Point then indeed this Instance would be impertinent But we must not thus leave our admirable Author for from this his well consider'd Doctrine we may observe 1. That according to this Rule there can never be Schism or Heresie in the World until a man can divide from himself or a man condemning himself obstinately stand out against his clear Evidence of Scripture and so sin wilfully and without excuse and in this last Point Bishop Bromhall and Dr. Still unanimously concur with our Author Now believing in Charity that these wonders have seldom or never hapned therefore I ought to conclude that St. Paul mistook when he said 1 Cor. 11.19 There must be Heresies among you and St. John much to blame when he wrote his Gospel many years after the death of our Saviour against the Heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus 2. That all Men of understanding whether learned or unlearned are in the direct road to Heaven and found Members of the true Catholic Church provided they be lovers of God and of Truth and follow their own Sense of Scripture altho they differ in some of the most Fundamental Points of Faith Now besides the extravagancy of this Opinion in general it seems particularly levell'd against the poor Papists because they often submit their own private Interpretations with great reason to the Judgment and Interpretation of the Church But if this be so damnable a fault in Papists pray take care not to exact this resignation from your own Subjects and so farewel to Authority 3. And Lastly That there are some ambiguous Terms which lie indifferent between divers Senses whereof the one is true and the other false This we readily grant for the truth of it is so manifest that there is never a Point in the Câ—â—istian Faith howsoever by you and us esteem'd Fundamental but hath been denied by whole Bodies of Learned Men who as you do made Scripture their Rule But when you tell us further that the true Sense of them is not necessary to Faith or Salvation for if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known why should he speak obscurely Then methinks Fathers you not only make the Apostles write Impertinently and to no purpose but you have brought all sorts of Sectaries Schismatics and Heretics if any such have been and also the Turks themselves provided they read the Scripture within the Pale of the Christian Church Nay more you have made them in such Case equal with the best true Members in it And indeed if the good wishes and prayers of our Teckelites might prevail as much on one side as the Principles of your Champion have capacitated the Turks on the other side I know no reason they have to despair of seeing the Cathedral of St. Paul Consecrated by the Mufti of Mahomet By this time most Reverend Fathers I should think that you as well as my self should be very weary of this Learned Author Being fixt therefore to my Authority and the more from the Eminent danger of his loose and pernitious Principles I am resolved that nothing shall move me except the absur'd and monstrous Doctrine of Transubstantiation as you are pleas'd to call it may have of it self force enough to ruine and overturn so solid a Foundation REMARKS Upon some late DISCOURSES AGAINST Transubstantiation I Must confess that this great Point seem'd the most difficult to me of any that are Controverted between the two Churches and for these Reasons First because I did not rightly apprehend the Catholic Explication of the Natural Body of Christ in the Sacrament Secondly Because from this misunderstanding of mine I believed that the Body of Christ being in two places at the same time imply'd a contradiction which I suppos'd the Omnipotency of God could not support And lastly because I thought the Fathers had been express against this Doctrine I apply'd my self to the reading of Controversies and discoursing with some Learned Men on both sides and found first from the Catholics That altho they Profess and Believe the Natural Body of Christ to be truly and substantially in the Sacrament yet they tell us That it is not there after a Natural manner as it was upon the Earth or upon the Cross but after a Spiritual Supernatural and Vnbloody manner Secondly That it is indeed a Contradiction to say a Body is here and not here at the same time but to say that the Glorified Body of Christ may be by accident and by the power of God in many places or ubi's at the same time is so far from a Contradiction that it gives it not a more sovereign Existence than what we allow to Angels or to the Soul in a Mans Body which altho it be a Substance is yet really substantially and at the same time totally in the Finger of a Man and totally in his foot and totally in every part and yet totally in the whole Body tota in toto tota in qualibe parte And Lastly for the Fathers I found in them not only most plain demonstrable and Invincible Authorities asserting the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament after a substantial manner but also that those very Citations produc'd by Protestants to destroy this Doctrine of the Real Presence were most of them if not all so fully answer'd or so agreable to the Catholic Faith that if any of them remain'd still obscure there wanted not twenty plain places to Interpret them by But more of these hereafter Here I consider'd the Protestant Arguments against this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and found them generally dissatisfactory and insufficient chiefly upon this account that they brought continually the same Objections which tho they had been answer'd a hundred times over by Catholics both Ancient and Modern yet I found no Reply tothese Answers or at least such as handled those which were most material so that I perceiv'd they danc't always in a Ring without advancing a step towards a substantial and convincing Demonstration At last I was recommended to a late Discourse against Transubstantiation which treating particularly of that Subject and being wrote as I was inform'd by an Eminent Protestant Divine I resolv'd to pitch upon that and from thence take my Measures how far I ought to receive this great Catholic Doctrine I read it over and over with great attention and before I speak particularly of any thing contained in it I think it Just to give this Character of it in general viz. that it seems to be writ without Modesty Charity Sincerity or Good Manners Without Modesty In that a private Person upon presumption of his own Parts and Learning shall dare to ridicule so great a Mystery of the Christian Religion I speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament according to the Doctrine of Catholics and Lutherans excluding at present the Mode as they term it or Manner Transubstantiation and this Doctrine own'd and profest not two Hundred years since generally through the Christian
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
Martyr Anno Dom. 203. Now Fathers besides these great Marks of the true Catholic Church I perceived also that according to the Command and Institution of our Saviour his Vicegerent here did send out his Disciples Preaching and Baptizing through all Nations Insomuch that since Gregory the Great before whose time you tell us that this Holy Church began to fall there have been converted to the Christian Faith otherwise call'd the Roman Catholic Faith neer Thirty great Kingdoms or Provinces among which Our Saxon Ancestors help to make up the number besides infinite multitudes in the East and West Indies And so much pains should be taken in obedience to our Saviours commands and promise of his assistance so much blood of holy Martyrs spilt and all this to bring Heathens and Pagans from the worship of their false Gods into another Idolatrous and damnably corrupted Religion may possibly to your Reasons appear consistent with the Mercy and Goodness of Almighty God but pray excuse me if I tell you that to my Reason it seems altogether repugnant but this is matter of Opinion Having got thus far toward that Sovereign Ecclesiastical Authority in Matters of Faith absolutely necessary to Salvation and believing according to the strongest Evidences of Sense and Reason that it must be in the Church of Rome or no where which last Opinion must dissolve that whole Fabrick against which our Saviour promis'd the gates of Hell should not prevail I resolved to make yet one step further and enquire Whether this Ancient Catholic and Apostolic Church could have so far forfeited her great Priviledges and Prerogatives by the practice of damnable Doctrines and pernicious Errors of which your selves and others have most greivously accused her as to render her not only unworthy of the name and Title to which She pretends but also to make her Communion most unsafe and desperately dangerous to all honest and pious Christians I confess Fathers when I consider'd what some of your selves had often told me and what I found in many of your Eminent Authors concerning the late Innovation of those Doctrines controverted between the two Churches I began to have hard thoughts of the present Roman Catholic Communion Much more when enquiring how late these Doctrines were introduced into the Church you generally told me that they were not impos'd upon the Faithful before the Council of Trent which hath not been ended much above an Hundred and twenty three years But when I compar'd the date of your Reformation with that of this Council I plainly perceiv'd that the protesting against these Errors was begun and well nigh perfected before these Errours were as you say then impos'd which tho it seem'd somewhat strange and might have past with others for a reasonable Answer to this Objection of Novelty yet I resolv'd to peruse the Councils themselves and de point en point note the time when these Doctrines were in Council Establisht 1. I began with the Popes Supremacy which I found confirm'd in the Council of Chalcedon Act. 16. one of the first four General Councils own'd by Protestants above Twelve Hundred years since Six Hundred and thirty Fathers present and about the year of our Lord 451. and relation had to the first Council of Nice Can. 6. This Supremacy also allow'd profest and taught by the most Ancient Fathers after the Apostles and confest so to have been by Melancton Luther Bucer Bilson Dr. Cooper Bunny Fulk Middleton Osiander the Centurists and many others too long to mention 2. Those Books which you call Apocrypha were taken into the Canon of the Old Testament in the Third Council of Carthage Signed by St. Augustin Baruch only not named because an Appendix to Jeremiah whose Secretary he was Can. 47. 3. The unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass in the Sixth Council of Constantinople a Thousand years since Can. 32. And also in the Ninth Council of the Apostles Decreed That a Bishop c. shall communicate when Sacrifice is made 4. Veneration and worship of Saints Relicks according to Apostolical Tradition as also of Martyrs and holy Images in the Second Council of Nice Three Hundred and Fifty Fathers present Act. 3. Anno Dom. 780. See more in Act 7. With the general Concurrences of Ancient Fathers 5. Communion under one kind sufficient in the Council of Constance Sess 13. and practis'd in the Church Twelve Hundred years since 6. Purgatory and many more too long to relate in the Council of Florence and believed in the Primitive times 7. And lastly the Doctrine of Transubstantiation confirmed in the great Council of Lateran in which neer Thirteen Hundred Fathers assisted And in Seven or Eight other Councils before that of Trent and all the controverted Points particularly and by name declared by some of your selves to have been brought into England by Augustin the Monk above a Thousand years since Indeed Fathers when I had diligently examin'd this Truth and found it most Evident beyond the possibility of any just or reasonable Contradiction I was much scandaliz'd at the disingenuity of your Writers who whilst they accuse others of Fallacy Imposture and Impudence dare advance so great and demonstrable a Falsehood in Matter of Fact that nothing but Ignorance can excuse them so they expose themselves to the greatest Censure of rashness and indiscretion as uncharitable and unjust to those whom they call their Enemies as also unsafe and abusing the Credulity of their Friends It will not consist with the Brevity here intended to speak fully of every particular Point in dispute between us I shall content my self therefore to affirm as I do that there are but few of them which have not been tolerated and practis'd more or less by some Eminent Members of the Reformed Churches and which have not undeniable Authority and Antiquity to support them I shall fix therefore upon two only and consider how far they may bear and appear reasonable to an Impartial Reader 1. The Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Catholic Church 2. The Doctrine of Transubstanpiation For the two firsts I think them so necessarily involv'd one within the other that in proving one we prove both for if the Supream lawful Ecclesiastical Authority resides in the Church of Rome as representing in its General Councils the Catholic Church assembled then we have the promise of our Saviour that his holy Spirit shall ever assist them and guide them into all Truth This I believe not only with a Popish but with a Protestant Faith for you have always told me and I think you do not now deny it that the Catholic Church cannot err in Fundamentals or hold the Faith corrupt the difficulty only lies in finding the Chatholic Church which to avoid some unlucky consequences that might disturb your quiet you prudently tell us Is not certainly to be found It remains therefore that we find this Supream lawful Authority which represents the visible Catholic Church I have given you my Judgment already And that
you may not believe I have err'd through Popish Affectation I will produce also for my Justification the sound Judgment of your best Reformers Luther tells us I do not deny but that the Bishop of Rome is Resp tred propos hath been and ought to be first of all I believe he is above all other Bishops it is not lawful to deny his Supremacy Melancton the Phaenix of learning says That the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church Epist ad Card. Belay that it is his Office to Judge in Controversies to govern to watch over the Priests to keep all Nations in Conformity and Vnity of Doctrines Somaisius The Pope of Rome hath been without controversie the first Metropolitan of Italy and not only in Italy nor only in the West but in all the World The other Metropolitans have been Chief in their respective Districts but the Pope of Rome Tract ad Sermondum hath been Metropolitan and Primate not only of some particular Diocess but of All. Grotius for whom I have a great respect and think him a very learned Man says the same thing and proves this Supremacy belongs to the Pope de Jure divino Annot. Sup. Nov. Test This also inferr'd from Episcopal Government by Jacob Cartwright Husse Beza and many others Now Fathers you cannot say but these Eminent Protestants were Men of great Learning and that they had searcht and understood Scripture and History as well as your selves and if my Judgment concurs with them in this Point as I profess it doth then have I found that lawful Supream Authority which I searched and where this Authority is there is Infallibility Or if you can shew me Infallibility elsewhere there also I am sure I will believe a sufficient Authority The differences between them I cannot easily discern Infallibility is from God and therefore we believe what is dictated thereby as from God Supream Ecclesiastical Authority is also from God and therefore we obey what it commands us as the Ordinance of God Infallibility concludes our Reasons and binds our Consciences Supream Church Authority binds also our Consciences and Supersedes all private Reason Infallibility is above all humane Authority The highest Church Authority can have no such Authority upon Earth above it Infallibility establisheth and supports Authority Authority declares and makes manifest the Infallibility Infallibility and the Promises of Christ fail when Authority is destroy'd Authority lives not when Infallibility ceaseth In a word were there no Infallibility as I believe there is I would still submit my Reason and regulate my Conscience according to the Decrees of the Supream lawful Ecclesiastical Authority This is my Belief pray blame me not I am humble and have read Scripture and upon my word I am Sincere You may believe otherwise I presume not to Judge you After all this worthy Fathers I must not forget to tell you that I still lay under some Difficulties before I could throughly assent to this Authority now believ'd in the Church of Rome For you had often told me that She had fallen from her Primitive Purity and separated her self from that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Answ to Prot. Quaeries p. 10. Declar'd also to be Antichristian and the true Church Latent and Invisible by that famous Napper to King James Brocard Fulk Sebast Francus Hospinian and many others Now good Fathers if She was once a pure and uncorrupted Church I presume She remains so still for give me leave to tell you I do not well see how She can separate from her self for Mr. Chillingworth an Eminent Author among you lookt upon it as a thing ridiculous if not impossible for says he In the Case of the Church of England p. 174. We have not forsaken but only reformed another part of it the Catholic Church which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion Nor yet can She separate from the Catholic Church for the same Learned person tells us immediately after And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore were separated from the whole I say it follows not inasmuch as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves But next supposing a part may separate from it self or from the whole pray be plain with me worthy Fathers and tell me where that part or that whole remain'd from whence the Church of Rome separated For Separation first supposes the Existence of the thing from which Separation is made and is a deadly fault and foretold by the Apostles as a mischief which would happen in the last days Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ how that they told you that there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts these be they who Separated themselves sensual Jude v. 17 18 19. having not the Spirit Let us confider one another to provoke unto love and to good works Heb. 10.24 not forgetting the assembling our selves together and so much the more Act. 20.30 as ye see the day approaching Also of your selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them Now the Church of Rome was not only visible but a very Eminent Church St. Paul tells us Rom. 1. That her Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World And certainly that pure Church frâ—m which She Separated must needs be by so much the more Eminent as Her Apostacy was notorious which forsook her Tell me therefore where that pure Church remain'd that we may retrieve the true Christian Doctrine If she Separated from her self then besides Mr. Chill answer I add these Contradictions must be reciev'd as Truths The Church of Rome was at the same time Orthodox and Heterodox pure and corrupt sound but yet rotten Or if you can distinguish them shew me the Orthodox Pure and Sound part which was left by the Heterodox corrupt and rotten Church of Rome declare the time when the Separation was made and where both were to be found These are plain Questions and I must have a plain Answer if it can be had If you say She Separated from the Catholic Church then tell me where that Catholic Church remain'd from which She Separated and where She may be found for in good faith Fathers my Salvation is highly concern'd in this Question and I must be satisfied If you tell me She is invisible as others have done you plainly abuse me for I have long since learnt from your selves as a Maxim in Philosophy that de non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio It is the same thing not at all to be as not at all to appear Besides excuse me if I take the word of our Saviour and his Apostles and all the
surprising Doctrines that they make a Man gape and stare as if he were Thunder struck or had some strange Apparition Why truly your great Champion the Learned Chillingworth brings you still off with flying Colours I 'l give you his own Excellent words in p. 102. Where he says For me to believe further this or that to be the true sense of some Scriptures or to believe the true sense of them and to avoid the false is not necessary either to my Faith or Salvation for if God would have had his meaning in these places certainly known how could it stand with his Wisdom to be wanting to his own Will and End as to speak obscurely Or how can it consist with his Justice to require of Men to know certainly the meaning of those words which he himself hath not revealed p. 18. For my Error or Ignorance in what is not plainly contained in Scripture after my best endeavour used to say that God will damn me for such Errors who am a lover of Him and lover of Truth is to rob Man of his Comfort and God of his Goodness is to make Man desperate and God a Tyrant But he goes on p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule as sufficiently Perfect so sufficiently Intelligible in things necessary to all who have understanding whether learned or unlearned neither is any thing necessary to be believed but what is plainly reveal'd for to say that when a place in Scripture by reason of ambiguous Terms lies indifferent between divers Senses whereof one is true and the other false that God obligeth men under pain of damnation not to mistake through Error and humane Frailty is to make God a Tyrant and to say that he requires of us certainly to attain that End for the attaining whereof we have no certain means What an easie compendious and certain Rule of Faith is this But before we proceed let us consider what our Author understands by His meaning in these places speaking obscurely plainly contain'd in Scripture things necessary ambiguous Terms lying indifferent between divers Senses By all which he seems to insinuate that there may be some ambiguous Terms in Scripture which because they are not plain to every Understanding therefore not necessary to be truly understood and believ'd Indeed had he told us what was not ambiguous and what not necessary he had made our work much shorter I shall presume therefore to reduce the Question and affirm that if he means any thing by all this he must mean the whole New Testament to be ambiguous for let him shew me any one Text of Doctrine from the first of St. Matthew to the last of the Revelations the Moral Law and the Law of Nature only excepted which he thinks to be the most clear and I will produce whole Bodies of learned Christians who dispute it and believe contrary to one another in it If so then it appears demonstrably and by matter of Fact that all is ambiguous and by consequence every Man is safe in the Belief of the most opposite Doctrines if he useth his best Endeavours to which also he hath given a great Latitude to understand it aright For says he By my best endeavour I mean such a measure of industry as humane Prudence and ordinary Discretion my abilities and opportunities my distractions and hindrances and all other things consider'd marry and a great consideration it is shall advise me unto in a matter of such consequence Chill p. 18.19 The whole Sense as far as it concerns my purpose runs thus There are some ambiguous Terms which lie indifferent between divers Senses whereof one is true and the other false but if a Man of understanding whether learn'd or unlearn'd uses his best endeavour to understand them that is by reading Scripture he will safely Err or not Err at all or else God is a Tyrant That there are ambiguous Terms is most certain for we find many most Learned Pious Men differing from and contradicting one another in most Points generally reputed Fundamental Secondly That in Fundamentals no man can safely Err because it is of the Essence of Christs Church to hold the Unity of Faith in Fundamentals uncorrupt And Lastly Most Christians are inclined to believe that God is no Tyrant Our Author from his own Promises and by what hath been already said seems evidently to draw this Conclusion that possibly and very probably a Man may safely Err in Fundamentals or God must be a Tyrant Now for my part when I read his excellent Works lately and some years since I always drew from the same Premises a most different Consequence that is That since there are ambiguous Terms in Points highly Fundamental therefore lest we should damnably Err in these or more impiously think God to be a Tyrant I concluded that God in his Wisdom and Goodness had certainly left us some infallible visible Authority which might unerringly deliver to us the true Sense of these ambiguous Terms Now besides the strong Evidences which we have from Scripture to believe this As for Example when our Saviour says Go ye into all the World Mark 16.15 and Preach the Gospel to every Creature He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned As thou hast sent me into the world John 17.18 even so have I also sent them into the world And again 1 Cor. 12.28 God hath set some in the Church first Apostles Secondarily Prophets Thirdly Teachers after that Miracles then gifts of healing helps Governments Ephes 14.11 diversities of Tongues So also And he gave some Apostles some Prophets some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers And Lastly that this Authority was to continue to the End of the Word All power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth go ye therefore and teach all Nations Mat. c. ult teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you and lo I am with you always even unto the End of of the World I say besides this and much more to this purpose let all sober Christians witness for me whether it be not more pious more rational more comfortable to our selves and respectful to God to conclude as I have done that God hath left us such an Authority especially since such an Authority with good Reason offers it self to us than to agree with our Author That either God is a Tyrant or we may safely Err in Fundamentals Since therefore from our Authors own Premises notwithstanding the weight and plainness of them I should have made so contrary a Conclusion it may happen that in reading the Bible we might make as different Interpretations and whilst he believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God Consubstantial and Equal with the Father as to his Divinity I may affirm Christ to be meer Man and only Divinely Inspired Such things I have heard of but it may be worthy Fathers you may not think this a necessary
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 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
as the other But if he goes on he would hereby make us believe That 't is all one whether Christ be adored as supposed here by the Lutherans in this holy Eucharist and as imagined there by the Papists P. 100. I must then deny his Assertion What ill luck is this but why Truly because the one offers more violence to the Senses than the other I could wish our Answerer would offer less violence to his own and his Readers Senses for what have Senses to do with an equal supposition of Christs Invisible Presence tho after a different manner For Instance Suppose one man should adore Christ under a Veil believing that that which Supported the Veil was the real Natural Body of Christ the other equally ador'd Christ under the some Veil but upon the Supposition that Christs Natural Body was under it or with it but together with some other Substance which totally Supported this Veil would not any Man judge that the first is at least as excusable as the latter But Secondly He tells us That the Lutheran do undoubtedly right in the object and in that he is not mistaken But the Papist altho' he terminates his Adoration upon the same Object Christ as supposed really Present and no otherwise would adore yet he is mistaken so the one only adores Christ as in a place where he is not the other as in a thing in which he is not and this makes the vast difference A difference there is I confess for one adores nothing for Christ the other Christ believed in or under something but both upon the same Supposition of Christs Invisible Presence and this is the State of the Case in Short The question is Whether they be both equally excusable or guilty of Idolatry Here the Answerer passeth Sentence clearly against the Papist but had he writ less and closer he would not surely have so easily forgot what himself from Bishop Taylor was pleas'd to urge in p. 68. Where he lays it down for a Rule and gives reasons for it That to worship Christ where he is not is to worship nothing a Non Ens which must needs be Idolatry Well but still it may be the Bishop says the Answerer does not intend to exclude the Corpus Domini but only the Corporal or Natural manner of that Body Let us therefore hear how he goes on P. 69. for Idolum nihil est in Mundo saith St. Paul and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament or with the Sacrament is a Non Ens For it is not true there is no such thing What says the Answerer not as Christ there no way as to his Humane Nature No he is saith the Bishop present there by his Divine Power and his Divine Blessing c. But for any other Presence it is Idolum It is nothing in the World It seems then to worship nothing for Christ in the Bishops Judgment produc'd by the Answerer is Idolatry The Question is only concerning Idolatry therefore sure both are equally culpable or equally innocent of that Crime What a deal of Stuff then hath our Answerer heapt up to no other purpose than to snew himself a partial Scribler Let him not be offended then if I most justly apply to himself what he produces in reference to another P. 96. That for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning it hath the least in it of any I ever met with But I leave the Learned Oxford Discourser to manage his own Defence against this Answerer if he shall think it worthy of a thought The last publick Enemy to Transubstantiation that I shall mention is The Defender of the Dublin Letter I must confess he seems to be a Man of Learning and Judgment tho equally unknown to me as the rest but because his Defence depends chiefly upon the Authorities of Fathers whose Sense I humbly conceive he mistakes or misapplies I shall endeavour to reconcile them in the Conclusion to other expressions of the Fathers and all to the Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation Thus Reverend Fathers I have made such particular Remarks upon these Authors against Transubstantiation as I thought necessary toward the clearing our way to the right understanding of that great Mystery and if I have said ought which might hitherto offend you or them I know not how to ask your Pardons for as being ignorant of their Persons I can have no malice towards them so when I find Men writing magisterially and pragmatically against Learned Men and Christian Doctrines when as I believe they are themselves in the wrong I thought it a part of my Duty to present the Glass to them that by seeing how ill their Reflections appear they might call to mind that admirable Rule of Justice and Equity Quod tibi non vis fieri alteri ne feceris The CONCLVSION HAving endeavour'd to remove some prejudices against the Doctrine of Transubstantiation which every Author had kept as particular Reserves over and above those Vulgar Objections which are common to them all I should now totally apply my self to the reconciling part and I have made some considerable Progress in it but finding that I have already exceeded the limits which I at first proposed to my self and that the weightiness of this Subject together with the variety of Objections against it and of Opinions concerning it will engage me in a larger Discourse than is proper for this time and place I resolv'd to make a Treatise of it by it self and this I am the rather inclin'd to do because we may probably see something of this kind in public done by a better hand which likely may save both you and me a further labor I shall content my self therefore at present to say something in General and for Particulars must refer you to what I further design if need require and God shall enable us The main Objections against Transubstantiation are chiefly these two I. That the natural Body of Christ cannot be in several places at the same time II. That it is against the Evidences of our Senses to believe that what we see and feel and tast and smell and which nourisheth should not be what it seems to be Or that Accidents should exist without a Subject after the manner of a Substance and yet be nothing These and many others which are the consequences of these bating several gross mistakes are obvious in most Protestant Authors To the First The Reasons given why the Natural Body of Christ cannot be in several places at the same time are Because a Body cannot exist after the manner of a Spirit That a Body cannot be invisible and impossible Answ p. 34. Or as it is in the Rubric Because it is against the truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one Now if we can Evidently shew out of Scripture that the Body of Christ here upon Earth did sometimes exist after the manner of a Spirit