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
with his figurative expression in the Sacrament he had gon somewhat farther towards the Point he aim'd at But if we take them both in a literal sense and so in reason the Parallel ought to run Alas his consequence is confounded and all his Parallels come to little or nothing But granting him the benefit of his Clerkship and Reading in its utmost Latitude will this save him truly I think not for these Reasons First it hath been the received Opinion of all Parties that the Jewish Passover was a Type of the Christian Sacrament and my self was present when a Learned * Bishop of Rochester Bishop made a whole Sermon before the late King at White Hall upon this Supposition If so how comes it then to pass that this Type or Figure should be no more than a Figure of a Figure It was what the Fathers could not endure to hear But Secondly according to our Authors Parallel the Sacrament is no more at most than a Figure of the Memorial that is of the Figure of this Figure that is the Passover But in truth it appears not clear to me that the eating of unleavened Bread had any particular relation to the Passover it self but that they were the Memorials of two distinct and different actions The one That God did Pass over or spare the Children of Israel when he slew the Children of the Egyptians The other That God brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt which is thus fully exprest in Exod. 13. v. 8. and 9. And thou shalt shew thy Son in that day saying This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand and for a memorial between thine eyes that the Lords Law may be in thy mouth for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt This our Author confesseth himself in his Introduction p. 4. and it is again set forth in Exod. c. 12. If this be so and with submission I am apt to believe it is what then becomes of our Answerers Parallels Since now they have no relation to the Passover or Paschal Lamb Why since they lie thus fair for us we will presume to make use of them to prove still further the undoubted Truth of the Catholic Doctrine The Body of Christ then in the Sacrament is the Substance signified by the Paschal Lamb which was a Figure of it by means of which holy Sacrifice God is pleased to spare us and pass over us as he did the Children of Israel and take us into his particular Protection The Elements Symbols or Accidents may be the Substances signified by the unleavened Bread and among other significations are the Memorials of our deliverance from the bondage of Sin and Satan Thus the Parallels run right upon all four and when our Answerer shall have better consider'd of it possibly he may not think so well of what he calls almost a Demonstration Introd p. 6. The next Remark from our Answerers Discourse is this That he hath brought several Learned Catholics professedly remaining such not only not to have believed but also to have written against Transubstantiation If this be really true as I perceive he imagines it is then surely if their Judgments were no greater than their Honesty their Testimonies will not do him much honor for to profess a Doctrine of that Importance and yet not to believe it must unavoidably convince the World that they were false interested hypocritical Knaves and in this Character will I include the late Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome but with this additional aggravation of partiality that he admits of the English Real Presence Consubstantiation Impanation Zuingliâ—â—â—sâ— or any thing rather than Transubstantiation And had he been honest and sincere he should have produc'd the Authorities of the same Fathers plainly asserting what he would make them deny and have reconcll'd them to his Interpretation if he could But Secondly we have nothing but his word for the truth of his Protestant Relics now if we should ridicule those as most probably he hath done some Popish Relics which he might have met withal in his Travels I know not how he will help himself we shall have reason to question his own Sincerity as immediately shall be shewn Thirdly It is a great question whether all these Eminent persons whom he hath named did really deny the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self or rather some particular manner among the School Men of explaining it which is a considerable difference and may render them totally excusable And Lastly it is Evident That some of these persons did certainly believe the Doctrine it self and moreover have explain'd it most conformable to the Canons of the Council of Trent And First Monsieur de Marca the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris taking our Answerers own Account in his Preface p. 13. hath given an admirable Explication of it and however Mr. de Baluze or the Sorbon Doctors might misunderstand him my Opinion as there set down is much the same with Monsieur de Marca's and in the Conclusion I shall endeavour to make it consistent with Scripture the Fathers and General Councils and most agreeable to Sense and Reason The same I believe of Cardinal Perron rather than make him such a Villain as Drelincourt a profest Enemy hath represented him to the Lantgrave of Hesse Our Answerer for want of a right understanding mistakes Monsieur de Meaux and others whose Reputations he hath ignorantly not to say maliciously endeavour'd to blast which if it were much to my present purpose I would further make appear The last particular which I shall observe for others who shall think it worth their pains may enlarge if they please is his great disingenuity and partiality in his Answer to the Learned Oxford Discourser concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Sacrament The Discourser proposeth and one would think with very good Reason That Catholics here our Answerer tells us P. 99. he means Papists still and this he childishly repeats so often that it is ten times more insupportable than the Crambe bis cocta or Cabbage twice boil'd which the Poet says was so nautious to the Masters The Discourser I say proposeth That Catholics grounding their adoration not upon Transubstantiation but on a Real Presence with the Symbols which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans together with them ought to be freed from Idolatry therein as well as the Lutherans What says the Answerer That if by this assertion he means only to make this discovery That Christs Real Presence together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine is in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration as if he mere there only with the Species of the Bread the Substance being changed into his Body I have no more to say it Here then he grants it for the one is as good
Prophets in a hundred plain Texts I presume not unknown to your selves rather than your word in this Case I profess therefore tho my Reason is not able to cope with yours yet I 'll sooner suffer my self to be knockt down with a true Protestant Flayl than with such a Protestant Answer If you say the Catholic Church fell and was corrupt in Faith and Manners then I answer that Christ fail'd of his Promise and so good night to Christianity If you say the Catholic Church did not fall but kept the Unity of Faith Entire and Vncorrupt then I reply again shew me where and how I may find her And from this reasonable and important Request you shall never beat me whilst I live If you think fit to perswade me that the Church of Rome separated from the Church of England and that the Church of England is and ever hath been a part at least of the Catholic Church which always preserv'd the Faith entire and uncorrupt make it appear to me Fathers and I most heartily promise to become the most humble and obedient Subject that ever liv'd under any Government But I foresee many Difficulties which I fear will prove invincible as first It is evident that you separated from the Church of Rome and that within these few years and to prove that she separated from you will be I doubt no easie Task nor have I yet seen it done Next That you were involved in the same pernicious Errors with her ever since Augustin the Monk above a Thousand years since If my Computation be false blame your own Authors and rectifie my Judgment Now how you should rise a pure Church after having been buried so many Hundred years in a corrupt Church I do not easily understand I have heard indeed of some Rivers that have fallen into the Earth and risen up again many Miles off and of others which for many Miles in the Sea have still retain'd the natural sweetness of their own fresh Waters If these comparisons may hold in Religion yet how will you make them quâ—drate with the constant visibility and Demonstration in one case and the Succession of the Original Stream in the other if you say that that the Catholic Church was invisible or totally fell If you pretend to derive your Authority from the Church of Rome when She was in her Purity and Perfection let me tell you here will be a very long Prescription against you and I know not how your Jus postliminium can take place in this case But if it would you must be restor'd by an Act of the same Supream Authority you own'd her you held of her you reciev'd your Doctrine and your Orders from her Besides as hath been said She could by no means grant away her Authority independent from her shew me that lawful Authority which restor'd you and I submit Shew me your extraordinary Calling by those Marks appointed and practis'd in such Cases both under the Old and New Law even to our own Century I mean undoubted Miracles and I acquiesce If you tell me no time can prescribe against Divine Truth nor is Authority necessary to reform an Error In a general Sense I grant both But the Question here is concerning Truth and Error themselves No body doubts but that a certain Divine Truth is to be reciev'd and a certain Error to be avoided but we are now seeking for that Authority which shall declare this Truth and set forth this Error Error or Sin is the breach of a Law for without the Law Rom. 7. Sin is dead whence St. Paul says That he had not known Lust except the Law had said thou shalt not covet Now as Sin supposes a Law so Law requires an Authority And as the one so the other must be visible And to shew that this Authority is absolutely necessary we find our Saviour giving it to his Apostles and themselves exercising and recommending it to others so S. Paul advises Titus Titus 2.15 To speak exhort and rebuke with Authority But what need Instances of this kind Our Saviour hath left us a Law of Faith which in some of the most necessary Points is not clear and self-Evident whence the Arians of old Men of great Learning denied the Trinity and Divinity of our Saviour and they made a very considerable Body Authority condemn'd them and interpreted the Law in those Cases according to our present Orthodox Faith The Socinians and Antitriniturians rebel against it to this day and are neither unlearned nor inconsiderable Luther tells us That Christ is a Saviour of vile and little worth and wanted himself a Saviour Christus ille vilis In Confes Maj. de caen Dom. nec magni pretij Salvator est immo Ipse quoque Salvatore opus habet And that his Divinity suffer'd for us De consil part 2 pertinacissimè contra me pugnabant quod Divinitas Christi pati non posset Tom. 1. prop. 3. He tells us further That good Works are hurtful to Salvation and that Faith doth not Justifie except it be even without the least good Works Calvin also Bilsons Survey and Beza That Christ suffer'd in his Soul the pains of the damned that he prayed unadvisedly and was disturb'd in his Senses That the Divine Substance is not wholly in three Persons but distinct really and truly from Everlasting into three Persons and that there be three Divinities as there be three Persons Melanct in loco Com. c. de Christo Beza 's Confession p. 1. Anno Dom. 1585. Calvin in Act. Serveti Whence Neuserus a Learned Calvinist and chief Pastor at Heidelburg revolting first to Arianism and thence to Mahometanism writ to Gerlachius a Protestant Preacher from Constantinople July 2. 1574. saying None is known to me in my time made an Arian who was not first a Calvinist and then names several such persons That God is the Author of Sin moving inclining and forcing the Will of man to Sin Calvin Instit l. 1. c. 18. and l. 2. c. 4. Zuingl Bucer and several of our Eminent English Reformers concur with them in most of these blasphemous and heretical Opinions Now Fathers if these Instances with many others which I abhor to mention be not sufficient and weighty enough to require a Supream Judge to determine the right Faith and to condemn and silence the wrong then look nearer at home among your selves and if all cannot prevail with you to believe That the Law wanted a Judge and that therefore Christ was pleased in his Wisdom and Goodness to leave us Judges as long as he intended his Law should be in force Then pray excuse me if my Reason and Piety and the reverent Notion which I have of a Just God and a Merciful Saviour totally force my Judgment and Conscience to dissent from you in this particular and let us proceed If you say the Church of Rome usurpt upon you I answer if such a thing was It was in Discipline only and
External Government and that but in some particulars with which I meddle not If you tell me a story of the Abbot of Bangor I answer the particular ground of it is evidently false and forg'd and at best all circumstances consider'd of little consequence The plain Truth is this The Brittains received the Christian Faith even in the days of the Apostles But being persecuted at home by the Romans Picts and Saxons Religion fled to the Mountains and bordering parts of Wales At the same time the Church of Rome was no less afflicted by the Heathen Emperours and no wonder if in these days and circumstances there was but little Correspondence between Rome and Wales But when the Church brought forth from her subterraneous Refuges and set upon a Hill began to enlarge her self and propagate the Gospel according to the Commands of our Saviour Go ye and Preach unto all Nations Gregory the Great sent Augustin the Monk into England somewhat before the year Six Hundred to see how Matters went here in this long interval of silence and distractions In short the Brittains knew him not and no wonder until he had confirm'd his Commission by Miracles and such as none yet ever denied The great Errors which he found among them were chiefly two Their Asiatic Error concerning the keeping of Easter and dissent from the use of the Roman Church in the administring of Baptism And altho in some other Matters they differ'd from the Church of Rome yet Augustin promised to tolerate those provided they would rectifie these which the Brittish Bishops consented to and confessed That it was the right way of Justice and righteousness which Austin taught Si his tribus mihi obtemperare vultis ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis ut ministerium Baptizandi juxta morem Rom. Apost Ecolesiae compleatis Ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum praedicetis Verbum Domini Caetera quae agitis quamvis Moribus nostris contraria aequanimiter cuncta tolerabimus Cum Brittones confitentur Intellexisse se veram esse viam Justitiae quam praedicaret Augustinus Beda Hist l. 2. c. 2. Hence we may observe That the two great faults which Austin found with the Brittains were about Easter and Baptism that the Brittains at first highly oppos'd this Innovation but that in all other Substantials they agreed That Austin is severely accus'd for bringing into England the Popish Superstition and all other Points by name controverted between us at this day is plain from neer twenty Eminent Protestant Authors both at home and abroad And that the Brittish Bishops did not except against any of these save only Easter and Baptism is confest Now after all this can we believe that the Brittains who earnestly contradicted Austin in these smaller Points and were so tenacious of their own Customs would have silently recieved so many and imcomparably much greater Points of Faith had they in like manner disagreed from him therein Credat Judaeus Apella The consequence which I draw from all this is that the same Doctrines these two Points excepted which Austin taught the Saxons had been deliver'd to the Brittains from the Apostles If you understand otherwise I shall be glad to be better informed Or if you can give us a better Authority than venerable Bede you will do well to produce it In the mean time when we consider the great Learning and Holiness of St. Gregory so esteem'd by all sober men the Piety of Austin himself and of Bede who writes the Story He must be a bold man who without better proof than I have hitherto seen dares accuse these three great Persons and the whole Christian World at that time of Idolatry and all those other damnable Crimes then taught of which you are pleased to say the Church of Rome at present is guilty If you go higher and object a Letter of Pope Eleutherius to King Lucius I demur But I take it for granted that these old Arguments are thredbare and will not hold Water otherwise I would humbly advise you to insist totally upon them for if you can make out your Lawful Supream Independent Authority in determining Matters of Faith without Appeal trouble not your selves nor abuse your Friends with Sophistical Artificial Pamphlets about Judges and Guides in Controversies Reason and Sense against Faith and Obedience and I know not what to that purpose but stick close to your Authority make it out plain and you carry all before you In good earnest Reverend Fathers I see but one way how you 'l evade these Difficulties which press hard upon you and it is this That you have an Infallible Rule Gods Holy Word containing all things necessary to Salvation And Mr. Chillingworth tells us p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently Perfect so sufficiently Intelligible in things necessary to all that have understanding whether learned or unlearned Now if the Scripture be a Guide and a Judge as well as a Rule Then have you been to blame all this while that you have not told us particularly where the Catholic Church was for certainly where the Bible is and where all men that have understanding whether learned or unlearned by reading it hold all things necessary to Salvation there the Catholic Church is whether at Rome or in London and I will not believe so ill of any who in such Case read the Scripture as to imagine that they wilfully oppose a Truth which is clear to them and Mr. Chillingworth tells me p. 367. That Believing all that is clear to me in Scripture I must needs believe all Fundamentals and so I cannot incur Heresie which is opposite to some Fundamental In a word wheresoever there is or was a Bible and a Man of understanding whether learned or unlearned that read it there was a certain number of the true Catholic Church pure and uncorrupt For the same hand again tells us p. 101. The Scripture sufficiently informing me what is Faith must also of necessity teach me what is Heresie that which is straight will plainly teach us what is crooked So here is not only a Member but according to my understanding the Representative of the whole Catholic Church for here is Authority and Infallibility and further than that I seek not But if the holy Bible be a certain Rule but withal that this Person of understanding whether learned or unlearned be not sufficiently qualified to find out certainly all things necessary to Salvation and of necessity to teach what Heresie is and I confess I shrewdly suspect that there may be many in the World who cannot with a wet Finger perform all this then are we to seek again for a Judge and an Authority and are got no further than we were sixteen Hundred years since when the Scripture was first acknowledged to be the Word of God But to do Justice worthy Fathers to you and to my self let us further consider these and many other seeming Absurdities which appear at first sight such
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
might find a fit parallel for Mr. Arnauld he takes a long Journey to Vienna the rather I suppose that he might pay his respects to the King of France and his Army as he return'd home again for he tells us That by the like Demonstration as Mr. Arnauld's one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him Now our Discourser without crossing the Seas might have given as proper an instance even from his own Doors for who could easily imagine that the Real Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body in the holy Sacrament should have been believ'd and profest by the Church of England in the days of King James the First and yet that in the Reign of King James the Second the figurative Doctrine in exclusion of the Real Presence should be so firmly and peaceably establisht among us as that not so much as one single Church of England Man at least that I have heard of tho highly dignified by honourable and profitable Employments in and by the said Church of England should write one word in Vindication of their ancient Church Nor one small Pamphlet to oppose the Innovation of these usurping Sacramentories But these things worthy Fathers concern you more than me and lest you should quite forget that there ever had been any such Doctrine profest by your Church of England I shall humbly take the liberty by and by to refresh your memories Much more might be said to shew from what loose Conjectures our Discourser would prove the Innovation of the Doctrine of the Real Presence and that it entred not into the Latin Church before the Eighth Century But since I design nothing of Answer more than to satisfie you worthy Fathers and my self that I have not rushly rejected the Authority of so Learned a Person as our Discourser seems to be without good reason and due consideration this which is already said is I suppose sufficient for that purpose I come now to what he calls the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation that is The infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith First there is a great difference between making an Article of Faith and declaring and Article of Faith I know no power upon Earth that can do the first but certainly the second is within the Jurisdiction of the lawful Church Governours or otherwise General Councils would be very insignificant Assemblies Now if Transubstantiation should prove to be no more than the true Faith concerning the blessed Sacrament declar'd or explain'd then our Discourser hath no reason to quarrel with Church Authority or fear any Inconveniences should happen from the Exercise of such a Power First I have sufficiently shewn at least in my Opinion that the Doctrine of the Real Presence that is of the Natural Body of Christ substantially truly and literally existing in the Sacrament tho' not after a Corporal and Natural manner to have been the constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church from the Apostles to the great Council of Lateran when in the presence of the Ambassadors of the Greek and Roman Emperours as also of the Kings of Jerusalem England France Spain and Cyprus this word Transubstantiation was agreed upon by neer Thirteen Hundred Fathers to be a proper Explicative Term of the Apostolical Doctrine and belief of the Real Presence or change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of this enough hath been said But because our Discourser is pleas'd to call the Doctrine of the Real Presence barbarous and impious p. 35. I have thought fit to add to the rest the Testimonies of Bishop Andrews and the Learned Casaubon in the name of King James the First and the Church of England and some others of the most Learned Fathers and Professors of the true English Church I will begin with Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. The Cardinal says he cannot be ignorant except wilfully that Christ said This is my Body but not after this manner This is my Body We agree in the object and differ only in the manner Concerning the Hoc est or this is We firmly believe that it is Concerning the after this manner i.e. by the Bread Transubstantiated into the Body of the manner how it is done as by or in or with or under or through there is not a word concerning it We believe the true Presence no less than your selves but we dare not confidently define any thing concerning the manner of this Presence nor are we over curious to enquire into it c. Again ib. c. 8. p. 194. Speaking of the Conjunction of Christs Body with the Symbols he says There is that Conjunction between the visible Sacrament and the Invisible Thing of the Sacrament as between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ where except you would savour of Eutychianism the Humanity is not transubstantiated into the Divinity And a little further The King hath establisht it that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and to be truly there ador'd And we with Ambrose adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries Some possibly may be ingenious enough to interpret all this to signifie a meer figurative Presence as they have done many clear passages of the Fathers but they must interpret for themselves not for me But let us hear what Is Casaubon writes to Cardinal Perron by the Kings Command concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist who saying that the Contest was not about the Truth but only the Manner of the thing returns this reply p. 50. His Majesty wonders since your Eminence confesseth that you do not so solicitously require that Transubstantiation should be believed as that we should not doubt concerning the Truth of the Real Presence That the Church of England should not long since have satisfied you in that particular which hath so often profest to believe it in her public Writings And then for Explication of the Doctrine of the Church of England recites the fore-mention'd words of Bishop Andrews Quod Cardinalem non latet Come we next to Mr. Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. Sect. 67. p. 357. Wherefore should the World continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversie saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very Consecrated Elements themselves Again p. 360. All three Opinions do thus far accordin one That these holy Mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in
booty with you for if this be a confutation of what was before alledged from Beza I profess I shall never quarrel with him about it nor desire any other hand than Beza's even in this very passage to express my Belief of the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament What a strange Answerer is this sure he thinks because Catholics submit their Sense and Reason in some things to Divine Revelation and the Authority of the Church therefore they have not Reason enough to judge in other Cases that three and one make four as well as two and two Next he brings in Cranmer and Ridley when he was among his Geneva Brethren I suppose and he might as well have nam'd himself and his Eminent Discourser against Transubstantiation And what if these two first were of the same opinion concerning the Real Presence with these two last It only proves that one at London contradicted himself at Geneva and the other Men ten times more learned than himself Our Answerer that he may take breath before he comes to our English Divines above-named for I perceive he finds that he is like to have a tough piece of work on 't charges the Oxford Author with disingenuity chiefly in favour of Doctor Burnets History of the Reformation Alas I am apt to believe tho' I know neither the Discourser nor this Answerer not so much as by Name but only by their Works I am apt I say to believe that this Discourser is much better acquainted with Church History than the Doctor and applies it with much more Sincerity and Truth than he hath done I confess were I worthy to advise I should counsel this Answerer to flesh himself first upon some Authors of a lower Classis for I doubt he is here over-match'd and hath got as we say a Bear by the Tooth What the Learned Historian means by the Wisdom of that time P. 58. in leaving a liberty for different speculations as to the manner of the Presence I cannot understand except that they did in that time generally believe the Real Presence as hath been before exprest but would not certainly determine the manner that is as Bishop Andrews hath said before whether it was per or in or cum or sub or trans but if there be no such Real Presence in any manner I know not what this Liberty of Speculations signifies as to the manner when the thing is not really after any manner and if not as our Answerer seems all along to affirm this then might indeed be great Wisdom or humane Policy not too rudely to choke the tender Ears of their late establisht Reformation But how it can consist with true Piety and a Church pretending to reform Errors we shall best find by this consideration If Men had liberty to believe that Christ was really present after any manner it follows necessarily that Christ was adorable there where he was so present But if the Church in its Wisdom did certainly know that Christ was not really present after any Manner then the Church in its Wisdom gave Men liberty to be Idolaters for our Answerer hath been pleas'd to deliver us his Opinion from Doctor Taylor p. 69. who there says That to give Divine worship to a Non Ens must needs be Idolatry For Idolum nihil est in mundo saith St. Paul and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens for it is not true there is no such thing he is there by his Diviner Power and Blessing c. but for any other presence it is Idolum And that the practice of the Learneder part of the Church of England nay of the whole Church of England it self if we will believe the Articles of Henry the Eighth in the beginning of the Reformation or King James in the strength of the Reformation was accordingly Idolatrous I am most abundantly satisfied until some stronger Pen than our Answerers shall fully confute what is already extant to that purpose In the mean time leaving the Matter of Fact to the Doctors Conscience we will follow our Answerer He is come now to Bishop Jewel who tells us p. 60. That Christs Body and Blood indeed and verily is given unto us that we verily eat it that we verily drink it c. yet we say not either that the substance of Bread and Wine is done away that is Transubstantiation which is not our Dispute or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament If by really he means fleshly I subscribe to all this as to the Real Presence He goes on That spiritually i. e. modo spirituali and with the mouth of our Faith we eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood even as verily as his Body was verily broken and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross If the Bishop was not an Eutychian then certainly his Body was verily that is substantially and truly broken upon the Cross Thus far then we punctually agree But the Bishop explains himself The Bread he tells us is an earthly thing and therefore a Figure as Baptism in Water is also a Figure 'T is confest Now lest we should think that by this Figure the Bishop intended to exclude the substance he adds immediately But the Body of Christ that thereby is represented and is there offer'd to our Faith most true is the thing i. e. the Body of Christ it self and not the Figure As much of this as the Answerer pleases we have reason to be thankful to him for it But he now comes to Answer for the venerable Mr. Hooker You have heard what hath been offer'd from the Discourser The Answerer tells us from Mr. Hooker p. 61. That the parts of the Sacrament are the Body and Blood of Christ because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth And that the Real Presence of Christs most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament All this is most consistent with the Protestant Notion of the Real Presence here contended for Next Bishop Andrews comes upon the Stage and first the Answerer tells us as from himself only that this Bishop insinuates P. 62. That the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was much the same as in Baptism the very Allusion which the Holy Fathers were wont to make to express his Presence by in this holy Sacrament That the Bishop and the Holy Fathers might mean that Christ is present in the Sacrament as in Baptism Catholics do not deny for they also constantly affirm the same thing as much as either But if our Answerer pretends to perswade us that either the Bishop or Fathers or Catholics mean him only so present as to exclude the presence also of his natural Body in the Sacrament that remains to be prov'd which hath not been done
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
the strong difficulties which he thought encompast it we then see a Party of the Vulgar coming in to him apace whilst nevertheless the Learned Disc of the Holy Euch. p. 31. from many parts of the World judiciously and strenuously oppos'd him The same thing may be observed from the Waldenses whose Ring-leader Waldo a most illiterate Merchant of Lions as all Historians confess procured also a miserable Crew who from their poverty were ignominiously call'd the poor Men of Lions and their Posterity fixt themselves among the Barbarous and ignorant Mountancers about and upon the Alpes who have remained obstinate Opposers of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation even unto this present Age. The last Instance I shall give is of the Wicklissists Ibid. who following in a great measure the Doctrines of Berengarius and some other Heresies had got together two Hundred Thousand of the Rabble who with Rebellious Arms in their Hands had well nigh reduc'd the King himself to the last extremities However his Heresies were condemn'd by the learneder part of the Universities as far as the Circumstances of those distracted times would permit and the interest which upon some other account Wickliff himself had gotten in the Duke of Lancaster and some other Persons of Quality The same might be said of the Hussites Ibid. and many more too long to mention who became irreconcileable Enemies to this Doctrine Whence it is most Evident even by undeniable matter of Fact that the Establishment of Transubstantiation could hope for no advantage from an ignorant Age since the ignorant have been the first and greatest Opposers of it and the most Learned Men generally its Defenders Neither Secondly can a vitious Generation possibly be favourers of this Doctrine For whether it be true or false yet whilst it is believed to be true it is certainly the greatest promoter of Piety and Devotion of any Article it may be in the Christian Religion For when we consider That Christ was not only pleas'd once to die but to become also a daily Sacrifice for us and to offer his very Body to us for the nourishment of our Souls and Bodies unto Everlasting Life How is it possible that Men should be less sensible of Gods great Goodness towards us and our own unexpressible Love and Duty towards him believing this Doctrine to be true than not believing it at all Vice therefore could have no hand either in the contriving or setling so pious so venerable and so comfortable a Doctrine Lastly let us consider whether Superstition could probably have introduc'd this supposed damnable Error I cannot deny that Superstition is it self an Error yet totally inconsistent with what we call formal Vice for it is rather an Erroneous excess in Devotion and is the effect of an unreasonable fear at least if we will believe Mr. Hobs who thus distinguisheth it from Atheism Superstitio says he à metu sine recta ratione Atheismus à rationis opinione sine metu proficiscitur So that altho it be an Error yet it is such a one as is accompanied with fear whereas Vice proceeds from a want of that due fear which we ought to have of Gods Justice and the punishment due from thence to our Sins And by consequence Superstition and Vice can never meet according to our Discoursers acceptation of Vice together in this place Thus I have endeavoured to shew by the plain natural consequences of Ignorance Superstition and Vice that they could not have given any encouragement to impose a Doctrine which hath ever been the Subject of the most Learned Pens in magnifying or explaining its Mystery and in its Practice one of the greatest advancers of a vertuous and a holy Life But having already frankly confest that Ignorance and Vice reigned more powerfully during some part of those Centuries than it may be in any others since or before let us now complying with our Discoursers Historical account concerning the temper of those times examine what real effect they might have had upon this great Article of Faith Transubstantiation Let us then Suppose what I hope is sufficiently proved that this Doctrine had been implicitely believ'd from the Apostles days It is then confest by our Discourser that about the Eighth and Ninth Century some Men began to write copiously for and against it and also down to the Eleventh and Twelfth And here whilst we truly lament so must we justly apply the Vice and Ignorance of those unhappy times to the great scandals and difficulties under which that Apostolic Doctrine lies even in our own Age. The Vices of some and affected Noveltie of others might probably have induced some well meaning Men to write concerning this great Mystery but whilst nothing had been Authoritatively determin'd concerning what they call the Modus or manner of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament some by endeavouring to explain it made the Text by their private Notions become ten times more obscure than before Other good Men building still upon the first false Foundation I mean Comment and endeavouring to maintain a ground which was not firm at Bottom The Council of Trent most judiciously and if I may say divinely Decreed what some call the Modus Transubstantiation and that in such admirable terms and words that I am convinc'd the Divine Wisdom in the thing determined exceeded the Natural Knowledge of the persons determining But no sooner were the Canons established and this Council dissolv'd but some Men in Opposition to these Heresies which have disturb'd the Church ever since fell to work again in explaining these holy Mysteries but nothing having been explicitely decreed in this Council more than what had been always implicitely believ'd before they generally kept to former Notions and instead of reconciling this Divine Truth to Sense to Reason and to the Word of God have made it almost incompatible with all three whilst nevertheless the Doctrine it self remains inviolably true and against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail Thus we see how Vice and Ignorance may have accidentally introduc'd an erroneous Explication but could not possibly have admitted the Doctrine it self much less the Comment had it been guilty of so much Novelty as it is accus'd of by our Discourser Having thus finisht with all plainness and sincerity my Remarks upon such particular Objections as he hath offer'd against this Doctrine of Transubstantiation I must now reassume the Consideration of our late Answerer and some others who have emptied their whole Quivers of sharpest tho fruitless Arguments against an Article of Faith securely placed by the Promises and Providence of the Almighty far above the reach of humane Malice or Power First our Answerer hath a particular Notion and very ingeniously hath made a Parallel between many Circumstances in the Institution of the Jewish Passover or rather the Memorial of it and that of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper And indeed could he have reconciled the plain literal Institution of the Passover