challenge the Attention of the most obstinate especially when deliver'd by a Man in a High Station This with some other Considerations moved me to examine the Sermons of Doctor Tillotson late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury to see if the intrinsick Value of his Coin be answerable to the Lustre and outward Appearance of it This ingenâ—ous Man has taken a great deal of Pains to convince the World of his Skill in Controversie and has delivered his Thoughts in such fine smooth Language that in my Opinion very few of his Brethren can equal him in the Elegancy of his Stile We have eight Volumns in 8vo of his Sermons in which he seems to have exhausted the Treasure of his Eloquence in combating the most essential Points controverted betwixt Catholics and Protestants viz. The Infallibility of the Church the Pope's Supremacy Transubstantiation Communion in one kind Prayers in an unknown Tongue as he is pleased to call it Invocation of Saints Worship of Images his own words Purgatory and Indulgences Tho' this be not the Order I find he observes in handling these Points but treats of 'em a little confusedly as suited best with his Texts yet for method Sake I chose to lay 'em down in this order being as I suppose the more natural to treat of the most material Points before I come to those that seem to be of less Importance In the handling then of this important Piece of Controversie I shall with God's Assistance observe this Method First I will lay down what the Roman Catholics believe as of Faith concerning these Points Secondly I will prove their Tenets with Reason Scripture and Authority of Fathers tho' of this there should seem little need considering that it has been so often already done were it not that my Business is with the simple and ignorant whom I would willingly instruct in the Grounds of their own Faith as well as to caution them against the Subtilities of their Adversaries Thirdly I will answer all the material Objections which Dr. Tillotson brings against the said Tenets and do faithfully promise that where I do not quote his own words for that I cannot always do by reason they are in many places very long I shall not extenuate nor diminish to the best of my Knowledge the Force of his Arguments nor wrest his Words to any other Sense than what they naturally bear in any other Man's Mouth or Writings But before I begin it will not be amiss to lay down the Foundation on which this Ingenuous Man builds his Controversie a Foundation indeed whose Superstructure had it been so true and solid as it is artificially contrived would in a great measure justifie the Church of England and all other Protestant's Separation from their ancient Brethren and silence the R. Catholics from fastning the Imputation of Schism and Heresie upon them But how far this is from what it seems to be let the Reader judge when the Mask is taken off Dr. Tillotson's Fundamental Principle then is this Whatever is plain and evident to our Senses and Reason is to be believed tho' all the Churches and Men in the World should perswade us to the contrary Thus far I own he is in the right but what he infers from thence namely that this is the Protestants Case in regard of the Papists as he is pleased to call the R. Catholicks requires something more than Herculean Labours to prove He owns indeed and that for Reasons well known to the World that in things doubtful and obscure every private Man ought to hear the Church and receive her Interpretation but in things that are plain and evident nay as evident as that twice two make four I wou'd stand alone says he against all the World His own Words are thus as I find them in the fifth Volume of his Sermons pag. 16. In all matters of Faith and Practise which are plain and evident either from Natural Reason or from Divine Revelation this Resolution seems to be very reasonable But in things doubtful a modest Man and every Man hath Reason to be so would be apt to be staggered by the Judgement of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgement of the Generality of Men. But in things plainly contrary to the evidence of Sense or Reason or the Word of God a Man would complement no Man or Number of Men nor would he pin his Faith upon any Church in the World much less upon any single Man no not the Pope no tho' there were never so many probable Arguments brought for the Proof of his Infallibility In this Case a Man wou'd be singular and stand alone against the whole World against the Wrath and Rage of a King and all the Terrours of his fiery Furnace as in other matters a Man wou'd not believe all the Learned Men in the World against the clear Evidence of Sense and Reason If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages Archimedes and Euclid and Apollonius and Diophantus c. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and should there declare in the most solemn manner and give it under their Hands and Seals that twice two did not make four but five this would not move me in the least to be of their mind nay I who am no Mathematician wou'd maintain the contrary and wou'd persist in it without being in the least startled by the positive Opinion of these Learned Men and wou'd most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or that they were byassed by some Interest or other and swayed against the clear Evidence of Truth and the full Conviction of their own Reason to make such a Determination as this They might indeed over-rule the point by their Authority but in my inward Judgement I should still be where I was before Just so in Matters of Religion if any Church tho' with never so glorious a pretence to Infallibility should declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition of it and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World that could be so servilely blind as seeming to conspire in the Belief of so monstrous an Absurdity And in like manner if any Church should declare that Images are to be worshipped or that the Worship of God is to be performed in an unknown Tongue and that the Holy Scriptures which contain the Word and Will of God and teaches Men what they are to believe and do in order to their eternal Salvation are to be lock'd up and kept concealed from the People in a Language which they do not understand lest if they were permitted the free use of them in their Mother Tongue
they should know more of the Mind and Will of God than is convenient for the common people to know whose Devotion and Obedience to the Church does chiefly depend upon their Ignorance Or should declare that the Sacrifice of Christ was not offer'd once for all but is and ought to be repeated ten millions of times every day and that the people ought to receive the Communion in one kind only and the Cup by no means to be trusted with them for fear the prophane Beards of the Laity should drink of it and that the saving Efficacy of the Sacraments doth depend upon the Intention of the Priest without which the Receiver can have no Benefit by them These are all of them so plainly contrary to Scripture and most of them in reason so absurd that the Authority of no Church whatsoever can oblige a Man to the Belief of them Thus far the Dr. Here you see Christian Reader a Great Orator and Divine teaching from the Pulpit and Press that Sense Reason and Scripture are all on the Protestant's side in the aforesaid controverted Points as clear and evident as that twice two make four Here you see him arraign all the Patriacks Primats Arch-Bishops Bishops Doctors Vniversities and even all Kings Princes Peers Magistrates together with the common people of all Countries and Provinces of the West as also the Greek Church and all the Countries and Provinces in Communion with it all these Learned and Pious Christians I say that flourisht in and Governed this part of the World when Martin Luther appeared upon the Theatre this worthy Man arraigns for Fools and Madmen I say for Fools and Madmen for all these Patriarchs Primats Kings Princes c. professed in those days to be guided by their Senses by natural Reason and by the Word of God contained in the Holy Scriptures and yet all of them believed the very same concerning the said Points the R. Catholics do now Surely then they must have been all Fools and Madmen if Sense Reason and Scripture be as clear and evident on the Protestant's side as that twice two make four For who ever in his wits denied that twice two do make four Or in his right Senses ever affirmed that white was black or black white Or that any of our Senses when they are perfect do not give irrefragable Testimony of their proper Objects Or that plain and evident Texts of Scripture were not to be believed These monstrous Absurdities the Dr. fastens upon all the Eminent and learned Men of the Eastern and Western Churches which flourisht not only when Martin Luther rose up but also by his own Acknowledgement for at least several Ages before him which is in effect to Brand them all with the Ignominious Character of Fools and Madmen If all the great Mathematicians of all Ages saith the Dr. could be supposed to meet together in a General Council and there declare in the most solemn manner that twice two did not make four but five I should most certainly conclude that they were either all of them out of their Wits or byassed by some Interest or other But good God! What should byass any Man in his Wits much less any Society of learned Men to declare against a thing so clear and evident Nothing surely less than Phrensy or Madness But let us hear the Application Just so in matters of Religion continues the Dr. if any Church shou'd declare for Transubstantiation that is that the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament by virtue of the Consecration of the Priest are Substantially changed into the Body and Blood of Christ this is so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind that a Man would chuse to stand single in the opposition and laugh at or rather pity the rest of the World c. The Dr. knew very well and so do all the learned Protestants in the World that the Latin and Greek Churches and all in Communion with them have not only declared for but have always believed at least for several Ages Transubstantiation as aforesaid If it be then so notoriously contrary both to the Sense and Reason of Mankind as the Dr. would suggest all those Men whereof a great number had at least the Reputation of being both Learned and Virtuous must necessarily have been all of them out of their wits or byassed by some prejudice which most certainly cou'd be nothing else but the extremity of Madness and Folly their eternal Damnation being necessarily consequent upon such a Belief He pursues the same comparison instancing in the rest of the Controverted Points aforesaid But what Man in his right Senses would believe that any one Nation much less all Europe should conspire to renounce all those means which God has given them to acquire the Knowledge of things viz. Sense Reason and the Word of God without which it is impossible to know any thing especially in a matter which so highly concerns them Or who wou'd not rather believe that Dr. Tillotson was mightily mistaken than that the best part of Mankind should make Shipwrack of that which alone distinguishes them from Beasts nay who would not rather believe that either he himself had been out of his Wits Or that he designed to impose upon Mankind so strange a paradox as that hundreds of millions of Learned and Ingenious Men should conspire to declare against that which is both their everlasting Interest and constitutes them Men since neither he nor any Man else cou'd ever instance in one single Man in his wits that ever was guilty of such a Folly This I must confess is one of the most surprizing nay the most intollerable Charges that ever was laid to Mankind and yet how monstrous and absurd soever it appears 't is no less than what was absolutely necessary to support the Cause the Dr. had undertaken He was it seems well read in that famous Dispute betwixt Dr. Hammond and Mr. Serjeant concerning Schism The former wrote a Book in Vindication of the Church of England from the Imputation of Schism which the R. Catholics charge her with The latter answers his Book in an other entituled Schism disarmed Dr. Hammond writes a Reply to this and Mr. Serjeant adds a Rejoinder to that which he calls Schism dispatcht Now to know what relates to our purpose in this Dispute you must understand that Dr. Hammond in the first Chapter of his Defence of the Church of England in his Description of Schism paints it in its own horrid and dreadful Shape as the Scripture and Holy Fathers of the Primitive Church had done before him viz. That it is Carnality Self-condemning contrary to Charity bereaving one of the benefit both of Prayers and Sacraments as bad as and the Foundation of all Heresies that there is scarce any Crime so great as Schism not Sacriledge Idolatry Parricide that it is obnoxious to peculiar Marks of God's Indignation Antichristianism worshipping or serving the Devil not expiable by Martyrdom
of the Protestants that it needs no farther Confutation 3. All the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ both in a literal Sense and in a Sense of Transubstantiation I shou'd fill up a Volum were I to bring all the Passages of Councils and Fathers which make for this Truth no Mistery of our Religion being ever with more Care inculcated and expounded by the Fathers in their Homilies Catechisms and familiar Discourses to the common People and that no doubt for the difficulty Men naturally have to believe it But it not being my design to write all that may be said for it but what may suffice to evince the truth of it I shall content my self with the Testimony of a few Councils and Fathers whose Authority and Weight however I hope shall make sufficient amends for the smalness of their number And 1. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense or which is the same thing believ'd the Real presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament let St. Cyril Bishop of Alexandria bear witness This great Patriarch in his Epistle to Nestorius speaks thus of the Eucharist Neque enim illam ut â—arnem communem suscipimus absit hoc neque rursum tanquam viri cujuspiam Sanctificati dignitatis unitate verbo consociati sed tanquam verè vivificam ipsiusque verbi propriam God forbid we shou'd receive it as common flesh nor yet as the flesh of a Man sanctified and united to the Word by a conjunction of dignity but we receive it as it truely is the quickening and proper flesh of the Word Himself This Letter was read and approv'd in the third General Council * Concil Ephes puncto 7. which no doubt wou'd never have been had it contain'd any thing contrary to Orthodox Faith so that having receiv'd Authority and Approbation from those Fathers we shall no more consider it as the Doctrine of a private Man but as the Faith of the whole General Council Now can it be imagin'd that this Council which represented the whole Catholic Church shou'd approve and put upon Record a Letter which declares the Real Presence as clear and plain as is possible for words to express it unless it had been at that Time the Faith of the whole Catholic Church And can it be imagin'd that the Catholic Church in those fair Days of her Youth as the Calvinists speak shou'd believe that Christ's proper Flesh as the said Letter words it was in the Sacrament unless they had understood Christ's Words in a literal Sense and receiv'd the same Doctrine from their immediate Ancestors Or can it be imagin'd that these Ancestors shou'd be of this Belief unless they had likewise receiv'd it from their Ancestors and so up to the very Apostles This is surely to any Man of Sense but more especially ought to be to the Church of England who professes to receive the Acts and Decrees of this Council instead of a Demonstration that from the begining of Christianity to the Time of this Council all the Orthodox Christians did both believe the Real Presence and understand Christ's Words in a literal Sense 2. That the Orthodox Christians from the begining understood those Words of Christ this is my Body in a sense of Transubstantiation we have the unanimous consent of the ancient Fathers of the Church many whereof in their familiar Discourses to the common People Illustrate this Conversion by the change of the Water into Wine of Aarons Rod into a Serpent of the River Nilus into Blood and the like And 't is very observable that in all their Discourses upon this Subject and whenever they speak of this Change they have Recourse to the Omnipotent Power of God to which alone they ascribe it which surely wou'd be very needless had there been no real Change in the Case St. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem speaks thus Concerning this Change Therefore since Christ hath said of the Bread this is my Body who durst any more doubt it And since He himself so positively affirm'd saying this is my Blood who ever doubted so as to say that it was not his Blood In Time past at the Wedding of Cana in Galilee he chang'd Water into Wine which has a certain likeness to blood and shall not we think him worthy to be believ'd that he cou'd change Wine into his Blood Again for under the appearance of Bread he gives us his Body and under the appearance of Wine he gives us his Blood And a little after tho' your Senses seem in this to oppose you yet Faith must confirm you do not judge the thing by the Taste but let Faith assure you beyond all doubt that you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Cate. Mystag 3. Here is a great Bishop an Eminent Witness of Antiquity one who flourish'd 1300 Years since and who no doubt knew very well the Faith of the Catholic Church of his Time touching this Point Here is a careful Pastor expounding Christ's Words and Catechizing his Flock in the very Language of the present Roman Catholics He tells them that since Christ said that the Bread and Wine were his Body and Blood they must believe that the Bread and Wine were chang'd into his Body and Blood He illustrates this change by a familiar Comparison of the Water which Christ chang'd into Wine and enforces the belief of the possibility of the other by the actual Existence of this change which they both read and believ'd He tells them that under the Appearance of Bread they receive the Body and under the Appearance of Wine they receive the Blood of Christ and that tho' their senses may tell them that it is still Bread yet their Faith must correct that Mistake that they must not judge what it is by the Taste but must believe that it is the Body and Blood of Christ whatever their senses may suggest to them to the contrary Did ever any Roman Catholic speak plainer concerning Transubstantiation Can any Roman Bishop or Pastor at present enforce the belief of this Mystery with more cogent Arguments than to tell his Auditors that since Christ said this is my Body we must believe it is so since he chang'd Water into Wine we have no Reason to doubt but his Omnipotence is sufficient to change Wine into his â—lood that tho' it appears to our Eyes to our Taste to our Smell that the thing is otherwise yet we must not in this bus'ness rely upon the Relation of these senses but upon the sense of Hearing because Faith is by hearing and hearing by the Word of God which Word we are here only requir'd to believe All which are the very Reasonings of St. Cyril Now what the Protestants may think of this great Maâ— I shall not determin but this I am sure of that had he written this since the Reformation they wou'd have all reckon'd him to be as rank a Papist as ever put Pen
affirm'd that the Belief of the Holy Ghost under the Form of a Dove or of the Angels under the Form of Men did destroy the external Means of confirming the Truth of Christianity How can the Belief of Transubstantiation destroy 'em then Thus you see how grosly the Common People are abus'd on the one hand when they are made to believe that Transubstantiation is so monstrously absurd as the Dr. wou'd fain here paint it And how hardy He himself must needs have been on the other when he had the Courage to deliver out of the very Pulpit the Chair of Truth that it was as evidently contrary to the common Sense of Mankind as it is evident that twice two make four vol. 5. pag. 18 19. But I have an other Challenge to him yet He tells us in the foregoing Page that in things doubtful a modest Man wou'd be very apt to be stagger'd by the judgment of a very Wise Man and much more of many such and especially by the unanimous Judgment of the Generality of Men the General Voice and Opinion of Mankind being next to the Voice of God himself And a little after He gives this Reason for it because in things lawful and indifferent we are bound by the Rules of Decency and Civility not to thwart the General Practice and by the Commands of God we are certainly oblig'd to obey the lawful Commands of lawful Authority Since then the falshood of Transubstantiation is not only doubtful but the Truth of it is establish'd upon the firmest Foundation either in Heaven or on Earth even upon that Word which shall never pass away tho' Heaven and Earth shall and since the belief of it when the Reformation began was grounded upon the General Voice and Opinion of the Generality of Mankind as the Doctor and all those of his Perswasion do acknowledg and upon the lawful Commands of lawful Authority if any such thing were on Earth I appeal to his own Judgment if every Man be not bound both in Decency and Civility and by the Commands of God not to thwart or contradict a Point of Faith so firmly establish'd And now if after all this any Man will undertake to justifie the Doctor 's Conduct and Vindicate what he writ against Transubstantiation I here make him this fair offer for his encouragement that tho' this good Doctor is pleas'd to say Vol. 3. pag. 299. that in the bus'ness of Transubstantiation it is not a Controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down right Impudence civily spoken against the plain meaning of Scripture and the Sense and Reason of Mankind If He I say or any body else will bring but one single Argument in Mood and Figure to prove that Transubstantiation does either contradict Sense or Reason I do sincerely promise him I will be of his Opinion the very next Moment And this I do the more confidently affirm because I am sure Transubstantiation cannot possibly contradict or be against Sense or Reason Sense it cannot for it is not the Object of any of our Senses and surely it is not against Reason that one Substance shou'd be chang'd into an other since all Generations and Corruptions are thus perform'd and even daily Experience teaches us that the Meat on which wee feed does not nourish us but in as much as it is chang'd into the substance of our Flesh And to let the World know it is not the Roman Catholics alone who see the absurdity of this Pretence I will Transcribe the Words of an Ingenious Sociâ—tan upon this Subject who surely is no more a Friend to the Roman Catholics than to the Protestants They are taken out of a Book Intitul'd Considerations on the Explication of the Trinity c. Pag. 21. He cites the Words of the Bishop of Sarum taken out of his Discourse concerning the Divinity and Death of Christ pag. 94. which are these Transubstantiation must not be a Mystery because there is against it the Evidence of Sense in an Object of Sense For Sense plainly represents to us the Bread and Wine to be still the same that they were before the Consecration And thus he speaks his own Thoughts of them This is says he every way faulty for it is not pretended by the Papists that the Bread and Wine have received any the least Change in what is an Object of Sense The Papists following the Philosophy of Aristotle distinguish in Bodys these two things the Accidents such as the quantity figure colour smell taste and such like which are Objects of our Senses And the Substance which bears and is cloathed as it were with these visible and sensible Accidents but is it self invisible and the Object of our Vnderstanding not of our Senses They say hereupon our Saviour having call'd the Sacrament his Body and Blood because our Senses assure us there is no change of the sensible Accidents therefore the change that is made must be in the invisible Substance Which change they therefore call Transubstantiation Nor do they say that Christ is corporally or bodily present in the Sacrament but that His Body is present in a spiritual manner As Cardinal Bellarmin largely discourses De Eucharist l. 1. c. 2. His Lordship therefore is greatly out in pretending that the Transubstantiation as held by the Papists is contradicted by Sense in an Object of Sense Thus far this Ingenious Man Whence 't is evident how miserably weak the Doctor 's pretence to Evidence of Sense against this Mystery is and how grosly he abuses Mankind when alluding to Transubstantiation he tells them they do not come to learn from their Guids or Pastors the difference between Sea and dry Land Vol. 3. pag. 100. or between North and South as if they had the same Evidence that there is no Transubstantiation in the Eucharist as they have of the difference of Sea from dry Land or of North from South 2. The four Objections taken out of the Dr's Discourse against Transubstantiation are these Vol. 3. pag. 315. 1. Tertullian speaks thus of the Eucharist The Bread which our Saviour took and distributed to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body but it cou'd not have been the Figure of his Body if there had not been a True and Real Body Advers Marcion l. 4. Here Tertullian seems to insinuate that the Eucharist is the Figure of Christ's Body Vol. 3. pag. 318. 2. St. Austin seems to be of the same Opinion Our Lord says he did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body lib. contra Adimant 3. Theodoret speaks to the same purpose in his second Dialogue between a Catholic Vol. 3. pag. 324. under the Name of Orthodoxus and an Heretic under the Name of Eranistes where he makes Eranistes speak these Words As the Symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the
Invocation of the Priest but after the Invocation are chang'd and become an other thing so the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is chang'd into the Divine Substance To which the Catholic Orthodoxus answers thus thou art caught in thine own Net because 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 as before pag. 325. 4. Pope Gelasius seems to be of the same mind Surely says he the Sacraments which we receive of the Body and Blood of our Lord are a Divine Thing so that by them we are made partakers of a Divine Nature and yet it ceaseth not to be the Substance or Nature of Bread and Wine and certainly the Image and resemblance of Christ's Body and Blood are celebrated in the Action of the Mysteries Bib Patr. tom 4. These and some more of less moment are by the Dr. very much magnified and cry'd up and to do him justice he spares no Art nor Industry to improve them to the best Advantage peremptorily concluding at the Foot of each Passage that Transubstantiation was unknown to Antiquity But before I answer them it will be requisite for the better Understanding of these Fathers to observe 1. What Conduct the ancient Fathers generally held when they treated of the Mystery of the Lord's Body and Blood in the Sacrament 2. What was the ancient Father's Belief concerning this Mystery and 3. Whence these Passages objected are taken Which if well consider'd I doubt not to make it appear that these Objections notwithstanding their plausible appearance do not in the least prejudice the Truth of Transubstantiation nor clash with the Father's Opinions who Favour this Doctrine 1. The Fathers here objected and most of the Ancients were very cautious how they spoke any thing on this Subject which might increase the Suspicion the Gentils had conceiv'd of them as if they us'd to eat Human Flesh in the Celebration of their Mysteries which no doubt was occasion'd by the Information of some Apostat Christians who upon renouncing of their Faith declar'd that the Christians us'd to eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ They were therefore to avoid the Reproach and Odium which they must hereupon necessarily incur the Gentils thinking they eat this Flesh as Men do that which is fold in the Shambles very careful to conceal this Mystery and to write nothing that was to be expos'd to the Infidels which might seem to insinuate any such Doctrine being content to glance at it and when they must to deliver their Thoughts obscurely knowing very well that by this prudent Conduct the Pagans wou'd have no just Reason to reproach them and the Christians who were carefully instructed in this Point wou'd easily understand what they hinted at So that in their Treatises against Heretics in the Books they must have expos'd to public view for the comfort and instruction of the Christians and the conversion of the Gentils but more especially in their public Sermons and Homilies where they apprehended any Pagans were present they were very careful to speak nothing out touching this Point but by hints and glances to insinuate their meaning to the Christians so as the Pagans cou'd not understand what they meant Thus Tertulian in the Book which he wrote to diswade his Wife from Marrying after his Decease Non sciet Maritus quid ante omnem cibum gustes si sciverit Panem esse credet non quod dicitur Your Husband will not know that which you taste before all other Meat and if he does he will think it is Bread and not what it is call'd Here a Pagan knows not what he means but his Wife and all other Christians might easily understand that he means the Body of Christ Thus St. Austin in several places insinuates this Mystery in obscure words and then adds these fam'd Words Nôrunt fideles Nôrunt fideles quod dico The Faithful know the Faithful know what I say Thus Theodoret in that very Dialogue objected by the Doctor puts these Words in Orthodoxus his Mouth Oro te ut obscurius respondeas adsunt enim fortasse aliqui Mysteriis non initiati I beseech you answer more obscurely for there are some perhaps here present who are not initiated in the Mysteries This he said because they were about to talk of the Eucharist as appears by the Words of the Dialogue Eranistes answers him sic audiam sic respondebo So I will hear and so I will answer It were needless to bring any more Authorities from Fathers to prove this Truth it being evident from the Conduct observ'd in respect of the Catechumens that this was the universal Practise of the primitive Church These Catechumens were Candidates for Christianity they were taught and instructed in all the other Mysteries of the Christian Faith but not one Word did they hear of or relating to the Eucharist till they had by long Tryal and Experience given sufficient Proof of their Good Resolutions and solemnly promis'd to believe whatever the Catholic Church taught and profess'd Tho' they were taught the Mystery of the Trinity and Incarnation tho' they were allow'd to hear the Gospel read and expounded and to assist at the Rest of the Divine Service yet when the Consecration and Communion of the Eucharist was to be perform'd they were by no means admitted to be present nor as much as know any thing of it but were dismiss'd and excluded from that part of the Service till by long and careful Instructions they were deem'd competent * hence the name of Competentes missa Catechume norum so often mention'd by the Canons to assist at it as they then phras'd it So careful were the Primitive Fathers that none shou'd come to the Knowledge of this Mystery but such as were very well dispos'd to believe and embrace it And now can any Man of Sense imagin that these Holy and Learned Fathers shou'd keep such a stir about the Eucharist or be so careful to conceal it were it but a Type or Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ What is more easie to be believ'd than that Bread represents the Body of Christ and Wine his Blood and that both are taken in remembrance of his Death and Passion Surely there is nothing in the world so easie to be perswaded since all Mankind knows that such arbitrary Signs or Representations depend meerly of the Will of him that institutes them and that there is nothing to be done to perswade their Belief but to tell that they are so Certainly no Pagan or Gentil cou'd ever be offended at a thing so plain or offer the least Reproach to the Christian Religion upon the account of it Consequently there wou'd be no need to conceal or speak obscurely of it nor to hinder not only Catechumens but even Pagans or Infidels to hear it taught and deliver'd But to proceed 2. What
the ancient Fathers believ'd touching the Eucharist was this that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was chang'd into the Body and Blood of Christ as appears by the passages produc'd from their Works where the Fathers in their Catechisms and Homilies make it their Bus'ness to explain this Mystery to the Faithful And because their Senses gave them to understand that the outward Forms or Accidents remain'd these they call'd the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body because they represent unto us the Body of Christ which is as it were cloath'd with these Accidents So that the ancient Fathers believ'd this Sacrament to be both the Figure and Reality of the Body of Christ according to the two different things they discover'd in it viz. the outward Signs or Simbols and the Body and Blood of Christ which are vail'd and cover'd by them Hence St. Cyril of Jerusalem says under the Type and Figure of Bread he gives you his Body and under the Figure of Wine he gives you his Blood And Gratian Distinct 2. C. Hoc est de Consecrat says Hoc est quod dicimus c. This is what we say and what by all means we endeavour to prove that the Sacrifice of the Church is made of two Things consists of two Things of the visible Appearance of the Elements and of the invisible Flesh and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ of the Sacrament that is of the External and Sacred Sign and of the thing of the Sacrament Re Sacramenti that is of the Flesh and Blood of Christ Again Caro ejus est c. 'T is his Flesh which we receive in the Sacrament vail'd with the Form of Bread and his Blood which we drink under the Appearance and taste of Wine But for all the Fathers do very often especially in their Disputes with Heretics and when they apprehend their Writings shou'd fall into the Hands of the Pagans call the Eucharist the Sign or Figure of Christ's Body and Blood because in effect it is so in regard of the Accidents or outward Forms yet we do not find that they ever call'd it a Sign or Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of Christ's Flesh and Blood 3. 'T is very material to our present Dispute to know whence those Passages objected by the Doctor are taken And this he himself is careful to tell us namely that they are taken out of those Father's Disputes with Heretics In which sort of Writing it is natural for any Man to take all kind of just advantage of his Adversary in order to confute him even to the silencing of some part of the Truth when it is not to his purpose nor absolutely neccessary to be declar'd So that it is very hard to gather those Father's Opinions from such Passages much more to establish an Article of Faith upon their Ambiguous Expressions Whereas the Passages which we alledge for Transubstantiation are taken from Catechisms Homilies Sermons and familiar Discourses where the Fathers on purpose and as Pastors and Doctors of the Church expound this Mystery to the people and tell them what they are to believe concerning it This suppos'd 1. I answer 1. That Tertullian here disputed with an Heretic and that at such a Time as was neither convenient nor agreeable to his Prudence to publish the whole Truth concerning this Mystery Consequently that it is not to be admir'd he spoke somewhat obscurely 2. That by these Words this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body he meant the outward Forms or Accidents of the Sacrament For he knew very well that the Sacrament consisted of two things viz. of the outward Accidents or Forms of Bread and Wine and of the Body and Blood of Christ contain'd under these Accidents The first Tertullian calls the Figure of Christ's Body and so do all the R. Catholics at present because these outward forms exhibit and represent unto us the Body and Blood of Christ which they cover Now this gave Tertullian a signal Advantage over his Antagonist who deny'd that Christ had a Real Body because it prov'd that the Sacrament cou'd not be call'd the Figure of Christ's Body unless he had a True and Real Body and therefore he insisted upon it without declaring what was contain'd under that Figure Which tho' it may be blameable in a Sermon or Discourse design'd for the Instruction of the People yet may very well be allow'd in a Dispute considering the advantage it gave to his Cause on the one side but without prejudice to Truth and the Scorn and Contempt it wou'd expose the Christian Religion to on the other had he at that time of day fully expounded that Mystery Now that Tertullian did not believe that the Sacrament was a Figure only with exclusion to the Reality of the Body and blood of Christ is evident from that Passage before cited non sciet Maritus c. 2. St. Austin's Words are to be understood in the same sense For he here disputed with Adimantus the Manichean who affirm'd that the Soul or Life of Animals consisted in their Blood Now St. Austin to refute this Error tells him that the Blood of Animals in Scripture is taken for their Life because it represents and contains Life And so says he God calls Blood Soul or Life for our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body Which words surely if the comparison be just must signifie that that Sign of Christ's Body contain'd his true Body as the blood which is the Sign of the Soul or Life in Animals contains their Life or Soul But that the Doctor may see how far St. Austin was from believing that the Sacrament was only a Sign or Figure of Christ's Body I will transcribe a passage taken out of his Comments upon the Psalms where he speaks plainly and familiarly for the People's Instruction 'T is upon these Words of the Psalmist adorate Scabellum pedum ejus quoniam Sanetum est adore ye his Footstool because it is holy Behold Brethren says he what he commands us to adore The Scripture saith elswhere Heaven is my Seat but the Earth is my Footstool He commands us then to adore the Earth because he said in another place that the Earth was God's Footstool and how shall we adore the Earth since the Scripture expresly says thou shalt adore thy Lord thy God And this Psalmist says adore ye his Footstool But explaining to me what his Footstool is he saith The Earth is my Footstool I am at a stand I fear to adore the Earth lest he shou'd damn me who made Heaven and Earth Again I fear if I do not adore the Footstool of my Lord because the Psalm says to me adore ye his Footstool I ask what his Footstool is and the Scripture tells me The Earth is my Footstool Being in doubt I turn me to Christ for 't is He whom I here seek and I find how without impiety the Earth may
plunge the Children into the Water when they baptize them as the Apostles and primitive Church have done They answer as before that it is not Essential to the spiritual Lotion of the Soul that the Body shou'd be wash'd by Plunging rather than any other way but that whether it be perform'd by Immersion or Aspersion or in any other manner 't is the same thing to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament So that it is plain and even confess'd by our Adversaries that the Church has Power to alter and change all the Circumstances which are not of the Essence and Nature of the Sacraments All the Difficulty then consists in this whether it be Essential to the Communion to receive it in both kinds Or whether One kind be not sufficient And if it be made out that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive both but that it is enough to receive it in One kind then the Protestants must confess that the Church may lawfully command the Forbearance of the other Now that the receiving of the Eucharist in Both Kinds is not Essential to the True and Real Participation of the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but that One Kind alone is sufficient I shall endeavour to shew 1. From several Texts of Scripture which affords us sufficient Grounds to conclude that for the due Participation of the Sacrament it is not necessary to receive it in Both kinds 2. From the General Practice of the Church in all Ages even in those days in which the Protestants do own the pure Word of God as they speak was preach'd and the Sacraments duely administred 3. From the Consent of our Adversaries if consistent with themselves I begin with the first And that our Adversaries may not think I design to impose upon them I will quote those places of Scripture that seem to make against as well as for me Christ says John c. 6. ver 50. This is the Bread which cometh down from Heaven that a Man may eat thereof and not die Ver. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever and the Bread that I will give is my Flesh Ver. 53. Verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no Life in you Ver. 54. Who so eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life Ver. 56. He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in Me and I in Him Ver. 58. This is that Bread which came down from Heaven he that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever Here are six Passages whereof three seem to be expresly for the Communion in one kind and the other three seem to be against it What shall we say to this Must we believe all Or shall we believe but three of them For they seem to contradict one another One says Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you An other If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever If it be True that the Man who eateth of this Bread shall live for ever how can it be at the same time true that he cannot live except he eat the Bread and drink the Cup Must we then hold to three of these Passages and reject the rest As to the Protestants I do not see how it shou'd stand with their Principles to do otherwise For they are so far from believing that the Man who eats of this Bread shall live for ever that they constantly assert that except he drinks also of the Cup he is guilty of a Horrid Sacriledge Vol. 2. pag. 70. 't is what Dr. Tillotson expresly affirms This is no Addition to Christianity says he speaking of the Communion in One Kind but a sacrilegious taking away of an Essential Part of the Sacrament they must then necessarily deny three of these Passages if they be True to their own Principles But for R. Catholics they are not in the least perplext at this seeming Contradiction they believe them all to be both true in themselves and agreeable to their Principles For they belive that whosoever eateth of this Bread the same eateth and drinketh the Flesh and Blood of the Son of Man in the Sense he meant they shou'd eat and drink his Flesh and Blood which is not to be understood as Protestants as well as Catholics must confess tho' upon different Grounds in the strict and proper meaning of the Words as if eating and drinking his Flesh and Blood were to be perform'd by two different Acts whereof one is conversant about a sollid and the other about a liquid Thing as the Words usually and properly import but that to eat and drink his Flesh and Blood signifies no more than to participate of or to take by the Mouth his Flesh and Blood whether with one or different Acts it matters not R. Catholics then find no Difficulty in reconciling these places they believe the Flesh of Jesus Christ is the Flesh of a Living Man which cannot be so without Blood and therefore when they take it they are sure they eat and drink his Body and Blood that is they are Partakers of his Body and Blood And hence it is they do most certainly conclude that it is not Essential to the Communion to receive it in both Kinds because they receive in one all that Christ requires of the Faithful to receive that is his Body and Blood I say Protestants as well as Catholics must confess that in this Passage Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood the Words eat and drink are not to be taken in the strict and usual Sense they commonly bear For seeing they believe that in the Eucharist there is neither Flesh nor Blood nothing but Bread and Wine and that in eating and drinking these Elements to the Letter they do eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith as it is said in the 39 Articles it cannot be said that they eat and drink the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the literal and usual Sense of the Words it being impossible to eat and drink in the Elements in a literal Sense that which in a literal Sense they do not really contain as Protestants hold They must then necessarily conclude that to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ is not to be understood in a literal but in a figurative Sense and then the meaning of these Words must be To 〈◊〉 and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that is to be Partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ and if so then 't is certain that in eating only the Body of Christ which being a living Human Body must needs contain his Blood we eat and drink his Flesh and Blood that is we are made Partakers of his Flesh
that the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper which I am sure is the very same with the Doctrine of the Council of Trent her verily and indeed being the self same thing with that Council's verè realiter Yet if you shou'd ask any of her Divines whether the Body and Blood of Christ be verily and indeed in the Sacrament They will answer you no If you ask them further how can you then verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament if it be not there Some will answer you that tho' his Body and Blood be not there yet when you take the Bread and Wine you take at the same Time the Body and Blood of Christ to all the Intents and Purposes of the Sacrament but this is such a Riddle as passes my Skill to unfold Others say that by an Act of Faith you do verily and indeed take and receive the Body and Blood of Christ when you receive the Elements But if you urge the Difficulty farther and tell them that to receive the Body and Blood of Christ by Faith is no more to receive it verily and indeed than to receive an Idea or Representation of a Thing to which you give assent is to receive the thing it self Or suppose it were you still admit of Christ's Body his being in several places at once which is the Inconvenience you wou'd fain avoid by rejecting the Real Presence in the Sacrament for if one in London and another in York shou'd at the same Time which is very possible verily and indeed take the Body and Blood of Christ then surely the Body of Christ must needs be in two different places at once if you urge I say the Difficulty thus far you are like to get no Answer which either you or any Body else can understand So that tho' the Church of England has in other things many signal Advantages of the Lutherans and Calvinists yet in this she is neither so Reasonable as they nor so consistent with her self nor yet with common Sense Now to establish the Roman Catholic's Belief on this Subject and to shew the Unreasonableness of the said Opinions tho' of this last there is little need their own Author's having in a great measure by their manifest Contradictions and Absurdities already done it to my Hand I shall endeavour to prove as clear and as brief as I can 1. That the Words of Scripture on which Transubstantiation is grounded are to be understood in a litteral Sense 2. That such a Sense does necessarily infer Transubstantiation And 3. That from the Begining all the Orthodox Christians in the World were of that Belief I begin with the first The Words on which Transubstantiation is grounded are these This is my Body which a given for you Luke 22.19 Now that these Words are to be taken in a litteral Sense nothing can be more plain both from Christ's Promise of giving his Body as we read St. John Chap. 6. from St. Paul's Sense of these Words in his Epistle to the Corinthians and from the very Sense which the Words themselves must necessarily bear From Christ's Promise I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven If any Man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever And the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the World Joa 6.51 Christ promises to give his Disciples a certain kind of Bread which they were not as yet acquainted with And to let them understand what sort of Bread it was he tells them that it is his Flesh The Bread that I will give you is my Flesh This so unusual a thing as eating human Flesh cou'd not but startle them however they cou'd not doubt but he meant to do as he spoke since he affirm'd that the Bâ—ead he wou'd give them was his Flesh And therefore they strove among themselves saying how can this Man give us his Flesh to eat But how dâ—es Christ here disabuse them Does he say his Words are not to be taken lirerally Does he tell them they must understand him in a Figurative Sense No He is so far from it that with a repeated Oath He confirms them in the Sense they understood his Words Verily verily says He I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye shall have no Life in you When Christ said I am the Door I am the true Vine c. His Disciples were nothing offended at these Expressions because they knew them to be Metaphors and figurative Sayings commonly us'd but here you see they are amaz'd and confounded Had Christ only said I will give you heavenly Bread or I will give you my Body perhaps they might have taken this in a figurative Sense too But when He assures them that the Bread He wou'd give them is his Fâ—esh and protests with a repeated Oath that except they eat his Flesh and drink his Blood they shall have no Life in them he must surely renounce his Reason who does not see that he spoke and meant literally In a word if those Words be not understood in a literal Sense it is utterly impossible to know how any Phrase may be literally meant the Words is my Flesh being by Christ affirm'd of the Bread for no other End and his confirming with an Oath that it was so for no other Reason than to perswade them that he meant as he spoke This is no less manifest from St. Paul's Sense of the said Words The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 Here the Apostle agreeably to what Christ said puts the Question as if the Corinthians doubted it is not the Cup of Blessing which we bless the Communion of the Blood of Christ c. Now what is it to communicate or partake of the Body and Blood of Christ Surely it is to eat and drink of his Body and Blood as to communicate or partake of Bread and Wine is to eat of the Bread and drink of the Wine Again Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. But let a Man examin himself and so let him eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh Damnation to himself not discerning the Lord's Body Cap. 11.27 28 29. This surely is too severe a Sentence if St. Paul understood Christ's Words in a figurative Sense If that Bread and that Cup be only a Type and Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ whosoever abuses or takes them unworthily ought in Reason to be somewhâ—t less guilty than if he had in reality abus'd his Body and
Blood But the Apostle declares that such a one shou'd be guilty of no less than the Body and Blood of Christ which surely is to be guilty of the greatest Crime that can be imagin'd When a Man murders or spills the Blood of an other he is but guilty of his Blood This is the common Language of Mankind and no Man in his Wâ—its did ever so much as imagin that a Man who shou'd abuse the Figure or Picture of another shou'd be therefore guilty of his Body or Blood Seeing then St. Paul affirms that those who abuse or take unworthily that Sacred Bread and Cup are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ it is a perfect Demonstration that he did not believe them to be a Type or Figure but his Real Flesh and Blood The Jews crucified Christ spilt his Blood and abus'd his Body yet the Scripture says no where that they were in that particular guilty of more than of the Blood of Christ and of more I cannot tell how they cou'd For neither human nor Angelical Wit can invent a heavier Charge With what propriety of Speech then nay with what Reason can it be affirm'd that Men shou'd be guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ as were the Jews for doing no more than taking unworthily the Type or Figure of his Body and Blood In a word no Man can be guilty of the Blood of another unless he spills his Blood or takes away his Life but St. Paul here affirms that whosoever shall eat this Bread or drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord and shall besides eat and drink Damnation to himself Consequently he believ'd and was perswaded that this Sacred Bread and Cup were the True and Real Flesh and Blood of Christ And this is so plain from his last Words that I wonder any Man in his Senses can entertain the least doubt concerning it For he concludes that the Reason why they do eat and drink Damnation to themselves is because they do not discern that that spiritual Food which they abuse is the Lord's Body non dijudicans Corpus Domini This is yet more plain from the Sense which the Words of the Institution must necessarily bear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is my Body which is given for you Luke 22.19 The Evangelist tells us a little before these words that Christ took Bread and gave Thanks and brake it and gave it to his Disciples and to let them understand what sort of Bread it was or rather what he intended to make it he says that it is his Body and to take away all occasion of doubt whether he had meant his true and Real Body or else the Figure of it he adds which is given for you so that they who believ'd the Omnipotent Power of Christ cou'd no more doubt but that that which he tender'd them was the Body which was to be given for them Now if that Body which was given for them be the True and Real Body of Jesus Christ we are sure that the Body which Christ gave his Disciples was his true and Real Body For he says it is that Body which is given for us this is my Body which is given for you But all the World as well Protestants as Catholics agree that it was the true and real Body of Christ which was given and suffer'd upon the Cross for us It is then a Demonstration that what Christ tender'd to his Apostles was his true and real Body consequently his Words must necessarily be taken in a literal Sense Had Christ only said to what he held in his Hand this is my Body perhaps such a proposition to one who never heard any thing of the matter before might seem Figurative but when he adds these other Words which is given for you he takes away all occasion of doubt and determins the Understanding to a literal Sense The first part of the Phrase this is my Body is indifferent of it self and may be capable of either Sense but add the rest to it which is given for you and the Sense is plainly determin'd So that Christ's Words can no more allow of a figurative Sense than if a Man had said this is my Arm which sticks to my Shoulder he can be understood to mean any thing else but his true and real Arm. In a Word these Gentlemen who are resolv'd to deny things so evident wou'd in my opinion be less obnoxious to Censure and more excusable in human Appearance if they had either question'd the Truth of these Texts or like the Socinians denied the Omnipotence of Jesus Christ to effect this Miracle than thus to subvert the very Foundation of human Reason 2. Christ's Words understood in a literal Sense must necessarily imply Transubstaâ—tiation that is a Change of one substance into an other For Christ having said of the Bread this is my Body which is given for you And it being visible to our Senses that there is no Alteration or Change in the Accidents or outward Forms It is impossible to understand those words in a literal Sense but we must at the same Time necessarily conclude that there must be a Change in the Substance For the Bread consisting of Substance and Accidents only we cannot believe the veracity of Jesus Christ when he affirms of the Bread that it is his Body nor his Omnipotent Power to effect by his Word what he says unless we likewise believe that the Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ but it is evident to our Senses that there is no change as to the Accidents Consequently the change must be in the Substance Besides it is impossible to verifie those Words of Christ in a literal Sense without a substantial Change For the Greek Demonstrative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Latin Hoc or the English This cannot with any propriety of Speech be refer'd to the Accidents of the thing whereof it is affirm'd but must necessarily be refer'd to the thing it self which surely is the Substance and not the Accidents So that the Sense of these Words This is my Body must necessarily be this substance Cloathed with these Accidents is my Body and then if we believe those Words we must consequently believe that that Substance is his Body and then this necessarily implies Transubstantiation Hence it is evident that those Words cannot with any colour of Reason be understood in a Sense of Consubstantiation as the Lutherans wou'd have it For the demonstrative Hoc This as aforesaid denoting the Substance affirm'd by Christ to be his Body common Sense shews it wou'd be absurd to interpret these Words this is my Body so as to mean that Christ's Body is there together with the Substance of the Bread as the Lutherans grosly maintain whereas if Christ had so meant he wou'd most certainly have said here is my Body and not this is my Body But this is so publickly exploded by all the Rest
be ador'd For he took Earth of Earth because flesh is of Earth and he took Flesh of Mary's Flesh and because he here walk'd in that Flesh and gave us that flesh to eat for our Salvation But no Man eats it except he first adores it It is found how such a Footstool of the Lord may be ador'd and we do not only not sin in adoring it but we shou'd sin if we do not adore it Enar. in Psal 98. Here St. Austin says that Christ gave us that Flesh to eat in which He walk'd here on Earth and that we are so far from sin in adoring that Flesh that we sin if we do not adore it Christ walk'd here in the flesh and he gave us that flesh to eat and we shall sin if we do not adore that flesh says this Father What flesh did Christ here walk in Was it in the Sign or Figure of His Flesh No sure 't was in his real Flesh 'T is evident then that Christ gave us his Real Flesh in this Father's sense Here St. Austin speaks plainly and familiarly to the common People here is no Dispute in the Case no Advantage to be taken of a Sophistical Heretic no fear of expounding the Mystery to the full Consequently he spoke his mind plainly In a word he must have lost his Reason who does not see that it is from such Passages as this where the Fathers speak to their Flock and expound the Scriptures and the Mysteries of our Religion that we are to Learn what they hold concerning any Point of Faith and not from some Abstruse and dark Expressions cull'd out of their Disputes with Hereties where the Fathers purposely design to conceal the depth of this Mystery when ever they must mention it But the truth of the matter is the Doctor 's Cause wou'd afford him no better Arguments and rather than fail he was resolv'd to catch at any thing 3. Theodoret and Gelasius their Words are likewise to be understood of the Accidents or outward Forms of the Sacrament That these Fathers gave the Name of substance and nature to the Accidents will appear if we consider the Equivocation of the Word Symbol here mention'd by Theodoret This Word is somtimes taken for the Bread and Wine it self before Consecration and somtimes but most properly for the External Form and Appearance of Bread and Wine which remain after Consecration Eranistes or the Eutychian Heretic took it in the first sense and therefore affirm'd that as the Symbols after Consecration are chang'd into an other thing so the Body of our Lord after his Ascension is chang'd into the Divine Substance This he said of the Sacrament because he was so taught and because he knew there was no difference between him and the Orthodoxus on that Subject But what does the Orthodoxus to take advantage by that similitude Why he takes the Word Symbol in its more proper meaning namely for the Accidents or outward Forms and tells the Heretic he is caught in his own Net because says he 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 as before Now that by the Mystical Symbols he meant the Accidents methinks 't is plain for the Reason he gives why these Symbols are not chang'd is because they may be seen and handled as before But this proves plainly that he must have meant the Accidents since only Accidents can be seen and felt Nor does it move me that he seems to give partly for his Reason that the Substance of the Symbols remain for that is said gratis and cou'd never be prov'd if he had meant the real Substance of the Bread Besides there is nothing more common in human Language than to give the Denomination of Substance to meer Accidents as we usually say the Substance of his Discourse was this the Substance of what he said c. tho' all Discourses and Sayings are pure Accidents And however this Solution at first sight may seem strange yet whoever will take the pains to examin well the Sayings of both these Disputants and believes they were in their Wits he cannot possibly deny what I say to be True The one positively affirms of the Symbols that they are chang'd into an other thing the other as stifly maintains that they do not change at all I ask now whether these Symbols are Objects of Sense or not If you say they are I ask again whether two Men in their Wits and Senses can be so mistaken in a plain Object of Sense as to affirm contradictory things of it at once For instance Can two Men be so mistaken about a white Wall which they plainly see as that one shou'd affirm it is white and the other that it is not 'T is plain they cannot 'T is then manifest that if the Symbols be Objects of Sense Eranistes and Orthodoxus did not both consider them as such otherwise they must have lost their Reason to affirm such contradictory things of them at once 'T is then evident that Eranistes who affirm'd the Symbols were chang'd did not consider them as they are Objects of Sense otherwise he must have spoken contrary to the Evidence of his own Senses Consequently his meaning was that the Change happen'd in the Substance of the Bread and not in the Accidents 'T is no less evident on the other hand that Orthodoxus consider'd the Symbols as Objects of Sense else he cou'd with no Colour of Reason affirm that they did not pass out of their Nature Substance c. For let us suppose with the Doctor that he meant the real Substance of the Symbols or Bread and Wine How does he prove that there is no real Change in them Because the Mystical Symbols says he do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance c. this is only said but wants to be be prov'd Well! How does he prove it Because continues he they may be seen and handled as before Why this the Heretic Eranistes acknowledges and yet he affirms that the Symbols are chang'd And which is more he therefore believes that it is the real Substance of the Symbols and not the Accidents that are chang'd because the Accidents may be seen and handled as before And now wou'd it not be a very pleasant way to perswade him that the Substance of the Bread and Wine was not chang'd for that very Reason for which he believ'd it was Or let us suppose that they both consider'd the Symbols as the true and real Substance of the Bread and Wine and not as Accidents or Objects of our Senses Well! What follows The Heretic Eraâ—istes affirms that the Symbols in this Sense were chang'd â—ho ' he saw with his Eyes the Accidents were noâ— and then how cou'd the Orthodoxus convince him by his own Words or tell him he was caught in his own Net unless he cou'd