mistunderstood And then I answer as I have done in the Notes upon that place that I am not obliged to say precisely what our Saviour's reason was for that But besides what you will find there it may be said that sometimes it well becomes a Man of Wisdom and Authority when he finds his Words perverted by caviling People to repeat them again and thereby to speak his own Assurance that they did not drop unadvisedly from him and that 't is not his own but his Hearers Fault that he is misunderstood And this is the more reasonable to be said in the present case if the Jews wilfully perverted our Saviour's Words to that absurd sense of eating his Flesh with their Teeth as 't is probably they did and that because his Expressions were plainly allusive and because also the Allusion was now and then explain'd as I shew'd before What inconvenience is it therefore to suppose that our Lord perceiving that his Divine Discourses and Exhortations had but hardened them in a Spirit of Contradiction did not think himself bound to use presently the utmost plainness of Words for the sake of Men to whom he had spoken plainly enough already if any good were to be done upon them But for further satisfaction in this matter I refer you once more to the Paraphrase and Notes which are already finished and where some little Light is given to those Passages which may seem obscure enough I hope to lead you out of all danger of suspecting those words of our Saviour V. 51 c. to enforce that the Substance of his Flesh must be eaten by us either in or out of the Sacrament It seems I told you that these Passages were not to be understood of the Sacrament I should have added that because they signify those things which are signify'd in the Sacrament that they may be very aptly applied to the Sacrament especially in Exhortations to Devotion nay and that there are some cases in which a Man may argue from the one to the other and some Questions to which both the one and the other give equal Light which may very well be and yet it will by no means follow that these words are primarily to be understood of the Eucharist And this Opinion I cannot deliver up meerly because you have heard that the Church always held the contrary No Man I believe has a greater regard to the constant and universal Tradition of the Church than my self But then I do not think my self bound to believe that the Church has always held this or that because this and that Man tells me so For if a Man can speak and has a Cause to serve 't is as easie to say Thus saith the Church as to say Thus saith the Scripture I remember indeed that our Country-man Nicholas Sanders tells us That (c) Nic. Sanderus de Euchar. p. 23. to deny these words to be understood of the Eucharist is contrary to the Instruction and Authority of all Antiquity And Maldonate says That (d) Maldon in Joan. 6. all the ancient Fathers acknowledge it And others say the same thing and it seems you have heard it Now this is but a custom of speaking which some Men have gotten For I am well assured that all the Fathers were not of their mind Clemens Alexandrinus (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Paedag. lib. 1. c. 6. p. 105. Paris supposes these Expressions to eat the Flesh of Christ and to drink his Blood to be as figurative as that of St. Paul to feed with Milk and tells us upon this occasion that the word is variously allegorized being called Meat and Flesh and Nourishment and Bread and Blood and Milk and that our Lord is all these things for our enjoyment who believe in him Now I am perswaded you will not say that this Father interpreted the Words under Debate of the Eucharist Tertullian to shew that these Words the Flesh profiteth nothing do not make against the Resurrection of the Flesh saith (f) Sic etsi carnem ait nihil prodesse ex materia dicti dirigendus est sensus Nam quia durum intolerabilem existimaverunt sermonem ejus quasi vere Carnem suam illis edendam determinasset ut in Spiritum disponeret statum salutis praemisit Spiritus est qui vivificat atque ita subjunxit Caro nihil prodest ad vivificandum scilicet Exequitur etiam quid velit intelligi spiritum Verba quae locutus sum vobis Spiritus sunt Vita sunt Sicut supra qui audit Sermones meos credit in eum qui c. Itaque Sermonem constituens vivificatorem quia Spiritus Vita Sermo eundem etiam Carnem suam dixit quia sermo Caro erat Pactus proinde in causam Vitae Appetendus devorandus Auditu ruminandus intellectu Fide digerendus Nam paulo ante Carnem suam panem quoque Coelestem pronunciaret urgens usquequaque per Allegoriam c. Tertul. de Resâ—r Carnis c. 36 37. That we are to be directed to the sence of what is said by the subject-matter of it For because they thought his saying hard and intollerable as if he intended his Flesh should be truly eaten by them he to shew that the Cause of Life and Salvation was spiritual premised this That the Spirit quickneth and then added The Flesh profiteth nothing that is in respect of quickning And then he shews what he means by the Spirit The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life As he had said also before He that heareth my words and believeth in him that sent me hath Eternal Life and shall not come into Condemnation but hath passed from Death to Life Therefore making his Word to be the quickning Principle since his Word is Spirit and Life he called his Word also his own Flesh for the Word was also made Flesh and therefore in order to Life it is to be hungred after and devoured by HEARING and to be chewed again by the VNDERSTANDING and to be digested by FAITH And afterwards he affirms that our Lord all along urged his Intent by an Allegory So that Tertullian was so far from thinking these Passages to refer to the Eucharist that I am in some doubt whether he understood them with any special reference to the Death of Christ. Origen also interprets Flesh and Blood in like manner For says he (g) Carnibus enim sanguine Verbi sui tanquam mundo cibo atque potu reficit omne hominum genus Orig. in Levit. Hom. 7. By the Flesh and the Blood of his WORD as with pure Meat and Drink he refresheth all Mankind And †Vide in Mat. Tract 12. elsewhere he speaketh to the same purpose St. Athanasius likewise seems to me to be of the same Opinion who speaking of the literal sence in which the Jews understood our Saviour hath these words (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Athan. in
remember what he said rather than that they should understand it presently But neither to the Multitude nor to his Disciples did he clearly signifie the Reasons and Ends of his Passion this seeming to be one of those things that they could not bear now but which the Comforter should reveal to them afterward It may therefore be said That our Lord did not deliver the Doctrine concerning the Death he was to suffer and the blessed Fruits thereof to all Believers in such-like plain words and expressions as I have endeavoured to use in the Paraphrase because he used to conceal the former from the People and reserve the clear manifestation of the latter till after his Resurrection and Ascension when these Sayings would be brought to remembrance and better understood than they were at first But one may ask Why did he not at least tell these Men that these were still but Expressions of spiritual things by way of allusion to things sensible To which I answer That he did thus explain himself to his Disciples presently after and that upon occasion of this gross Mistake see V. 62 63. and nothing appears to the contrary but that this Explication was made in the Synagogue in the Hearing of all But whether it was so or not 't is sufficient for us that he explained himself as he did to the Disciples In the mean time Cardinal Cajetan's Argument that this place cannot be understood of the Eucharist because then it would infer a necessity of the Peoples receiving the Cup is an Argument ad Homines plain and strong Neither is it to be avoided by pretending that Christ does not speak of the Species either of Bread or Wine but of the Things contained under them and therefore that because whole Christ is contained under one kind the Condition of Eternal Life is fulfilled by receiving him under either kind For they that receive him under the Species of a Wafer or a morsel of Bread only which is to be eaten cannot with any Modesty be said to drink his Blood which is yet made as necessary as eating his Flesh We grant that eating and drinking being taken as figurative Expressions do signifie the same thing viz. believing and we say that believing when 't is expressed by eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood refers to that particular Object of Faith the Death of Christ signified by the separate mention of his Body and Blood But eating and drinking being taken properly do not signify the same thing If therefore our Saviour is to be understood properly of receiving him in the Eucharist by eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood The words are plain beyond all dispute that he is to be received by drinking his Blood there as well as by eating his Flesh Which since the Church of Rome denies to the Laity the Cardinal had good reason not to understand these words of the Eucharist being concerned as he was to make the best of all those Usages which he found in his Church And yet I doubt this great Man hath not quite delivered that Church from all the Reproof this very Text has for their half Communion For although these words are not to be understood properly of the Eucharist yet I think what Grotius says cannot be reasonably denied viz. that here is a Tacit Allusion to the Eucharist And if that be true the Text even thus taken will condemn their witholding the Cup from the Laity For the Allusion must consist in this that as according to the Institution of the Eucharist the Holy Bread and Cup were separately taken to shew forth the violent Death of Christ so in these words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood the believing of his meritorious Death and following the Example of his Patience c. is expressed by the separate mention of his Flesh and Blood and therefore of eating the one and drinking the other Which allusion is so apt that I should not wonder if it inclines those that enquire no further to believe that our Saviour here speaks of the Eucharist But since the separate taking of the Holy Bread and the Holy Cup in the Eucharist on the one side and the separate mention of his Flesh and Blood on the other is that in which the Allusion consists it is utterly destroyed by the pretended Concomitance i. e. by giving the Body and Blood not as separated but as united or by giving the Body and Blood to be eaten not the Flesh to be eaten and the Blood to be drunk In short as our Saviour did Sacramentally represent his Death by taking the Holy Bread and the Holy Cup separately and giving them separately so he did in Words alluding to that Sacrament represent the same Death i. e. by the distinct mention of his Flesh and Blood and he represented also the necessity of Faith in his Death under the distinct Expressions of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood And therefore they who in the Eucharist pretend to give both Kinds in one destroy the reason why these words allude to the Eucharist But if they say that our Saviour here speaks properly of the Eucharist nothing can be more evident than that they openly condemn themselves in denying that to the People which as they say he required in proper and express Terms and that is the drinking of his Blood And in truth they destroy the significancy of the Sacrament which is no otherwise a representation of our Lord's Death than as it represents the separation of his Flesh and Blood And then I desire them to tell me how they can be said to commemorate the Death of Christ by receiving a Sacrament that shews forth the separation of his Body and Blood who do not receive them separated but united St. Paul concluding the End of the Sacrament from the Institution of it said As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew the Lord's Death till he come The Reason whereof is exceeding plain viz. Because the separation of the Blood from the Body is shewn by the distinct taking of the Bread and the Cup to eat the one and drink the other But this Reason is so confounded by the Half-Communion and the Doctrine of Concomitance that the Institution is not only contradicted but I fear the Sacrament is denied to them that receive one Kind only and that they have not so much as an Half-Communion inasmuch as they do not receive a Sacrament that shews the Death of Christ 54. But he that is so far from rejecting me and being offended at me because of that painful Death which I am to suffer that he doth on the other hand receive all that Divine Instruction which it does afford and turns it into spiritual Nourishment by learning the high displeasure of God against Sin and his infinite Love to Mankind and the Vanity of this World and the worth of his own Soul and the necessity of Repentance and of a Godly Life my Death
A PARAPHRASE WITH NOTES Upon the Sixth Chapter of St. JOHN With a Discourse on Humanity and Charity By W. CLAGET D. D. The Second Edition Imprimatur Jo. Battely RRmo Patri ac D no D no Wilhelmo Archiepisc Cantuar. à Sacris Domesticis Ex Edibus Lambeth Maii 31. 1686. LONDON Printed for J. Robinson at the Golden Lion and T. Newborough at the Golden Ball in St. Paul's Church-yard 1693. THE PREFACE SIR 'T IS not for nothing that we are desired to read the Sixth Chapter of St. John every day I have engaged my Thoughts with what attention I can upon those Passages between the 51 and 61 Verses and the more I consider them the more favourably they seem to me to look upon that Opinion that the very Flesh of Christ is eaten in the Sacrament I know not what to say to this that though the Jews understood Christ's Words of eating his very Flesh and he saw plainly enough that they did so yet he went on in the same strain of Expressions Verily verily I say unto you Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you I know you told me that these Passages are not to be interpreted of the Sacrament and that there is no mention in them of any outward and visible Signs which are necessary to a Sacrament But I have heard that the Church always thought these words to be spoken of the Sacrament And besides though there be no mention of a Sacrament yet if Christ's Words enforce this that the natural Substance of his Flesh must be properly eaten by us it will follow that it must be thus eaten in the Sacrament of his Body and Blood unless we could tell how or where else it is to be done I would be glad to see such a Paraphrase upon this Chapter as you speak of which would help to make all appear plain And it were well if others might see it too and thereby see this at least that you are so well satisfy'd with your own Reasons that you are not afraid to let those judge of them that are otherwise perswaded I am c. The PREFACE SIR YOU are desired to read the 6th Chapter of St. John's Gospel every day and this I doubt not for the sake of that part of it between V. 51 and V. 61 which seems to require eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ in the proper sense And here I make no question your Thoughts were closely engaged But perhaps you have not applied that attention to the rest of the Chapter which you gave to that part where the difficulty lies and then no wonder that the difficulty still remains For I beg leave to put you in mind once more that the true Sense of those difficult Passages as you count them is to be gained by observing their connexion with all the rest And therefore to that Request that you would often read the 6th Chapter of St. John which I acknowledge to be a reasonable Request I must add another as reasonable as that which is that you would not only often read but likewise often consider the whole Chapter and mind our Saviour's Design in it That you would therefore observe what sort of People he had to do with and what was the occasion of this Conversation between him and them What was the Fundamental Cause of their Prejudices against him and with what Arguments and Applications he laboured to remove those Prejudices For you will then find that they were Men whose Belly was their God and who minded earthly things that they followed Christ for the Loaves that he disappointed their Hopes that they were angry at it and altered their Opinion of him upon it that their earthly-mindedness was the Reason why they now liked him not but set themselves to cavil at all his Sayings that to take them off from the Cares and Pleasures of this present Life he laid before them better and greater Things the Means and Hopes of everlasting Life Finally that he calls the Means and Causes of bettering our Minds and bringing us to everlasting Life Meat and Drink and our believing and obeying his Doctrine eating and drinking And then if I am not deceived you will easily acknowledge that in particular he calls the Belief of his Death and Passion for the Sins of the World and the saving Fruits of that Faith eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood And that there is no more reason to imagine that his Flesh should be eaten and his Blood drank in the proper and corporeal sense than that he should make himself Bread to be eaten by us as we use to eat Bread But that there is good reason to understand throughout by that eating and drinking which he required spiritual Actions only which the whole strain of his Discourse shews that he opposed to that corporeal feeding which they were so inordinately sollicitous for I must for the same Reason desire you to mind those plain Intimations scattered here and there in our Lord's Discourse by which it is evident what he meant by eating and drinking He saith V. 29. This is the (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Work of God that ye BELIEVE on him whom he hath sent which is an Interpretation of V. 27. (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Labour not for the meat that perisheth but c. Again V. 35. He that BELIEVETH on me shall never thirst And again V. 47. He that BELIEVETH on me hath everlasting Life So likewise V. 36. and V. 40. This I say is fit to be minded For when not only the occasion he had to use these Terms of eating and drinking which was their following him for their Bellies shews these Terms to be allusive but as if that were not enough he likewise added now and then the plain and proper meaning of those Allusions it must I think be a wilful Mistake in him that attends to this to interpret those Expressions as if they were not allusive Nor is this all for you may please to consider also that when our Saviour found some of his Disciples to understand him as the Carnal Jews did he thought fit for more abundant satisfaction to explain his meaning once for all V. 62 63. as you will find by the ensuing Paraphrase and Notes As for our Saviour's repeating those Expressions at which the Jews had already taken offence you may consider that V. 51. he added that Expression of drinking his Blood to that of eating his Flesh which was a more plain Intimation of that violent Death which he was to suffer for us than that former Saying of giving his Flesh for the Life of the World And so tho' he kept still to the Allusion yet he represented what kind of Death he was to suffer more fully than he had done before But perhaps you are at a loss why he continued to speak allusively at all when he found that he was so grosly
shall yield an everlasting Profit and an Increase that he shall live upon it for ever But then says the Apostle Be not deceived God is not mocked for as a Man soweth he shall also reap Tho' a Cup of cold Water given to a Disciple in the name of a Disciple shall not lose its Reward i. e. when either more is not in the hand of him that gives or no farther need in him that receives yet so small a thing is Mockery where there is greater need on the one side and ability to answer it on the other This being remembred it remains true what our Saviour said He that receiveth and therefore he that relieveth a Righteous Man in the name of a Righteous Man or because he is a Righteous Man shall receive a Righteous Man's Reward For to him in some part the Righteous Man's Thankfulness to God and the support of his Faith and Dependence upon God and the making of his perseverance therein more easie and the rescuing him out of Temptation may in good measure be imputed Now Brethren we have in this Life only the opportunity of sowing to the Spirit in this manner and of making Friends to our selves of the Mammon of this World that when it fails we may be received into everlasting Habitations and of turning the things of this World which so often betray Men to Perdition into the Instruments of our Salvation Let us therefore often consider those Words and Exhortations of St. Paul and that when our Reckoning comes to be cast up at the end of our Lives there will be no longer any Profit or Comfort in what we have worn and eaten and drank but we shall find that to be true The Belly for Meats and Meats for the Belly but God will destroy both it and them But that the remembrance of the Good we have done to All Men and especially to the Houshold of Faith will be sweet and pleasant to us and that the Reward of it will endure for ever Therefore my beloved Brethren be ye stedfast unmoveable always abounding in the Work of the Lord forasmuch as ye know that your Labour is not in vain in the Lord. A LETTER CONCERNING Protestants Charity to Papists Published by W. Claget D. D. SIR I Find that the Translation of the Wholsom Advices from the Blessed Virgin c. which may have help'd to settle the Minds of others has something discompos'd yours For though you are not I dare say pleas'd with the Protestant Preface to it yet however you dissemble your pain Wise Men say that you bite that Preface for grief of the Translation I cannot but admire the Art of you Gentlemen of the Church of Rome in running down Books with bold Contempt which you know not otherwise how to deal with This Translation and Preface for some Reasons is an Eye-sore to you and chiefly for helping to spoil the new Fashion of maintaining Popery by Representing it Something therefore must be done with it and so a little part of the Preface which did not belong neither to the main Design of the Book must be singled out and be made an Example As for all the rest 't is sufficiently answer'd by saying Must I set up for Reader of Anatomy upon all the Pamphlets that come into the World I am highly obliged to you for the Kindness but I think the Scavenger has much the better Office who has nothing but Dirt and Sinks to deal with much less offensive than to be always raking into filthy Calumnies fulsom Incongruities and noysom Impertinencies Which kind of Language one would hardly use but out of a great desire to be unanswerable one way or other After this touch upon the whole you come to touch at some Particulars which seem to fall within your Province of Representing or rather to touch at something which you were the better provided to touch because you had in the very same manner toucht it before in your Fourth Vindication of the First Part. The Particular is That Papists allow no less a possibility of Salvation to Protestants than Protestants do to Papists Now although this is all that I am concerned to oppose yet I shall offer a few Words to your Preparatory Discourse in which you pretend to shew what good Reason you have to pronounce against the Possibility of Salvation amongst us or rather in the new fashion'd Phrase that we as Protestants are guilty of Sins inconsistent with Salvation inasmuch as we are separated from your Communion The short of what you say is That after most serious Considerations and the weighing of all Reasons the Papist believes the Roman Church in which he is to be that one only holy Catholick Church and therefore he does not question but what is truly affirm'd of the Church of the Apostles and succeeding Ages and those that fell from it is most true of the same Church now in being of which he is a Member and of all those who separate from it upon what Pretext soever Now it had been much more to the purpose to have produc'd those serious Considerations than to have spent so much time as you did to prove what none of us make the least Question of viz. That Christ establish'd a Catholick Church that he committed the Care of it to the Apostles that they were inspir'd with the knowledge of Truth that they left Pastors to govern and feed the Flock after their Decease and that the Promise of Salvation is made to Believers exclusively to Unbelievers This I say is all very true but not to your purpose unless you had prov'd also what you do but insinuate That we have separated our selves from the Doctrine and Government of the Church of Christ Which Words I wonder that you were not afraid to use when they lay so fair to be turn'd upon your selves For we are no less sure that many of your Doctrines are no parts of the Doctrine of that Church and that Rome's being the Mother and Mistress of all Churches was not the Government of that Church over which the Apostles were c. Overseers for their time than we are that such a Church was established in the World And therefore if they who separate themselves from the Doctrine and Government of the Church of Christ as it was first establish'd cannot hope for Salvation Pray look to your selves as to that Point instead of contending that you are the only Catholick Church out of which there is no hope of Salvation As to what you would insinuate that there must be in the Church a Succession of Pastors to the Worlds end who should no more err in teaching than the Apostles themselves did and that your Church has that Succession I must tell you as to the first that it is by no means proved from John 14. v. 16. since what is there promis'd to the Apostles is not promis'd to the Church of all Ages so as it was to the Apostles The Spirit of God abode
your Policy found it expedient to imitate you as far as Truth and Christian Charity would permit them And this may suffice also to apologize for my using it in my Preface It now remains Sir that I speak to another thing which seem'd to disturb you which is Whether I am a Lay-man or a Clergy-man For I find you wavering about it and therefore I 'll endeavour to fix you tho' in a doubtful case Why should not Charity have inclin'd you that brag of so much to believe me when I profess my self a Lay-man Well but I speak so like a Clergy-man so almost in the very Words and Phrases of a Doctor of my Church and another Doctor mention'd in your Last Reâ—ly that you cannot but take what I say for Church-sence dropping through a Lay-Pen Sir I must needs thank you for the Honour you do me in taking me to speak like such great Men but I have not Vanity enough to believe that I do Yet thus much I 'll confess that I desire to live no longer than I can if not speak yet love and admire the Church of England-Sence But is it impossible for a Lay-man to speak like a Clergy-man Does Holy Orders make such a difference Or do you imagine I have never read any of our Churches Writers Why may not then my Mind be tinctured by them And so what I speak or write bear some resemblance to them Is there not many a Son like his Father And how do you know but I am the Son of a Clergy-man and so by Blood derive something of their way of Writing But to make an end I fancy Sir that you or whoever was the Author of the First Part of the Papist Misrepresented c. and some others of your Church have found to your Grief and Shame that either of these Doctors you speak of could if they had pleas'd to have undertaken so mean a Work have writ another sort of a Preface than I have done to the disadvantage of the French Popery now imitated in England Let the meanness of the Performance prevail over you to believe that neither of them made it But indeed you are injurious to them to fancy they would be guilty of such indirect dealing No no Sir the Divines of the Church of England have a better Cause they need use no Arts or Tricks no feign'd Miracles no bold Untruths no malicious Whispers and Slanders to support and defend it nor put Shams upon the World This Practice is none of theirs and if you please that may be added as a Mark to prove ours a True Church And indeed I could easily perswade my self to believe that your own Practice and that of your Party was in your Thoughts when this Fancy entred into your Brain But in a word and to put you out of pain about these two Doctors for I cannot blame you for dreading them I do assure you that neither of them made that Preface and once more that I who now write this Letter am a Lay-man and writ that Preface such as ' t is And if I could but be infallibly certain that the old Popery was alter'd in the point of Malice Revenge and seeking occasion against those who never so little oppose or hinder the Designs of Rome I would give you entire satisfaction in this Particular and not only tell you my Name but where I live But because I cannot get out of my Thoughts some late Actions and that hard Usage of the brave Author of Wholsom Advices c. I fear lest Old Popery may be practic'd upon me too and therefore think it but common Prudence to conceal my self For to tell you true I am not yet weary of that little Happiness I enjoy But Sir you make your Misrepresenter tell the World that I am dabling out of my Element by which one would think that after all you believ'd I am a Lay-man Well but how out of my Element May not a Lay-man tell Truth and do good to his Neighbour's Soul Is God's Spirit is all Knowledge limitted to Holy Orders Because there are some Functions appropriated to Clergy-men such as Administring the Sacraments c. does it therefore follow that a Lay-man may neither write nor discourse of any Matters of Religion Pray Sir does that Command Thou shalt love thy Neighbour as thy self oblige Lay-men as well as Clergy-men If it does and since I may edifie my self why I beseech you not another And can a Man express his Charity to his Neighbour in a higher manner than in Spiritual Things But the Arguments are infinite which might be us'd in this Case And therefore I shall only ask you whether Tertullian and Origen and many other of the Ancient Fathers writ not about Religion when they were Lay-men Nay more did not Pope Adrian and Pope Nicholas admit Laymen into Councils And pray what was Picus Mirandula but an Earl and meer Lay-man and Sir Thomas More Lord Chancellor of England But above all what was that Prince who wrote against Luther for which the Pope thought fit to bestow the Title of Defender of the Faith upon him But indeed why should it seem strange that you and your Church should find fault with Lay-men's medling in Controversies of Religion especially against you when you dare totally bar Lay-mens reading the Holy Scriptures for which they have a Command from God Search the Scriptures and perswade them to put out their Eyes and throw away their Reason which God and Nature has given them to be their Guide through this deceitful World And yet I dare say that if a Lay-man would undertake so knotty a piece of Work as to write in Defence of your Church that you would not tell him that he was dabling out of his Element tho' he were no better than a Profligate Poet. I pass over your unhandsom Language and 't is below me to return it But I cannot but stand amaz'd to find a Member of the Church of Rome and a Maintainer of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation make his Misrepresenter say That the Protestant Teachers know the People they have to deal with That their discerning Faculties are stupify'd That they 'll pass over fifty Contradictions without once stumbling and that there 's no fear of enquiring How can this be No Sir the Teachers of the Church of England are not guilty of this Tyranny We are Members of a Church that invites all her Children to the highest Attainment of Knowledge and teaches them that a reasonable Service is the most acceptable to God and imposes nothing upon them that either destroys or contradicts their Reason and Senses that not only allows her Children to read the Holy Scriptures but beseeches them to do it provided they do it with a modest Dependence on their lawful Teachers for the sence of some Texts which may not be so clear to Persons who are unacquainted with the Proprieties of the Languages in which the Holy Scriptures were writ and the Customs