them who made it not necessary No the sillier they if there were any that needed an express direction and the wickeder they that with design consecrated so aukwardly as to omit it Such particularities are not requisite unless to direct some Monks who scarce know their right hand from their left and accordingly we meet 'em in the Mass-Book or to some such Conformists as the Examiner once was who perverted the common usage with a dishonest intent and so made it afterwards necessary to restore even this direction Which as the Replyer farther told him now it is restor'd is but as it was in K. Edward's first book a marginal note directing when to use the Ceremony not a Rubric to injoyn the use of it For even in the present Common Prayer Book the use is not injoyn'd but suppos'd as is manifest from the Rubric before the Prayer of Consecration That Telesphorus put the Gloria in Excelsis in the Mass is a Monkish legend younger than the Mass which is yet much younger than Telesphorus That this hymn was the Angels congratulation for our Savior's coming into the world or rather that the hymn now so call'd begins with the Angelical congratulation we need not to be told for we are allow'd to read the Bible but that the Benedictus qui venit was their i. e. the Angels congratulation for our Saviors triumphant entry into Jerusalem is a thing I did not know before Had the Examiner consulted Aquinas he might have sav'd this blunder and learn'd a better reason why these two Hymns are made use of Populus devote laudat divinitatem Christi cum Angelis dicens Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus humanitatem cum pueris dicens Benedictus qui venit c. Aquinas apud Cassandrum Liturg. cap. 25. pag. 54. But I am not yet satisfy'd that Benedictus qui venit c. is so pertinently put into the beginning of the Office if according to the Examiner it be said to congratulate Christ's coming to be present upon the Altar For the Papists say he does not come till a good while after at the precise nick of time when the Priest has pronounc'd the last Syllable of Hoc est enim Corpus meum Wherefore Benedictus qui venit would do better in the Postcommunion when they think he is there than to congratulate his being there when they declare he is not 'T is impertinent to tell me what the Sanctus has been call'd since it is commonly call'd the Trisagium now as is manifest to any one that reads unless we must renounce our senses in every thing relating to the Eucharist And there 's very good reason to call it so if 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signify thrice and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 holy which perhaps the Examiner might have known but that Graecum est c. is an old Maxim of the Monks He should have known too or not pretended to any skill in Antiquity that the name Trisagium is given to two several forms both mention'd in a Synodical Epistle of Felix III. where he likewise tells a fine tale that has past upon divers other writers how the later the Examiner's Trisagium being miraculously sent from Heaven the use of it was first appointed by Proclus Arch-Bishop of Constannople though the Reader that is not fond of Legends may find a more rational account in Photius's Collections out of Jobius Monachus But the Trisagium most anciently us'd in the Celebration of the Eucharist is yet extant in the Apostolic Constitutions and is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So exactly does the truly ancient agree with our present form and so little truth is there in what the Examiner would insinuate that the other introduc'd by Proclus was the ancienter form as if to use a Convert's expression he were fated to be allways in the wrong The Replyer doubted p. 7. that some of the Discourser's quotations were not very judiciously chosen tho' the thing for which they were quoted at the same time he granted to be true The place in Eusebius he expresly shew'd to be impertinent which made him suspect the other two which he had neither leisure nor the books by him to examine Now the Appendix saying nothing of Eusebius the Author plainly gives him up and he says it is not worth while to Vindicate the others and for once is not mistaken Notwithstanding he will add what he finds in S. Ambrose's works l. 4. c. 5. de Sacramentis I will not now return that this book is so notoriously spurious that the Examiner himself durst not ascribe it to S. Ambrose nor will I except to the matter quoted which is true and agreeable to the doctrine of the Church of England if we take it in the Author's not the Quoter's sense for our present inquiry must be not whether it be true but pertinent which it cannot be if the form to which we answer Amen be a prayer and the form is The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee preserve the Body and Soul to everlasting life Now admitting the form implyes this assertion what thou now receivest is the body of our Lord which he that answers Amen confesses to be true yet still the whole form is a prayer and he that says Amen to it answers Amen to a prayer unless the Examiner believe that the implying something assertory makes a petition cease to be a prayer which would be so ridiculous a notion as never dwelt in the same head with common sense Concerning the omission of these words in these holy mysteries the Replyer who pretended only to guess the true reason said it might be purely accidental And it might not be so says the Examiner For they have a signification contrary c. If they have so the Reply there told him that was cause enough to omit them because they would assert an Opinion contrary to sound doctrine and the declar'd judgment of the Church to which I find nothing return'd The Replyer observ'd p. 7. that no fault was found with the second form which is intirely agreeable to the words and end of the Institution Wherefore now it is decreed that some fault shall be found with it And first it is Faulty enough certainly because contrary to the former book which to prove was the Author's chief intention wherefore he never urg'd one word in proof of it But we want from the Examiner a better reason than the variety of expression to prove a contrariety in the matter least among other inconveniences this Appendix which is all Tautology prove only a heap of contrarieties Of his second exception I have given my opinion already and shall neither repeat that nor consider the two next Paragraphs wherein there is as much truth and pertinence as there is good manners The Examen gives me no occasion to add to what I sayd in my Reply I say and prove the Examiner denyes and calls names and who
the same way though he does as much as he that beats out his brains Every Fresh-man knows the meaning of as much in this kind of speech and if You tell him that a Straw is as much a substance as Goliah has more witt than to return But Goliah was a giant of six Cubits and a span high Nor will any of 'em be persuaded Dr. Taylor meant more than this that the Doctrine of the Trinity is as truly too hard for Philosophy to explain as that of Transubstantiation because as the Reply said p. 22. natural reason cannot frame an adaequate notion of either so they both offer absolute and in this respect equal violence tho' they do it upon different accounts and in divers ways which makes a vast alteration in the case when we come to talk of credibility For example Transubstantiation involves millions of millions of contradictions and is therefore both inconceivable and incredible for no man can conceive or assent to a thing that has no meaning at all Again there are some Mathematical notions which no man can fully comprehend which are therefore inconceivable tho' not only credible but demonstrable Once again there are some Divine supernatural truths which transcend a finite capacity and are therefore inconceivable yet not therefore incredible but rather the contrary for nothing is more rational than to think that the infinite nature of God must needs surpass man's finite Understanding and the narrowness of human capacity can by no meanes be the standard of Divine truth But of this passage of Dr. Taylor 's enough is said in the Reply without any answer yet return'd I referr my Reader to it p. 21. and proceed 'T is a strange antipathy our Examiner has to Greek and Latin if he meet but a line of either it puts him into fits and makes him talk idly for a whole Paragraph There 's a line in Bishop Andrews Praesentiam credimus nec minus quam vos veram which the man had most grievously mistaken the Replyer without taking advantage of his blundering did but give him the words and set him right in the meaning and see what a remark this produces Pag. 25. Bishop Andrews's famous saying which the Replyer would falsly translate or interpret The Real Presence which we hold is as Real as the Corporal which the Papists hold Which proposition is both false in it self and falsly father'd upon Bishop Andrews For they who believe only a figurative presence believe not so much as they who believe a real also For it is to say That he who believes a real absence believes a real presence The Bishops saying wou'd have been a very famous one indeed had he said what the Examiner reports but he never us'd to word things so unskilfully so that tho' the proposition be not false yet 't is falsly father'd upon Bishop Andrews as our Author very honestly confesses I dare say he neither did nor ownes this thing with design but his fit is strong upon him else he would not have betray'd so important a secret as that he and his Catholicks believe a presence that is only figurative and real also which is just as Mr. Hobbs to whome he went to school with Bishop Cranmer held more than Bishop Bramhal because the Bishop held only Liberty Mr. Hobbs held that and Necessity besides But the Conclusion of the Paragraph solves all there we find that a presence only figurative is a real absence a few lines before it was a real presence and he that thus takes 'em for 〈◊〉 same may very well hold 'em both If our 〈◊〉 would have taken advice and consulted honest Walker's Particles he had probably found the difference between nec and non which might have prevented these mistakes Or even Mr. P. as I fancy could have serv'd him as far as this goes who perhaps may have Greek too enough to construe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which will answer half the next Remark For the case is this Of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Act. III. 21. I gave this meaning That the heaven of heavens must contain him i. e. his Natural body till the times of restitution of all things not aiming at a literal version but to give the sense of the Original Now says our Examiner with an eye as I suppose on our Translation The word is not contain but receive Neither is it the heaven of heavens nor his Natural body but only whome the heaven must receive Yet the whome here signifies Christ's natural body and the heaven means the heaven of heavens and to receive in this case is all one as to contain This meaning of the Text and the Argument from it are so very plain and common that I need not farther insist on ' em If any man think they are evaded by saying That our Savior's body is not now indu'd with natural properties but spiritual such as being at once in two places having no dimensions and the like I give him joy of his Understanding but shall never offer to dispute with him Wherefore neither shall I meddle with the former part of this Remark which only tells us that Christ in his Incarnation had a natural organical body such as ours but now in his Glorification has a spiritual body such as the Examiner has devis'd for him a veryer Phantome than Marcion made him in his Incarnation In the next Note which to our exceeding great comfort is the last but one we are told that our Author's quotation out of St. Austin's cura pro mortuis is true and pertinent But if our Author had so manag'd it that St. Austin might seem to say what he did not say in that place and plainly contradicts in divers others the quotation is not true and if St. Austin did not speak of the Martyrs bodies it is not pertinent because the point in question was Whither a body might be in two places at once and St. Austin was quoted in favor of the Affirmative But it matters not says our Examiner whither the Martyrs bodyes are spoken of by St. Austin For our Replyer p. 29. seems not to dare affirm that a Spirit cannot be in two Ubies but if it be a contradiction S. Austin needs not inquire if not a contradiction neither is it for a spiritual body to be so The Replyer indeed wav'd disputing about a Spirit 's Ubiety because it was nothing to the purpose for* as he had already intimated though a Spirit could be in two Ubies it will not follow that a Body may be in two places at once And the crutch that is now brought to support this lame consequence I mean the Examiner's notion of a spiritual body is the staff of a broken reed which instead of removing the absurdity objected introduces a great many worse But to put this case beyond seeming the Replyer dare and does affirm that neither a Spirit nor any other creature either is or can be in two
part I pardon him my share of all his hard thoughts and speeches since he owns I am a true member of the present Church of England an honor I preferr to whatever can be offer'd by him that tempted my Antagonist to desert her and think it will more than ballance all the calumnies that either of them can invent Our Church too will pardon him the reproachful appellation of New since he seemes to bestow it at random and gives it in the same breath to his own old Church the Puritans Neither shall we be concern'd when he reminds us of our Antipuritan Predecessors whom it seems the Puritans accus'd as being Popishly affected as if those good men could not slander nor those wise men be mistaken Our present Church has been traduc'd upon the same score by the Party that set on the Puritans but thanks be to God the scandal is now so manifest that even this Gentleman with all the liberty he takes dares not fasten it upon our present Church When the edge of these Satyrs is rebated there remains nothing but the cry of Zuinglianism which recurrs in these papers like the Ave Maria in the Rosary repeated as often in proportion to as little purpose To answer it once for all we must acquaint our Author that if the Zuinglians hold as Mr. Hooker says they do whose authority for once we may safely preferr to the Discourser's they and we are agreed about the Eucharist in all that is essentially necessary but then they hold more than a bare reception of the Benefits of our Savior's passion But if they hold no more than such a bare reception which is often affirm'd in this Apendix but never reconcil'd with the note upon Reply p. 14. then the name of Zuinglian is impertinently and falsly put upon the Church of England for She holds more as is prov'd at large in the Reply It seems it was long deliberated whither it were requisite to answer the Reply upon which occasion we have a very Catholic discourse for 't is equally fitted for all Books and Arguments whatever I find my selfe no farther concern'd in it than to thank him for the word deturned because till now I wanted a name for his Conversion At last it was resolv'd not to leave his Religion which he calls Truth to defend it self which would have been hard upon it being weak and all alone and therefore he has publish'd first a short Treatise written many years agoe of an hundred and two and forty pages which contains nothing but the two Discourses shortned into five times more room and so may now be call'd old for one reason more than he assigns To this he has added two Appendixes in which he says so little to his Adversaries that we must correct the Title of his Book and call it a Discourse with two Compendious Appendixes The second of these which is level'd against half my Reply is short and meek in comparison of that of the first but as short as the Entertainment is it has a long grace of six leaves before it wherein I allow the Author to shew his modesty in applauding his own pious indeavors and his prudence in collecting the righteousness of his Cause for if to be ridiculous be the Index of a righteous Cause he has acquir'd a Title that admits of no competition but of all loves let him not twit us with his Loyalty because we know when it was objected Do you hold then that Kings may be depos'd and who it was that answer'd Why what should we do with 'em else Reserving the Harangue to be consider'd in its proper place let us now pass to his Examen of some few particulars of the Reply which begins p. 203. He omits the first Chapter and he does prudently there 's a great deal in it too notorious to deny which yet it is not wisdome to own To the second he 's so very obliging as to grant it seems to be to purpose but he dislikes the words little alterations and that for divers reasons 1. Nothing is little in the Churches Terms especially in our most venerable and solemn worship c. True but if the greatness lye not in the words but in the end and meaning that being preserv'd we want to be instructed why it is so great a matter to change the words especially when the words have been abus'd and deturned from their genuine signification 2. Not little that Article upon which they cheifly justify their departure from the Church c. It seems then we do justify our departure should we grant that He can justify his desertion we would own it were no little concession But to come to his Argument it will then be sense and not before when he proves that our Churches practice in reference to that Article argues a change in her Doctrine which it does not as we shall see immediately 3. Not little which contains the Terms of the Churches Communion c. This looks the likest sense and pertinence of any thing this Paper urges and shall therefore receive the more full and distinct Answer And first to prevent all cavil about words it must be noted that Terms of Communion are of two sorts 1. Terms of Catholic Communion i. e. such as are necessary to our holding Communion with the whole Catholic Church 2. Terms of particular Communion i. e. Such as any particular Church may require her Members to submit to The former are Essentials of Faith and Worship appointed by God himself which no Church has power to add to alter or diminish the latter are a kind of By-Laws such as every particular Church has power to make and does make for the sake of Order and the well governing those of her Communion in things left undetermin'd by Almighty God. These in accurate speaking are Rules of Government but are call'd Terms of Communion because the Church that makes them has power to exclude from her Communion all her Members that obstinately refuse them as all Government essentially implyes a power to punish the transgression of its just Laws 'T is with reference to the former that we justly accuse the Papists for imposing devices of their own some unnecessary other ungodly Articles as Terms of Communion in the first sense and with reference to the latter that we justify our Churches power of imposing against the exceptions made by Protestant Dissenters For 't is evident that Terms of Communion in the first sense are of unchangeable obligation but taken in the second they are variable according as the exigence of affairs in a Particular Church shall require and the wisdom of its Governors direct Now an explicit Declaration and Subscription of the Article of the Real Presence is at most but a Term of Communion in the second sense because that Article contains not the essentially-necessary Doctrine of the Catholic Church concerning the Eucharist but only a Corollary drawn from that Doctrine which
the Pope and the Council of Trent unless they believe and say a great deal more These and many more such passages that occurr in this Appendix will probably amaze the Reader if he know not the Examiner's avow'd principle which he says is to lye and to forswear himself deliberately for a good purpose We have seen in this last Paragraph how he proves by the Replyer's own confession that there is no Real Presence But this being the main point of difference upon which this Replyer insists the Examiner resolves to search a little deeper that is to repeat the old Tale with as little truth and judgment as he told it us before Though to do him right he has added some Sentences which afford a large field of fresh matter For a sample wee 'l run over one of ' em Now it cannot be imagined that the Liturgy-makers should translate the words of the Mass Why the words of the Mass if the Form was older than the Mass as it must be if it were of that Antiquity he allows it or Why translate when he just before owns the addition of divers words which is contrary to the rule of translating unless the words added explain and illustrate the Original He says indeed these words more effectually conclude the Popish notion but it is by asserting the quite contrary For the form is The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee c. i. e. the Body which was offer'd for thee upon the Cross the Sacrament whereof the Priest holds in his hands But to return to his charge against the Liturgy-makers 't is that they should intend to give the English words a quite different signification from the Latine without giving any notice of it to the People Should we for argument's sake suppose we cannot with truth grant that the true signification of the Latine is as he pretends because that form was in use before Transubstantiation was thought of and indeed the Reformers did not introduce a new meaning of the form but restor'd the old But of this too they should have given notice So they did if Writing Preaching Printing suffering Imprisonment and Martyrdome were sufficient to give notice at least they gave such effectual notice that the very Mechanicks in those days understood both the Popish and Reform'd Doctrine much better than the Publisher and his Catholicks do in ours He goes on That the people who had been brought up to understand not the Latine Service I hope 't was well if the Priest did that no but the Real Body of our Lord by corpus Domini custodiat c. as they still understand by the Body of our Lord in the English Form if they are of the Church of England that they the next day should hearing the same words in English understand only the Real benefits c. which they never were taught to understand and not understand how these benefits could be eaten which they need not and perhaps no man can understand or given by the Priest or how they were given for rather than to the people since they knew that only the Elements were given by the Priest to the people as Symbols of the Body and Blood which were given for the people as neither how they should preserve the receivers Body i. e. to everlasting Life which they knew they did not but that it was one of the benefits of receiving Christ's Body that it should preserve the Receiver's Body and Soul to everlasting Life which neither the Elements nor the natural Body it self if receiv'd only by oral manducation could do that all these things should be done of which not one was pretended looks so heynous that truly our Author and the Catholics have too great a kindness for the Church of England than to impose upon her He means charge her with such abominable prevarication sufficient to drive away all men from her Communion In good time I suppose the false English was put in to salve the lyes for not only our Author but our Editor too has both for the Church and himself too great a kindness than to accuse her for prevaricating No he detests prevarication more than Image-worship no halfpenny shall induce him to declare for that for he knows by experience what it is and left the Church of England's Communion only to avoid it Thus we see how much work a man of art can cut us out when he searches a little deeper The Reader who I doubt before this is tir'd as well as I am will dispence with so particular a search of the rest of this deep Paragraph wherin every sentence in proportion to it's length is no less obnoxious than this The aim of the whole is to convict the Church of England of wavering and the proof is that He says it which to any man that knows him is a sufficient argument he does not mean it And so we might dismiss this Paragraph if it were not for one passage in which it is hard to determine whither Folly or Blasphemy be most conspicuous To K. Edward's second which is the latter part of the present form Take and eat this c. He excepts and says This what Individuum vagum or perhaps nothing if nothing consecrated as it seems But why it should seem so to Protestants who have not renounc'd their senses he does not tell us They see well enough that This is a piece of the Consecrated Bread which the Priest holds in hand when he says take and eat and are astonisht that a seeming Christian should object to their form what will equally make against our blessed Saviors own words When he said Take eat this is my Body do this c. they are satisfy'd none of the Apostles ever sayd This what individuum vagum or perhaps nothing or if any one did it was Judas The Examiner repeats this irreverence p. 211. where he says this form is nonsense or to most unintelligible And tho' our Blessed Savior said This is my Body which is given or broken for you our Examiner calls the dead body An irreverent to say no worse expression p. 196. repeats the censure p. 213. and cannot forbear to call the use of this expression an honor of which let him enjoy the shame for never was Irony more unseasonable Such irreverence is too great a crime to be chastis'd by a private hand 't is an iniquity to be punisht by the Judge But what better can wee hope for from that bold man who alleging in behalf of Popery that our Savior said this is my body and being answer'd that according to the Fathers he meant the Figure of his body reply'd without more ado Why then he ly'd I cannot now stay to inquire the meaning of that uncouth word Genevized which he afterwards interprets by being infected with Geneva but leaves us to seek what disease Geneva is the name of Nor shall I accuse but applaud him for his false
assert no real presence of our Lord's body at all but of the benefit only of his passion but they believe all that is requisite to assert it all the grounds that the assertors pretend for it and it seemes the Examiner knows this and gives notice of it to the Replyer as if he had not said it himself in the Paragraph under consideration The note upon pag. 16. is so choice a heap of Confusion that it seemes to be the Author's Masterpiece If it be not too presumtuous to guess at his Design which it may be like that of the Discourses would be incognito I should think he had a mind to confute the latter part of the sixteenth page of the Reply His method confirms my suspicion for he neither gives my words nor my meaning nor confutes what he substitutes in their room For example A thing may be really present two ways is the point the Examiner incounters A thing thus really receiv'd may be said to be really present two ways are the words of the Reply The objection is there are many other ways of presence But are there not those that I assign which are sufficient for my purpose of explaining how the Sacrament and the res Sacramenti are the one Physically the other Morally but both really present To this he answers with his leg A Physical presence is a local presence says the Examiner A Physical presence now we speak of a natural body is local says the Replyer And is this true If it be as I find it not deny'd I am safe though it should be true that the presence of a Spiritual body is not local which answer and the other that is tack'd to it are yet more absurd upon another score because they assert the point that I contend for viz. that our Savior's body is not locally present But to wave the impertinence and examin the truth of this Argument That there is both a natural and a spiritual body and that each of 'em has properties divers from the other we are very well satisfy'd because this is very intelligible in it self and plainly reveal'd in Scripture But still both the one and the other is a body and therefore must have all the Essential properties of a body A body devested of these yet a body still i. e. the Examiners spiritual body is no real being but an absurd inconceivable notion and no more a body than one of his many passages that have neither Grammer nor meaning in 'em is a Proposition Now one of those Essential properties without which a body cannot really exist is to have dimensions for matter and quantity are not really distinct Another is to be finite for every body is a creature A third is to be Unum numero for whatever really exists is so And it is utterly inconceivable how these three essential properties can be attributed to a body unless that body be suppos'd to exist in some one determinate finite space which space the Philosophers speaking of a body call a circumscriptive Ubi or in one word place so that locality or being in a place cannot possibly be remov'd from a body without removing those properties without which a body cannot exist We may indeed allow a precisive but not a negative abstraction of them for a body may be consider'd but cannot exist by halves we may choose whither we will consider more than one or two properties but the body really existing cannot choose but have them all wherefore though we may consider it not as having them we cannot consider it as not having them But cannot God by his Omnipotence remove all these properties of a body Yes undoubtedly but then it ceases to be a body God can create annihilate and change at his pleasure he can make that which is a body cease to be so but he cannot continue it a body when he has remov'd that which makes it be a body unless he can verify a contradiction Now the question depending is concerning a body really existing and continuing still a body which the Examiner would as he calls it spiritualize that is abstract it into nothing For if a body occupy no place it has no dimensions if no dimensions no quantity if no quantity no matter if no matter it is no body If it be not unum numero it does not really exist Abstract all these and what remains is the Examiner's notion of a body really existing And as no man of sense can ever frame a notion of such a body so no Philosopher ever thought of a name for the Ubi that belongs to it We read of a circumscriptive Ubi that belongs to a body a definitive Ubi to a spirit the repletive Ubi of Almighty God. But the Ubi that belongs to the Examiner's spiritual body wants a name and if I were to give it one I would borrow a phrase from the Discourser and call it an Autocatacritical Ubi which being explain'd proves a Nullibi wherein nothing exists but the Examiner's Body of Divinity Now for the second evasion of a miraculous presence effected by the power of Almighty God. The Protestants we have often told him dispute not the power but the will of God in this particular Our argument proceeds not upon what God can do but upon what he will and what he has reveal'd Wherefore it is nothing to the purpose though it were prov'd that God can do what the Examiner contends for unless it appear he will do it which we doubt is impossible to be prov'd So that it were better to let alone the subject of God's omnipotence upon which they often talk Blasphemy and never advantage their cause Of God's not verifying contradictions we shall have farther occasion to speak by and by In the mean time if to be something and nothing be a contradiction it implyes one that the Examiner's spiritual body should exist To proceed A Moral presence is call'd Sacramental says the Examiner either Physically or Morally to which we reduce Sacramentally are the words of the Reply Now for his objections This viz. what he quotes is a novel interpretation First how does this appear secondly if it did what 's that to the Reply The Church used Sacramental for real as opposed to receiving by Faith. If he mean the primitive Church this is false too but how does he pretend to prove it it is said before but by whome or where it is not said But what is it to be morally present if not that a moral entity as grace holiness c. are present The benefits of our Lord's passion are present to and injoy'd by us but what is this to the real true presence of his Body The benefits of our Savior's passion are conferr'd on us by virtue of our real union with his glorify'd body which is therefore verily and indeed receiv'd and by consequence said to be really present notwithstanding it 's local absence because a real participation and union must needs
imply a real presence though they do not necessarily require a local one Reply p 14. But neither are these benefits given us in this Sacrament but are only apprehended of us by Faith. I cannot distinguish whether he advance this as his own doctrine in opposition to ours or as ours in opposition to our selves though 't is so inconsistent with the doctrine of all Churches that 't is fit for him to affirm One would think he should not deny that the Sacraments conferr grace or that grace is one of the benefits purchas'd by our Savior's passion or say that grace is not conferr'd at all unless it be conferr'd all at once yet some of these things must be done to make this objection sense In summe this Replyer seems to flutter if he does but seem so 't is well enough for 't is odds but what seems to the Examiner neither really is nor seems to any other man. Wherefore he heapeth up such a parcel of insignificant words and distinctions that it is lost time to examine them And 't is little better to examine the reasoning of one that can no more make a Syllogism than he can a Convert However I will not leave this Paragraph yet 't is so very honest pertinent and judicious There is a real presence of a body which is always local This is false but that which the Reply maintains That the Physical real presence of a natural body is always local is true and not deny'd There is also a spiritual and virtual presence Who doubts it Distinct from Real and Moral Who ever sayd it Spiritual we acknowledge as before but this is real and not virtual only And when we say a spiritual and virtual we neither say virtual only nor exclude real And what is virtual if not the effects of our Lord's passion what are all these to the real presence of our Lord's body the only question the effects of his passion are communicated in such a manner as inferrs a real presence of his body This is prov'd at large in the Reply pag. 13. seqq where this Real presence is call'd virtual not in opposition to real as this fond man seemes to fancy for 't is mention'd as one sort of real presence but to distinguish it from Local which is another sort and the reason of calling this virtual is because it is effected by the communication of the bodie 's virtue as the other is call'd local because effected by the bodie 's being in loco and because our Savior's very body is really in Heaven as in loco yet really united to us and receiv'd by us and so imparts it's virtue upon earth it is said to be Physically and Locally present in Heaven only yet morally and virtually present upon earth and really present both in heaven and on earth Which being observ'd we may dismiss the two next Paragraphs that pretend to take the Replyer in a contradiction for all that is farther said in them has been consider'd already Only there remains this passage The Papists allways acknowledge a local presence The contrary whereof is true And so it may be for any thing said by the Replyer His words are They however they express themselves understand a Local Presence which they may do and not acknowledg the Term. He does not say they own the word for he knew it was deny'd in the Catechism ad Parochos and he never allows himself to lye for a good purpose but he says that however they express themselves they understand the thing and so they must do if they see to the bottom of their own notion because they assert such a presence as cannot be corporal unless it be local too Not that I take corporally and locally for the same or can think him that says I do so shallow as to believe himself but corporally in their sence unavoydably inferrs locally This Bucer was aware of and by his example I chose to assign this as the difference between us and the Papists because it is both a necessary consequent of their Doctrine and a most manifest conviction of their error For really essentially substantially corporally may all be us'd in a sound sence but locally can not yet a Popish Corporal presence must be local though a local presence be so manifest an absurdity that even they disclaim it who are not asham'd to renounce both sence and reason in other points relating to the Eucharist In the note upon pag 20. he has found out a pleasant excuse for the Discourser's stumbling We talk of the truth of a body and he turns it to the truth of a Proposition 'T is pitty his Talent went no farther than the Printing of a Logic a little Metaphysics would have been serviceable and prevented this second stumble The note upon Ineffable mystery is to me an example of one for I cannot imagine what it drives at The Discourser misapplyes the words of our Divines the Replyer gives their true meaning the Examiner is angry that the words they use and the meaning we assign are not opposite to one another What a choice Remark the next is will appear by setting down the words of the Reply and the Discourse which are as follows But admit the Real Presence be ineffable what then He conceives it is so because of something in it opposite and contradictory to reason Reply Cap. 4. pag. 20. Here also I find Protestants and especially our English Divines generally to confess the presence of our Savior in the Eucharist to be an ineffable mystery which I conceive is said to be so in respect of something in it opposite and contradictory to and therefore incomprehensible and ineffable by human reason For thus Calvin c. Disc. concerning the Rubric cap. 3. p. 13. § 20. n. 1. 1. Where is the Replyer's fault now Why he leaves out the word seemingly which was never in as also he omitts it where it does come in a good while after § 21. upon another occasion where it seems to be nothing to the purpose For the question there is Why we may not believe one Contradiction as well as another And 't is granted that we may because we can believe none at all That which is a contradiction is impossible and therefore that which seems one is incredible the being or only seeming may signify something to the possibility but to be or seem is all one in respect of the credibility But now to give a full decision in this point Take notice says our Examiner that no Catholic affirms God can make two Contradictories to be true Here I doubt the word seemingly is left out not altogether out of inadvertency as also in that which follows that there is no Contradiction in their Doctrine of the Eucharist But if no Papist believe that God can effect any thing which implyes and not only seems a Contradiction and if no points of their Doctrine really are but only seem contradictory
how comes it to pass that when we charge them with holding things that contradict they instead of denying the charge accuse us of limiting God's power why do they bestow all their pains in setting forth God's omnipotence which would better be bestow'd in taking of the seemingness of the Contradiction The Examiner to do him right makes an offer or two in his Harangue let us see with what success To be here and not here he says may be a Contradiction but to be here and there is none But to be here and there is to to be here and not here We must know that he has Printed a book of Oratory and that a Contradiction in terminis is a thing not unusual with Orators to make the acuter expression But if this will not pass what say we to the Miracle of the five Loaves This I take to be an Argument ad hominem and am sorry I was not more particular when I mention'd it to one of the Examiner's Correspondents and said I wonder'd that the Papists did not urge it in the dispute about the Eucharist But I meant it as a plausible Argument against the testimony of sense and now it is judiciously apply'd as an instance of a seeming contradiction It may be the Examiner sees where the Contradiction lyes but to grieve us keeps the secret to himself For if we solve it we must first find it which without his assistance we cannot doe and so he 's safe enough In another Discourse he publish'd an acute project for threading of Camels He is now upon the same design and says the thing is possible with God. I am loth to think that any thing that wears a gown is either so weak or so ill read as not to know that our Saviour's words are a proverbial expression of an extreme difficulty not an absolute impossibility But does not the Text add that the things which are impossible with men are possible with God Yes it does but it speaks of things not of contradictions God is able to doe any thing but whatever he does is something and what a contradiction pretends to mean is just nothing And least the Examiner should cavil because S. Luke says in another place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no word shall be impossible with God we must tell him that passage is quoted from the Septuagint version of Gen. XVIII 13. and that as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Hebrew so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in their version frequently signifies a thing and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to do a thing as any man will quickly find that looks but in Kircher's Concordance To conclude the Scripture teaches us and all Christians are agreed that God can do many things which man can neither do nor conceive but it never teaches us he can do a thing which is nothing that is verify a contradiction I may say a seeming contradiction if we mean that which seems one to a thinking man for nothing in Scripture can seem one to a man that considers And the summe of what we hold in this particular is briefly this That which seems a contradiction while it seems so is incredible because all men are agree'd that if it really be one 't is impossible and he that will convince us that a seeming contradiction is possible must prove that it only seems one but really is none at all which is more than any man does or can do for the seeming contradictions in the Popish Doctrine of the Eucharist His last refuge is from three places in S. John to collect that our Savior when upon Earth was also in Heaven i. e. his natural body was in Heaven and Earth at the same time There 's another place in S. John viz. VIII 58. of which he will do well to learn the meaning and then perhaps in time he may come to understand these And that 's all that I think requisite to say at present For as for himself his very quoting these places by an old rule taken notice of Reply p. 8. is to me an argument he mistrusts them and for other men I 'm pretty well assur'd that none who are able to tell twenty can read the texts and allow the inference To return to the Examen The Close of the Paragraph last consider'd looks as if it were a waggish artifice to betray the common Reader into a distrust of his senses the better to prepare him for digesting Transubstantiation For the words are They the Papists believe it their Doctrine of the Eucharist to be plainly reveal'd by our Savior's own words and S. Paul's v. foregoing Discourse p. 18 yet neither in the 18th nor any other page of that Discourse is there one argument from our Savior's or S. Paul's words to prove a Popish Corporal Presence at least I found none tho' to borrow an elegance from the Author I made a Cursory over it Men may fancy he referrs like other writers and had now promis'd to be awake and speak to purpose but he that thinks him capable of fair dealing Wou'd to God he wou'd but try him The Author may pardon me this resentment since he has his revenge before hand for it cost me the reading his Discourse to find my error and be fully satisfy'd the Press was not in fault but the Writer who design'd his Reference to belong neither to the Clause it was subjoyn'd to nor yet to the whole Paragraph but only to the former part of it concerning seeming Contradictions Of these indeed he speaks in that eighteenth page and determines very learnedly p. 19. that God cannot verifie a formal contradiction but no man can tell what does formally Contradict without an express revelation This proves a mighty complement to a late Writer whome I allways took to be a great master of Reason but not till now to be inspir'd I mean the Author of the absolute impossibility of Transubstantiation demonstrated When I hear how the Examiner evades the formal contradictions that Book exposes he shall know more of my mind till then I leave his Compendious Discourse in those better hands that have already undertaken it Dr. Taylor had said that The Doctrine of the Trinity does as much violence to Philosophy as Transubstantiation which words being capable of an innocent meaning the Reply explains it and assents to 'em so explain'd The Examiner objects that Transubstantiation is a Contradiction and wisely leaves it with the Reader who he hopes will be heedless enough to inferr that therefore the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Contradiction too This your thorough-pac'd Papists do not scruple to affirm in print but our Author is a Neophyte and modest or perhaps he was aware the Consequence will not hold For if one does as much violence as the other it by no meanes follows that both of 'em do the same no more than he that kills a man with a Sword does the same violence to his life or does it in
discontinu'd Ubies or Places at the same time for he 's very well assur'd he can prove when there is occasion that the contrary opinion implyes a formal contradiction If it be a contradiction says our honest Examiner S. Austin need not inquire leaving us if we are so careless to subsume that he did inquire and therefore thought it no contradiction This is a very great piece of address for 't is certain S. Austin did inquire but not if a body might be in two places at once that in forty other places he peremtorily denyes but taking it for granted that the Martyrs did releive their Votaries and could not do this without a Miracle the thing that he inquir'd of was the modus how this Miracle was wrought For solution he assigns divers modi of which the most difficult may as far as concerns this case be explain'd without a contradiction or asserting that a Spirit is at one and the same time in two discontinu'd Ubies but still the point is so intricate he professes 't is past his understanding he cannot determine and therefore cares not to dispute but contents himself with the certainty of the thing Upon the whole matter the point in debate is Whither S. Austin favor this opinion that a body may be in two places at once and it appears 1. That St. Austin says directly and frequently that a body cannot 2. That he no where affirms a spirit can but rather the contrary 3. That if he had sayd a spirit could yet the consequence from a spirit to a body will not hold 4. That it is not pretended to hold except in the case of the Examiner's spiritual body which is prov'd an absurd inconceivable nothing which there is not the least shadow of appearance that either St. Austin or any man of reason ever thought of I know that Cutbert Tonstall in his dotage about An. 1554. imploy'd his notion of a spiritual body to defend the Corporal presence and for ought I find he was the first that did so and he did it with a tenderness which argu'd his distrust of it tho' his was but a phlegmatic absurdity in comparison of our Author 's highly rectify'd nonsense But Cutbert stood alone till the Discourser joyn'd him and refin'd upon him and if none beleiving yet none expressly confuted him 't was because he did what our Author and Publisher shou d have done he put his age to his book And since we are so near a Conclusion that we may the more easily part friends wee 'l suppose the Examiner to have done this and allow the infirmities of age to plead for those following mistakes which would hardly be forgiven to a younger pen. When he said that my quotations from S. Austin do not in the least contradict the doctrine of the Church good man he meant the Church of England and only forgot he had declar'd and 't was only the frailty of an old memory made him say and forget to prove that the quotation from Tract 30. in Joh. is perfectly against the Replyer Perhaps it may be difficult to excuse his telling us that S. Austin says that Homo secundum corpus c. after having first sayd that our Savior was in divers places in heaven and earth in his life time by the omnipotence of Almighty God and that he was whilst upon earth in heaven also by the power of God since no such thing appears in the context of any of my quotations nor indeed in any other passage of S. Austin's writings However wee 'l impute even this mistake to old age which impairs a man 's other faculties as well as his memory and content our selves to set both him and the Reader right by giving him S. Austin's own words For the truth is I 'm so heartily tir'd that I willingly quit the advantage this Paragraph affords me to be at quiet For the same reason I return nothing to the last angry remark but only desire him to put on his Spectacles and once more read and consider the places I referr him to Perhaps the wisdom of second thoughts may shew him his mistake if not I 'll instruct him in my next Having said what I thought was requisite in my own Vindication some may possibly now expect my Reflections upon our Examiners Harangue But I cannot easily persuade my self to deal with a man of his Character any more than I needs must and I hope it may be time enough to consider that Harangue when the rest of my Reply is Examin'd and Vindicated I am incourag'd to expect another Appendix very speedily and it may be as this first has in great measure prevented so the next may wholly supersede the trouble of a set Answer For this Harangue is made up of two parts answerable to the two Discourses the former concerns the Real presence the latter the Adoration of our Savior in the Eucharist What we have in the Former depends wholly upon a new and singular notion of a Spiritual body which besides many other pretty tricks it has can be at once in two places notwithstanding the seeming Contradiction Now of this the Examen has already given me occasion to say what I hope may be sufficient and if it appear to my Reader that there neither is nor can be such a body the Examiner may take his new nothing and hang it on his sleeve with the rest of his Discourse that hangs upon it for wee have no farther obligation to trouble our selves about it Thus the first part of the Examen has afforded me great relief if the second be but as obliging what would otherwise prove a double trouble ' will then be dispatch'd at once to the Readers ease as well as mine For I think we may be equally willing to be rid of an unthinking man who talks as if his Soul were a match for his Spiritual body and as this has neither quantity nor quality so that had neither sense nor reason Wherefore I attend the motions of his next Examen and he promises fairly not to weary my expectation For he says if it please God to continue their strength they will not be long in my debt Whenever they come out of it I 'll take care God willing to give 'em a receipt but I hope they will not make such payment as they have done now all in clip'd money and three parts in four of it brass FINIS a Such is the Hospital of Fateben Fratelli Piet. Rom. p. â—4 It is a fair hospital and hath no yearly Revenue So p. 30. a fair house but hath nothing at all of competent Revenue b Title c Pref. pag. 3. d See Piet. Par. p 56. They watch amidst the ghastly horror of the night where death's domineering in the Hall. p. 4. Mayds who run great hazard to loose that which may never after be recover'd are kept out of harm's way Pref. p. 3. The divine Serjeants came for his Soul