can make God. This is certainly to run headlong into Hell in Heavens Road wheedling the People into Blind Extasies with Hypocritically crying out O Blessed Saviour But all who says O Lord O Lord shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Examine your own Prayer and Reason will find matter enough to discuss and Conscience more to correct What Catholic ever said First That Men should kill one another Secondly That the most barbarous thing in the World is a Mystery of Religion Thirdly That we flatter the Priest who says he can make God These are as true as your Prayer is without Calumny or Hypocrisie They are as true as there were Execrable Murders committed to drive People into this Senseless Doctrin by no Body in no Place But they are not as true as the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was delivered by Christ and his Apostles taught by the Consent of the Fathers Divinely revealed and propagated to Posterity and so free from Stupidity quiet from Cruelty and a Pious Mystery of our Religion Article IV. Of the Danger of Idolatry IF we should be mistaken as you suppose about this Change through the crosness of the Priest which God forbid it should happen not pronouncing the words of Blessing or Consecration we should not at all be guilty of Idolatry For believing only one true God we profess there is infinite Distance between him and all Creatures and therefore we cannot so honour any Creature as we do the true God. Nor is our Intention ever determined by the Will to adore any thing which is not God So that if the Hoast were not through mistake consecrated by the Priest the Peoples Adoration would be terminated in Christ where e're he is because it is directed to God and not to a Creature The Pagans 't is true or Persians cannot be excused from Idolatry in worshiping the Sun because erring from the knowledge of the true God they direct their Adoration to what is not God but a Creature Mr. Thorndyke one of the great Lights of your Church was so convinced in this point that he professes should this Church of England declare that the Change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition of Idolatry in the Church of Rome I must then acknowledge that we Protestants are the Schismatics CHAP. II. Of the Monstrous Absurdity of this Doctrin TO shew the Absurdity of this Doctrin you are contented to ask these few Questions Question 1. Whether ever any Man have or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation Answer If we had no surer Evidence of Revealed Truth than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation we should have no true Evidence for Christian Religion And thus by your First Question Christianity would immediatly be dispatched out of the World. Quest 2. Supposing the Doctrin had been delivered in Scripture in the same words which we read in the Council of Trent You ask by what stronger Argument could any Man prove to me that such words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that Bread and 〈…〉 Consecration are Bread and Wine still Answer The Sense of the Council of Trent and that of the Scriptures are one and the same If therefore I can but appeal to 〈◊〉 Eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible as you do appeal to your Senses to prove that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration what the Scripture says is evidently true according to the Testimony of Sense and your Testimony from Sense of the substance of Bread remaining is evidently false I have great assurance of this For St. Paul forbids me to believe an Angel if he should come down from Heaven and teach me contrary to what is writ in Scripture As this is the substance of Bread and not my Body is contradictory to this is my Body And what Prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an Angel And if you draw one way with your Evidence of Sense and Scriptural Evidence from Sense draw another way is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing Quest 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagin that God should make that a part of Christian Religion which shakes the main external Evidence and Confirmation of the whole You mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles the Assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of Sense Answer With great Reason and Justice you appeal to the Senses of those who say they saw the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles because their Eyes were the proper Witnesses of Miracles So with the same Reason and Justice I appeal to my Senses to prove that the words which teach the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are in Scripture because Paper Ink Syllables and words are the proper Objects of Seeing feeling and hearing How then does the Catholic Tenet shake the main External Evidence of the Christian Religion when this external proof of Sense evidences from Scripture Transubstantiation Quest Whether our Saviour's Argument were conclusive or not proving to his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was risen Luke 24. 29. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have And if seeing and handling be an unquestionable Evidence that things are what they appear to our Senses then the Bread in the Sacrament is not chang'd into the Body of Christ Answer Sense in its own Objects is frequently certain and here we may rely on it According to this Principle the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to the Disciples that what they saw and handled was his true Body For affirmation of Flesh and Bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing These Actions belong properly to the experience of Sense Besides we have all this recorded in Scripture And our Saviour made use of all other Arguments imaginable to confirm the Mystery of his Resurrection In some Circumstances the Senses may deceive us and then we ought not to rely on them Thus the Jews designing to precipitate our Saviour from the top of a Mountain Jesus as we read in Scripture passed through the crowd and departed and the whole Multitude trusting to that Information which Sense gave them believ'd he was a Ghost or Apparition In like manner the same true Body of Christ is substantially present in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Existence and therefore it is not the proper Object of Sense and so we cannot here rely on our Senses We must then trust to something else viz. to the Testimony of Scripture which is the Rule of Faith to know surely what Substance or Body lies under the Species or appearance of Bread. Now the Scripture teaches us that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ This is my Body and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh
AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation Hic est Filius meus dilectus Ipsum audite This is my beloved Son Hear ye Him Matth. 17. 5. Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chapel 1687. Introduction IF public Applause and popular Acclamations of your own Party are to be believed your Discourse against Transubstantiation has sufficiently shewed that the Scriptures cannot clearly demonstrate this miraculous Change nor the perpetual belief thereof in the Christian Church illustrate it and that there are all the reasons in the World against it Yet if a serious consideration and weighing of your Arguments in the Scale of Justice be the Deciders of the present Debate we shall find neither Scripture nor belief of the Primitive Church nor any reason in the World against Transubstantiation And therefore in Christian Duty I think my self obliged to endeavor after my poor manner a discovery of your winning Artifices and a removal of your plausible Appearances dividing this following Answer into two Parts In my first I 'll examin whether there be any tolerable ground for Transubstantiation And my second is designed to counterpoise as you think your Invincible Objections PART I. I Sub-divide my First Part into five Sections comprehending the five pretended grounds one or more of which you suppose the Church of Rome builds this Doctrin on First The Authority of Scripture Or Secondly the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church Or Thirdly the Authority of the Church to make or declare an Article of Faith. Or Fourthly the absolute Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or Fifthly to magnify the Power of the Priest SECT I. Whether Scripture authorise Transubstantiation BEfore I begin to discuss whether Scripture authorise Transubstantiation I think it convenient to premise two Reflections upon two considerable Circumstances delivered in your Introduction First Reflection upon the word Transubstantiation In the very first entrance of your Discourse you complain it is a hard word and afterwards increase your complaint with this unparallel'd exaggeration It was almost 300 years before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and established in the Church of Rome Bold Assertions ought to be supported with great Proofs And Monstrous Vilifications of the Divine Goodness expiated with more than ordinary Repentance Heaven forbid that our Blessed Saviour should ever prove a mishapen Monster even to those who most oppose revealed Truth expressed in Transubstantiation A hard word and who can endure it a new word and who will admit it St. Hilary answers you in this Reply to the Arian Heretics importuning the primitive Church of Christ with the like expressions Say rather if you speak wisely will you not wage new Wars against new Enemies or take fresh Counsels against new Treasons or drink Counterpoison against venomous Infections Nor was St. Athanasius's Interrogation of less force Are you offended at the newness of the Name or affraid of the verity of the Mystery The sentiment of these two great Ornaments of the Church is the common Practice of whole Sacred Antiquity according to the Golden Sentence of Vincentius Lyrinensis The Church ordinarily appropriates some new term to signifie more pathetically the true Sense of Faith. Thus did the first Oecumenical Council write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial and the Arians could not digest the hardness of the Word Thus did the Ephesian Prelates stile the B. Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God which was no softer to the Nestorians And thus did the Lateran Bishops subcribe to Transubstantiation and the Berengarians and Modern opposers of the Roman truth expostulate with us for this Word and modestly term it a Mishapen Monster Second Reflection upon the Evidence of Sense Here you bring in Aristotle who long since hath pronounced There ought to be no dispute of the matter of Sense I beg Pardon if I am not at leisure to digress with you towards Paganism Neither can I think you serious when you quote the Philosopher's determination for the Mystery of the Lords Supper who never professed a revealed Religion and died many Hundred years before Christianity was Promulgated and Established Nor do I apprehend the least danger to be overburden'd with the heavy matter of Sense when my way leads to the Sublime matter of Revelation You cannot deny Sense Reason and Faith are three various Perfections so likewise are their Objects distinguished The Stagyrite never pretended Sense should reach farther than to the Accidents and Appearance of things And Reasons employ was the contemplation of Essence Nature and Substance How could Aristotle pronounce the matter of Sense was never to be disputed when 't was always to be pry'd into and regulated by Reason Yet we do not dispute with you the Prerogative of Sense in the Mystery of the Sacrament For we see the outward shape and appearance of Bread and Wine nor is Tast wanting All this is granted Unless then you perplex and embroil the Question Sense reposes without violation quiet and contented in its own Objects Nor ought you to believe that Reason can securely without Error always determin in Natural Sciences according to the received impression from the visible Sign or Object of Sense This Maxim is given to Novices entring the list of Dialecticks and admitted by the Sect of Peripateticks So Reason enlarges the greatness of the Sun and assures us it far exceeds in bigness the Terrestrial Orb tho' Sense inclose it in the small circumference of a Ball. Sense indeed and Reason combining together and following the prescript of Logick are the proper deciders of Philosophical contestations Sense pleads for no more and if the Reason of Aristotle surviv'd it would be abundantly satisfi'd with this voluntary concession If for all this you resolve to seat Reason in the Chair of Judicature even where Revelation intervenes Divine Authority will easily rescue Christian Religion from the information of Sense Reason following the Dictamen of outward existence told Abraham what appeared were Men Revelation corrected the mistake and assured him they were Angels Reason affirmed what descended in the shape of a Dove was that Innocent Creature Revelation reformed the Judgment and intimated it was the Holy Ghost Reason regards the Species of Bread as inherent to the proper Substance Revelation changes that Substance into the Body of Christ Abraham saw the figure and shape of Men and yet the Substance of Man was wanting The Feathers in appearance exhibited a Dove the real Substance was supply'd with the presence of the Holy Ghost Again it was a Maxim of Philosophy what is was from something And this Evidence vanishes at the sight of Revelation which teaches the whole Universe was Created of nothing 'T was a Principle There 's no return from
cannot enter into Man's thought the Divine power and Omnipotency can and has operated It entred into St. Austin's mind explicating this Scriptural Passage as he thought in the Septuagint he was carried in his hands Thus to propose your Objection How could this be understood of Man for who is carried in his own hands a Man may be supported in others hands none is the burthen of his own hands The Saint Answers We find not the literal sense fulfilled in David in Christ we acknowledge it for Christ was carried in his hands when recommending his own very Body he said this is my Body for he carried that Body in his hands It entred into the thought of our Blessed Redeemer to make use of the like Argument before he gave us the Promise of giving himself entirely in the Sacrament For did he not in that miraculous Multiplication of five Loaves in the sixth Chapter of St. John feeding five thousand Persons give the five Loaves in some manner from the Loaves themselves The Fragments says St. Hilarie succeeded to Fragments and always broken always deceived the Breaker's hand For the Quantity of five Loaves was given and the like Quantity still remained Which Rabanus thus elegantly expressed they were multiplied by being diminished This Argument of our Blessed Saviour if it did not convince the Obstinate Jews it ought to prevail with Christians or at least silence them from saying how can he give himself from himself Paragraph III. Similitude of the Passover YOU compare with our Saviour's words the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as St. Justin Martyr tells us This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge Not that say you they believed the Pascal Lamb to be substantially changed into God who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias whom they expected Strange method and dangerous way of allegation tending to the depression of Christianity Our blessed Saviour and the Divine Apostles verify the sincere and literal truth of the new Testament as figurated and symbolized in the Law Prophets and Psalms and you scrupling this Order Judaize with the Hebrews and will have the Law of Grace figurative because the written Law is full of Similitudes and Representations And stranger remark of yours that the Jews did not believe the Paschal Lamb changed into God or the Messias How could they imagine the Lamb changed into God when they knew God could not receive the least alteration I am the Lord and not chang'd or into the Messias when change of one thing into another supposes both their existences and the Messias was not yet born The Israelites only then could believe the Passover a bare Representation to put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt But if St. Justin say The Passover is our Saviour would you desire a more plain exposition than the very following words that is our Refuge And if this Speech of St. Justin were in it self somewhat obscure This Passover is our Saviour The same Ceremonie delivered in Exodus by Moses varying the Phrase of the Passover is a sure Rule for understanding any such like Expression upon this account For there we read it is the Lord 's Passover The Septuagint translate It is the Passover to the Lord. Nor was this Expression unknown to the Hebrews The Passover to the Lord. Paragraph IV. Similitude of a Deed. YOU tell us that a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is the conveyance of a real Estate and truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material House and Lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into your hands If our Cause were pleaded at the Bar the Law it seems you think would make us the losers But if Scriptures be the Sentence I know not why we should refuse to acknowledge what God is pleased to bestow on us He tells us what he gives is his own Body why will you not believe him And to come close to your Objection Do you not by the passing of the Deed really and truly receive the Possession of the Substantial House Lands and Revenues in Specie You would little value the Writing if you did not So likewise the Sacrament conveys to the Receivers the Possession of the Substantial Body and Blood of our Saviour Article III. Upon the Context of St. Matthew YOU pretend that it was true Wine which our Saviour drank of and communicated I Answer not after Consecration You urge our Saviour said I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine this was true Wine I Answer that although we cannot collect from St. Matthew clearly whether these last words of our Saviour belonged to the Consecrated or not Consecrated Wine yet that clearness which St. Matthew's shortness feems to want St. Luke abundantly supplies describing the order of the Passover and delivering the Institution of the Sacrament So where we read in St. Matthew I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine St. Luke interprets and his Interpretation is true the fruit of the Vine before Consecration at the Supper of the Passover With desire says our Saviour I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer For I say unto you I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And he took the Cup and gave thanks and said take this and divide among your selves for I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine untill the Kingdom of God shall come Is not this a plain repetition of St. Matthew's words And here ended the Passover or Paschal Supper The Institution of the Sacrament immediately followed while they sate at Table and therefore St. Luke continues And he took Bread likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is the Eucharistic Cup which had nothing to do with the fruit of the Vine that was used before Consecration at the Paschal Supper Article IV. The Sense of St. Paul to the Corinthians THUS St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ These words the Bread which we break signifie the Sacrament For instead of them we read in the Acts of the Apostles according to the Syriac Version the Eucharist Now for the meaning of the word Communion Some will have it to be taken for Distribution Thus the word Communion is equivalent to doth Communicate and makes this Sense The distribution of the Sacrament doth it not communicate to us the true Body of Christ Thus if I stould say that the distribution of Bread in usual eating is the Communion of Bread would not any Man of