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
Prophets in a hundred plain Texts I presume not unknown to your selves rather than your word in this Case I profess therefore tho my Reason is not able to cope with yours yet I 'll sooner suffer my self to be knockt down with a true Protestant Flayl than with such a Protestant Answer If you say the Catholic Church fell and was corrupt in Faith and Manners then I answer that Christ fail'd of his Promise and so good night to Christianity If you say the Catholic Church did not fall but kept the Unity of Faith Entire and Vncorrupt then I reply again shew me where and how I may find her And from this reasonable and important Request you shall never beat me whilst I live If you think fit to perswade me that the Church of Rome separated from the Church of England and that the Church of England is and ever hath been a part at least of the Catholic Church which always preserv'd the Faith entire and uncorrupt make it appear to me Fathers and I most heartily promise to become the most humble and obedient Subject that ever liv'd under any Government But I foresee many Difficulties which I fear will prove invincible as first It is evident that you separated from the Church of Rome and that within these few years and to prove that she separated from you will be I doubt no easie Task nor have I yet seen it done Next That you were involved in the same pernicious Errors with her ever since Augustin the Monk above a Thousand years since If my Computation be false blame your own Authors and rectifie my Judgment Now how you should rise a pure Church after having been buried so many Hundred years in a corrupt Church I do not easily understand I have heard indeed of some Rivers that have fallen into the Earth and risen up again many Miles off and of others which for many Miles in the Sea have still retain'd the natural sweetness of their own fresh Waters If these comparisons may hold in Religion yet how will you make them quâ—drate with the constant visibility and Demonstration in one case and the Succession of the Original Stream in the other if you say that that the Catholic Church was invisible or totally fell If you pretend to derive your Authority from the Church of Rome when She was in her Purity and Perfection let me tell you here will be a very long Prescription against you and I know not how your Jus postliminium can take place in this case But if it would you must be restor'd by an Act of the same Supream Authority you own'd her you held of her you reciev'd your Doctrine and your Orders from her Besides as hath been said She could by no means grant away her Authority independent from her shew me that lawful Authority which restor'd you and I submit Shew me your extraordinary Calling by those Marks appointed and practis'd in such Cases both under the Old and New Law even to our own Century I mean undoubted Miracles and I acquiesce If you tell me no time can prescribe against Divine Truth nor is Authority necessary to reform an Error In a general Sense I grant both But the Question here is concerning Truth and Error themselves No body doubts but that a certain Divine Truth is to be reciev'd and a certain Error to be avoided but we are now seeking for that Authority which shall declare this Truth and set forth this Error Error or Sin is the breach of a Law for without the Law Rom. 7. Sin is dead whence St. Paul says That he had not known Lust except the Law had said thou shalt not covet Now as Sin supposes a Law so Law requires an Authority And as the one so the other must be visible And to shew that this Authority is absolutely necessary we find our Saviour giving it to his Apostles and themselves exercising and recommending it to others so S. Paul advises Titus Titus 2.15 To speak exhort and rebuke with Authority But what need Instances of this kind Our Saviour hath left us a Law of Faith which in some of the most necessary Points is not clear and self-Evident whence the Arians of old Men of great Learning denied the Trinity and Divinity of our Saviour and they made a very considerable Body Authority condemn'd them and interpreted the Law in those Cases according to our present Orthodox Faith The Socinians and Antitriniturians rebel against it to this day and are neither unlearned nor inconsiderable Luther tells us That Christ is a Saviour of vile and little worth and wanted himself a Saviour Christus ille vilis In Confes Maj. de caen Dom. nec magni pretij Salvator est immo Ipse quoque Salvatore opus habet And that his Divinity suffer'd for us De consil part 2 pertinacissimè contra me pugnabant quod Divinitas Christi pati non posset Tom. 1. prop. 3. He tells us further That good Works are hurtful to Salvation and that Faith doth not Justifie except it be even without the least good Works Calvin also Bilsons Survey and Beza That Christ suffer'd in his Soul the pains of the damned that he prayed unadvisedly and was disturb'd in his Senses That the Divine Substance is not wholly in three Persons but distinct really and truly from Everlasting into three Persons and that there be three Divinities as there be three Persons Melanct in loco Com. c. de Christo Beza 's Confession p. 1. Anno Dom. 1585. Calvin in Act. Serveti Whence Neuserus a Learned Calvinist and chief Pastor at Heidelburg revolting first to Arianism and thence to Mahometanism writ to Gerlachius a Protestant Preacher from Constantinople July 2. 1574. saying None is known to me in my time made an Arian who was not first a Calvinist and then names several such persons That God is the Author of Sin moving inclining and forcing the Will of man to Sin Calvin Instit l. 1. c. 18. and l. 2. c. 4. Zuingl Bucer and several of our Eminent English Reformers concur with them in most of these blasphemous and heretical Opinions Now Fathers if these Instances with many others which I abhor to mention be not sufficient and weighty enough to require a Supream Judge to determine the right Faith and to condemn and silence the wrong then look nearer at home among your selves and if all cannot prevail with you to believe That the Law wanted a Judge and that therefore Christ was pleased in his Wisdom and Goodness to leave us Judges as long as he intended his Law should be in force Then pray excuse me if my Reason and Piety and the reverent Notion which I have of a Just God and a Merciful Saviour totally force my Judgment and Conscience to dissent from you in this particular and let us proceed If you say the Church of Rome usurpt upon you I answer if such a thing was It was in Discipline only and
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
might find a fit parallel for Mr. Arnauld he takes a long Journey to Vienna the rather I suppose that he might pay his respects to the King of France and his Army as he return'd home again for he tells us That by the like Demonstration as Mr. Arnauld's one might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom because if he had the most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness would certainly have employed it against him Now our Discourser without crossing the Seas might have given as proper an instance even from his own Doors for who could easily imagine that the Real Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body in the holy Sacrament should have been believ'd and profest by the Church of England in the days of King James the First and yet that in the Reign of King James the Second the figurative Doctrine in exclusion of the Real Presence should be so firmly and peaceably establisht among us as that not so much as one single Church of England Man at least that I have heard of tho highly dignified by honourable and profitable Employments in and by the said Church of England should write one word in Vindication of their ancient Church Nor one small Pamphlet to oppose the Innovation of these usurping Sacramentories But these things worthy Fathers concern you more than me and lest you should quite forget that there ever had been any such Doctrine profest by your Church of England I shall humbly take the liberty by and by to refresh your memories Much more might be said to shew from what loose Conjectures our Discourser would prove the Innovation of the Doctrine of the Real Presence and that it entred not into the Latin Church before the Eighth Century But since I design nothing of Answer more than to satisfie you worthy Fathers and my self that I have not rushly rejected the Authority of so Learned a Person as our Discourser seems to be without good reason and due consideration this which is already said is I suppose sufficient for that purpose I come now to what he calls the Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation that is The infallible Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith First there is a great difference between making an Article of Faith and declaring and Article of Faith I know no power upon Earth that can do the first but certainly the second is within the Jurisdiction of the lawful Church Governours or otherwise General Councils would be very insignificant Assemblies Now if Transubstantiation should prove to be no more than the true Faith concerning the blessed Sacrament declar'd or explain'd then our Discourser hath no reason to quarrel with Church Authority or fear any Inconveniences should happen from the Exercise of such a Power First I have sufficiently shewn at least in my Opinion that the Doctrine of the Real Presence that is of the Natural Body of Christ substantially truly and literally existing in the Sacrament tho' not after a Corporal and Natural manner to have been the constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church from the Apostles to the great Council of Lateran when in the presence of the Ambassadors of the Greek and Roman Emperours as also of the Kings of Jerusalem England France Spain and Cyprus this word Transubstantiation was agreed upon by neer Thirteen Hundred Fathers to be a proper Explicative Term of the Apostolical Doctrine and belief of the Real Presence or change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of this enough hath been said But because our Discourser is pleas'd to call the Doctrine of the Real Presence barbarous and impious p. 35. I have thought fit to add to the rest the Testimonies of Bishop Andrews and the Learned Casaubon in the name of King James the First and the Church of England and some others of the most Learned Fathers and Professors of the true English Church I will begin with Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. The Cardinal says he cannot be ignorant except wilfully that Christ said This is my Body but not after this manner This is my Body We agree in the object and differ only in the manner Concerning the Hoc est or this is We firmly believe that it is Concerning the after this manner i.e. by the Bread Transubstantiated into the Body of the manner how it is done as by or in or with or under or through there is not a word concerning it We believe the true Presence no less than your selves but we dare not confidently define any thing concerning the manner of this Presence nor are we over curious to enquire into it c. Again ib. c. 8. p. 194. Speaking of the Conjunction of Christs Body with the Symbols he says There is that Conjunction between the visible Sacrament and the Invisible Thing of the Sacrament as between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ where except you would savour of Eutychianism the Humanity is not transubstantiated into the Divinity And a little further The King hath establisht it that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and to be truly there ador'd And we with Ambrose adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries Some possibly may be ingenious enough to interpret all this to signifie a meer figurative Presence as they have done many clear passages of the Fathers but they must interpret for themselves not for me But let us hear what Is Casaubon writes to Cardinal Perron by the Kings Command concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist who saying that the Contest was not about the Truth but only the Manner of the thing returns this reply p. 50. His Majesty wonders since your Eminence confesseth that you do not so solicitously require that Transubstantiation should be believed as that we should not doubt concerning the Truth of the Real Presence That the Church of England should not long since have satisfied you in that particular which hath so often profest to believe it in her public Writings And then for Explication of the Doctrine of the Church of England recites the fore-mention'd words of Bishop Andrews Quod Cardinalem non latet Come we next to Mr. Hooker Eccl. Polit. l. 5. Sect. 67. p. 357. Wherefore should the World continue still distracted and rent with so manifold contentions when there remaineth now no Controversie saving only about the subject where Christ is Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this but whether when the Sacrament is administred Christ be whole within Man only or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very Consecrated Elements themselves Again p. 360. All three Opinions do thus far accordin one That these holy Mysteries received in due manner do instrumentally both make us partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood which were given for the Life of the World and besides also impart unto us even in