Nature by means of the Eucharist doth make it all to rise Immortal and glorious The same may be seen in Iraen l. 8. contr Haer c. 34. And many others who understand the encrease of the Flesh to be a raising of the Flesh towards a state of Immortality and disposing it towards a happy Resurrection according to that of S. John c. 6. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath life Everlasting and I will raise him up at the last day But if these Interepretations should not happen to please you I shall then recommend you to a late Catholic Author and leave you to himself or his Excellent Treatise The Defence for the Adoration of the Body and Blood of our Lord p. 14. For further satisfaction his words are these ' This External Sign or Symbol they the Catholics affirm to be all That of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any Sense And tho' after Consecration the Substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain yet is Substance here taken in such a sense as that neither the hardness nor softness nor the frangibility nor the savour nor the odour nor the nutritive vertue of the Bread nor nothing visible nor tangible or otherwise perceptible by any sense are involved in it All which at last we shall endeavour to explain The last Head is That the words of Consecration are not to be taken in a literal Sense To prove this our Discourser brings several killing Testimonies as he calls them but I know not whom they hurt except the Caphernaites for all Catholics own both the Authorities and the Doctrine contained in them as absolutely necessary to the true and Orthodox understanding their Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament That is to say That the Body of Christ in the Eucharist is not there after a Natural and Corporeal manner as it was upon the Cross that is specifically and according to the outward Form and local Existence but spiritually supernaturally and without Circumscription that is external Commensuration of or Co-extension with Place And if Pascasius meant otherwise of the Sacrament than what is here exprest then Rabanus Maurus did well to oppose him with all his might as another Anonymus did if not the same Rabanus in a Tract extant in Codice Gemblacens Cosnobij cum Heregeri Opusculo But that this good Arch-Bishop did so understand him is plain for these two Reasons First because he hath always been acknowledged an Orthodox Bishop among all Catholics and next because his own words have with good reason confirm'd Catholics in this their Opinion of him and they are these Who says he would ever believe that Bread could be turn'd into Flesh or Wine into Blood except our Saviour himself had said it who Created Bread and Wine and made all things out of Nothing but it is easier to make one thing out of another than all things out of Nothing L. 7. de Sacris ordin ad Theatmanum c. 10. Now after all these Authorities from the Fathers and a Hundred more which might be produc't to shew that they believ'd the Real Presence together with the agreable concurrent sense of them all running through their whole Works besides their constant practice of Adoration and Belief of an unbloody Sacrifice and many Learned Protestants confessing that they did so believe After all this I suppose I need not enquire of our Discourser when this Doctrine of the Real Presence came into the World for I am convinc't that it was in the very days of the Apostles themselves or to use the words of Sebastianus Francus and Hospinian two Eminent Protestants jam tum primo illo tempore viventibus adhuc Apostolis c. But because our Discourser hath made use of the name of the good Arch-Bishop of Mentz to countenance and support his false Chronology it is Just that I take off this scandalous imputation from Rabanus Maurus Now altho his own words before recited are more than sufficient to clear this Excellent Person yet at present I shall only make use of our Discourser's own computation to destroy the probability of his unreasonable Supposition which he calls a plain Testimony He tells us P. 21. That in the Second Council of Nice Anno Dom. 787. The Sacrament was declar'd to be properly the Body and Blood of Christ and that thence this Opinion got footing among the Greeks And that in the year 818. Pascasius first broacht this Doctrine in the Latin Church insinuating that until that time this Doctrine was not receiv'd among the Latins and that thereupon Rabanus Maurus in the year 847 wrote against this Pascasius for introducing this new Error Thus far the Story is very well laid but here are these hard difficulties to be digested before we can give it that credit which he expects First it is certain that Peter Arch-Presbyter of the Roman Church and Peter the Monk were present in the said Council in behalf of Pope Adrian That the said Pope wrote Letters to the Emperour Constantius and also to Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople which were received by the said Council And lastly that the Popes Supremacy was confirmed in this very Council in these words Quod Ecclesia Romana sit Caput omnium Ecclesiarum Act 2. Now from this Council to Rabanus Maurus there was an Interval of 60 years from the Council to Pascasius of one and Thirty years and can we believe that this Doctrine of the Real Presence which was declared in this Council in the presence of the Popes Legats and confirm'd by the Pope himself should be one and Thirty years a getting over from Nice into the Latin Church Or that so Learned a Man as Rabanus and so esteem'd by our Discourser should be ignorant sixty years after this Council was held That this Doctrine had been there declared And so grosly mistake Pascasius for the first broacher of it Truly for my part altho' Rabanus had not explain'd himself concerning his Faith according to those expressions before related yet would I not easily have believ'd that he could have been so ignorant of the Transaction of this Council or would have accus'd Pascasius of introducing so gross an Error into the Latin Church when he knew that he writ no otherwise than as had been Thirty years before determin'd in a General Council It is plain therefore that Rabanus quarrell'd with some Expressions of Pascasius as importing the Erroneous sense before mention'd Our Discourser being confident that he hath found out the date of Transubstantiation falls a little foul upon Mr. Arnauld because he cannot believe that such a Doctrine should have been impos'd upon the Christian World and yet so universally receiv'd except there had been some extraordinary if not an universal Opposition and indeed our Discourser of all mankind ought to have believ'd so too for if every man should have had as ill an Opinion of it as himself its establishment had been impossible But that he
But to tell us we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ as a Memorial of him when you profess we do no such thing is the most extravagant of all Metaphors and unparallell'd in History That some have eaten their deceased Friends and that others have drank their Ashes I have already hinted but to say eat and drink the Body and Blood of King Charls that is remember that he was Martyr'd would be such an expression as stands single at least as far as I have read from all the Allegories of the most phantastical Poets Why then do you tells us That we indeed eat and drink his Body and Blood and not rather and only say that we break Bread in remembrance that Christ was so broken and pour forth Wine as a Memorial that his Blood was so shed for us Give me leave to return the Answer I fear that whilst you want Faith to believe the truth intended by the words you are ashamed to neglect the words themselves lest you should become a scandal and reproach to all sober Christians who had ever read the Holy Bible or the best of Fathers Deceive not therefore your selves and those poor Souls who depend upon you but either give them in truth the last Sacred Legacy of our most dear and ever Blessed Master or tell them plainly he is departed and hath left them nothing for a Body which is no Body and Blood which is no thing is at least as absur'd and sensless a Proposition as your so often objected Smelling Tasting nourishing Accidents without a Substance The Answerer hath given us a long Beadroll of Objections in p. 32. Et sequent Which he says contradicts right Reason I could have furnisht him with a great many more and much more pertinent from an Ancient Catholic Author call'd The Christians Manna where he would also have found their Answers to which I must recommend him In some of his repugnancies as he calls them he shews himself so ignorant or malicious that he is either way inexcusable So p. 35. In p. 33. he seems neither to understand Catholic Divinity nor common Philosophy but talks so crudely of both that he deserves not a sober Reply What he from Blondel tells us of the Fathers p. 34. I do not rightly understand nor did I think it worth my pains to procure Blondel upon that account but if either of them would make us believe that the Fathers thought it absurd and impossible that God should act beyond and above the Power of Nature the Fathers are much obliged to them for their good Opinion but if he would make them say that naturally a thing cannot exist act or be produc'd contrary to or above Nature he hath made a wise Speech for them which he may keep for his own use In his 36 P. he is come to his Senses but because he hath only a slight touch of them and those the same with our first Discourser I shall consider them as far as I intend at present together The first Objection is that what we tast and smell and see and touch and which nourish our Bodies should be Nothing and as it is reduced to an Objection against Sense it runs thus That what we see in the Sacrament is not Bread but the Body of Christ I have told you that I must defer my more particular Answer to a particular Treatise upon that Subject in which I hope to reconcile all difficulties not only to Sense and Reason but to the words of Consecration to the Canons of the Council of Trent and to the Fathers and the Fathers to themselves quite throughout In the mean time I will give you the general Faith of all Catholics and so conclude The indispensable Faith of all Catholics is this That the Substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration is converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ united with his Soul and his Divinity No good Catholics dispute this altho' several Opinions also there are concerning the manner how this is done The great Question is concerning the Accidents which remain and it is the more receiv'd Opinion that they are real tho' not properly call'd substantial things and that as such they may nourish the Body suffer digestion and corruption and are the true Objects of our Senses in which we say all the vertues and qualities of Bread exist This we are told is consistent with Aristotles Philosophy but if you think otherwise dispute your Opinion as long as you please and if you can oblige your Adversaries to find out some more satisfactory Answer for there are some others as I shall shew hereafter The Faith in the mean time remains inviolably among all which their different Opinions pretend not to destroy All believe the Substance is converted but for the Accidents whether they be more or less whether they exist with or without a Subject what that Subject is or whether they may not have Substances of themselves these are Matters of Opinion and Philosophy and we must remember that Christ came not to teach us Philosophy and Logic but Faith and Obedience unto Good Works But I shall enter no further upon this Discourse at present nor shall I here answer our Discoursers four last Questions which depending upon the Doctrine of Accidents shall be consider'd together with them in our designed Treatise I shall only therefore add my hearty Prayers that you would once lay aside your prejudices and affections and many other temporal considerations and sincerely and calmly endeavour with us to find where the truth lies I know no Body intends any harm to you or other good to themselves than that we might be all United under one Head Christ Jesus holding the Unity of Faith in the Bond of Peace It would be a defect of Charity not to be pardon'd should you believe all Catholics to be Knaves or Fools or that they did not see and know or would not know what can be said against them as well as Protestants since your greatest Objections which I have ever read against us are found in our own Authors and their Answers to them of which you are pleased to be silent It were besides a strange Instance of Spiritual Pride to think yourselves the only Children of Light and this grounded upon no other Authority than your own private Opinions and a partial Judgment past upon your selves against the much greater part of the whole Christian World The Glorious Epinikeas and lofty Triumphs which you sing in all your Papers might become the Buskins of a Pagan Conqueror but in me they move only my Compassion to see you so wonderfully pleas'd and insulting in the wrong Alas you mistake the Scâ—â—â— for in our Case the Conquered wins the Prizâ—â— and yet the Victor loseth not his honor What would it profit him says our Saviour If a man should gain the whole World and lose his own Soul It is a serious consideration and deserves a sober thought or two free from passion or prejudice Now whether it be adviseable to venture so great a Treasure upon the single Bottom of every mans private Opinion Whether our Saviour Christ would leave his own Church in a much more dangerous condition than that in which he found the Jewish Church Whether Certainty was to be had among the Jews from the Chair of Moses concerning what they were to believe and do but no Certainty to Christians from the Chair of S. Peter or any other Christian Church upon the face of the Earth Whether Heresie and Schism be terms to affright us and only different names for Knavery and Hypocrisie Or whether a man who truly believes himself to be in the right may not be desperately and dangerously in the wrong and highly punishable for his presumption and disobedience to lawful Authority And Lastly whether you will tell us roundly and plainly That to believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God and to live a moral Life be all that is required of us as some of you have very boldly insinuated These things I recommend to your pious and ingenuous Examination until we meet again FINIS
World and at present by at least eight parts in ten and amongst these some persons extreamly above him in Place and Authority and thousands for ought we know equal if not above him in Learning Piety and Reason Thus I say to ridicule and burlesque so great a Doctrine of the Christian Faith is much more dangerous and scandalous to the Christian Religion than that stupid absur'd and monstrous Doctrine as he calls it against which he writes For my part I profess if so many Men of Sense and Reason and these improv'd to the heigth by Study and Learning may not only be deceiv'd in so great a Point of Religion but mistaken even to folly madness non-sense and Contradiction I know not what will become of Christianity it self for if these can so grosly Err in Matters which are as equally Evident upon all accounts to their Sense and Reason as to the Sense and Reason of any other I am sure a Man is much less secure in trusting to this single Discourser or any belonging to him and so farewel to Both. But Secondly It is without Charity for since he hath made as he thinks the Catholic Doctrine so demonstrably false and absur'd all Catholics who believe it tho never so Learned Honest and Pious must be either Knaves or Fools Thirdly Without Sincerity because all his material Objections and many more have been Printed formerly above Seventy years since And Lately within these Seventeen years by Catholics themselves with their Substantial Answers to them Now to have dealt sincerely he ought to have replied to these Answers which would have set us forward and drawn us to some Point and not have run round as in a Magical Circle without ever endeavouring to break through the infatuation of Deluded Reason And next to have dealt Sincerely he ought not to have produc't a scrap of a Sentence from a Father and left out those immediate preceeding or succeeding Words which explicated the whole Sense For Instance His first is from Justin Martyr whom he produces saying these Words Our Blood and Flesh are nourished by the Conversion of that Food which we receive in the Eucharist p. 11. But the whole Sentence runs thus For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for the sake of our Salvation just so are we taught that That Food over which Thanks are given by Prayers in his own Words and whereby our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished Is the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jesus For the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them call'd the Gospels have recorded that Jesus so commanded them This I think altogether makes little for our Discourser especially if he had been sincere enough to have told us how the Fathers generally as St. Irenaeus Cyril Chrysost Greg. Nyss and others expound the nourishment of the Body and as shall be shewn hereafter So also he quotes Theodoret saying The mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance And may be seen and handled p. 19. Theoderet goes on The mystical Signs are understood to be that which they are made and they are believed and ador'd as being those very things which they are believed Now if they may be adored I suppose they mean somewhat more than Signs and Figures or else the Adoration of holy Images is more Ancient than Protestants have hitherto allowed And had our Discourser been Sincere he might have told us how the Catholics interpret all this to be most consistent with their Faith and confuted them if he could But Fourthly His Discourse is writ without Good Manners for setting aside his disrespect to a Religious Duty methinks when he knew so many Princes Kings Emperors Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs and most Learned Men of all Sorts received this Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation he ought to have forborn such words as Impudence p. 2. Nonsense p. 24. Monster of Transubstantiation p. 25. Monstrous insupportably absur'd stupidity of this Doctrine p. 33. Absur'd and Senseless Doctrine Legerdemain and Jugling Tricks of Falshood and Imposture Hocus Pocus a cheat and foolish Doctrine p. 34. But here the Discourser is very angry and indeed Fathers I should even from hence shrewdly suspect that our Discourser is no true Son of the Church of England for they are generally more moderate and civil but we shall have further occasion to speak of this hereafter In the mean time I thought fit to take thus much notice of these things that we might consider whether such a Writer notwithstanding all his Magisterial dashes be probably endued with that Christian humble Temper which we might expect from a Doctor of Christs Church pretending also without other Miracles than his wonderful Reason to reform almost the whole Christian World but let us see whether his good Reasons will make us amends by giving us some better Satisfaction Several Impertinences and Quibbles appear in many parts of his Discourse as for Instance He proves in p. 4. That a Sacrament may be instituted by figurative Expressions because a Sacrament is a Figare it self of some Invisible Grace c. Now I had always thought that a Man might deliver a Sign or Figure exhibiting some Invisible kindness in the most plain and literal Terms that possibly could be invented for Example I am perswaded the Discourser might have exhibited or deliver'd his Pamphlet or Picture which are Figures of his Mind or Person as a Token of his love to his Friend in a most plain litteral Speech without the necessity of a figurative Sentence except for the sake of his Quibble For my part I think the delivery of a Figure or any thing else is best in plain words But then the Pains he takes and Wit that is spent first to obtrude upon Catholics the false Belief of a Miracle according to his acceptation of a Miracle and then to laugh at his own Jest together with the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle as to make God Pag. 31. is really such Stuff as certainly he never design'd for any other use than to rub the itching Ears of the most illiterate among the Vulgar I confess Fathers it workt no good effect upon me nor never will I should think upon any sober Christian for every body sure understands his Fallacy concerning the power of the Priest and his Miracles But instead of that had he replied to some solid Discourse of Catholics concerning the Doctrine of the Sacrament it self I know not how far the Authority which my Reason had fixt in the Church of Rome would have supported me against his Arguments Having thus separated the loose Accidents of his Discourse from the more substantial part I will now examine that as far as is necessary according to the
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
by himself nor any Man yet that I have met with let him therefore learn to understand the Catholic Faith before he writes such magisterial Impertinences against it But let us hear the Bishop himself who telling us That the Sacrament of Christs Body is not meant of his glorified Body but of his Body when it was Offer'd Rent and Slain and Sacrificed for us he goes on We are says he in this action not only carried up to Christ sursum corda but we are also carried back to Christ as he was at the very instant and in the very act of his offering So and no otherwise doth this Text teach So and no otherwise do we represent him By the Incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit not he alone but he as at the very act of his Offering is made present to us and we incorporate into his death and invested in the benefits of it Our Answerer to do him Justice is modest enough in this place to say he thinks the Real Presence cannot be otherwise meant than either figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive him But I think that had this Learned Bishop believed the manner as they call it of the Real Presence Transubstantiation No man could have written more Orthodoxly of it than this Bishop here hath done P. 64. The Answerer includes the Opinions of Casaubon and the Archbishop of Spalato in the sense of this passage of Bishop Andrews but why not in that produc'd by the Discourser However if it will gratifie him I willingly so accept them He makes Archbishop Laud to sing much after the same Tune He says little to Bishop Hall Montague and Bilson because he hath not their works by him but how he will excuse their pacific design as he calls it we shall consider by and by Bishop Forbe's Charitable undertaking has made him too favourable to many corruptions of the Church of Rome p. 65. And now he tells us but of two of all the Divines left to prove this new Fancy which the Discourser would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England one is Doctor Taylor whom he makes say a great deal more than I am willing to Transcribe for I am very weary of the Employment and besides all signifies no more at most than to prove Doctor Taylor contradicts himself or is otherwise as I hinted before the most unintelligible Writer that ever put Pen to Paper The truth to me seems to be this the Doctor in some places meant very plainly that which he as plainly wrote in others that he was over cautious considering the times and circumstances in which he liv'd to write more plainly that which he truly meant However upon the Ballance of the whole I take him to have been much rather a Defender than an Opposer of the Real Presence we speak of And now we are got to Mr. Thorndyke where I cannot but smile at the confidence of our Answerer who is not asham'd to say notwithstanding his own pretended confutation is a strong confirmation of that Real Presence asserted by the Discourser that he fears his Cause will be desperate except Mr. P. 69. Thorndyke can support it Well what says Mr. Thorndyke The Answerer tells us first of a certain Answer to one T. G. in which he seems to say That if the Church I suppose he means the English Church did ever pray the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them which is plain Transubstantiation then he is contented to call this the Sacramental Presence of them in the Eucharist What is this to the purpose He then tells us P. 70. that Mr. Thorndyke had a particular Notion in this Matter and a long Story in which he seems to deny Transubstantiation We do not affirm it of him And at last a great way off in p. 90. he puts Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato into a Sack together and makes them as errand Knaves in a reconciling way as his Protestant Minister whom just before he mentions but with this difference the Protestant Minister only dissembled his own Opinion that is conceal'd it but these two great Men have strenuously defended the Real Presence and not by consequence but positively an Adoration due when as our Answerer would perswade us that they did not believe the Real Presence but did believe the Adoration of it to be Idolatry That a pacific design and a charitable undertaking might engage some Men to relax somewhat of Ceremonies or Discipline I neither wonder at nor censure but that there should be any justifiable cause to oblige Men wittingly and willingly to profess and teach Idolatry is I confess beyond my understanding I shrewdly suspect that our Answerer from his rare Historical Relicts may have imbib'd some of Monsieur De Marolle's Principles and from thence think damnable Hypocrisie in Religion no great Sin otherwise I cannot imagine how with Charity he can suppose it in these two great Men who I am perswaded were they alive would spit in his Face for so scandalous an Imputation unworthy either of a Christian or a Gentleman His last stroke P. 90. is at the Learned Mr. Thorndyke whom he leaves to shift for himself with this Brand upon him as deep as he can make it That his Notion of the Real Presence was widely different both from theirs and ours and by consequence from the Truth but give me leave to tell you Sir had you been worthy to have carried Mr. Thorndykes Papers after him at least as far as I may judge by these twenty two Sheets you would have writ much less and yet much more to the purpose Thus Reverend Fathers I have given you a Tast of this fresh Author I fear it hath not proved a boccone Saporito but it was necessary in Vindication of my Testimonies and by Consequence of that Learned Oxford Discourser upon whose Authority I produc't them Begging your pardon then for this Digression I return to my first Discourser If it be true that the Doctrine of the Real Presence in a literal Sense was believed from the Primitive Times to this great Council of Lateran let us consider whether this Council exceeded its just Authority or introduc't any Erroneous Doctrine into the Christian Church For the clearer understanding of this Matter we are to note that one Berengarius about the year 1060. besides other Errors maintain'd that the Eucharist was not truly and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but only a Figure and Shadow of them and that the Bread and Wine upon the Altar were not Substantially converted into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ by the Mystery of holy Prayer and the words of our Redeemer Upon this several Learned Men employed their Pens against this new and strange false Doctrine as Adelmannus Bishop of Brixia formerly Schoolfellow of Berengarius Hugo Lingonensis Epis Durandus before-mention'd Lantfrancus
Hocus Pocus and Cheat of this Doctrine for so he is pleas'd to call Transubstantiation p. 34. I name not Luther among the great Reformers as to this Point for he agrees with Catholics as to the Real Presence tho' he differs in the Modus and with his whole heart Anathematizes and Curses the Doctrine of our Discourser under the name of Zuinglius and all his Adherents Epist contr Art Iovan Thes 27. Tom. 2. in these words We censure in earnest the Zuinglians and all the Sacramentaries for Hereticks and alienated from the Church of God And again Cursed be the Charity and Concord of the Sacramentaries for ever and ever to all Eternity Tom. Wittemb fol. 381. Now upon the best enquiry I could make concerning the Establishment of this Doctrine I found but Four tolerable good Reasons how it came to get so great credit among Christians The First is because our Blessed Saviour who is the Fountain of Wisdom and Truth did institute this Sacrament in such plain words as This is my Body That no Proposition upon Earth can be made to us in more express and positive Terms Secondly Because the Apostles did believe our Saviour spake in earnest and really meant as he said at least if we will believe the aforenam'd Justin Martyr who tells us That the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them have recorded that Jesus so commanded Thirdly Because all the Ancient Fathers who have written of the Holy Eucharist have exprest themselves so fully concerning their firm Belief of the Real Presence in a literal Sense That I defie Zuinglius and all his Works allowing me some Sense or preserving that little which I have to understand them totally in a figurative Sense And Lastly Because General Councils taking notice that some vain-glorious self-conceited Men had impudently presum'd to interpret those words of our Saviour contrary to the sense of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers and practice of the whole Christian Church had authoritatively decreed That the Judgment of the blessed Apostles and holy Fathers should be follow'd in this Matter that is That the Substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration was converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ and that the Heresie of these new Upstarts should be condemned and themselves excommunicated Now these Reasons methinks might be sufficient to shew that a Doctrine thus instituted and recommended to us might very probably be generally received among Men who own the Authority of the Institutor and Fidelity of those who being Witnesses of the Action have assured us of its meaning Nor can I perswade my self there is any Man so prejudiced and uncharitable upon Earth except those whose Charity Luther curst as to believe That so many Learned Men in such August and Sacred Assemblies should solemnly wittingly and willingly impose upon the World so pernicious and damnable a Doctrine if they themselves knew or could believe that this Doctrine was false Except some vast and wonderful temporal Interest should prevail with these Fathers and Doctors whose reputations have been high in the World thus dangerously to expose their own Souls and the Souls of all who belonged to them or depended upon them for the obtaining this supposed worldly Satisfaction A learned Protestant in his Answer to some Queries seems to have a great respect for General Councils but tells us p. 3. That Men are liable to hopes and fears and therefore we cannot depend upon them Now hopes and fears in this place relate only to Temporal Concerns which we will suppose Interest in its largest acceptation But in the name of God what Interest is this for which so much is thus desperately engaged Why truly our Answerer says nothing to it But our Discourser who hath left no Stone unturn'd but flies at all tells us at last p. 30. That it is to magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle I have already hinted how much these Fathers have been all along mistaken if this was their design But Secondly from the disproportion between the poorness of the reward and inestimable price that is paid even eternal Silvation I might most convincingly argue the impossibility of the design and fix it only in the mean and unworthy thoughts of our trifling Discourser But that I may clear these holy Fathers and Councils beyond all further doubt or dispute I do affirm this little design to have been so far from their thoughts that they have constantly declar'd this wonderful transmutation to proceed not from any power of the Priest but by the sole Omnipotency of Almighty God And because our Discourser seems to have some value for St. Augustin I shall produce his Testimony as it is cited be Consecratione Dist 2. c. 72. His words are these In the Mystery of the Body of Christ performed within the holy Church there is nothing more done by a good Priest and nothing less by a wicked one because what is wrought there is not by the Merit of him who Consecrates but by the word of our Creator and the power of the Holy Ghost for if it were by the merit of the Priest 't would not at all belong to Christ c. If St. Augustin could have prophesied that a malicious Discourser Twelve Hundred years after his death should have propos'd such a foolish Cause to have produc'd so absur'd a Doctrine in the Language of our Discourser I know not how he would have answer'd him more pertinently I shall not trouble you therefore with the Authorities of Justin Martyr Apol. 2. St. Ambr. l. de his qui mist init and several other Fathers together with General Councils particularly that of Florence de Sacram. Euch. to the same purpose but conclude that the Apostles Fathers and Councils having no design or prospect of any valuable consideration for so great a risque as their Eternal Salvation must have impos'd this Doctrine upon mankind either through gross Ignorance or meer wilful and devilish premeditated Malice But having no manner of reason to believe the first and from my heart detesting so cursed a thought as the last we will next consider what inducements they might have had from the consideration of Spiritual advantages arising from thence to the Christian World to have prest this Doctrine believing it to be true with the greater earnestness And indeed the advantages are very many and very great As First That the Eucharist is a pledge of our Salvation Secondly That we are not only by Faith but even Corporally united with Christ Thirdly That in regard of this Union the Eucharist is a Seal to us of our Resurrection Fourthly That through it we are made partakers of the Divine Nature Fifthly That by being thus truly and really united with Christ we cannot be altogether divided from such influences as proceed from Christ Sixthly That our Faith is encreased proportionable to the difficulties which encompass this Doctrine Seventhly That our Hope is raised hereby
and was Invisible I hope the two first Reasons will be taken off by consent And first it is understood I think by all Mat. 17. that the Body of Christ when he was transfigur'd did exist after a Supernatural manner and was freed for the time being from the clog and earthly limitations of common humane Bodies Secondly It is plain that after his Resurrection Jesus made his Body become Invisible The Text tells us That he appear'd in several Forms After that he appear'd in another Form unto two of them Mark 16. v. 12. Which I suppose is somewhat above Nature Also the third time when Jesus shewed himself to his Disciples at the Sea of Tiberias he had changed again his Form for they knew him not John c. 21. Nor was he known the first time by Mary Magdalen but was mistaken by her for the Gardiner But in Luke 24. It is clearly exprest That Jesus appear'd to his Disciples after the manner of a Spirit for it is said in v. 36. And as they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and said unto them peace be unto you But they were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they seen a spirit Now altho' the Circumstances in this Text sufficiently denote that our Saviour came not to his Disciples progressively after the manner of humane Bodies but that eodem instante he appear'd in the midst of them which was the cause of their fear for they were told before that our Lord was risen Yet the preceding v. 31. of the same Chapter leads so manifestly to this Interpretation that there is no colour left to doubt for it is there written That after our Lord had been ignorantly entertain'd by the two Disciples at Emmaus at last Their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight This agrees also with the account which we have from St. John c. 20. v. 19. Where it is said The same day at Evening when the Dores were shut came Jesus and stood in the midst of them The same Circumstance is also repeated in v. 26. In vain do ye therefore so often Object to us Worthy Fathers the necessity of believing our Senses in all things and upon all Occasions since you see how the Apostles themselves were deceived by them even concerning the real visible corporal Presence of Christ upon Earth As for St. Thomas and the Confirmation from the Evidence of his Senses our Saviour reproacht his want of Faith and suffer'd him to put his doubting hand into his Sacred Wounds not so much to shew him that he was meer Man as to convince them that he was God and Man God from his infinite Power in being able to make his Natural Body exist after the manner of a Spirit which they had seen before and were terrified at it And Man in that nevertheless he had the shape and Substance of that very Body in which he suffer'd Nor must we think that these Supernatural changes were done by chance or without the blessed design of the Divine Wisdome for the Disciples who hitherto had doubted concerning the great Article of the Resurrection of the Flesh were not only hereby convinced of this necessary truth but were also taught after what manner their Bodies should be raised from the dead Or as S. Paul says 1 Cor. c. 15. What Bodies they do become S. Paul gives them their Answer v. 36. Thou fool that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die Then telling us of the several differences between Bodies some more and some less glorified he proceeds v. 42. So also is the Resurrection of the Dead It is sown in Corruption it is raised in Incorruption It is sown in Dishonor it is raised in Glory It is sown in Weakness it is raised in Power It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body And this our Saviour had before experimentally taught them by the differing and Spiritual manner of the Existence of his own Body confirming also has Divinity by that Power which he exercised upon it according to that of S. Matthew c. 28. v. 18. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth If then our common Sinful Bodies shall have this Glory Power and Spirituality when they are raised from the Dead and probably be subject then to the Soul as the Soul is now to the Body who will dare to prescribe Laws to the holy and spotless Body of our Lord united to his Divinity However it be the vindication of the Real Presence seems to concern your selves worthy Fathers or at least many other Protestants no less than Catholics and if that be admitted methinks Transubstantiation should not be so rudely refused Entrance For give me leave to ask you from what Authority you pretend to tell us That Christ is really Present in the Sacrament except you mean as in all other pious Duties If you deny this real Presence you stand separate from the whole Christian World Lutherans as well as Catholics which is no very good Argument that you are in the right If you confess it solve these difficulties your selves for it concerns you no less than us But if again you do not confess it then tell me I say what ground you have from Scripture to name those words except as a consequence from these This is my Body and upon the Supposition that at least the Substance of the Bread is become after Consecration the very Body of our Lord You tell us again That we do verily truly and indeed receive the very Body of Christ That born of the Virgin Mary which suffer'd for us and rose from the Dead Let me enquire again what Authority you have to use those words if you do not literally intend the thing Spiritual Graces proceed not from his Humanity but from his Divinity Faith is one of these Spiritual Graces and the immediate Gift of God and signifies only this at least in this place That Christ was the Son of God that he became Man that he died for us and rose again from the dead What hath this to do with eating his Body and drinking his Blood A Commemoration only of his Death it cannot mean nor could the Apostles so understand it except you can shew me some such like Metaphor used to express the memorial of a Man after his death But if neither before our Saviours Passion nor since amongst Jews Heathens or Christians such an Expression was ever used why must we believe that Christ spake or the Apostles understood different from all the expressions of mankind since the Creation of Adam When the Master of the House in Celebrating the Paschal Supper said This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt true Bread was really deliver'd and the Memorial was proper When Moses said Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you It was very Blood which Moses sprinkled on the People Exod. 24. v. 8.
afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury who among other things hath these words This Faith speaking of the Real Presence according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Church which being spread over the whole World is call'd Catholic now holds and hath held from the Primitive Times But you saith be to Berengarius believe that the Bread and Wine of our Lords Table remain unchanged as to their Substance after Consecration c. If this be true which you believe and maintain concerning the Body of Christ then that is false which is believed and taught of it by the Church over the whole World for as many as own the name of Christians and are really such do profess that in the Sacrament they receive the true Flesh of Christ and his true Blood the same which he took of the Virgin Most wonderfully strange that so absurd a Doctrine should have spread so universally in so short a time as our Discourser is pleas'd to allow it Guitmundus Rupertus Algerus and other Learned Men writ against him to the same effect And moreover this his Doctrine was condemn'd as false and himself as an Innovator in no less than Eight Councils and Synods before that of Lateran which miserable Synods as the Answerer proudly calls them may be supposed to have had as much Learning and Honesty and I am sure much more Authority than Twenty two such Sheets as his tho' stampt with an Imprimatur before them Now let us observe This Monstrous Absurd Barbarous and Impious Doctrine of Transubstantiation as our Discourser calls it in somewhat more than two Hundred years was so throughly establisht all over the Christian World that these Learned Authors and the Fathers of these Eight Councils assembled in several Kingdoms were so totally ignorant that their own Doctrine had its date from the Council of Nice or that the Opinion of Berengarius had been ever before publickly profest that they make no scruple of alledging the Antiquity Vniversality and Constant Practice of their own Doctrine as a most convincing and unanswerable Argument against his Interroga Graecos Armenios says Lantfranc seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubst se testabuntur habere I profess that if after this my most serious and impartial Enquiry concerning the Belief of the Ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church touching the Real Presence it should possibly be true that they all or generally agreed with our Discourser and his figurative Interpretation excluding the Substance I would lay aside all my Books and conclude once for all That even the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self is more easie and rational than the true sense of the Fathers concerning it intelligible or attainable And tho I will not say with the Booksellers Wife at Paris That if the Primitive Fathers believ'd Transubstantiation She would no longer believe Christianity yet I may say if they did believe it and were mistaken a Christians Faith any further than it may be productive of good Works is the most indifferent thing in the World Our Discourser tells us of one John Scotus and Ratramnus and I know not who writing I know not what against this Doctrine of the Real Presence at least according to his Interpretation tho I know many Catholics understand some of them in a very Orthodox sense But to me it seems as impertinent to bring two or three private persons advancing their private Opinions against the Concurrent Testimonies of all Authors prior present and others since they wrote posterior to them besides the Definitions and Decrees of General Councils as it would be among us to produce the Authorities of John Milton and Junius Brutus to prove that it was lawful among the Jews for the People by their own Supream Power to murder their Kings and that in all Governments the People have the same Sovereign Authority to judge and punish even by Death their lawful hereditary Kings and Governours if they shall so think fit Now having the History of the Bible as well as they together with the express Command of God and constant Testimony and Practice of Learned Men through all Ages and publick Laws with Acts of Parliament to the contrary these Men may write till their Hands and Hearts ake to use out Discourser's expression before they shall perswade me to renounce the strongest Evidence imaginable in favour of their private Sentiments Whether our Discourser be of my mind or not I cannot tell but if he be I see no greater reason to believe John Scotus than John Milton Come we now to the Church Authority which so much offends him Our indulgent Mother according to her favourable Discipline permitted the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as she had done for many years that of the Consubstantiality to pass upward of Twelve Hundred years without any other judicial determination of the Modus as they call it than such as had been Originally planted in the hearts and minds of the Faithful and cultivated in every Age by Pious and Learned Men in their Sermons Catechisms and other Discourses as occasion hapned But Berengarius a Man fond of his own Notions and valuing himself much upon his own Reason resolved to set up for a new Light of the Church and among other Errors taught the figurative acceptation of the Words of Consecration as hath been before related Upon this he was admonisht by several Pious and Learned Catholics to retract betimes so new and pernicious a Heresie But the Arguments of sense procuring him a party among the Vulgar he prosecuted his design with great vigor until at last he was taken notice of by the Supream Church-Governors and in a Council at Rome An. Dom. 1050. his Doctrine was condemn'd and himself excommunicated At length having several times abjur'd this his Heresie and as often return'd to his Vomit he burnt the Book of Scotus from whence he confest to have suckt part of his Poyson renounc'd for the last time with all Sincerity his former Opinions and spending the residue of his days in Piety and Devotion died in the Unity of the Roman Catholic Church full of sorrow and repentance Jan. 6. An. Dom. 1088. as may be seen in Membranis Taureacens in Chronic. Clarii Floriacens Monach. S. Petri vivi in Will of Malmesbury l. 3. de gestis Reg. Angl. In Baldrico Burgaliensi Abbate and in the Manuscript B. Martini Turonensis Notwithstanding all this the Seeds of Heresie thus sown were not easily rooted out And besides some Catholics themselves taking occasion from this Heresie had writ-concerning this great Mystery according as they best apprenended it But sometimes the obscurity of their Expressions the double sense which they admitted and not clearly shewing what they themselves believed Misfortunes which happen to most men who write concerning such high Mysteries without Authority the Governours of the Church thought fit as the best means to obviate these Inconveniences to call a General Council under Pope Innocent the Third which was