorts of Sectaries Schismatics and Heretics if any such have been and also the Turks themselves provided they read the Scripture within the Pale of the Christian Church Nay more you have made them in such Case equal with the best true Members in it And indeed if the good wishes and prayers of our Teckelites might prevail as much on one side as the Principles of your Champion have capacitated the Turks on the other side I know no reason they have to despair of seeing the Cathedral of St. Paul Consecrated by the Mufti of Mahomet By this time most Reverend Fathers I should think that you as well as my self should be very weary of this Learned Author Being fixt therefore to my Authority and the more from the Eminent danger of his loose and pernitious Principles I am resolved that nothing shall move me except the absur'd and monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation as you are pleas'd to call it may have of it self force enough to ruine and overturn so solid a Foundation REMARKS Upon some late DISCOURSES AGAINST Transubstantiation I Must confess that this great Point seem'd the most difficult to me of any that are Controverted between the two Churches and for these Reasons First because I did not rightly apprehend the Catholic Explication of the Natural Body of Christ in the Sacrament Secondly Because from this misunderstanding of mine I believed that the Body of Christ being in two places at the same time imply'd a contradiction which I suppos'd the Omnipotency of God could not support And lastly because I thought the Fathers had been express against this Doctrine I apply'd my self to the reading of Controversies and discoursing with some Learned Men on both sides and found first from the Catholics That altho they Profess and Believe the Natural Body of Christ to be truly and substantially in the Sacrament yet they tell us That it is not there after a Natural manner as it was upon the Earth or upon the Cross but after a Spiritual Supernatural and Vnbloody manner Secondly That it is indeed a Contradiction to say a Body is here and not here at the same time but to say that the Glorified Body of Christ may be by accident and by the power of God in many places or ubi's at the same time is so far from a Contradiction that it gives it not a more sovereign Existence than what we allow to Angels or to the Soul in a Mans Body which altho it be a Substance is yet really substantially and at the same time totally in the Finger of a Man and totally in his foot and totally in every part and yet totally in the whole Body tota in toto tota in qualibe parte And Lastly for the Fathers I found in them not only most plain demonstrable and Invincible Authorities asserting the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament after a substantial manner but also that those very Citations produc'd by Protestants to destroy this Doctrine of the Real Presence were most of them if not all so fully answer'd or so agreable to the Catholic Faith that if any of them remain'd still obscure there wanted not twenty plain places to Interpret them by But more of these hereafter Here I consider'd the Protestant Arguments against this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and found them generally dissatisfactory and insufficient chiefly upon this account that they brought continually the same Objections which tho they had been answer'd a hundred times over by Catholics both Ancient and Modern yet I found no Reply tothese Answers or at least such as handled those which were most material so that I perceiv'd they danc't always in a Ring without advancing a step towards a substantial and convincing Demonstration At last I was recommended to a late Discourse against Transubstantiation which treating particularly of that Subject and being wrote as I was inform'd by an Eminent Protestant Divine I resolv'd to pitch upon that and from thence take my Measures how far I ought to receive this great Catholic Doctrine I read it over and over with great attention and before I speak particularly of any thing contained in it I think it Just to give this Character of it in general viz. that it seems to be writ without Modesty Charity Sincerity or Good Manners Without Modesty In that a private Person upon presumption of his own Parts and Learning shall dare to ridicule so great a Mystery of the Christian Religion I speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament according to the Doctrine of Catholics and Lutherans excluding at present the Mode as they term it or Manner Transubstantiation and this Doctrine own'd and profest not two Hundred years since generally through the Christian