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
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
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
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
say of the Divine Consecration where the very words of Christ our Saviour are operative Then he speaks of the Creation of the World out of nothing and goes on If therefore Christ by his word was able to make something of nothing shall he not be thought able to change those things which are into other things which they were not But what need of Arguments Let us propose his own Example and assert the truth of this Mystery by that of his Incarnation When our Lord Jesus was born of Mary was it a Natural generation c. This Body which we make in the Sacrament is that which was born of the Virgin Why do ye here require the order of Nature in the Body of Christ when as above all Nature Christ was born of a Virgin The true Flesh of Christ which was crucified which was buried And are all these real Transmutations and Miraculous Supernatural Examples produc't only to prove a figurative Change conferring some invisible Blessing Can our Discourser understand it so and no otherwise Indeed I think he had best retreat to the first three Hundred years after Christ as some others of your late Writers have done contrary to what I had ever been taught among you who generally extended the Purity of the Roman Doctrine as far as the first Five Hundred years and accordingly in my Discourses with Catholics I always asserted that we did receive the Roman Doctrine until about that time but the Truth would glare too much in our Discoursers Eyes if he should walk in the light of those two latter Centuries when the Church began to be freed from her Persecutions and holy Fathers had greater liberty of Preaching and Teaching the true Christian Faith in its Extent But we shall follow him as high as he pleases We produce next St. Cyril of Jerusalem who liv'd in the Age before St. Ambrose and St. Augustine his words are these Do not then consider it as bare Bread or bare Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to the word of our Saviour himself For tho' sense should suggest this to thee yet let thy Faith so confirm this as that thou judge not the matter from the Tast And again Hoe Sciens c. This knowing and accounting it as most certain that this Bread which we see is not Bread tho' our Tast do tell us that it is Bread but it is the Body of Christ and the Wine which we behold tho' it seem Wine to our sense of Tast yet it is not Wine but the Blood of Christ Catech. 4. This was spoke after a Catechistical manner in which high Metaphors and Figures are not generally very frequent he was besides esteem'd by all as a learned Person and of this Book none ever doubted We come now to the third Age in which S. Cyprian treating of our Lords Supper says The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples is changed not in outward appearance but in Substance and by the Omnipotency of the Word It is made Flesh And as in the person of Christ the Humanity did appear and the Divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the Divine Essence hath ineffably infused it self Serm. de coena Dom. This is so clear a passage that some of the Sacramentaries for want of a better Answer pretend it was not writ by St. Cyprian altho' at the same time they are forc't to confess that it is of great Antiquity and had a Learned Author But something must be said and Confidence goes a great way I have already spoken of Justin Martyr in the second Age and come now to the first Age even in the days of the Apostles let us hear then the holy Martyr S. Epist ad Smyrnaeos Ignatius the Disciple of S. John who speaking of the Heretics of his time says thus They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffer'd for our Sins and which the Father in his Mercy raised again from the dead A strange concurrence through all Ages of most extraordinary Tropes and Figures I name not St. Andrew because the Authority is suspected Nor is it necessary to multiply Testimonies of the Fathers which we might have done because they are in truth but like dead Weights on both sides until we shall have put life into them by such reasonable Interpretations as reconciling them first to themselves may make them plainly speak forth the Catholic Doctrine which I refer to the Conclusion But what do Protestants think of all these Fathers Why truly they blame them All and tell us that they were mistaken Dr. Humphrey says Gregory and Austin brought Transubstantiation into the English Church Jesuit part 2. p. 627 The Centurists charge S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and Eusebius For not writing well of Transubstantiation Peter Martyr for the same reason blames S. Cyril Vrsinus S. Cyprian The Learned Melancton writes thus upon this Subject L. 3. Ep. Zuing Oecol f. 132. There is no care says he that hath more troubled my mind than this of the Eucharist And not only my self have weighed what might be said on either side but I have also sought out the Judgment of old Writers touching the same And when I have laid all together I find no good reason that may satisfie a Conscience departing from the propriety of Christs words This is my Body Many other Testimonies of Learned Protestants I omit at present for Brevity sake In the mean time I suppose all these may be sufficient to ballance the Substance of Theodoret even when you have made the most of it that in reason you ought or else my Reason and Sense are much more deceived in this Case than in that of the Sacrament But come we to the Third Point That the Elements go into the draught and our flesh encreased by them Hear what St. Chrysostome says Do you see Bread Do you see Wine Do these go into the draught like other common meat Far be it from thee to imagine it Hom. do Euchar. in Encoen When our Discourser hath reconcil'd his passage of Origen with this of S. Chrysostome let him then read any Catholic Author and he will tell him how he shall understand the Authority which he hath here produc't of which more hereafter Now for the encrease of the flesh I find this Explication in St. Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. c. 36. and 37. Even as a little Leaven doth make the whole Mass like it self so that Body which is made Immortal by God entring into our Body doth transfer and change it into its self And after That Body is joyned with the Bodies of the faithful that by the Coujunction with the same Immortal Body Man may be made partaker of Immortality So S. Cyril of Alexandria As a spark of fire lighting upon Hay or Straw doth presently inflame it all so the Word of God joyned to our corruptible
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
introducing Transubstantiation never did 1200 Learned Men take wronger Measures For notwithstanding a due respect be generally paid by all good Catholics to Priests as their Character requires yet I will be judged by all such as have travell'd abroad Whether a Presbyterian Parson in his Conventicle or a London Minister in his Parish or a Calvinist Predicator in Amsterdam who make nothing of the Sacrament Do not yet pretend both Males and Females to have as much respect paid them as ere a Priest of equal quality in France Italy or Spain who nevertheless are the Instruments by which this unexpressible Change is made But our Discourser labours hard here to prove that this Change is no Miracle to Sense But had he advis'd with any Catholic he might have spar'd his pains for I will engage they would have confest it to him at the first word Our Discourser having hitherto with great success destroy'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation yet to make sure work he kills it again with four deadly Objections drawn from the infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion As 1. The Stupidity 2. The Real Barbarousness of this Doctrine supposing it be true 3. The bloody Consequences And 4. The danger of Idolatry if it be not true p. 33. To prove the Stupidity of this Doctrine our Discourser produceth two Learned Heathens Tully and Averroes wondring that any Men should be so stupid as to pretend to eat their God Now that there is Stupidity in the Case is most certain But whether it be in the Doctrine Or in Tully and Averroes Or in our Discourser who brings two Heathens Testimonies against a Mystery of the Christian Religion I leave to Judgment I suppose he may have heard of such an Epistle as the first of St. Paul to the Corinthians I would recommend to him the first Chapter and particularly Vers 18.19 20. where it is written For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness Where is the wise where is the scribe where is the disputer of this world hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world And vers 27 God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise Now whether Averroes and our Discourser were the Wise Men or the Foolish here intended I must leave again to Judgment But I have not yet done with Averroes for his words cited by our Discourser p. 34. are very observeable I have travel'd says he over the world and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of the Christians because with their own Teeth they devour the God whom they worship What ill luck it was that this great Philosopher should not have met with the Disciples of Rabanus Maurus or some One other of our Discoursers Predecessors in Opinion at least in some Corner of the World who might have convinc'd him of his mistake and reconcil'd him a little better to the Christian Religion But not to have found one Christian over the whole World neer six Hundred years since after Rabanus had writ against Pascasius less sottish than the rest will serve at least to prove a Sottishness also in this Case but whether in those Christians or in our present Discourser who hath brought so strong a Testimony to prove the Universality of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation even of so learned a Man who had travell'd all the World over I must once more leave to Judgment But sure I am from Averroes his own Works and the knowledge which he had of that vast difference between Bodies in their Natural Gross and Earthly Composition and the pure Substances of these Bodies separated from their foeces or accidents by corruption or putrefaction distillations digestions and sublimations until they become Essences or pure Principles I say from his Experimental Philosophy of Common Bodies thus alter'd and sublimated he would have made no difficulty to have solv'd most of our Discoursers absurdities concerning this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet there is no Comparison between these Common Bodies tho never so purely defoecated and exalted which can bear any proportion with the glorified Body of our Saviour united with his Divinity So that I am verily perswaded had Averroes been satisfied concerning the other Mysteries of Christian Religion and rightly inform'd concerning the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would have been as good a Christian in that Point as Pope Innocent 3d. or Pius 4th But our Discourser tells us that the stupidity of this Doctrine breeds Atheists and Infidels Even so the warmth of the Sun breeds Maggots and many other Insucts but the Matter must be first disposed to Corruption Now altho the Sun be much hotter in France Spain Portugal and Italy than in England or in Holland yet I appeal to all Men who have any knowledge of those Kingdoms whether there be not as many reputed Atheists in these two last Governments where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not so publickly nor generally profest as in any other part of the Christian World proportionably where it is And what indeed have been the true parents of Atheism and Infidelity but the devilish pride of Sense and Reason set up against the blessed Humility of Faith and Obedience But our Discourser in this Page begins to be very seriously idle and impertinent out of some respect therefore to himself we will pass it over and come to p. 35. where he most grievously accuseth this Sacrament of Barbarousness upon the Supposition of the truth of this Doctrine But sure if this Doctrine be true then it is impossible that it should be barbarous except our Saviour himself who commanded it and is there voluntarily present in it should have instituted a barbarous Sacrament which whether our Discourser can believe I know not but sure I am if the Doctrine be not true it cannot be barbarous to eat him in imagination only except our Discoursers opinion be also barbarous He tells us 't is very unworthily done to our friend and barbarous to feast upon his Flesh and Blood I am glad to find our Discourser capable of so much Tenderness But he might have read of very many Provinces in the East and West Indies who count it their greatest glory to eat their best deceased Friends perswading themselves that thereby they do as it were regenerate or reanimate those to whom they were first obliged for their own lives by transforming them thus into their own Nature and Substance With indignation therefore they reproach our manner of Burials as most inhumane O pauvre Gens saith my Author comment laissez vous manger cette chair precieuse aux Sales vers de la terre Et que monument plus digne lui pouvez vous donner que celuy de vos propres entrailles And upon this consideration it was that the renowned Artemise drank the Ashes of her dear departed Husband The Barbarousness therefore objected by our Discourser suppose this