a true and real tho' Mystical Manner the very Person of our Lord himself whole perfect and entire Next we offer the Testimony of Bishop Ridley quoted by Arch-Bishop Laud set down in Fox p. 1598. You says he the Transubstantialists and I agree in this That in the Sacrament is the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ even that which was born of the Virgin Mary which ascended into Heaven which sits on the right hand of God the Father c. only we differ in Modo in the way and manner of being there Dr. Taylor who hath written one of the last on this Subject is very clear and particular concerning this Real Presence Sect. 1. N. 11. p. 18. It is enquired says he whether when we say we believe Christs Body to be really in the Sacrament we mean that Body that Flesh that was born of the Virgin Mary that was Crucified Dead and Buried I answer I know none else that he had or hath there is but one Body of Christ Natural and Glorified But he that faith that Body is Glorified which was Crucified says it is the same Body but not after the same manner and so it is in the Sacrament we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth for there is no other Body no other Blood of Christ But tho' it is the same we eat and drink yet it is in another manner And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines or any of the Fathers deny that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary that was Crucified to be eaten in the Sacrament As Bertram as St. Heirom as Clemens Alexand. expresly affirm The meaning is easie They intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense c. That Body which was Crucified is not that Body that is eaten in the Sacrament is true if the intention of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it in the same manner of being But that Body which was Crucified the same Body we do eat is also true if the intention be to speak of the same thing in several Manners of being and Operating Some also may turn all this into a meer figurative sense excluding the Corpus Domini or Real Presence of Christs Natural Body in the Sacrament and it may be they may think that this Doctor himself from some other of his expressions may have given them just reason so to do I shall then only observe these two things First that concerning this Real Presence a Catholic could not have written more justly nor more plainly than the Doctor hath done in what hath been above recited And Secondly That if after all this the Doctor should mean no more than a Spiritual efficacy or virtue excluding the Corpus Domini or Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body tho' indeed after a Spiritual manner as we confess then doth the Doctors Opinion seem as contradictory to it self and as incomprehensible to me as the great Mystery of Transubstantiation it self or as if he had written in Characters totally unintelligible But let us now hear Bishop Forbes de Eucharist L. 2. c. 2. Sect. 9. The sober Protestants doubt not but that Christ is to be ador'd in the Sacrament for in the taking of the Eucharist Christ is to be ador'd with Divine Worship because his Living and Glorious Body is present by an unexpressible Miracle to the Worthy Receiver and this Adoration is not due or performed to the Bread or Wine or the taking or eating but to the very Body of Christ immediately exhibited to us in the taking of the Eucharist And again L. 3. c. 1. Sect. 10. The holy Fathers often tell us That the very Body of Christ is Offer'd and Sacrificed in the Eucharist as appears by almost innumerable passages but not that all the properties of a Sacrifice are properly and really observ'd but it is done by a Commemoration and Representation of that which being once offer'd in that only Sacrifice of the Cross Christ our High Priest did thereby consummate all other Sacrifices and by pious Supplications by which the Ministers of the Church for the sake of the perpetual Oblation of that one Sacrifice assisting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father and present after an unexpressible manner on the holy Table most humbly pray God the Father that he would please to grant that the Vertue and Grace of this perpetual Victim may become profitable and efficacious to his Church for helping all the necessities both of the body and Soul The Archbishop of Spalato says much the same thing in his Rep. Eccles L. 7. c. 11. Only he will not admit the Body of Christ to be corporally in the Bread or under the Bread but to be taken with the Bread Sumitur cum Pane Christi Corpus reale illi communioni realiter praesens Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy L. 3. c. 3. Says thus That which I have already said is enough to Evidence the Mystical and Spiritual Presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Elements as the Sacrament of the Same before any Man can suppose that Spiritual Presence of them to his Soul which the eating and drinking Christs Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth And ibid. c. 2. where it follows He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself not discerning the Lords Body Unless a man discern the Lords Body where it is not of necessity it must there be where it is discerned to be And l. 3. c. 5. Having maintained that the Elements are really changed from ordinary Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament and that in vertue of the Consecration not by the Faith of him that receives I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth namely that the Elements so consecrated are truly the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them c. And then p. 46. he further collecteth thus And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross is also both propitiatory and impetratory You may consult Archbishop Laud Bishop Montague Bishop Bilson and many other Learned Protestants too long to be here recited for further satisfaction in this Matter Now worthy Fathers what would you advise me to do in this Case would you have me follow the Judgments of these Learned and Pious Men who wrote not only their private Opinions but some of them in the Name of the King and whole Church of England Or would you have me believe our Discourser and some others of our late Sacramentary Pamphleters If the first then Transubstantiation will not appear so absurd ridiculous senseless and foolish a Doctrine as he
the greatest that ever had been since the Apostles and therein it was determined by near 1300 Fathers that according to the Doctrine of the most Ancient and Holy Fathers Tradition of the Church and former Councils the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine after Consecration into the Substance of the Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ the Accidents of Bread and Wine only remaining should thenceforward be call'd Transubstantiation which had been sufficiently before exprest and explain'd by that wonderful Transmutation and Transelementation asserted by the Fathers This our Discourser believes with Scotus to have been the necessary consequence of the Council of Lateran p. 21. and so do I too Tho' in truth this explicative Term was I think more particularly establisht as here exprest in the Council of Trent Now to me the Church seems so far from being worthy of blame for decreeing what appears almost the necessary consequence of the real Presence I mean Transubstantiation that as the Case and Circumstances then stood the Church had been very negligent if she had not so decreed For it being always believ'd which I think is also fully proved That the Elements of Bread and Wine after Consecration were most wonderfully and by the Omnipotence of God converted into the Body and Blood of Christ It is clear then that either the Accidents or the Substance of Bread and Wine must be changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ But the Accidents are not so changed therefore the Substance Besides the Substance of the Body of Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament either with the Substance of Bread or without the Substance of Bread If the first then Catholics and our Discourser are in the wrong If the last then Luther and our Discourser are in the wrong So which way our Discourser should happen to be in the right I cannot comprehend except Zuinglius should have been more than Athanasius and our Discourser the Disciple of Zuinglius greater than St. Andrew the Apostle of our Lord. Now besides that the choice is easie in this Case even from the Authority of one side greater than of the other yet whosoever shall endeavour to reconcile the Real Presence with the Doctrine of Consubstantiation or Impanation will find harder difficulties in these than of that of Transubstantiation so much condemn'd The Authorities therefore which he brings from Durandus Erasmus Tonstal and some others to shew that before this Council of Lateran Men were at liberty concerning the modus or manner of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament might have been some kind of Argument for a Lutheran But how our Discourser becomes concerned in it I see not since quite through his Discourse and more particularly in p. 35. he hath with scorn excluded Both. Our Discourser hath yet one Argument relating to the time when he supposeth this Doctrine of Transubstantiation to have come into the World which is very remarkable He tells us That the Iconomachi or opposers of Images were very zealous against the Reverence due to them in the Synod of Constantinople about the year 750 arguing That our Lord having left us no other Image of himself but the Sacrament in which the Substance of the Bread is the Image of his Body we ought to make no other Image of our Lord But in the year 787. in the Second Council of Nice these scrupulous Greeks in thirty seven years time were grown so hardy in their Faith and so extreamly fond of this new Doctrine concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament that they swallow'd it immediately and from that time were very solicitous and careful to admonish us that the Eucharist is not the Figure or Image of the Body of our Lord but his true Body as appears from the seventh Synod and he brings Bellarmin to vouch for him p. 21 22. Here we see these nice Greeks who were so very exact and curious in smaller Matters were contented to make so great a passage in one Council as from the Figure of Christ in the Sacrament to admit of his Substance nay and were so pleased with it that from thence and that time they took care to admonish us concerning it But the squeamish Latins notwithstanding the Greeks had advanc'd so far in one single Council were little less than three hundred years according to our Discoursers computation licking this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation such is the Elegancy of his Style into that Form in which it is now setled in the Church of Rome Indeed he hath been over generous to the Latins in allowing them so considerable a time to relish and digest only the Mode of a thing when the easse Greeks at one sitting had dispatcht the thing it self in which according to our Discoursers Opinion the great Barbarousness and Impiety consists For says he The Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe that they verily eat and drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ In truth the Latins are obliged to him in confessing them to have been so extream cautious about the lesser part but how he will come off with the Greeks for being so rash and inconsiderate about the greater and principal part must be his care if he pleaseth I am perswaded had Bellarmin said this to have proved that the Greeks did then and not till then receive the Doctrine of the Real Presence Our Discourser could he make any advantage of it with good Reason would have cast it out as the most improbable and ridiculous conjecture in the World And yet here because he thinks it may help to favour his false account he produceth it with as much gravity as if he knew Catholics had less sense to see a blot than himself rashness to make one I come now to his fourth pretended Ground of this Doctrine that is The necessity of such a Change in the Sacrament to the Comfort and Benefit of those who receive it p. 30. To this my Answer at present is very short If I be satisfied that our Saviour commanded the thing I am convinc'd there was a good Reason for it without over-curiously examining what or why in this Case more than why he cured not those who touched the Hem of his Garment without that Ceremony or the blind with out clay and spittle And yet the Fathers and many late Authors will furnish those who are more inquisitive with many very good Reasons why this Change in the Sacrament is more advantageous to the worthy Receiver than the Figure would be and I shall say somewhat of it my self hereafter The last pretended Ground of this Doctrine is as he tells us to magnifie the Power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle Indeed if the great Council of Lateran did make this a Ground of
eating were according to his false Conceptions proceeds from the narrowness of his own thoughts who would judge and measure the Civility and Reason of the whole World according to the Customs it may be of his own little Province But tho no Catholic thus pretended to eat the Body and Blood of Christ for that they all know he is immortal and uncapable of Death or Suffering or Corruption or any other indignities yet our Discourser will needs compare this eating in the holy Sacrament to the violent hacking and slashing of our living Friends and carnally devouring their raw Flesh like the worst of Cannibals What an odious and disproportionate Comparison hath he made on purpose to deceive his Friends and revile and scandalize those whom he supposes his Enemies But before I quit this Page I must pay my respects to one main Demonstration of his which he says is worth a thousand and it is this That the Heathens objected no such Custom to the Christians therefore no such Doctrine believed Now this piece of Malice might have past undisturb'd with many others which I have not taken notice of had he not had the confidence I will not use his own expression Impudence to have provok't an Answer by producing the half Testimony of Justin Martyr in p. 11. to countenance his own Error where that very Father in that very place is making an Apology to the Heathen Emperor Antoninus and is so far from mincing the Matter or explaining it by a figurative Sense That he there tells the Emperor We are taught that the Food speaking of the Sacrament being Consecrated by the Prayer of the Word Is the Flesh and Blood of Christ Jesus himself Incarnate Illius incarnati Jesu Carnem Sanguinem esse edocti sumus Apol. 2. It is most prodigiously strange and inexcusable in this holy Father to have us'd this scandalous Metaphor to a Heathen Emperor which they cautiously exprest to the Christian Catechumens if he intended nothing more than a figurative Sense For I will refer my self to any Man whether it had not been more prudent and it may be pious to have softned and moderated the expression to a Heathen tho the Father had truly believed the Real Presence than thus to have expos'd himself and laid an unnecessary stumbling-block before the Emperor if indeed he did not believe it But our Discourser not satisfied with this tells us a Story p. 12. That the Heathen Greeks having taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni urg'd them by violence to tell them some Secrets of the Christians who confest That they had heard from their Masters that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ and that they i. e. the Catechumeni thinking that it was really Flesh and Blood declar'd as much to the Greeks And yet our Discourser in p. 35. will not admit that any such thing was ever objected by the Heathens to the Christians altho ' by violence the Christians themselves confest it What a bold conceited Discourser is this who whilst he manifestly confutes himself thinks his Adversaries so impotent as not only not to have any defensive Arms of their own but also not to dare to make use of his when he so fairly offers them against his own false Arguments His mis◠application of the whole Story from the Answer of Blandina which he strangely mistakes is very silly For what Catholics ever thought that the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament was a breach of their Fast If any had by mistake some such thoughts as Tertullian seems to insinuate the breach of their Fast must be imputed to the receipt of the Symbols or Accidents of Bread and Wine which indeed may nourish but not to the Body and Blood of Christ Now had not our Discourser thus demonstrably answered himself and saved us thereby a further labour I could have recommended him to S◠Greg. Nazian St. Augustin and several others of the Fathers where he would have found these Objections made to the Christians and their Answers to them much after the manner of Justin Martyr And nothing is told us more plainly in the Histories of those times than that the Heathens having a confused Notion of the great Mystery of the Sacrament did commonly accuse the Christians of eating Mans Flesh or young Children or sometimes their God Sure our Discourser intended to prevent us from using this Argument our selves for this Objection of the Heathens hath ever been accounted a kind of Demonstration of the Antiquity of our Doctrine His third Objection is from the bloody Consequences of this Doctrine But he gives us no particular instances and he doth well to grow more wise 〈◊〉 last for he hath been very unlucky in them Since therefore he is pleased only to affirm in general I am contented to deny in general and so we are upon even ground His last Objection is from the danger of Idolatry if this Doctrine be not true and I add the danger of our Discoursers most execrable Blasphemies if this Doctrine be true let us therefore both consider seriously of it since the danger on both sides is very great However we have the Authorities of many Learned Church of England Men as may be seen at large in the Oxford Discourser who have acquitted us of Idolatry Whilst our Discourser stands almost single in the scurrilous bitterness of his rude and unmanly expressions And here I thought our Discourser would have ended his dire wrath against Transubstantiation but to be yet more secure and with good Reason too that it may never rise up in Judgment against him he comes back again and in p. 37. gives it four wounds more for the absurdity of its Doctrine and these are performed by way of Four very considerable Questions As First p. 38. Whether this Doctrine doth not contradict his Senses Secondly Whether it can be proved by his Senses Thirdly Whether it be not against the certainty of his Senses And Lastly Whether it be not against the Evidence of his Senses Now because to me these retail'd Questions seem to import much the same thing I will take the liberty for the sake of a speedier Conclusion to give my Opinion concerning them in gross Before we consider the monstrous Absurdities of this Doctrine set forth in these four great Questions it is reasonable that we seriously think with our selves upon what account this Sensless Doctrine should happen to get such firm footing in the World as to have spread in a very short time as our Discourser supposes over the face of the whole Christian Church Nay more That in all probability it might have been universally receiv'd even at this day had not the extraordinary Learning Reason Sense and I know not what other qualifications of John Scotus Berengarius Zuinglius and our Discourser opened the Eyes of poor blinded Christians and shewn them how their Senses were lead Captivity Captive by the Jugling tricks
best assistance of my impertial Reason and Understanding and shall follow him according to his own Method He supposes five Grounds or Reasons for the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or the Real Presence according to a literal Sense which he pretends to confute The first is from the Authority of Scripture and among other things as little to the purpose he tells us p. 7. That he doth not believe any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been This Bread signifies my Body c. And do this for a memorial of me Where you may observe worthy Fathers that he excludes also the Real Presence in a litteral sense as shall be shewn hereafter He goes on But sure it would never have entred into any Mans mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand and gave away himself from himself with his own hands Now altho I dare not pretend to interpret all Scripture a lawful sufficient Interpreter being the thing I look for yet since he hath put the Case I presume to say thus much That if a sensible Turk or Pagan who had never heard of the great Mysteries of Christianity should seriously read the New Testament possibly he would not have understood these words This is my Body in a literal sense neither do I think he would ever have establisht the Doctrine of the Hypostatical Union The Consubstantiality of the Son The Trinity Predestination and Free-will with many other Mysteries of Christian Religion especially if he were govern'd only by his humane Reason as our Discourser seems to be and yet all this while he might have had a great esteem of the moral part and have believed Christ a Person divinely inspired For my part I fear I should never have overcome these Difficulties upon my own strength and yet I believe the Trinity as firmly as I believe there is a God Whether the Discourser doth so or not I cannot say But supposing a Man already well grounded in the Christian Religion and having heard that the Doctrine of the Real Presence had been believed in a literal sense by the greatest part of most Learned and Pious Christians through all Ages And that the Scriptures containing this Doctrine were writ several years after the death of our Saviour in which time the Sacrament had been celebrated by them and by consequence if the Apostles had not understood this Mystery according to a literal Sense they had time and reason plainly to have expounded it otherwise and have given us warning of this difficulty as was done to the Carnal Caphernaites and not all three punctually agreed in the same Expressions without any caution of a dangerous Figure in them In such Case I say the Doctrine of the Real Presence to such a Person having laid aside all prejudices is as clear in Scripture as most of those other great Mysteries are and that for these Reasons First because I cannot imagine why our Blessed Saviour should ever have made use of these Terms This is my Body besides many other such like Expressions except he really intended a literal Interpretation for what necessary relation hath a Body and Blood to the Sacrament of the Lords Supper more than to the Sacrament of Baptism Why a Consecration in that Sacrament yet none either in Baptism or others Might not Christ with reverence be it spoken have said much more plainly and yet sufficiently to the same purpose Take this Bread and Cup of Blessing in remembrance of that Passion of mine which is now at hand and as often as ye take it worthily it shall conveigh to your Souls invisible Grace and many other Benefits Would not this have fully answered the End of Zuinglius and our Discourser's Doctrine concerning this Sacrament But why doth the God of Mercy and Truth command us to eat his Body and drink his Blood assuring us that except we eat his Flesh we have no life in us if he did not really intend we should do so But except he be really and substantially present in the Sacrament we can neither eat his Body nor drink his Blood for to take the Figure for the Substance is idle in any Command which positively orders the Substance if the Substance possibly can be had and in this Case it is impious because he that commanded the Substance is able to give it us and if he did not design to give it us we have reason to believe he would not have commanded it in such express terms Especially since there was no necessity no nor conveniency of using those words according to our Discourser's Interpretation For if by his Body he meant the Figure only of his Body what good doth that Figure do us Or how doth it satisfie the Command or why should Bread be the Figure of his Body Since Figures of this Figure that is to say the Paschal Lamb and Manna descending from Heaven were much more noble and proper Representing than the thing Represented and yet neither was Manna nor the Lamb called his Body as the Bread is in the Sacrament The Expression therefore of Justin Martyr saying This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge p. 7. Is nothing at all to the purpose nor could the Paschal Lamb be taken really and truly for God their Saviour or their expected Messian because there was no such thing mention'd or â—â—â—â—ted in the Institution of the Passover On the contrary it was instituted in the plainest Manner and most intelligible and so free from all figurative Expressions that there are no less than 12 Verses in explaining every Circumstance of the Action They shall take to them every Man a Lamb c. Exod. c. 12. And can we believe that the Passover which was indeed a Figure of the Sacrament should be exprest and understood in an unquestionable literal Sense and that the Sacrament which was the Substance of the Figure should be instituted in such a prodigious wonderful Figure according to our Discourser's acceptation as to involve the greatest part of the Christian World not only in most pernicious Mistakes but also in the most detestable Sin of Idolatry Sure the imagination of it must be totally inconsistent with the Veracity Mercy Goodness and the main design of our blessed Saviour To institute a Figure literally and the Substance figuratively is a strange Method and not easily suppos'd in the God of Truth and Wisdom Nay more our Saviour who establisht a Law and a Church to interpret it who suffer'd the Indignities of humane Life and Death of the Cross on purpose to save Sinners He to whom the past and future was always present and who knew what would happen to his Spouse the Church after his Death had left so great a
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
by himself nor any Man yet that I have met with let him therefore learn to understand the Catholic Faith before he writes such magisterial Impertinences against it But let us hear the Bishop himself who telling us That the Sacrament of Christs Body is not meant of his glorified Body but of his Body when it was Offer'd Rent and Slain and Sacrificed for us he goes on We are says he in this action not only carried up to Christ sursum corda but we are also carried back to Christ as he was at the very instant and in the very act of his offering So and no otherwise doth this Text teach So and no otherwise do we represent him By the Incomprehensible power of his Eternal Spirit not he alone but he as at the very act of his Offering is made present to us and we incorporate into his death and invested in the benefits of it Our Answerer to do him Justice is modest enough in this place to say he thinks the Real Presence cannot be otherwise meant than either figuratively in the Elements or Spiritually in the Souls of those who worthily receive him But I think that had this Learned Bishop believed the manner as they call it of the Real Presence Transubstantiation No man could have written more Orthodoxly of it than this Bishop here hath done P. 64. The Answerer includes the Opinions of Casaubon and the Archbishop of Spalato in the sense of this passage of Bishop Andrews but why not in that produc'd by the Discourser However if it will gratifie him I willingly so accept them He makes Archbishop Laud to sing much after the same Tune He says little to Bishop Hall Montague and Bilson because he hath not their works by him but how he will excuse their pacific design as he calls it we shall consider by and by Bishop Forbe's Charitable undertaking has made him too favourable to many corruptions of the Church of Rome p. 65. And now he tells us but of two of all the Divines left to prove this new Fancy which the Discourser would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England one is Doctor Taylor whom he makes say a great deal more than I am willing to Transcribe for I am very weary of the Employment and besides all signifies no more at most than to prove Doctor Taylor contradicts himself or is otherwise as I hinted before the most unintelligible Writer that ever put Pen to Paper The truth to me seems to be this the Doctor in some places meant very plainly that which he as plainly wrote in others that he was over cautious considering the times and circumstances in which he liv'd to write more plainly that which he truly meant However upon the Ballance of the whole I take him to have been much rather a Defender than an Opposer of the Real Presence we speak of And now we are got to Mr. Thorndyke where I cannot but smile at the confidence of our Answerer who is not asham'd to say notwithstanding his own pretended confutation is a strong confirmation of that Real Presence asserted by the Discourser that he fears his Cause will be desperate except Mr. P. 69. Thorndyke can support it Well what says Mr. Thorndyke The Answerer tells us first of a certain Answer to one T. G. in which he seems to say That if the Church I suppose he means the English Church did ever pray the Flesh and Blood might be substituted instead of the Elements under the Accidents of them which is plain Transubstantiation then he is contented to call this the Sacramental Presence of them in the Eucharist What is this to the purpose He then tells us P. 70. that Mr. Thorndyke had a particular Notion in this Matter and a long Story in which he seems to deny Transubstantiation We do not affirm it of him And at last a great way off in p. 90. he puts Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato into a Sack together and makes them as errand Knaves in a reconciling way as his Protestant Minister whom just before he mentions but with this difference the Protestant Minister only dissembled his own Opinion that is conceal'd it but these two great Men have strenuously defended the Real Presence and not by consequence but positively an Adoration due when as our Answerer would perswade us that they did not believe the Real Presence but did believe the Adoration of it to be Idolatry That a pacific design and a charitable undertaking might engage some Men to relax somewhat of Ceremonies or Discipline I neither wonder at nor censure but that there should be any justifiable cause to oblige Men wittingly and willingly to profess and teach Idolatry is I confess beyond my understanding I shrewdly suspect that our Answerer from his rare Historical Relicts may have imbib'd some of Monsieur De Marolle's Principles and from thence think damnable Hypocrisie in Religion no great Sin otherwise I cannot imagine how with Charity he can suppose it in these two great Men who I am perswaded were they alive would spit in his Face for so scandalous an Imputation unworthy either of a Christian or a Gentleman His last stroke P. 90. is at the Learned Mr. Thorndyke whom he leaves to shift for himself with this Brand upon him as deep as he can make it That his Notion of the Real Presence was widely different both from theirs and ours and by consequence from the Truth but give me leave to tell you Sir had you been worthy to have carried Mr. Thorndykes Papers after him at least as far as I may judge by these twenty two Sheets you would have writ much less and yet much more to the purpose Thus Reverend Fathers I have given you a Tast of this fresh Author I fear it hath not proved a boccone Saporito but it was necessary in Vindication of my Testimonies and by Consequence of that Learned Oxford Discourser upon whose Authority I produc't them Begging your pardon then for this Digression I return to my first Discourser If it be true that the Doctrine of the Real Presence in a literal Sense was believed from the Primitive Times to this great Council of Lateran let us consider whether this Council exceeded its just Authority or introduc't any Erroneous Doctrine into the Christian Church For the clearer understanding of this Matter we are to note that one Berengarius about the year 1060. besides other Errors maintain'd that the Eucharist was not truly and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ but only a Figure and Shadow of them and that the Bread and Wine upon the Altar were not Substantially converted into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ by the Mystery of holy Prayer and the words of our Redeemer Upon this several Learned Men employed their Pens against this new and strange false Doctrine as Adelmannus Bishop of Brixia formerly Schoolfellow of Berengarius Hugo Lingonensis Epis Durandus before-mention'd Lantfrancus
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
World and at present by at least eight parts in ten and amongst these some persons extreamly above him in Place and Authority and thousands for ought we know equal if not above him in Learning Piety and Reason Thus I say to ridicule and burlesque so great a Doctrine of the Christian Faith is much more dangerous and scandalous to the Christian Religion than that stupid absur'd and monstrous Doctrine as he calls it against which he writes For my part I profess if so many Men of Sense and Reason and these improv'd to the heigth by Study and Learning may not only be deceiv'd in so great a Point of Religion but mistaken even to folly madness non-sense and Contradiction I know not what will become of Christianity it self for if these can so grosly Err in Matters which are as equally Evident upon all accounts to their Sense and Reason as to the Sense and Reason of any other I am sure a Man is much less secure in trusting to this single Discourser or any belonging to him and so farewel to Both. But Secondly It is without Charity for since he hath made as he thinks the Catholic Doctrine so demonstrably false and absur'd all Catholics who believe it tho never so Learned Honest and Pious must be either Knaves or Fools Thirdly Without Sincerity because all his material Objections and many more have been Printed formerly above Seventy years since And Lately within these Seventeen years by Catholics themselves with their Substantial Answers to them Now to have dealt sincerely he ought to have replied to these Answers which would have set us forward and drawn us to some Point and not have run round as in a Magical Circle without ever endeavouring to break through the infatuation of Deluded Reason And next to have dealt Sincerely he ought not to have produc't a scrap of a Sentence from a Father and left out those immediate preceeding or succeeding Words which explicated the whole Sense For Instance His first is from Justin Martyr whom he produces saying these Words Our Blood and Flesh are nourished by the Conversion of that Food which we receive in the Eucharist p. 11. But the whole Sentence runs thus For we do not receive this as common Bread or common Drink but as by the Word of God Jesus Christ our Redeemer being made Man had both Flesh and Blood for the sake of our Salvation just so are we taught that That Food over which Thanks are given by Prayers in his own Words and whereby our Blood and Flesh are by a change nourished Is the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jesus For the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them call'd the Gospels have recorded that Jesus so commanded them This I think altogether makes little for our Discourser especially if he had been sincere enough to have told us how the Fathers generally as St. Irenaeus Cyril Chrysost Greg. Nyss and others expound the nourishment of the Body and as shall be shewn hereafter So also he quotes Theodoret saying The mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance And may be seen and handled p. 19. Theoderet goes on The mystical Signs are understood to be that which they are made and they are believed and ador'd as being those very things which they are believed Now if they may be adored I suppose they mean somewhat more than Signs and Figures or else the Adoration of holy Images is more Ancient than Protestants have hitherto allowed And had our Discourser been Sincere he might have told us how the Catholics interpret all this to be most consistent with their Faith and confuted them if he could But Fourthly His Discourse is writ without Good Manners for setting aside his disrespect to a Religious Duty methinks when he knew so many Princes Kings Emperors Bishops Metropolitans Patriarchs and most Learned Men of all Sorts received this Doctrine of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation he ought to have forborn such words as Impudence p. 2. Nonsense p. 24. Monster of Transubstantiation p. 25. Monstrous insupportably absur'd stupidity of this Doctrine p. 33. Absur'd and Senseless Doctrine Legerdemain and Jugling Tricks of Falshood and Imposture Hocus Pocus a cheat and foolish Doctrine p. 34. But here the Discourser is very angry and indeed Fathers I should even from hence shrewdly suspect that our Discourser is no true Son of the Church of England for they are generally more moderate and civil but we shall have further occasion to speak of this hereafter In the mean time I thought fit to take thus much notice of these things that we might consider whether such a Writer notwithstanding all his Magisterial dashes be probably endued with that Christian humble Temper which we might expect from a Doctor of Christs Church pretending also without other Miracles than his wonderful Reason to reform almost the whole Christian World but let us see whether his good Reasons will make us amends by giving us some better Satisfaction Several Impertinences and Quibbles appear in many parts of his Discourse as for Instance He proves in p. 4. That a Sacrament may be instituted by figurative Expressions because a Sacrament is a Figare it self of some Invisible Grace c. Now I had always thought that a Man might deliver a Sign or Figure exhibiting some Invisible kindness in the most plain and literal Terms that possibly could be invented for Example I am perswaded the Discourser might have exhibited or deliver'd his Pamphlet or Picture which are Figures of his Mind or Person as a Token of his love to his Friend in a most plain litteral Speech without the necessity of a figurative Sentence except for the sake of his Quibble For my part I think the delivery of a Figure or any thing else is best in plain words But then the Pains he takes and Wit that is spent first to obtrude upon Catholics the false Belief of a Miracle according to his acceptation of a Miracle and then to laugh at his own Jest together with the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle as to make God Pag. 31. is really such Stuff as certainly he never design'd for any other use than to rub the itching Ears of the most illiterate among the Vulgar I confess Fathers it workt no good effect upon me nor never will I should think upon any sober Christian for every body sure understands his Fallacy concerning the power of the Priest and his Miracles But instead of that had he replied to some solid Discourse of Catholics concerning the Doctrine of the Sacrament it self I know not how far the Authority which my Reason had fixt in the Church of Rome would have supported me against his Arguments Having thus separated the loose Accidents of his Discourse from the more substantial part I will now examine that as far as is necessary according to the
stumbling block to the World had he intended only a figurative Interpretation that his Cruelty which is most impious to imagine would have exceeded his Mercy especially if it be true as I believe it is and hope shall be able to prove that the whole Christian World for a thousand years together after his Ascension universally concurr'd in the firm Belief of a literal Sense and practis'd accordingly Good God! So many reputed Saints so many Martyrs and so many holy Men dying in the guilt and many of them in defence of gross Idolatry This to me to use the expression of our Discourser is more than ten Thousand Demonstrations He tells us indeed that some Learned Catholic Authors have declar'd their Opinions that the Doctrine which holds the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor Scripture p. 5. And what then They do not exclude the Doctrine of the Real presence in a literal sense nor do I know that they did ever doubt of Transubstantiation But most of them have written particularly in defence of it and Durandus wrote a Book consisting of nine parts against Berengarius who oppos'd it Now tho this might be the private Opinion of these Men yet there are it may be thousands as Learned as themselves of another Opinion and all this without either prejudicing or helping the Doctrine it self Our Discourser cannot think any Man so senseless to believe that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands and gave away himself from himself with his own hands and yet we find a very sensible Father and one much esteemed by all parties I mean S. Augustin made no such difficulty to believe all this For in his Comment upon these words Et ferebatur in manibus suis and he was carried in his own hands he speaks thus of Christ And can this be possible in Man Was ever any Man carried in his own hands c. How this can be literally understood of David we cannot discover Comm. in Ps 33. but in Christ we found it verified for Christ was carried in his own hands when giving his own very Body he said This is my Body But if Christ carried only the Figure of his Body it was not only possible for David but for any Man else to have done the same Methinks our Discourser should have replied to this obvious Answer when he made his Objection And thus much for the Authority of Scripture Next he tells us that this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual Belief of the Christian Church and for this he produces many Authorities of the Fathers which may be reduc't to these Heads either where they tell us That the Elements are a Sign and Figure of Christs Body or that they remain in their former Substance or that they go into the Draught and our flesh encreased by them or that they are not to be taken according to the Letter for all which he brings some Citations Now altho' the Fathers have been their own best Interpreters shewing plainly in other places how these are to be understood agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine yet that it may appear more Evident I shall instance in some other plain expressions and leave the Ballance to the Judgment of the Reader First then wheresoever it is said that the Elements are Signs or Figures there no more is said than what the Catholics believe and profess nay more that it is a part of the Definition of a Sacrament to be a Sign That is to say that the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Sacrament offer'd in a spiritual manner is a Figure or Sign of the bloody Sacrifice offer'd once for all upon the Cross after a natural manner answerable to the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. Ye shall shew the Lords death until he come About the words we agree concerning the interpretation our Discourser may dispute as long as he pleases Next That the Elements remain in their form and substance This passage of Theodoret hath been in part answer'd before where he tells us That they are to be ador'd And from thence we may conclude that he means the nature of the Accidents for those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which this Greek Father useth contain every kind of Essence and Nature as well of Accidents as of Substances And so again he expounds himself saying that we may see and touch the said Colour and Form which have reference only to those Accidents and in this sense the Elements may admit of Co-adoration with the Body of our Saviour as when himself was Cloth'd upon Earth otherwise not And Theodoret is blam'd by the Centurists Cent. 5. c. 10. Because he affirms That the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the Invocation of the Priest are chang'd and made other things than they were before They mean not Signs I hope for more than that they believed themselves But let us hear St. Augustin As with a faithful heart and Mouth we receive the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus who gives us his Flesh to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk altho' it seems to be a thing more full of horror to eat Mans flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans blood than to shed it L. 2 Contr. adv Leg. Proph. But sure it is not more horrible to eat Mans flesh in figure than to kill a man in good earnest c. Let us hear him again We have heard says he our Master who always speaks truth recommending to us our Ransom his Blood for he spoke of his Body and Blood which Body he call'd Meat and his Blood Drink But there are some who do not believe they said This is a hard saying who can hear it 'T is hard but to the obstinate that is incredible but to the Incredulous L. de verb. Apost Serm. 2. But is the Figure so hard a saying I think not Next St. Ambrose a co-temporary and particular Friend of St. Augustin It may be you will say De his qui Myst Init. c. 9. why do you tell me that I receive the Body of Christ when as I see quite another thing We have this therefore yet to prove How many Examples therefore do we produce to shew that it is not what Nature fram'd but what the Benediction hath Consecrated and that the force of Benediction is greater than of Nature because by Benediction Nature her self is chang'd Moses held a Rod in his hand he cast it from him and it became a Serpent Where he tells of all those real Transmutations and Miracles made by Moses After which he goes on We see therefore that the power of Grace is far beyond that of Nature and yet we have only mention'd hitherto the effects of Grace in the blessing of Prophets now if the blessing of men were of so great efficacy as to change the Nature of things what shall we
hath styled it which I hope to prove hereafter If the second then to use the Argument and Words of our Discourser p. 30. Christanity would become a most uncertain and endless thing for if we may thus change our Faith in such high and fundamental Doctrines as these are I know not what security we have that we shall not in time change our Faith in other necessaries and at length lose it all But to pin up the Basket as we say I shall conclude with the Testimonies of Calvin and Beza men to whom the Church of England is obliged for a great part of her Reformation Calvin upon 1 Cor. 11.24 Take eat this is my Body says thus Nor doth Christ only offer to us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection but that Body it self in which he suffered and rose again And again Instit l. 4. c. 17. Being made partakers of his Substance we perceive also the vertue of it in the Communication of all good things I know no other Substance he had spiritual or corporal but that which was born of the Blessed Virgin And of the Lutherans he says If they so explain their meaning that whilst the Bread is delivered there is annext to it the exhibition of his Body because the Truth is inseparable from its Sign I should not much oppose them And to strengthen this Assertion of Calvin I shall add the Confession of Beza and others of the same Sect related by Hospinian Hist Sacram. parte altera p. 251. We confess that in the Cup of our Lord not only all the Benefits of Christ but the very substance of the Son of man I say that very Flesh and that very Blood which he poured out for us not only significatively symbolically typically or figuratively as a remembrance of one absent but truly and certainly represented exhibited and offer'd not as naked Symbols but as having from God himself promising and offering the very thing it self truly and certainly joyned to them Now the manner by which the thing it self i.e. the very Body and the very Blood of our Lord is joyned with the Symbols we say it is Symbolical or Sacramental But we call it a Sacramental manner not that it is only Figurative but that it truly and certainly represents under the Species of visible Things that which God exhibits and offers with the Symbols that is as I said before the very Body and Blood of Christ And then he tells us That he differs with others concerning the manner of the Presence only but for the very Thing and Presence it self he retains and defends it And now Reverend Fathers I must acquaint you that whilst I was transcribing this very last Paragraph I was inform'd that there was an Answer lately publisht to Two Discourses printed at Oxford which contained in them the Testimonies of these Learned Protestants before mentioned I stopt my Pen bought the Book and read it over with great care I shall not at present speak any thing more of it in particular than what relates to this very Subject but in general give me leave to tell you that me thoughts this Answerer might very well have spar'd his Apology at last p. 125. for not having insisted more largely upon some points since I have not seen Twenty two Sheets written with so much magisterial Confidence and in my judgment with so little Substance even among all the Pamphlets that have come out on both sides from the Death of the late King to this present day but I leave the further examination to the Conclusion of this Discourse First we thank him for his plainness in delivering his opinion concerning the Real Presence which is the subject Matter in Debate and by which he tells us is meant no more than invisible Power and Grace in exclusion of the Real Presence of Christs Natural Body even after a spiritual manner Whether the Church of England will thank him for it I know not I am sure I was otherwise instructed and believed otherwise whilst in your Communion But let us hear what he says to these Testimonies He endeavours to elude their most plain indubitable sense and grammatical construction even according to the common Reason and Understanding of all Mankind these several ways First he tell us that Becanus says the Calvinists deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly really and substantially present in the Eucharist Not I hope according to that sense which our Answerer would make Calvin and others give of those and such like expressions But sure our Answerer might have collected among his other Protestant Relics an account of a rigider sort of Calvinists who reform'd even upon Calvin himself and yet retain'd the name of Calvinists But what doth Calvin himself say as this Answerer recites out of Hospinian Why that Christ is our Food because by the incomprehensible Vertue of the holy Spirit he inspires his Life into us that he may communicate it to us no less than the Vital Juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree c. No less than so then sure it is as substantial a Communication of Christ's Natural Body after a spiritual manner as the Oxford Discourser in that place pretends to for if Calvin and this Answerer do not believe that the Vital Juice of a Tree is a Substance tho' whilst a Juice more spiritual and that the very Substance of the Tree is substantially nourished and increased thereby I fear they will both prove as bad Philosophers as Divines But before I proceed any further I must inform or mind our Answerer that tho' Catholics believe Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament yet they deny it to be there bodily i.e. Modo Corporeo and tho' his Flesh be there yet not Fleshly nor yet doth his Natural Body leave the highest Heavens These premised because we shall have occasion to make these distinctions I come to next to Beza His words as recited by the Answerer are these We do not say that in the Eucharist there is only a Commemoration of the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the Fruits of his Death and Passion but we joyn the Ground with the Fruits affirming with St. Paul that the Bread which by God's appointment we break is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us the Cup which we drink the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin and which he carried up with him into the Heavens And afterwards For this honor we allow to God that tho' the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere and we on Earth and not elsewhere yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner i.e. modo spirituali and by the means of Faith P. 50. I am afraid Fathers this Answerer plays
booty with you for if this be a confutation of what was before alledged from Beza I profess I shall never quarrel with him about it nor desire any other hand than Beza's even in this very passage to express my Belief of the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament What a strange Answerer is this sure he thinks because Catholics submit their Sense and Reason in some things to Divine Revelation and the Authority of the Church therefore they have not Reason enough to judge in other Cases that three and one make four as well as two and two Next he brings in Cranmer and Ridley when he was among his Geneva Brethren I suppose and he might as well have nam'd himself and his Eminent Discourser against Transubstantiation And what if these two first were of the same opinion concerning the Real Presence with these two last It only proves that one at London contradicted himself at Geneva and the other Men ten times more learned than himself Our Answerer that he may take breath before he comes to our English Divines above-named for I perceive he finds that he is like to have a tough piece of work on 't charges the Oxford Author with disingenuity chiefly in favour of Doctor Burnets History of the Reformation Alas I am apt to believe tho' I know neither the Discourser nor this Answerer not so much as by Name but only by their Works I am apt I say to believe that this Discourser is much better acquainted with Church History than the Doctor and applies it with much more Sincerity and Truth than he hath done I confess were I worthy to advise I should counsel this Answerer to flesh himself first upon some Authors of a lower Classis for I doubt he is here over-match'd and hath got as we say a Bear by the Tooth What the Learned Historian means by the Wisdom of that time P. 58. in leaving a liberty for different speculations as to the manner of the Presence I cannot understand except that they did in that time generally believe the Real Presence as hath been before exprest but would not certainly determine the manner that is as Bishop Andrews hath said before whether it was per or in or cum or sub or trans but if there be no such Real Presence in any manner I know not what this Liberty of Speculations signifies as to the manner when the thing is not really after any manner and if not as our Answerer seems all along to affirm this then might indeed be great Wisdom or humane Policy not too rudely to choke the tender Ears of their late establisht Reformation But how it can consist with true Piety and a Church pretending to reform Errors we shall best find by this consideration If Men had liberty to believe that Christ was really present after any manner it follows necessarily that Christ was adorable there where he was so present But if the Church in its Wisdom did certainly know that Christ was not really present after any Manner then the Church in its Wisdom gave Men liberty to be Idolaters for our Answerer hath been pleas'd to deliver us his Opinion from Doctor Taylor p. 69. who there says That to give Divine worship to a Non Ens must needs be Idolatry For Idolum nihil est in mundo saith St. Paul and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens for it is not true there is no such thing he is there by his Diviner Power and Blessing c. but for any other presence it is Idolum And that the practice of the Learneder part of the Church of England nay of the whole Church of England it self if we will believe the Articles of Henry the Eighth in the beginning of the Reformation or King James in the strength of the Reformation was accordingly Idolatrous I am most abundantly satisfied until some stronger Pen than our Answerers shall fully confute what is already extant to that purpose In the mean time leaving the Matter of Fact to the Doctors Conscience we will follow our Answerer He is come now to Bishop Jewel who tells us p. 60. That Christs Body and Blood indeed and verily is given unto us that we verily eat it that we verily drink it c. yet we say not either that the substance of Bread and Wine is done away that is Transubstantiation which is not our Dispute or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament If by really he means fleshly I subscribe to all this as to the Real Presence He goes on That spiritually i. e. modo spirituali and with the mouth of our Faith we eat the Body of Christ and drink his Blood even as verily as his Body was verily broken and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross If the Bishop was not an Eutychian then certainly his Body was verily that is substantially and truly broken upon the Cross Thus far then we punctually agree But the Bishop explains himself The Bread he tells us is an earthly thing and therefore a Figure as Baptism in Water is also a Figure 'T is confest Now lest we should think that by this Figure the Bishop intended to exclude the substance he adds immediately But the Body of Christ that thereby is represented and is there offer'd to our Faith most true is the thing i. e. the Body of Christ it self and not the Figure As much of this as the Answerer pleases we have reason to be thankful to him for it But he now comes to Answer for the venerable Mr. Hooker You have heard what hath been offer'd from the Discourser The Answerer tells us from Mr. Hooker p. 61. That the parts of the Sacrament are the Body and Blood of Christ because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth And that the Real Presence of Christs most blessed Body and Blood is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament All this is most consistent with the Protestant Notion of the Real Presence here contended for Next Bishop Andrews comes upon the Stage and first the Answerer tells us as from himself only that this Bishop insinuates P. 62. That the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist was much the same as in Baptism the very Allusion which the Holy Fathers were wont to make to express his Presence by in this holy Sacrament That the Bishop and the Holy Fathers might mean that Christ is present in the Sacrament as in Baptism Catholics do not deny for they also constantly affirm the same thing as much as either But if our Answerer pretends to perswade us that either the Bishop or Fathers or Catholics mean him only so present as to exclude the presence also of his natural Body in the Sacrament that remains to be prov'd which hath not been done
introducing Transubstantiation never did 1200 Learned Men take wronger Measures For notwithstanding a due respect be generally paid by all good Catholics to Priests as their Character requires yet I will be judged by all such as have travell'd abroad Whether a Presbyterian Parson in his Conventicle or a London Minister in his Parish or a Calvinist Predicator in Amsterdam who make nothing of the Sacrament Do not yet pretend both Males and Females to have as much respect paid them as ere a Priest of equal quality in France Italy or Spain who nevertheless are the Instruments by which this unexpressible Change is made But our Discourser labours hard here to prove that this Change is no Miracle to Sense But had he advis'd with any Catholic he might have spar'd his pains for I will engage they would have confest it to him at the first word Our Discourser having hitherto with great success destroy'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation yet to make sure work he kills it again with four deadly Objections drawn from the infinite scandal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion As 1. The Stupidity 2. The Real Barbarousness of this Doctrine supposing it be true 3. The bloody Consequences And 4. The danger of Idolatry if it be not true p. 33. To prove the Stupidity of this Doctrine our Discourser produceth two Learned Heathens Tully and Averroes wondring that any Men should be so stupid as to pretend to eat their God Now that there is Stupidity in the Case is most certain But whether it be in the Doctrine Or in Tully and Averroes Or in our Discourser who brings two Heathens Testimonies against a Mystery of the Christian Religion I leave to Judgment I suppose he may have heard of such an Epistle as the first of St. Paul to the Corinthians I would recommend to him the first Chapter and particularly Vers 18.19 20. where it is written For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish foolishness Where is the wise where is the scribe where is the disputer of this world hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world And vers 27 God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise Now whether Averroes and our Discourser were the Wise Men or the Foolish here intended I must leave again to Judgment But I have not yet done with Averroes for his words cited by our Discourser p. 34. are very observeable I have travel'd says he over the world and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of the Christians because with their own Teeth they devour the God whom they worship What ill luck it was that this great Philosopher should not have met with the Disciples of Rabanus Maurus or some One other of our Discoursers Predecessors in Opinion at least in some Corner of the World who might have convinc'd him of his mistake and reconcil'd him a little better to the Christian Religion But not to have found one Christian over the whole World neer six Hundred years since after Rabanus had writ against Pascasius less sottish than the rest will serve at least to prove a Sottishness also in this Case but whether in those Christians or in our present Discourser who hath brought so strong a Testimony to prove the Universality of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation even of so learned a Man who had travell'd all the World over I must once more leave to Judgment But sure I am from Averroes his own Works and the knowledge which he had of that vast difference between Bodies in their Natural Gross and Earthly Composition and the pure Substances of these Bodies separated from their foeces or accidents by corruption or putrefaction distillations digestions and sublimations until they become Essences or pure Principles I say from his Experimental Philosophy of Common Bodies thus alter'd and sublimated he would have made no difficulty to have solv'd most of our Discoursers absurdities concerning this Doctrine of Transubstantiation and yet there is no Comparison between these Common Bodies tho never so purely defoecated and exalted which can bear any proportion with the glorified Body of our Saviour united with his Divinity So that I am verily perswaded had Averroes been satisfied concerning the other Mysteries of Christian Religion and rightly inform'd concerning the Doctrine of Transubstantiation he would have been as good a Christian in that Point as Pope Innocent 3d. or Pius 4th But our Discourser tells us that the stupidity of this Doctrine breeds Atheists and Infidels Even so the warmth of the Sun breeds Maggots and many other Insucts but the Matter must be first disposed to Corruption Now altho the Sun be much hotter in France Spain Portugal and Italy than in England or in Holland yet I appeal to all Men who have any knowledge of those Kingdoms whether there be not as many reputed Atheists in these two last Governments where the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not so publickly nor generally profest as in any other part of the Christian World proportionably where it is And what indeed have been the true parents of Atheism and Infidelity but the devilish pride of Sense and Reason set up against the blessed Humility of Faith and Obedience But our Discourser in this Page begins to be very seriously idle and impertinent out of some respect therefore to himself we will pass it over and come to p. 35. where he most grievously accuseth this Sacrament of Barbarousness upon the Supposition of the truth of this Doctrine But sure if this Doctrine be true then it is impossible that it should be barbarous except our Saviour himself who commanded it and is there voluntarily present in it should have instituted a barbarous Sacrament which whether our Discourser can believe I know not but sure I am if the Doctrine be not true it cannot be barbarous to eat him in imagination only except our Discoursers opinion be also barbarous He tells us 't is very unworthily done to our friend and barbarous to feast upon his Flesh and Blood I am glad to find our Discourser capable of so much Tenderness But he might have read of very many Provinces in the East and West Indies who count it their greatest glory to eat their best deceased Friends perswading themselves that thereby they do as it were regenerate or reanimate those to whom they were first obliged for their own lives by transforming them thus into their own Nature and Substance With indignation therefore they reproach our manner of Burials as most inhumane O pauvre Gens saith my Author comment laissez vous manger cette chair precieuse aux Sales vers de la terre Et que monument plus digne lui pouvez vous donner que celuy de vos propres entrailles And upon this consideration it was that the renowned Artemise drank the Ashes of her dear departed Husband The Barbarousness therefore objected by our Discourser suppose this
But to tell us we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ as a Memorial of him when you profess we do no such thing is the most extravagant of all Metaphors and unparallell'd in History That some have eaten their deceased Friends and that others have drank their Ashes I have already hinted but to say eat and drink the Body and Blood of King Charls that is remember that he was Martyr'd would be such an expression as stands single at least as far as I have read from all the Allegories of the most phantastical Poets Why then do you tells us That we indeed eat and drink his Body and Blood and not rather and only say that we break Bread in remembrance that Christ was so broken and pour forth Wine as a Memorial that his Blood was so shed for us Give me leave to return the Answer I fear that whilst you want Faith to believe the truth intended by the words you are ashamed to neglect the words themselves lest you should become a scandal and reproach to all sober Christians who had ever read the Holy Bible or the best of Fathers Deceive not therefore your selves and those poor Souls who depend upon you but either give them in truth the last Sacred Legacy of our most dear and ever Blessed Master or tell them plainly he is departed and hath left them nothing for a Body which is no Body and Blood which is no thing is at least as absur'd and sensless a Proposition as your so often objected Smelling Tasting nourishing Accidents without a Substance The Answerer hath given us a long Beadroll of Objections in p. 32. Et sequent Which he says contradicts right Reason I could have furnisht him with a great many more and much more pertinent from an Ancient Catholic Author call'd The Christians Manna where he would also have found their Answers to which I must recommend him In some of his repugnancies as he calls them he shews himself so ignorant or malicious that he is either way inexcusable So p. 35. In p. 33. he seems neither to understand Catholic Divinity nor common Philosophy but talks so crudely of both that he deserves not a sober Reply What he from Blondel tells us of the Fathers p. 34. I do not rightly understand nor did I think it worth my pains to procure Blondel upon that account but if either of them would make us believe that the Fathers thought it absurd and impossible that God should act beyond and above the Power of Nature the Fathers are much obliged to them for their good Opinion but if he would make them say that naturally a thing cannot exist act or be produc'd contrary to or above Nature he hath made a wise Speech for them which he may keep for his own use In his 36 P. he is come to his Senses but because he hath only a slight touch of them and those the same with our first Discourser I shall consider them as far as I intend at present together The first Objection is that what we tast and smell and see and touch and which nourish our Bodies should be Nothing and as it is reduced to an Objection against Sense it runs thus That what we see in the Sacrament is not Bread but the Body of Christ I have told you that I must defer my more particular Answer to a particular Treatise upon that Subject in which I hope to reconcile all difficulties not only to Sense and Reason but to the words of Consecration to the Canons of the Council of Trent and to the Fathers and the Fathers to themselves quite throughout In the mean time I will give you the general Faith of all Catholics and so conclude The indispensable Faith of all Catholics is this That the Substance of the Bread and Wine after Consecration is converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ united with his Soul and his Divinity No good Catholics dispute this altho' several Opinions also there are concerning the manner how this is done The great Question is concerning the Accidents which remain and it is the more receiv'd Opinion that they are real tho' not properly call'd substantial things and that as such they may nourish the Body suffer digestion and corruption and are the true Objects of our Senses in which we say all the vertues and qualities of Bread exist This we are told is consistent with Aristotles Philosophy but if you think otherwise dispute your Opinion as long as you please and if you can oblige your Adversaries to find out some more satisfactory Answer for there are some others as I shall shew hereafter The Faith in the mean time remains inviolably among all which their different Opinions pretend not to destroy All believe the Substance is converted but for the Accidents whether they be more or less whether they exist with or without a Subject what that Subject is or whether they may not have Substances of themselves these are Matters of Opinion and Philosophy and we must remember that Christ came not to teach us Philosophy and Logic but Faith and Obedience unto Good Works But I shall enter no further upon this Discourse at present nor shall I here answer our Discoursers four last Questions which depending upon the Doctrine of Accidents shall be consider'd together with them in our designed Treatise I shall only therefore add my hearty Prayers that you would once lay aside your prejudices and affections and many other temporal considerations and sincerely and calmly endeavour with us to find where the truth lies I know no Body intends any harm to you or other good to themselves than that we might be all United under one Head Christ Jesus holding the Unity of Faith in the Bond of Peace It would be a defect of Charity not to be pardon'd should you believe all Catholics to be Knaves or Fools or that they did not see and know or would not know what can be said against them as well as Protestants since your greatest Objections which I have ever read against us are found in our own Authors and their Answers to them of which you are pleased to be silent It were besides a strange Instance of Spiritual Pride to think yourselves the only Children of Light and this grounded upon no other Authority than your own private Opinions and a partial Judgment past upon your selves against the much greater part of the whole Christian World The Glorious Epinikeas and lofty Triumphs which you sing in all your Papers might become the Buskins of a Pagan Conqueror but in me they move only my Compassion to see you so wonderfully pleas'd and insulting in the wrong Alas you mistake the Scâ—â—â— for in our Case the Conquered wins the Prizâ—â— and yet the Victor loseth not his honor What would it profit him says our Saviour If a man should gain the whole World and lose his own Soul It is a serious consideration and deserves a sober thought or two free from passion or prejudice Now whether it be adviseable to venture so great a Treasure upon the single Bottom of every mans private Opinion Whether our Saviour Christ would leave his own Church in a much more dangerous condition than that in which he found the Jewish Church Whether Certainty was to be had among the Jews from the Chair of Moses concerning what they were to believe and do but no Certainty to Christians from the Chair of S. Peter or any other Christian Church upon the face of the Earth Whether Heresie and Schism be terms to affright us and only different names for Knavery and Hypocrisie Or whether a man who truly believes himself to be in the right may not be desperately and dangerously in the wrong and highly punishable for his presumption and disobedience to lawful Authority And Lastly whether you will tell us roundly and plainly That to believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God and to live a moral Life be all that is required of us as some of you have very boldly insinuated These things I recommend to your pious and ingenuous Examination until we meet again FINIS