operations of a Man. But mang learned men who read Gelasius and Theodoret want either skill or patience to understand them They find these words the substance of bread remains and are so much transported with the joyfull news of any thing that looks but like an argument against the Old Religion they have undertaken to reform they do not well consider what the word may signifie but willingly suppose the Sense is just the same as they would have it set their hearts at rest and look no farther * I have now sufficiently examin'd what the Fathers say concerning the outward form of the Sacrament what they mean by calling it a type a sign or figure what they understand when they call it the substance or nature of bread I now come close to the main point of the Question What they have taught constantly believ'd during the first eight Centuries concerning the inward substance of the Sacrament Whether they believ'd it was the substance of bread wine or the substance of Christ's body blood SECOND PART Paschasius Rathertus a French Monk Native of Soisson in Picardy wrote a book in the year 831. de Corpore Sanguine Domini at the request of one of his Scholars call'd Placidius an Abbot to whom he dedicated it He makes it his business to explain prove three points 1. that the body blood of Christ are truly and substantially present 2. that the substances of bread wine remain no longer after Consecration 3. that the body is the very same which was born of the Virgin suffer'd on the Cross rose from the Sepulcre He was the more willing to write this book because some people out of ignorance began to doubt of several truths relating to the Sacrament This I gather from an epistle of Paschasius to Frudegard where I find these words Although some people are out of ignorance mistaken nevertheless as yet no body openly contradicts this doctrine which all the World believes professes Our Adversaries take a great deal of pains to persuade us that Paschasius was the first broacher of this Doctrine from him they date the first Rise of it about the beginning of the IX Age although it did not take root nor was fully settled established till towards the end of the eleventh They add that this was the most likely time for the Enemy to sow his Tares when the Christian World was lull'd asleep in ignorance and superstition that the generality of people being quiet secure were ready to receive any thing that came in under a pretence of mystery in religion but the men most eminent for piety learning in that time made great resistance against it This is the Account which now is generally given by our modern Writers and particularly by the Author of a late Discourse against Transubstantiation T is easily said and the contrary is as easily prov'd Read Leo Allatius in his 3. book of the perpetual agreement betwixt East West and you will find Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople saying that the bread wine are not an image or a figure But that they are transmuted into the body blood of Christ Read Haymo Bishop of Halberstadt in his Treatise De Corpore Sanguine Domini you may find it in the 12. Tome of the Spicilegium his words are these We believe therefore and faithfully confess hold that the substance of bread wine by the operation of the Divine Virtue is substantially chang'd into another substance that is Body Blood ..... The tast of bread wine remains the figure the nature of the substances being wholly chang'd into the body blood of Christ Read Theodorus 〈◊〉 Abucara in the Bibliotheca Patrum printed at Lions you will find that in his 22. Opuscule he says The Holy Ghost descends by his Divinity changes the bread wine into the body blood of Christ I omit several others who lived in the same Age with Paschasius and all witness that the Church believd the mystery of Transubstantiation T is well known that the 3. part of Paschasius's doctrine occasion'd some disputes about the manner of speaking They allow'd the body to be the same in substance but not altogether the same because it is not in the same form it has no corporal motion or action in a word it is present in some respects after the manner of a spirit imperceptible to sense all in the whole all in every part This Spiritual presence of his body was much urg'd against Paschasius to prove the body is not absolutely the same But nevertheless if we do not preferr darkness before light we cannot but see that They who wrote against the third part did not write against the second and they who quarreld with his way of speaking did not deny the mystery of Transubstantiation as appears by the testimonies of his pretended Adversaries Amalarius in the 24. ch of his 3. book says We believe the simple nature of bread wine mixt with water to be chang'd into a reasonable nature to wit the body blood of Christ Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz in the 10. ch of his 7. book to Theotmarus De sacris ordinibus Who says he would ever have believ'd that bread could have been chang'd into flesh wine into blood unless our Saviour himself had said it who created bread wine all things out of nothing These men were also Authors of the same IX Age And after all these testimonies I leave you to judge whether the IX Age did not generally believe the mystery of Transubstantiation or whether Paschasius was the first that broacht it in the Western Church I do not insist upon the authority of Bertram either one way or other but however I shall give you a short account of him as much as may suffice to justifie my letting him alone The first question which he proposes in the beginning is * pag 1. whether the body of Christ be done in a mystery or in truth that is to say according to his own words whether it contain some secret thing or whether the bodily sight do outwardly behold whatsoever is done I have not hitherto met with any Author of the IX Age that ever said Our eye sees all that our faith believes but we are to suppose that some body said so or else that Bertram was mistaken He answers with a great deal of truth that * p. 5. it cannot be call'd a mystery wherein there is nothing covered with some veil removed from our bodily senses Outwardly says he the form of bread is set out but inwardly a thing far differing * p. 6. London-Edit 1687. which is not discern'd to be Christ's body by the carnal senses Afterward he compares this Sacrament with that of Baptism and finally in the 18. page he concludes Therefore the things that are seen things that are believ'd are not all one This was indeed a
therefore I have nothing more to do but cite the Fathers words so conclude S. Gaudentius is his 2. Tract upon Exodus says He the Creator Lord of Nature who produces bread out of the earth produces also his own proper body out of bread because he can do it promis'd to do it And He who produc'd wine out of water produces also his blood out of wine .... For when he gave the consecrated bread wine to his disciples He said This is my Body This is my Blood. Let us believe him whom we have believ'd Truth cannot tell a lie S. Chrysostom in his 83. homilie upon S. Matthew has these excellent words Let us every where believe God Almighty nor contradict him although what He says seem contrary to our Reason and our Eyes ..... His word cannot deceive us Our Sense is easily deceiv'd That never erres This often is mistaken Since therefore He says This is my Body Let us be persuaded of it believe it .... These are not the works of human power He who did these things at his last supper He it is who now performs them We only are his Ministers 't is He that Sanctifies He that Transmutes the bread wine into his Body Blood. So that as the same Saint says in his 25. homily upon the 1. to the Corinthians That which is in the Chalice is that which flow'd from his side that we are partakers of S. Ambrose in his book De his qui mysteriis initiantur ch 9. Perhaps you 'l say says he I see quite another thing How do you assure me that I receive the Body of Christ And this is that which remains for us to prove How great says he are the examples which we use to shew that it is not the thing which Nature form'd but the thing which the Blessing has consecrated and that the Blessing has greater force than Nature because by the Blessing even the Nature it self is chang'd Afterwards He instances in the change of rods into Serpents and of water into blood and thus pursues his discourse If says he the word of Elias was powerfull enough to command fire down from Heaven shall not the word of Christ be able to change the Nature of the Elements You have read of the whole Creation He said they were made He commanded they were created The Word therefore of Christ which could make out of nothing that which was not cannot it change those things which are into what they were not S. Gregory Nyssen in his Catechistical Discourse ch 37. professes the same faith I do believe says he that by the word of God the Sanctified bread is transmuted into the Body of God the Word ... Not that by mediation of nourishment it becomes the body of the Word but that immediatly by the Word it is transmuted into his body by these words This is my Body .... the Nature of the things which appear being transelemented that is transubstantiated into it S. Cyril Patriarch of Hierusalem in his 4. Mystagogick Catechise discourses thus Do not consider it as meer bread wine for now it is the Body Blood of Christ according to our Lord 's own words Although your Sense suggest otherwise let your faith confirm you that you may not judge the thing by the Tast .... and a little after he goes on knowing says he holding for certain that the bread which we see is not bread although it tast like bread the wine which we see is not wine although it tast like wine S. Hierome in his Catalogue Theodoret in his 2. Dialogue are witnesses that S. Cyril was the Author of this work And now I appeal to the judgment of my Auditory whether I may not venture to defy any Catholick of this present Age to express in plainer terms our Faith of Transubstantiation * However T is very strange you 'l say if this were the faith of the first Ages that None of the Heathens nor so much as Julian the Apostat should take notice of it This if we believe a late Author is to a wise man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such doctrine was then believ'd * As for Julian the Apostat Of three books which he wrote we have but one that imperfect Had he objected it 't is certain S. Cyril of Alexandria never would have taken notice of it in his Answer So cautious he is in speaking even of Baptism that he passes it over in these terms I should say many more things .... if I did not fear the ears of the profane For commonly they laugh at things they cannot understand * As for the Heathens 't is sufficient to reflect what care was taken by the primitive Christians to hide the mysteries of our Religion to keep our books out of the hands of Infidels This privacy of ours made Celsus call our Doctrine Clancular and Origen in his first book against him answers that it is proper not only to Christian Doctrine but also to Philosophy to have some things in it which are not communicated to every one Tertullian in his 4. book Ad Uxorem ch 5 for this reason would not allow Christian women to marry Pagan husbands will not your Husband says he know what you tast in Secret before you eat of any other meat And S. Basil in his book Concerning the Holy Ghost ch 27. says that The Apostles Fathers in the beginning of the Church by privacy silence preserv'd the dignity of their Mysteries * But because my Author thinks this Demonstration worth a Thousand I am the more willing to answer him in his own words that though I have untied the knot I could with more ease have cut it For since 't is plain evident from all the Records of the first eight Centuries that Transubstantiation always was believ'd it is the wildest and the most extravagant thing in the world to set up a pretended Demonstration of Reason against plain experience matter of Fact. This is just like Zeno's Demonstration against Motion when Diogenes walkt before his eyes A man may demonstrate till his head heart ake before he shall ever be able to prove that which certainly was never to have been All the Reason in the World is too weak to Cope with so tough obstinate a difficulty I have now perform'd my promise I have in three Sermons prov'd 1. that Transubstantiation is neither contrary to Sense nor Reason 2. that it follows clearly from the plainest words in Scripture 3. that it has been the perpetual faith of the Catholick Church not only since Paschasius but ever since the first foundation of Christian Religion And now I not only beg of you but earnestly conjure you by all that ought to be most dear to you by all your desires expectations of eternal Happyness to consider seriously leisurely three fundamental principles of Christianity 1. That without Faith 't is
impossible to please God. They are the words of S. Paul to the Hebrews ch 11. v. 16. 2. That there is but one Body one Spirit ... one Lord one Faith. They are the words of the same Apostle to the Ephesians ch 4. v. 4. 5. 3. That we ought to follow the Direction of this one Lord to find out this one Faith. This Direction is written in the Prophet Jeremy ch 6. v. 16. Thus says the Lord stand in the ways see And ask for the Old Paths where is the good Way walk therein and you shall find rest for your souls T is natural for men to please themselves with thinking how much they are wiser than their Predecessours Nothing is more agreable to Man's proud inclinations than to be always finding faults giving magisterial directions for the mending of them And this is that which makes the very Name of Reformation pleasing delightfull To give it its due Reforming is a pretty Thing if it were well applied If every Man would make it his chief business to reform himself O! what a Happy Reformation should we live to see But this alas is much the smallest part of all our Business There is no Vanity no Pleasure in Reforming of our selves We only gain a Victory where we desire it not only triumph over our own faults A proud man would as willingly sit out as play at such small game as this All his delight is to reform his Neighbours And here I must confess if Men were only a little overbusy in reforming of their neighbours Manners the Folly of their Pride were in some measure tolerable But when our insolence attempts the Reformation of their Faith of that Church to which Divine as well as Human Laws require Obedience and Submission the specious Name popular Pretence will never sanctifie the Crime If they who in the last Age undertook the Reformation of our Church were known to be infallible some grains of blind Obedience might be easily allow'd But since they may perhaps be grievously mistaken it very much behoves you to consider it T is a common saying if a man cheat me once 't is his fault but if he cheat me twice 't is mine T is not the first time that a considerable Party in the Catholick Church has separated from the whole upon these plausible pretences of Reformation to correct Abuses Innovations Errours Did not the Arians thirteen hundred years since begin to separate upon this popular pretence Did not they in the same manner amuse their Proselytes with plausible stories of errours innovations and abuses crept into the Church Did not they make as great a noise against the Consubstantiality of God the Son complain as much of Spiritual Tyranny inveigh as much against the Council of Nice for making introducing and imposing a new unheard of Article of Faith quite contrary to the belief of three preceding Ages plainly opposite to Holy Writ All This you know was false You know that though the word was new the faith was old plainly prov'd by Scripture And yet these popular noises which then the Arians buzz'd into the peoples ears amused them so They never entertain'd the least suspicion of their being cheated Had our Reformers been the first you had been deceiv'd The fault had then been theirs But since the same trick has been playd so often in the Church if now you are deceiv'd the fault is yours I have laid before your eyes this day a prospect of the eight first Ages They accuse the Catholick Church of making a new Article of Faith And by the most Authentick Records of Antiquity it has been plainly prov'd that they themselves are guilty of unmaking an old Article of Faith as ancient as Christ his Apostles Remember the days of old Consider the years of many generations Ask thy Father he will shew thee thy Elders and They will tell thee Stand in in the ways see and ask for the old paths where is the good way walk therein There is no other Way which can conduct you safely to the Joys of Heaven which I wish you all in the Name of the Father Son Holy Ghost Amen * VVhen this Sermon was preacht before his Majesty several paragraphs which are all marks with a * were omitted for brevity sake but are here printed as they were found in the Author's papers A SERMON Preacht before their MAIESTIES AT WHITE-HALL April 23. 1688. Printed by his Majesty's Order Sine me nihil potestis facere Without me you can do nothing Iohn 15.5 THe principal difference betwixt the daring Boldness of a Heathen the true Valour of a Christian Sacred MAJESTIES consists in this The first is grounded in Pride the second in Humility The first begins from a vain Imagination of our own Sufficiency as if we were able to do all things The second from a true Idea of our natural Weakness who are able to do nothing of our selves This was the reason why our Saviour Jesus Christ instructing his Apostles those great Hero's of the Church was pleas'd to settle this foundation for the superstructure of their great glorious Actions Without me you can do nothing That they might better understand it He compar'd them to the branches of a Vine which being separated from the Root immediatly fade wither without bringing fruit I am the Vine you are the Branches Without me you are fruitless Without Humility all that seems great glorious is but a splendid Bubble a meer empty Nothing All this you 'l say is very true Humi'ity is never out of Season But why so much of it in this Day 's Ghospel Why is it now in Season more than any other time The Reason is Because no Virtue is so apt to puff us up with Pride as Fortitude A Hero among men is too often like Lucifer among the Angels From the Meridian of his aspiring height if he look down 't is with Contempt if upward 't is with Emulation of being like the Highest No wonder whilst he lives and flourishes if he desires to be like God For even when he is dead Posterity is apt to make him so Hence 't is the Hero's of Antiquity have peopled an imaginary Heaven with so many Deities and Mankind was so ignorantly Superstitious as to offer Sacrifices to them Had we not been instructed better by the Word of God and particularly by the Ghospel of this Day Our Nation for ought I know might have been guilty of the same extravagance S. George might then perhaps have been a God among us But since all Catholicks are well acquainted with this great fundamental Truth contain'd in the words of my Text Without Christ all the Apostles all the Saints in Heaven can do Nothing The Knowledge of this Truth has dasht the hopes of Hell the Gates of it can never prevail against us We cannot if we do not quite renounce our Faith We cannot be in
in the principles both of the old new Philosophy we never see the nakedness of any substance whatsoever but only the outward forms which hide it from us and therefore if the Almighty have a mind to change the substance only not the accidents we may watch him as narrowly as we please never discover any alteration because all that our senses can perceive remains the same and as before the substance was miraculously chang'd we could not see it so after 't is miraculously chang'd we cannot miss it Talk to them of these notions in the plainest terms you can they 'l ask you what you mean. wonder what you would be at They neither know the nature of the substance nor the accidents they know not whether Transubstantiation be contrary to sense or no and yet they still will tell a man it contradicts their senses 'T is very hard in such a case as this if they who do not understand Philosophy may tell us we deny our senses and they who understand it may not be allow'd to tell them fairly they are very much mistaken Mistakes in matters of religion are dangerous And certainly so much Philosophy as is needfull to set us right cannot but be allowable when such mistakes as these proceed from want of understanding it I shall conclude this part of my discourse with shewing in as easie terms as the matter will bear that t is impossible for any of our senses to give evidence against our faith of Transubstantiation If we believd that Transubstantiation were a sensible change a change of any thing that is sensible in the bread wine then indeed our senses being judges of sensible things might easily give evidence against our faith They might depose that nothing sensible is chang'd but that all things sensible remain the same as formerly they were and no man could deny but that our Faith would contradict our Senses But on the contrary if we do not believe that Transubstantiation is a sensible change if we believe no change of any thing which is sensible then truly our senses not being judges of insensible things cannot give evidence against us they cannot depose that no insensible thing is chang'd because insensible matters fall not within their cognizance and therefore whether they are chang'd or not is more than they can tell If there should happen a dispute concerning difference of colours whether they are chang'd or not Would you remit it to the arbitration of five blind men Since therefore the dispute betwixt us is about the insensible difference of substance whether it be chang'd or not How can our senses give their sentiment one way or other either for it or against it This argument is so convincing that it will not bear the least appearance of a solid Answer and withall so plain that any man without Philosophy may clearly understand it To which I shall only add a word or two more to put a stop to all the cavills which may possibly arise from the diversity of schoolmen's fancies T is evident that the Catholick Church by the substance which is believ'd to be chang'd in the Sacrament dos not understand any thing that is sensible in bread wine The Council of Trent in the 2. Canon of the 13. Session supposes as a certain undoubted truth that all things sensible remain the same manentibus speciebus panis vini And in the 1. ch of the same Session tells us that the body blood of Christ are contain'd under them sub specie illarum rerum sensibilium T is true the Council dos not offer to define what substance is it dos not tell us what it understands by substance it meddles not with definitions of Philosophy but only definitions of Faith determining what Truths were first deliver'd to the Church by Christ his Apostles But though we know not in particular what 't was the Council meant by substance This we know for certain that it meant not any of those sensible things but only that insensible subsistent Being which is hidden under them And this is enough to silence all disputes about the Evidence of Sense Let who will tell us that the substances of bread wine are sensible we always shall have this to say That if by substance they mean something which is sensible the Council dos not mean the same They mean one sort of substance The Council means another therefore all their arguments from evidence of sense are every one misplac'd they are levell'd against a chimerical Transubstantiation of their own invention and not against that which the Council has defin'd In a word if any Transubstantiation be contrary to sense Let them look to 't we are not at all concern'd in the matter such a Transubstantiation is not ours but theirs I humbly recommend this to your serious thoughts undertake to prove that Transubstantiation is not contrary to Reason in the second part of my Discourse SECOND PART The Oracles of Holy Scripture in the book of Iob assure us * 36.26 God is great and we know him not As we do not know him so we do not know his power and therefore it is written in the following chapter * 37.5 He dos great things which we cannot comprehend His works are great we cannot comprehend them But hence it dos not follow that they are impossible because He can do great things which we cannot comprehend We all of us agree that mysteries of Faith are far above the reach of Reason but 't is our great misfortune and one of the worst effects of our original Corruption That though we thus agree in generalls yet in the examen of particulars we easily confound their being above Reason with their being contrary and presently conclude them contrary because they are above it All this proceeds from nothing but a secret pride or vanity which make us willing to suppose that we are wiser than we are that we comprehend the secret Natures of things understand clearly the essentiall constitution of their Beings see evidently all the attributes appropriated to them all the qualities irreconcileably repugnant to their natures Supposing this we readily pronounce This is impossible That cannot be This is a meer chimera That 's a contradiction And all this while reflect not that we may perhaps be very much mistaken in our arbitrary notions from whence we draw so easily these bold Conclusions We do not consider the History as well as Theory of Natural Philosophy if we did we should find such strange varieties alterations in it as would demonstrate the uncertainty of of all its principles Corpuscular Philosophy was well enough received in ancient times under Democritus Epicurus Afterwards it was in a manner quite laid by Aristotle's Notions succeeded in the place And now the world begins to seem unsatisfied his matter form his quantity qualities begin to look a little out of countenance and the Corpuscular Philosophy
they promise we are always ready to come over to them But having been so long in full peaceable possession of a Truth deliver'd to us as an ancient article of Faith they cannot reasonably expect that we should quit our hold before they bring clear evidence against our Title to it Necessity obliges them to make this bold attempt They know if once they grant that all the Torrent of Antiquity runs clear and strong against them they never can be able to bear up against the stream They are sensible how plainly the Fathers speak their mind in favour of this mystery And therefore search amongst the darkest passages of all their Writings where they are glad to meet with any thing that makes a plausible appearance * The Sum of their Objection is this that S. Chrysostom Theodoret and Gelasius expressly affirm that the substance of bread remains after Consecration and therefore it is not chang'd into the body of Christ * This at first sight seems plausible enough nor is it any wonder if it startle those who never heard of it before And yet if all these great Men by their substance meant no more than the true nature of the outward forms sensible qualities there is no danger of their disbelieving Transubstantiation We believe the substance is really chang'd and these Fathers were pleas'd to say the substance is really the same but yet after all the noise they make with it the Fathers and we may agree so far as to be both in the right if we take the same word in different senses they by substance mean one thing whilst we mean another Philosophy both old new distinguishes betwixt the inward substance the outward forms of all corporeal Beings These are the usual and familiar object of our Senses that 's an entity so subtil so metaphysical that nothing but our Understanding can discern it T is not indeed a Spirit but it is no more to be discover'd by our Senses than a human Soul is in a Body Extension figure colour and its other qualities are the Apparel which it wears and these affect our Senses But the naked Substance of all Bodies is perpetually hidden from them However although Philosophers make this distinction betwixt the inward substance the outward forms nevertheless the Generality of Mankind look no farther than their Senses lead them They judge of bodies by their qualities natural effects By these they sensibly discern one Substance from another And this is all they think of when they talk of Substance When any of the Fathers say the Substance or nature of bread wine remains after consecration they onely condescend so far as to accomodate their way of speaking to the vulgar phrase And truly what they mean we all believe We doubt not but all which is vulgarly understood by substance is the same We doubt not but our Senses tell us truth and that all the outward forms qualities of bread wine remain unalter'd The Council of Trent declares there is no change in these * Sess 13. can 2. manentibus speciebus panis vini If therefore the Fathers use sometimes this vulgar notion of Substance what wonder is it if sometimes they tell us that the nature or the Substance is the same What wonder is it if S. Chrysostom in his epistle to Cesarius write thus As before Consecration we call it Bread but after it is no longer call'd Bread but the Body of our Lord although the Nature of Bread remains in it and it dos not become two Bodies but one Body of Christ So here the Divine Nature being joyn'd to the Human they both make one Son one Person By the Nature of a Body we usually aprehend no more than the exteriour qualities which we discover by our Senses And when we find a change in these we usually say the Nature changes although the Body still remain the same And by the same rule when the accidents make still the same impression upon our Senses although the Body by a miracle be chang'd we say the Nature is the same Besides These very words which are produc'd against us shew clearly that S Chrysostom distinguishes betwixt the Nature of bread the Body of bread Dos not he say that although the Nature or accidents of Bread remain yet the Body or Substance of bread dos not remain because there remains but One Body and this one Body if we believe him is not the Body of bread but the Body of Christ * With as little reason they triumph because Theodoret says in his 2. Dialogue The mystical Symboles remain in their former Substance form figure may be seen toucht as before And Gelasius in his book De duabus in Christo naturis says the Substance or Nature of bread wine dos not cease .... they remain in the propriety of their Nature * Theodoret dos not speak of the corporeal Substance of bread by which it differs from a Spirit but expressly names the mystical Symboles which are the outward forms accidents of bread wine And Gelasius urging the same argument against the Eutychians uses the word Substance only once and the word Nature twice to let us see that by the Substance of the mystical Symboles or as he calls them the Sacraments which we receive he only means the nature or the essence of the sensible Accidents * And now I desire to know what wonder there is in all this Is it any unheard of News to Men of Letters that such words as substance nature essence are promiscuously made use of even by Philosophers and that by them they mean to signifie the notion of any other predicament or any real being as well as that of substance S. Austin was undoubtedly a great Philosopher yet He calls every real Being by the name of Substance In his Enarration upon the 68. Psalm he says Quod nulla substantia est nihil omnino est That which has no substance is nothing at all * If this be true you 'l say their argument against the Eutychians will be good for nothing Excuse me The Eutychians held that there was onely One Nature in Christ because they were pleas'd to fancy that his human nature was absorpt in the Divinity chang'd into it To prove the substantial change of human nature into the Divinity they argued from the miraculous change of bread into the body of Christ which argument they never would have urged if they had not known that the Catholicks of that Age believ'd the mystery of Transubstantiation Theodoret and Gelasius answer that the outward forms of bread wine remain the same as formerly from whence it follows evidently that not only the accidents of human nature but also the very subsiance of it still remains in Christ Because the accidents of human nature separated from the substance of it are neither capable of hypostatick union with God nor of exercising the vital
upon the Confirmation chang'd their joy into grief All the Officers complain'd of the losses they should receive in their offices if that Reformation were executed ... Supplications also Memorials were given to the Pope by those who having bought their Offices foreseeing this loss demanded restitution ... The Pope having diligently consider'd thereof deputed eight Cardinals to consult upon the Confirmation to think upon some remedies for the complaints of the Court ... He concludes It is certain that they who did procure the Council had no aim but to pull down the Pope's Authority And while the Council did last every one did speak as if it had power to give Laws to him After all you think to mortifie me with objecting that the corruptions of the Court the abuses tolerated in the Church are at great as ever But you must give me leave to tell you 1. I am not obliged to take your bare word for 't 2. Whether it be true or false 't is nothing to my present purpose If false you are to blame for saying so If true 't is none of the Council's fault Having proceeded legally having made good Laws the Council has done its part 't is ours to do the rest My business is to defend the Council I have nothing to do to rake the dunghill of the Church Has the Decalogue less Authority because the greatest part of mankind are so disobedient Or is the Ghospel less Sacred because there are so few who live according to the maxims of it If this be the onely reason why you Protest against the Council of Trent because the Decrees of Reformation are not every where in all things punctually observ'd I see no reason why you may not with as good a grace Protest against the Ghospel the Ten Commandments I have now done with your Objections And although I am not of the Poet's mind that Brevity is always good be it or be it not understood Yet I have endeavour'd to be as short as possibly I could because when I deal with a man of your parts a word is enough to the wise few words are best As for Soave whom you so much admire I desire to ask you a few questions before I tell you what I think of him Suppose a mortal enemy of yours should Libel you by the way of History call you Rogue Rascal in the very Preface and at the same time perswade his Reader that he follows exactly the truth Would you have me take this Author for an Oracle Would you not think me reasonable if I suspected almost every word he said And ought not I to do the Council as much Justice as I would my Friend T is certain that Soave was a mortal enemy of the Council In the very beginning he declares it He says * p. 2. it has caused the greatest deformation that ever was calls it the Iliad of the Age which is as kind a compliment to the Fathers as if he had call'd them a pack of Villains He tells us indeed in the same place that he is not possess'd with any passion which may make him erre and this was well enough said But how shall a body do to believe him If it were your own case I 'm sure you would not like my being credulous And how do I know but that an Enemy of the Council may deserve as little credit as an Enemy of yours Another reason why I do not like him is because he takes upon him to write men's private thoughts with as much assurance as he writes their words and actions He hardly ever speaks of any intelligence coming to Rome but he entertains his Reader with a pleasant Scene in which he brings the Pope alone upon the Stage discoursing with himself his secret apprehensions deliberations upon every matter such thoughts as no wise man would trust his neighbour with although he were the best surest friend he had in the world How Soave could possibly come to any certain knowledg of such things I am not able to comprehend And truly if a man in one case will tell me more than he can know I have just reason to be afraid that in another he 'l tell me more than he dos know A third reason which weighs more with me than all the rest is this You tell me on the one side He was a Popish Frier And on the other I cannot believe but that although perhaps for some reasons he did not openly profess it He was really a Protestant It appears so plainly by his censuring the Decrees of Doctrine as well as those of Reformation by the severe reflections of his own which he intermixes with those of the Lutheran Criticks that I do not conceive how any man of sense who reads him with attention can be of another opinion Had he been a barefaced Protestant I should be more inclined to believe him There is something of integrity honour in a man that openly professes what he is And although passion prejudice may blind him yet I am apt to think that such a person will never deceive me more than he deceives himself But a Protestant that lives dies in the profession of a Popish Frier How can I believe his words when the most serious of his actions are only so many lies For my own part I would as soon make choice of a Catholick Jew to comment upon the Ghospel to write the life of Christ as I would choose a Protestant Frier to write the History of a General Council Before I end my Letter give me leave once more to mind you of the Discourse we had when we saw one another last We both agreed that * C. II. p. 1. it were a very irrational thing to make Laws for a Country leave it to the inhabitants to be the Interpreters Judges of those Laws for then every man will be his own Judge by consequence no such thing as either Right or Wrong that * ibid. therefore we cannot suppose that God Almighty would leave us at those Uncertainties as to give us a Rule to go by leave every man to be his own Judge that * ib. Christ left his Spirit Power to his Church by which they were the Judges even of the Scripture it self many years after the Apostles which Books were Canonical which were not that * ibid. p. 2. the Judgment of the Church is without Appeal otherwise what they decide would be no farther to be follow'd than it agrees with every man's private Judgment that because in the Apostles Creed we believe in the Holy Catholick Church therefore we ought to believe in the first four General Councils which were true legal Representatives of it And lastly that if the Council of Trent were prov'd to be as General as free as legal in all it's circumstances as any of the first four Councils were then you must needs own your self obliged in Conscience to submit to it to leave of Protesting against it This last part I have here endeavour'd to prove out of Soave himself your own Historian who always makes the worst of things never speaks a favourable word but when the Power of Truth constrains him to it If I have not perform'd according to expectation 't is your own fault who are to blame for having a better opinion of me than I deserve I am no Doctor nor Graduate but every way unfit to be a Champion of the Cause Yet having receiv'd your Commands I have just reason to expect that you will easily pardon a man who in this occasion is guilty of no other crime than being ready to shew himself Your Obedient Servant N. N. Sept. 22. 1686. Page 70. line 1. read rewarded p. 75. * 4. r. ch 14. p. 76. l. 8. r. his 9. book p. 85. l. 26. r. many p. 86. l. 29. r. the year 831. p. 89. l. 8. dele de p. 114. l. 21. r. his 2. book p. 152. l 27. r. shut out p. 161. l. 6. r. it has p. 165. l. 1. r. your p. 168. l. 5. r. haereticis p. 172. l. 3. dele an p. 176. l. 26. r. in this p. 189. l. 22. r. to Basil p. 190. l. 9. r. the case ibid. l. 13. r. HAERETICIS p. 194. l. 1. r. another p. 225. l. 3. r. Charles II. p. 240. * 2. r. 590. FINIS