suffred for our Sins an evident sign that all those who held the Flesh of Christ to be true Flesh and not Phantastical believed also the Eucharist to be that very true Flesh This is what Protestants themselves confess of the most eminent Fathers of God's Church in each Age from our Saviours time concerning the Doctrin of Transubstantiation as I find them cited in two Treatises the one called The Protestants Apology for the Roman Church the other The Progeny of Catholicks and Protestants whose Authors I never heard were taxed of insincerity in their quotations And if it be true what Dr. Field saith of Bellarmin that if he could prove that Protestants confess the Roman to be the true Church he needed not to use any other arguments I might supersede any farther proof of this matter and leave the Doctor to join issue with his Fellow-Brethren But the Reader perhaps may desire to see the Testimonies themselves of those Fathers which were so pregnant as to force such learned Men of the Protestant Party to confess that they taught the Doctrin of Transubstantiation And in order to his satisfaction in this Point I shall set down one Testimony of each Father in the same order as they stand cited above and but One to avoid Prolixity TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS FOR TRANSUBSTANTIATION IN the beginning of the Eighth Century St. Jo. Damascen li. 4. de fid c. 14. The Bread and Wine and Water are by the Invocation and Coming of the Holy Ghost changed supernaturally into the Body and Blood of Christ And with him agrees Theophylact The Bread is transformed by the Mystical Benediction and the coming of the Holy Ghost into the Flesh of our Lord. At the end of the Fifth and beginning of the Sixth Century St. Gregory Our Creator well knowing our Infirmity by that Power with which he made all things of nothing by the Sanctification of his Spirit converts the Bread and Wine mixed with Water their proper species or figure remaining into his Flesh and Blood In the Fifth Eusebius Emissenus and St. John Chrysostome The former saith Before Consecration there is the Substance of Bread and Wine but after the words of Christ it is the Body and Blood of Christ For what wonder that he who created them with his Word should convert or change them after they were created The latter The things we propose are not done by Humane Power We hold but the place of Ministers but he that sanctifieth and changeth them is Christ himself In the Fourth Century St. Ambrose and because this is the Age I suppose the Doctor pitches upon when he saith he will undertake to instance in an Age since the first three Centuries Wherein if the most learned Fathers and Bishops who lived in it are to be credited Transubstantiation was not believed I shall be somewhat larger in citing the words of St. Ambrose and also add other Testimonies of Fathers of the same time to his that the Reader may see what Issue his Undertaking is like to have in this matter First Then St. Ambrose as if he foresaw my Adversaries objection puts it down in these formal words You will say perhaps How do you prove to me that I receive the Body of Christ when I see another thing And the way he takes to Answer it is by comparing the change made here in the Nature of the Bread with the examples of those miraculous changes which were wrought by Holy Men of Old in the Natures of other things as of Moses's Rodd being turned into a Serpent the Waters of Aegypt into Blood c. From whence he infers that if the Benediction of those who were but pure Men was of such force as to change Nature What must we say of that divine Consecration where the very words of our Lord and Saviour do operate Thou hast read saith he of the works of the Creation how God spake the Word and they were made he commanded and they were created that is produc'd out of nothing The Word therefore of Christ which of nothing could make that to be which was not can it not change those things which are viz. Bread and Wine into that which before they were not viz. his own Body and Blood surely it is not a less matter to give new natures to things out of nothing than to change them after they are made Again You will say perhaps my Bread is usual Bread No saith he this Bread is Bread before the Sacramental words When the Consecration is performed of Bread is made the Flesh of Christ He spake the Word and it was made he commanded and it was created And that we may not doubt he meant it was made his true Flesh he saith As our Lord Jesus Christ is the true Son of God not as Men are by Grace but as the Son of the substance of his Father so it is his very true Flesh as himself hath said which we receive and his very true Blood which we drink This and much more doth St. Ambrose write of this subject so that no Man need to wonder if the Centurists say he wrote not well of Transubstantiation And I have either read or heard it reported of Calvin that he wish'd the Devil had struck the Pen out of St. Ambrose's hand when he wrote those Books of the Sacraments But let us now see what other Fathers of the same Age teach concerning this Point S. Cyril Our Saviour saith he sometime changed Water into Wine and shall we not think him worthy of our belief that he changed Wine into his Blood S. Gregory Nyssen We do rightly believe that the Bread sanctified by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word By vertue of his Benediction he changeth the nature of the things which are seen Bread and Wine into that Viz. his own Body S. Gaudentius The Maker Lord of Natures who produceth Bread out of the Earth doth again of Bread because he can and hath promised to do it make his own Body and He who made Water of Wine maketh of Wine his own Blood These are Fathers who lived in the Age immediately following the three first Centuries to whom I might add St. Chrysostome above cited who flourished in this Century though he dyed in the beginning of the next and others but these may suffice to let the Reader see if this be the Age which the Doctor intends to instance in how unlikely it is he should make good what he asserts that Transubstantiation was not believed in it In the Third Century St. Cyprian saith The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape or figure but in nature was by the Omnipotency of the Word made Flesh And Ursinus confesseth There are many sayings in him which seem to affirm Transubstantiation And Tertullian in the same Age saith that our Lord having taken Bread made it his
Idolatry or he must stand to it stifly without flinching that both Catholicks now and the Jews then were Heathen Idolaters For he does but contradict himself whilst he makes us guilty onely of Christian Idolatry and yet does us no kindness at all whilst he charges us to terminate the Worship due onely to God upon the Creature Oh but says he when afterwards the Israelites fell into Heathen Idolatry the particular names of the Gods are mentioned as Baal-Peor Moloch Remphan c. What then Is it the Idol's having a Name that makes the Worshippers Heathen Idolaters Aristotle tells us that words are but the signs of the conceptions of our mind and if they conceived or believed the Calf to be a God were they not as much Heathen Idolaters for worshipping it without a Name as the Egyptians for worshipping it under the Name of Apis The onely difference I find is that the Egyptians by long practice were become Masters of their Trade in making Gods whereas the Israelites by this one Act were Novices onely in that Art § 4. What hath been said of the Golden Calf in the Wilderness may in like manner be applied to the Calves which Jeroboam set up at Dan and Bethel viz. that the People did not look upon them as Symbols onely of the presence of the true God but that as St. Hierom saith they forgat the Law of God and wholly devoted themselves to Egyptian Idols And the same is affirmed by the Author of the Commentaries under the name of St. Ambrose viz. that the Egyptians worshipped a four-footed Beast whom they called Apis in the likeness of a Calf Which Evil of theirs saith he was imitated by Jeroboam in setting up the Calves in Samaria to which the Jews offered sacrifice But this saith the Doctor was not so agreeable to his End nor so likely to succeed And why not Was not his end to secure the Ten Tribes to himself so that they might not think of returning to unite themselves any more to the House of David And what more likely way to effect it than the making them such Idols as their Fathers had worshipped in Egypt and the Wilderness What he aimed at Achitophel-like was to make the breach irreconcilable and this of making them Calves he look'd upon as the properest means to that end considering the inclination of that People whose eyes as the Scripture saith were after their Fathers Idols I but the Occasion saith he of the Kingdoms coming to him was from Solomon's falling into Heathen Idolatry and this would make him more cautious of falling into it especially at his first entrance And I believe it would have done so had he been a Good Josias and not a wicked Jeroboam But why the Doctor should think him so tender conscienc'd whom God himself upbraids for having made to himself strange and molten Gods and cast him behind his back 3 Kings xiv 9. Or why he should think him so scrupulous when the Scripture saith that he sacrificed to the Gods which he had made 3 Kings xii 32. and that he ordained him Priests for the high places and for the Devils and for the Calves which he had made 2 Paralip xi 15. I cannot imagine The Ingenious Author of the Causes of the decay of Christian Piety chap. 15. made a different Judgment of the matter when to shew that Divinity has long since been made the Handmaid to Policy and Religion modell'd by Conveniencies of State he immediately adds for an example that The Golden Calves became venerable Deities when they were found apt to secure Jeroboam's jealousies But had this been Jeroboam's Intention how much better saith the Doctor had he then argued that they had been hitherto in a great mistake concerning the true God and not meerly as to the place of his Worship which is all he speaks against for he continued saith he the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Jâ—rusalem 1 Kings xii 32. And what wonder if so great a Polititian as he was juâ—g'd it not fit to leave off on the sudden all that had been in use before Sudden Changes from one extream to another whether in the Natural or Politick Body are always look'd upon as dangerous And therefore the first Reformers nere in England when they design'd a Service onely of Bread and Wine thought it expedient to retain the Names of the Body and Blood of Christ and many of the ancient Prayers and Ceremonies which the nicer Brethren boggle at at this day as Pelicks of Popery and Politick Inventions to make the Bread and Wine go down the better But for Jeroboam he told the People plain enough what he meant when pointing to the Calves he bid them behold the Gods which had brought them up out of the Land of Egypt And the Text cited by the Doctor 1 Reg. xii 23. speaks but of one Feast he ordain'd like unto the Feast that was in Juda though the Doctor will have it that he continued the same Feasts and way of Worship which were at Jerusalem But Ahab's sin he saith was much greater than that of Jeroboam It was so but will absolve Jeroboam no more from the guilt of Idolatry which the Scripture calls spiritual Adultery than one mans committing adultery with many will free another from the guilt of the same crime who commits it but with one Nor does Jehu's zeal for the Lord nay though it were for his Lord as the Doctor not the Scripture reads it exempt him from Idolatry in following the steps of Jeroboam any more than the lawful Act of Matrimony acquits a Husband from the Crime of Adultery who defiles his Neighbours Bed But How then saith he came the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes to be set in opposition to the Heathen Idolatry in 1 Kings xviii 21 No otherwise surely than by the force of imagination For when Elias said unto the people How long will ye halt between two Opinions If the Lord be God follow him but if Baal then follow him The sence is plain that he meant to recal the people to the Worship of the onely True God whom he preached to them and in the manner he himself did worship him and not that he intended to set the Israelites sacrificing to the Calves at Dan and Bethel which is what the Doctor means by the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes in opposition to the Worship of Baal For in the very next Chapter the Prophet himself supposes such a general Apostacy of the ten Tribes to the Worship of Baal that he complains as if he alone were left alive who had not consented to his Worship as appears by the Answer which God made him that he had yet seven thousand left in Israel which had not bowed their knees to Baal 3 Kings xix 17 18. How then could Elias set the Worship of the true God in the ten Tribes in opposition to the Worship of Baal when
of Sense or Reason can digest it Fools as you are what Demonstration So evident as this My God profest it And if you once can prove that He can lie This Wonder and Him too I will deny 89 What thank is it that you can credit that Which your own sense Reason's eye reads plain Heaven 's much to them beholden who will not Believe it higher is than they can strain Who jealous are of God and will not be Induc'd to trust Him further than they see 90 And yet had you these modest eyes of mine You in this gloomy Cloud would see the Sun That Sun who wisely doth disdain to shine On those who with bold prying press upon His secret Majesty which plainly I Because I make no anxious search descry 91 This is the valorous Resolution Of Gallant Faith and this will serve to be The Blessed Rule by which all those must run Who are the Scholars of Humility Yet I must tell thee Psyche itching Pride VVill not hereafter thus be satisfied And then having inveigh'd in the following Stanza's against those who will needs be prying with the skill they take for granted hath fill'd their brains that is with the Doctor 's faculty of discerning Truth and falshood into the manner how this Miracle is brought to pass He concludes with these words in favour of Transubstantiation 99 It is in vain to tell these Wranglers how Jesus could graft cold Stones into the stock Of Abraham and make them fertil grow In Israelites or that the Bread he took In 's daily Diet was not wholly spent But part into his Body's substance went 100 In vain to tell them how into his Blood The Wine he drank was changed day by day For though such speculations understood With prudent Reverence might make easier way Unto the Mystery yet Wranglers will Because they will be so be Wranglers still This and much more to this Purpose which not to surfet the Reader with too many delicacies I omit saith the Author of that Illustrious Poem in which to the satisfaction of all that read it himself hath made appear to the World what his Modesty made him willing to expect rather from others that a Divine Theam is as capable and happy a subject of Poetical Ornament as any Pagan or Humane device whatsoever And would the Gallants of both Sexes employ as many of their precious Hours in reading this excellent Piece as they do in Romances and Play-Books I dare be bold to affirm though perhaps I shall not be credited They would find not only more substance but more delight in this than in the best of them But to return to my present business My design was to let the Reader see how far my Adversary's beloved Principles of Sense and Reason are from being fit Umpires to judge of matters proposed as of divine Revelation particularly in what relates to the presence of our Saviour in the Eucharist and I thought I could not do it better than in the words of this learned and Ingenious Author whose whole Discourse seems but a Descant upon those words of St. Chrysostom when speaking of this Mystery to the People of Antioch he saith Let us obey God in all things and not gain-say Him though what is said seem to contradict both our Imaginations and Eyes Let his word obtain more credit from us than our thoughts or sight And thus let us behave our selves in the Mysteries that is in the most Holy Sacrament not beholding only those things which lye before us viz. the Symbols of Bread and Wine but holding fast his words For his Word is Infallible but our sense is easy to be deceived That never fails but this most frequently mistakes Because therfore the Word saith This is my Body let us obey and believe and behold Him with the eyes of our Understanding If the Doctor will not do so but will have his Readers to measure matters of Faith by the Rule of Sense and Reason and not trust God farther than they can see with them I am sure he gives a far greater advantage to the Enemies of the most Holy Trinity and Christ's Divinity by so unChristian a Principle than we can possibly do by asserting a like divine Revelation for his being present in the Eucharist as for his being true God notwithstanding the seeming contradictions that occur in it But perhaps the Doctor wâ—ll say that I am mistaken all this while and that he meant no such thing by the use of Reason For I remember now that when upon his Asserting that Catholicks expose the Faith of Christiaâ—s to a great uncertainty by denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to the matters of Faith propâ—sed by a Church when they must use it in the choice of a Church which if it say any thing to the purpose it must be this that because Men must make use of their reason to find out the true Ground of believing which Catholicks affirm to be the Church therefore they must believe nothing which the Church proposes as a matter of Faith but what the Faculty in them called reason of discerning Truth and Falshood in matters proposed to our belief shall judge to be true in it self for otherwise how doth it follow that they expose the Faith of Christians to uncertainâ—y when I say upon this assertion of his I supposed and clearly enough I think that the use he would have of reason was to believe nothing but what his reason could understand He assures me p. 542. upon his word that he meant no such thing for I believe saith he an Infinite Being and all the Doctrines revealed by it in H. Scriptures although I cannot reconcile all particulars concerning them to those Conceptions we call Reason But here I observe first as no very great sign that he means not by the use of Reason what I supposed that he doth not tell us of any one particular Article he believes with that terrible condition unless he mean he cannot reconcile all particulars concerning the existence of a Deity but huddles them up in a blind Universal that he believes all the Doctrines revealed by God in the H. Scriptures as if it were enough for a Christian to believe in general all that God hath revealed in Scripture without troubling himself about the Sense of any thing in particular for fear of over-straining his Reason to swallow something that may seem a Contradiction And I confess the Letter of the Scripture may be a sufficient Rule of such a Faith 2dly This Assertion of his exposes the Faith of Christians to as great uncertainty as that he charges upon Catholicks by its denying to Men the use of their Judgment and Reason as to matters of Faith revealed by God in the Scriptures when they must necessarily use them to find out the Scriptures and the existence of a Deity For whether the Scripture or the Church be supposed to be the Ground of believing
a Name which is above every Name that it might have as much Reverence given It as we give to great Meg of Westminster What would Bishop Andrews have said had he lived to hear this Verily saith He in his Sermon upon the foregoing words of St. Paul God will not have us worship him like Elephants as if we had no Joynts in our Knees He will have more honour of men than of the Pillars of the Church He will have us to bow our Knees and let us bow them in God's Name and To his Name For this is another Prerogative He is exalted to whose Person Knees do bow but He to whose Name onely much more But the cause is here otherwise For his Person is taken up out of our sight all we can do will not reach unto it But his Name he hath left behind to us that we may shew by our Reverence and Respect to it how much we esteem him How true the Psalm shall be Holy and Reverend is his Name But if we have much ado to get it bow at all much more shall we have to get it done to his Name There be that do it not what speak I of not doing it There be that not onely forbear to do it themselves but put themselves to an evil Occupation to find faults where none is and cast scruples into mens minds by no means to do it And again a little after But to keep us to the Name This is sure the words themselves of St. Paul are so plain as they are able to convince any mans Conscience And there is no Writer not of the Ancient on this place that I can find save he that turned all into Allegories but literally understands it and likes well enough we should actually perform it Thus Dr. Andrews a very Learned Bishop of his Church as Dr. St. himself calls him p. 101. And can any legitimate Son of that Church hear him preach that no more Reverence is due to the Name of JESUS than to the tolling of a Bell and yet cry him up hereafter for a Pillar of that Church unless it be in the Bishop's sense above-mentioned whose practise he exposes as ridiculous by so unhandsome a Comparison I remember at the beginning of the Long Parliament one of the first Wounds given to the Church of England was from a Book whose Title as I read it posted up in Westminster-Hall was Jesu-Worship Confuted and whether the same might not have been put for a Marginal Note to this Answer of the Doctors I leave to Judgment of the Reader Give me leave to speak a Word to you Sons of the Church of England what if the Doctor should come upon you for reverencing the Name of JESUS with your Hat or Knee as he doth upon us for honouring in like manner his Image viz. p. 102. that the Reverence you give to that Holy Name is either the same you give to God or distinct from it If it be the same then you give proper divine worship to the Name and if it be distinct then the Name is worshipped with divine worship for it self and it is in your choice what sort of Idolatry you will commit who worship the Name of JESUS but neither way can you avoid it If you tell him that the Reverence you give that H. Name is not the worship due to God but a Relative and inferiour respect for his sake he will tell you again as he did me in the case of Images p. 100. that this is just as if an unchast Wife should plead in her excuse to her Husband that the Person she was too kind with was extreamly like him and a dear friend of his nay had his very name and that it was out of respect to him that she gave him the honour of his Bed I do not hear that he hath press'd this argument upon you and if he do not I cannot but wonder his zeal for God's honour suffers you so long to go on in your Idolatrous practise and much more if he comply with you himself in shewing any reverence to that Name for though like a wiser Christian there being degrees among Christians as well as Heathens he differ extreamly from the Vulgar in his Opinion of Religion yet this is to concur with them in the external practise of their Idolatry and so he falls under the same censure with his wiser Heathens p. 73. On the other side if he do it noâ— Bishop Andrews hath told him he hath just reason to fear least the Knee that will not bow be strucken with something which shall make it not able to bow and for the Name that they that will do no honour to it when time of need comes shall receive no honour by it But to conclude this Point If it be the sense of the Sons of the Church of England that they intend to give no more reverence to the most Holy Name of Jesus when they hear it read than to a Bell when they hear it toll I confess I was mistaken in alledging this Practise of theirs for an Instance But if they acknowledge more is due to that sacred Name than to a Bell and yet not so much as is due to God himself I have the end for which I brought it which was to let them see what kind of worship it is we give to the Images of Christ such as is given by themselves to the Name of Jesus For we make Images no more the Objects of our worship when we kneel before them than they do that Holy Name when they bow at it § 5. The Fift Instance was of the Reverence given to the Sacramental signs in the Supper by kneeling before them which if the Bread and Wine had any sense in them as he saith of Images p. 102. would think were done to them And what saith my Adversary to this Marry that this of all things should not be objected to them If you ask him why He tells you because they have declared in their â—ubrick after the Communion that thereby no adoration is intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Dread and Wine there bodily received or any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood for the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very natural substances and therefore may not be adored For that were Idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful Christians I confess I reflected up in this Rubrick when I put down Kneeling at the Eucâ—arist for an Instance but I could not imagin the Doctor would make it a matter of Triumph over the Church of England It is not yet more than a dozen years since this Rubrick was inserted into the Communion Book and the occasion is well known to have been a design to gain scrupulous and dissenting Parties to a conformity in so innocent a Ceremony And because the Church of England hath been so kind to those who dissented from her as to declare no adoration is intended
by it to the Bread and Wine or any corporal presence of Christ's Natural Flesh and Blood Will the Doctor be so unkind as to make her say that no Reverence at all is due to that Holy Sacrament that this of all things in the World ought not to have been objected against them What! will he make them fall below Calvin in their respect to that Sacrament who saith it is to be received with reverence as the Pledge of our Holy Union with Christ Is it not time now to remind him as I promised above p. 138. how his Beloved Constantinopolitan Fathers call it an Honourable Image of Christ's quickning Body And thereupon invite all those and among them the Doctor unless he will leave himself out as he did these words all those I say to rejoyce and exult with confidence who desire worship and offer it for the Salvation both of Soul and Body Though He stile me very ineptly a Revolted Protestant yet I have so much respect for those learned Persons who made that Rubrick as to think they meant by Adoration what the word now signifieth by use in English that is Divine Worship proper to God alone and not that no more Reverence should be used towards the Bread and Wine in the Church than there is to the Remainder of it at home by some seemingly Revolted Presbyterians I cannot believe them to be truly Sons of the Church of England Now what the sense of that Church was and still is unless the Doctor will have us suppose these Modern Divines to have prevaricated from their Fathers Bishop Jewel tells us in these words We only adore Christ saith he as very God but we Worship also and Reverence the Sacrament we Worship the Word of God we worship all other like things in such Religious wise to Christ belonging The same is witnessed by Bishop Morton Under the degree of Divine Worship we our selvs yield as much to the Eucharist as St. Austin did to Baptisme where he said Epist 164. We reverence Baptisme wheresoever it is Nor is this delivered by them as their private Opinion but as the sense of the Church of England as appears by their words And if you ask how they can excuse themselves from Idolatry you have the Answer of Bishop Jewel that the Sacraments be adored but the whole honour resteth not in them but is passed over from them to the things signified So that it seems I was not much miâ—â—â—ken when to paralel the Reverence given by Catholicks to Images I instanced in that which is given by Protestants to the Sacramental signs by kneeling at the Eucharist for they do not only allow a like Reverence but maintain it also with the same distinction Nor will the Doctor ever be able to perswade his Parishioners out of it till he can make them leave their usual Expression when they speak of this Sacrament that they do not receive it as Bread but as the Body of Christ § 6. The 6th and last Instance was of Reverence given to the Altar by bowing to it a practise of great Antiquity as Dr. Heylin shows in his defence of the Modern Practise of it in the Church of England against Burton p. 25. This Dr. Still saith is of the same nature with the putting off our Hats while we are in the Church And what is this to say Himself admits a Reverence to Holy Places p. 105. and surely the Church the House of God is one of them Here then we find him incline to admit a Reverence due to the Altar and if it be of the same nature with putting off our Hats while we are in the Church as he doth the one so he may lawfully do the other But then as if he had granted too much he presently draws back and tells us This is only determining a natural act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship which as far as I can understand the words is not of the same nature with putting off our Hats when we are in the Church but with going to Church when the Bell tolls which is to give no more Reverence to the Altar than to the Bell. But who can unfold the Riddle and tell me what he means by a natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians did use to direct their Worship If he mean by that way the local situation of the Altar in the East which was the way the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship and that Nature teacheth us to direct our Worship that way although the Altar for example in St. Andrew's may serve for such a determination because it is placed in the East yet he must give another reason why those in the Savoy bow towards the Altar where it is seated in the North because it doth not there determin a Natural Act of Reverence that way which the ancient Christians used to direct their Worship which was towards the East But if he mean by that way a like manner of Reverence to the Altar as was used to be given by the Ancient Christians he will find in the aforecited place out of Dr. Heylin that they acknowledged an honour and veneration due to the Holy Altar and testified that honour by bowing and kneeling to it In fine whatever the meaning of the words be to speak to the practise it self either he condemns those of the Churcâ— of England who profess and testify their reverence to the Altar by bowing to it for Idolatry or no. If he do they are at age to answer for themselves If he do not an Inferiour or Relative honour may be given to it for his sake whose Throne it is under the degree of Divine Worship due to God alone and as the allowing this will render him a true Son of the Church of England so the allowing the like to the sacred Images of Christ will make him in this point a perfect Proselyte of the Church of Rome whose Councils have decreed that we are not to give to the Images of Christ and his Saints Latria or the worship due to God but a honourary respect and veneration as to the Books of H. Scripture and other Holy things But what himself may justly fear should success crown his endeavours in putting scruples into poor simple Mens minds to with draw them from the Reverence they owe to the Sacraments of Christ his Saints his Name his Image his Altars and such like Holy things relating to his Worship is that the Event whatever the design be of his labours will be no other as those Pious and Learned Doctors of Rhemes long since observed and we see at this Day in a great measure fulfilled than to inure Men by degrees to lose all honour and respect to Christ himself to abolish all true Religion out of the World and to make them plain Atheists The Chair of State is not more an Ornament to the King's Palace than the
the case is the same as to the Point of Reason Men must be allowed the use of their Judgment and Reason in the search of both And therefore he must either acknowledge his Charge to have been groundless when he taxed Catholicks for exposing Faith to uncertainty or he must grant to Men though it be with contradicting himself which is much easier to do than to swallow the least seeming Contradiction in a matter of Faith that they may and ought to make use of their discerning Faculty as to the truth or falshood of matters proposed to our belief which I confess I take to be the same as to believe no more than their Reason can comprehend and so if Reason chance to meet with some seeming Contradiction with which it is not able or willing to grapple the Article ought and must be exploded for such a monstrous Prodigy of hood wink'd and abused Faith as no Man can imagine God would e're obtrude upon the Faith of Reasonable Men. But here again perhaps he will say that although God may impose upon us an Obligation of believing against the Conceptions of our Reason yet he cannot do it against the suggestion of our sense because as he asserts p. 540. This would be to overthrow all certainty of Faith where the matters to be believed depend upon mattâ—r of Fact But here I would desire to know what Angel from Heaven reveal'd this Doctrin to him Suppose in the case of the two Disciples at Emmaus that our Saviour had vanished out of their sight before he brake bread might he not hâ—ve told them afterwards that it was He who had appeared to them in a disguise without overthrowing all the certainty of Faith where matters to be believed depend upon matter of Fact St. Chrysostome above cited I am sure was of another mind in the very point of Christ's real presence in the Sacrament when he bids us obey God in that mystery though what he say seem to contradict our thoughts and eyes And so was St. Cyril too when he exhorts Christians not to consider it as naked Bread and Wine for it 〈…〉 Blood of Christ according to the words of Christ himself And although sense do suggest this to theâ— viz. that it is Bread yet let Faith confirm thee Do not judge of the thing by thy tast but know and hold for most certain that this Bread which is seen of us is not Bread though the tast judge it to be Bread but the Body of Christ and that the Wine which is seen by us although it seem Wine to the sense of tasting notwithstanding is not Wine but the Blood of Christ This is what these Holy Fathers teach in this matter and with great reason for as God is not only God of the Hills but also of the Valleys So is he God not onâ—y of our Reason but of our Senses also And if the Antidote his Goodness hath prâ—scrib'd to Cure our Corrupt Nature be prepared in such a manner as requires the captivating of our Sense as well as of our Understanding who shall question either his Wisdome or Power He hath said This is my Body though it appear to us to be bread And this being but one Exception from the General Rule of Sensation why that should overthrow all certainty of Faith more than so many exceptions as the Trinity and other Mysteries lay upon the General Rules of our Reasoning I leave to all Men of sense and Reason to judge O but this is the strangest of Miracles and Miracles ought to be the objects of sense I grant it of such Miracles as are done for the Conversion of Unbelievers but this is not done upon such an account but for the Sanctification of those who believe already And for these it is enough that Christ hath said It is his Body They know very well the danger of not believing him more than their senses And that others may know it also I shall set it before them in the words of St. Epiphanius no less than 1300. Years ago We see saith he speaking of the Blessed Sacrament that It is neither equal nor like in proportion or Image to his Flesh to the Invisible Deity to the lineaments of a Body for this is of a round forme and insensible according to power And yet because he was pleased to say through Grace This is my Body every one believeth his saying For who believeth not that it is his very true Body falleth from Grace and Salvation Thus much to the Doctors Principles of Sense and Reason Let us now see what he says against the Grounds and Motives of Transubstantiation CHAP. V. A Check to the Doctor 's bigg words against the Grounds of Transubstantiation with a new Example of reporting faithfully as he calls it the Words and Sense of an Author § 1. TO show there are not the same Grounds and Motives for Christs presence in the Eucharist by Transubstantiation as for his Divinity my Adversary instances in Three 1. The Authority of the Roman Church 2. Catholick Tradition 3. Scripture And for the first of these Viz. The Authority of the Roman Church if it have any at all it stands against the Doctor for Transubstantiation and that so evidently that he is forced to take the confidence p. 130. utterly to deny that to be any ground of believing at all For my part I believe every sober Person of his own Party will judge he had much better have said nothing at all And I cannot but think how St. Austin who calls the Chair of Peter that Rock which the proud Gates of Hell do not overcome and professes that the Principality of the Apostolick Chair did always conserve its vigour in the Roman Church would have startled to hear one single Doctor so pertly deny it to be any Ground at all of believing How St. Hierome who writing to Pope Damasus saith I know that upon this Rock the Church is built and whosoever eateth the Lamb out of this House is Prophane c. would have whetted his stile more against him for denying her Authority to be any Ground of believing at all than ever he did against Vigilantius for deriding Invocation of Saints Veneration of Relicks or Lighting Candles at Noon-Day in the Church c. And how St. Irenaeus would have excluded him out of the Society of Christians for this peremptory behaviour when he affirms it necessary for all other Churches convenire to have recourse and agree with the Roman by reason of its more eminent Principality That this was the Dignity and Prerogative of the Roman Church in the time of these Holy Fathers the Doctor himself cannot deny and if he pretend she is fallen from the Purity she then enjoyed it is but what the Donatists his Predecessors in this point said above twelve hundred years ago when as St. Austin tells us they call'd the Apostolick Chair the Chair of Pestilence because it oppos'd their Novelities