That 's not enough Sectaries are to Prove it Beares that Sense here An Instance That the Word EST in our Saviours Proposition hath determinatly that Sense and no Other You know Scripture saith Hic est filius meus dilectus This is my beloved son c. Now no Man can Inferr Becaus EST sometimes is Rendred Signifies That Here it looses its Proper sense And only Avail's as much as if you Said Christ only Signifies or is not otherwise the Son of his Father Then a material Picture Hang'd on a Wall is a Sign or Figure of the Prototypon This cannot be admitted of Vnles I say a Stronger Principle which is Impossible Force us to Approve of such an Heretical sense And thus We Discours in our Present Matter 3. Note 3. All the Principles which can be Thought on to Force Catholicks from the Received Sense of Christs Own Words or to Favour our Adversaries Cause must be Reduced to one of these Heads To No known Principle upholds the Doctrin of Sectaries Plain speaking Scripture To Vniversal Tradition To the Catholick sense of Christs Orthodox Church in former Ages or Finally to the General Consent of Fathers If none of these Principles Vphold Protestants Doctrin it Fall's of it self And wholy Relies on Fancy Thus much supposed 4. Here is my Proposition and an Inference also A Proposition against Sectaries Sectaries cannot by virtue of any one of these now Named Principles VVithdraw Catholicks from the Plain Received Sense of Christs VVords They cannot Prove that EST in our Saviours Affirmation Imports only as much as if you said it Signifies Therfore the Doctrin which Denies the real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is wholy Vnwarrantable and Built on Fancy Only 5. The Proofs of my Assertion are as Vndeniably The Proofs of it are no less clear Then the Proposition it self Evident as the very Assertion it self For it is Manifest No Scripture plainly Teaches I say no More now That the Verb EST in Christs Proposition Beares only this sense it Signifies And it is as Clear no Vniversal Tradition Approves of this new Fancied Sense What then Remains But that our Adversaries take Recours to some Ancient Orthodox Church or To the General Consent of Fathers I say therfore If they A Fair offer made to Sectaries can Name any Vniversal Church Nay any particular Church Reputed Orthodox the whole world Over That Interpreted these Words as They do or Clearly Denyed Christs true Body and Blood To be under the Formes of Bread and Wine after Consecration or Believed that Natural bread only hath the Name of Christs Body Though it be Really no more But a Sign only a Figure only a Resemblance only of his Body If I say Protestants you shall se will never Answer Directly to what is here proposed any one of these things can be proved They 'l Come of Gloriously And Gain Thousands to their Opinion But I know all is in a high Measure Impossible I say a Sign only a Figure only For We Catholicks both speak with the Fathers and Truely Believe The Eucharist to be a Sacrament And consequently a Sign of Invisible Grace Yea and a Figure also a Memorial of Christ Himself and his Sacred Passion But this is not the Controversy between us The sole Question therfore is Whether it be so purely a Sign or Figure that What They are to Answer To. the Thing Signified is not in the Sign And the Verity in the Figure That is Whether Christs Sacred Body and Blood be not Truely and Substantially within the outward Sign and really Present There This VVe Affirm and Sectaries Deny Though never Orthodox Church Denyed it with Them 6. To clear this Point And Add If Possible more Weight to our Assertion We Have an Ample Holy and Learned Catholick Roman Church whose sole Authority set Scripture aside is the Greatest on Earth The sole Authority of our Roman Church is Sufficient to Convince Sectaries of Errour Which confessedly hath believed and taught this Doctrin of the Real Presence for at least a Thousand Years I say Ever since Christianity began And can any one prudently Perswade Himself That so Chois and Learned a Society That yet Speak's in Christs ovvn Language And Literally believes his words as They are in the Gospel Hath for so long a time lived in a Cheat and taught Millions of Soules a most Damnable Errour Admit of this Vast Improbability We have yet a Demonstration No Other Orthodox Society Ever opposed our Catholick Doctrin against Sectaries And 't is No Orthodox Church can be named that ever Opposed Found fault or Blamed the Belief of the Roman Church Concerning this Mystery Therfore the Doctrin of this Learned Society is undoubtedly Certain upon a double Account that Christ Taught it And no Vniversal Church ever Condemned it 7. In the last Place we are to Say a Word of the other The last Principle which is the consent of Fathers Principle Which is the Vnanimous consent not of a small Number but of Many most Ancient Learned and Holy Fathers These can well Declare what Scripture Teaches of This Mystery And what Christs Orthodox Church ever Believed If All Readers Have not the Originals at hand They may see them in the Authors Cited above I shall only Hint at a few For to Transcribe All or Half of them And Quote the Places Exactly Would Needlesly lengthen a Digression which I Intended to make short In passing I 'll only say thus much If Sectaries with all the Skill Fathers express for Catholick Doctrin They have can Interpret These few Testimonies Which I shall briefly Glance at They may with the same Ease Yea And far less labour Explicate the Words of the Council of Trent and make that to speak Protestancy Or to Deny the Real Presence 8. Some Fathers therfore Dogmatically Teach What we take into our mouths is not that which nature These Fathers are Faithfully cited Though to avoid Tediousnes in a short Digression I thought it best not to give the Reader more Trouble then is necessary by quoting Exactly the places made But what the Blessing hath Consecrated And that by Consecration the very Nature of bread is changed Thou hast learned that of bread is made the Body of Christ and the wine and water is put into the Chalice But by the consecration of the Heavenly Word it is made Blood The Bread and Wine of the Eucharist before the Sacred Invocation of the Adored Trinity were simple bread and wine But the Invocation being once don the Bread indeed is made the Flesh of Christ and the VVine his Blood The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in Nature by the omnipotency of the Word is made Flesh Christ by his own Will once changed water into wine and is He not worthy to be Believed that He changed Wine into Blood Mark a substantial
Church when they list where there is Danger enough of more then little Errours which Prejudice Saluation 4. And here is Proof enough of the other Part of my Assertion which was Protestants cannot probably Impeach the Roman Catholick Church of Errours Causal of their Schism You have already the Reason For if Faults less or more Usually seen even in well ordered Commonwealths can not give just Cause of publick Rebellion much less could These Supposed Faults And unproved Sectaries must either Convince us of Errours highly Fundamental or They are plain Schismaticks Errours not Fundamental in the Church of Rome give just Cause to our Protestants of Their shameful Schism against it Therfore They ought to convince us of Errours highly Fundamental And so make us no True Christian Church or They must sit Down Branded with the black Note of both Causal and Formal Schismaticks There is no avoiding it 5. Again I Argue If Errours Causal of Protestants Schism Invaded the Church of Rome They entred After the first 4. or 5. Hundred years For so long say They That Church was Orthodox But it is more then Improbable That such a Deluge of them as our Adversaries Charge on us Invaded that Church and Diffused Themselves all Over I prove the Minor The high improbability of Errours Entring the Church laid forth They could not Enter this Church without Publick Defense and Publick Resistance Defense in Those who first Heretically Vented Them Resistance in others who Catholickly Opposed Them But there was never since Christs Time Any such first Publick Heretical Defense nor first Publick Catholick Opposition of These Supposed Errours The Real Presence The Sacrifice of the Mass Prayers for the Dead Prayer to Saints c. Only Hereticks Condemned for their Pains Opposed them But no others Let us therfore Appeal to Reason and Ask. How it A clear Conviction of Sectaries was Possible That such lowd Clamorous Novelties could so silently And as it were by night Creep into a Church and no Body Discover Them on their first Appearance How was it Possible That they could become Publick Owned Objects of mens Fairh and Gain an Vniversal Belief through a whole Ample Church And no Body yet know when this new Belief or Unheard of Professed Faith first began Nothing can be more Improbable Paradoxal and morally Drâ—wn from the Moral Impossibility of the Entrance of these supposed Errours more Impossible And 6. To shew you further the Impossibility of this Clandestine Entrance of publick Errours into a Church without Publick Notice or Clamours against Them Be pleased to Reflect here upon one Instance Suppose That a new sort of men should now begin to Broach an Impious Doctrin And openly Teach An Instance confirm's all that is said that the water in Baptism which washeth away sin is â—s Really the True Blood of Christ And Therfore worthy of Adoration as Catholicks Hold a consecrated Host to be his Sacred Body and upon that Acount Adorable Would not such a Novelty Think ye where it Publickly Begins be Publickly also Clamor'd against by Sound and Orthodox Christians Yes And if it Gradually got ground or more Followers in Time not easily Suppressed Would it not as well As all other Heresies which have troubled the World Remain upon Clear and Undoubted Record for Posterity to read Certainly yes Yet more Can this Persuasion live in any rational Man That such a Novelty might in time be so Held an Article of Faith by a Most Ample and Learned Church That The Professors Therof would Dy for it The Seven Wonders of the world are not Comparable to this one Observe the Application There was a time say The Application of the Instance Protestants to wit For the 4. or 5. first Ages after Christ When the whole pure Primitive Church no more Believed Christ Sacred Body to be Really and Substantially under the Species of Bread Then now we Believe His Sacred Blood to be under the Species of water in Baptism There was a Time when the One as little Deserved Worship or Adoration as the Other For both were only Holy Signs and no More There was a Time when this whole Church grew Mad and Brought in the most Palpable and Erroneous Novelty that ever the World Heard of or Record Preserved What A piece of bread before not Christs Body was then O Strange Time Believed to be his Body A whole Ample Learned Church was then Cheated into that Belief And wheras it once Deserved no Worship say our Protestants All at last fell down and Adored it in the Open View of the World And to Testify that They did so in Earnest Innumerable have shed their blood in Defense of what they Believed Yet and here is the Wonder of Wonders Evidences Against Sectaries no man can say Who those were that first introduced this supposed Monster of Novelties No man can say in what Age under what Pope This Errour First got Growth and Patrons for it No man can Tell me what Orthodox Christians first stood up in Gods cause and Opposed it No man can Tell me when this Visible and Publick Adoration of an Host Began No man can Tell me How or when this new supposed Coyned Doctrin Serpent like first crep't into mens harts And at last Poysoned A whole Vniversal Church Hideous were these Novelties Prodigious these Visible No Author ever mentioned these Notorious visible supposed Changes Sectaries trifle whilst They oppose the Strength of our Argument supposed Changes Yet Hush All passed in silence no Body saw them No body mention's them Not one Author neither Friend nor Enemy Writ them or left them upon Record Is not this Think ye whilst all other Heresies are most exactly Registred more then a Pythagorean and Prodigious Silence 7. It is Pittiful to se with what petty Trifles our Adversaries Oppugn the Strength of this most Convincing Argument Some tell us of a Beard growing gray Imperceptibly of the Index of a Clock moving Insensibly of Tares peeping up in a Field when men are asleep And who can Question saith one very Profoundly the birth of an Infant Becaus He knows not the time of its Conception Errours Therfore might grow up with like silence in a Church and as Insensibly Observe this Trifling We speak in the Instance now given of a Visible Mountain and our Adversaries Send us to seek for Invisible Moaths in an old wasted Garment Say I Beseech you Can they suppose That all Obiects are alike Discernable by our Senses Or is it as easy to find a needle in a Bundle of straw As to se Towers and Castles before our eyes in a fair Sun shin day The Supposed Novelty now Sectaries Parallel Things of their own nature not perceptible with Others most Visible and Manifest mentioned the Supposed Change of a whole Church into another Belief the Imagined New Publick Adoration of A Sacrament were more Discernable and Visible then Mountains and Castles And
Freed us from a Spiritual Death and brought us to a Spiritual Life And do not Sectaries Hold that the very Material Hearing of the Word of God is a fit Means to Beget Faith both Spiritual and Supernatural in the Hearers Soul The Difficulty therfore Proposed comes to nothing but Fancy Finally if we speak of the Disposition requisite to Receive the Effect of this Sacrament you may call it if you please the Mode Way or Manner necessary to a due Receiving What Disposition is necessary All Catholicks Profess that not only Faith at least Habitual but Charity Also per se loquendo Are Prerequired as necessary Dispositions to the Effect therof Because it is Sacramentum Vivorum the Sacrament of Those who now Live by Faith Hope and Charity CHAP. VII How differently VVe and Sectaries proceed in this Controversy VVhat they are to Prove 1. SOme other Slight Objections yet remain Drawn from Fathers Misinterpreted and the weak Reason Other Objections briefly touched on of Sectaries It is not worth the while to Bring all to Light Again They are Solved and Vndeniably Solved by our Catholick Writers A few shall here suffise Some Fathers seem to say That this Sacrament is a Sign a Figure an Image a Type of Christs The Fathers say no where that the Sacrament is a Sign or Figure only of Christ Body Very true But not one say's it is a Sign Only a Figure Only a Memorial Only c. Now know It is one Thing to call it a Sign and an Other a Sign Only Exclusive of Christs Real Presence As it is One Thing to say Faith Justifies And Faith only Justifies excluding Charity Read therfore Those words of St. Austin Lib. contra Adimantum cap. 12. Till your Eyes be Weary Non dubitavit dicere c. Our Lord Doubted not to say This is my Body Cum daret signum Corporis sui When He gave a Sign of his Body All you S. Austin affirm's it not can Force out of Them is this Obvious and Genuine Sense Our Lord When He gave His Disciples the Consecrated Species Accidents or Forms of Bread which were a Sign and Figure of his Body There contained Doubted not to Say That that which He then gave them under those Species was Really His Body If Sectaries can Inforce more out of the Words let them do it without Fancy And prove their Gloss by a Clearer Principle then St. Austins Words are 2. Again When some Fathers Say There is not What the Fathers mean when They say it is not altogether the same Body Planè idem corpus The same Body Altogether in the Eucharist which was Fastned to the Cross But after a Manner the Same To which Sense St. Austin Commenting in Psalmum 98. Introduceth our Saviour speaking thus Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi estis c. You are not to eat this Body you se Grosly He Means as the Capharnaits Understood And to Drink that Blood which my Enemies will Poure Out I have The Fathers endeavour to remove from us all gross Conceptions of this Mystery The two states of a Body Natural and Spiritual change not the substance of the Body We say usually when one is changed by Age or Sicknes he is not the same men Commended to you a Sacrament which Spiritually Understood will Give you Life c. When I say The Fathers Express Themselves by such Terms And Did so As well to Remove from us all Thick and Carnal Conceptions of this sublime Mystery as to Beget in us so far as we can reach to a Right understanding of the Spiritual Manner of Christ Existing in the Sacrament We must Distinguish with the Apostle 1. Cor. 15. Two States of a Body Natural and Spiritual Whose Dotes and Qualities Though Different Change not the Body Substantially Distinguish I say Thus And then Speak boldly with the Fathers It is not Altogether the same Body But after a Manner For so we Speak in a Vsual Language When we se one Notably Altered from Himself by Age or Sicknes And say He is not the Same He was But quite an Other Man Yet the Difference Here is not so Great as between a Glorified Body in Heaven and a Mortal Body on Earth or Betwixt Christ Body Situally Extended with its just Dimensions And not at all Extended The Fathers Therfore By placing all the Variety on the Mode or Manner of Existing Deny not Christs real Being in this Sacrament But as Learnedly as Literally Express the very Mystery The Fathers Learnedly and Literally Express the Mystery as it ought to be Expressed And We Stand to Their plain Words without Violence offered to the Obvious Sense by any Superaddition of Far-fetcht Glosses Yet Say it is Substantially the same Body 3. And here by the way if you will Parallel a little the Procedure of Sectaries with ours And Ours with Theirs As well in this as in Other Controversies You may see How Faintly Fancy plead's against Reason and Heresy Opposeth Truth Observe it What Catholicks stand to the plain obvious sense of their words and Scripture also ever They Allege out of Gods Word for their Errour VVe Stand to the Plain Obvious and Literal Sense of the Text And yet Deny Their Heresy Drawn from it Which therfore must of Necessity be an Additional Gloss of Fancy Foâ— Example Doth Scripture say Do this in Remembrance of me We admit of the Open Sense of the Words without further Commentaries or Glosses Doth it say The Flesh Profit 's Nothing We say so too But must learn by other Principles what Flesh Signifies in that Place Doth it say That Examples Hereof All the Ancient Hebrewes eat of the same Bread Drank of the same water We without Wresting the Text say so too Dot it say that God Inhabits not Temples made by Hands So say We And Give this Reason Because Gods Divinity infinitly Immense Circumscribed in no Particular Place as if he wanted Lodging is Every Where Doth it say that Christ Risen from the Dead was not Therfore in the Sepulchre We Answer the Illation is good in those Circumstances whilst Those virtuous Women Sought the Living Among the Dead Do the No Fathers make the Sacrament a Sign a Figure on 〈…〉 â—luding Christs presence Fathers say that the Holy Sacrament of the Altar is a Sign a Figure a Type of Christ even There Present We Acquiesce and speak also as They Do But withall Add That no Father makes it a Sign a Figure a Memorial Only as if the Reality of his Body were Excluded from the Outward Species of Bread and VVine Thus we Proceed with all Candor 4. Now let us cast a few Thoughts upon our Sectaries Sectaries contrarywise proceed with Catholicks and violently force both Scripture and Fathers Examples Hereof Dealing with us Catholicks And Se how Fancy only Vphold's every Thing they Assert We Allege our Saviours own Words This is my Body which
is Given for you They Answer No. It was not his Body but a Sign Only of His Body Given for us Observe well This Interpretation of a Sign Only is a Gloss of Fancy For neither the Word Sign is in Scripture Nor a Sign Only is any Ancient Father We Cite Again that Unanswerable Text of St. Luke This is the Chalice the new Testament in my Blood which Chalice is shed for you And mark the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that Relates to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the same Case and not to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Different Case What Answer our Sectaries Marry Beza Tell 's us St. Luke Here either spak a Solacism or a Marginal Note Cre'pt by chance into the Text Here is His best Solution And who Tell 's Mr. Beza so But his own Fancy We Produce moreover Those Testimonies of Ancient Fathers Briefly Hinted at Above And say no Wit of Man can solve Them Chiefly That Authority of St. Cyril Of VVine changed into Blood as water was Once changed into VVine They Answer The Change was only Moral of Wine Deputed to a Holy Use which is Against the very Nature of the Instance And consequently a Strong Thought of Fancy We say No Universal Tradition No Ancient Church ever Opposed the Doctrin of the Roman Catholick Church concerning this Mystery Herein our Ad 〈…〉 rsaries are Silenced And cannot Design the Orthodox Church that opposed our Doctrin as both We and the whole world beside now oppose their Novelty Parallel therfore the Proceedings of Sectaries Against us A Parallel between their Proceeding and ours Sectaries mangle and pervert most clear Authorities with ours Against them And you will find them to stand upon Quicksand without Principles The very Straits They are put to Demonstrat this Evidently whilst as you have seen They Mangle Pervert Misconstrue and Gloss Every clear Authority cited against Them And We on the other side candidly Admit both of Scripture and Fathers Quoted by Them without Any other Gloss but what the very Text and Context of the Testimonies Allow of 5. And Hence it is that you Always have our Adversaries Sectaries bold in asserting but weak at their Proofs bold in Asserting But Cold Vnmanly and Weak at their Proofs Besides what is now said the true Reason is No Proof can touch much less Vainquish a Verity that Stands firm upon undeniable Principles Plain Scripture the Vnanimous Consent of Fathers undeniable What our Catholick Proofs are Tradition the Authority of a Holy and Vniversal Church and this Negative No Church ever blamed our Doctrin are Strong Supports for the Faith we Profess And can our Sectaries who are as Scriptureles as Fatherles as Fatherles as Churchles and Finally Destitute of All other Principles Think to Dant us with a few Gleancings Gathered Sectaries cannot deny Them now out of This now out of that Ancient Writter when They Evidently se with their Eyes the whole Torrent of Antiquity contrary to Them Can they Perswade Themselves that Because one Theodoret For example Of Theodorets Authority Saith the Mystical Signs after the Sanctification Recede not from Their Nature but Remain in their first Substance Figure and Form are Seen and Touched as Before which words are literally True if we Speak as We Admit of his Words this Author Doth of the visible Accidents of Bread and Wine Can we I say Think that this one Authority Though it were a Hundred times more Difficil Hath Weight enough to turn the Scales Force Enough to Drive us from the Faith which Scripture Church and Fathers most manifestly Deliver It is impossible The obscurer places of Scripture and Fathers are to be Interpreted by the clearer All know when Divines Explicate Scripture or Fathers They Interpret the obscurer Passage by the Clearer And never make the Darker Place to give Light to the more Evident Observe Now. Theodoret saith the Mystical Signs Recede not from their Nature But Remain as before I say so too The only Difficulty is what he Meanes by the Word Signs and Sectaries Glosses without Proof Theodoret cannot be supposed to contradict other most Learned Fathers He is to be Explicated were he obscure by the sense of other Fathers Nature Sectaries Tell us The Sense is Bread and wine Recede not from Their True Substance First This is their Gloss without Proof For the Visible Signs of bread and wine are not the Invisible Substance of Bread and Wine 2. Theodoret in all law of Arguing when His plain Words Force not on us this sense of Sectaries ought to be Catholickly Interpreted And Had we no other Reason but this That it cannot be Reason To make so Learned a Father Though once he stray'd a little to Clash with all Antiquity it were Enough At most His Words are Doubtful And upon that Account capable of Explication is it not Therfore more Just to Explicate Them by the Clear and Vndeniable Doctrin of a Whole Church And other Fathers then to Draw these Fathers from their Open and Manifest Sense to His if it be supposed Obscure as in Truth well Pondered it is not Let Reason Judge Here. 6. By what is said Already We may well pitty the desperate Condition of Sectaries who Pertinaciously Defend an Heresy without so much as a colour of Sectaries want Principles Scripture Church or the General Consent of Fathers For these Principles and none can Parallel them Most evidently Fail our Adversaries Urge them Again and Again to speak more Pertinently to their Cause then is Don hitherto You get nothing but the Old Story told over again And it will never be Better for I se too Plainly Their Humor It is God knows Sectaries Tristing and wherin it Appear's To spend or rather to Mispend their whole Life and Labour in Trifles They Think to Cavil at the Proofs of our Doctrin Establisheth Theirs As if it were sufficient to make their Novelty good Because they can Talk against our Ancient Faith Just as if One to Prove Himself an Honest Man might do it Pithily by calling his Neighbour a Knave 7. I must yet Add one Significant Word more And 'T is very Necessary to lay forth our Adversaries Weaknes as well in This as in All other Controversies Observe Solid Proofs for a Doctrin stand firm and unshaken against all Opponents it VVhen Proofs of a Doctrin Stand on solid Grounds and Principles the Objections Against it are like Fathers cast Against the Wind forceles And return upon the Opponents to their Confusion wherof I think you Have Already seen Enough in this Present Controversy But contrarywise When the Proofs are Meagre Barren and Void of Strength They are ever so with Sectaries The Very Opposite Principles for Truth Dash All Discountenance All and Evidently Shew those Arguments to be Feeble And Truely would our Did Sectaries Proceed Candidly They would se Themselves Convinced Adversaries once Deal Ingeniously Candor would