Trent that they are not here oppugn'd unless by Hereticks desirous to retain the name of Catholicks The name Catholick is sometimes with them a mark of the Church and now Hereticks covet and use it 'T is a mark and no mark Now for the Synod of Nice he commits a mistake for I cited Hoveden for the opposition of it to the Worship of Images and not as he forgets to the Corporal presence And because he is just now in good humour and promises a fair and candid Answer when my proofs out of Beda and Hoveden are produced I will produce a place or two He will do well for varieties sake to say something that is fair and candid For Hoveden in relation to the Decree of Nice about Image-Worship his Testimony is this In the year 795. Charles King of the Franks sent that Synodical Book to Britain which had been directed to him from Constantinople in which Book alas and wail the day many inconvenient things and CONTRARY TO THE TRVE FAITH were found but the greatest grief was that it was confirmed by almost all the Oriental Doctors no less than Three hundred if not more Bishops with unanimous suffrage THAT IMAGES OVGHT TO BE WORSHIPPED WHICH THE CHVRCH OF GOD VTTERLY ACCVRSETH Against which Decree Albinus wrote a Letter wonderfully strengthened by the Authority of the Divine Scriptures and brought it together with the said Synodical Book to the King of the Francs in the name of our Bishops and Princes As to Beda in relation to the Corporal presence one place may suffice tho' in him there are many Now in his Commentary on St. Luke he teaches that Instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb he did substitute the Sacrament of his own Flesh and Blood in the FIGURE of Bread and Wine And the words following show that he meant it of such Bread and Wine as Melchisedeck gave to Abraham who certainly was not presented with mere shows and Accidents From Knyghton I had asserted That even in the latter time of Wickliff there was no such Doctrine then in England as Transubstantiation publickly imposed as an Article of Faith. I cited not then the Recantation of Wickliff nor the Book in which that Author is and Mr. P. not finding it as I conjecture in his Volumes of Collections he passed it over in silence I will oblige him with it at length tho it is hard Language for a man that has been Eighteen Years out of England I knowleche that the Sacrament of the autar is verry Goddus Body in fourme of Brede but it is in another manner Goddus Body then it is in hevene For in heven it is sene fote in fourme and figure of Fleshe and Blode But in the Sacrament Goddus Body is be myracle of God in fourme of Brede and is he nouther of sene fote Ne in mannes figure but as a Man leeves for to thenk the kynde of an Image whether it be of Dke or of Ashe and settys his thoouzt in him of whome is the Image so myche more schuld a Man leve to thenk on the kynd of Brede But thenk upon Christ for his Body is the same Brede that is the Sacrament of Autere and with alle clennes alle devocion and alle charite that God would gif him worschippe he Crist and then he receyves God gostly more medefully than the Prist that syngus the Masse in lesse Charite For the Bodely etyng ne profytes nouth to Soule but in al 's mykul as the Soule is fedde with Charite This sentence is provyde be Crist that may nouzt lye For as the Gospel says Crist that Night that he was betraied of Iudas Scarioth he toke Brede in hise Handes and blesside it brak it and gaf it to hise Disciplus to ete For he says and may not lye This is my Body CHAP. VII Mr. P. Considered in his Accusations ACCUSAT I. HE cannot step over two Pages before he is gotten into his Innuendo's and his This reflects upon the King He accuseth me for want of Respect in charging the Religion of which the sworn Head of his own Church is a Principal Member which as themselves the Protestants confess flourished in this Kingdom near a Thousand Years before Protestancy was ever heard of to be such whence a moping lying and uneasie temper naturally flows All this I believe he might write himself it is original For want of respect or rather the humblest duty where it is so just a tribute I shall never fail to pay it And here in this instance the fault with which he taxeth me he himself committeth He wears the Sacred name of a King by using it upon every unnecessary occasion Whereas they who understand the profound civil veneration which Crowned Heads may challenge are at the same time frugal in the mentioning of their Names and free and abounding in their Allegiance Add to this that they less honour a Prince than they ought who create any uneasiness to his Subjects and that is an uneasiness which is not pleasing when in common conversation men are under Terror when they have a suspicion that their words shall be watcht and each innocent phrase which the Hearer likes not shall be called a Reflection upon the King. But to come to the strength of his Accusation what a false and invidious consequence is here I. S. grew worse upon Mr. Pulton's tampering with him and so it appear'd to D. H. and Mr. V. and divers others therefore the Roman Religion is such whence a Mopish lying and uneasie temper NATURALLY flows I suppose this consequence was not drawn by him by the Art of Thinking which the ingenious Iansenists have published Must that be Natural to a Religion which may be the effect of dissettlement and the fault of the method of the Tamperer There are many made worse by Empyrical practicers though the Physick it self might not Naturally do it Mr. P. talkt so much of Luther and the DEVIL and of DAMNATION out of his Church that I. S. might for some time be under an affrightment If I may say it in his own light way he ought to have forborn his stories of Goblins when he was putting his Child to rest in his Mothers bosom From his Premises then the Conclusion is not my want of duty if he draws it not with Jesuitical but Logical Art. I wish him a greater share of Loyal duty himself He will he says REFER himself to the JUDGMENT OF HIS MAJESTY which seems a familiarity bordering on irreverence His Half-sheet-Friend has written a FULL ANSWER to the SIX CONFERENCES concerning the Eucharist a Full ANSWER in the same sense that Mr. Pulton's Book is a FULL ACCOUNT And he likes me not the worse I hope because he finds in me a little of the Aequivocator For I openly call my self the PUBLISHER but in his opinion I am secretly the AUTHOR Now he THREATENS me with a smarting Discipline when the Church of
place that the substance of the Elements doth cease upon Consecration or that nothing but the Accidents remain there might have been some colour for his urging this place for the Roman Tenet But I desire St Cyril may interpret himself and I think he knew his own meaning better than Mr. P. In the very same Catech. he saith Regard not therefore these as meer Bread and Wine for they are the Body and Blood of Christ according to our Lords Word Are not these as plainly St. Cyril's expressions as the other and going before them to prevent misinterpreting that which follows And if they are not to be look'd on as meer bread and wine I think they are to be look'd on as Bread and Wine still As if Christ be not to be look'd on as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a meer man I think it follows that he is to be look'd on as a true man but as one much more than a man so whatever St. Cyril superadds by vertue of a Divine 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as he calls it upon Consecration yet he cannot be understood so as to destroy the substance of the Elements which if I mistake not is the Roman Tenet And in this parallel place St. Cyril uses the like expressions as to seeing and tasting Although thy sense suggest that to thee viz. that they are meer Bread and Wine yet let faith establish thee judg not this matter by thy Tast. What was here to be judged by the Tast whether it were real Bread and Wine That he doth not in the least question that I can find but whether there be nothing else but Bread and Wine And as to this he saith Sense is not to be Iudg but Faith. And so say we Bellarmin I remember distinguisheth between the positive Argument from sense and the Negative the positive Argument he saith is good This is handled and seen therefore it is a body but not the Negative this is not handled or seen therefore it is not a Body So say I here according to St. Cyril The Affirmative judgment of sense was true and to be relied upon that which we see and tast to be Bread and Wine is really Bread and Wine but the Negative judgment is not i.e. we are not to judg by our Sight and Tast that they are nothing else but meer Bread and Wine for besides what was discerned by the Senses they were according to our Saviour's word the Body and Blood of Christ. To make this yet more plain to be St. Cyril's meaning we have another Parallel place in the foregoing Discourse where he speaks concerning the Holy Chrism Look not on this saith he as meer Ointment Why not For as the Bread of the Eucharist after Invocation of the Holy Ghost is no longer common Bread but the Body of Christ so this Holy Ointment is no longer meer or common Ointment after Consecration but the Gift of Christ and by the Presence of the Holy Ghost hath a Divine Efficacy Can any thing be plainer than that St. Cyril meant the Bread after Consecration was no longer common Bread Would any man now be thought to hold the Roman Tenet who should talk at this rate And that which he saith oftenest and plainest ought to be taken for his true meaning The same thing he saith concerning the Water in Baptism in his other Catechetical Discourses Come not to Baptism as to common Water but as to the Spiritual Grace which is given with it which he repeats soon after and saith It is not to be regarded as meer Water but as that by which the Holy Ghost doth operate Here is such a similitude of Expressions as may make it most reasonable for us to assert that he understood them in the same manner But it may be objected That he no where saith It is not Water in Baptism as he doth here it is not Bread but the Body of Christ. I answer That he saith It is not meer Water and that is as much as he means as to the Bread in the Eucharist And that he doth not so make the Bread to be the Body of Christ as to destroy the substance of the Bread I shall further prove from St. Cyril himself 1. Cardinal Bellarmin lays down this Rule That saying This Bread is my Body the Proposition must be either figurative or absurd and impossible for the Bread cannot be the Body of Christ. The like is affirmed both by Suarez and Vasquez If now St. Cyril in plain terms affirms this Then he cannot speak according to the Roman Tenet but his Words are express That Christ spake of the Bread when he said This is my Body And this is in the very same Discourse with the other passage and therefore if his words be taken in the strict and literal sense St. Cyril must speak that which was false and impossible for he affirms of the very Bread that it was the Body of Christ. Bellarmin saith St. Cyril doth not speak of material but of consecrated Bread which is material to appearance but in substance is Coelestial Bread. If this be true St. Cyril talked very impertinently for he speaks of the Bread which Christ took into his hand and Consecrated I desire Mr. P. to tell us what sort of Bread that was if it were Coelestial Bread as he calls it then the Transubstantiation was made before Consecration which I think is not agreeable to the Roman Tenet But if it were the substance of Bread when Christ took it then Bellarmin's sense cannot hold And withal the Proposition would be Identical i.e. Ridiculous for then the sense would be This Bread is my Body i.e. My body is my body for that Coelestial bread is the very body of Christ 2. The Roman Tenet is That there is a total change of the whole Substance of the Bread into the Substance of the Body of Christ. But I can find nothing in St. Cyril which implies any such Change He doth indeed affirm That the Bread after invocation of the Holy Spirit by its Presence and Efficacy is made the body of Christ. But he might suppose this to be done as the body of Christ was produced in the Womb of the Virgin by the Power of the Holy Ghost and yet Christ had true Human Nature in him being born of the Virgin as well as conceived by the Holy Ghost So here the true Substance of the Bread might remain yet by the Operative Power of the Holy Ghost that Bread might become the Body of Christ not by being changed into the substance of that Body which was born of the blessed Virgin but by an immediate presence of the Spirit of Christ in it And to this purpose St. Cyril speaks in those Catechetical Discourses For he saith The Church prays God to send his Holy Spirit to make the Bread the Body of Christ. And so the Bread is changed not from being Bread to be none but from being
the 2d Commandment Scholar Explain I pray you by some Example How it may be possible for our Lords Body to be in so many Hosties as many as are found upon so very many Altars Master It is written in the Life of St. Anthony of Padua That when he was preaching in one of the Cities of Italy he was by means of the Divine Grace at the same time in Portugal and there did another good Work. Now therefore if God could bring it to pass that St. Anthony should be in his own form in two such distinct places at such distance how should it not agree to his Power to effect it that Christ should be in many Hosties under the shew of the same Hosties This is my Story from Bellarmin who forgat to prove it Now Mr. Pulton if he pleaseth may call it Impertinent But here is Catechism for Catechism and Allen for Rodriguez And here is the Cardinal in his Cloyster setling the Doctrine of Transubstantiation with St. Anthony here and St. Anthony there and St. Anthony at the same time in his own figure in both places And here is the Parish Priest settling the matter about Looseness and Relicks with the Tax of Pope Leo and the Probe of St. Germain And if his Doctorship ought not to have told the latter the former might have been let alone by the Cardinal Seeing there are such Tales and they themselves tell them why may not I when I can so pertinently do it be a Rehearser of them Is not their own Angelinus Gazoeus a Teller of Tales And does he not give his Book the Title of Pia Hilaria or Pious Merriments Have not Capgrave Alford Cressey told Tales in abundance Was not the Liber Festivalis read here in Churches in K. Hen. VII time a book of stories Ex. gr It speaks of Adam and Eve standing for Penance in the Water till they were as Green as Glass And whilst one has written the Golden Legend another has taken the freedom to write the Wooden one ACCUS 4. D. T. has like E. S. from whom he has borrowed quoted St. Cyril most DISINGENUOUSLY leaving out that Text which if cited would have left no place of doubting but that he makes for the Roman Catholick Tenet part of it is as follows That which seems Bread is not Bread although to the Taste it appears to be so but is the Body of Christ He that cavils about such a Text has doubtless great humility of soul and notable dispositions of Faith. Note That not one word was quoted out of St. Cyril in the Conference ANSWER Answer This NOTE has a little of the Aequivocator in it He did not cite in Terms at length therefore 't was not produced at the Conference EXCELLENTLY WELL as his word was to me as often as I had answered and he began to reply the plain truth is this he named St. Cyril's Catechism for the proof of his Corporal Presence I did prevent his repeating the words by saying that I knew them and that they needed no Answer from me being answered already at the end of a certain Printed Conference to which he replied that there was a Printed Answer to that Account of the Conference betwixt Mr. S. c. and that he would shew it me now that Famous Answer I could never yet hear of any more than I could hear of the Famous Paper Mr. Pulton promised to print last Monday Seven-night for the clearing the Certificate of Katherine in the Clouds Well but the Answer was borrow'd from E. S. just as a man borrows when he promises you a Citation out of St. Austin and truly cites his words But when I have occasion to borrow I should as soon borrow of the Reverend E. S. as of any man for he has a mighty Stock of good Learning and he is very Communicative I would not so soon go to Mr. P. notwithstanding he has read all Ecclesiastical History he says it himself and he is an Oracle and has Volumes of Notes relating to it But where is my Disingenuity in leaving out words which were not in the place I promised to repeat And what need was there of adding those words The sense of them was enough shew'd in the words produc'd to wit that the Consecrated Bread was no more mere Bread than the Consecrated Water is meer Water And for the disingenuity of the Reverend D. S. if Mr. P. can shew us it it is a new discovery I suppose that this which follows will satisfy the just Reader that the disingenuity is in the Accuser and not in him who is unworthily reflected on To D. T. c. SIR HAVING the Curiosity to turn over Mr. P's Remarks I found my self remark'd upon in his Postscript with wonderful Civility and Kindness of which I thought fit to give you this Account He charges me with most disingenuous leaving out some words of St. Cyril which if cited would have left no place of doubting that he makes for the Catholick Tenet Whereas the Design of that part of the Discourse was to answer this very Quotation of S. Cyril which was urged by M. W. in the Conference His Words are But to Theodoret he would oppose S. Cyril who in his Fourth Myst. Catech. says expressly Tho thou see it to be bread yet believe it is the Flesh and the Blood of the Lord Iesus doubt it not since he hath said This is my Body Our Business was to answer the Testimony produced by them and I do not remember the least omission as to the strength and force of it and those words Mr. P. produces signifie no more than the other unless he thinks the Sense of Tasting more Emphatical than that of Seeing But I suppose his meaning is that there is omitted that Clause That which seems Bread is not Bread altho to the Taste it appears to be so But this is the very same difficulty in Sense which was answered For if tho we see it to be Bread yet we are to believe it to be the Body of Christ then according to him the meaning is though we see it to be bread it is not bread but the body of Christ. To which it was truly answer'd That in this fourth Catech. he bids them not to consider it as meer bread As if a man should break in pieces the Kings Broad Seal and another to aggravate his fault should tell him That which you have broken is not Wax but the Kings Broad Seal would not any one understand this not to be denying it to be truly Wax but that it was something far beyond that by the Impression of the Royal Seal Or as if a Judg setting forth the Crime of a Clipper should tell him that what he clipt was not silver but the Kings Coin who would need an Infallible Interpreter to tell him that by silver he meant common silver If St. Cyril had deliver'd any such Doctrine in any other
common Bread to be the Body of Christ not by an Hypostatical Union but by a Divine Presence and Energy For this seems to me to have been his Opinion viz. That all true Believers were to be made partakers of the Divine Nature by the body and blood of Christ in us and so we become of the same body and blood with him but he never imagined this to be done by the Eucharistical Bread being changed into the substance of Christ's Body in Heaven but that it being changed by the Holy Ghost it was thereby made the Body of Christ which being receiv'd he thought it did not pass into the draught but was distributed through the whole man for the benefit both of Soul and Body This as far as I can judg was his true opinion I am not now to examin whether it were reasonable or not but I think it is evident to any common understanding that this is far enough from the Roman Tenet for which Mr. P. hath so solemnly vouched his Authority But the Greek Fathers were men of finer thoughts than to entertain so gross a notion as that of Transubstantiation which was first started by a Western Monk of no great capacity and was opposed by the men of Wit and Learning at that time One who had been much in the East and suckt in the opinions of the Greeks was the most earnest opposer of it But Ignorance and Superstition prevailing in the Western Church it came by degrees to be owned and received by it especially after the Bishops of Rome concerned themselves in the quarrel against Berengarius From that time the Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Church and Transubstantiation have been so closely united that they cannot part with this though like an Ephialtes it lyes so heavy upon it without giving up the other But as long as Learning and Liberty continued in the Greek Church they were utter strangers to it what Barbarism and a very prevailing Argument among the Modern Greeks may have done as to the receiving Transubstantiation I am not much concerned to enquire But as to the Learned Greek Fathers as far as I can find they knew nothing at all of it They had a notion among them of a real Body of Christ in the Sacrament after Consecration but they still supposed the substance of the Elements to remain as fully appears by that very Discourse M. P. nibbles at but it will break his Teeth to answer it I am unwilling to end my Answer to this charge of most disingenuous dealing about St. Cyril's Testimony without putting him in mind of an extraordinary instance of this kind in a Reverend Father of the Society even before the pretended infallible Head of the Church In the time of Clement the Eighth the Controversie de Auxiliis was carried so high between the Iesuits and Dominicans that the Pope himself resolved to have the hearing of it And the Generals of both Orders were to chuse their Divines and to be present with them Greg. de Valentia was of one side and Father Lemos of the other The Controversie came to a passage of St. Augustine which Greg. de Valentia alledged the other answer'd it was not so in his Book and desired to see that which Greg. de Valentia used he was very unwilling but the Pope commanded him F. Lemos cried out the Text was falsified and desired a third Person might read it and upon reading it it was so found upon which the Pope with a stern look and a dreadful note cried to him Ho! which struck the poor Father into such a consternation that he fell down in a swoon and was taken up half dead and carried out and never more appear'd in any Congregation but was sent away to Naples where he died some Months after This story is very lately printed with evident proofs by Roman Catholicks out of the Original Acts of that Congregation And this I think was most disingenuous dealing with St. Augustin If Mr. P. can find any such dealing among us let him charge it home upon us But I think I have said enough at present for my own Vindication As to his other Charges which concern your self I doubt not but in short time to see a satisfactory Answer from a better hand I am Octob. 12. 1687. Sir Your Faithful Friend and Servant E. S. ACCUS 5. D. T. has without a Text of Scripture for it Published four of Mr Pulton's Letters and very injuriously conceal'd his fifth which was the most material of all containing A. P's clearing himself from the Doctor 's false aspersions whereby he charges A. P. with not having stood to the Agreement ANSWER He needed no Text he gave Mr. Pulton fair warning of it and was not forbidden by him for in these words I wrote to him in my Answer to his Fourth Letter You have my Letters and I yours c. do with them what you please and write what you please further and I will take the like freedom And thus the very great injury is vanished But if that fifth Letter was very injuriously conceal'd why does he not thank me for the publishing of the rest for all of them were as worthy of the light as this I had answer'd before what was material in it his denial of an Agreement and I did not think it worth the while to publish the same things so very often Yet seeing he thinks this Letter very injuriously conceal'd I will make amends for the injury and publish it here and it shall come forth in its original English of write for written and wrighting for writing and all that have an eye can see how material it is The Savoy Octob. 14. 1687. Honoured Sir YOU were pleased to insist again in your last upon my not standing to my agreement I must mind you again that your own conscience is witness all our discourse of WRIGHTING was in reference to the quotation of St. Ambrose and farther carrying on the matter in debate and that no body mentioned a title of giving or not giving an account of the pure matter of fact past However take it as you please I never gave a Copy otherwise then to be WRITE out and that with express order of distributing no copies nor shall you ever produce the man that had one from me or by my order knowlege or consent till I had sent you your's and this I can prove and if you charge me with the contrary it shall be incumbent on you to make it out I return you many thanks for your obliging profer of sending me the first sheet I desire you will not give your self that trouble it will suffice that you send me a Copy of the whole the evening before you publish it if such be your resolutions and I will do the same For your remarks upon the narrative which I here send you at large I leave it to you to send them or not and I will proceed therin as you shall