JSTorihxi^csfcrn TJm-OerMiy J^tbrary
JE.-Oansion, Illinois
Cimi-arnT^ 7)
7-n C
ecLfsm.
^ Jul^2r~if-j; Pry JJlo'kv&j 9^rvjpri-
J " ^ a h-fhz. ^ ^
1.^ ^i>77i^--i^il irf'^a'T/ip-mjr Ccitrf'e^^f (Zd'^xj^a^/u^r
- f0rv U ^ A 'itttI: /^O/"i H-v f ' i .
^rrz- / 0 87
/fn/yer J^ ^ <^ d/iJi/t-'fiTj^l-^
'iLcn^ a.7Cb(37vverric7rj3rf'if{'?tJu/A'fn aj^^fy^/s n ^
'-r^Ti^d. Sn "iirrtiSSy, 3v r
j^-rt ^njnfe/r ^ a ypfywrff tiyam^jh ZrA-n/'iti/jTx^vU a'j-iTm
ft crn^iI/u u.l?C^t O')^t(m, . >^^73} (m I (PSy .
j/f^H ^'a n/ft iffTZ A A"O'h/^/fo
,/r
ff^ey
0(^7^ (rrr 1 oSy.
tcC ^fhv-ecn a )le Lii0^£> ^ t^pveri- ^ a i^jJ^X^nl-ir'
SncwTTva rf^^(yt\r7TUi. sfCjya-yL/u (hIxi-r/U o-'j-i-yTLh) Syy-jyy/o -~
va-bii S^Cz3uSc>, o-f 2y^4rea7(-^[i//i-ery i^y*■'Inf
Ji cf^y^b(y^cL^jjfi^ftr/j3 9^,4^f<^eC€b
jfn0n/f^crU^ Ta'(^^ta(<"f^ fdwecn £ifly8 (ahyli0^ f>
a /yi>U/UiyM--r!> hyoy'y^J^/,'lyy (t/a-ls/lorr) iL
4/c^<7n8~])ia-^afeUv-cf-n a ft^zo i^/is^t^A 0ve7rl-<J,cL8^rr7liz/^n^-^
/Pn27kx7>vM7i4z ca77.^U^euc^/^)yfr7yy</rn^
fifi ■r^Co2z.0%cWr 4 PPMrrii Ulmcfi . "
;v -Tn
.7 . ^ / - ■ .. 41. .
7'^ c 7i?cfr7'it^ cf/ i/ ^^y-rr'/pf^
ajyvj^T^pu^-e^^^a-JeTTz, ^ai7tJurn;f^ «flei^s
f-c/pO^TZ a yraU/l^i-iti'-^ck a ^^7
^Tco^-Lt^ a^^J-7if?^^r ij c^Meiz r^ 7^ot-^ 7^
-^7 c7y''M7-atM:
-jy d7 /r'<^n/ico/f-crf^^k'sTz-pr-if 2>€^7/Cay^eh ^h/en/iuy -
i)eU yii-/zi cA./hiL£/ (^J7//tu7i ^C ,24^-?7^zii/m <^/4y^ .
(iss h
- Yec S-ec^er h
tm cs^dpQizrn L 6 Sy^,
jTi^zzy 14^1^1117^I'ki^pTi 7^yzy/^kii>''€.7't^^
kti /ec Aery 7{c^c/7'o(v-n^<!^ i (jSS
(^/)l e L^-t <(y^7e4y ^ r: {J-y a y ^rps
z i~ Tf/t/Hic^y f/Ce^r^ f 7A^k-^77oti f aJ 7X CCC <2DC.
- Ii-y-ep Jy f^pky^r^S - zir lp€:Cer t(^y^ tf^,^cy.k7reyeiccc a/vk
'Ift yrziJ^/ka-nkf /k u-c PI ^tLC aJ~4t-k7ykry tl- -
CLJA'P^ ic^'^47o/^^. s6^ ^cm L fS8 ,
//L c /fo/c/Az-Zp/zy^^ ^ tf^/ci)fzi AZZA f-z: ke T. ■
Or i\'r7f^''4iHf'ii dj'lf 9-^0/^^/01 f^/'Z^4zt/*^^'Y' kvy
fl PLC J t
^ ^4/''0 /i /i/y d-f/^c/ppt/H ///atvA 'ecz/f. ff^ o
/pi / -/t z/r/d/o c. fiOSS .
. dirrilen L oo/i^^i2f4jr//Yhfp//'uni':
l"n^ 4j*fA/fdrc 4v -Ic o/Jky ^/roopt/y f///^ a///}/t
'}ijA<fcm As ;yi t/h€ Mc^/fuc o4^f>iy fri^^ppfc^^
'iTJacoU (XyTc4fJ4Af'4 /Azrvc Car>pt-dk trc4f4^A'0ci,d/
7/j! /? ^-cU/^.yZir'n
Six>^/t-^rrncef rancen^'pyy Cti</tart-//jtp/cre/fti/{cHif6
^ <97j/T^. ^ A a Ao/l l>VC)7Croivf4/U
jr-trffi ft (nirtyh.a.n feUft/rp-i^ A/idtrn lOttSy .tOrHlcnL
Jl'^d'7 [« cji han-jti^'W^ 9^^^?^/Va-77 .
K'
K- A.>7 ^i^K L
Q 'r/f^/a/ j^y ^ /ljj'/77. -
Ti./d7J')^ c'}\U • H""'a./v^'
^i/h tyi^a f tf^/^m ^ e}^ 6^ Kc
fa i>cc ^/^''M^.-/?' hf'/j a/jn'cjKc^ an ^pe fyaccl- drf ^^yal
fa^/r^'> / "if^■"^r^'Pn c ct/e ff-ul 'ffa if^CrpA'i
Oil a ic fOT-fJiJn ^mc^c/Kyf
^AcfncJ cf Qbw.f ^ OSP-ful.-
~ Q ' ^ f I'l'z fofi*-jA0fn^rT
^ ^ p n(r£^rv Vnrr Itpn^ ^f de Ven /^/^»«^
p^Tj^t-icovurfC.
REASON
AND
AUTHORITY?
OR THE
MOTIVES
OF A LATE
Proteftants Reconciliation
TO THE
Catholic Church.
^ TOGETHER
With Remarks upon fbme late Diicourfes
AGAINST
'Cranfubftanti atlott.
< I i I. ■ ■ I I I \i
tbiti) :3lilotbance«
LONDON,
Printed hy Henry Hills^ Printer to the King's Moft
Excellent Majefty, For his HouQiold and
Chappel, 1^87.
" • ;wi3- _
^. 'Ji
- * ^
-C
•1
r--- ^ -V
jsl ^rrit.: ^locii cAi:sm/i rrPX^
T c K i A O A
-^^v-. ■ - i'
4 t ., • , f i / i.
V' V-' w V
.yrtjaS'ioA
.;>Vu>is'Moi ■i:}:ni-fi ^i\W^'nv-P. '{<\ L.Anli'^
': br?fi L^ofPwH ?u\ :ni .vf.r : •^.:f:'i'irjx!i •
» 'V»^ 'fi.
+ ♦.
Reafon and Authority,
OR THE
MOTIVES
OF A LATE '
Proteftants Reconciliation
TO THE
CatlioUc Ctiutci).
TH A T I may pay my due Refpe^s to
the Church of EngUnd^ to which
I am indebted for a confiderable part
of my Education ; I think it juft to
publifh thole Motives which obliged
me to tnkt my kiveo^ Her : And if it fhall appear,
that I have not rafhiy quitted her Communion, but
have ufed herein the utmoft ftrength, and di£tates
of my moft Impartial Reafon ; I hope She will ex-
cuft me, if I have followed that lights which She her
lelf fb prefflngly recommends.
I fhall therefore (ynojl Reverend Fathers) commu-
tiicate my Motives to you, ina fhort, but plainMe-
thod; and if my Brevity in this, fhall not lufficient- •
dy exprefs the ftrength of my Arguments; cenfure
A 2 not
(i)
not from thence the Faith which I profefs: For
having perufed many Excellent Authors , which
have treated more particularly, and fully of it; I
purpofely avoided a long Repetition of" thofe things,
which you may find more largely, and better hand-
led in the Originals themfelves. 1 have been guid-
cd ^Ihopej by the^rrfte of God, and rtafon^ redu-
cing things almoft to Demonftration I have ix)
Charm, nor Conjuration upon me, that I know of,
^ but fhall be always ready to follow the ftrongcft
Evidence, of common Reafbn. I will not trouble
you with all thofe circumfiances which made me
douBt; but only tell you, in fhort, that by reading,
and difcourfing with Catholic Men, and AnthorSy
I did really douht concerning the truth of my PrO'
tefiant profefiion.
One main Realbn of my Diffidence was, thk. That
I did not find in the Church of EngUnd, a Uxpfttl Au^
thor 'tty, fufficient to oblige my reajon^ and confcience
to fiibmit to her Decrees, in matters of FAth, necef-
133. f4ry to Salvation, For Stillingjleet tells me,
' All men ought to be left to Judge according to
'the Pandefts of the Divine Laws, becaufe each
* Member of this Society, is bound to take care of
' his Soul, and of all things that tend thereto. And
Df^Ferne, in his Cafe between the two Churches,
/ays further, 'That in matters propofed by my
' Superiours, as Gods Word, and of Faith, I am not
'tied to believe itfuch, till they manifeft it to me
'to be fb; and not that I am obliged to believe it
' fuch, unlefs f can manifeft it to ^ contrary, be-
' caufe my Faith can reft on no humane Authority, but
' 'only on Gods Word, and Divine Revelation.
This is your conffant Do^rine, as,to. QMifaitlfiy
or
(i)
or interHAl affeftt „ as may be proved by many of
your beft Authors; and indeed, thejuftice of your
Reformation casflot confift with ftrifter Principles;
for how can you bind our Confciences, by a late u-
fiirpt Authority, (I fpeak as to declaring Articles of
" fnitb, not of difiipline) when you would not fubmit
your orvn to the greateft Authority, under which
our Anceftors were born ; and which was incom-
parably, the moft lawful, the moft efteem'd, the
moft certain , and moft univerfal, that ever ap-
pear'd in the Chriftian Church fince the Apoftles ?
And accordingly Mr.Chillingworth (oi thejuftAu-.
thority of Councils) and Synods) lays, 'Anything
* befides Scripture, and the plain, irrefragable, inr
'dubitable confequences of It, well may Prote-
* ftants hold it, as matter of Opinion, but as matter
' of Faith, and Religion, neither can they, with cor
' herence to their own ground believe it themfelves,
' nor require, the Belief of it, of others, without
* high, and moft Schifinatical prefumption. Now
thele plain, irrefragable and indubitable confe-
quences, muft need be plain to every man, who is
not mad , or a fool ; and fb need .no Authority.:
But in all thofe. which are left plain (and fuch
be the Points controverted between Catholics, and
your felvesj I have my liberty : for. I am fully aft
fured ffrom the'fame hand^ ' that God doth not,
'and that therefore Man ought not to require any
* more of any Man,^than this to believe the Scri-
'pture to be Gods Word,, to endeavour to find the,
"true 'fenfe of it, .and to live according to it.
Having therefore {^worthy FarbersJ been taught
Euglifh, aiid Latin, in your Grammar Schools , and^
ng. the Hofy Bible with me, which contains-
all.
keepi
C4)
all things neceffary to Salvation i and to which
^'according to your Inftruftions^ I muft at laft ap-
peal; I refolved to give you no further trouble
in this matter; efpecially, fince ^as I faid^ you could
not teach me infallibly ; nor impofe your Intcrpre-
~ rations, by vertue of any kgul Authority, which
might ultimately conclude my Reafon,zndL fecure my
Confcieme.
Finding, that I was not only at liberty, but advi-
fed alfb by your (elves, tovporkout my ovenSdvationy
and to Jianduponmy ownbottome, I thought it realbn-
able that my Enquiry (hould Set out from the very
beginning, and examine whether there was 2i God ;
and indeed I found .fome learned men, even among
the greateft Philofbphers, fpeaking very doubtfully
concerning this matter, if not denying it. Twas
not only the Fool had faid in his heart, there U no
God ', but hear wha.tCardanWvltQS of our famous
. deSaf' Ari/lotk', Arijloteles (fays he^ tamcdlide mundior-^
turn, df amm<e pramia, dr Deos, df Damoms fujlulit,
ttt hdc omnia aperte quidem diceret, argui tamen mn
poffet. hndtliQ grcRt PontifCotta to Fe/kius, upon
the fame Queftion concerning a God, Credo (inquit^
Ji in condone quaratur ; But in private it (eems, he
was very eafie in his Belief. I will not mention
Epicure, tLudlfUcretiui, their names are grown ge-
nerklly too (cahdalous ; but if you examine Anaxa-
'goras, Anttchdrfs, Protagoras, Euripides, Diagoras and
tnany others, whole reputations carry no fmaH Au-
thority along with therli, you will obierve fuch a fu-
fpenfion of mind concerning a Deity, that if they
were afraid,deny ; ib neither would they
^on^dent/y affirm.
'Next (fuppofinga iD'eity^ whether the World was
" govern'd
(?)
governed by God ? 'Xh^ Eptcureans totally deny it; »ul-"
lam emnino habere humanarum rerum procurationemDeos:
which alfb plainly profeffeth in thefe words,
Ego Deum genua femper ejfe dixi ; & die am Caelitum^
SedEos non curare Opinofy quid agat humanum gent^.
Which opinion Crotim takes care to confute in his
Cap.depeenis.l.i. And no wonder if the Heathens
denied a Point, full of fb many difficulties, fince the
Royal Prophet himlelf was almofl: ftumbled at it.
My feet (lays he) were almofl gone^ my fleps had mH
nigh flipt.
Then the Souls Immortality (a very confiderable
PointjfeemM fb hard to Reafbn j efpecially when I
found it difputed in fame Set phiiofophical Di*-
fcourfes, and it's Mortality proved, almoft to a
phy fical Demonflration; and belides, that the Chri-
ttian DoStrine concerning it, had not been deter-
min'd above two hundredjears in any Council y that
truly, my reafbn (notwithftanding the beft
affiffance I could procure/' was put to a great plunge;
I will nor tell you how I got off from thefe, and
many other fuch like difficulties ) but proceed, and
acquaint you how I ventured upon the Bible.
When I examined the ffrft Chap, of Genefls , I
obferved that many great Men were fcandaliz'd at
Af(?/e's Philofbphy; and yet upon the Truth of his
Hiftory, concerning theCrM/»», and/i^ of Jdanr,
depends the greateff Myftery.. of our Salvation. I
proceeded further,and found fbme ftrange MiflaJces,
andffor ought I could fec/irreconcileable Ef tours in
that- Hiftory ; infomnch, that many Learned men
fwell read in- the Language and Hiftory of
the jew3)y pofkiyely affirm,^ very ftrong Argu-
tnents, That the 'or five Books of Mofes
rruch as they appear to us) were fb far from being
•writ by Mo/es himfelf, that they were writ
they; by the Scribe, many hundred of years
after the death of Mo/es.
Indeed ^Reverend Fathers) when I heard
this, I began heartily to wifli that God.Almigh-
ty, in his 'Providence, and Goodnefs to man-
kind, ^infinitely fallen from that knowledge, in
which our firft Parent was happily created; would
have pleafed'(as fome reparation for lb great a
lofs) to have left us (bme unerring Authority, and
Sovereign Guide, who might have conduced all
that truly fought the way, to that bleft Paradice,
from whence long fince we had been banifhed.
With great pains, I broke through many rubs
fhow fuccelsfully I cannot fay) and came to the
Netp Tejtammt; Here I hoped that my Reafon would
frnd an eafier paflage through thofo Divine Authors,
as being of a later date, .and the la[l Tejlamesst of
our bleffed Saviour. Ibeganwith the ^^x^kChaper
of St. Matthew and found the Genealogie of
deduc't through 'Jofeph his reputed Father, from
David, out of whofe Royal Root, the longexpefted
MeJ/iah was to Spring. Would not a Man reafona-
bly believe, that the holy Evangelift, to prove
to be the Meffiah, who was to be the So» of Davidy
made him rather appear the Son of Jofeph, than the
Son of God ? But if he was not the Son of Jofeph, nei-
therdoth it appear from thence that he was the^i?^
of David. Nay, more, when I would have proceeded
further, I found, that of the New Tejlament; the
2 Epiftle of Peter ; 2 and g of fohn; the Epiftle
to the Hebrews; the Epiftles of James, Jude, and
the Revelatms maintaiu'd to be Apocryphal by Chem-
nitius
f 7>
Hitius^ great Scholar ; and many importatTt
Texts, left out, or fbmething added, or different
Tranflations by your firft greatProteftant Reformers.
And that fbme of thefe were not receiv^ed, even by
the Orthodox, into their Canon, till nere Two huti-
dred years after the death of our Saviour.
However, I paft this by ; and, to be fhort, I read
over the AhtvTeJliiment, (ffuchas wehaveitj with
great attention. But truly, Fathers, either your Rea-
Ions, and theReafbnof every particular Chriftian,
is infinitely above my poor Judgment; or elfe
you muff not tell me, that every Chriftian, upon a
fincere perufal of this holy Book, would certainly
have compos'd the Creed of St > Jthanajius, fuchas
you receive, and profels in your Common-Prayec
Books.
But, before I examined" every particular Point of
Faith contained in that facred Writ; Ire/blved to
eonlider what Religion was in and in parti-
ciilar, the Chrijlian\ In that, what was, and
how efteem'd, when comparM with Obedience and
Works under the and opposM to Works
under the Law ; of Faith, what were the great, and
neceffary Articles; Then I prefum'd to look into
the great myftery of the Incarnation , and bleffed
defign of our Saviour, in fubmitting to the indig-
nities of humane life, and fhamefui death of the
Crols^ and I extended the great benefits of hisPaf^
lion as univerfally, as I judged He himlelf intend-
ed them. Next, I venturM to examine with my
Reafbn the great Do£lrines of the Trinity, Confub^
fiintiality,Tranfubfiantiation,Predejtination and Free^
will, and many, other main Points of Divinity : and,
as a help to my Reafon, I cUligently peruled your
B learn-
(8)
"learned Comtnents upon particular Texts, and
Chapters; as alfb the Comments of Catholics^ Ltt-
therans^ Socinians^ Caivinijis^ %uinglians j and I did
not totally negled the Cenfure of the Jews, and
Heathens concerning the whole Hiltory in General.
When I had done all this, I began to make up my
account, and drew a Scheme of Divinity, in which
r'abftrafting from all Authority; Ireceiv'd, and re-
jeded what fcem'd moft agreeable to my Reafon:
But I muft ingenuoully confels, that this was not
done without Ibme kind of force upon my Judg-
ment, in general; for methoughts, the Authority.
of General Councils, Ancient Fathers, and the moll
univerfal concurrence of learned Men, ought to fway
a private Realbn, altho it were not fcientifice, or in-
tuttiveljf convinced of every particular Point which
they had determin'd. However, being taught by
your felves to lufpeft General Councils ; to Judge
the Works of the Fathers, whether they were ge~
nuine, or fuppofititious ; and of the truejl, to inter-
pret them according to our own private Opinions,
or condemn them, as erroneotts, when they differ'd
from our Sentiments; I ftuck clofe to my Reafon,
finifht my Scheme, and my Realbn fublcribM to it.
When this was done, I compar'd it with your
Thirty nine Articleswith the Catechifms oi Catho-
lies, Lutherans, Cdvinifis, Socinians, and oblerv'd,
that inthe>r^o/e, I dilagreed from them All, even
in ETodrines Ccommonly reputed) abfolutely neceR
fary to Salvation. But yet, this my confufed Babel
of Religion, was built up with mme particular
Points, taken from all the Heretics, and Profeflbrs
of Chriftianity, even from FFion, and Cerinthus to
Naylor^adeMuggleton,
Now
(9)
Now rthought my felf fufficiently ftockt to /et
up for a Herefiarch, and a New Light in the
Church ; but when 1 (erioufly confider'd, how grie-
voufly our poor Nation was already torn and di-
vided with fuch Sefts, and Schifms, to the great
difturbance of our.temporal Peace, and Happinefs,
and fcandal to Chriftianity ; I relbl^'d to keep my
Reaibns to my felf, and cenfur'd in my heart that
great Liberty, 2in.d Sugream ^^uthority'm thefemat-
ters, which you your felves, and (as you fay) God
Almighty had been pleas'd to allow us. You
may blame my Reafbn for all this, and extol your
own, who (it may be) have interpreted Scripture
otherwife ; .but I had learned Men to back me, poi-
fibly as learned (tho not fb lucky) as your felves,
and we_ thought we had as ftrong Reafbns to con-
demn you, as you to accufe us.
I return'd then to a Second^ and a Third more di-
ligent perufal of my Scheme 5 and tho Iftill found
every particular Point 'correfponding with my Rea-
fon, yet altogether, 1 fbon perceiv'd (by what I had :
read) that the whole Chriftian World of all Sorts
. andSebbsuniverfallycondemnM it.
I profefs, Fathers^ I was ftrangely ftumbled at
this confideration, and my Reafbn began ffrongly
toinfmuate, pcffihly^dinA Vtrj probably I might
be all this while in the wrong ; for I had learnt,
that Arijlotle^ Arifiides^ St. Augufiin ^ Grotim and =
many-^excellent SchoLars, counted it more Madnefs .
(infolentiffmjc Infani^ efi) to contradift the Judg-
ment of AH, or the Mofl, or the mofl Wife; and of the
moft wife, All, or or the mojl Excellent^ for
(fays one of them"* as in matter of FaSt, we ought
to believe the. moif, and moff proper, and credible
B - Witneffes-;
Witneffes ; fb in matters of Opinion, we are oblig-
ed to fiibmit to the and mod: Excdltm Authors:
Now lure, thele frajtantifjimi Auciores , are thole
who write vi'iihbejt Authority, and have Commilli-
on from the Higheft Powers, To to do.
Yet, notwithftanding all this, I followed my
own private Reafon, in my particular Points ; un-
til a ftronger Realbn, I mean, the joint and com-. ^
mon Reafon of Mankind, and my too, dai- '
ly dilating that my Judgment in particular Cafes,
might fail; that ail, had not equal ftrength ; that
God therefore had not left the World without
Government; ncr given us Laws without lawful
Judges and Interpreters; that thele Judges ought
to be obeyed : Thele, I lay, and liich like confide-
rations, interrupted the quiet of my life, until at
laft my Realbn made its laft effort, andful-
ly and totally convinc'd me, that if any fuch Au-
• thority was to,be found upon Earth, 1 ought in
realbn, to fubmit my particular Realbns to it.
Truly, Fathers, when upon deliberate counlei, I
had determin'd to take this moft reafbnable courfe;
Give me leave to tell you, that I began to won-
der how your felves (tho moft learned, moft rea-
fonable, and moft pious MenJ could be fatisfied un-
der the conduQ: of your private Realbns, if there
may be found any legal Supream Judge which
might ultimately, and Authoritatively guide, and di-
red you. Pardon me, I do not prefume tomcafure
my Realbrr againft the meaneft among yours, for I
queftion not but yours would err nmch left, than
tnine\ but yet left your own lliould err at all,
methinks, it were fafeft, and by confequence, moft
reafbnable, to leek fome Authority (if any fuch
there
c 11 )
tliere be) under which you might be fecur'd from
all Errour; at Icafl:, as far as humane nature is
capable of it: For my part, my Realbn, and Gon-
icience forc't me to take that method, and I refbiv-
ed, either to find that Authority, and fubmit to it,
or keep to my own Principles, howerroneous fb-
ever they might be efteem'd by others.
Myfirft enquiry after this Authority, was, in the
Ciiurch of E»gla»d; for tho you had often told me,
that it was there; yet I was more inclin'd to
fufpeft your Modefty, than condemn your want of
Prudence, in pretending to fubfift fecurely withput
it. But when I had again examined the holy
Scriptures, together with tlie befl: Records, and Hi-
ftories concerning your legal Ttsle to thisSupream
Jurifdiflion; I found indeed you had reafoK, and\
were very ingenuous in dilbwning, what did
not of right belong unto you,: For if the Church
©f England enjoys this Power, by the fame Rule,
and for the fameReafbns, Holland^ Denmark^ Swede-
landy France^ Italy, 2Lnd Spain, would have the fame
Title to it, asyourftlves; nay perhaps, Turks and
Pagans : But my Reafbn told me f'from the fad effedts
which we daily fee) that this mull needs be moll
contrary to the Unity of the One, Holy, Catholic znd
Jpoflolic Church.
I then recolle£led, how you had often told me,
that the Catholic Church could never Err, but that it
would always hold tlie purity of Faith uncorrupt :
I remember then to haveasktof your Reverences,
where this Catholic Church was to be found;
and you told me, That it was difpers'*d all over the
Chrifiian World. I was troubled that your anfwer
was fo wide, however, I refblved to fearch; and
firft
iirft I enquired in the Roman Church: Indeed they
jiTured me, that I fhould there find what 1 lookt for;
'Tis true, I found them all one mind, in necejfaries ;
but when I examined their Do£l:rines, I perceived
(as you had often declat'd/* that, if, yours were true;
their's was much corrupt; or, if they diflembled,
they muft needs be under as great a condemna-
tion: Among them, therefore, there could be no
part of the Catholic Church. T hen I went into the
Greek Church, but found there alio, the fame obje-
Qiions and difficulties.
In a word, I went through the Aftan, and AfrU
can Churches, the Denmark, Srvedeland, Lutheran,2ir\d
SocinianClmcchQS', yet found nothing but
ficy or, t\\Q true Faith (according to your Standard)
notorioujly corrupt. I name not Holland, becaufe a-
mong them, I-faw fuch a Medley of Faiths, that,
it look't to me, as Babel might have done, when
God confounded their Language; but certainly if
the Catholic Doffcrine had been pra£Fis'd in thofe
pjrts where I had been ; Holland furely of any
Nation, would beft have reprefented theUniverfal
Church; But believe me , Fathers, it mu If then
have quitted its Titles of Unity, and Holinefs; ex-
cept Unity C2in confift with Div/Jton ; or Holinefs
with the World, the Fkfo, and the Devil.
Atlaft, Treturn'dto yourfelves, and acquainted
you how unfuccefsful my Journey had been; you flili
replied that there was undoubtedly a CatholicChurch
Militant upon Earth', and that this Church did al-
fb hold the true Faith of Chrifl, uncorruptbut with-
al, that it was not neceffary it fhould be visible ;
quoting at the fame time the complaint of Elijah^
that he, only he wasAeft ; to.whom God anfwered,
that-
i
( '3)
that he had, fe-ven Thottfand left in Ifrael (anknown
I to Elijah') who had not hent the -knee to Baal: And
! that this was a Type of the Chriftian Church.
1 Truly, Fathers (may it not difpleafe youj 1 began to
1 think, that you had trifled with me all this while,
i and pleas'd your felves to fend me of an April Er-
i- rand-, for to look for a thing which is invifible, is a
10 kind of a foolifh Meffage. Perceiving that you
ic had not usM me kindly , I reiblved to fet out
once more upon my own ftrength, efpecialiy,
fince I believ'd with you, that there was an un-
'i- erring Catholic Church; and more than you that
id this Church was certainly , and eafily vifible.
'/• This my Belief was alio the more confirm'd ,
1} when I had well conflder'd the Story of Elijah ;
!■ for I found, that this defe£bion, and tailing away,
t from the worfhip of the true God, was in Ifrael
^ only, a rebellious Kingdom, feparated from the
if choien Tribe of Judah, (God knows, how like our
1,^ Cafe in England)-, but in 'Jerufalem,God had a pub-
ly lie Temple, a public High Prieft, and public
jj true Worlhippers, and fb they continued (except
a Tome little time they were punifht with Captivity)
until the coming of Chriflr.
[> I made my firft ffep (as I had done before) iti'
to the Church of Rome ; and indeed, I there found,
i all the marks, and figns of a true Catholic
ill Church. As
i I. Univerfality and Vifibility» And it /ball
j. come to pafs in the lafl days, that the Mountain ofifa.i.2.
[. the Lords houfe fhaH be efablijbed in the top of the
I Mountains, and (hall he exalted above the Hilts. AndMtcaha.u
J the people fhall flow unto her. And if he fjallnegleU
to hear them, tell it to the Church. ^
2. Un-
s
( >4 )
2. Uninterrupted continuance, and SuccefHorf.
This is my Covenattt with them^ faith the Lord, my
Spirit that is upon thee , and my word which I have
mouth, jhall not depart out of thy mouth,
nor out of the mouth of thy Seed, nor out of the mouth
of thy feeds feed, from henceforth, and for ever. And
he gave fome Apoftles ; and fome Prophets ; and fame
Evangelifs: And fome Pafors and Teachers; for
■the perfecting of the Saints, for the work of the minU
fiery, for the edifying the body of Chrifl: Lilt we all
come in theximxs of faith, unto'a perfect man, ike.
3. Unity and Uniformity. Now I hefeech you hre-
thren, that ye all fpeak the fame thing , and that
there be be no divifions among you ; but that ye beper~
I cor.i.io. feetly joyned together in the fame mind, and in the
fame Judgment. That ye fiaad fafi in one fpirif,
Tbil.i.tj. ^ifjj one mind, firi'ving together for the faith of the
gofpel.
4. Holy Fathers, and Martyrs; General Councils,
and Synods ; a High Friefi, and a Holy Sacrifice ; Vn-
doubted Miracles and Divine Sacraments ; Holy Orders,
and Religions Colledges, Abfiinence, and Pennance,
faith and Obedience, Charity and Goodf'forks : And
in a word, fundamental Doftrines, Authoritatively
impos'd, and Vmverfally receiv'd throughout the
whole Cliriffian World. Be not offended, Fathers,
that I fpeak fb largely of their Dodrine, for (hav-
ing well examin'd) I fay again, that nere eight
parts in ten among Chriffians, agree in thofe very
Articles, or moft of them which are controverted
between your felves, and them .• And thefe believ'd
from the beginning of their Converfions, whether in
Europe, Afia, Africa, or America.
Having met with thefe great ifiducements'to per-
fwadc
('?)
fwade me I had found the true Catholic Church#;
and believing that a 'viftbleBody could not fiibfift
without a v^ible Head; I made it my next bufinels
to enquire after this Supream Vicegerent^ or Repre~
fentative of the whole; And indeed mcthought
there was no great diiRcuIty in it; I began at the
Head, (Imean) Chrift Jefus ; and found, i.That
he was a High Prieji for ever after the order of
Melchifedec : That he infiituted a new Law; and
gave Commiilions to his Apoftles to promulgate,
, and interpret it; and promifed the afliftance of
his holy spirit, to the end of all Ages.
Next, that of thefe, he appointed one to be Chief
(I mean) Sr. Teter: fb reputed, and unanimoufly
efteemed by the Fathers in the Eldeft times of Chri-
ftianity ; Fathers (b underftood, by among
your felves; and not to be difputed without ma-
nifefl: in)ury, and violence to their plain Writings;
and fb received by the whole Catholic Church.
His Succeflion, for many years, delivcr'd to us by
St. Anguflin, and brought down even to our pre-
fent Age, and Pope. Thefe, worthy Fathers, are
pregnant Arguments of a lawful Authority. I
wilhtyou could have fhewn me fuch another in your
own Church.
I next lookt into this Ecclefiaftical Government
(as far as it concern'd me ) and found, that all
Points of Faith were determin'd in General Coun-
cils, which reprefent the Catholic Church ajfembled,
and in which our Saviour promis'd his holy Spirit
fliould ever aflifl". That they were always asGe-
neral as the CircumftanCes of Times, and Places
would permit; or the'weight of the Matters to be
debated, retired ; and free 'diad 'mdifputable, when
C fecur'd
(.6)
lecur'd from violence aod force; that their Decrees
were then made with deliberation, and according
to the received DoQirines of theApoftles, and their
Succeflbrsjpreferv'd in the Writings of Fathers-^ or
conftant Apoftolical Tradition, kept inviolable in the
Church: And whenmade, that they wereo^-
ligatoryto bindoutConfcienceSj and conclude our pri-
vAte RcAfons.
I examined further, whether rhusVicegeref^, and
Succeflbr of St. Pe/er was received, as/«fA, in theCb
General Councils, or Catholic Church; and found
his Authority own^d^ and confirmed by them, and that
he was many hundred of years in the peaceable pol^
feffionof it; no man upon Earth pretending a Su- i
pcriority; or, if any did, that he was thereupon con-
demn'd, as an Intruder^ or lifurper.
Hence, I concluded (as the nature, and necelTary
Laws of Government requir'd; that the Pope him-
felf or CemralCouncilj or Both united^ could not
polRbly grant this Supream Authority, to any o-
ther Mortal MAn^ or Men^ to hold independently of
himy or them; becaufe this muft conftitute another
Supream independent HtAd of the fame Bodyy wh ch
is monftrous; or a Heud without a Body^ which is
ridiculous; or elfe there would be two diftinQ: HeAdSy
and two Bodiesy which is dire^ily contrary to the
Vnityy and Effence of Chrifts Church, as fruiTrating,
or obftrufiling the main End, atjd defign of Chrift,
^that is J of preventing Herefies, or condemning
ihem when they arife; for pAr in pArcm, nan hAbct
Imperium: Two equal Sovereign Authorities have
no Jurifdidion one over the other: Befides, this
Vicegerent, is but a Trufiecy orFidei commiJfAriuj and
can have no greater. Power, than what is given him,
by
\
('7)
fey his Prlncipaly or Pidei Commiffor ; now this is a
ferfonalTxu^, and cannot be'alienated, or divided;
becaufe he holds not this Power in his otvn rights
as a Property, or in plena Jure Ptoprietatis; he hath
only the adminiftration of it, in trujl for another :
So neither can he alienate the Patrimonium Ecclejt^;
or St. Peters Patrimony ; all Contrafts therefore, in
thefe Cafes, would he fraudulent: Tanquam faHi de
re aliend, and iheGrantees, hecovae maUfde-i pojfef-
fores, or iinjuftPoHefTors, of what they could not
lawfully purcj^fe.
Laftly, all %vereign Power, in the fame Go-
vernmcrit, is Indivifible , andean only be delega-
gated, in the Executive pan, for the adminiftration
of juftice, but accountable ftill to the Head, from
whence it derives.
The Equal priviledges therefore, oriazLTK Trpgcr.'Sera,
granted to the Patriarch of Conjlantinople; prove
nothing againft this Supremacy of St. Peters Succef.
for: For Firft, They were only honorary, in confide-
ration, thatConflantinople was become the Seat of
the Empire. Secondly, Patriarchal, or quatenus Pa-
triarcha, but not quatentu Caput Ecclefx, or as Head
af the Univerlal Church : And laftly, itisparticu-
larly expreft in the fame Canon, that thefe Honours,
or Priviledges fhould beheld, andenjoy'dj/'^Po^-
tifeem Romanum, after the Bifbop of Rome ; and it
appears de fa^io, that (^during the Third General
Council held at Ephefus, and allow'd by Proteftants)
Pope Ccekfiine the Firft, did, by his fubftitute Cyril,
authoritatively, AepoCe, and Excommunicate Nefo-
rius, then Patriarch of Conflantinople.
And Pope Vi^or who hvediAnno Dom.igS. Ex-
communicated the Bifhops of Jfiay for their keep-
C 2 ing
C.8)
ing of EafieYy contrary to the Inftitutions of St. Pe-
ter^ and St. PW, tho tolerated thQXQmhy St. John.
Nor could Ambition, or Avarice in thofe days of
Perfecution, move the Supream Heads of the
Church to exercife fuch Jurildi&ion; for they got
little by being Eminent andConlpicuous, butMar-
tyrdom, and fo it hapned to this Pope ViBor, who
died a Martyr, Anno Dom. 205.
Now, Fathers, befides thefe gxfSit Marks of the
true Catholic Church, I perceived alio, that, fac-
cording to the Command, and Inji^uion of our
Saviour^ his Vicegerent here, didlSn out his Di-
Preaching, and Baptizing through all 'Nations ',
Infbmuch, that fmcc Gregory/ the Great ^before whole
time, yoU" tell us, that this Holy Church began to
falO there have been converted to the Chriftian
Faith f otherwife call'd the Roman Catholic Faith )
neer Thirty great Kingdoms, or Provinces famong
which, Owx Saxon ^nceflors, help to make up the
numberj befides infinite multitudes in the and
Wefi Indies, And, fb much pains fhould be taken,
in obedience to our Saviours commands,* and pro-
mile of his afliftance; fb much blood of holy
Martyrs fpilt ; and all this, to bring Heathens, and
Pagans from the worfhip of their falleGods, into
another Idolatrous, and damnably corrupted Reli-
gion, may pollibly to your Reaions, appear confi-
Rent with the Mercy and Goodnels of Almighty
God ; but pray excufe me, if I tell you, that to my
Reafon, it leems altogether repugnant; but this is
matter of Opinion.
Having got thus far, toward that Sovereign Eccle-
fiaftical Authority in Matters of Faith, ablblutely
necelfary to Salvation;, and believing, according to
the
(^9)
(the ftrongeft Evidences of Senfe, andReafbn, thit
it muft be in the Church of Rome^ or, no where;
which laft Opinion mufl: diffolve that whole Fabrick,
againft which our Saviour promis'd the gates of Hell
jhouldnot prevail; I refoived to make yet one ftepfur-
ther; and enquire, Whether this Ancient Catholic
and Apodolic Church, could have fb far forfeited
her great Priviiedges, and Prerogatives, by the
praftice of damnable Doctrinesy and perniciotss Er-
rors (of which your felves, and others have mod
grcivoufly acculed her) as to render her, not only
unworthy of the name , and Title to which She
pretends; but alio to make her Communionmoft
unfafcy and defperately dangerous to alf honeli,, and
pious Chriftians.
I confefs, Fathers, when I confider'd what fbme
of your felves had often told me, and what I found
in many of your Eminent Authors, concerning the
late Innovation of thofe DoStrines controverted be-
tween the two Churches; I began to have hard
thoughts of the prefent Roman Catholic Commu-
nion : Much more, when enquiring, how latethele
DoSlrines were introduced into the Church, ytju
generally told me, that they were notimpos'd up-
on the Faithful,.before the Council of Trent, which
hath not been ended much above an Hundred
and twenty three years : But when I cgmpar'd the .
date of your Reformation, with rW, of thisCoun-
cil; I plainly perceiv'd, that the protefting againft
thele Errors was and well nigh before
thefe Errours were (as ycu fay ) then impos'^d:
which, (tho it feem'dfomewhatftrange, and might
have paft with others for a reaibnablc Anfwer to
this ObjcQion of Novelty) yet i refolv'd to perufe;
tlie
(lO)
tlie Councils themfelves, and (de foint en point)
note the time, when thele Dodrines were in Coun-
oil Eftabliflit.
1, I began with the Popes Supremacy ^ which
I found confirm'd in the Council of Chalcedon
A£l.i6. (one ^of the firft four General Councils
own'd by I-roteftants) above trvehe Hundred years
fincQy Six Hundred And thirty Bathers prefent, and a-
bout the year of our Lord 451. and relation had
to the/i^ Council of Can. 6. This Suprema-
cy alfo allow'd,profeJl^^t\ditaught by the moft Ancient
Fathers after the Apoftles, and conf^ lb to have
been by MtUnBon^ Luther, Bueer, Biljon, Dr. Cooper,
Bunny, Bulk, Middleton, Oleander, the Centurifis, and
many others too long to mention.
2, Thole Books which ^ow cidX Apocrypha, wqvq
taken into the Canon of the Old Teftament, in the
Third Council of Carthage, Signed by St. Augufiin
(Baruch only not named, becaule an Appendix to
Jeremiah whole Secretary he was) Can. 47.
The unbloody Sacrifceof the Mafs, in the Sixth
Council of Conjlantinople, a Thoufand years fince,
Can. 11. And alio in the Ninth Council of the A-
poftles, Decreed, That a Bifljop, See. {hallcommunicate
when Sacrifice is made.
4. Veneration, and rvorfhip of Saints Relicks (ac-
cording to Apoftolical Tradition) as alio of Martyrs,
and holy Images, in the Second Council of Nice,
Three Hundred-and Fifty Fathers prelent, Act.
Anno Dom. 780. See more in Alt 7. With the gene-
ral Concurrences of Ancient Fathers.
5. Communion under one kind fufficient in the
Council of ConJtance,S(ff. 1^. and pra£lis'd in the
Church Twelve Hundred years fince.
6. "Pur-
X
C)
6. Purgatory, and many more, too long to re-
late, in the Council of Fiorence, and believed in the
Primitive times.
7. And kftly, the Do£i:rine of TranfubfiantU'
tion, confirmed in the great Council of Lateran^
in which neer ihirttcn Hundred Fathers aflifted:
And in Seven or Eight other Councils, before that of
Trent; and all the controverted Points, particularly^
and by name,dcchred by fbme of your felves, to have
been brought into England, by Augujlin the Monky
above a Ihoufand years fince.
Indeed, Fathers, when I had diligently examin'd
this Truth, and found it moft Evident, beyond the
pollibility of any juft or reafbnable Contradiftion j
I was much icandaliz'd at the difingenuity of your
Writers, who, whilft they accufe others of Fallacy,
Impojlure, and Impudence, dare advance fb great, and
demonftrable a Fallehood in Matter of Fall, that no-
thing but Ignorance can excufe them; fb they expofe
themfelves to the greateft Cenfure of ra/hnefs, and
indifcretion, as uncharitable, and unjuft to thofe
whom they call their Enemiesas alfb unfafe, and
abufing the Credulity of their Friends,
It will not confiftwith the Brevity here intended,
to fpeak fully of every particular Point in difpute
between us ; I fhall content my felf* therefore to af-
firm (as I do) that there are but fejv of them ,
which have net been tolerated, and praBis^d (more
or left) by fbme Eminent Members of the Reform-
cd Churches ; and which have not undeniable Au-
thori^, and Antiquity tofupport them. I fhall fix
therefore upon two only \ and confider how far they
may bear, and appear reafbnable to an Impartial
R eader.
1. The
1. tht Authority, and InfuUihility toi the Roman
Catholic Church. .'.r'
2. TrAnfubflAntution. , ,
For the two firfi, I think them fb neceffarily in-
volv'd one within the other, that, in proving o»e,
we ^xovtbofh\ for if the Supream lawful- Ecclefi-
aftical Authority refides in the Church of Rome, as
reprefenting in its General Councils the Cathohc
Church ajfembkd ; then we have [the promife of ouf
Saviour, that his holy Spirit (hall ever affijl them^ and
guide them into all Truth, This I believe not only
with a Popi/h, but with a Protejlant Faith; for you
have always told me ^and I think you do not now
deny, it) that the Catholic Church cannot erf in
Fundamentals, or hold, the Faith corrupt; the dif-
ficulty, only lies in finding t\\z ChathoUc Church ,
which,, (to avoid fbme unlucky confequences that
might difturb your quiet; you prudently tell us, Is
not certainly to be found. . '
It remains therefore, that we find this Supfcam
lawful Authority which reprefents the vifible Ca-
tholic Church . I have given you my Judgment al-
ready: And that you may not believe I have err'd
through Affe6:ation, I will produce alfo for
my Juftification the found Judgment of. your bell
Reformers. Luther tells us, I do not deny but that the
Pf Ron^^ is, hath been, and ought to be frjl
of all; I believe he is above all other Bijhops^ it is not
lawful to deny his Supremacy. MelanBon (the Phse-
nix of learning ) fays. That the Bijhop of Rome is
Epfi.ai above all the Church, that it is his Office to Judge in
card.BeJay. Controverjies, to govern, to watch over thePrieJls, to
keep all Nations in Conformity, and Unity of Do§rines.
Somaifius. The Pope of hath been, without con~,
troverjie,
i
( ^3 )
troverjie, the firfi Metropolitan c/" Italy, not only
in Italy, nor only in the Weft, but in all the ]VorlA.
The other Metropolitans have been Chief in their refpe^
Hive DifiriHs; but the Pope of Rome, hath been Me- rtia. ad Ser-
tropolitan, and, Primate,, not only of fome particular
Diocefs, but of Ad. Grotiua ^for whom I have a
great refpefl:, and thiiik him a very learned Man)
fays the fame thing, and proves this Supre-
macy belongs to the Pope dejure divino : This al- sup.
fb inferr'd from Epifcopal Government by '^acob Cart-
might,, Hujfe, Bez.ij and many others.
Now, Fathers, you cannot fay, bnt thefe Emi-
nent Proteftants were Men of great Learning, and
that they had fearcht, and underftood Scripture and
Hiftory, as well sts yourfelves; and if my Judg-
ment concurs with them in this Point (^aslprofefs
it doth ) then have 1 found that lawful Supream
Authority which I fearched , and where this Autho-
rity is, there is Infallibility: Or if you can fhew me
Infallibility elfewhere, there alfb I am fure I will be-
lieve a fufticient Authority. The differences be^
tween them I cannot eafily difcern; Infallibility is
from^od, and therefore we believe what is diftat.-
ed thereby, as from God: Supream Eeclefiaflical
Authority is alfb from God, and therefore we o-
bey what it commands us, as the Ordinance of God.
Infallibility concludes our Reafons, and binds our
Confciences; Supream Church Authority binds alfb
our Confciences, and Superfedes all private Reafbm
Infallibility is above all humane Authority: The
higheft Church Authority can have no fuch Author
rity upon Earth above it. Infallibility eftabliflieth
and fupports Authority; Authority declares., and
makes manifeft the Infallibility, infallibility, and
D the
24 }
the Promifes of Chrift fail when Authority is dc-
ftroy'd: Authority lives not, when Infallibility ceai-
eth. In a word, were tliere no Infallibility (as I be-
lieve there is) I would ftill fubmit my Rea{bn,and
regulate my Confcience, according to the Decrees
of the Supream, lawful Ecclefiaiiical Authority;
This is my Belief, pray blame me not, \2S£ihnmble,
andliave reaA and upon my word, lam
Sincete, You may believe otherwife, I prcfume
not to Judge you.
After all this (worthy fathers) I muft not for-
get to tell you, that I flill lay under fome Diffi-
culties, before I could. tliroiighly alfent to this Au-
thority (now believ'd) in the Church of Rome: . Per
you had often told me, that She Iiad fallen from
her Primitizie Purify, zndfeparated her felf front that
One Holy Catholic^ and Apojlolic Church. AnEv. to
Prot. Quaeries p. lo. Declar'd alio to be Antichrijti-
an^ and the true Church Latent and Insviiihle^ by
that famous Napper to.KJng James, Bracard, Fulk, Ser
bafl. francm, Hofpinian, and many others.
Now, fathers, if She was once a pure, and
uncorrupted Church, 1 prefume She remains fg ftill;
for, give me leave to tell you, I do not well lee, how
She can leparate from herfelf, for Mr. Chi lit ngworth
(an Eminent Author among you) lookt upon it, as
a thing ridiculous, if not impoflible: for, lays he, In
theCaleof theChurchof EnglandWehave
not forfaken, hut only reformed another part of it (t«he
Catholic Church) which part, weourfehes are, and I
fuppofe,jou vcili not go about to perfrvade us, that xve have
forfaken our our own Communion. Nor
yet can She leparate from the Catholic Church ; for
the lame Learned perlbn tells us immediately after.
And
C )
And if you urge that rve joined our [elves to no other
fart^ therefore tverefeparated from the whole ; Ifay it fat-
lows not^ inafmtich as our felves were a part of it^ and Jlili
continued fo^ and therefore' can no more feparate from
the rvhcky than from our [elves.
But next, fuppofing a part may feparate from it
felf, or from the whole ? pray be plain with me,
worthy fathers., and tell me, where,that pa-rt., or
that whole remain'd, from whence the Church of
Rome feparated ? For Separation, firft fuppofes the
£xiftence of the thing, from which Separation is
made; and is a deadly fadlt and foretold by the
Apoftles, as amilchief which wdulddiappen iitthe
/«y?days. Remember ye the words'whkh were fpoken
before of the Apoflles., of our Lord [tfus Chrifi ; how
that they told yon., that there fhould be mockers in the
la (I time., who fhould walk after their own ungodly lufls',
thefe be they iv^£» Separated themfelves, fenfual, haV' 17,18,
ing not the Spirit. Let fss'.confider one another to pro-
voke unto love, and to good works., not forgetting the tteh.xo.ei,,.
ajfemlling our [elves together, and [0 much the more,
as ye [ee the day approaching. Alfo of your [elves ^^.'2020.
ffjsll men ari[e,[peaking perverfe things, to draw away
difiples after them. Now the Church of Rome '
was not only vifible, but a very Eminent Church ;
St. Paul tells us. That her faith is fpoken of through. Kcm.i..
out the whole World : And certainly, that pure Church
fi\ m which Slic Separated, muft needs be by' fb
much the z«cireEniinent,,as i-ier Apoftacy was no-
rorious^ which forfook her. Tell me therefore
where that pure Church remainM, that we may
retrieve the true Chriftian DoSFrine ? If fbe Sepa-
rated from herEei^-ihen fb^ides Mr.C^///Jartrwer,f
I add, thelei^ConcradiftionS miilb 'be yeciev'd as
D 2 Truths;
(2(5)
Truths: Tlie Church of Rome was at the (aifje
time, Orthodox, and Heterodox ; pure and corrupt':
founds but yet rotten : Or if you can diftinguiOi
them, fliew me the Orthodox, Pure, and Sound part,
which was left by the corrupt, and rotten
Church of Rome ; declare the time when the Sepa-
ration was made, and where hoth were to be found ?
Thele are /»toQueftions, and Imuft have sl plain
Anfwcr, if it can be had.
If you fay She Separated from the Catholic
Church; then tell me where that Catholic Church
remained from which She Separated, and where
She may be found ; for in good faith, Fathers, my
Salvation is highly concern'd in this Queftion, and
I muft be latislied. If you tell me She is invifible
(as others have done) you plainly abufc me ; for I
have long fmce learnt from your felves, as a Maxim
in Philolophy, that denon apparentihm, ^ non exi-
Jlentihus eadem efl ratio. It is the lame thing ȣi^ at
all to be, as not at all to appear. Befides, excule me, if
I take the word of our Saviour, and his Apoftles,
and all the Prophets in a hundred plain Texts (I
preliime) not unknown to your felves, rather than
your word in this Cafe. I profefs therefore, tho my
Reafbn is not able to cope with yours j yet Til fboner
fuffer my felf to be knockt down with a true Prote-
Jlant Flayl, than with fuch a Proteflant Anfrver.
If you fay the Catholic Church/(?//, and was cor-
ruptin JF^/V^and Manners; then 1 anfwetjthatChrifl
fail'd of his Promife, and fo good night ta Chri-
ftianity: If you fay the Catholic Church did not
fall, but kept the Unity of Faith and Vn~
corrupt, then I reply again, fhew mc where, and
how I may find her ? And from this reafbhable,
and
and important Requeft, you fha/l never beat me
whilftllive.
If you think fit to perfvvade me, that the Church
of Komt feparated from the Church of EngUniy and
that the Church of Engl Ami and ever hAth been
apart (atleaft) of the Catholic Church which aU
ways prefervM the Faith entire, and uncorrupt;
make it appear to mc, f4r^erj,.and I mofthearti-
ly promife to become the moft humble and obedi-
ent Subje^ that ever liv'd under any Government.
But I forefee many Difficulties which I fear will
prove invincible; as firft, Itis evident, that you fe-
parated from the Church of Rome^ and that with-
in thefe few years; and to prove that ffie feparat-
ed from you, will be (I doubt) no eafie Task, nor
have I yet feen it done. Next, That you were in-
volved in the fame pernicious Errors with her,.
ever fince Au^ufiin the Monk , above a Thpufand
years fmce: If my Computation be falfe, blame your
own Authors; and re£tihc my Judgment.
Now, how you fliould rife a pure Church, after
having been buried fb many Hundred years in a cor-
rupt Church, I do not eafily underfland. I hive
heard indeed of fbme Rivers, that have fallen into
the Earth, and rifen up; again, many Miles off; and
of others, which for many Miles in the .Sea, have
Rill - retain'd the natural fweetnefs of their own
frefh Waters; If thefe comparifbns may hold in
Religion, yet how will you make them qua-
drate with the conjlant vifihility^ and Demonftration
in one cafe, and the Succeffion of the Original
Stream in the other, if you fay that that the Ca-
thoYiO. Q\mrch.\vdiS invifibky or totally fein
If you pretend to derive your Authority from
the
(^8;
the Church of Rome, when She was in her Purity
and Perfedfion ; let me tell you, here will be a very
long Preicription againft you ; and I know not how
your foftlitnintmn can take place in thiis cafe :
But if it would, you muft be reftor'd by an A£l:
of the fame Supream Authority : you own^d her;
you htld of her ; yoti reciev*d your Dodtrine, and
your Orders from her: Befides ^ashath been laid)
She could by no means grant away her Authority
independent from her 5 Ihew me that lawful Aii-
thority which reftorM you, and I fubmit: Shew me
your extraordinary Calling by thofe Marks appoint-
ed, and pradtis'd in fuch Cafes, both under the Old
and Ntrv to our own Century (I mean/«;;-
doubted Miracles, and I acquielce. '
If you tell me, no time can prefcribe againft Di-
vine Truth ; nor is Authority necelfary to reform an
Error: In a general Senle,! grant hot h. but the Quefti-
on here, is,'concerning Truth, and Hrro# tl^etwfelv-es;
No body doubts, but.that a Divine Truth is
lobe reciev'd, and a certain Error to be avoided ;
but we are now ieeking for that Authority which
fhall declare this Truth, and fet forth this Error. -Er«
ror or Sin, is the breach of a Law , for 'without
the Law, Sin is dead f "whence St. Paul fays, Thatr
he had not known Lujl, except the Lat^ had [aid, thou
jhalt not covet. Now, as Sin fuppofes a Law, fo
Law requires an Authority : And as the one, fo the
other muft be yifible. And to fliewthat this Au-
thority is abfolutely necelfary, we find our Saviour
giving it to his Apoftles, and themfelves exerci-
ling, and recommending it to others; lb S. Paul
adviles7/>/Af, Tofpeak, exhort, and rebuke with AxxthO'
rity.
•But
('<■9)
But wliat need Inftances of this kind ? OurvSa-i
viour hath left us Law of f which in fbme of
the moft neceffary Points, is not clear and felf-
Evident; whence theof old ('Men of great-
Learning) denied the Trinity, and Divinity of our
Saviour; and they made a very cohfiderablcBisir;
Authority condemn'd them, and interpreted the
Law, in thole Cales, according to our prelentOr-
thodox Faith. L\\QSocima»s, and Antitrinitarians
rebel againft it to this day, and are neither un-
learned, nor inconfiderable^ Luther ttWsus^ That
Chrifl if aSdvioitr of vile-, and litthworth^ and wanted
hmfelf aSattoHr^ ChrifiudilleviUs^nec wagni^reti'^ Sal- Cotnfef.Mi].
'vaicr efl \ immo Ipfe quoque Salrjatoreogu-shabet. And,
that his Divinity fuffeTd for us: fertinacifflme
me pugnabant^ quod Divinitas Chrijli pati non poffit.
He tells us further, That good Works are hurtful
Salvation, and that Faith doth not JuJlifie, except it be,
even, without the leafi good Works^. Calvin alio, and
Beza, That Chrijl fufeF d in his Soul the pains of the^'^^""^ sur^.y.
damned, tiiat he prayed unadvifedly, and was dijlurpd
in his Senfes; That the Divine Subjlance, is (not
wholly in three Perfbns, but^ diflinB really, and truly,
from Everlajltng, into three Perfons, and that there
be three Divinities, as there he three Perfons. Me- v,
lan£t. in loco Com, c. de Chriflo; Beza'x ConfeJJionp. i.
Anno Dom. I Calvin in AT. Serveti. Whence
Neuferns (a Learned Cdvinijl, and chief Paftor at
Htidelburg) revolting firft to Arianifm, ancl thence to
Mahometanifm, writ to Gerlachim (a P-roteftant Prea-
^tomConfiantinoplefuly 2. i 574. laying, A^fl;2e
is knojvn to me in my time made anArian,nho was not frfl
a Calvinif:; and then names feveral fuch perfons:
That Cod is the KMuthorof Sin, moving, inclining, and .
forcing
J o
foTcing the Will of msinto Siffj Calvin Injlit, /.i. c,i8.
*ndl.2.c.^f. Titiingl and feveral of ourEmi-
nent Englifh Reformers, concur with them, in moft
of thefe blafphemous, and heretical Opinions.
Now, Fathers, if thele Inftances, with many o-
thers ('which I abhor to mention^ be not fufficient,
and weighty enough, to require a Supream Judge
to determine the right Faith, and to condemn, and
filence the wrong; then look nearer (at home a-
mong your lelves) and if all cannot prevail with
you to believe, That the Law wanted a Judge, and
that therefore Chrift was plealed, in his Wifdom,
and Goodnefs to leave us Judges, as long as he in-
tenRed his Law fliould be in force : Then pray excufe
• me, if my Reafon, and P/e/7, and thertwre;?^
tion which I have of a Juft God, and a Merciful
Saviour; totally force my Judgment and Conlci-
ence to dhfent from you in this particular ; and
let us proceed.
If you fay the Church of Rome ufurpt upon you ;
I anfwer, (if fiich a thing was,) -It was in Difapline
only, and External Government ; and that but in
fomepartictriars, with which I meddle not: If you tell
me a ftory of the Abbot of Bangor; I anfwer, the
particular ground of it is evidently falfe, and
for^d; and at beft (all circumhances confider'd )
ol little confe^itence. The plain Truth is this ; The
Brittains received theChriftian Faith, even in the
days of the Apoftles: But (being perfecuted at home
by the Romans,Pibis,2ind Saxons Religion fled to the
Mountains, and bordering parts of Wales. At the
fame time, the Church of Rome, nolefsafflid-
ed by the Heathen Emperours; and no wonder,,
if in thefe days, and circumftances, there, was but
httle
wd
(3' )
Jittle Correfpondence between Rome and fl'^ales.
But when the Church (brought forth from her
fubterraneous Refuges, and let upon a Hill,) began
to enlarge her leltj and propagate the Gofpel, ac-
cording to the Commands of our ^yaviour, Go ye
an A Preach unto all Nations : Gregory the Great, lent
Attguftin the Monk into England, (Ibmewhat before
the yeat Six Hundred^^io fee bow Matters went here
in this long interval of filence , and diftraftions.
In Ihort, the j8r/>/4/w knew him not (and no Won-
der) until he liad confirm'd his Commiffion by
Miracles, and fuch, as none yet ever denied. The
great Errors which he found among them, were
chiefly, ti^o ; Their Afiatic Error, concerning the
keeping of Eajler; and dilTent from the ule of the
Roman Church in the adminijlring of Baptifm:
And altho in fome other Matters, they differ'd from
the Church of Rome ; yet Augufiin promiled to to~
lerate thofe, provided, they would redlifie the/e,
which the Brittijh Bifliops conlented to, and con-
feifed. That it tvas the right xvay of fujlice^ andrighte-
oufnefs which Auftin taught. * ^91 his tribus mihi ob-
* temperare vultis, ut Fafcha fuo tempore celehretis ;
* ut minifierium Baptizandijuxtamorem Rom. & Apofi.
'■ Ecclefi<£ compleatis ; Ut genti Anglorum, una nobif-
' cum praedicetis Verbum DominijCwtera, quae agitis,
'quamvis Moribus noftris contraria, aequanimiter
' cunfta tolerabimus: Cum Brittones confitentur,
* Intellexifle le, Tjeram ejfe viam JuJliti^ quam praedi-
* caret Auguftinus. BetUHifi. 1.2. c.z. Hence *we
raayobferve, That the two great faults which
uftin found with the Brittains,, were, about Eajhr
- and Baptifm ; that the Brittains, at firft, highly
opposM this Innovation , but, that in all other
E Suh-
,(?»)
Subjlantials^ they agreed. That Aujl 'tn Is feverely ac-
cus'd for bringing into EngUnd the Popijh Superftiti'
on^ and all other Points- by name, controverted be-
tween us at this day, is plain, from neer twenty E-
minentProteftant Authors, both 2X heme abroad.
And that theBrittifliBifhops,did not except againft
any of thele,fave only Eajler, and Baptifhi, is confeft.
Now, after all this, can we believe that the Brit-
tains,who earneflly contradifted Aujlin in thefe fmal.
ler Points, and werefb tenacious of their own Cu.
ftoms, would have filently xQCAQVO^fomany, and im-
com^2iX2^\y much greater Points of Faith, had they in
likemanner diiagreed from him therein ?CredatJu-
d^u4 Apella. The confequence which I draw from all
this, is, that the fameDobtrines (thefe two Points
excepted) which Auff in taught the Saxons, had been
delivered to the Brittains, from the Apofilts : If you
underftand otherwife, I fhall be glad to be better in-
formed ; Or, if you can give us a better Authority
than venerable Bede, you will do well to produce ir.
In the mean time, when we confidef the great
Learning, and Holinefs of St. Gregory, lb efteem'd by
all fbber men ; the Piety of Aufiin himfclf, and of
Bede (who writes the Story) He mufi be a bold man,
who { without better proof tlian I have hitherto
feen) dares accufe the'b three great Perron3,and t' e
whole Chriftian World, at that time of Idolatry,
and all thofe other damnable Crimes, then taught,
of which you arepleafed to fay, theChurch of Rome
at prefent is guilty^ If you go higher, and ob-
je£t a Letter of Pope Eleutherius to King I
demur.
But, I take it for grjnted, that thefe old Argu^
mov\X.^,2iX:z thredbare, and will not hold Water.;
other-
(^i)
orherwife, 1 would humbly adv^ife you, to infifl:
totally upon them ; for if you can make out your
Lawful, Supream, Independent Authority, in determi-
ning Matters of Faith without Jpped •, trouble not
your lelves, nor abufe your Friends withSophifti-
cal, Artificial Pamphlets ; about Judges znd Guides
in Controverftes ; Reafon and Senfe, again ft Faith
2Lnd Obedience ; and, I know not what, to that pur-
pofe; but fiick dole to your 'Authority, make it out
plain, and you carry all before you.
. In good earneft, Reverend Fathers, I fee but one
way how you'i evade thefe Dififcuities which prefs
hard upon you, and it is this ; That you have an In-
fallible Rule, Gods Holy Word, containing all things
neceflary to Salvation . And Mr. Chillingworth tcils
us p. 92, The Scripture is a Rule, as,fufficientlyFer-
fe6l, fo, [iifficiently Intelligible, in things necejfary', to
all that have underjlanding, whether learned or unlearn-
ed. Now, if xFq Scripture be a Guide and a Judge,
as well as a Rule, Then have you been to blame all
this while that you have not told us particularly,
where the Catholic Church was; for certainly,
where the Bible is, and where all men that have un~
derjlanding, whether learned, or unlearned, by reading
it, hold all things necefiary to Salvation, there the
Catholic Church is, whether at Rome, or in London:
and I will not believe fb ill of any, who, in fuch Cafe,
read the Scripture, as to imagine that they wilfully
oppofe a Truth, which is clear to them ; and Mr.Chil-
lingworthteXhme p. 567. That Believing all that is
clear to me in. Scripture, I mujl needs believe all Funda-
mentals, and fo I cannot incur Herefie, which is oppofite
to fome Fundamental. In a word, wherefbever there
is, or was a Bible, and a Man of underjlanding, whe-^
E 2 ther
(u)
ther leay/tedy or uftUar/ted, that read it; there wis a
certain number of the true Catholic Church, pure^
and uncorrMpt: For the fame hand again tells us,
p. loi. The Scripture fufficiently informing me what
is Faith, mujl aljh of necejjitj teach me what is Herefie ;
that which is fraight, will plainly teach m what is
crooked: So here is not only a Member, but (accord-
ing tomy underftanding) theReprefentative of the
whole Catholic Church ; /or here is Authority znd
Infallibility, and further than that, Ifeek not. But
if the holy Bible be a certain Rule, but withal, that
this T erf on of underftanding whether learned or unlearn-
ed, be not fufEciently qualified to find out certainly
all things neceffary to Salvation ; and of necefjity to
teach what Herefie is ('and I confefs I fhrewdly fufpeft,
that there may be many in the World, who can-
not, with a wet Finger, perform all thisj then are
we to ieek again for a Judge and an Authority; and
are got no further than .we were fixteen Hundred
years fince,when the Scripture was firflacknowledg-
ed to be the Word of God.
But to do Jufticef worthy Fathers) to you, and to
myfelf, let us further conCiditT, thefe, and many o-
ther feeming Abfurdities, which appear (at firft
fight^ fuch furprifing Dodrines, that they make a
Man gape, and fiare, as if he were Thunder ftruck,
or had lome ffrange Apparition. Why truly your
great Champion (the Learned Chillingworth) brings
you ftillofii with flying Colours ; Tl give you his
own Excellent words in p. 102. Where he fays,
For, me to believe further this or that to be the true
fenfe of feme Scriptures ; or to believe the truefenfe of
them, and to avoid the falfe, is not necefj'ary either
to my Faith, or Salvation ; for if God would have h id
bis
(??)
3 meamng m thefe places certainly knoivn^ hom couldit
(land with hie JVifdom, to be tvanting to his own Will^
^ US, and End, as to/peak ohfcurely ? Or how can it confiji with
his J/fJlice to require of Men to know certainty the
meaning of thcfe words, which he himfelf hath not re-
waled? p. 18. For my Error, or Ignorance in what is
Kcrd- not plainly contained in Scripture, after my bejl endea-
oftlie wur ufed, to fay, that God will damn me for fuch Er-
rors, who am a lover of Him, and lover of Truth, is,
£iit to rob Man of his Comfort, and God of his Goodnefs, is,
I, tllit to make Man defperate, and God a Tyrant. But he goes
km- on p. 92. The Scripture is a Rule, as fufficiently Per-
'Uklj fe6l, fo fufficiently Intelligible, in things Ikcejj'ary, to
fttfti all who have under (landing, whether learned, or un-
ifpeft, learned \ neither is any thing neceffary to be believed,
\ ca/). but what is plainly reveal'd j for to fay, that when a
n are place in Scripture, by reafon of ambiguous Terms, lies
indifferent between divers Senfes, whereof one is true
liinired and the other falfe, that God ohligeth men under pain
of damnation, not to mijlake through Error, and hu-
mane Frailty, is, to make God a Tyrant, and to fay,
lodtO ihat he requires of us certainly to attain that End,.
10^ 0 for the attaining whereof, we have no certain mea-is
,t'M What an eafie, compendiotis, and certain Rule of
lakea faith is this?
[fuci', But before we proceed, let us confider what our
jouf Author underftands by— His meaning in thefe places^-
fpeaking obfcurily- plainly contain d in Scripture
jlji things - nectffary.—-ambiguous Terms lying indifferent
between divers Senfes. By all whichhe leemsto iofi-
fut nuate, that there may be fome ambiguous Terms in;
P Df Scripture,^ which, becaufe they are not plain to every
y Underftanding, therefore not ficcelljaryto be truly
y luiderftoodand Ixe-lleuM. -
IP Indeed;
Indeed had he told us, what was not ambiguous,
and.what not neceffary, he had made our work
much fhorter. I lliall prefiime therefore to reduoe
the Queftion; and affirm, that if he means any
thing by all this, he muft mean the whole New
Tejlament to be ambiguous; for let him fhew rre
-any one Text of Dodrine from thQ frJl^ of St. Mat-
4hew to the lafl of the Revelations (the Moral Law,
and the Law of Nature only excepted) which he
thinks to be the moft clear; and I will produce
whole Bodies of learned Chriftians, wliodifpute it,
and believe contrary to one another in it. If lo, then
it 2L^^Q2iX^demonJlrably, and by matter of that
all is ambiguous^ and by confequence every Man is
fafe, in the Belief of the moft oppofite Doftrines, if
he uleth his beft Endeavours (to which alio he hath
given a great Latitude) to underftand it aright: For
lays he. By my bejl endeavour, I mean, fuch a meafure of
induflry, as humane Prudence, and ordinary Difcretion
(my abilities and opportunities, my difiradtions, and
hindrances, and all other things conjidePd') marry, and
a great confideration it is ; jhall advifemeunto, in a
matter of fuch confequence. Chill, p. i8.ip.
The whole Senle (as far as it concerns my purpole)
runs thus. There arelbme ambiguous'Xttms which
lie indifferent between divers Senles, whereof one
is true, and the other" falfe ; but if a Man of un~
derfianding, whether learned, or unlearr^d, ules his beft
endeavour to underftand them (that is, by reading
.Scripture) he will fajely Err, or., not Err at all, or
elle. Cod is a Tyrant. That there are ambiguous
Terms, is moft certain; for we find man^ moft
Learned, Pious Men, differing from, and contradi-
fting one another in moft Points, generally repu-
ted
(il)
ted Fundamental. That, in Fundamentals,
no man can iafeiy Err, becaufe it is of the Effence
©f Chrifts Church, to hold the Unity "of Faith, in
Fundamentals, uncorrupt. And Laftly, .Moft Chri-
ftians are inclined td believe, that God is no Tyrant.
Our Author, from his own Promiles, and by what
hath been already faid, feems evidently to draw
this Conclufion ; that foffibly and 'very probably^ a
Man may fafely Err in Fundamentals, or God muft
be a Tyrant. Now, for my part, when I read his
excellent Works, lately^ and fomeyears fwce, I always
drew from the fame Premiies a moft dtjferent Conle-
quence ; that is, That fince there are ambiguous
Terms in Points highly Fundamental, therefore,
left we fhould damnably Err in thele, or, more
think God to be a Tyrant, I concluded, that
God, in hisWifdom and Goodnefs, had certainly
leftuslbvne infallible^'viftble Authority^ which might
unerringly deliver to us, xh^trne Senfe of thele am-
bignousTerms,
Now befides the ftrong Evidences which we have
from Scripture to believe this; As for Ej^ample,when
our Saviour fays, Go ye into all the World, and Preach
the Gofpel to every Qreature,He that believeth, and
baptized jhall be faved, but he that believeth not jhall
he damned. As thou hajl fent me into the world, e- i2.
ven fo have lalfo fcnt them into the world. And again, ^ ^
God hath fet fome in the Church, frfi Apojiles, Secon-
darily Prophets, Teachers, after that ^iira-
ties, then gifts of healing'-, helps,Governments, di^ Ephef.i^^.-iu.
vcrjities of Tongues: bo alfo. And he gave fome Apo-
(lies, fome Prophets, fome Evangeli(ls, and fome Pa^
fiors Teachers. And Laftly, that this Authori-
ty was to continue to t he End of the W-ord. - AIL
power
( ?8 )
power is given unto me in H^Aven, and, in Karth^
fih. go ye therefore and teach all Nations^ teaching them
to obferve ad things tvh'atfoever I have commanded yoUy
andloj lam with you always, even unto the End of
of the World: \ ^2iy beftdes this\ and much more to
thispurpofe, let all fbber Chriftians witnefs for me,
whether it be not more piousy more raticmaly more
comfortable to our felveSy and refpe£lful to Gody to con-
dude as I have done; that God hath left us fuch
an Authority (efpecially hnce fuch an Authority,
with good Reafbn, offers it fclf to us) than to agree
with our Author, That either God is a Tyrant,or, we
may lafely Err in-Fundamentals ?
^ince therefore from our Authors own Premiles
(notwithftanding the weight and plainnefsof them)
I fliould have rhade fo contrary a Conclufion ; it
may happen, that in reading the Bible, we might
makd as different Interpretations; and whilft he be-
lieves Jefus Cbrift to be the Sou of God, Confubfianti^
aly and Ecf^ual with the Father, as to his Divinity; I
may affirm Chrift to be meer Man, and only Divine-
lylnfpired. . Such things I have heard of; but it
may be, worthy Fathers, you may not think this a
neceflary Point; then indeed, this Inftance would be
impertinent.
But we muft not thus leave our admirable Au-
thor; for from this his well confider'd Doctrine,
we may obferve,
I. That according to this Rule, there can never
beSchifm, or Hcrefie in the World, until a man
can divide from himfelf-, or, a man, condemning
himfelf, obfiinately ftand out againft his clear Evi-
dence of Scripture, and fb fin wilfully, and without
excnfe; and in this laft PointBifhop and
Dr. StiHingfleet
(JM
Dr. Still, ufianimoafly concu^S^ith our Author.
'Now believing in Charity, that theft wonders have
ftldora, or never hapned, therefore I ought to con-
dude, that St. Paul miftook when he laid. There i cor.
fhufi be Hen fie s among jou , and St. 'John much to
blattle when he wrote his Gofpel (many years after .
the death of our Saviour) againft the Herefies of E-
bion^ znACerinthus.
iz. That all Men of underftanding, whether
learned, or unlearned, are in the dired: road to Hea-
ven , and found Members of the true Catholic
Church, provided they be lovers of God, and of
Truth, and follow their own Senft of Scripture,
althothey differ in fome of the mo ft Fundamental
Points of Faith. Now (befides the extravagancy
of this Opinion ingencralj it ftcms particularly le-
yellM againft the poor Papifts, becaufe they often ^
fubmittheit own private Interpretations (with great ''
realbn) to the Judgment, and Interpretation of the
church : But if this be lb damnable a fault in Papifts,
pray take cSre not to exa£l this refignation from your
own Subjeds; and lb farewel to Authority.
3. And Laftly, That there are fome ambiguous
Terms which lie indiftdent between divers Senles,
whereof the one is true,and theother falft; This, we
readily grant, for the truth of it is lb manifeft that
there is never a Point in the Chriftian Faith, how-
ibever by you, and us efteem'd Fundamental, but
hath been denied by whole Bodies of Learned Men ;
who I as you doj made Scripture their Rule. But when
you tell us, further, that the true Senle of them is
not necelfary to Faith, or Salvation ( for if God
would have haoi his meaning in thefe places certainly
known^ why (houU be /peak obfcurelyY) Then raethinks,
F Fathers^
FatherSy you not only make the Apoftles write Imper-
Unentlyy and to no purpole; but you have brought
all forts of Se£taries, Schifinatics, and Heretics Cif
anyfuch have been) and alfo the T«r^y themfelves
(provided they read the Scripture) within the Pale of
the Chriftian Church : Nay, more, you have made
them in fiich Cafe, -equal with the beft true Mem-
bers in it. And indeed if the good wifhes, and
prayers of owrTeckelites might prevail as much on
one fide ; as the Principles of your Champion, have
capacitated the on the other fide; I know no
reafon they have to defpair of feeing the Cathedral
of St. FW, Coniecrated bytheM«/i/ ot Mahomet,
By this time, molt Reverend Fathers, 1 fhould think
that you, as weU asmyfelf, fhould be very weary
of this Learned Author. Being fixt therefore to my
Authority, and the more^ from the Eminent danger
of his loofcy and pernitious Principles, I am refblved,
that nothing fhall move me, except the abfupd and
monjlrous F)oBrine of Tranfubfidnt 'ution (sls you are
pleas'd to call it) may have of it felf force enough
to ruine, and: overturn fb fblida Foundation.
REMARKS
f4r)
REMARKS
Upoa fome late
DISCOURSES
€ .
' L
AGAINST
'Cranfttb^autktiou.
IMuft coiifeE that this great Point feem'd
the moft difficult to me, of any that are
Controverted between the two Churches:
and for thefe Reafbns ; Pirfi^ becaufe I
did not rightly apprehend the Catholic
Explication of the A^r^r^/Body of Chriff:
in the Sacrament. Becaufe (fromthis miE
underftandingof mine) I believed that the Body of
Chriff being in two places, at the fame time,imply'd
a contradidion, which I fiippos'd the Omnipotency
of God could not fupport. And laffly, becaufe I
thought the Fathers had been exprefs againft this
Dodrine.
I apply'd my felf to the reading of Controver-
fies ; and difcourfing with fbme Learned Men, on
both fides; and found f fi from the Catholics,
That altho they Profcfs and Believe the Natural Bo-
dy of Chriff to be 2in^fubfiantiAlly in the Sa-
cramenf, yet they tell us, That, itisnpt there aft^
Fa a
(A^
a Natural manner, as it was upon the Earth, or upon
the Crofs, but after a Spiritual^ Supernatural, anc^ Vri'
bloody vtigiTvn&c. Secondly^ That it is indeed a-Con-
tradition to fay a Body is here, and here at
the fame time : but to fay that the Glorified Body of
Chriff,- may be by acccident, and by the power of
God, in many places, or ubi^s at the fame time, is fb
far from aContradiQiion, that it gives it not a more
fovereign Exiffence, than what we allow to Angels,
or to the Soul in a Mans Body, which altho it be a
Subffance, is yet really, fubftantially and at the
fame time, totally in the Finger of a Man, and totally
in his foot, and totally in every part, and yet totally in
the whole Body, tota in toto, & tota in qualibe parte^
And Laftly, for the fathers, I found in them, not
only moft plain, demonftrable, and Invincible
Authorities atferting the Real Prefence of Chriftin
tlie Sacrament after a fubftantial manner ; but al-
fb, that thpfe very Citations produc'd by Prote-
ftants to deftroy this Do<9:rine of the Real Pfe-
fence, were mOft of them (if not all) fb fully an-
fvver'd, or fb agreable to the Catholic Faith, that
if any of them remained ftill obfcure, there want-
ed not twenty plain places to Interpret them by; But
more of thele hereafter.
Here I confider*d the Protefiant Arguments a-
gainfl'this DoQirine of Tranfubftantiation , and
found them generally difiatisfaftory, and infuffici-
ent ; ■ chiefly upon this account, that they brought
continually the faraeObje^fliioiTis,-which thd-tliey had
b^en anfwer^d a hundred times over by Catholics
■(both Ancient and Mpdern) yet I found no Reply to
thefe Anf\vers, -br at Fucll as handled thofe
which were-nmft material; fbtli^ Fperceiv'd they
danc'c
(A^
daxig't always in a Ring, without advancing a fi-ep
towards a iubftantial and convincing Demonftra-
lion. At laft I was recominended to a late Dif-
Tnnfubftanthtm, which treating parti-
Ciilarly of that Subjed ; and being wrote (as I was
inforiji'd) by an Eminent Proteftant Divine, I re-
folv'd to pitch upon that, and from thence take
my Meafures, how far I ought to receive this great
Catholic Doftrine. I read it over and over with
great attention, and before I fpeak particularly of
any thing contained in it; I think it Juft to give
this Charafter of it in general, viz. that it 'feems to
be writ without Modtfiy., Chanty., Sincerity., or Good
Manners. Without In that a private Per-
fbn, upon prefumption of his own Parts,.and Learn-
ing, fhall dare to ridicule lb great a Myftery of
the Chriftian Religion (1 Ipeak of the Real Pre-
fence of Chrift in the Sacrament, according to the
Do^ine of Catholics, and Lutherans, excluding
at pref&nt the Mode (as they term it) or Manner,
Tranfubilantiation) and this Doftrine own'd, and
profeft not two Hundred years fiqce, generally
through the Chriftian World, and at prefent, by
at leaft eight parts, in ten; and amongft thek
Ibme perions extreamly above him in Place ,and
Authority ; and tlioufands (for ought we know)
equal, if not above him, in Learning, Piety, and
Realbn; Thus I fay to ridicule, and burlefque lb
great a Do^frine of the Chriftian Faith, is rnucb
more dangerous, and Icandaious to the Chriftian.
Religion,than that finpd,4hfMr'*d and monflrou^TXch
clrine (as lie calls it) againft which he writes.
For my part, I profeft, if ib many Meo of Senfe
and Realon, and theft improv'd to the heigUt
by
-by Study and Learning, may not only be decelv'd
in fo great a Point ot Religion; but miftaken e-
ven to folly^ wadnefs, non-jenfe, and ContrAdt^ion;
I know not what will become of Chriftianity it
felf; for if thefe can fo grofly Err, in Matters
which are as equally Evident (upon all accounts)
to theirSenfc andReafon, astotheSenfe and Rea--
fbn of any other; I am lure a Man is much lels
lecure in trufting to thisfingle Dilcourfer, or any be-
longing to him ; and lb farewel to Both.
But Secondly, It is without for fince he
Bath made (as he thinks) the Catholic Doftrine lb
demonftrably falfe and abfur'd ; all Catholics who
believe it, (tho never fo Learned, Honeft and Idous)
muft be either KjtAvts or tools.
Thirdly, Without Sincerity, becaufe all his ma-
terial ObjeSfions (and many more) have been Print-
ed formerly above Seventy years fince : And Lately,
within thefe Seventeen years, by Catholics^ them-
lelves ; with their Subltantial Anfwers to them.
Now to have dealt fincerely, he ought to have re-
plied to thefe Anfwers, which would have let us
forward, and drawn us to fbme Point; and not have
run round, as in a Magical Circle, without ever en-
deavouring to break through the infatuation of De-
luded Realon.
And next, to have dealt SV>;fere^, he ought not
to have produc't a fcrap of a Sentence from a Fa-
ther, and left out thofe immediate preceeding, or
fiicceeding Words which explicated the whole Senfe.
For Infl:ance,His firft is {som JuJlin Martyr, whom he
produces faying, thefe Words ; Our Blood and Fkjb
are nourijhed^ by the Converfion of that Food which we
receive in the ^charijl^ p. 11. Etlit the whole Sentence
runs
■
runs thus ; For we do not receive this as common
Breadj or common Drink^ but as by the Word of God.
"Jefus Chrijl our Redeemer, being made Man, had both
Fltfj and Blood for the fake of our Salvation ; '^ujl fo
are we taught, that That Food over which Thanks are
fiven by Prayers, in his own Words, and whereby our
Mood, and Fltfh are by a change nourijhed, Is the
Flefh and Blood of the Incarnate Jcfus: For the A-
poflles in the Commentaries written by them, caWd the
Gofpels, have recorded that Jefsss fo commanded them.
This 1 think altogether, makes little for our Dili
courier; efpecially if he had been fincere enough to
have told us, how the Fathers generally,as
Cyril, Chryfojl. Greg. Nyjf. and others expound the
nourifhment of the Body, and as fhall be fliewn
hereafter. So alio he quotes Theodoret, faying,
The myfiical Sjmbol's after Confecration, donotpafsout
of their own Nature, for they remain in their former
Suhjlance, Figure, and Appearance : And may be ften,
and handled p. i g. Theoderet goes on ; The myjlical
Signs are under flood to be that which they are made,
and they are believed and ador'd as being thofe very
things, which they are believed. Now if they may
be adored, I fuppofe they mean fbmewhat more
than Signs and Figures; or elle the Adoration of
holy Images is more Ancient, than Proteftants have
hitherto allowed; And had our Difcourfer been
Sincere, he might have told us, how the Catholics
interpret all this, to be moft confiftent with their
Faith, and confuted them if he could.
But Fourthly , His Difcourfe is writ without
CoodManners, for (fetting afide his difrefpeSt to a
Religious Duty) methinks when he knewfb many
Princes, K^ngs, Emperors, Bijhops, Metropolitans,
Patriarchs, and nioft Learned Men of all Sorts, re-
ceived this Do£lrihe of the Real Prelence, and
Traftfubftantiation ; he ought to have lorborn fuch
words as Im^pudoice. p. 2. Noofenfe p. 24. Monjler
of Tranfuhflantiation p. 25. Monjlrom infupfortab'.y
ahfur^d fi'npidity of this Doctrine p. ^ 5. Ahfur^d and
Senfelefs Doctrine, Legerdemain and Jngling Tricks
of Falfhood and Irnpo^ire, Hoctts Pocus, a cheat and
footi^ Dottrine p. 54. But here the Difcourfer is
very angry j and indeed Fathers, I fliould evert frorii
hence Ihrewdiy fufpcQ: that our Difcourfer is no
true Son of the Church of England, for they are ge-
nerally more moderate and civil; but we fhall haX'"e
further occafion to fpeak of this hereafter : In the
mean time I thought fit to take thus much no-
tice of thefe things; that we might confider whe-
ther fiich a Writer (notwithftanding ail his Magi-
fterial dallies) be probably endued with that Chri-
. fiian humble Temper, which we might expeO; from
a Do£l:or of Chrifts Church, pretending alio (with-
' out other Miracles than his wonderful Reafon) to
reform almofl: the whole Chriftian World ; but let
us fee whether his good Reafbns will make us amends
by giving us fbme better Satisfaction.
Several Impertinences, and Quibbles appear in
many parts of his Difcourfe ; as for Inftahce : He
proves in p. 4. That a Sacrament may be inftituted
by figurative Expreflions, becaufe a Sacrament is a
Figareit felf of Jome Invi{ibkGrace,drc. Now I had
always thought, that a Man might deliver a Sign
or Figure, exhibiting fome Invifible kindnefs in the
moft plain and literal Terms, that pollibly could
be invented; for Example, I am perfwaded the
Difcourfer might have exhibited or deliyer'd, his
Pamphlet
!. f 47 )
,d Pamphlet, or PlQiiire (which are Figures of his
:h ' Mind, or Perfon) as a Token of his love to his Friend
» in a moft plain Jitteral Speech, without the necefli-
i\) ty of a figurative Sentence, except for the fake
mi of his Quibble : For my part, I think the delive-
ids ry of a Figure, or anything elfe, is beft in plain
ini words. But then the Pains hetakes, and Wit that is
r is fpent, firft to obtrude upon Catholics the falfe Be-
roin hef of a Miracle (according .to* his acceptation of a
no Miracle) and then to laugh at his ownjeft; foge-
gj. ther with the power of the Priefl: in being able to
-work fo great a Miracle^ as to make God. Pag-
illie is reilly fuch Stuff, as certainly he never defign'd
no- for any other ufe, than to rub the itching Ears of
I'lie- the moft illiterate among the Vulgar. I confefs,
3gi, Fathers., it workt no good effeft upon me, nor ne-
;]ai, ver will (1 fhould think) upon any fober Chri-
ftian ; for every body fure underftands his Fallacy
'•[yjfli. concerning the power of the Priefl:, and his Mi-
[]j tQ racles. But inflead of that, had he replied to fbme
fblid Difcourfe of Catholics, concerning the Do-
pjodj Qirine of the Sacrament it felf, I know not how far
the Authority, which my Reafbn had fixt in the
jj jg Church of Rome, would have fupported me againft
his Argutherfts.
Having thus feparated the loole Accidents of his
Difcourfe from the more fiibftantial part; I will
now examine that as far,as is neceffary, according
to the beft afhftance of my impartial Reafbn and
Underftanding ; and fhall follow him according to
his own Method,
jljg He fiippofes five Grounds or Reafons, for the Do-
ftrine of Tranfubftantiation, or the Real Prefence
( according to a literal Senfe ) which he' pretends
G to
(48)
to confute: The firft is from t\\Q Authority of Serif
ture^ and (among other things as little to the purpole^
he tells us ^p.-j.That he doth not believe my fenftble Man^
7vho had never heard of Tranfubjlantiation being ground-
ed upon thefe words. This is myBoJy, would upon
reading the Injlitution of the Sacrament in the Q of pel e-
ver have imagined any fuch thing to be meant by our
Saviour in thofe words ; but would have underfiood his
meaning to have beenhis Bread fignifes my Bo- f
dy, See. And do this for a memorial of me : Where f
you may obferve, worthy J, that he excludes |
alfo the Real Prefence in a litteral fenfe (as fhall .
be fliewn hereafter He goes on: But fur e it would
never have entred into any Mans mind, to have thought
that our Saviour did literally, hold himfelf in hU J
hand, and gave away himfelf from himfelf with his j
own hands. Now altho 1 dare not pretend to inter- ?
pret all Scripture ( a lawful fuflicient Interpreter j
being'the thing I look for) yet, fince he hath put
the Cafe, I prefiime to fay thus much ; That if a |
ienfible Turk, or Pagan, who had never heard of
the great Myfteries of Chriftianity, fhould feri- [
Gufly read the New Tefiament; pofTibly he would |
not have underftood thefe words. This is my Body,
in a literal ienfe; neither do I think iie would
ever have eftabiifht the Doffrine of theHypoftati-
eal Union ; The Confubftantiality of the Son ; ^
The Trinity; Predeftination and Free-will; with
many other Myfteries of Chriftian Religion (efpe- !
cially if he were govern'd only by his humane i
Reaibn, as our Difcourfer feems to be) and yet all
this while he might have had a great efteem of I
the moral part, and have believed Chrift a Per-
fon divinely infpired: For my part, I fear I llaould
ne-
(49)
never have overcome thefe Difficulties upon my
% own ftrength ; and yet I believe the Trinity as firm-
fpolt ly, as I believe there is a God. Whether the Difi
■Mm courier doth lb or not, I cannot lay : But luppo-
pw fing a Man already well grounded in the Chrifti-
f an Religion, and having heard that the Dodrine
of the Real Prefence, had been believed, in a lite-
ral fenle, by the greateft part of mofl: Learned, and
Pious Chrirtians through all Ages; And, that the
Scriptures containing this Dodrine, were writ feve-
Wk ral years after the death of our Saviour, in which
ixdoi time the Sacrament had been celebrated by them ;
as (li and by confequence, if the Apoftles had not un-
it w derftood this Myftery according to a literal Senfe,
(duf they had time, and realbn plainly to have expounded
''di it other wife, and have given us warning of this dif-
ip/dl ficulty (as was done to the Carnal Caphernaites) and
toinre not all three pundually agreed in the fame Ex-
mye preffions, without any caution of a dangerous Figure
in them: In fuch Cafe, I fay, the Dodrine of the
Ihit I Real Prefence, to fuch a Perlon (having laid afide all
lieard prejudices) is as clear in Scripture, as mofl of thofe
fe other great Myfteries are;and that for thefeReafbns.
^o[ Fifft, becaufe I cannot imagine why our BlefTed
Saviour fliould ever have made ufe of thefe Terms,
12 T^if ii my Body, befides many other fuch like Ex-
[ypofe preffions, except he really intended a literal Inter-
k Sor, pretation ; for what necefTary relation hath , a Bo-
^;wit tly? and Blood, to the Sacrament of the Lords Sup-
3 (efp per, more than to the Sacrament of Baptifm ? Why
mtnai a Confecrat-ion in that Sacrament, yet none either
^yeii in Baptifm -or others ? Might notChrift (with re-
teecn verence be it fpoken) have faid much more plain-
ly, and yet fufliciently to the famepurpofe;
jjio: G 2 ^ //w
t
tm as ye take tt worthily^ it jhall conveigh to your Souls ^
invifihleQrctce^ an^ many other Benefits? Would not j
this have fully anfwered the End of Xuinglim^ and )
our Dilcourfer's Do£trine,concerning thisSacrament ?
But why doth the God of Mercy and Truth com-
mand us to eat his Body, and drink his Blood, aT
Turing us, that, except weeat hisFlcfh we have no
life in us, if he did not really intend we fhould do 1
fo ? But, except he be really and fubftantially pre-
lent in the Sacrament, w^e can neither eat his
Body, nor drink his Blood ; for to take the Figure for
the Subftance, isfdlein any Command, which po-
fitively orders the Subftance, if the Subftance poT
fibly can be had; and in this Gale, it is impious,
becaufe he that commanded the Subftance, is able
to give it us \ and if he did not defign to give it
us, we have realbn to believe he would not have
conimanded it in fuch exprefs terms; Efpecial-
ly , fince there was no neceftity, no, nor con-
veniency of ufing thole words according to our
Dilcourfer's Interpretation ; For if by his Body, he
meant the Figure only of his Body, ;what good
doth that Figure dousf Or how doth it latisfie the
Command, or why Ihould Bread be the Figure of
his Body ? Since Figures of this Figure, that is to
fay, the Pafch^ Lamh, zxid Manna delc^nding from
Heaven, were much picre noble, and .proper
fcnting^ than the thing Reprefented ; and yet neither
was Manna nor the Lamb called his Body , as the
Bread is, in the Sacrament ? The ExprelFion there-
fore of Juflin Martyr, faying-, this Pajfoiier is our
Saviour, and mr Refuge p.,7. Is nothing at all to
the
C 5' )
the purpofe, nor could the Palchal Lamb be taken
rtdy and truly forGod their Sayibur, or their e}tpea-
edMeiTiah; becaufe there wasno'iuch thing'men-
tion'd, or hinted in the Inftitution of the Paflover.
On the contrary, it was iniHtuted in the jplaineft
Manner, and moft intelligible, and fb free from all
figurative Expredions, that there are no lefs than
iiFerfes in explaining every Circumftance-of the
A£Hon. They fhaH take to them ewry Man a Lamb^
&c. Exod. c. 12. And can we believe, that the Pals-
over, which was indeed a Figure of the Sacra-
ment, fhould be exprefl:, and underftood,inan un-
queftionable literal Senfe ; and that the Sacrament,
\vhich was the Subjlance of the Figure, fliould be in^
ftituted in fucha prodigious wonderful Figure (ac-
cording to our Difcouirfer's acceptation) as to in-
volve the greateft part of the Chriftlan World, not
only in moft pernicious Miffakbs,but allbinthe moft
deteftable Sin of Idolatry ? Sure, the imagination
of it mufl; be totally inconfiftent with the Veracity,
Mercy, Goodnefs, and the main defign of ourblef-
fed Saviour. To inftrtute a Figure literally , and
the Subftancefiguratively, .is allrange Vlethbd,''and
not eafily ibppos'din theOod of Trtith, ^rtd'Wi'fs
dom. Nay, more, our Saviour, who eftablifht a
Law, and a Church to interpret it, who_ fuffer'd
,;tlie indignities of humane Life, andDedtfi of the
Crbfs on purpofe to Eve SinnersH«ej'to'whom th^
paft^ and futdfe was always prefbntj'a'nd who knew
what would haf)pen to hisSpoufe the Church, after
hrs Death, had left fbgreat a ftumbling-block to the
World (had he intend^'pnly a figurafiV.e Interpreta-
rion j t fiat • H Sin fdlu oft f rtf piofts to ima -
||ine)- wddhd fi^e-dxO^^ftdd hi^MeVby j. efpeclirny if
( 50
it be true ('as I believe it is, and hope fhall be able
lo fHTGvey that ..the vyhole Chriftian World for a
thouland years together after his Alcenfion, univer-
fally concurr'd in the firm Belief of a literal Senle,
and pra^lis'd accordingly. Good God J So many
reputed Saints, fb many Martyrs, and lb many ho-
ly Men dying in the guilt, and many of them in
defence of grofs Idolatry ? This to me (to ufe the
expreffion of our Dilcourfer j is more than ten
Thouland Demonftrations.
He tells us indeed, that Ibme Learned Catholic
Authors have declar'd their Opinions, that the Do-
€l:rine which holds the fubftance of Bread and
Wine to remain after Conlecration, is neither re-
pugnant to Reafbn nor Scripture. 5. And what
then? They do not exclude the Doarineof theReal
prelence in a literal lenle, nor do I know that they
did ever doubt of Tranfubftantiation : Butmoftof
them have written particularly in defence of it;
and Duranius wrote a Book conlifting of nine parts
againft Berengariui, who oppos'd it. Now, tho this
might be the private Opinion of thefe Men, yet
there are (^it may be) thouiandsas Learned as them-
felves, of another Opinion ; and all this without
either prejudicing, or helping the Dodrine it
Tclf.
Our Diicourfer cannot think any Man lb lenle-
, lefs to believe, that our Saviour did literally hold
himfelf in his hands^ and gave away himfelf from htm-
felf, with his own hands; and yet we find a very
lenlible Father, and one much efteemed by all par-
ties (1 mean S.AuguJlin) made no fuch difficulty
to believe all this: For in his Comment upon thele
words , Et ferebam in manibus fnU \ and he was
^ carried
(■ yj ^
carried in his own hands, he fpeaks thus of Chriih.
And can this k poffibie in Man? Was ever any Man
carried in his own hands^ Src. Ho<v this can be literally
underjlood ^?/David we cannot difcover ; but inChrifi wt Comm. inPf.
found it verified, for Chrijl was carried in his own hands, 33'
rvhen giving his own very Body he faid, Thh is my
Body. But if Chrift carried only the F/g»re of his
Body, it was not onlyfor David, but for any
Man elfe to have done the lame. Methinks our
Difcourfcr Ihould have replied to this obvious An-
fwer, when he made his Obje£lion : And thus much
for the Authority of Scripture.
Next he tells us, that this DoStrine is
ed upon the perpetualBelief of the Chrifiian Church ;
and for this, he produces many Authorities of the
Fathers, which may be reduc't to thefe Heads j
either where they tell us, That the Elements are a
Sign and figure of Chrifts Body; or that they re-
main in their former Snbftance; or that they go into
the Dr aught,?Lnd our flejh encreafedby them', or that
they are not to be taken according to the Letter; for
all which he brings fbme Citations. Now altho*
the Fathers have been their own bell: Interpreters,
Ihewing plainly in other places, how thefe are to
beunderftood, agreeable to the Catholic DoQirine;
yet, that it may appear more Evident, I fhall in-
fiance in fome other plain exprellions, and leave
the BalJance to the Judgment of the Reader.
Firft then, wherefbevcr it is faid, that the Ele-
ments are Signs or Figures, there no more is faid
than what the Catholics believe and profels ; nay,
more, that it is a part of the Definition of a Sacra-
ment to be a Sign, That is to lay, that the unbloody
Sacrifice of ChriftsBody in the Sacrament, ofler'd
in
f 54 )
in a fpiritual manner, is a Figure, or Sigtj of the
tloody Sacrifice, offer'd once for all upon the Crofs,
after a natural manner; anfwerable to the words
of <5". Paul, I Cor. 11. Te jh^ll jherv the Lords death
until he come. About the words we agree; concern-
ing the interpretation our Difcourler may difpute as
long as he pleales.
Next, That the Elements remain in their form
and fubflance ; This paffage of Theodoret hath been
in part anfwer'd before, where he tells us. That they
are to be adorM— And from thence we may con-
elude, that he means the nature of the Accidents ;
for thole words which this Greek Father
uleth, contain every kind of Elfence and Nature, as
well of Accidents, Subfiances : And fb again he
expounds himfelf, laying, that we may lee and touch
(the laid Colour and Form^ which have reference on-
ly to thole Accidents; and in this lenfe, the Elements
may admit of Co-adoration with the Body of our
Saviour; as when himlelf was ClothM upon Earth;
otherwile not. And Theodoret is blam'd by the Cen-
turifts, 5. r. 10. Becaule he affirms. That the
Symbols of the Body and Blood of Chrijl, after the In-
vocation of the Prkjl, are changed, and made other
things than they were before: They mean not Signs I
hope, for more than that they believed them-
felves.
But let us hear St. Auguftin, As with a faithful
heart and Mouth we receive the Mediator of God and
Man, Chrifi Jefus-, who gives m his Fleflj to be eaten,
and his Blood to be drunk, altho* it feems to be a thing
more full of horror to eat Mans jlejh, than to kid it,
and to drink Mans blood, than to jhed it. L. 2. Contr.
adv. Leg, & Proph. But firre it is not more horrible
to
(9S)
to eat Mans flefh in /^are, tfian to* kill a man in
good earneft, Let hear him again, have
heard ffays \[Q)our Mafterj who alwaysfpeaks truth, re-
commending to us our Ranfbm , his Blood; for he
/poke of his Body and Bloodwhich Body he calPd
Meat, and his Blood Drink. But there are fome who
do not believe', they laid, This is a hard fyiftg, who
can hear it ? ^Tis hard, but to the objlinate, that is',
incredible , but to the Incredulous. L. deverb. .Apojl.
Serm. 2, But is the Figure fo hard a laying ? I think
not.
Next St. Ambrofe, a co-temporary, and particular
Friend of St. Auguftin, It may be you will fay, why do
you tell me that I receive the Body of Chrifi, when as I " '
fee quite another thing ? We have this therefore yet to
prave: How many Examples therefore do we produce to
fbew, that it is not what Nature frantd, but what the
Benediction hath Confecrated, and that the force of Be-
nediCfion, is greater than of Nature, becaufe by Bene-
diction Nature her felf is chanfd. Moles held a Rod
in his hand, he cajt it from him, and it became a Ser-
pent; Where he tells of all thole real Tranfihutati-
ons and Miracles made hy Mofes. After which he
goes on, We fee therefore that the power of Grace is
far beyond that of Nature, and yet we have only men-
tion*d hitherto the effeCts of Grace in the bleffing of
Prophets', now if thebleffing of men were of fo great
efficacy, as to change the Nature of things, what fhall
we fay of the Divine Confecration, where the very words
of Chrijl our Saviour are operative ? Then he fpeaks
of the Creation of the World out of nothing, and
goes on, If therefore Chrifi by his word, was able to
make fomething of nothing, fhali he not I e thought able
to change thofe things which are , into other things
H which
which they were* not f But whut need, of Arguments ?
Let m propofe his own Exam^le^ and afftrt the truth
of this Myjlery., by that of his Incarnation. When our
Lord Jefns was born of Mary, was it a Natural getter a~
tion^ kc. This Body which we make in the Sacrament.^ is
that which was born of the Virgin. Why do ye here
require the order of Nature in the Body of Chrifi;
when as above all Nature Chrif was born of a Virgin?
The true Flejh of Chrijl, which was crucified., which
was buried. Andar€ all thele real Tranimutations,
and Miraculous^ Supernatural Examples produc't,
only to prove a figurative Change, conferring i
Ibme invifible Blelling ? Can our Difcourfer under- '
ftand it fo, and no otherwile ? Indeed I think he
had beft retreat to the firft three Hundred years
after Chrift C^s forae others of your late Writers ,
have done) contrary to what I had ever been taught
among you ; who generally extended the Purity of i
the RomanDoftrlne as far as the firft Five Hundred
years, and accordingly, in my Dilcourles with Ca-
tholics, I always auerted, that we did receive the
Roman Do£lrine, until about that time; but the
Truth wouIqI glare too much in our Diftourlers Eyes,
if he fhould walk in the light of thole two latter
Centuries, when the Church began to be freed from
her Perlecutions, and holy Fathers had greater liber-
ty of Preaching, and Teaching the true Chriftian
Faith, in its Extent. But we lhall follow him as
high as he pleafes.
We produce next St.Cyrilof Jerufalem, wholiv'd
in the Age before St. ^mbrofe and St. Jugufine, his
words are thefe i Do not then confider it as bare Bread,
or bare Wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Chrijl,
according to the word of our Saviour himfelf: For the?
(57)
fenfe Jhould fdggtfl this to thee, yet let thy Faith-fo
confirm this, as that thou judge not the matter from
theTaJl : And again, HocSciens, See. This knowing,
and accounting it as mojl certain, that this Bread which
we fee is not Bread, thd' our Tajl do tell us that it is
Bread; hut it is the Body of Chrifi; and the Wine
which we behold, tho* it feem Wine to our fenfe of
T<tjl, yet it is not Wine, but the Blood of Chriji:
Catech. 4. This was fpake after a Catechiftical man-
nef, in which, high Metaphors and Figures, are not
generally very frequent; he was befides, efteem'd
by all as a learned Perfon, and of this Book, none e-
ver doubted.
We come now to the third Age, in which S.Cy-
prian, treating of our Lords Supper, fays, TTie
which our Lord gave to his Difciples, is changed, not in
outward appearance, but in Subjlance, and by the Omni-
potency of the Word, It is made Flejh. ^nd as in the
perfon of ChriJl the Humanity did appear, and the Di-
vinity lay hid; fo in the vifible Sacrament, the Divine
EJfence hath ineffably infufed it felf. Serm. de ccena,
Dom. This is fo clear a palfage, that fbme of the
Sacrament arks, for want of a better Anfwer, pre-
tend it was not writ by St.Cyprian, altho'at the.fame
time they are forc't to confefs that it is of great
Antiquity, and had a Learned Author: But feme-
thing murt be faid,and Confidence goes a great way.
I have already fpoken of Jujlin Martyr in the fe-
cond Age; and come now to the firft Age,
even in the days of the, Apoftles; let us hear*
■then the holy Martyr S. Ignatius the Drfciple of-Ef///. ai
S.John, who fpeaking of the Heretics of his'
time, fays thus. They do not allow of Eucharijls and
Oblations, becaufe they do not believe the Eucharif to be
H z the
("sU
the Flefh of our Saviour ftfus Chrifi, which fujfer'^dfor
our Sins^ and which the jpother in his Mercy raifed 4-
gain from the dead. A ftrange concurrence through
all Ages of moft extraordinary Tropes and Figures.
I name not St. Andrewbecaufe the Authority is fu-
fpe^fed; Nor is it neceffary to multiply Teftimonies
of the Fathers (which we might have done) becaule
they are in truth but like dead Weights on both
fides, until we fhall have put life into tliem by fuch
realbnabic Interpretations, as ( reconciling them
firft to themfelves) may make them plainly fpeak
forth the Catholic Dodlrine, which I refer to the
Conclufion.
But what do Proteftants think of all thefe Fo^
thers ? Why truly they blame them All, and tell us,
that they^were miftaken. Dr.Humphrey fays, Gregory
and Aujlin brought Franfubjlantiation into the Englijh
(Jeiuit. part 2. p.627)The Centurifts charge
6". Chryfojiome, S. Ambrofe^ and Eufebius, For not wrP
ting weU of Tranfubflantiation Pe ter Martyr, for the
fame reafbn blames iS.Cyri/, Vrjinus^ S.Cyprian.
The Learned Melan6ion writes thus upon this Sub-
jed (L. I. Ep. Zs*^ng. & Oecol.f 1^2.) There U no
eare (fays he) that hoth more troubled my mindyhan this\
of the Eucharifi: And not only my felf have weighed
what might be faid on either fide ^ buf I have alfo
fought out the Judgment of old Writers touching the
fame : And when I have laid all together^ I find no
good reafen^ that may [at is fie a Confcience, departing
from propriety of Chrifis words. This is my Body..
Many other Teftimonies of Learned Proteftants, I
omit at prefent for Brevity fake. In the mean
time,. I fuppofe all thefe. may be fufficient to bal>
lance the Subfiance of Theodoret, even when you have:
made
C 59 )
made the moft of it, that in reafon you ought; or
el%my Reafon and Senfe are much more deceived
in this Cafe, than in that of the Sacrament.
But come we to the Point, ih^t the Elements
go into the draught, and our Jle[h encreafed by them. Hear
what St. ChryJo(lome iky Do you fee Bread ? Do you fee
Wine ? Do thrfe go into the draught like other common
meat f Far be if from thee to imagine it. Horn, de
Euchar. in Encoen. When our Difcourf^ hath re-
conciPd his pafTage of Origen^ with this of S Chry-
fofome'y let him then read any Catholic Author,
and he will tell him how he fhall underftand the Au-
thority which he hath here produc't; of which
more hereafter.
Now for thQencreafe of iheflejh, I find this Expli-
cation in St. Greg. Nyjjen. Orat. Catech. c. 36. and 37.
Even as a little Leaven doth make the raholt Mafs like it
felf', fo that Body which k made Immortal by God^entring
into our Body., doth transfer, and change it into its
felf. And after, That Body is joyned with the Bodies of
the faithful, that by the Coujunllion with the fame Im-
mortal Body, Man may he made partaker of Immortality.
So S. Cyril of Alexandria, Cy4s a fpark of fre light-
ing upon Hay or Straw, doth prefently inflame it ail;
fo the Word of God joyned to our corruptible Nature by
means of the Euchar if, doth make it all to rife Im-
mortal, and glorious. The fame may be feen in
Ir^n. 1.8. contr. Har c. 34. And many others, who
underftand the encreafe of theFlefh, tobearaifing
of theFlefli towards a ftate of Immortality, and dif-
pofing it towards a happy Refurreflion; accord-
ing to that of S,John c. 6. He that eateth my Ele/h„
and drinketh my Blood, hath life Everlafing, and I will
rAfehim up at the lafl day. But if thefe Interepreta-
tion?
(6o)
tions fhould not happen to pleafeyou, Ifhall then
recommend you to a late Catholic Author, and l4lNe
you to himlelf, or his Excellent Treatile, The De-
fence for the Adoratpon of'the Body and Blood of our
Lordjip. 14. For further fatisfaftion, his words are
thefc, * This External Sign, or Symbol, they (the
Catholics ) affirm to be ad That of the Bread and
Wine that is perceived by any Sehfe. And tho'
after Confecration, theSubftance of the Bread and
Wine is denied to remain, yet is Subftance here
taken in fuch a fenle, as that neither the hardnefs)
nor Ibftnefs, nor the frangibility, nor the favour, nor
the odour, nor the nutritive vertue of the Bread, nor
nothing vilible, nor tangible, or otherwife percepti-
ble by any fenfe, are involved in it. All which at
laft we fhall endeavour to explain.
The laft Head is, 7 hat the words of Confecration are
not to be taken in a literal Senfe : To prove this our
Dilcourler brings feveral Teftimonies, as he
calls them; but I know not vffiom they hurt, ex-
ct^t^e.Ca2hernattes ; for all Catholics own both the
Authorities, and the Doctrine contained in them, as
abfblutely necelTary to the true and Orthodox un-
derftanding their Do£frineof the Holy Sacrament.
That is to fay, That the Body of Chrift in the Eu-
charift, is not there after a Natural and Corporeal
manner, as it was upon the Crofs, that is, fpeci-
fically, and according to the outward Form, and
local Exiftence ; but fpiritually, fupernaturally, and
without Circumfcription, that is, external Com-
menfuration of, or Co-extenfion with Place. And
if Bafcafm meant otherwife of the Sacrament, than
what is here expreft, l\ie.t\Rahanirs ^aurm did well
• to oppofe him with all his might, as another Anonymm
did
«
(6x)
did fif not the fame Rdatjus) in a Tra5l extant in
Ca^ice GembUcetif. Cofnobij cum Hereg.eri O^ufculo.
But that tliis good Arch-Bifhop did jib undcrftand
him, is piain for thefe two Realbns. becaufe
he hath always been acknowledged an Orthodox
Bifhop among all Catholics; and next, becaufe his
o.wn words have, with good reafbn, confirm'd Ca-
tholics in this their Opinion of him ; and they are
thefe, ' Who, fays he, would ever believe that Bread
* could be turn'd intoFleili, or Wine into Blood,
' except our Saviour himfelf had laid it, who Crea-
*ted Bread and Wine, and made all things out of
* Nothing, but it is eafier to make one thing out of
' another, than all things out of Nothing. L.'j.de
Sacris crdin. ad Theatmamm c. to.
Now after all thefe Authorities from the Fathers^
and a Hundred more which might be produc't, to
fhew that they believ'd the Real Prefence, together
with the agreable concurrent lenfe of them all, run-
ning through their whole Works, befides their con-
Bant praSlice of Adoration, and Belief of an un-
bloody Sacrifice; and many Learned Proteffants
confelnng, that they did fb believe : After all this,
I fuppofe I need not enquire of our Difcourfer, when
this Doftrine of the Real Prefence came into the
World, for I am convinc't that it was in the very
days of the Apolflcs themfelves ; or, to'ufe the
words of Sebafiianm Francus^ and HofpinUn (two E-
minent ProteAantsJ jam turn primo illo tempore^ &
vivtntihus adhuc Apoflolis^ ^C.
But becaule our Difcourfer hath made ufe of the
name of the good Arch-Bifliop of Mentz to counte-
nance and fupport his falfe Chronology,it is Jufl: that
I take off this fcandalous imputation from Rabmm
Manrm
ilM'r""
p- 2i:
(62)
Maurui. Now, altho his own words before recited,
are more than fufficient to clear this Excellent l^er-
fbn; yet at prefent I lhall only make ule of ouf
Difcourfer's own computation to deftroy the proba-
bility of hisunreafbnable Suppofition, which he calls
a pUift Teflimony.
Ho tells us. That in the Second Council of Nice^
Anno Oom. 787. The Sacrament was declar''d to be
properly the Body and Blood of Chrijl, and that thence
this Opinion got footing among the Greeks : And that
in the year 818. Pafcaftus firjl broacht this Doctrine
in the Latin Church , infinuating, that until that
time, this Doctrine was not receivM among the
Latins ; and, that thereupon, Rabanrn Maurm in
the year 847 wrote againft this Pafcafus for in-
troducing this new Error. Thus far the Story is
very well laid ; but here are thefe hard difficulties
to be digefted before we can give it that credit
which he expeQ:s .• Firft, it is certain, that Peter
Arch-Presbyter of the Roman Church, and Peter the
Monky were prefent in the faid Council in behalf
of Pope Adrian. That the faid Pope wrote Letters
to the Emperour ConfiantittSy and alio to larafttis
Patriarch of Confiantinople, which were received by
the faid Council: Andlaftly, that the Popes Supre-
macy was confirmed in this very Council in thefe
-WQtdSy Quod Ecclef a Romana fit Caput omnium Eccle-
fit arum, A^ 2.
Now from this Council to Rabanus Maurnsyth^r^
was an Interval of 6o^ears ; from the Council to
Pafcafiusy of one and Thirty years ; and can we be-
lieve, that this Doftrine of the Real Prefence,
which was declared in this Council, in the prefence
£)f the Popes Legats, and confirm'd by the Pope
himfelf,
C"53)
r himfelf, fhould be one and Thirty years a getting
' over from Nice into the Latin Church? Or that
,J'fo Learned a Man ^sRnhanm (and fo efteem'd by
our Difcourfer) fhould be ignorant fixty years af-
"'4er this Council was held, That this Dodrine had
been there declared ? And fo grofly miftake Pafca-
the firft broacher of it? Truly for my part,
Rabanmhz.di not explain'd himfelf concern-
' ing his Faith, according to thole eKpreffions before
lok
hliit related, yet would F not eafily havb believ'd that he
'"could have been fb ignorant of theTranladion of
™ this Council, or would have accused Pa/cafus of in-
)troducing fb grofsan Error into the Church,
*"1 when he knew that he writ no otherwile, than as
"j- had been Thirty years before, determin'd in a Gene-
ral Couftcil: It is plain therefore that Rabanus quar-
■'f rell'd with (bme Expreflions of Pa/caji^,zs import-
ing the Erroneous fenle before mention'd.
Pflfr Our Difcourfer, being confident that he hath
'tli£ found out the date of Tranfubftantiation, fails a lit-
hill tie foul upon Mr. Arnauld, becaufe he cannft be-
lieve that fuch a Dodrine fhould have been im-
fw posM upon the Chriftian World, and yet fb univer'
Iby fally received, except there had been fbme extraor-
pre- dinary, if not an univerfal Oppofition ; and indeed
liefe our Difcourfer fof all mankind) ought to have be-
tfif- liev'd fo too; for if every man fhould have had as
ill an Opinion of it, as himfelf, its eftablifliment
m had been impoffible. But that he might find a
to fit parallel for Mr. ArnauU, he takes a long Jour-
e- ney to Vienna, the rather fl fuppofe^ that he might
e, pay his refpeds to the King of Prance, and his
ce Army as he return'd home again ; for he tells us,
pe That by the Itke Demonftratien (aa Mr. ArnauldV
If, I . wi^ht
(^4)
wight prove that the Turk did not invade Chrijlendom^
becAufe if he hadythe moJlChriJiian who had the
greateji Army in Chrijiendom, in a readinefsy wohU
certainly have employed it agninft him.
Now our Dilcourfer, without crofling the Seas,
might have given as proper an inftance, even frooi
his own Doors ; for who could eafily imagine that
the Real, Subflantial Prelence of Chrifts Natural
Rody in the hqly Sacrament, fhould have been be-
liev'd and profeft-by the Church of England, in
the days ol King^^'^^^w theFirftj and yet, that in
the Reign of King the Second, the figurative
Po<Slrine, in exclufion of the Real Prelence, fhould
be /o firmly V and peaceably eftabliflit among us,
as, that not lo much as one fingle Church of Eng-
Land Man (atleaft that I have heard of^ tho highly
dignified by honourable and profitable Employ-
ments, in, and by the faid Church of EngUnL^
Ihould write one word in Vindication of their an-
cient Church r Nqr one (mail Pamphlet, to oppofe
the innovation of thefe ufurping Sacramentaries?
But thefe things, worthy Esthers , concern you
more than me ; and left you fhould quite forget that
there ever had been any fuch DoStrine profeft by
your Church of England, I fhall humbly take the li-
berty,by and by, to refrefh your memories.
Much more might be laid, to fhew, from what
loofe Conjectures, our Difcourl^r would prove the
Innovation of the DoCtrine of the Real Prelence;
and that it entred not into the Latin Church before
the Eighth Century. But fmce I defign nothing of
Anrwer,more than to iatisfie you (worthy.
and my felf, that I have not rallily rejeCted the
Authority of fo Learned aPerfon, as our Difcour-
ftr
(6?)
y {hr feems to be, without good reafbnanddueconfi-
deration, this which is already faid, is (I fuppole)
fufficient for that purpofe. ^
, I come now to (what he calls) the Third pretend-
ed Ground of thisDodrine of Tranfubftantiation,
that is, The infAllihle Authority of the prefent Church
to make , and declare new Articles of Faith. Firfl:,
I™'there is a great difference-between anAirti-
cle of Faith, and declaring an Article oi Faith.- I
"[know no power upon Earth that can do the firft j
'but certainly the fccond is within the Jurifdidtion
of the lawful Church Governours, or other wife, Ge-
' ^ heral Councils would be very ipfignifican't Affem-
^"•^ blies. Now if Tranfubftantiation fhoiild prove to
•I,'be no more than the true Faith concerning the blel-
' "^fed Sacrament, declared, or explain'd ; then our Dif^
#courfer hath no reafon to quarrel with Church Au-
^"thority , or fear any Inconveniences flfotjld hap-
pen from the Exercife of ftichaPower. '
Firft, I have fufficiently fhewn (at leaft in my
flfarOpinion^ that the Dodrihe of the RealPrefencc,
™ :that is, of the Natural Body of Chrift fubftantially,
'if\ftruly,and literally exifting in the Sacrament (tho'noc
oi^^'after a Corporal, and Natural manner,) to have been
Ktfthe conftant Dodrine of the Catholic Church, from
the Apoftles to the great Council of Lateran; when,
HBlin the prefence of the Ambaffadors of the Greek, and
TOf; Roman EmperourS, as alfb of the Kings of Jerufalem^
'&[(&England^ France, Spain, and Cyprtcs, this word Tran-
if)fiffubfl:antiation was agreed upon by neqr Thirteen
ing Hundred Fathers, to be a proper Explicative Term of
W;ithe Apoftolical Dodrine, and Belief of the Real
edi Prefence, or change of the Bread and Wine, into
lif» the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift ^ of this enough
I 2 hath
(66)
hath been faid. But becaufe our Difcourfer is
pleas'd to call the Dodrine of the Real Prefence
barbarous^ and impioHs\'X>. 35* I have thought fit to
add to the reft, the Teftimonies of BiChop^Wrew,
and the Learned in the name of King James
theFirft, and the Church of Eagland^ and ibme o-
thers of the moft Learned and ProfelTors of
the true Englifh Church.
I will begin with Bifhop Andreivs, Refp. ad Jpol.
Be/I. c.i.p.ii. 'The Cardinal (fays he) cannot be
' ignorant, except wilfully, that Chrift laid, This is
' my Body ; but not after this manner.. This is my Body.
* We agree in the objebl, and differ only in the ipan-
* ner, Concerning the Hfr ej?, or this is. We firmly
* believe that it is : Concerning the after this manner
x*(i. e. by the Bread Tranfubftantiated into the Bo-
'dy) of the manner how it is done, as by, or
* or with, or under, or through, there is not a word
' concerning it. Wc believe the true Prefence, no
' lefs than your felves, but we dare not confident-
' ly define any thing concerning xhes manner of this
' Prefence, nor are we over curious to enquire into
* it, &c. Again ib. c. 8. p. 194. Speaking of the Con-
junftion of Chrifts Body with the Symbols, he fays,
* There is that Conjunbbion between the vifibleSa-
^ crament, and the Invifible Thing of the Sacrament,
* as between the Divinity and Humanity of Chrift;
' where, except you would favour of Eutychianifm,
' the Humanity is not tranfubftantiated into the Di-
Winity: And a lif tie further, ' The King hath efta-
' bliflit it,that Chrift is truly prefent in the Eucharill,
'and to be truly there ador'd: And, we, with Jmbroft
' adore theFlefh of Chrift in the Myfieries. Some
pofTibly may be ingenious enough to interpret all
p
(6?)
this to fignifie a meer figurative Prelence, as they
have done many clear pafTages of the Fathers^ but
they muft interpret for themfelves, not for me.
But let us hear wjiat If. Cafaubon writes to Car-
dinal Perron by the Kings Command, concerning the
Real Prefence of Chrifts Body in the Eucharift, who
faying, that the Conteft was not about the Truth
but only the Manner of the thing, returns this re-
ply, p. 50. 'HisMajefty wonders, fincc your Emi-
*nence confelfeth that you do not fb iblicitoufly
* require, thatTranfubfl-antiation fliould be believed,
'as that wefhouldnoc doubt concerning the Truth
'of the Real Prefence: That the Church of Eng-
' land fhould not long fince have fatisfied you in
' that particular, which hath fo often profeft to be-
Micve it, in her public Writings. And then for
Explication of the Do6trineof the Church of Eng-
land, recites the fore-mention'd words of Bifhop
Andrem^ Quod Cardinalem non latet. Come we
next to Mt. Hooker. Eccl. PolitJ. 5. Se^. <57.p.3 57.
'Wherefore fhould the World continue ftill diftra-
' £l:ed, and rent with fb manifold contentions, when
' there remaineth now no Controverfie, favingonly
' about the fubjefl where Chriff is? Nor doth any
' thing reft doubtful in this ; but whether, when
' the Sacrament is adminiftred, Chrift be whole
' within Man only, or elfe his Body and Blood be
'alfb externally feated in the very Confecrated Ele-
' ments themfelves. Again, />. 360. ' All three Opi-
' nions do thus far accord in one : That thefe holy
' Myfteries received in du^ manner, do inftrumen-
* tally both make us partakers of the Grace of that
'Body and Blood, which wer^ given for the Life of
'theWorld; and befidesalfoimpart unto us, even
•in
(6i)
'in a true and real, tho* Myftical Manner, the very
* Perfbn of our Lord himldf, whole, perfeQ: and
' entire.
Next wc offer the Teftimony of Bifliop Ridley
quoted byArch-Bifliop Laudfet down in Fox,p. 1598.
* You ^fays he, the Tranfubftantialifts) and I agree
* in this, T hat in the Sacrament is the very true, and
* Natural^ody and Blood of Jefus Chrift, even that
* which was born of the Virgin Mary, which afcend-
' ed into Heaven, which fits on the right hand of
* God the Father, &c. only we differ in Modo, in the
* way and manner of being there—
Dr. Taylor, who hath written one of the laft on
this Subjedl, is very clear and particular concern-
ing this Real Prefence, Se^l. i, N. 11. p. iS. ' It is
' enquired (fays he) whether, when we fay we be-
' lieve Chrifts Body to be really in the Sacrament,
'we mean, that Body, that Flefh, that-wasbornof
' the Virgin Mary, that was Crucified, Doad, and
' Buried r I anfwer, I know none elfe that he had,
*or hath; there is but one Body of Chrift, Natu-
' ral and Glorified : But he that faith that Body is
* Glorified which was Crucified, fays it is the fame
< Body, but not after the fame manner ; and fb it is
'in the Sacrament, we eat and drink the Body and
'Blood of Chrift that was broken and poured
' forth, for there is no other Body, no other Blood of
'Chriff: But tho' it is the fame we eat, and drink,
^ yet it is in another manner. And therefore when
* any of the Proteftant Divines, or any of the Fa-
^'thers deny, thatBody.which was born of the Vir-
* gin Mary, that was Crucified, to be eaten in the Sa-
* crament; As Bertram, as 6t. Heirom, as Clemens
* Alexand. exprefly affirm; The meaning is eafie,
*They
*They intend tbatlt IsTiiot eaten in a natural fenfe,c^f.
* That Body which was Crucified, is not that Body
* that is eaten in tlie Sacrament, is trUc, if the inten-
' tion of t}>e Propofition be to fpeak of the eating
'it, in the fame manner of being: But that Body
* which was Crucified, the fame Body we do eat fis
*alfotrue) if the intention be to fpeak of the fame
' thing, in feveral Manners of being, and Operating.
Some alio, may turn all this into a meer figurative
fenfe, excluding the Cor^u^ Domini^ or Real Prelence
of Chrifts Natural Body in the Sacrament; and it
may be they may think that this DoSfor himielf
(from fbme other of his expreflions) may have given
them juft reafbn fo to do. I fhall then only obierve
thefe two things ; Firff, that concerning this Real
Prelence, a Catholic could not have written more
juftlyj nor more plainly than the Do£for hath done in
what hath been above recited: And Secondly, That if
after all this, the DoSforfbould mean no more than
a Spiritual efficacy or virtue, excluding the Corf us
Dommi, or Subfiantial Prelence of Chrilfs Natural
Body,- (tho' indeed after a Spiritual manner, as we
confefs;) then doth the Doffors Opinion feem as
contradi(5fory to it felf, and as incomprehenfible ta
me, as the great My fiery of Tranfubfiandation it
felf, or as if he had written in Charadfers totally un-
intelligible.
But let us now hear Bifhop Forbes de EucharsJi.L, 2.
e.2. Sei^.g. * The ibber Protcftants doubt not but
'thatChrift is tobcadorM in the Sacrament; for
* in the taking of the Eucharift, Chrifi is to be ador'd'
* with Divine Worfbip, becaufe his Living and Glo-
* rious Body is prefent, by an unexpreffible Miracle,,,
' to the Worthy Receiver; and this Adoration, is not
duo
(7°)
*due or performed, to the Bread, or Wine, or the
' taking, or eating ; but to the very Body of Chrift
* immediately exhibited to us in the taking of the Eu-
'charift. Andagain. L. 3. c.i. 10. Theho-
'ly Fathers often tell us, 'That the very Body of
' Chrift is Offer'd, and Sacrificed in the Eucharift, as
' appears by almoft innumerable paflages; but not
' that all the properties of a Sacrifice are properly,
' and really oblervM ; but it is done by a Commemo-
* ration, and Reprefentation of that, which being
'once offer'd in that only Sacrifice of theCrols,
' Chrift our High Prieft, did thereby confummate
'all other Sacrifices ; and by pious Supplications, by
' which the Minifters of the Church (for the lake of
' the perpetual Oblation of that one Sacrifice, afti-
'fting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father,
' and prefect after an unexprejjible manner on the holy
'Tir^/e) moft humbly pray God the Father, that he
' would pleafe to grant, that the Vertue and Grace
'of this perpetual Vi£l;im may become profitable
'and efficacious to his Church, for helping all the
' necefiities, both of the body and Soul.
The Archbifhop of Spalato lays much the fame
thing in his Rep. Ecclef. L.'j.c. 11. Only he will not
admit the Body of Chrift to be corporally in the
Bread, or under the Bread ; but to be taken with the
Bread ; Sumitur cum Chrifti Corpus reale^ illi
communioni. realiter prafens.
MT.Thorndyke'm his Epilogue to the Tragedy,L,^.
c. 5. Says thus,' That which I have already faid,is e-
* noughto Evidence the Myftical, and Spiritual Pre-
'fence of theFlefh, and Blood of Chrift in theEle-
' ments,as the Sacrament of the Same,before any Man
'can fuppofe that SpiritualPrelence of them to his
Soul,
(7')
^ Soul, which the eating and drinking Chrifts Fiefh
* and Blood fpiritually by living Faith importeth.
And thid. c. 2. where it follows, He that eateth Mtd
drinktth ttHrwrthihy eateth and drinketh damnation to
himfelf^ not difctrning the Lords Body ; ' Unlets a man
* dilcern the Lords Body where it is not, of nscelTi-
* ty it muft there be, where it is diicerned to be.
And/. c. 5. * Having maintained that the Eie-
' ments are really changed, from ordinary Bread and
' Wine, into the Body and Blood of Chrift rayftL
' cally prefent as in a Sacrament, and that in vertue
* of the Ccnjecration, not by the Faith of him that re-
* ceives *, 1 am to admit and maintain whatfoever
'appears duly conlequent to this Truth; namely,
' that the Elements fo confecrated, are truly the Sa-
' orifice of Chrift upon the Crofs, in as much as the
' Body and Blood of Chrift are contained in them,
&c. And then, f. 46. he further colleUreth thus:
' And the Sacrifice of the Croft being necelTarily
' propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be
' denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharift, in as
' much as it is the ftmc Sacrifice of Chrift upon the
' Croft , is alio both propitiatory and impetratory.
You may conftilt Archbifhop Laud^ Biftiop Montague^
Bifhop and many other Learned Pro teftants,
too long to be here recited for further fatisfaStion in
this Matter.
Now, worthy Fathers, what would you advife me
todoin this Caft? would you have me follow the
Judgments of thefe-Learned and Pious Men, who
wrote, not only their private Opinions, but, fome of.
them, in the Name of the King, and whole Church
of England ? Or would you have me believe our Dift
courfer, and fome others of our iale Sacramentary
K Pam-
/
C 7» >
Psunphfetcrs ? If rhe firft, then Tranfabftantiation
will not appear fb ahfttrdy ridiculous, fenfdefs aiKl
fooU^ a Doarine as lie hath ftyled it, which! hope
to prove hereafter. If the fecond, then to ufe the
Arguraent and Words of our Difcourfer, /». jo.
Chrifianity would become a moji uncertadn and ertdlefs
thing ; for if we may thus change our Faith in fuch
high and fundamental Doftrines as thele are, I
know not what (ecurity we have that we fhall not
in time cliange our Faith in other neceffaries, and at
length lofe it ah.
But to pin up the Basket (as we fay^ I fhall con-
chide with the Teftimonies of Calvin and Beza^ men
to whom the Church of England is obliged for a
great part of her Reformation. Calvinuponi Cor,
11,24. (Take^ eat,, this is my Body) fays thus, Nor
dath Chrijl only offer to us the benefits of his Death anl
Refurrebiiony but that Body it felf in which he fufftred
and rofe again. And again, Infiit.l.Of.c.xy. Being made
partakers of his Subftance, we perceive alfo the vertae
of it in the Communication of all good things. I know
no othtrSuhjlance he had fpiritual or corporal, but
that which M^as born of the Bkffed Virgin. And of
tlie Lutherans h^ fays: Ifthty jo explain their meaning,
that^^whilfl the Bread is delivered, there is an next to it
the exhibition of his Body, becauje the Truth is infepa-
rab'e from its Sign, I jhould not much oppofe them.
And to flrengthen this AfTertion of Calvin, I
fhall add the Confeflion of Beza, and others of the
fame SeQ:, related by Hofpinian Hiji. Saeram. parte
alter a, p. 251. We confefs that in the Cup of oar Lord,
not only all the Benefits of Chrijl, but the very fiibfFance
of the Son of man *, I fay, that very Flefh, and that ve-
ry Blood which he poured out for us, not only fignifi-
catively
(7i)
catively, fymbolically, typically, ar figuratively, or«
remembrance of one abfent; bat truly ami certainly
reprefeated, exhibited, and offer'd, not as naked Sym-
bols^ but at having (from God himfelfpromtfing and
ojftring) the very thing it lelf, ttxAy and certainly
joyned to them. Now she manner by which the thing
it felf^ (i. e. the very Mody^ and the very ^lood of our
Lord) is joyned jvith the Symbols^wt fay it is Symbolicaly
or Sacramental; B,ut we call-it a Sacramental manner,
not that it is only Figurative, but that it truly and cer-
tainly reprefents under the Species of vifbie Things^
that which God exhibits^ and offers with the Symbols,
that is (as I faid before) the very Body and Blood of
Chrijl. And then he tells us, That he differs with
others concerhing the manner of the Prefence only,
but for the very Thingznd Prefence it felf he retains
and defends it.
And now, Reverend Fathers,! muff: acquaint you,
that whilft I was tranfcribing this very laft Para-
graph, I was inform'd, that there was an Anfwer,
lately publifht, to Two Difcourfes printed at Oxford,
which contained in them the Teffimonies of thele
Learned Proteftants before mentioned. I ftopt my
Pen, bought the Book, and read it over with great
care. I fliall not at prelent fpeak any thing more
of it in particular, than what relates to this very
Subjeft; but in general give me leave to tell you,that
methoughts this Anfwerer might very well have
fpar'd his Apology at laft, p. 125. for not having
inffled more largely upon fome points^ fince I have not
feen Twenty two Sheets written with lb much magi-
fterial Confidence, and (in my judgment) with fo lit-
tie Subftance, even among all the Pamphlets that
have come out on both fides, from the Death of the
K 2 late
(n)
late King to this prefent day ; but I Jeave the fur-
ther examination to the Conclufion of this Dif. |
courfe.
Firft, wc tliank him for his plainnefs in delivering
his opinion concerning the Real Prelence (which is
the fiibjeft Matter in Debate) and by which he tells
us,is meant no more thzninniftble Power Grate^m
exclufion of the Real Prelence of Chrifts Natural
Body, even after a fpiritual manner : Whether the
Church of England will thank him for it , I know
not: I am fure I was otherwife inftruded, and be-
lieved otherwile,whilft in your Communion.
But let us hear what he fays to thele Teftimonies.
He endeavours to elude their moft plain indubitable
lenle,and grammatical confl:ru£l:ion,(even according
to the common Realbn and Underhanding of all
Mankind) thele leveral ways.
Firft, he tell us that Becamts fays, the Cahinijlt
deny the Body and Blood of Chr '^, to be truly^ realty
and fubjlantially frefent in the Eucharijt. Not (I '
hope) according to that lenle,which our Anlwerer
would make and others give of thofe , and
iuch like exprellions. But liire our Anfwerer might
have colleded among his other Proteftanc Relics,,
an account of a rigider Ibrt of Calvinifts, who re-
formMeven upon himlelf, and yet retain'd the
name of Calvinifts. But what doth Cahin himfelf
fay (as this Anlwerer recites out of Hofpinian)Why,
that Chrijl h our Eood^ becaufe by the incomprehensible
Vertue of the holy Spirit he infpires his Life into us^
that he may commmnieate it to uSy no lels than the Vi-
tal Juice is dijfufed from the Root into all the Branches
of theTree,^c. No lefs than fo ? then fure it is as
liibltandal a Communicatioa of Chrilt's Natural
Body
C 7? )
Body after a fplritual manner, as the Oxford DiC
courfer in that place pretends* to ; for if Cahin and
this Anfwerer do not believe that the Vital Juice of a
Treeis aSubftance, (tho' whilfta Juice, more fpr-
ritual) and that the very Subftance of the Tree , is
fubftantially ncurillied and increafed thereby ; I
fear they will both prove as bad Philolbphers as
■ Divines.
But before I proceed any further, I mufl: inform,
or mind our Anfwerer, that tho' Catholics believe
Chrift's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament, yet
they deny rt to be there bodily, i.e. Modo Corporto;
and tho' his FleOi be there, yet not Fhjhly; nor yet
doth his Natural Body leave the higheft Heavens:
Thefe premiied (becaufe we fliall have occafion
to make thefe diftinftions) I come to next to
Beza.
His words (as recited by the Anfwerer)are thefe:
We do fiopjay, that in the Eucharifi there is only ^
Commemoration of the Death of our Lord Jefus
Chriji ; nor do we fay that in it we are wade partakers
only of the Fruits of his Death and PeJJton ; but we
joyn the Ground with the VtmtSyaffirming with Sp. Paul,
that the Bread which by God^s appointment we break^ is
the participation of Body of Chrift crucifed for
us ; the Cup which we drink, the Communion of the true
Blood that was Jhed for us ; and that,in the very fame
Subftance, which he received in the Womb of the
Virgin, and which he carried up with him into the
Heavens. And afterwards : For this honor we al~
low to Cod, that tho^ the Body of Jefus ChriJF be now
in Heaven , and not elfewhtre, and we on Earth, and
not elfewhere ; yet are we made partakers of his Bc-dy
and Bloodj fpiritual manner (i.e. modo fpin-
tuali)
C 7^ )
tuali) a»i by the means of faith. I am afraid (Fa-
thcrs) this Anfwerer plays booty with you ; for if
this be a confutation of what was before alledged
from Beza, I profefs I fhall never quarrel with him
about it, nor defire any other hand than B<?^<i'i(even
in this very paffage) to expreft my Belief of the Real
Prefence of Chrilfs Natural Body in the Sacrament.
What a ftrange Anfwerer is this? fure he thinks,be-
caule Catholics fubmit their Senfe and Realbn in
fbme things to Divine Revelation, and the Autho-
rity of the Church, therefore they have not Realbn
enough to judge in other Cales, that three and one
make four, as well as two and two.
Next, he brings inCranmer zndi Ridley (when he
was among his Geneva Brethren, I fuppole) and he
might as well have nam'd himfelf, and his Eu'.inent
Diicourler,againfl: TranRibftantiation : And wlrat if
thefe two hrft were of the fame opinion concerning
the Real Prefence with thefe two laft? It only proves,
thatone atLoWo^contradibted himfelf at Geneva ;
and the other,Men ten times more learned than him-
felf. Our Anfwerer (that he may take breathy be-
fore becomes to our Englifh Divines above-named
(for I perceive he finds that he is like to have a
tough piece of work on't) charges the Oxford Au-
thor with difingenuity, chiefly in favour of Doftor
Burnets Hiftory of the Reformation. Alas, I am apt to
believe (tho' I know neither the Difcourfer nor this
Anfwerer, not fo much as by Name, but only by
their Worksj I am apt (Ifay^ to believe, that this
Difcourfer is much better acquainted with Church
Hiftory, than the Dodtor, and applies it with much
more Sincerity and Truth, than he hath done. I
confefs /were I worthy to advife^ I fhould counfel
this
f 77 > _
this Anfwerer to flefh himfeif firft upon fbme Au-
thors of a lower ClalEs., for I doubt he is here over-
match'd,and hath gotfas wefay/'a Bear by theTooth;
WhattJie Learned Hiftorian means by the Wtfdom
of that time ^ in kcojing a. Liberty: for different ffecU'- p. 58.
lations, as. to the manner of the Frefence ; I cannot
underftand ; except that they did in that time gene-
rally believe the Real Prefence (^as hath been before
expreft; but would not certainly determine the
ner, that is ( as Eifhop Andrervs hath laid before^
whether it was or in^ or or fub^ or trans ;
but if there be no fuch Real rrefence in any manner^
I know not what this Liberty of Speculations fignifies,
as to the mannerthe thing is not really after any
manner % and if notfas our Anlwerer feemsal! along
to affirmthis then might indeed be great Wifdom,
or humane Policy , not too rudely to choke the ten-
der Ears of their late eftablifht Reformation: But
how it can confiff with true Piety , and a ChuKh
pretending to reform Errors, we fhall beft find by
this confideration.
If Men had liberty to believe that Chriff was real-
ly prefent after my manner^ it follows neceffarily,
that Chrift was adorable there, where he was fo
prelent. But if the Church, in its Wifdem, did
certainly know, that Chrift was»i3/ redly prelent
after any Manner; then tiic Church, in its Wifdom,
gave Men liberty to be Idolaters; for our Anfwerer
hath been pleas'd to deliver us his Opinion,from Do-
£l:or Taylor, p. 69. who there fays, That to give Di-vine
tvorfhip to a Non needs be Idolatry, for Idolutn
nihil eft in mando,y4/>^ St. Paul, and Chrifi as prefent
by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens,
for it is not true, there is no fuch thing he is there
by
(7V
hy hii Diviner Power and Pkfjing^ 8fC. bat for any
other prefence, ^ Idolum. And that the pradice
of the Learneder part of the Church of EngUndy
nay, of the whole Church of England it felf f^if we
will believe the Articles of Henry the Eighth, in the
beginning of the Reformation , or King 'james in
theftrength of the Reformation) was accordingly
Idolatrous ; I am moft abundantly fatisfied ; until
fome ftronger Pen than our Anfwerers, fha?I fully
confute, what is already extant to that purpofe. In
the mean time (leaving the Matter of Fad to the
Dodors Conlcience) we will follow our An-
' fwerer.
He is come now to Bifhop 'Jeivel^ who tells us ,
p. 60. That Chrifis Body and Blood, indeed, and verily
if given unto us; that tve verily eat it, that we verily
drink it, 8rc. yet we fay not either that the fubfiance of
Bread and Wine is done away, (that is, Tranfubftantia-
tion, which is not our Dilpute) or that Chrifs Body
is let down from Heaven y or made really or flefhly
prefent in the Sacrament: If by reaUy he means flefhly,
I fublcribe to all this ('as to the Real Prefence.) He
goes on: That fpiritually fi. e. modo fpirituali), and
with the month of our Faithy we eat the Body of Chrifly
and drink his Bloody even as verily as his Body was vc^
rily broken, and his Blood verily Ihed upon the Crofs.
If the Bifhop was not an Eutychian, then certain-
ly his Body was verily, that is, fubftantially and
truly broken upon the Crofs. Thus far then, we
pundually agree; But the Bifhop explains himfelf:
The Bread (he tells us) is an earthly things and ther
fore a Figure, as Baptijm in Water is alfo a Figure,
Tis conreft: Now left we fhould think that by this
Figure the Bifhop intended to exclude the jfub-
ftancc.
(■ 79)
ftance ; he adds immediately, But the Body of Chrip^
thit thereby U reprefented^ and is there offer'*d to our
Faith (mop true) is the thing (i- e. the Bodypf Chriff^
it felf, and not the Figure. As much of this as the A'n-
fwerer pleafes, we have realbn to be thankful to him
for it.
But he now comes to Anfwer for the venerable
Mr. Hooker. You have heard what hath been offer'd
from the Difcourfer. The Anfwerer tells us from
Mr. Hooker p. 6i. that the parts of the Sacrament are
the Body and Blood of Chrippecaufe they are caufes in'
ffrumentaf upon the receipt whereof the participation
of his Body and Blood enfueth: And that the Keal
Prefence of Chriffs mo (I bleffed Body and Blood, is
not the''efore to be fought for in the Sacrament^ but in
the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament: All this is moll:
conliftent with the Proteftant Notion of the Real
Prelence here contended for.
Next Bi/hop Andrews comes upon the Stage ; and
firft the Anfwerer tells us (as fromhimfelf only)
that thisBifhop infinuates, That the Prefence of Chrif p,
in the Eucharip^ was much the fame as in Baptifm ; the
very Allufion which the Holy Fathers were wont to make^
to exprefs his Prefence by^ in this holy Sacrament, That
theBifhop and the Holy might mean, that
Chrift is prelent in the Sacrament, as in Baptifm,
Catholics do not deny; for they alfb conftantly
affirm the fame thing, as much as either; But if
our Anfwerer pretends to perfwade us, that either
theBifhop, or or Catholics, mean him on»
iy fbprefent, as to exclude the prefence alfo of his
natural Body in the Sacrament ; that remains- to
be prov'd, which hath not been done by himfelf,
nor any Man yet, that I have met with ; let him
L there-
p. 64.
~ (80)
therefore learn to underftand the Catholic Faith,
before he writes fuch magifterial Impertinences a-
gainft it: Bat Jet us hear the BiOiop himfelf; who,
telling us. That the Sacrament of Chrifts Body is
not meant of his glorified Body, but of his Body
when it was Offer'd, Rent, and Slain, andSacrificed
for us; he goes on, fVe are {fays he") in this action^
not only carried up to Qhrifl (furturn corda^; but we are
alfo carried back to Chrijl, as he was at the very injlant^
and in the very abl of his offering. So, and no otherwife
doth this Text teach: So^ and no otherwife do we repre-
fent him. By the Incomprehenfible power of his Eter-
nal Spirit, not he alone, he, as at the very ad of
his Offering is made prefent to us, and we incorporate
into his death and invejled in the benefits of it. Our
Anfwerer (to do him Juftice) is modefl: enough in
this place to lay, \\e, thinks the Real Prelence cannot
be otherwife meant than, either figuratively in the
Elements, or Spiritually, in the Souls of thole who
worthily receive him: But I think, that had this
Learned Biihop believed the manner (as they call
it) of the Real Prelence, Tranfubftantiation, No
man could have written more Orthodoxly of it,*
than this Bilhop here hath done. The Anfwerer in-
eludes the Opinions of Cvy^a^o^and the Archbifhop
of Spalato, in the fenle of this pallage of Bilhop
Andrews; but why not in tliat produc'd by the Dif
courfer? However if itwillgratifiehim, I willingly
fo accept them. He makes Archbilhop Laud to
fing much after the fame Tune ; He fays little to Bi-
fhop Hall, Montague, and Bilfon, btcaufe he hath not
thoir works by hint; but how^ lie will excule th^ivpacift
defign as he calls it, we lliall confidcr by and by. Bi-
{t\eyp Eorht*sQharitable undertaking, h^ made him too
favourable
(S,)
fnvouTAhk to ntiny corruptions of the Church of
^1, Rome, ;>.65.
jncK And now lie tells us but of two of all the Di-
vines left to prove this new Fancy, which theDit
Bo(i| courier would let up for the DoQirine of the Church
is Be of England', one, is Doftor T<y/or, whom he makes
icrjf; fay a great deal more, than I am willing toTran-
ij(3, icribe-, for I am very weary of the Employment;
slit; andbeGdes, all GgniGesno more (at moll) than to
,j,^, prove Do£tor Taylor contradi£l:s himfelf; or is o-
(,4 therwife (as I hinted before) the moft unintelligi-
ble Writer that ever put Pen to Paper :• The truth to
me feems to be this ; the Do6lor in fome places
fjjj meant very plainly that which he as plainly wrote;
in others that he was over cautious (conGdering the
f d times, and circumftances in which he liv'd) to
y,|j write more plainly that which he truly meant.
However, upon the Ballance of the whole, I take
him to have been muQ/i rather a Defender, than an
Oppolerof the Real Prefence we fpeak of. And
y I now we are got to Mr. Thorndyke, where I cannot
jj but fmile at the conGdenceof our Anfwerer,who
J is not alham'd to fay (notwithftanding his own pre-
I V tended confutation is aftrong conGrmation of that
RealPrelence alTerted by the Difcourlerj) that he
uji" fears hisCaufe will be defperate except W. Thorn-
.g dyke can fupport it. Well, what fays ^i.Thorn-^'^f-
, dykef The Anfwerer tells us, Grft of a certain An-
fwer to one T. C. in which he feems to fay, That
fm ^ ^ fuppofe he means the Englifh
ChUjTch^ did ever pray the Flejh and Blood might be fub^
, Jlituted injlead of the Elements, under the Accidents of
I ihemf which is plain TranfubGantiation)r;&e» he is con-
tented to call this the Sacrament alp refence of them in the
>0
(SO
EMcS^ariJf: What is this to the purpofe ? He then tells
us, that Mr. Thorndyke had a pArtieuUr Notion in this
Matter, and a long Story, in which he leems to deny
Tranfubftantiation : We do not affirm it of him. And
at laft a great way off in p. 90. he puts Bilbop Forbes
and the Archbifhop of 6]C(4/4/o into a Sack together,
and makes them as errand Knaves in 2^ remnciling
way^ as his Frctejiant Minifitr^ whom juft before he
mentions; but with this difference, the Trote^
fiant Mtnijhr, only diffembled his own Opinion,
that is, conceaPd it j but thele two great Men have
ftrenuoufly defended the Real Prefence 5 and, not by
confequence, but pojitively, an Adoration due;
when as our Anfwerer would perfwade us that they
did mt believe the Real Prefence ; but did believe
the Adoration of k to be Idolatry., That a paci-
fic defign, and a charitable undertaking might en-
gagefbme Men to relax fomewhat of Ceremonies, or
Difcipline, I neither wonder 2%, nor cenfure ; but that
thereIhould beany juftifiablecaule toobligeMen wit-
tingly and willingly to profels and teach Idolatry,is,I
eonfeis,beyond my unckrflanding.I fhrewdly fufpe^
that our Anfwerer,- from his rare Hiftorical Relifts,
may have tmbih'dfbme of Monjieur De Maro/k*sVrm-
Giples,and: from thence think damnabk Hypocrifie in
Religion, no great Sinotherwife I cannot imagine
bow» with Charity, he can fuppofe it in thefe two
great Men, who (i am perfwaded) were they alive,
would fpic in.hiaFaee.for fb fcandalousa-n Imputati-
on,unworthy either of a Chriffian^craGemleman.
His laft ftroke, is at the Learned Mr.Thomdyke^,
whom he leaves to fhift for himfelf, with thia
Brand upon him^, as. deep as he can make it. That his
NoiioiJkOf thfi: Real Prefence, was widely'different
bothi
(83)
both from theirs, and ours, fand by confequence
from the Truth) ;but give me leave to tell you Sir,
had you been worthy to have carried Mr. ihorndykts
Papers after him (at leaft as far as I may judge by
thcfe twenty two Sheets) you would have writ much
left, and yet much more to the purpole.
Thus, Reverend Fathers, I have given you a Taft
of this frefh Author, I fear it hath not proved a
boccone Saporito ; but it was neceflary in Vindication
of my Teftimonies, and by Confequence, of that
Learned Oxford Difcourfer, upon whole Authority I
product them. Begging your pardon then for this
Digreffion, I return to my firft Difcourfer.
If it be true, that the DoQrrine of the Real Pre-
fence, in a literal Senfe, was believed from the Pri-
mitive Times to this great Council of Latcran ; let
us confider whether this Council exceeded its juft
Authority, or introduct any Erroneous Dodrine
into the Chriftian Church; For the clearer under-
Handing of this Matter, we are to note, that one Be-
rengmtts about the year io5o. (befides other Er-
rors) marntain'd, that the Eucharift was not truly
and Subftantially the Body and Blood of Chrifr,
hut only a Figure and Shadow of them ; and that
theBread and Wine upon the Altar, were- not Sub-
ftantially converted into the real Flefli and Blood,
of Chrift, by theMyftery of holy Prayer, and the
words of our Redeemer. Upon this, leveraf Lear-
ned Men employed their Pens againHthis new and
ftrange fa He Doftrine, as Addmamrtts Bifhop of
formerly Schoolfellow of Berengmus \ Hago
hingonertfs^ Epf'. Durandsu, before«mentionM yLant-
francus-^ afterwards Archbiiliop of Canterbury, whOj
among other things, hathi riiefe words,
(fpeakmg
(H)
of the Red Prefettce according to the Do-
ctr:m of Tranfubjlantiation) the Church (^'hich bein^
fprtad over the whole World^ iiciPdCatholic') now holds^
and hath held from the. Primitive Times. But you (fait h
he to Berengarius) believe that the Bread and U^ine
of our Lords 7abley remain unchanqedy as to their Sub-
fiance after Confecration^ &c. If this be truCy which you
believe and maintain concerning the Body of Chrifi ;
then thit is fafe which is believed and taught of it by
the church over the whole World 5 for as mmy as own the
nsme of ChriJlianSy and are really fuchy do profefsy thaty
in the Sacrament they receivey the true Flefh of Chrijly
and his true Blood) the famCy which he took of the Virgin,
McB: wonderfully ftrange, that fo abfurd a Do£f 1 me
fhould have fpread fo univerfally info fhort atime
as our Difcourfer ispicas'd toa'lGwit. CuitmunduSy
Rupertusy ^Igerusy and other Learned Men writ a-
gainft him to the lame effefl: And moreover, this
his Doftrine was condemn'd as falfe, and himfelf as
an Innovamr, in no lefs than Eight Councils and
Synods before that of Later an) voKieh mifer able Sy-
nods (as the Anfwerer proudly calls them) may be
fiippofed to have had as much Learning; and Ho-
nefty, and lam fure, much more Authority, than
Twenty two fuch Sheets as his, tho'ftampt with an
Imprimatur ht^oxe, them.
Now let us oblerve; This MonJlrotUy Abfurdy Bar-
harout^ and Impious Do£l:rine of Tranfubftantiation
(as our Difcourler calls it J in fbme what more than
two Hundred years, was fo throughly eftablifhtali
over the Chriftian World; that thele Learned Au-
thors/and tha Fathers thele Eight Councils, af-
lembled in feveral Kingdoms, were fo totally igno-
rant, that their own Dodrine had its date from the
Council
f 85 )
Council of Nice, or that the Opinion of B.rengt-
riHi had been ever before publickiy profeif, that they
make no fcruple of alledging, the /mtiquity, Vniver-
fdity, and Confimt Pra^ice of their own DoQrinc, as
a moft convincing and unanrwerable Argument a-
gainft his ; I/tterrgaCr^cos, Armenios, (Jkys Lant-
franc") fen cttjiiflibet nation's quofcunque homines, uno ore
hancfidem (i. e. Tranfnhjt^ fe teflabuntur habere.
I profefs, that if after this my moft ferious,and im-
partial Enquiry concerning the Belief of the Ancient
Fathers and the Catholic Church touching the Real
Preftnce, it fhould poflibly be true, that they all, or
generally, agreed with our Difcourfer, and his figu-
rative Interpretation, excluding the Subftance; I
would lay afidc all my Books, and conclude, once
for all. That even the Doftrine of Tranfubftantia-
tion it lelf, is more eafie and rational, than the true
lenle of the Fathers concerning it, intelligible, or at'
tainable. - And tho I will not fay with the Bookfellers
Wife at Paris, That if the Primitive Fathersho,^
lievM Tranfubftanfiation, She would no longer be-
lieve Chriftianity ; yet I may fay, if they did believe
it, and were miftaken, a Chriftians Faith, any fur-
ther than it may be produQive of good Works, is
the moft indifferent thing in the World.
Our Difcourfer tells us of one JohnScots^s, and
Ratramnm, and I know not who, writing I know not
againft this Doftrine of the Real Prefence, at
leaft. according to his Interpretation (tho I know
many Catholics underftand fbme of them in a very
Orthodox fenfe) : But to me it feems as impertinent
to bring two or three private perfbns, advancing
their Opinions, againft the Concurrent Tefti-
monies of all Authors, prior, prefent, and others
(finee
(U)
(fince they wrote) pofterior to them; befides the
Definitions and Decrees of General Councils; asit
would be among us, to produce the Authorities of
John Milton^2X\A Junius Brutus^ to prove that it was
lawful zmQng the Jews for the People, by their own
Supream Power, to murder their Kings ; and that in
all Governments, the People have the lame Sove-
reign Authority, to judge , and punifh, even by
Death, their lawful hereditary Kings, andGover-
nours,if they lhall fo think fit.
Now, having the Hiftory of the Bible, as well as
they, together with the exprefs Command of God,
and conftant Teftimony and Practice of Learned
Men through all Ages, and publickLaws, with Ads
of Parliament to the contrary; thefe Men may
write till their Hands^ and Hearts ake (to ule our DiL
courier's expreflionj before they lhall perfwade me
to renounce the ftrongeft Evidence imaginable, in
favour of their private Sentiments. Whether our
Difcourler be of my mind, or not, I cannot tell; but
if he be, I fee no greater realbn tobelieve John Scot us
than John Milton.
,Come we now to theC^«rr^ Authority^ which lb
much offends him. Our indulgent Mother (accord-
ing to her favourable Dilcipline) permitted the Do-
drine oilranfuhflantiation (as Ihe had done for many
years, that of the Confubfiantiality') to pals upward
of TwelveHundred years, without any other judi-
cial determination of the Modus (as they call it)
than fuch as had been Originally planted in the hearts
and minds of the Faithful, and cultivated in every
Age, by Pious and Learned Men, in their Sermons,
Catechifms, and other Dilcourles, as occafion hap-
ned. But Bfren^artu (a Man fond of his own No-
tions.
(^7)
' . tions, and valuing himfelf much upon his own
Reafbn) refolve:! to fet up for a new Light of the
^ Church ; and (among other Errors ) taught the
figurative acceptation of the Words of Confecra-
tion, as hath been before related,
twin Upon thi», he was admonifht by feveral Pious
and Learned Catholics, to retra£l: betimes fb new
and pernicious a Herefie. But the Arguments of
fenfe, procuring him a party among the Vulgar,
he prolecuted his defign with great vigor, until,at
iyeliji laftjhe was taken notice of by. the Supream Church-
Gcd, Governors; and in a Council zt Rome^ \^n.Dom.
Med 1050- his Do£lrine was condemfPd, and himfelf
liASs excommunicSited; At length, having feveral times ab-
Duy jur'd this his Herefie, and as often returnM to his
'Dif- Vomit, he burnt the Book of Scetus^ from whence he
be confeft to have fuckt part of his Poyfbn; renounc'd
(for the laft time) with all Sincerity, his former
ieroiii Opinions; and /pending the refidue of his days in
I;tin Piety and Devotion, died in the Unity of the Ro-
to man Catholic Church, full, of fbrrow and repen-
tance, JaTt. 6. u4n. Dow. 1088. as may be feen in
xhio Membranis Jaureacetif. in Chronic, CUrii FlorUcenf,
ccord' Momch. S. Petri 'vivi. in WiU. of Malmesbury^ I.
leDfr de gtjlis Reg. Angl. In Bddrico Btirgulienji Abbate,
[jiauy and in the Manufcript B. Martini Turonenjis.
Notwithftanding all this, the Seeds of Herefie
juijj. thus fbwn , were not eafily rooted out: And be-
ljj[j fides, fbme Catholics themfelves (taking occafion
from this Herefie) had writ concerning this great
[try Myff'ery, according as they beft apprehended it;
But fbmetimes the obfcurity of their Expreffions,
the double fenfe which they admitted , and not
clearly fliewing what they themfelves believed (Mif^
M fortunes
(U)
fortunes which happen to moft men, who write con-
cerning fuch high Myfteries without Authority) the
Governours of the Church thought fit (as the beft
means to obviate thefe Inconveniences J to call a
General Council under Pope Iftmcef?t the Third,
which was the greateft that ever had been fince the
Apoftles; and therein, it was determined by near
i^oo Fathers, that ('according to the Doftrine of
the moft Ancient and Holy Fathers, T radition of the
Church, and former Councils^ the Converfionof the
Subftance of Bread and Wine, after Confecration,
into the Subftance of the Natural Body and Blood
of Jefus Chrift, the Accidents of Bread and Wine
only remaining, fhould thenceforward be call'd
Tranfubftantiation ; which had been , fufficiently
before expreft and explain'd , by that wonderful
Tranfrautation, and Tranfdemtntation afferted by
the Fathers. This our Difcourfer believes (with
Scot us) to have been the neceflary confequence of
the Council of Lateran^ i. and fb do I too : The'
in truth this explicative Term wasfl think ) more
particularly eftablifht fashereexpreftj.intheCoun-
eil of Trent,
'Now, tome, the Church feems fb fer from be-
ing worthy of blame, for decreeing what appears
almoft the neceflary confequence of the real Pre-
fence (I mean) Tranfubftantiation, that fas the Cafe
and Circumftances then flood) the Church had
been very negligent, if fhe had not fb decreed.
For it being always believ'd (which I think is al-
fb fully proved) That the Elements of Bread and
Wine, after Confecration, were moft wonderfully,
and by the Omnipotence of God converted into
tdie. Body, and Blood of Chrift It. is. clear then,
tliat.
(■89)
that either the Accidents ^ or the Subfiameo^^tosA
and Wine muft be changed into the Subftance of the
Body of Chrift ; But the Accidents are not fo changed,
therefore ih^SubJlance.
Befides, the Subftance of the Body of Chrift is in
the Blefled Sacrament, either rvith the Subftance of
Bread, or without the Subftance of Bread. If the
firft, then Catholics, and our Difcourfer are in the
wrong. If the laft , then Luther^ and our DiG
courier are in the wrong : So which way our
Difcourfer fhould happen to be in the right, I can-
not comprehend, except l^inglius fhould have been
more than AthmA^us ^ and our Difcourfer (the
Difeiple of Zi*ingliui) greater than St. Andrew the
Apoftleof our Lord. Now befides that the choice
is eafie in this Cafe, even from the Authority of
one fide, greater than of the other ; yet whofoever
fhall endeavour to reconcile the Real Prefence,
with the Dodrine of Confiibftantiation , or Impa-
nation, will find harder difficulties in thefe, than of
thatofTranrubftantiation,fb much condemn'd. The
Authorities therefore which he brings from Duran-
dus, ErafmuSy Tonjial^ and Lome others, to fhew
that before this Council of LaterAn^ Men were at
liberty concerning the or manner of Chrift's
Real Prefence in the Sacrament, might have been
fbmekindof Argument for a Lutheran; But how
our Difcourfer becomes concerned in it, I fee not ;
fince quite through his Difcourfe,and more particu-
larly in f. I'S- he .hath (with fcorn) excluded
Both.
Our Difcourfer hath yet one Argument relating
to the thne, when he fuppofeth this Doctrine of
Tranfubjfiantiation to have come into the World,
M 2 which
which is very remarkable. Ke tells us, That the
Iconomuhi (or oppofers of Images) were very zea-
lous againfl: the Reverence due to them, in the Sy-
mdtolConfiantmople, about the year 750, arguing.
That our Lord having left us no other Image of him-
felf but the Sacrament 5 in which the Subfiance of the
Ereadj is the Image of his Body , we ought to make no
other Image of our Lord; But in the year 787. in the
Second Council of Nice thefe fcrupulous Greeks, in
thirty feven years time, were grown fo hardy in
their Faith, and fo extreamly fond of this new Do-
^rine, concerning the Corporal Prelence of Chrift
in the Sacrament , that they fwallow'd it imme-
diately, and from that time were very fblicitous and
careful to admonifh us, that the Eucharift is not
the Figure or Image of the Body of our Lord , but
his true Body, as appears from the feveiith Synod;
and he brings BellarminX.ovo\K\\ for lum, ^.21,22.
Here we fee chcfe nice Greeks, who were fo very
exaO: and curious in fmaller Matters, were content-
ed to make fo great a palfage in one Council, as,
from the Figure of Chrift in the Sacrament, to ad-
mit of his Subftance ; nay, and were fo pleafed with
it, that from thence, and that time they took care
to admonifh us concerning it. But the fqueamifti
Latins (notwithftanding the Greeks had advanced
fo far in one fingle Council) were little lefs than
three hundred years according to our Difoourfors
computation,//V^/>?^ this mifhaptn Monfier of Tranfub-
fiantiation (fuch is the Elegancy of his Style) into
that Form, in which it is now fetled in the Church-
of Rome. Indeed he hath been over generous to
the Latins, in allowing them fo confiderable a time
to relifh and digeft only the Mode of a thing, when
the.
(90
the eafie Greeks at one fitting had difpatclit the
thing it felf, in which ('according to our Difcourfcrs
Sj. bpinion) the great Barbaroufiiefs and Impiety con-
■"g, fifts. For (fays he^ The Impiety and Barbaroufnefsaf
the thing is not in truth extenuated^ but only the ap-
(lit pearanceof it^ by being done under the Species of Bread
it ID and Wine ; for the thing , they acknowledge^ is really
1th done^ and they believe, that they verily eat and drink
iti in the Natural Flefh and Blood of chrifi. In truth, the
djij Latins are obliged to him in confeffing them to have
Do- been fb extream cautious about the lefTer part; but
firift how he will come off with the Greeks, for being fo
m- rafh and inconfiderate about the greater and princi-
Saul pal part, muff be his care, if he pleafeth.
s . lam perfvvaded , had BeUarmin faid this, tb ha^g
(iot proved that the Greeks did then, and not till tl^Bi
Dodj receive the Doctrine of the Real Prefence; Our Dif^
courfer, could he make any advantage of it (with
few good Reafbn) would have caff it out, as the niofl
(Wt® improbable, and ridiculous conjefturcjin the World;
ijjis. And yet here, becaufe he thinks it may Iielp to fa-
) 3(f. vour his falfe account, he produceth it with as mudi
mill gravity, as if he knew Catholics had lefs fenfe to
can fee a blot, than himielf, rafhnefs to make one.
iniifl] I come now to his fourth pretended Ground of
jnc"!! .this Doftrine, that is, 7he necejfity of fueh a Change in
s tte the Sacrament^ to the Comfort and Benefit of thoft who
[jffg receive it, p. 30. To this, my Anfwer at prefent, is
very fhort. If I be fatisfied, that our Saviour com-
jii[o manded the thing, I am convinc'd there was a good
jfdi Reafbn for it, without over-curioufly examining
jfQ what, or why, in this Cafe, more thdcnwhy he cured
jjj,f not thofe who touched the Hem of his Garment, with-
y out that Ceremony ; or tht blind, without and
ifc
(9^)
fpittie: And yet the Fathers, and many late Authors,
will furnilh thofe who are more inquifitive, with
matiy very good Reafbns, why this Change in the
Sacrament, is more advantageous to the worthy
-Receiver, than the Figure would be, and I fhall fay
fbmewhatofit my fell, hereafter.
The laft pretended Ground of this Do£l:rine, is
(as he tells us) to magnifie the Porverofthe Prieji^
in being able to work fo great a Miracle. Indeed,
if the great Council of Laierm, did make this a
Ground of introducing Tranfubftantiation, never
did 13 CO Learned Men take wronger Meafures;
FornotwithflandingaduereljbeQ: be generally paid
by all good Catholics to Priefts (as their CharaQier
requifes) yet I will be judged by all fuch as have
^fcivell'd abroad. Whether a Presbyterian Paribn in
his Conventicle, or a London Minifter in his Parifh,
or a Calvinift Predicator in Amfierdxm^ who make
jiotUngoithe Sacrament; Do not yet pretend (both
Males and Females ) to have as much refpedl: paid
them , as ere a Prieft, of equal quality, in France^
Italy or SyainyVi\iO neverthelefs arethelnftruments
by which this unexpreflible Change is made ? But
our Difcourfer labours hard here, to prove that this
Change is no Miracle to Senfe ; But,hadheadvis'd
with any Catholic, he might have fpar'd his pains,
for I will engage they would have confeft it to him
at the firft word.
Our Difcourfer having hitherto (with great fuc-
cefs) deftroy'd the DoStrine of Tranfubftantiation;
yet (to make fure work) he kills it again with
four deadly Objeftions drawn from the infinite fcaum
dalo^thxs Doftrineto the Chriftian Religion; As,
1. Th&Stupdity, 2. Real Barbaroujnefs Q)^this
* Dodrine
(93)
Doftrine, fappofing it be true. The bloody Cott-
feqttences. And, 4. 'IhQ danger of Idolatry, if it be
not true, f . ^ 5.
To prove the Stupidity of this DoiElrine, our DiC
courier produceth two Learned Heathens, Tully and
Averroes, wondring that any Men fliould be fb ftu-
pid , as to pretend to eat their God. Now , that
there is Stupidity in the Caic, is mofb certain ; But,
whether it be in the DoStrine; Or in Tully and
Averroes ; Or in our Diicourfer, who brings two
Heathens Teftimonies againfl: a Myftery of the Chri- '
Religion, I leave to Judgment. I fuppofe he
may have heard of fuch an Epiftle, as the firft of
St. Paul to the Corinthians, I would recommend to
him thefirft Chapter, and particularly, Verf i8.19^
ao. where it is written, For the preaching of the
Crofs is to them that perifh, foolifhnefs. Where is the
rvife, where is the fcribe, where is the difputer of this'
world ? hath not God made foolifh the wijdom of the
world? And verf 27 God hath chofen the foolifh things
of this world to confound the wife. Now whether
Averroes, and our Diicourfer were the Wife Men,
or the Foolifh, here intended, I rauft leave again to
Judgment.
But I have not yet done with Averroes, for his-
words cited by our .Dircourier,;>, 34. are very ob-
ferveable. 7 have travel'd {[ays he) overthe world, >
and have found divers Sells ; hut fo fottifh a SeB, or
haw, I never found, as is the SeB of the Chrijlians, he-
caufe with their own Teeth, they devour the God whow
they worfhip. What ilMuck it was, that this great
Philoiopher ihould not have met with the Dii^
ciples of Rahanus Maurus, or ibme One other of our
Diicouriers Predeceifors in Opinion, at leaft, in^
(94)
fome Corner of the World, who might have con-
vincM him of his mifiake, and reconcil'd him a
little better to the Ghriftian Religion ! But not to
have found om Ghriftian over the whole World
(neer fix Hundred years fince, after Rabanm had
writ againft Pafcafms) lefs fottifh than the reft;
will ferve (at leaft^ to prove a Sottifhneis alio in this
Gale; but whether in thofe Chriftians, or, in our pre-
fent Dilcourfer (who hath brought fb ftrong a Te-
ftimony, to prove the limverfality of this Dobtrine
of Tranfubftantiation, even of fo learned a Man,
who had travell'd aU the IVorld over') I muft once
more leave to Judgment.
But fure I am, from Averroes his own Works, and
the knowledge which he had of that vaft difference
between Bodies in their Natural^ Grofs^ and Earthly
Compofition ; and the fure Subftances of thefe Bo-
dies leparated from theiror accidents^ hy cor-
ruption^ or putrefa^lion^ dijlillations ^ digejlions, and
[uhlimationsbecomepJfenceSj or pure Prin-
ciples\ I fay, from his Experimental Philofbphy of
Common Bodies thus alter*d, and fuhlimated, he
would have'made no difficulty to have Iblv'd moft of
our Difcourlers/«^/«r^wej-concerning this DoSrine
of Tranfubftantiation; and yet there is no Gompa-
rifbn between thele Common Bodies, tho never fo
purely defcecatedy and exalted, which can bear any
proportion with the glorified Body of our Saviour
united with his Divinity; So that I am verily per-
(waded, had Averroes been fatisfied concerning the
other Myfteries of Ghriftian Religion, and rightly
inform'd concerning the Dodrine of Tranfilbftan-
tiation, he would have been as good a Ghriftian in
that Point J as Pope Innocent ^d. or Pius ^h.
But
(95)
But our Difcourfer tells US, that the ftupidity of
li®! this Do^Jrine breeds and: Even fb
^otE the warmth of the Sun breeds and many
other Infeds, but the Matter mufi: be firft difpoled
«tii to Corruption. Now altho' the Sun be much hot-
iieit, ter in France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, than in Eng-
intliij land, or in Holland ; yet I appeal to all Men who
ttpit. have any knowledge of thofe Kingdoms, whether
alt. there be not as many reputed Atheifts in thele two
irifl! laft Governments, where the Dodrine of Tranfiib-
1%, ftantiation is not fb publickly, nor generally profeft,
once as in any other part of the Chriffian World proper-
tionably where it is ? And what indeed have been
5,and the true parents of Atheifm, and Infidelity, but the
rence dcvilifh pride oi Senfe and Reafon, fetup againft the
irtblj bleffed Humility of Faith and Obedience ? But our Dif^
iBo- courier in this Page begins to be very ierioufly idle,
and impertinent; out of fbme refped therefore to
himfelf, we will pafs it over, and come to p.
(Prii, where he moft grievoufly accufeth this Sacrament
^oj ofBarbaroufnefSjUpcntheSuppofition of the truth
( of this Dodrine: But fure if this Dodrine be true,
then it isimpoflible that itfhould be barbarous, ex-
cept our Saviour himfelf, who commanded it, and
is there voluntarily prefent in it, fhould have infti-
tuted a barbarous Sacrament ; which, whether our
Difcourfd can believe, I know not; but fure I am,
yj j if the Dodrine be»ortrue, it cannot be barbarous
to eat him in imagination only, except ourDifcour-
{Jg fers opinion be alfo barbarous. He tells us, wry
unworthily done to our friend, and barbarous to feafl
■jQ. Flejh and Bleed. I am glad to find our Difl
1 in capable of fb much Tendernefs : But he
might have read of very many Provinces in the
( 9^0
EaJ}, and JVeJl Indies, who count it their greateft
glory, to eat their beft deceafed Friends, perfwad-
ing themlelves, that thereby, they do (as it were)
regenerate, or reanimate thole to whom they were
firfl: obliged for their own lives,by transforming them
thus into their own Nature, and Subftanee. With
indignation therefore they reproach our mariner of
Burials as moft inhumane. 0 pauvrt Gens (faith my
Author) comment laijjez Z'ous mAnger cette chair pre-
cieufe aitx Saks vers de la terrt f Et que monument plus
digne lui pouvez vous donner, que celuy de vos pro-
pres entrailles ? And upon this confideration it was,
that the renowned Artemife drank the AHies of her
dear departed Husband. The Barbaroufnefs there-
fore objeOied by our Di'courier f fuppofe this eating
were according to his falfe Conceptions) proceeds
from the narrownefs of his own thoughts , who
would judge, and meafure the Civility andReafon
. of the whole World, according totheCuftoms (it
may be) of his own little Province.
But, tho no Catholic thus pretended to eat the
Body and Blood of Chrifl (for that they all know he
is immortal, and uncapable of Death, or Suffering,
or Corruption, or any other indignities) yet our Dif-
courier will needs compare this eating in the holy
Sacrament, to the violent hacking and flafiling of
our living Friends, and carnally devouring their
raw Flefli, like the worft of Cannibals ; What an
odious and difproportionate Comparifbn hath he
made, on purpofe to deceive his Friends, and re-
vile, and fcandalize thole, whom he fuppofes, his
Enemies ?
But before I quit this Page, I muft pay my re-
fpedls to one main Demonftration of his, which
(he
(97)
(lie fays) is worth a thoufand ; and it is this ; That
the Heathens ohje^ed no fuch Cuflom to the ChriflianSy
it'j: theref ore no fuch Doctrine believed. Now this piece
Kfi; of Malice might have paft undifturb'd, with many
injlli others which I have not tahen notice of, had he not
ft': bad the confidence (I will not ule his own expref-
iWi fion, Impudence') to have provok't an Anfwer by pro-
ducing the half Teftimony of JuJiin CMartyr in
p. II, to countenance his own Error ; where, that
w/ji very Father^ in that very place, is making an Apolo-
vas I gy to the Heathen Emperor e^ntonintssy and is fo far
it \ trom mincing the Matter,or explaining it by a figura-
:so[: tiveScnfe, That he there tells the Emperor, We are
efstk taught that the Food (fpeaking of the Sacramentj
being Confecrated by the Prayer of the Word, Is the
procc Flefh and Blood of Chrijl fefu-s himfelf Incarnate.
5 ();. Illitis incarnatijejuydr Carnem, & Sanguinem ejfe,e-
do£fi fumus. Apol.i. Tt is moft prodigioufly ftrange,
gjiji and inexcufable in this holy Father, to have us'd this
fcandalous Metaphor to a Heathen Emperor (which
[jfjt they cautioufly expreft to the Ch.xiB.'nnCatechumens)
if he intended nothing more than a figurative Senfe :
Ai ^ whether it had
not been more prudent, and (it may be) pious, to have
foftned and moderated the exprelTion to a Heathen,
UjIjj tho the Father had truly believed the Real Prelence,
than thus to have expos'd himfelf, and laid an unne-
ceflaryftumbling-block before the Emperor, if in-,
deed he did not believe it.
2J But our Difcourfer fnot fatisfied with this) tells us
a Story p. 12. That the Heathen Greeks^ having taken
' fome Servants of the Chriflian Gatechumeni, urofd
them by violence to tell them feme Secrets of the Chrifii-
' . anSy rvho confsfiyThat th^fhadf heard from thtir CMa-
N 2
{9i)
fers, that the Divine Qommmion was the Body and
Blood of Chrifi; and^ that they (i. e. the Catechu-
meni) thinking that it was really Flefb and Blood de.
clar'^d as much to the Greeks. And yet our Dilcour-
fer in/>. 3 5. will not admit, that any fuch thing was
ever objeaed by the Heathens to the Chriftlans, al-
tho' by violence the Chriftians themfeives confeft
it. What a bold, conceited Difcourler is this, who
whilft he manifeftly confutes himfelf, thinks his
Adverfaries fo impotent, as not only, not to have
any defenfive Arms of their own, but alfo not to
dare to make ufe of his, when he fb fairly offere
them againft his own falfe Arguments ? His mif-
application of the whole Story, from the Anfwer
of Blandina (which he ftrangely miifakes) is very
filly; For what Catholics ever thought that the Com-
munion of the Body and Blood of Chrift in the
Sacrament , was a breach of their Faft ? If any
had, bymiftake, fomefuch thoughts (zsTertullian
feems to infinuate) the breach of their Faft muft
be imputed to the receipt of the Symbols, or Acci-
dents of Bread and Wine, which indeed may nou-
rifh ; but not to the Body and Blood of Chrift.
Now had not our Diftourfer thus demonftrably
anfwered himfelf, and faved us thereby a further I3-
hour, I could have recommended him to St.
Nazian. St. Augufiin^ and feveral others of the Fa-
thers^ where he would have found^hefe 6bje£lions
made to the Chriftians, and their Anfwers to them,
much after tire manner of Juftin Martyr. And no-
thing is told us more plainly in the Hiftories of thofe
times, than, that the Heathens, having a confuftd
Notion of the great Myftery of the Sacrament, did
commonly accufe the Chriftians Qft^'€a^ing Mans
i riefh,
(99)
Flefli, or young Children, or fbmetimes their God.
Sure our Difcourler intended to prevent us from ufiiig
this Argument our felves, for this Objedion of the
Heathens hath ever been accounted a kind of De-
monftrationof the Antiquity of our Doftrine.
His third Objedion is , from the bloody Conft-
quemes of this Doctrine : But lie gives us no parti-
cular inflanccs, and he doth well to grow more wife
at laft; for he hath been very unlucky in them :
Since therefore he is pleafed only to affirm in gene-
ral, I am contented to deny in general, and lb we
are upon even ground.
His laffObjeaion is, from the danger of Idolatry,
if this Dottrine be not true ; and I add, the danger of
our Di[couriers moft execrable Blafphemies if this
Dodfrine be true •, let-us therefore Both confider fc-
rioufly of it, fince the danger on both fides is very
great; However we have the Authorities of many
Learned Church of EnglandMan (as may be feen at
large"in the Oxford DiicouYltr) who have acquitted
us of Idolatry. Whilft our Difcourfer ftands almoft
fingle, in the fcurrilous bitternels of his rude and un-
manly expreffions.
And here I thought our Difcourfer would have
ended his dire wrath againft Tranfiibftantiation; but
to be yet morefecure (and with good Reafbn too)
that it may never rife up in Judgment againft him ;
he comes back again, and in p. jy. gives it four
wounds more for the abfurdity of its Doflrine;
and thefe are perfornrcd by way of Four very confi-
derable CJueftions ; As Firft, p. 38. Whetfer this
Doftrine doth not contradift iiisSenfts ? Secondly^
Whether it can be proved by his Senfes-? Third-
}y, Whether it be not againft the-certainty of his
I
T tl!
41 ■'»'
( loo)
% Se»fes ? AndLaftly, Whether it benotagainft the
I !|ll^ Evidence of his Senfes? Now becaufe to me thcfe
V i ' retaii'd Queftions feem to import much the fame
> thing; I will take the liberty (for tbe fake of a fpee-
' I dier Conclufion) to give my Opinion concerning
J them in grofs.
K Before we confider the monfirou^s Abfurdities of
>1. this DoQrine, let forth in thefe four great Quefti-
ons ; it is reafbnable that we ferioufly think with
(I', 1^ our ftlves, upon what account this Doctrine
fliould happen to get fuch firm footing in the
World, as to have fpread (in a very fhort time as
our Dilcourfer fuppofes^ over the face of the whole
Chriftian Church: Nay more, That in all probability
" ' it might have been univerfallyreceiv.'d, even at this
day, had not the extraordinary Reafon^
' Senfe(zw^ 1 know not what other qualificationsj of
John Scot tis^Berengarius^ andourDifcour-
fer, opened the Eyes of poor blinded Chriftians, and
' fhewn them, how their Senfes were lead Captivity
^ ' • Captive by the Jngling tricks^ Hocm Pocu^, and Cheat
of this Doftrine (for fb he is pleas'd to call) Tran-
, h fubftantiation/*. ^4.
I name not Lather among the great Reformers, as
to this Po-int, for he agrees with Catholics, as to the
Real Prefence, tho' he differs in the Modus ; and with
his whole heart Anathematizes and Curfes the Do-
ftrine of our Difcourfer (under the name of "Zgtin-
Epi/t. coKtr. glim) and all his Adherents, in thefe words, Wecen-
nn. Lovxn. Jure in earnejl the Zgnnglians and aU the Sacrament a-
for Hereticks^ and alienated from the Church of
God. And again, Carfed be the Charity., and Concord
of the Sacramentaries for ever, and ever^ to all Eternity.
Tom. Wjttemb. fol. 381.
Now
. ^
f* ■
■11'
ttSj '• } r
%
'tit „ '
( 101 )
Now upon the befl: enquiry I could make concern-
ing the EftabliQiment of this Doftrine, I found but
Four tolerable good Realbns how it came to get fo
great credit among Chriftians. The Firfl is, becaule
our Blelfed Saviour (who is the Fountain ofWildom
and Truth^ did iniiitute this Sacrament in fuch plain
words, as, Thii is my Bodj, Thsit no Propofition upon
Earth can be made to us in moreexprefs and poll-
tive Terms. Secondly, Becaule the Apoftles did be-
lieveour Saviour fpakein earneft, and really meanc^
as he laid fat leallj if we will believe the aforenam'd
Jiifiifj Miirijiry who tells us, T/^^f the Apojlles in the
Commentaries written by them have recorded that Jefus
fo commanded. Thirdly, Becaule all the Ancient
FathirSy who have written of the Floly Eucharift,
have expreft themlelves lb fully concerning their
firm Belief of the Real Prefence in a literal Senle,
That I defie Z^inglim and all his Works (allowing
me fome Senle, or prelerving that little which I have)
to under/land them totally in a figurative Senle.
And Laftly, Becaule General Councils (taking no-
tice that ibme vain-glorious felf-conceited Men, had
impudently prefum'd to interpret thofe words of
our Saviour contrary to the fenle of the Apoftles,
and Primitive Fathers, and prafilice of the whole
Chriftian ChurclV had authoritatively decreed,That
the Judgment of the blcfted Apoftles, and holy Fa-
thirs lliould be follow'd in this Matter, that is. That
theSubftance of Bread and Wine, after Confecrati-
on, was converted into the Subfiance of the Body
and Blood of Chrift ; and that the Herefie of theie
new Upftarts ftiould be condemned, and themfelves
excommunicated.
Now thcfc Reafons, mechinks, might befufticient
to
( 101 )
to fbew that a Doctrine thus inftituted, and recom-
mended to us, might very probably be generally re-
ceived among Men, who own the xA.uthority of the
Inftitutor, and Fidelity of thole, who, being Wit-
neffes of the Adion, have aflured us ot its meaning.
Nor can I perfwade my felf there rsanyManfo
prejudiced and uncharitable upon Earth (except
thofe whole Charity Luthtr cux^l) 2iS to believe, That
fb many Learned Men, in fuch Auguft and Sacred
Aflemblies, fhould folemnly^ mttin^y^ and rvillingly
impoleupon the World lb pernicious, arid damnable
aDo9:rine, if they themfelves knew, or could be-
iieve that this DoSlrine was falle: Except Ibme
vaft, and wonderful temporal Intereft fhould pre-
vail with thele and DotEfors (whole reputa-
tions have been high in the World) thus dangerouf-
ly to expole their own Souls, and the Souls of all
who belonged to them, or depended upon them,
for the obtaining this fuppolcd worldly Satisfa-
£lion.
A learned Protedant, in his Anfxver to fome Que-
riesy foems to have a great relpefl: for General Coun-
cils, but tells us, p. That Men are liable to hopes and
fears ; and therefore we cannot depend upon them. Now
hopes and fears in this place relate only to Temporal
Concerns, which we will fuppofe Interejl in its lar-
geft acceptation. .But, in the name of God, what
Intereft is this, for which lb much is thus delpe-
rately engaged ? Why truly our Anlv^erer fays no-
thing to it; But our Dilcourler, who hath left no
Stone unturn'd, but flies at alf tells usatlaft, p. jo.
That it is to magnife the power of the Priejl in being
able to work jo great a Miracle. I have already hinted
how much thele Fathers have been all along miftak-
en
f 'O? )
en, if this was their defign. But Secondly, from the
difproportion between the poornels of the reward,
and ineftimable price that is paid, even eternal Saiva-
tion, I might moft convincingly argue theimpoffi-
bility of the defign, and fix it only in the mean and
unworthy thoughts of our trifling Dilcourfer. But
that I may clear thele hQ\y,Fathers, and Councils,
beyond all further doubt or dilpute ; I do aflirm
this little defign to have been lb far from their
thoughts, that they have conftantly declared this
wonderful tranfinutation to proceed, not from any
fower of the Priefl:, but by the fble Omnipotency
of Almighty God ; And becaufe our Dilcourler
Icems to have fome value for St. Jugujltn, I lhall
produce his Teftimony, as it is cited de Confecratione
Dijl.2. c. 72. His words are thele. In the My fiery of
the Body of Chrijl performed within the holy Church,
there is nothing more done by a good Priejl, and nothing
lefs by a wicked one ; becaufe what is wrought there is
not by the Merit of him who Conlecrates, but by the
word of our Creator^ and the power of the Holy Ghojl;
for if it were by the merit of the Priefl:, "'twould not at
all belong to ChriJl^ &c. If St. Auguftin could have
prophefied that a malicious Dilcourler Twelve Hun-
area years after his death fhould have propos'd fuch a
foolifh Caule, to have producM lb ablur'd a Doflrinc
(in the Language of our Dilcourler) I know not
how he would have anfwer'd him more pertinently.
I fhall not trouble you therefore with the Authori-
ties of J'tJlin Martyr^ Apol. 2. St. Ambr. I. de his qui
fnijl. init. and leveral other Fathers, together with
General Councils, particularly that of Florence, de
Sacram. Euch. to the fame purpolc ; but conclude,
that theApoftles, fathers, and Councils, having no
O defign
( 104 >
defign or profpcQ:, of any valuable eonfideration,
for ft great a rifque, as their Eternal Salvation ; mull
have impos'd this Dodrine upon mankind, either
through grofs Ignorance, or meer wilful, and devL
lifli premeditated Malice: But having no manner, of
reafon to believe the firll, and from my heart dete-
fting fo curbed a thought as the la ft, v/e will next
conlider, what inducements they might have had
('from the eonfideration of Spiritual advantages,
arifing from thence to the Ghriftian World) to have
preft this DoSlrine (believing it to be true) with the
greater earneftnefs. And indeed the advantages are
very many, and very great. As,
Firft, "That the Eucharift is a pledge of our Salva^
tion. Secondly, That we are, not only by faithy
but even Corporally united with Chrift. Thirdly,
That, inregard of this Union, the Eucharift is a Seal
to us of our Refurreflion. Fourthly, That through
it, we are made partakers of the Divine Nature.
FiftUy, That by being thus truly, and really unit-
ed with Chrift, we cannot be altogether divided
from fuch influences as proceed from Chrift. Sixth-
ly, That our Faith is encreafed proportionable to the
diiflculties which encompals this DoSlrine. Se-
venthly,Thatour Hope.is railed hereby toa fublimer
pitch; for by the participation of the Body of our
Lord, and his Preience in the blefled Eucharift, we
anticipate, as it were, the Joys of Heaven, even in
"^ottal Bodies ; whence St. Chryfojlome tells us,
that, Dtm in hac viU'fumm^ ut terra mbu ceelum fit,
facit hoc myfierium. Eigthly, Thatfrom the Confi-
deration of our blefled Saviours Love, who being
touched even in the Bowels of Tendernefs towards
us,, left us at his departure, his Sacred Body to nou-
rifli
f'Oj)
rifh our Souls and Bodies unto Life EverlalHng ; we
alfo might return the pureft Love and Affedion to-
wajrd him, and Charity toward one another, who
are thus fubftantially united by the Communicati-
on of this Spiritual Food according to that of S. P4«/, i cor. i«.
For rve being many are one Bread and one Body, for tve
are all partakers of that one Bread. And, Ninthly,
That it is a Commemoration of our Lords PafTion,
a Confirmation of hisTeffament, and a propitiato-
ry Sacrifice, not only for the living, but for the dead.
Thefe, and many more weighty Confiderations
^f this L'nd together with*the Teflimony of the
Fathers, Authority of General Councils, and uni-
verfal pradice of all Chriftians until thefe two laft
Centuries, will enable us I hope to encounter the iup-
pofed abfurdities of ourDifcourfer : We fliall en-
gage therefore this uncircnmciftd Philifiine, (I mean)
this Argument, with all its boafting train of
fenflefs Queftions. And
Firft, I know not how Philofbphy can be
much concern'd on either fide ; for what Philofo-
pher will tell me, how the Divine Nature, identifi-
ed in the Perfon of the Father, fhould be Communi-
Gated to the Son, without alfb communicating the
Perfon ? Or how the Unity, or Individuality of Na-
ture, fliould be in a diverfity of Perfbns, neither
confounding the Perfbns, nor dividing the Subftance?
How in the Myftery of the Incarnation God fepa-
rateth from the Humanity of Chrift, his manner
of fiibfiftence, inferting it in his Divinity ? How
the Son ILould be Confubflantial, and Co-eternal
with the Father ? How fbmething may be made
out of nothing, and that fbmething reduc'd again to
mothing ? How Eternity, which is irrfians dnrationis
O 2
non
(to6)
non fluefts, an inflant of duration, may be demon-
ftrated to fubfift without refpeO: to time paft, or
time to come ? How God Almighty, who is ^onc
fimple, and indivifible Being, fhould beat once fub-
ftantially prclent in all places, and things ? A Myfte-
ry fo inexplicable, that it forced St. Auguftin to fay,
Miratur hoc Mens humana, & quia non apt, fortajfe
non credit. Nay more, how our Soul, which is the
Light of our'Bodies in this our Pilgrimage upon
Earth, can be totally in the Head, and totally in
the Feet, and totally at the fame time in the whole
Body, and in every part of it; Or how the Nee-
die, which is our Common Guide through the paths
of the deep, fhould point always towards the
North \ or if fbmetimes it varies > whence fhould
proceed its variation ? When Philofbphy hath ex-
plain'd allthefe, with many more hitherto invincible
Difficulties, I make no doubt,but She will then free
alfo Tranfubftantiation from the Calumny of our
Difcourfers monfirous Abfurdities,
In the mean time, that we may the better deal
with them, we fhalldivide them intofuchas feem
to appear fb, Firft to Reafon, and Secondly to Senfe.
For the Firft, our Dilcourfer feems to have been
modeft, fince of a thoufand infinuated, he is pleafed
to name but two, Firft, the grofs contradi^ion of the
fame Body being in fo many jeveral places at once; And
Secondly of our Savioursgiving axvay himfelf with his
own hands, and yet keeping himfelf to himfelf p. 37.
The latter hath received a particular Anfwer from
S. Augujiin in his Comment upon ffal. 3 3. as hath been
already fliewn, and I fhall not prefume to mend it.
Nor, will this Fathers own quodammodo. in another
place ; or that of Bedes upon the fame Pfal. 33. lielp
(*°7)
him in the leafl:; for all Catholics willingly accept
the word and moft jyftly interpret it to be modo
which manner they all profels and teach.
But for the Firft, which as much concerns the
Real Prelence f a DoSlrine ownM by Bifhop
dretvsy and the Church of EngUnd^ and at prefent
b'f 2\\ Luther^ins) as Tranfiibftantiaticn believ'd by
Catholics, I fhall fpeak of T/ai/, and the reft of his
Queftions about Senfe ( which are common Obje-
ftions in all Proteftant Authors againft this Subjefl:)
when I come to the Conclufion, to whichlhaften.
Our Dilcourfer hath one Argument more tocoun-
tenance the Novelty of Tranfiibftantiation, which,
being more particularly urg'd by himfelf than fome
others, I fhall endeavour to give a reafb.nable An-
fwer to it, and fb take my leave of him, until we ^
meet again in the Conclufion, backt with the Obje-
ftions of fome other late Authors, which are com-
men to them all.
He tells us, p. 2 6. That the firfirife of this Do-
Urine was about the beginning of the Ninth Age, tho
it did not take firm root until towards the end of the
Eleventh', And this time {he fays) was the mojl likely
of all others, it being by the confent of their own Hi(lo-
rians, the mofl dark and di'frnal time, that ever happened
to the Chriftian Church both for Ignorance, and Superjli-
ticn,andViee, And then illuftrates all this by the
Parable of the Tares, which he conceives the Ene-
my might have fown in fb dark and long a night.
The Conjefture is very plaufible until it be well con-
fider'd, and then (I am perfwaded^ his Argument
will not only vanifh, but be turn'd againft himfelf
(as many others have been^ with nafmall advantage
to our Cauf&
I
(io8)
I readily grant, that Ibme part of the time aflign-
cd by him for the introducing of this Dodlrine,
was difmal enough, upon thofe three accounts
mentioned by him : But I.alfb affirrn, Thatfucha,
Doflrine could never have met men in Circumftan-
ces more contrary and averfe to its eftablifhment,
than to be thus overwhelmed with Ignorance, Su-
perftition and Vice, And firfl: ^otlgncrance^ It is
Evident to all Mankind (and therefore the more
ftrongly Objefted againft us by our Difcourfer, and
all Proteftants^ That Tranfubftantiation is a Do-
ftrine which highly contradibls our Common Senfes.
Now as fuch, the abulesof it, muft needs have been.
Fir ft, moft notorioufly vifible to the moft Vulgar and
illiterate,for they (feldom looking further into things
than the Common appearances) would certainly
have taken thefirft, and ftrongeft Alarm, upon the
Propofition only, of fb new, and infupportably fenfe-
left a Doftrine (as our Difcourfer calls it) if they
had not from Age to Age, fiickt it in with their firft
nourifhment, and feen itfb univerfally receiv'd, that
they no mote confider'd the confequences of it, than
diey did thofeof fome other Myfteries of their Re-
ligion, which they equally alike received as matter
of Faith from the Authority and veracity of their
Spiritual Guides, and Governours,
But when as Bere»gArtus fabout the Tenth Centu-
ry) was bold enough to teach, and write againft it,
Ihewingthe ftrong difficulties which he thought en-
compaft it; we then fee a Party of the Vulgar com-
ing in to him apace, whilft neverthelefs, the Lear-
ned, from many parts of the World, judicioufly
Mymb. and ftrenuoufly oppos'd him. The fame thing may
y. 31. be obferved from thG Waldefj/eSj whole Ring-leader
if'aldOj
( '0?)'
Wddo^ a moft illiterate Merchant of Lions fas aU'
Hirtorians confefs^ procured alio a milerable Crew,
who, from their poverty were ignotiiinioufly call'd,
the poor Men of Lions \ and their Pofterity fixt
themfelves among the Barbarous and ignorant
Mountaneers, about, and upon the Jlpos^ who haX'e
remained obftinate Oppofers.of this Doctrine of
Tranfubftantiation, even unto this prelent Age.
The laftlnfhance I fhall give, is of the Wickliffifls^i^^i'
who following in a great meafure the Dofibrines of
Berengarinsj and Ibme other Herefies, had got toge-
tlier two Hundred Thoufand of the Rabble, who
with Rebellious Arms in their Hands^ had well nigh
reduc'd the King himfelf to the laft exitremities:
However hisHerefies were condemn'd by the leatnect
er part of the Univerfities, as far as the Circum-
ftances of thofe diftraffed times would permit, and
the intereft which (upon fbme other account)TFi(V;{-'
liff himfelf had gotten in the Duke of Lancafier,
and fbme other Perfbns of Quality. Tho fame
might belaid of the and many more tooiHi.
long to mention', who became irreconcilfea'ble Ene^
mies to this Dodrine- Whence it is moftiEvh
dent, even by undeniable matter of FaQ:, that the
Eftablifhment of Tranfubftantiatton, could hope for
no advantage from ignorant Age; fince the igno-^
rant have been the firli, and greateft OppoferSf of'
it, and the mofi:Le^;^dMeOi generally its Defend
ders. , ■ ')• -
Neither Secondly, can a Generation pofli-
bly be favourers of this Doftrine'; For, whether it
be true, or falfe, yet" whilft it iS believed tO'be true ,
it is certainly the greateft pr-ombter- of Pietyand"
Devotiofl^of any Article'(WtiWy hi) itt the Clifrifti-
an
(no)
an Religion : For when we confider, That Chrift
was not only pleas'd once to die, but to become alio
a daily Sacrifice for us, and to offer his very Body to
us, for the nouriftiment of our Souls and Bodies un-
to Everlafting Life; How is it poflible that Men
fhould be lefs fenfible of Gods great Goodnefs to-
wards us, and our own unexpreffible Love and Duty
towards him, believing this Doflrine to be true,
than not believing it at all ? Vice therefore could
have no hand, either in the contriving, or letling
fb pious, fb venerable, and lb comfortable a Do-
£irine.
Laftly, let us confider whether SHperJlition could
probably have introduc'd this fuppofed damnable
Error. I cannot deny that Superftition is it felf an
Error, yet totally inconfiftent with what we call
formal Vice ; for it is rather an Erroneous excels in
Devotion, and is the efJebl: of an unrealbnable fear ;
' at leaft, if we will believe Mr.Hohs, who thus diftin-
guilheth it from Atheifm. Superftitio (^lays he^ a
metu f»e re&a rattorn : Atheifmus a rationis opinione
fne metu profcifcitur : So that altho it be an Error,
yet it is fuch a one, as is accompanied with fear ;
whereas Vice proceeds from a want of that due fear^
which we ought to have of Gods Juftice, and the
punilhment due from thence to our Sins: And by
confequence Superfiition and Vice can never meet
(according to our Difcourlers acceptation of Vice)
together in this place. ^
■ Thus I have endeavoured tolhew, by the plain,
natural confequences of Ignorance, Super (lit ion and
Vice, that they could not have given any encourage-
ment to impoie a Doftrinc, which hath ever been
^jthe Subject of the Learned Pens, in magnify-
jng»
(iii;
fci iflgt or explaining its Myftery; and in its Praflice,
i] one of the greatefl: advancers of a vtrtuom^ and a
d|ti holy Life.
sia. But having already frankly confcft, that Ignoranee
Mt: and Vue reigned more powerfully during fomepart
[s of thofe Centuries, than (it may be) in any others
oil fincc, or before; let us now ^'complying with our
t® Difcourfers Hiftorical account concerning the tern-
;aiii per of thofe times; examine what real effeft they
fli„; might have had upon this great Article of Faith,
Dfl. Jranfubffantiation.
Let us then Suppofe ('what I hope is fiifficiently
proved) that this Do£brine had been implicitely be-
[jjIjI; liev'd from the Apoftles days: It is then confeft by
If J. our Difcourfer, that about the Eighth and Ninth
jjII Century, fbme Men began to write copioully for,
fj ju and againfl it, and alio down to the Eleventh and
Twelfth. And here, whilft we truly lament, fb
muft we juftly apply the Vice, and Ignorance of
thofe unhappy times, to the great fcandals, and diffi-
culties under which thatApoftoIicDo£frine lies, c-
ven in our own Age.
fyj' The Vices of fome, and afJefted Noveltie of o-
thcrs, might probably have induced fome well
JjIj meaning Men to write concerning this great Myfte-
ij, ry; but whilft nothing had been Authoritatively de-
. termin'd concerning. 7what they call) the or
. A manner of Chrifts Real Prefence in the Sacrament;
' fbme, by endeavouring to explain it, made the
, jjj Text (hy their private Notions; become ten times
more obfcure than before: Other good Men, build-
ing ftill upon the firft falfe Foundation (' I mean
^ Comment; and endeavouring to maintain aground
'T which was not firm at Bottom, The Council of
r P rrwf
(iir)
Trehp moft judicioufly, and (if I may fayj divinely
Decreed ("what fomfe call: the Modui) Tranfubftan-
tiation; and that in fuch admirable terms, and
words, that I am conVinc'd the Divine Wifdom in
the thing determined, exceeded the Natural Know*
ledge of the perfons dehrmining : But no fooher
were the Canons eftablilhed, and this Council dif-
folv'd ; but fome Men (in Oppofition to thefe He.
relies which have difturb'd the Church ever fince;
fell to work again in explaining thefe holy Myfte-
ries ; but nothing having been decreed in
this Council, more than what had been always im.
fLicitely believ'd before ; they generally kept to for-
mer Notions, and infteadof reconciling this Divine
Truth to Senfe, to Reafbn, and to the Word of God,
have made it almoft incompatible with all three ;
whilft nevertheleCs the DoQrine it felf remains in-
violably true, and againft which the Gates of Hell
fhall never prevail. Thus we fee how Vice and Ig*
jiorance may have accidentally introduc'd an erro*
heous Explicationj but could not poflTibly havead-
mitted the Dodrine .it felf ( much lefs the Cora-
ment) had it been guilty of fo much Novelty as itis
accus'd of, by our Difcourfer.
Having thus finifht (with all plainnefs and finceri-
ty) my Remarks upon fuch particular Objedions as
he hath offer'd againft this Do£trme of tranllib-
ftantiation ; I muft now reafTume the Confideration
of cur lateAnfwerer, and fbme others, who have
emptied their whole fivers of fharpefi (tho fruit-
lefs; Arguhients againft an Article of Faith , fe-
cutely placed by the Promifes and Providence of
the Almighty, far above the reach of humaneMa-
lice, or Power.
C'>3)
Firft, our Anfwerer hath a particular Notion, and
(very iugenioufly) hath made a Parallel between ^
many Circumftances in the Inftitution of the Jewifh
Paffover, (or rather the Memorial of it) and that
ilij of tlie Sacrament of the Lords Supper; And indeed,
101: could he have reconciled the plain literd Inftitution
ttii of the Paflbver, with Iiis figurative exprelfion in the
M Sacrament, he had gon fomewhat farther towards
wi: the Point he aim'd at; But if we take them both
in a literal lenfe (and lb in reafbn the Parallel
TO ought to run) Alas I his conlequence is confound-
ray5 ed, and all his Parallels come to little or nothing.
3ttt But granting him the benefit of his Clerkfhip, and
isDf Reading , in its utmoft Latitude, will this lave
lof( him? truly I think not, for thele Reafbns. Firft,
1 tfr it hath been the received Opinion of all Parties,
oaioi that the Jewifh Palfover, was a Type of theChri-
ftian Sacrament, and my lelf was prelent when
'jijii a Learned * Bifhop made a whole Sermon before the ^
late King at fV/^ite Hall upon this Suppofition : If 16,
how comes it then to pals, that this Type or Figure
[,e{ Ihould be no more than a Figure of a Figure ? It was
what.thef<l^/>err could not endure to hear. But,
Secondly, according to our Authors Parallel, the
Sacrament is no more (at raoft) than a Figure (of
■0 the Memorial, that is) of the Figure, of this Figure
(that is) the Paflbver. But in truth it appears not
clear to me, that the eating of. unleavened Bread,
had any particular relation to the Paflbver it felf;
but that they were the Memorials of two
and dijferent actions : The one^ That God did Pafs
over, or fpare the Children of Ifrael, when he flew
the Children of the Eg)iptia»s : The other, ThatGo;^
' brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt, which
f Pa is
( "4)
is thus fully exprcft in Exod. i j. v. 8, and 9. Atti
thoH fhult fbew thy Son in that day, faying, This is
done hecaufe of that which the Lord did unto me when
I came forth out of T.gyft; And it fball be for afgu
unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between
thine eyes, that the Lords Law may be in thy mouth]
for with a Jlrong hand hath the Lord brought thee out
of Egypt. This our Author confefTeth himfelf in
his IntroduSlion, p. 4. and it is again let forth in
Exod. C.12. '
If this be lb, ('and with fubmiflion I am apt to b^
lieve it is) what then beeomes of our Anfwerers Pa-
rallels? Since now they have no relation to the Paflb.
ver, or Pafchal Lamb ? Why, fince they lie thus fair
for us, we will prefume to make ule of them, to
prove ftill further the undoubted Truth of theCa-
tholic DoCtrine.
The Body of Chrift then in the Sacrament, is the
Suhfiancel\gm£iedhYthQPafchal Lamb, which was a
ligure of it; by means of which holy Sacrifice,
God is plealed to fpare us, and pafs over us, as he
did the Children of Ifrael, and take us into his par-
ticular Proteftion.
The Elements, Symbols, or Accidents, may be the
Subftances fignified by the unleavened Bread, and
Camong other fignifications) are the Memorials of
our deliverance from the bondage of Sin and Satan.
Thus the Parallels run right upon all four, and
when our Anfwerer fhall have better confiderM of
it, poflibly he may not think lb well of what he calls,
almofi a Demonftraticn, Introd./>. 6.
The next Remark from our Anfwerers Difcourle,
is this. That he hath brought fcveral Learned Ca-
tholics (profeffedly remaining fuch) not only, nc^
to
^ I
0>y)
to have believed, but alfb to have written againft
Tranfubftantiation. If this be really true (as Iper-
ceive he imagines it is) then fiirely (if their
mtnts were no greater than their Homfiy) their Tejii-
monies will not do him much honor; for, to profefs
a Dodrinc of that Importance, and yet not to be-
lieve it, muft unavoidably convince the World,
that they were falfe, interefted, hypocritical Knaves;
and in this Charafter will I include the late Author
of the Communion of the Church of Rome, but
with this additional aggravation of partiality; that
he admits of the Englifh Red Frefence, Confubfian"
tUtion, Impandtion, Z^inglianifm, or any thing, ra-
ther than Tranfubftantiation : And had he been ho*
neft and fincere, he fhould have produc'd the Au-
thorities of the fame Fathers plainly afferting what
he would make them deny, and have reconcil'd them
to his Interpretation, if he could.
But Secondly, we have nothing but bis word for
the truth of his Protejlant Relics, now if we fhould
ridicule thofe as moft probably he hath done fbme
Pepiflj Relics, which he might nave met withal in his
Travels, I know not how he will help himfelf; wc
fliall havereafbn to queftion his own Sincerity, as
immediately lhallbe fnewn.
Thirdly, It is a great queftion, whether all thefe
Eminent perfbns whom he hath named, did really
deny the Doftrine of Tranfubftantiation it felf, or
rather, fome particular manner among the School-
Men of explaining it; which is a conftderable
difference, and may render them totally excufa^
ble.
And Laftly, it is Evident, That Ibme of thefc
perfons did certainly believe the Doctrine it felf,
and
i[il
^,
I
/
P.g9'
(ii6)
and moreover, have explained it moft conforma-
ble to the Cartons of the Council of Trent: And
Firft, Monfieur the Learned Arch-biOiop
of Paris (taking our Anfwerers own Account in
his Preface,/'. 13.J hath given an admirable Expli-
cation of it^ and however Mr. , or the
Sorbon Doftors might mifunderftand him, my O-
pinion is there let down is much the fame with
Monfieur de MarcPs ; and in the Conclufion, I fhall
endeavour to make it confiftent with Scripture,
the Fathersf and General Councils, and moft agree-
abb to Senfe and Reafbn. The famelbelbve of
Cardinal rather than make him liiclia Vil-
-lain as Drtlincourt fa profeft Enemy) hath reprc-
Tented him to the Lantgrave of Heffe. Our An-
fwerer, for want of a right underftanding , mi-
ftakes Monfieur de Meauxy and others, whob Re-
putations he hath ignorantly (not to fay malicL
ouflyjendeavour'd toblaft, whbh if it were much
to my prebnt purpofe, I would further make ap-
pear.
The laft particular which lihalloblerve (for o-
■thers who Ihall think it worth their paihs may en-
ferge if they pleaie) is his great difingevmtyy and
fxrtUlity in his Anfwer to the Learned Oxford Dif-
courfer,, concerning the Adoration of our JBlelTed
Saviour in the Holy Sacrament. The Dilcourfer
propofeth (and one would think with very good
ileafonj That 'Catholics ( here our Anfwerer tells
us, he means Papifis fiill, and this he childifhiy re-
peats ib often, that it is ten times more inluppor-
table, than the Crambe bis cobta, or Cabbage twice
hoilld winch f the Poet fays) was lb nautiousto the
Maftcrs). The©ifcourfer, I lay, propofeth, That Ca-
tholics^
I
■s
( "7)
thoUcs^ grotmdlng thur aAdratwn not upon
tiation^ but on a, Red Prefence with the Symhob^ which
in generd is agreed on by the Lutherans, together
with them J ought to be freed from Idolatry therein^ as
well ^ the Lutherans. What lays fhe Anfwerer?
That if by this affertion^ ht means only to m'ake thisdif-
covery^ That Chrifis Red Prefence^ together with the
Subfiance of the Bread and Wine^ by in his Opinion as
good a ground for Adoration^ as if ,be were there only
with the Species of the Bread, the Subfiance being
changed into his Bocfy: I have no more tt> jay it. Here
then he grants it, for the one is ks good as the o-
ther. But if (he goes on) he would hereby make tcs
believe , That ^tis all one whether Chrifi be adoredy
as fuppofed here by the Lutherans in this holy Eucha' p.ioc.
rifi y and as imagined tffene by the Ptfptjh r, I muji
then deny his Ajftrtion: What ill luck is thiS'—but
why ? Truly becaufe the oneoflPers more violence
to the Senfes, than the other. I could wifh our
Anfwerer would offer left violence to his own, and
his Readers Senfes; for whkt, have Senfes to do
with an equal foppoGtion of Clirifts Invifible Pre-
fence, tho after a different manner ? For Inflance,
Suppofeone man fhould sdoreChrife under a Veil,
believing, that, that which Supported the Veil,
wks the real Nattfral ^Body of Ghrift -; the oidjef,
equally ador'd Ghrift unde9" tiie rame Veil , but
the Suppohtion, that Ghrifts "Matural Body
was under it, or with it, but together wkh fome
other Subfiance which totally Supported this Veil,
would not any Man judge that the iirjfi rs/atteaft)as
excufable as the latter'? v
But Secondly^, He tells fos, That tihe Luthefmyb
Undoubtedly f ight in the dhpciy and in that he is not
mifaken 5
mifidkeH; But the Papift f'altho* he terminates his
Adoration upon the feme Objeft, Chrift, asfuppot
ed really Prefent, and no otherwife would adore,
yet^ he is miftaken; fbthe one, only adoresChrift
as in a place where he is not, the other as in a thi»g
in which he is not; and this makes the vaft ditfe-
rence. A difference there is, I confels, for one a-
dores nothing for Chrifl:; the other, Chrift believed
♦ in, or under fometbing; but both upon the fame
Suppofition, of Chrifts Invifible Prefence, and this
is the State of the Cafe in Short. Thequeffionis,
Whether they be both equally excisable or guilty of
Idolatryl Here theAnfwerer palTeth Sentence clear-
ly againft the Papifl; but had he writ lefs, and
cloler, he would not furely have fb eafily forgot
what himfelf ffrom Bifhop Taylor) was pleas'd to
urge in p. 68. Where he lays it down ror a Rule
(and gives reafbns for it^ That to worlhip Chrift
where he is not, is to worfliip nothing, a Non
' Ens, which muji needs be Idolatry. Well ^ but Jlill
it may be the Bijbop, (fays the Anfwerer) does not in-
tend to exclude the Corpus Domini, but only the Corm
poral, or Natural manner of that Body ; Let us there-
fore hear how he goes on ; for Idolum nihil eft in
Mundo, faith St. Paul, and Chrifi ns Prefent by his
Humane Nature in the Sacrament (^or with the So-
erament) as a Non Ens .• For it is not true; there
is no fuch thing. What (fays the Anfwerer) not
M Chrifi there, no Way as to bis Humane Nature ?
Noy he is (faith the Bifhop) prefent therOy by his
Divine Power, and his Divine BlefiingyZuc. But for
any other Prefence, it is Idolum; It« nothing in
the World. It feems then, to worfhip nothing
fiar Chrift, in the Bifhops Judgment (produc'd
li .
pjf By the Anfweiieri) is ; Tl^ !Q!^fl:i6n:is)6ii-
Jfj' concerniiig Wolatry,, :therefore fure,(both;are
lifl equally culpable», ^orj,'equally, 'innocent of that
Crime. What a deal of Stuff then hath our Anfwe-
jj^ rcr heapt up, to no other purpdfe, than to fhew
hiinfelf a f^rtial Scriblerf Let him not hfc oifen-
ded then, if I moft juftly apply to himfelf, what
jjjj. he produces in reference to another ; .That for a
jjjjj Book which carried a great affearance of Reafom»g,
it hath the leaf in it of any T ever met with. But
1 I leave the Learned Ojc/or^ Difcourier, to manage
' his own Defence again if this Anfwerer, if he fhall
think it worthy of a thou^t. 7 ' ; - "vH. '
The laft publick Enemy to Tranfubftantlation
? that I fhall mention, is, The Defender of theDuh-
I lin Letter. I muft confefs he feems to be a Man
■f of Learning and Judgment, tho equally unknown
to me as the reft; hut hecaufe his Defence de-
g pends chiefly upon the Authorities of Fathers,
T whofe Senfe (I humbly conceive^ he miffakes, or
mifapplies ; I fhall endeavour to reconcile them ,
in the Conclufion, to other expreflions of the Fa-
thers, and all, to the Catholic Do£trine of Tranfub-
f ftantiation.
7 J" Thus, Reverend Fathers, I have made fiich par-
'I* ticular Remarks upon thefe Authors againfTran-
' fubfiantiation as I thought neceffary toward the
clearing our way to the right underftanding of
that great Myftery ; and if Ihave.faid ought which
might hitherto o^ondi yon, <or them , I know not
if how to ask your Pardons; for as ( being, igno-
rant of their Perlbns) I can have no malice to-
wards them ; lb when I find Meii writing magi-
CL fterialiy
( no)
Serially, and pragmatically againft Learned Men,
and Cnriftian Dodrines, when (as I believe)
they arc themlelves in the wrong, I thought it
a part of my Duty, to prelent the G/a/}^ to them
that by feeing how ill their Reflexions appear,
they might call to mind that admirable Rule of
Juftice and Equity, QuoA-tihi non vis. fieri, alteri
Me feceris.
The CONCLVSION.
HAving endeavourM to remove fome prejudices
againfl the DoXrine of Tranfubftrantiation,
which every Author had kept, as particular Re-
ferves, over and above thole Vulgar ObjeXions,
which are common to them all-, 1 fhould now to-
tally apply my felf to the reconciling part, and I have
made fome confiderable Progrefs in it; but finding
that I have already exceeded the limits which I at
firfl propofed to my felf, and that the weightinefs of
this SubjeX, together with the variety of Obje-
Xions againft it, and of Opinions concerning it,
will engage me in a larger Difcourfe than is proper
for this time and place, I refblv'd to make aTrea-
tile of it by it felf, and this I am the rather in-
clin'd to do, becaule we may probably fee fbme-
thing of this kind in public, done by a better hand,
which likely, may fave both you and me a further
labor. I fhall content my felf therefofeat prefent
to fay fomething in General and for Particulars,
muft refer you to what I further defign, if need
require, and God fhallenable us.
The
( ttl')
. Tiie main Objedions againft Tranfubftantlation
?, are chiefly thefe two.
5' I. That f^e statural Body of Chriji cannot k tnfe^
""J veral places at the fame time,
II. rhat it is againft the Evidences of ourSenfesto
' f helievCj that rvhat we fee, and feel, and tafi, andfmell,
'fc and which nourijheth, jhouU not be what it feems to be:
" Or, that /Occidents fhould exifi without a Subje6l af
ter the manner of a Subjlance, and yet be nothing,
^ Thefe and many others which are the conftquenccs
of thefe (bating feveral grofs miftakes^ are obvious
in moft Proteftant Authors.
To theFirft, The Reafbns given why thcNatu-
rejiii ral Body of Chrift cannot be in feveral places at the
ntk fame time, are, Becaufe a Body cannot exifi after the
ok manner of a Spirit^ That a Body cannot be invifible and
(e(3i; impaffible, Anfw.p. ^4. Or, as it is in the Rubric, Be-
W, caufe it is againfi the truth of Chrifis Natural Body to
be at one time in more places than one. Now if we
mife can Evidently fhew out of Scripture, that the Body
M of Chrift here upon Earth, did fometimes exift after
tm the manner of a Spirit, and was Invifible, I hope
f Oi the two firft Reafbns will be taken off by confent.
And firft it is underftood (I think) by all, that the
^1® Body of Chrift when he was trans%ur'd, did ex-
ift after a Supernatural manner, and was freed (for
jt|]f the time being) from the clog, and earthly limitati-
onsof common humane Bodies.
Secondly, It is plain that after his Refurre^lion
Ig Jefus made his Body become Invifible. The Text
pjjj tells us. That he appear"*d in feveral Forms. After
jpiij ' that he appeared in another Form unto two of them,
J J Mark \6. v. 12. Which I fuppofe is fomewhat above
Nature: Alfo the third time when Jefus fhewed him-
T Qj2 felf
(ill)
felf to hisDifciplcs at the Sea of Tikrt^j he Iiad
changed again his Form,/or they knerv him not^ John
c. 21. Nor was he known the firft time hy Mary
but was miftaken by her for the Gardiner.
Butinz:»;^e24. It is clearly expreft, Thatjefusap-
pearM to his Difciples after the manner of a Spirit,
for it isfaid in v. ^5. as they thru fpake^Jefus
himfelf flood in the midji of them^and fatd unto them^
peace be unto you^ But they were terrified and afright,
ed and fuppofed that they feen a fpirit. Now altho'
the Circumtiances in this Text fiifficiently denote,
that our Saviour came not to his Difciples progref-
flvely after the manner of humane Bodies, but that
eodem inflante he appear'd in the midft of them,
which was the cauie of their fear (for they were
told before that our Lord wasrifen): Yet the pre-
ceding v. of the fame Chapter^ leads fb manifeft-
ly to this Interpretation, that there is no colour left
to doubt; for it is there written. That after our Lord
had been ignorantly entertain'd by the two Difci*
pies, at EmmauSj at laft, Their eyes were opened, mi.
they knew him, and he vanifhed out of their flght.
This Agrees alfb with the laccount which -we have
from St. John,c. 20. v. ip. Where it is laid. The
fame day at Evening when the Dores were fhut, cams
fefm and flood iH the midfl of them. The fame Cir-
cumftance is alfo repeated in v. 26.
In vain do ye therefore fb often ObjeQ: to us,
Worthy Fathers,the. neceflity of believing our Senfes
in all things, and upon all Occafions, fince you fee
how the Apoftles themfelves were deceived by them,
even concerning the real, viflble, corporal Prefence
of Chrift upon Earth. As for St.Thomas, and the
Gonfirmation from the Evidence of his Senfes, our
Saviour
Saviour reproaeht his M^ant of Faith, and fiifferM
him to put his doubting hand into his Sacred
Wounds, not fo much to fhew him that he was mttr
iW4», as to convince them that he was Qod, and Mm:
Cod, from his infinite Power, in being able to make
his Natural Body exift after the manner of a Spirit,
which they had leen before, and were terrified at it:
And Mafz, in that neverthelcls he had the fhape
and Subftance of that very Body in which he
liifier'd.
Nor muft we think that thefe Supernatural
changes were done by chance, or without the blefi
fed defign of the Divine Wifdome; for the Difci-
pies, who hitherto had doubted concerning the
great Article of the Refurreftion of the Flefii, were
not only hereby convinced of this necelfary truth,
but were alfo taught after what manner their Bo-
dies fhould be railed from the dead ; Or, as S. Paui
fays, 1 Cor.c. 15:. What Bodies they do become;
S. Pau/gives them their Anfwer, 56. 7//ou fool^
that which thou fowejl is not quickened exceft it die.
Then telling us of the feveral differences between
Bodies, Ibme more, and fome lefs glorified, he pro-
ceeds x'. 42. So alfo is the Refirre^ion of the Dead:
It is fown in Corruption^ it is raifed in Incorruftion: It
is fown in Dijhonor, it is raifed in Glory; It is fown
in JVeaknefsf it is raifed in Power ; It is fown a Natu-
ral Body^ it is raifed a Spiritual Body, And this our
Saviour had before experimentally taught them, by
the differing, and Spiritual manner of theExiffence
of his own Body ; confirming alfo his Divinity, by
that Power which he exercifed upon it, according to
that of S. Matthew^c, 28. v. 18. Jll Power is given
unto me in Heaven and in Earth, If then our com-
mon
( tH)
mon Sinful Bodies fhall have this Glor^y Power and
when they are railed from the Dead,and
probably be fubjeft then to the Soul, as the Soul is
now to the Body, who will dare to prelcribe Laws to
the holy and fpotlels Body of our Lord, united to his
Divinity ?
However it be, the vindication of the Real Pre-
fence feems to concern your lelves,worthy Fathtrs, or
at leaft many other Proteftants,no left thanCatho-
lies; and if that be admitted, methinks Tranfub-
ftantiation Ihould not be lb rudely refufed Entrance:
For give me leave to ask you, from what Authority
you pretend to tell us, ThatChrift isrenlly Prefent
in the Sacrament, except you mean, as in all other
pious Duties? If you deny this red Prefence, you
ftand feparate from the whole Chriftian World,
Lutheransy as well as Catholics; which is no very
good Argument that you are in the right. If
you confeft it, fblve thefe diflBculties your Iclves,
tor it concerns you, no left than us. But if again,
you do not confeft it, then tell me (I lay) what
ground you have from Scripture to name thole
words, except asaconfequence fromthele, This is
my Body yZnd upon the Suppofition, that fat leaft) the
Sabftanceof the Bread is become, after Confecrati-
©n the very Body of our Lord ?
You tell us again. That wt do verily^ truly^ and
indeed receive the very Body of Chrift, That, born
of the Virgin Mary^ which luffer'd for us, and role
fromitheDead : Let me enquire again, what Autho-
rity you have to ule thofe words, if you do not lite-
rally intend the thing ? Spiritual Graces proceed not
from his Humanity, but from his Divinity : Faith
is one of thefe Spiritual Graces, and the immediate
Gift
Gift of God, and fignifies only this (at leaft in this
place) That Chrift was the Son of God ; that he
l^ecame Man; that he died for us, and rofe again
from the dead. What hath- this to do with eating his
Body, and drinking his Blood ?
A Commemoration only of hisDeatli it cannot
mean , nor could the Apoftles fb underftand it,
except you can fhew me fbme fuch like Metaphor
uled to expreft the memorial of a Man after his
death: But if neither before our Saviours Paflion,
nor fince, amongft Jews, Heathens, or Chriftians
fuch an Expreflion was ever ufed, why muft we be-
lieve that, Chriftfpake, or the Apoftles underftood
different from all the expreflions of mankind fince
the Creation of When theMafter of the
Houfe, in Celebrating the Pafthal Supper, faid. This
is the Bread of ajflilTiosrvhich our Fathers eat in Egypt^
true Bread was really delivered, and the Memorial
was proper. When Mofes faid. Behold the Blood of
the Covenanty which the Lord hath made with you^ It
was very Blood which Mofes fprinkled on the Peo-
■p\c,Exod. 24. t/. 8. But to tell us we eat and drink
the Body and Blood of Chrift, as a Memorial of him,
when you profefs we do no fuch thing, isthemoft
extravagant of all Metaphors, and' unparaDell'd in
Hiftory.
That fbme have eaten their deceafed Friends, and
that others have drank their Afhes, I have already
hinted; but to fay, eat and drink the Body and
Blood of King charls^thd.t is, remember that he was
Martyr'd, would be fuch an expreflion as ftands
fingle/at leaft as far as I have read) from all theAl-
legoriesof the moft phantaftical Poets. Why then
do you tells us,-That we indeed eat and drink I>is
(
Body and Blood, and not rathery and c»ly fay that wo
break Bread in remembrance thatChrift was fo
broken, and pour fovthWine, as a Memorial that
his Blood was fo filed for us ? Give me leave to re-
turn the Anfwer ; I fear, that whilft you want Faith
to believe the truth intended by the words, you are
afhamed to negleQ: the words themfelves, left you
fliould become a fcandal and -reproach to all fober
Chriftians, who had ever read the Holy Bible or the
beft of Fathers. Deceive not therefore your felves
and thofe poor Souls who depend upon you, but ei-
ther give them in truth the laft Sacred Legacy of our
moft dear and ever Bleffed Mafter, or tell them plain-
ly, he is departed and hath left them nothing; for a
Bodyywhichls no Bodjy a.nd Blood which is no things
is(atleaft") z.sabfur'^d and fenjlcfs aPropi)fition, as
your fb often objeSted Smelling^ Tajling, nourijhing
Accidents without a Subflance.
The Anfmrer hath given us a long Beadroll of
Objeftions in p. ^2. Et fequent. Which he fays
contradifbs right Reafon .* 1 could have furnifht him
with a great many more, and much more pertinent,
from an Ancient Catholic Author, call'd, TheC/w-
jlians Manna, where he would alio have found their
Anfwers, to which I muft recommend him. In
ibme of his repugnancies (as he calls them) be fhews
himfelf fo ignorant, or malicious, that he is, either
way inexcufable: Sop. ^'j.In p. 3^. hefeems neither
to undeiftand Catholic Divinity, nor common Phi-
lorophy,but talks focrudely of both, that he dcferves
not a fober Reply. What he ( from Blondel) tells us
of tho FatherSyp.iOf. I do not rightly underftand, rior
did I think it worth my pains to procure Blondel up-
on that account; but if either of them would make
us
us brieve, that the Fathers thought it abfurd, aod
' itnpffible^ that God fiiould ad beyond and above the
Power of Nature, the fathers are much obliged to
® them for their good Opinion ; but if he would make
IV them fay, that naturally a thing cannot exiff, aft, or
be produc'd contrary to, or above Natufc, he hath
made a wife Speedi for them, which he may keep
™ for his own ufe.
® In his 36 F. he is come to his Senfes j but becaufe
" he hath only a flight touch of them, and thofe the
plaic' {^nie with our firil Difcourfer, I fhali confider them
i ^ori (as far as I intend at prefent^l together.
The firft Objeftion is, that what we taft, and
Imell, and fee, and touch, and which nourifli our Bo-
4^^ dies, fhould be Nothm^; and as it is reduced to an
Objeftiion againft Senle, it runs thus, ^ That what
jJri: ' we fee in the Sacrament is not Bread, but the Bo-
kk <dy of Chrift. I have told you that I muft defer
ktt my more particular Anfwer, to a particular Trca-
wn. tife upon that Subjeft, in which I hope to reconcile
kCiff all dimculties, not only to Senfe and Reafon, but to
ttdi" the words of Confecration, to the Canons of the
im. 1 Council of Trem, and tothe and the Fa'
efc thers to themfelves,quite throughout; In the mean
s,!C' time I will give you the general Faith of all Catho-
iisr lies, and fb conclude.
issh The indifpenfable Faith of all Catholics is this,'
'(iiiTi That the Subftance of the Bread and Wine, after
ells { Confecration, is converted into the Subftance of the
Body and Blood of Chrift united with his Soul and
his Divinity: No good Catholics difpute this, altho'
feveral Opinions alfb there are concerning the
f »er how this is done. ' The great Queftion is, con-
cerning the Accidents which remain^ and it is the
R more,
( 1x8 }
more receivM Opinion, that they are real/the'not
properly call'd fubftantial^ th/»^ ; and that, asfuch,
they may nourifh the Body, fuffer digeftion and cor-
ruption, and are the true Objeds of our Senfes, in
which (we fay) alf the vertues and qualities of Bread
exift : This we are told is confiftent with Arifiotles
Philofbphy; but if you think otherwife, difputc your
Opinion as long as you pleafe, and (if you can) ob-
~ lige your Adverfaries to find out fome more fatisfa-
dory Anfwer, for there are fbme others, aslfhali
fliew liereafter. The Faith in the mean rime remains
inviolably among all, which, their different Opinb
ons pretend not to deftroy: All believe theSubftance
is converted; but for the Accidents, whether they
be more, or lefs ; whether they exifl with, or witlb
out a Subjed; what that Subjed is; or whether
they may not have Subftances of themfelves, .theie
are Matters of Opinion and Philofbphy, and we muft
remember, that Chrift came not to teach us Philofo'
phy, and Logic, but Faith and Obedience unto Good
Works.
But I fhall enter no further upon this Difcourfe at
prefent ; nor fliall I here anfwer our Difcourfersfour
laff Queffions, which, depending up9nthe Dodrine
©f Accidents, fhall be confider'd together with themj
in our defigned Treat ife ; I fhall only therefore add
my hearty Prayers, that you would once lay afide
your prejudices, and affedions, and many other
temporal confiderations,and fincerely and calmly en-
dcavour with us, to find where the truth lies. I know
no Body intends any harm to you, or-other good to^
themfelves, than that we might be all United under,
one Head, Chrift Jefus, holding the Unity of Faith,,
in the. Bond of Peace.
It
It would be a defed o£ Charity not to be "par-
don'd, fhould you believe all Catholics to be Knaves,
or Fools; or that they did not fee, and know, or
would not know what can be faid againfl: them, as
well as Proteftants ; fince your greateft Objeftions
which I have ever read againfi: us, are found in our
own Authors, and their Anfwers to them, of which
you are pleafed to be filent. It were befides,a ftrange
Inftance of Spiritual Pride, to think your felves the
only Children of Light, and this, grounded upon no
other Authority, than your own private Opinions,
apd a partial Judgment pafl upon your^feives, a-
gainfl; the much greater part of tlie wholeChriflian
World.
The Glorious Epinikeas, and bfty Triumphs
which you fing in all your Papers, might become
the Buskins of a Pagan Conqueror; but in me, they
move only my Compaffion to fee you fo wonder-
fully pleas'd,and infiilting in the wrong. Alas, you
miffake the Scene, for in our Cafe, the Conquered
wins the Prize, and yet the Viftor lofeth not his
honor. What would it profit him C^^ys ourSa-
viour) If A man fhould, gAtn the rvhole Worlds And
lofe his own Soul? It is a ferious confideration, and
deferves a fbber thought or twO) free from pafli-
on, or prejudice. Now whether it be advifeable to-
venture fb greata Treafure upon the fingle Bottom,
of every mans private Opinion-? Whether our Sa-
viour Chrift would leave his own Church in a
much more dangerous condition, than that in which
he found the Jewifh Church ? Whether Certainty
was to be had among the Jews from the Chair
of Af(^r,concerning what they were to believe, and
(mo) i
do; but no Certainty to Chriftlans from the Chair
of S, Pefeff or any other Chriftian Church upon the
face of the Earth ? Whether Herefie and Schifm
be terms to affright us, and only different names for
Knavery, and Hypocrifie ? Or,' whether a nian who
truly believes himfelf to be' in the right, rnay not
•be defperately, and dangeroufly in the wrong; and
highly punimable for his prefiimption, and difbbe- |
dience to lawful Authority ? And Laftlyj whether
you will tell us roundly and plainly, That to believt
Chrifi to be the Son of the Living God, and to live a
moral Life, be all that is required of us, as fbmcof
you have very boldly infinuated ? Thefe things I
recommend to your pious and ingenuous Examina-
tion, until we meet again.
■« . <■*- <-v> ♦?:*■ 'V u**
A
:f'
vHUTAMl-afJ MI
V
.1 .\\:iZ -
.^'8^1
'■^f 4i
••^li
i-r}-.\ "•
.•■■J
■At-.
iMlssi^mtUss^
-»»« -
2
1 rbvfcourfc A N
AN S W E
To a BOOK, Entituled,
and
OR, THE
MOTIVES
O F A
Late Proteftant's Reconciliation
TO THE
Catlioluk Cliutt^.
TOGETHER
With a brief Account oiAugu^ine the
Monk, and Converfion of the Englijh.
In a Letter to a Lriend,
LONDON,
Printed by J. H. for Brahazon Aylmer, at the Three Pigeons
over againft the Royal Exchange, in Cornhill. 1687.
(O
A N
ANSWE
To a BOOK, Entituled,
&c.
SIR,
I Have juft now read over a late Booky entituled, Reajon
and Authority; I read it with an excefs of pleafure,
being furprized and amazed to find Reafon fo baf-
fJed, and a monflrous Authority advanced againft
all reafon. Non-fenfe, I perceive, is in fafliion;
and if I and You have as little fenfe, and are as imperti-
nent as others, I may be a Writer^ and You a Reader.
I perceive by that Booky that a certain Man has left our P. 2, ^ 3.
Church without reafon : He was advifed to take reafon,
and make the beft ufe of it in the choice of his Religion,
and the fetling of his life and pradbice in order to falvation;
but he could find no reafon to ferve him. He narrowly ef- P. 4, 5-
caped being an Atheifl with reafon, and had almofl denyed
the Being of a God, or at I.eaft his Providence, with rea- •
fon ; and fomething that looked like to a demonflration
againft the immortality of the Soul had fo confounded
him, that he was up head and ears in the water all foufed,
and plunge dm the doubt, and whether he is yet out of it,
we know not.
B The
(O
The Man goes on and ccnfiders the grounds of Reli-
gion, the JeiviJ}} and the Chrtfiian j and finds little reafon
to think that the five Books commonly afcribed to Mofes^
were ever written by him; he finds fo many miftakes,
and fo many errours in the beginning of Genefis^ that he
gives you to guefs his meaning, though he wiii not ipeak
it, to be, that the Jewifh Religion is little elfe than a for-
gery, and that it has but fmall evidence of a Revelation
Irom God Almighty.
Thus leaving the Jew/fh Religion, the Man in all hafle
goes to the Chrijlian, and confiders the New Teftament, as
the Book which all Chriftians in all Ages have owned, to
be the Records of the Chriftian Dodrine: He does not fay
by whom they were written, but at the reading of the firft
Chapter of St. Matthew he was hair'd out of his wits j He
met with fuch difficulties, that his reafon could not an-
fwer, if he brought any with him to the reading of it;
for it is to be fulpe^ted that he ufed none, becaufe -a little
reafon in fuch a cafe as this, would at this time have lead
him to have confulted his Authority. For if he, whom
this Man calls God's Vicegerent^ and the great Elias, that
is fuppofed to folve all doubts, can fay no more to this
difficulty, than he himfelf could, he might have kept
his Reafon Rill, as bad as it was, and have been con-
tent to be ignorant with Reafon, as well as under Au-
thority.
Bur, Dear Friend, look about you now; Thus far our
Authour, booted, and fpurr'd, and whipping on, has gone
without reafon : jufi now reafon comes in a mofl: unlucky
time, I think for no other purpofe but to fool the Man, and
fet him to combate with an Adverfary that will certainly be
too ftrong for him; for infiead of fighting us,he now attacks ,
ChriRianity it felf, and does all the mifchief he can to that
Common Faith, which he and we profefs: To this end he *
'revives old Controverfies, and flarts new ones, and makes
Schemes of Chriftian Do^rine, and that to ffiew to tlic
World
( 3 )
World that Chrijlianity has as weak a Foundation as the
JemJh Religion was declared before to have.
To this end, I fuppofe, he tells us.the three next things.
I. That fome of the Orthodox did not receive into the Canon P. ?•
of the Scripture^ fome of the Books that are now in it^ for
near zoo years after the death of our Saviour. That P. ?•
every Chriflian is not able, by reading of the Scripture,
to compole fuch a Creed as that of Athanafius. 3. That P. 7.
there are fome obfcure Dodfrines hard to be underilood a-
mongfl: Chriflians; and here he fets down the Trinity.,
Confuljiantiality y Tranfuhftantiation., Predejlination, and
Freewill: every one of thefe are altogether impertinent
to this Man's purpofe,- they may be of fome ufe to an A-
theifland ferve him that is refolv'd to give a fecret
wound to Chriftianity ; but they fignify nothing to a R»-
man Catholick., or to him that would plead for Authority
to determine Controverfies in Chriftianity in oppofition
to Reafon.
For, firfl, All the Cliurches in the World are now a-
greed about the Books of the New Teflament; and when
the Orthodox in ancient times concurr'd in the acceptance
of the Books that are now in the Canon, they came to
this conclufion merely by the reafon of the cafe,* without
the leaft interpofition of any Authority of Pope, or Coun-
cil; the laft Book doubted of was the Revelations • and
the reafons for receiving of that, any man may reade in
Eufehim., lib. 7. cap. 27. as he fets them down in tlte words HI.
of Dionyfius of Alexandria. -7-
Now I cannot imagine to what purpofe this Gentleman
puts us in mind of this old Controverfie ,• if lie has Au-
thority for what he does, it may be fornething lor his
own latisfadbion; I am fure he has no reafon to offer in
the cafe that can be allowed by any man el!e; for the
Church of Rome is as zealous to preferve every one of thefe *
Books in their eftcem and reverence, as Ours is : I guefs
B z that
(4)
that pofTibly he may be tempted to fliew his skill in Con-
trovcrific, and therefore he fcts down with an appearance
of accuracy, that fucli Books were not received into the Ca-
non hy the Orthodox for near xoo years after the death of
our Saviour. But here the Man's skill fails him; for it is
certain that Irenccus quotes the Revelations in feveral pla-
irenazis, ces, as a Book of like Authority with the reft of the Iflew
cap. 37. Tejiament; and he himfelf tells us, that he wrote in the
time of Eleutherius; and Bellarmine fets him down as a
Writer in the Year 180. after our Saviour's birth, and
that will lellen the time mentioned of xoo. after his death
by fifty.
This miftake is not worth the noting, if it did not give
us to fee how ready fome men are to lay afide not onely
Reafon, hut the Sacred Records of the Chriftian Faith, not
confidering the true confequences of their own Atftion;
fince it is moft certain, that if a full Authority be not al-
lowed to the Books of the Idew Tejlameut., there can be no
pretence to any, either in Pope or Council^ or in any thing
that is called Church.
But our Authour goes on to a fecond thing, and pro-
ceeds with more than ordinary caution, and feems as wife
as a certain Spanijh Don: he treads out the ground, mea-
fures the length of his Weapon, makes a Speech, and
would tempt a man to think he is refolved to fight; but
he withdraws fafely, and calls in two others to engage ,•
a defire he has to fee the Pfoly Scriptures and Athanafm his
Creed to combat one another for his divertifement. Now
which of thefe two he is for, he fays not, nor yet feems to
guefs which would have the better in cafe of a Contrail:
But alafs! this man miftakes; thofe two are Friends • and
if there were any difference between that Creed and the
Holy Scriptures., Athanafm (if he were now alive) would
be the firft man to declare againft that Creed: it is certain
be learnt, and founded all his Docftrines upon thofe ,• no
man
Cs)
man read them with greater care and attention; no man
cites them oftner, or with greater veneration.
Whether our Authour knew this or no, I cannot tell;
but after all his preparatory flouriflies, he gives no more
than this dry infipid requeft to the Fathers of our Church,
that f/jey would not tell him that every Chriflian^ fuppofe
every I3aker, Shoemaker, orCobler^ upon a Jincere perufal
of this Holy Book^ would certainly have compofed the Creed
of Athanafius. ISbw this is a thing which never was
ipoken, either by Bijhop^ Preshyter^ or Deacon^ or Parijh
Clerk. Can any Reverend Bijhop be prelumed to think,
and fay, that the great Athanafius had not more wit and
reafon, more art, more skill in Confequences than every
Cobler and Tinker,or than this Man's two Friends, Nailor
and Muggleton ? it is prodigious to think how men dote,
that undertake to write Books againft Reafon.
But whatever this Man does, or can fay, mofl: certain
it is, that if Athanafius was the Compofer of this Creed.,
he did it upon a fincere perufal of the Holy Scriptures, by
the power of a good Reafon, and by the skill which he had
in Confequence. As for Authority of Pope or Council he
had none for this Compofition; this Creed lay in obfcu-
rity, and was unknown in the Church long after the days
of Athanafius; and as it was compofed at firfl, fo it was
brought into the ufe of the Church afterwards for fome
time without any confiderable Authority, merely by the
private reafon of fome that were little more than private
Men.
Thirdly, In the next place our Authour fets down fome
matters ol Faith, great and necefiary Articles, as he calls P.
them ; and thefe are the Myfiery of the Incarnation, the
Doctrines of the Trinity, Confuhfiantiality, Tranfuhdantia-
tion, Predefiination and Free-will. Thele he examined by
his Reafon, but he does not tell us what account hisRea-
fon gave of them. It is pofhble after a fincere perufal of
the:
(O
the Holy Scriptures, that he might find great reafon to
believe the Irxarnation of our Lord, and the Docitrine of
the Trinity^ and by confequence that of Confuhjlantiality^
and lomething of a PredeJHnation • and it ispofiible that
from thence he found no reafon to believe the Docibrineof
Tranfuhjlantiation, for iierein many other Mens Reafons
would agree with His. This he does not tell us, but yet
this I will prefume in favour to him; that he does not
think that the Fathers in the Council of IF ice, and thofe
in the after Councils^ who fixed the Dodbrine of the Tri-
nity and Confuhflantiality • I fay, he does not think, but
that they made their Determinations with highefl: reafon;
I will prefume too that he thinks that the Fathers in the
Lateran and Tridentine Councils had reafon to determine
the Dodbrine of Tranfuhjlantiation; for though we think
that in thefe two later Councils, the generality adbed by
falfe reafons, by prejudice, and by worldly intereft; yet
we do not doubt but they all, and every one of them, pre-
tended to adb with reafon • for certain it is, that the pri-
vare reafon of any fingle man, is a much better guide than
the private Spirit of a Quaker, or any other : for a Rea-
Ion may be urged, and is upon information to be correc-
ted, but the pretence to the Spirit is not. But if the ma-
jority of-thofe Fathers at the Council of IFice were able by
Scripture and Reafon to eftablilh thofe Dodbrines of the
Trinity and Confuhjlantiality to be Articles of the Chrifiian
Faith ; I know not why our Authour ^ iince he has the
lame Scripture and like Reafon, might not have done the
fame. Sure I am, that after this Council, Athanafius plea-
ded much in the defence of the truth of thefe Dodbrines,
and that not from the Authority of the Council, but from
So2om. lih. 7. the true fenfe and meaning of the feveral Texts ; the fame-
caf. 12. vv'ay of arguing was ufed in the firfl Conjlantinopolitan
Council, and fo it continued, till Theodojius^ by advice
of Netlarius^ which he received from Sifinnius^ took ano-
tlier method.
After
(?)
After thefe doughty performances, our Authour p. g,
comes in the next place a little more clofely to Scrip-
ture, or the facred Records of Chriftian Religion; and
fets his reafon to fearch, and examine them, and, if pof-
fible, to draw from thence a fcheme of Chriflian Doc-
trine. But here, it feems, his Reafon was jaded, and ty-
red out much more than in ail the red of his Difquifitions;
perhaps he found not there any thing like to the Dodtrines
that make up the Apohles Creed : He does not tell this,
though he ought to have done it, if he had compared his
fcheme with it. But he tells us that he difagreed from all
Churches, the Church of England in her 39 Articles^ and P. 8.
all the Catechifms of Catholicks^ Calvinijls^ Lutherans and
Socinians : I was pleafed that in his opinion the Dodtrine
of the Church of Rome did no more agree with Scripture
than that of the Church of England.
But though I was pleafed in this, yet I was not very
confident of any advantage from it, becaufeour Authour
oft queries, and feems to doubt, whether his Reafon does
not much differ from other Mens. I know that God Al-
mighty has given different Talents to Men; for Heads,
and Brains, and Wits, as well as Hearts, are not alike in
every Man. I am fure the Ancients^ by virtue of plain
honefl: reafon, were able to find the Chriflian Dothine in
the Holy Scriptures •, fo did St. Irenceus., St. Athanafius
St. Hierome^ St. Chryfoflome, St. Auguflin., and the deft.
This was a light to their feet, and a lamp to their paths,
fufficient to latisfy thofe good men in matters of Faith;
and as this Man fpeaks, in the great and neceffary Ar-
tides.
But though this Man could not find the Chriftian Doc-
trine there, yet it feems that he thought that he found
fomething there that pretty well agreed with the dreams
of Ebion and Cerinthiis^ and with thofe of his dear Friends, p. 8,
Nailor and Muggleton.
The
Ed. Erafmi
Balil. 8m
1571.
Irensus, lib.'
cap. 1.
. O)
The frfl of thefe I am much enclined to believe; and if
I were as impertinent as He is, perhaps I might give fome
evidence of the fecond.
As for Eho;i and Cerhthiis this Gentleman is too clofe,
and will not give us the leafl: intimation of, their Dogm's,
wherein his jchemes did agree with theirs; yet I think it
very probable that he might light upon fome of the fame
thoughts M'ith them, becaufc I find a wonderfull agree-
ment between the Followers of thofe two, and this Gen-
tleman • For they had no reverence at all for Scripture,
and very fmali regard to Reafon j fometimes they would
throw away, and eafily rejed: a great part of Scripture^
Iren. lib. 3. cap. 11. and at other times they would receive
all; hen. lib. 3. cap. ix pag. 301. but upon this condi-
tion, that they might interpret it; they made novel In-
ventions to be great and necefiary Articles of Faith ; Id.
lib. 3. cap. II. p. ^88. In tantum procejjerunt audacia^ uti
quod ah his non olim conferiptum eft, veritatis Evangelium
titulent, in nihilo conveniens. Apoflolorum Evangeliis; they
Jiad a profound veneration for Authority, and entirely fub-
mitted themfelves to the Dodrines of Ehion and Cerinthus;
for they fuppofed that thefe men had a fecret or myftery
derived down by Tradition to them, which alone was able
to fix the fenfe of Scriptures; and therefore whenever an
Argument was direded againft them out of Scriptures,
they ftill brought it to this Tradition : without this they
undervalued and flighted all the Scriptures, and were the
Inventers of the chiefeft Arguments againft them that our
Authour and his Friends at this day do ufe. All this will
, appear, if we look upon Ireneeui, lib. 3. cap. a. Cum ex
Scripturis arguuntur, in accufationem convertuntur ipfarum
Scripturarum, quafi non rede haheant, neque funt ex Autho-
ritate, ^ quia varie funt didce, ^ quia non pojfit ex his in-
veniri Veritas, ah his qui nefciunt Traditionem; non enim per
literas traditam illam, fed per vivam vocem ; and then iar-
ther toward the latter end of that Chapter, they chal-
lenge
(9)
lenge fomething, that fpeaks the great confidence thef
had in their way, perhaps as much as the Injallibility of a
Guide ; fe indulitate, ^ imoutammate^ & fmerb ahfcon-
ditum fcire MyPerium.
The proceedings of thofe men are fo like to the method,
of our Authour^ that I do not in the leaft wonder, if he
found in his Schemes fomething very agreeable to their
Do(Sfrines. Some mens brains, for all what that learned
Spaniard teaches, may be exadly of the fame temper,
and confequently their wits of the fame height. I have
heard of a fool, who by thinking the very fame thoughts
with his Brother, could find him out, when all the wife
men in the Town could not do it.
Thus far therefore I will be obliging to our Author,
and give him more credit, than I will upon fome other oc-
cafions: I will, though with fome reludancy of reafon,
believe that whilft he was reading the Scriptures, fome
thoughts might come into his mind agreeable enough with
fome of thole that Ehion and Cerinthus had.
But after this high civility allowed him, I hope he will
not impofe upon my Faith lo far as to require me to be-
lieve that he found any thing in the Holy Scriptures that
agreed with the idle whimfies, and mad dreams and blaf-
phemous prate of his two other friends Idailor and Mu^
gleton. This is fuch an impudence as R. C's afwell as
Proteftants mull abhor • all Popes and Councils that have
ever been, with wrath and indignation would have detef-
ted any man that iliould have dared to put fo profane and
vile a Icandal upon thofe facred writings. What Anathe-
ruds would the Councilor Trent hzvc. thundred outagainfl;
Luther^ if ever he had wrote or fpoken any thing fo bale
as this ? It is certain that there is nothing in Scripture
that can in the leaft feem to favour the blafphemies of thofe
two wretches; and I am unwilling to think that there was
any thing in our Authours fchemes, that would deferve
the punilhment which they juftly fuffered.
C It
( 10 )
It is pofliblethat he might have been of their acqualn-
tance, and have had very particular, refpedbs for their
perfons, and fo he might be over-eafie to think that fome
of his thoughts might be like unto theirs.
This I am willing to guefs, becaufe I can with confi-
dence prefume that he has kept very ill Company, for
though his natural temper carries him to fpeak foft and
fmooth things, yet in fpight of nature he is forced to be
rude, and fauey. For why cannot he write a Book with-
out pointing his difcourl'e at the breails of the Ri^ht Re-
verend Fathers of our Church ; why does he treat them
with contempt and fcorn ? why does he prefume to daule
'em, to twitch 'em by the Nofe, and piiU'em by the Beard,
and Hand over 'em with Fefcue and Ferula ; and tell 'em
that here they were out, and there they were out, and
that here, and there, and at every point he can inflrubt
them t All this comes from want of manners and good
converfe; Muggleton would have done the fame, and fo
would Nailor^ and none but fuch as they.
For certainly a refpedl is due to them for their Chara-
(Ter, and a refpedt is due upon their Perfonal accompt;
they are men of excellent worth, and great learning,
-prudence, piety and integrity ; andfoconfpicuoufly emi-
nent in all thefe, that our Authour is not able to match
them in any one Countrey, ( though he take as large a
view of Bifhops as he does olConverjions in his page 3
through Europe^ Africa and America. ,
But when Reafon^ and the Floly Scriptures are to be
thrown down, it is no great wonder, if ihQ Bifhops of the
Church of England hl\ with them.
I begin to be warm, and you my Friend, may be offen-
ded at it; yet allow a little to a juft indignation ,• it may
well move a man of a cold complexion to fee a pert un-
known come up fo briskly to the heads of our Reverend
Fathers, and Addrefsto them in a formal fpeech, intima-
ting thoufands of miflakes, mifcarriages and errours in
themj
( n )
them; and yet In all that fpcech, the man fays nothing
but what is old, and dull, and flat iniTpid ftufl'; all and
every thing in it has been anfwer'd five hundred times,
fince the Reformation, and at leall: twenty Within thefe
two years. This looks like perverfc flupidity, for men
to pretend to be writers, when they do not reade; if our
Authour had read the late Books, by this writing he gives
plain proof, that his Reafon ferves as little in drawing up •
Pleas for Authority, as it did before in making Schemes
of Chriftian Dodtrine out of the Scriptures.
All that he fays, is this, that he heartily wiihed that God
would have pleafed to have left us fame unerring Authori-
ty and Sovereign Guide, p. 6. and then, that God has not left
the World without Government, and given us Laws without
lawfull Judges and Interpreters,^. iQ. From thence he pre-
fumes that there is fuch a thing, and rcfolvcs to go in
queft after it; he comes to the Church of England, and
demands it there; they deny thatthey have any fuch Au-
thority. Not content with that, he puts himfeif to the
trouble to prove it, p. 11. he goes to the Chu ch of Rome;
they fay, they have it, p. la. and he prefently believes
them; and after a few rubs removed out of his way, he
reviews Bellarmine's marks and flgns of a true Catholick
Church, and by them endeavours to fliew that there is
fuch an unerring Authority, and Sovereign Guide in the
Church of Rome.
Now all this is nothing, but a plain begging of the
Caufe, or adifcovery how little he knows in this Contro-
vcrfie; for certain it is that the Church of England, and
all otiier Froteftant Churches ever fmce tiie Reformation,
have demanded, and moft earneflly required one plain
pofitive proof, that ever God Almighty, or our Bleffed
Lord did ever appoint any fuch S vereign Guide, and un-
erring Authority in the Church: But they could, never
receive any plaufible Anfwer to it; . by all the ways
whereby a Negative Qtsn be proved, they have fliewed that
C z there
( 12 )
t&ere is no fuch order or appointment in It; Nay lately
fome have aflerted with good reafon, that fuch a
thing is not agreeable to the methods that God has us'd
in the Government of the World, and that it would not
be of any confiderable ufe to the advancement of piety,,
or any eminent vertue amongft men j and that the pre-
fence of it ferves onely to fupport an unreafonable Ufur-
pation over the Church of Chrifl:. Great Volumes, and
hrong Arguments remain unanfwer'd ; and yet at this
time of the day, the dull and ftale old accorapts of it,
without any new ornaments or new force are fent abroad
without any ground or hope of vidbory, to vindicate the
interehs of it.
This deferves a fliarper Cenfure than I will give, but
yet I would have our Authour know, that a Convert
to his OU' Friends the followers of Eh ton and Cerinthus,
might have alledged in his belialf all tliat which our Au-
thour here does, and that to as much purpofe • he might
liave faid that, he had wiflied that God had left an uner-
ring Authority in his Church j and that God had not left
the World without Government^ and given us Laws without
lawfull Judges and Interpreters; and that therefore he
prefuraed that fuch an Authority was fomewhere to be
found. As for Iren^us his Church and thofe in Commu-
nionwithit, they did not in the leaft pretend to it* but
the followers of Ehion. and Cer 'mthus did fully and loudly
cliallenge it; and therefore K\s Reverend Fathers^ Irenaus
and the reft of the Orthodox Bijhops muft have him ex-
cufed; for he will rather put himielf under an unerring
Authority^ than truft to tlie Guidance of Fhofe^ that con-
lefs themfelves to be no more than fallible men.
But to let that pafs, the next thing we find in our
thour is Bellarmines- Motes of a. true Church j I fuppofe,
he puts them down to encreafe the bulk of his Book: He
could not but know that they are of no Authority with
us. Ajid, Anfwers are gwen out to each of them in their
Order;
( 13 )
Order ; He might have added ftrength and force to them
whilft they are fo briskly attacked, but ^ he has no pre-
tence to build upon them, or defend himfelf by tiiem.
But befides, he of all men living has the leafl: right to
exped any advantage from them, becaufe the chiefefl: of
thefe Notes are grounded on fayingsof the Frcphets; and
he that has fo far depreciated the true value of the Five
Books of MofeSy p. 6. will hardly perfuade another, that
he gives any great credit to the writings of the Prophets.
He there gives us an objedion againft the Pentateuch, P. 6.
from the fuppofed intermedlings of Efdras; but does not
well refledtliat he derives that objedion by leveral Me'
diums from the Samaritans, who were the firft, and are
at this day the chiefefl: Adverfaries,and greatefl Calumnia-
tours of Ejdras. Now thefe very men keep ciofe to the
Five Books of Mofes, and for this they offer fome pre-
tences of reafon j but our Authour without any reafon at
all would make advantage by the Prophets, and throw
contempt upon Mofes, and all this, by virtue of the ere-
dit which he fcems to give to the objedions made againfl
Efdras by the Samaritans. But,
Mofl certainly in this he ads beyond his skill, and^
talks without book j for be it what it will, Bellarminds
Notes, are of no ufc to him,and can do him as little fervice,
as that formidable force of Pagans and Turks, and T know
not how many Nations, which he brings in to his affif-
tance, p. ii.. where lie himfelf fays he has no Adverfary.-
It is well for him, that that impertinency, and this did
not come together into his head at the fame time ^ for if
he had thought but as much of the Pagan, as he does of
the Atheijl, and Theifl, perhaps his reafon might have
been as favourable to them, as it was to thofe ot'iers, p. 4.
and then, if Bellarmines Notes had come into his way,
who knows but that the man might have turn'd Convert
again, and wrote another Book of the motives for his re-
conciliation to old Paganifm I for methinks it is very pro*-
bablej,
(h)
bable, that our Authour might have found thefc amongfl;
the Pagans » Vniverfality and Vifihility^ TJninterrupted
continuance, and Succeffion, till the days of Conflantine ;
Jaftly, Unity and Uniformity : he might have feen there
too that which they call a Higb-Priefl and Holy Altar^ and
a Holy Sacrifice^ Miracles^ and Religious Colleges, and
Ahftinence, and vowed chartity, and a great many DoPlrines
Authoritatively impofed, and univerfally received through-
cut the World.
I will prefume this Gentleman never read either Paufani-
as, or Zozimus, or the Epiftles of Symmachus ; and it is
happy for him that he did not. I will venture the little
skill that I have, that any impartial Reader /hall find
better flouriflies, fairer turns of the Pen, and more ap-
pearance of Argument in that Speech which Symmachus
makes to theEmperour Valentinian, Theodofius and Area-
dim in the Name of Rome Pagan, than our Authour gives
us here again ft the Church of England to our Bifliops;
Now if thefe little thoughts governed him in the change
of one Religion, it is well for him, that he never ingaged
in the conlideration of the other.
But our Authour has Bellarmines Notes, and he will
make fomething of them; by virtue of them he fays he
found ivhat he was rejolved to find before, the true Catho-
lick, or one Church, that may be faid to be true, in ojv
pofition to all others. Now upon this foundation he
builds apace; i. That this being one muft have
one Head upon Earth, and he alter our Saviour's Death
was StHeter • and after St. peters, his Succeffoursand
they are the Bijhops of Rome ; and thofe are every one of
them in their feveral times jiot only Succeffours to Sr.
peter, but CbriJPs Vicegerents. This their Authority he
fa} s has been owned by General Councils, and lb by the
Caiholick Church ; and they have been in peaceable poffefi-
on of it for many hundred of years; and now they cannot
be divelled of it neither by themfelves, nor by others ;
neither in whole, nor in part. All
All thefe things he fets down, I fuppofe, as his owno-
pinations and fentiments, and would have his Friends to
judge him by them as Orthodox and a true Convert. He is
not concerned whether they be true or falfe ; lor he
knows, or may know, that every one of thefe pretences
has been proved by Dr. Barrow to be grofs falfities, and
that almoft to the evidence of Demonjiration • and yet
oar Authour brings not the lead proof for any one of
them from any Old Authour.
Indeed he tells us that we have the Succeflion BiJJoops
of Rome delivered to us by St. Auguftme, and that is truej pi
but he was unlucky to put us in mind of that paflage,
and much more becaufe he never read it himfelf, for had
he feen the 165'. Epiflle of St. Augufline where that Sue- .
celTion is mentioned, and the very next to it; he might '
have found in that great Father^ a full contradiction to all ,
his tljoughts concerning the Scriptures, and concerning
Authority, and then perhaps he would have imployed his
time to better purpofes than in writing this Book.
St. Aujiine in that Epiflle fets down the fuccefllon of
the Bilhops of Rome from St. Peter^ and that for no other
purpofe, but to Ihew that none of all thofe Bilhops was a
Donatifl. And that becaufe a Donatifl had fet down the fitc-
ceflion of their Bilhops before; not that he thought any Epit 165?
one of them, after St. Teter^ was a Sovereign Gutde^ or
had unerring authority in him, for he himlelf prefently
adds to this, that if any of them had been Donatifl^ or
worfe, yet the Chriftian DoCIrine would not have fullered
the lealt by it. In ilium ordinem Epifcoporum qui ducitur
ab ipfo PetrOy ufque ad Anaflafiumy qui nunc fuper eaudem
Cathedram fedety etiamfl quifquam traditor per ilia tempora
fuhrepfiffety nihil prcejudicaret Eccleflaty & innocentilus
Chriflianis. This 1 fuppofe our Authour is not wiilipg to
thinle, becaufe he depends fo much upon Authoritjy and
fo little upon the Scripturesbut St. did, becaufe
he relyed upon the Scriptures^ to teach us that DoClrine
which
(I<J)
•which Jefus Chrifl^ and his Apojlles had revealed to the
World; and therefore in the fame Epiftle\\Q flights all hiso-
ther Arguments, and fixes intirely upon the Scriptures, as
thofe alone which could give us a full and folid evidence for
^ Chrifiian DocSfrine,- thefe are his words. Quan-
quam nos^ non tarn de ijlis documentis prtsfutnamus^ quhm de
Scripturis fantiis^ and then he cites a Text. But in the next
EpfJHe^znd that againfl the Donatifls^ after fome other veli-
tations, and general topicks, whereof Councils was one,
as appears by thofe words, Faciant milk concilia Epifcopi^
he comes, to the holy Scriptures and triumphs in his Ar-
guments, and doubts not to defeat his Adverfaries by the
force of them. He begins with words frequent in his
Scripturis didicimus Chriflum, in Scripturis
^' ■ didicimus Ecclejiam^ has Scripturas communiter hahemuSy
quare non in eiSy & Chriftumy ^ Ecclefiam communiter re-
tinemus Then he throws out near twenty Texts one af-
ter another, comments in Ihort upon them, and never
doubts, but that he and his Adverfaries did fufficiently
underhand them, without the afliftance of a Sovereign
Guidey or an unerring Authority: if our Authour had con-
fidered this, it might have done him good; but becaule
lie is pleafed to find the Succeflion of Roman Bifho|« in
St. Augujliney I will fliew him ( what he feems not to
know ) two very confiderable ules, which that great Fa-
ther made of that topick ; the Firfl: was to conciliate a
mofl profound veneration to the Holy Scriptures ,• thus
contra therefore he writes, contra Faujtum Manichceumy lib. ii.
pofleriorum lihriSy excellentia canonicce
capi'j,' "'Authoritatis veterisy ^ novi Teflamentiy quat Apoflolorum
confirmata temporihuSy per fuccejfiones Epijcoporumy ^ pro-
pagationes Ecclejiarumy tanquam in fede quadam fublimiter
confiit4it-a efly cui ferviat omnis jidelis ^ pins intelle^us. A
Second ufe that he made of this confideration of the Sue-
cefTion of Bifhops in their Seesy was (in cafe of a difpute
about a Text) to evidence what was the firfl, and fo the
true
( 17 )
true Chriflian Dcxfirine. To this end he very frequently
in his difputes with the Donxtifls^ requires them to fearcli
what was taught in the Churches of Corinth^ Gahtia^ E-
phefus, Philippic Thejfalomca^ all the Churches that had
the honour to receive Apoflolical Epiflles; Now if all thefe,
having feveral SLiccelfions ofBifliops, fliould agree in any
one point, that was controverted, St. Augujiine took their
confent to be a good Argument, that fuch a Dodtrine was
original and true • he fends them indeed to Rome too, but
upon no other accompt, and no higher reafon, than he
does to thofe other Apoflolical Churches : Now I think I
may prefume in kindnels to our Authour to give him one
advice, and that is this; to have a care when he refers to
St. Auguftine^xhii he knows his mind,and that St. Augufline
did write what he cites him for ; for I can tell him, that
a certain perfon, w^ho was of his opinion concerning a So-
leraignGuide^ and unerring Authority to be found in the
Church oi Rome^ came at length to believe (^nd that con-
fequentially to his opinion J that the decretal Epiflles of
the Popes^ were of the fame Authority with, and to be
reckoned amongd the Canonical Scriptures • and to con-
firm his opinion he cited St. Augufline for it, and this his
citation had got into Gratians Decretum • but the lad Ro-
w^«-Corred:ours of Gratian found it to be either grofs for-
gery, or a grofs miftake, and they have done St. Augufline
right, and a favour to fuch Perfons as our Authour is, to
let them know, that St. Augufline is no great friend to fuch
fond ahid abfurd opinions. You may fee Gratiani Decreti
prim. part. Diflin. 19. Cap. 6. Butbecaufeit mayjbefome
trouble to confult that I will give you the truth,
and the forgery together. St. Augufline in his Book., De
Dohirina Chrifliana, lih. i. cap. 8. had given us thefe words.
In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclefiarum Catholicarum quam pluri-
um authoritatem fequatur^ inter quas fane illce funt, qure Apo^
flolicas fedes habere Epiflolas accipere., meruerunt^ &c.
Now this was plain and good advice in the examination
D of
( i8 )
otBooks,t.\\ox miglit be all'edged to be CanotiicaiScriptures, to
give a preference to the tellimony of thofe Churches that
were called ApofiolicalSeats, and fuch as had the honour to
receive Epijtles from the ApoJJles, as Rome, Corinth, Philippi,
&c. Butnovva tranfcriber ofthis, Ifuppofemore knave than
looJ, changes the words thus. In Canonicis Scripturis Ecclefi'
arum Catholicarum quamplurium Divinarum Scripturarum
folertijfimus irJagatcr autoritatem fequatur, inter quas
Jane illcz Jint quas ApoJloUca fedes habere, ^ ah ea alii me-
riierunt accipere Epiflolas. This fpeaks quite a different
tiling, that the Epijlles of the Apojiolical Seat are to be
accounted Canonical Scriptures. This forgery or miflake
came abroad, I fuppofe, at the fame time with the coun-
terfeit ware of; and to this, with the
ties of the mod early Billiops o^Rome, were put into Gra-
iian ; and there it remained as a great Authority in the
behalf of the Sacrednefs ?iC\<\Canonicalnefs P apal Epijlles^
until! the lall: CorreRlours were pleafed honeftly to rejedt
it, and prudently to tell the World that they dare not own
fuch follies or knaveries.
But farther, becaufe our Authour thinks to advantage
himfelf of the Name of St. Augujline, I will acquaint him
that this Father had no very extraordinary opinion of
Rome, or t\\Q Bijhops oVit; when he was inqueflof the
true Religion, he left Rome and went to Milan, and fub-
mitted himfelf to the guidance of St. Amhrofe, and re-
ceived the true Chriff ianity from him. He had all his days
the higheft reverence for him, and would have yielded to
his Authority, when he would not have yielded to the
Auguftinus pope's: Hetells us that when Mekhiades judged thecaiife
Efifl. 162. of the Donatijls, he was joyned with feveral other Bifliops,
Aug. Epift. in the fame Commiffion by Conjiantine j when he names
1^3- thofe two great men,Julius Bijkopo^ Rome,m6. Athanajtus,
as orthodox Perfons,anddefendersoftherightfaith,heputs
Athanafws in the firfi place : It is he that gives thofe hard
words, Quidam quinomen hahet Fakidii, duce StultitiH, &
Civi-
( t9 )
Civitatis Romanisja^aMti.), Levilas Sacer^olibus, & Dra-
conos Presbyter is co^epare center,dit^ he tells us wliat it was
that rais'd his pafiion ; the Deacons Rome it feems would p- lob ©■ 1^9,
not yield to the of other places ,■ upon that he
fays, Quia Romance Ecclejice minijlri funt^ idcirco honorahi-
liores putantur^ qaam apud cceteras Ecclefias^ propter mag-
nificentiam urhis Romance^ quce caput ejfe videtur omnium
civitatum : Si itaque Jic eji, hoc dehent^ (0 Sacerdotihus
fuis vindicare. And a little after he gives a fuller accompt
of it, f^ides quidpariat 'vana prccfumptio, immemores enim
elatione mentis^ eo quod videant Romance Ecclefice fe eJfe mi-
nijlros^ non confiderant, quid ilhsa Deo decretumJit^hS quid
deleant cujiodire^ fed tollunt hcec de memoria afiduce Sta-
tiones domefUcce^ & ojfcialitas j quce per fuggefliones malcts^
feu lonas nunc plurimum potefl j aut timentur enim ne male
fuggerant^ aut emimtur ut prceflent.
But becaufe this Book is accompted by feveral not to
Be St. Augufiiner,^ though fent abroad by the Monks, and
publiflied in his Name.
I will add farther that St. Augufmds thoughts of Rome^
■and the Bijhops of that See, were quite different from our
Authours • for if he thought that the Soveraign Guide,
and the unerring Authority had been there; and that God
depofited thofe great fupports and fecurities of the Chrifli-
an Faith in the Succeflion of the Roman Billiops; then in
all likelihood when Rome was taken by the Goths, he
would have lamented and mourned, as a Jew formerly
would have done at the taking of Jerufalem, and the cap-
tivity of the High-Priefi.
But alas there was nothing like it, when this news was
brought to St. Augufiine, all that he faid of it was this.
Hi mult OS fratres non haluimus, non adhuc hahemus.
Indeed for this exprellion he feems to apologize in his ,
next Sermon, but that not as to the truth of his words, "fl "
but as to the fpirit of mind in which he fpake them •
that it was not out of any defign to infult over the mife-
D z ties
( 20 )
ries of others. Bcfides, he that remembers what labour
he, and the reft of the African Bilhops took, to get the
concurrence of the Bilhops of Innocenths and !Zofi-
Ynus\ to the condemnation of the Pelagian Herefie, may
w-ell think, that St. Augufline could have no great rcve-
rence for them ; and if we Erafmns his Cenfure upon
Innocent's Epijiles which are printed with St. Augufline s,
we may poflibly be tempted to entertain mean thoughts of
the Bilhop of fo great a See.
Thefe are Erafmus his words before the 96^^- Ep. which
is Innocents. Innocentius fuperiori refpondet fuo more., fcevus
potius quam eruditus., ^ ad damnandum quam docendum
inflruHior. But I muft leave this, and follow our Au^
thour. He goes on /). the leaping and skipping from
one thing to another: He fpeaks firfl: of ViBor., what he
did in carting out the Afiatich., and then what Gregory *
and others, whom he calls Chriffs Vicegerents, did in
bringing in converts; and wonders thatfo many Profe-
ly tes llrould be made to fo little purpofe. Then he fanfies
he had feen glorious and wonderfull Privileges in the
Church of Rome; and knows not how they could be for-
feited. After, he falls to his wdnted work of whipping
our Bifliops for telling him that new Dotrtrines had been
brought into the Church, which were not impofed upon
thefaithfull iiW tht Council oi Trent.
Now nothing of all this deferves an anfwer, becaufe it
hath been fo often given before. But it may be expeded
by fome.
As to ViHor, he fays he excommunicated the Bifhops
of Ajia for keeping of Eajler, contrary to the Inflitutions
of St. Peter and St. Paul, though tolerated hy St. John.
Now this is fit to be faid by a new Convert, who muft
venture farther, than any man of skill dare do. For iirrt;
the matter of fad: is doubted, and Valefius the laft Editor of
Bufehius, ( who was all his days a Roman Catholick, thinks
that Viflor went no farther, ^ than to high words and
threat'^
( 21 )
threatning. And then as to the right of the adion, Ire- Eufebiuj. hh.
nceus (who wrote to Vi^or himfelf about it} fully ihews, 5
that it would have been unreafonable, and againflall the
methods of his Predecefiburs. But then thirdly^ the re-
lation of our Authour is altogether groundlefs, that St.
PeterPaul didinftitute, and St. John onely tolerate.
For this is a thing, that Polycrates the Prefident of the
Counciloi the Afiaticks never knew, Vithr himfelf never
knew, Ireneeus never knew, Anketus Bifliop of Romey
nor yet St. Polycarp^ that contefted this point with
him, ( who too was St. Johns own Difciple }
never knew. Eufeh. lih. 5. c. x4. Certainly our Authour
has fome Pidgeon, that whifpers to him Secrets and Myf-
teries, that no man knows. I beg his leave a little to ac-
quaint him with the lenfe of his Iriend St. Augujline in a
like cafe. The Romans challenged to have a command
ixomSt. Peter for keeping the Saturday-Fajl; and thofc
of the Eajlern Churches quite contrarily aflerted, that
they were exprefly forbidden, and that by St. John, to
fall: upon that day. A Preshyter of the Church of Rome
writes to his friend, and moft earneftly exhorts him, to
do as they did, and pleads thus. Petrus Apojlolorum caputs
cosU JanitorEcclefice fundamentum id ipfum Romanos edo-
cuit. Now St. Augujline being confulted in the cafe, flights
all that flaunting Plea of the Romans^ allows the allegati-
on of the Eajlerns to be as good as thofe of the Wejl;
and concludes thus, that the Apoflles St. Peter and St.
John did not vary. If they gave any rule, it was the fame
every where. And feeing there is a prefent difference, it
muft be faid, that either the Eaflern Church hath varied
from the rule of St. John; or elfe the Roman Church has
varied from the rule of St. Peter. Now which of thefe
was the truth St. Augujlke knew not: He himfelf gives
his fenfe in thefe words. Epijiola 86 Cafulano. After the Auguainns
V\ea for Rome, E contrano refertur, Occident is, potius aliqua £;>. 86.Cafuw-
loca, inquibus Roma eji, non fervajfe quod Apojioli tradide-
runt-: ■
f
.1,
P. 18.
3-i
ii:
X 22)
runt: or tenth ^ero terras, unde ccepit ipfurn Evangel turn
ipfum prcedicari, in eo quod ah omnihus fimul cum ipfo Pe-
tro Apojlolis traditum efl, ne Sahhato jejunetur, fine aliqua
varktate manfiife. Upon this he conc\udt^ thmfntermim-
lilts eji ijia contentio, generans Ittes non finiens quatjitones.
Had this great Father known any thing of a Soveratgn
Guide, and unerring Authority feated at Rome he could
never have doted fofar, as to have made this any matter
of quefirion. But he knew nothing of that, or Peter
commanding, and John onely tolerating, either in the
one or the other cafe. And I will prefume for once, that
he knew a great deal more than cur Authour does.
But the fecond skip our Authour takes is to Converfions
and here he fa)s he perceives, that according to the com-
mand, and inftitution of our Saviour, his Vicegerent did
fend out his Difciples. Here! want our Authour s ^pedfacles,
for I can perceive nothing; I fee no Vicegerent of our Blef-
fed Lord: nor do I fee any command, that he ever gave
to fuch a Perfon : nor do I know whether he means the
Difciples of the Vicegerent, or the Difciples of our Lord.
It is certain our Lord gave a command to the Apojiles to
teach all Nations ,• and they and their Succefldurs theBi-
Ihops, haveadled according to that command. And if
Gregory Billiop of Rome, or any other have been induftri-
ous in that work, we heartily thank and commend them.
But yet I wonder, that our Authonr has of a fudden,
grown fo extremely blind, as not to fee, that converfions
may be made to what is bad, as well as to what is good.
Pagans and Mahometans have been induflrious to make
converts : So have all Hereticks, his friends Elton and Ce-
rinthus, Nailor and Muggleton. Nay this, if he had not
delpifed, and too long laid afide the Holy Scriptures, he
might have learn'd without the affiftence of his unerring
Authority from onefayingofourBlefled Lord, Math. 2j.
\q,Wo unto you Scriles and Pharifees,&CQ.
After
( 23 )
After this grofs piece of ignorance, which he Is plea- P-
fed to lliew to advantage, with flourilhesof his pen, com- .
paring his reafon with that of our Reverend Bilhops ; he
may excufe me from telling him how the great Privileges
and Prerogatives of the Church of Rome could he forfeited
untill he hath Ihown me in particular what they were,
that he infifts upon. For untill he has proved, that Rome
did really enjoy fuch Prerogatives, as he challenges on
her behalf; 1 will not undertake to Ihew, when and how
Rome forfeited that which Rome never had. Our Authour
may be a Sophifter, and how far he is beyond that him-
felf bed knows; and fo he may think no farther in this
Paragraph, than the old trite Cavil, quod non perdidijli
hahes. And his friends at Rome will con him but few
thanks for that.
And now our Authour begins to whip our BiJhopSy and
wo be to them. He tells them what he had been told,
that there were fome late Doclrines introduced into the
Churchy andfuch as were not impofed upon the faithfully he-
fore the Council of Trent. This he lays he could anfwer by
alledging, that the protefting againft thofe Dod:rirtes was
in the fame time. But this he waves, and choofeth ra-
ther to lliew, that the Do(3:rines we oppofe were edablilht
by Councils before. And here he begins with-
r. The Pope's Supremacy'y sffYiichhehlth ivas confirmed in P. 20.
the Council of Chalcedonfone of the firf four general Councils
owned by Proteflantsfahjve i xoo years ftncef 50 Fathers pre^
fent. Quid dignim tanto ferePhk promiffor hiatw As for my
part I wonder, who either licenfed or allowed this^ooi- to
be printed. Will any man of skill think to advance a Plea
for the Popes Supremacy from the Council of C bake don >.
It is certain,- that nothing was done there rliat might
have any reference to this Pointy which was not difclaim- •
ed by the Legates of the Pope upon the place ; and after-
wards highly relented by Leo the I. who was then Pope.
It is true that Anatolius then Patriarch of Conflantinopky.
carried.
( 24)
carried on a defign to advance his Seat; and becaufe he
was Bijhop of New Rome, would have the next place after
the Bijhop of the OIJ-, and fo would have the Pre-emi-
Du I'm i/e nence of the Patriarchs o'i Alexandria 2in<^ Antioch. In
order to this, in the abfence of the Pope's Legates, Ana-
tolius and his friends, got the xS Canon of that Council to
pafs, which gives to the Patriarch of Conflantinople Tcra,
that is, as a learned Roman Cathohck comments,
eadem & ccqualia privilegia trihuunt Epifcopo novde Roma,
ac Dcteris Roma Epifcopo. Now afloon as the Legates of
the Pope had heard of this they declared againft it, and
obtained another Sejfion, wherein they might produce
their Plea againft the validity of this Canon, both as to the
form and matter. But their objedbions were anfwered,
and the Canon pafted againft their minds ; though Lucen- |
tius one of the Pope's Legates protefted againft it, and de-
fired that his Proteftation might be entred into the A^s of
the Council. And when Leo the Great, who was then
Pope, heard of this, he declared againft it, and wrote a-
gainft it, with a great deal of vehemence and indignation,
'as any one may fee, who will confult thefe Epijlles of his,
the 5"<5, 5*7, 58, 63, 6(5. And Leo could never be brought l
to confirm that very Canon which our Authour tells us did
confirm his Supremacy. Now in this cafe I will prefume
that Pope to be a better guide, and to have more Autho-
rity than our This is a blunder, and lliewsus,
that new Converts are not men of the greateft skill, and
thatfomeof them have as little knowledge in Councils, as
they have in the Scriptures. This man deferves a greater
lalh than I will give him, for bringing in his Story with
that pomp and appearance of skill, telling us that this
Coupcil is owned by Proteftants, the time of its celebrati-
. on, the number of Billiops who were in it. And now at
laft it appears, that whatever we Protefiants do, yet the
Pope himfelf will not allow what this man challenges in
his behalf.
But
( 25 )
But perliaps his cafe is piteous. For more may be requi-
red of ^ew Converts^ than they are able to perform. He
that takes up a Religion by fubmitting to Authority with-
out reafon; mayealily be confounded, when he leeks to
give reafons for what he has done.
For once I will be kind, and make the bell Apology
for our Authour I can, and I think a good one, and that
is this.
He is not the firll man of the Church of Rome^ who has
quoted Councils to little purpofe. He follows great Exam-
pies, and the chiefefl: among them.
For thus did Fafchafinus^ one of the Topes own Legats
in this very Council at Chalcedon^ and that too in his op-
pofition againft this z8th Canon. After he had declared it
was the Topespleafure, that nothinglliould be determin'd
there, concerning his Power, or the Power of the other
T^tKiarchs; he alledged in behalf of the Tope's Supremacy.,
that it was fixed beyond exception or doubr, by the fixth
Canon of the great Council at .Tlice, wherein it was decia-
red, that Ecclefia Romana femper habuit primatum. The
Billiops wondered they fiiould know nothing of this, and
thereupon required the Canon to be read. Tafchalinus pro-
duced his Copy., and there thofe words were: But the Fa-
thers not fatisfied, called for others., and more attelled Co-
pies: and in them there was not the leaft word, intima-
ting any fuch thing. Now this compare of the Copies
made Tafchajinus blulh, and the Fathers of that Council
think what fort of men they had to deal with.
A Roman Catholkk tells us this Pallage in thefe words,
Trimo refertur a Pafchafino Leonis in Concilia Chalcedo-
nenfi Legato^ Adt. 16. quod Ecclefia Romana femper habuit
primatum. At flatim Chalcedonenfes Taires eundem Cano-
nem ex codice fuo^ fine additione ijia retulerunt. Quaprop-
ter confentiunt omnes eruditi^ verba hate non ejfe genuina
fed ajfuta.
E
Thus
uo
Du Pin,^.315. Thus too in the Council of Carthage^ Fauflinus,
di "Zofmiu^ challenged a right for the Tope to receive Ap-
peali^ and that by right of a Canon of the Council oi Nice.
The African Fathers found no fuch thing in their Copy ^
brought thence by Cceeilianus^ one of the Fathers of that
Garth. Council, But becaufe Faujiinus infifted upon the skill,
BeterSo"^ knowledge, or infa/Iihility (if you will) of Tope Zofi-
f. 509. ' andhadfhewedthatthePopehimfelf, inhisCommo-
nitory dired:ed to him^ and the other Legats^ did exprefly
affert that this was his right, and that according to the
determination of the Council of Nice • the African Fathers
refoived to fend Meflengers to the three great Seats^ Alex-
andria, Antioch, and Conftantinople^ to get new Copies^ one
from each of them, attefted under the hands of thofe Ta-
Epift.adCce- triarchsy and compare them with their own and the Ro-
^wCanmum' Copy. At the return of the Meflengers, it manifefHy
Cartha^.^ Be- appeared that their own Copy intirely agreed with every
vereg. Edit, one of the Others, and that the Council of Nice had not gi-
^ ven the leaft advantage to the Bifhop of Rome in the cafe
of Appeals.
Thus it feems that Councils are different things in Rome
from what they are in other places. A Tope or his Le-
gate., can reade that in them, which no man elfe can.
The Topes feera extraordinarily wife in challenging a
power to confirm Councils • but they had as good let it
alone. For it will doe their bufinefs as well, if they fol-
low thefe Examples, to take from them, and add to them
metw Anna- what they pleafe. Both thefe things (I know) are ex-
l£i in An. cukd : and fome tell how Tafchafinits was led into his
miftake: others fay it was a mere overfight of Tope Zojt-
mus in quoting the Nicene Council inflead of the Sardican.
To avoid other difficulties; fome are willing to allow,
that a Tope may be deceived, and that too when he is in-
larging his Power over the Church CathoUck with all art
and fubtilty. Nor do I know what Article of Faith or In-
fidelity might not be ellabliflied in the Church by fuch
miflakes
( 27 )
miftakes and overfigbts as thefe. It's well for fucceeding
Chriftians, that the Fathers at Carthage and Chakedon had
eyes in their heads, and did ufe them too; without giving
truft to Fope^ or Legate, or Roman Copy. For had they
been as much miftaken or overfeen as others, there are e-
nough at this day, that would make advantage of it, and
declaim fufficiently againft us pleading an overf ght in the
cafe. But thefe Senles of men are evil things, and moll
mifchievous to the Interefls of Rome. Thefe tempt men,
in fpight of all their refolutions, doe they what they can,
to mifdoubt the Dodtrine of Tranfuhftantiation. Thefe
Biewed of old what was, and what was not in the Council
of Fhice; and are every day telling tales, opening and dif-
clofing fome fine intrigue or other : fo that I cannot but
wonder that Rome has not yet taken a full revenge of
them. For if they would oblige men to deny, or at Jeaft
mifdoubt their Senfes in every thing as well as one; and
require the Learned not to fee what they do fee in Councils
and old Records, as well as they require all not to fee what
they do fee in the confecrated Elements; then conver-
fions would be eafie, and they might foon find an intire
fubmiflion, from all the World, to all Supremacy they
can wifli.
But to let that pafs, it is faid in the defence of 2.oJimiis,
that he was overfeen, and he eafily might be; For the Ca-
ffon that he quoted was a true Canon, made at Sardica,
and not at Nice; and the Council of Sardica, as to Faith,
intirely receiving and requiring all that which was conclu-
ded at Nice; made onely Canons concerning Difcipline:
and they were put into the fame Book; or upon the fame
Roll with thofe of Nice. Which the Fope finding in the
Title at the beginning, might eafily refer all that followed
to it.
This is faid. But the Fathers at Carthage did not judge
it an overfight; but intrigue, and defign: and to witn-
ftand it to the utmofi, made the 3 1 // Canon, which or-
E X dams
J
■I
('28)
dains mofl; floutly and refolutely; that If any hereafter
fhoukl appeal to a Foreign Power, or Tranfmarine Judica-
tory ; he Jhould never he received into Communion hy any in
Africa. Upon which Canon Zonarai fays, ddmv^v o
'Ez/tAnOT2t<; c^cocitAAs3)} ^he huffing infolence of
the Roman Church is here thrown out: and he adds that the
reafons in the cafe, which were good in Africa, are good
every-where elfe,
Syml Edit, a But befides, it appears more evidently, that thofe Fa-
Beveregio, thers took tliis to be art and contrivance. Becaufe at the
end of the Council they fent their new attefled Copies to
Pope Cxlejline, next Succedbur but one to Zofimus, with
a Letter in the name of the Council: and therein they tell
him roundly, that they knew their right, and that they
would maintain it; that they had received wrong by the
intermedling of Fauflinus in the name of Zofimus: that
\\\t Council of Flice had committed Presbyters Bifhops
to the regulation of the Metropolitans; and according to
wifedom and juflice they had fixed, that all Controverfies
and Pleas ought to be determined and adjurted in the Pla-
ces and Countreys wherein they arofe; that the grace of
the Spirit is not wanting to the Priefts of Chrift in every
place, whereby they may judge what is right; and in
cale of errour or aggrievance, there might be an appeal to
the next Synod. And as to Judgments to be revoked by
Foreigners, and a new revifion to be made in Places be-
yond the Seas; they knew not how it could be well done.
For in thefe Rcvifions, many nccefiary Witnefies could
not be produced in fucli dillant Places, by reafon of fick-
nefs, weaknefs, and many cafual, but yet reafonable im-
pediments. At lafl; they conelude, that all this acfbion,
whieh gave them fo much trouble, tended to no good at
all; but would bring into the Church of Chrijl, ^
Tvj-ov tS mjfAis. Whereupon they hope he will not follow
the Example .of his Pj edecejfor.
Thus
( 25 )
Thus fald thefe great Fathers^ and thereby fufficiently
intimate, what they thought of the Adion of Zojimiis.
And we, at this diflance, may guefs at fome farther
thoughts of theirs (which they have concealed} by ta-
king a fliort review of the HiJlorj of thofe times. Be-
caufe that will Ihew us fomething more than an overfight
in this bufmefs.
The Council of Flke had done nothing for the aggran-
dizing of Rome.
Two and twenty years after, another Council was con-
vened at Sardica. The number of Bilhops who came thi-
ther, (as Athanafim tells us} was an hundred and feventy.
At the firft meeting there happens to be a breach amongft
them. Upon that the greatefl: part withdraw : fome it
may be to their own Diocefes; others gathered together
to Philippopoliswhere they make Canons., and publilh
them with authority from the Emperour; and that in the
name of the Canons of the Sardican Council. Thefe for a
time were the onely Sardican Canons that were known in
other Countries. And becaufe thefe favoured Arianifm,
St. Auguflin, and St. Hilary declared highly againil; the Aug. Ep.is^..
Sardican. Council, and the Canons of it. For they knew ? ^5^.
of no other but thefe. But whilfh the Ea^ern Bifliops
were bufie at Philippopolis, there remained at Sardica a-
bout eighty Bilhops, as fome guefs. Brietius the Jefuite Briet. AnnaUs
fays not above feventy. Thefe, that they might leem to
doe fomething, agree to make Canons about Difcipline :
And becaufe there were none left there, but good conh-
ding Friends of Pope Julius and Athanajiiis ; Hofnis leads,
and they ail without difpute or hefitancy follow. Fie fays, Nw.i? Bevere. .
let us doe fomething to honour the memory of Sr. Peter:
and they all agree to doe what he would have them tOp. '
doe. Therefore he propofes, and they conclude to give Sardi:. concH.
that to the Pope which he never had before, and yet that 5-
was not a power of judging and determining in a caufe
upon an Appeal; but.of requiring of a review, or fe-
cond i
( 3° ) -
cond judgment to be made in the Countries by the fame
Judges, with the addition of feme few others. As foon
as thefe Canons were made, Julim receives them, and tacks
them to the end of the Canons of the Nicene Council,
where they lay clofe for feventy years, and were never
heard to fpeak a word in the Weflern Church for all
that time. Nor yet dare they fo much as Ihew their
heads in the Eajlern Church in any Judicatory to this
day. But when Aptarhis made his complaints to Zojimus^
he'was lo hardy as to make trial of them ,• and in the
Du Pin, de name of the Canons of the Nicene Council, he fends them
abroad to hght for him. De Marca, lib. 7. cap. y. Du
Pin^ pag. 11 .
Now in all this Narration from firfl: to lafl:, I fee no
manner of overfight; but great appearance of prudence,
dehgn and craft. It was no overfight for the Friends of
Rome at Sardica^ to make Canons of Difcipline ; when all
the Eajlern Bifliops, who might oppofe, were out of the
way.
It was no overfight in Hojius to preface his Canons in
that glozing way ot doing honour to the memory of Saint
Peter.
It was no overfight in Julius to tack thefe new Canons
(that were to give him and his Succellburs fuch new
powers} to thole of the Council of Nice.
It was no overfight in his Succellburs, to make no men-
tion of thefe for feventy years.
It was no overfight in Pope Zojjmus, when he refolved
to make advantage of them; to bring them forth in the
name and credit of Nicene Canons. ( Thus did Leo the
Firlt after him. De Marca lib. 7. cap. 7. par. 6.} For
had he called them Sardican Canons, Sr. Augu/lin would
have prefently faid, that they were the Abts of Hereticks,
and in the next moment would have thundred againU
them, as Falfarians and Counterfeits. For thofe Men who
made the Sardican Canons, which he had fccn did con-
deran
( 3' )
demn both Athanafius and Julius; and tlien how is it pof- Auguft. Efifi.
fible to think, that they would ever have given fuch new '^3-
and extraordinary powers to Julius ? Alter that, the
whole Council would have declared, that whether the Ca-
nons were counterfeit or not, yet no Adt of any Sardican
Council had any more authority in it (after the divifion
of the Fathers } than an Ad of one of their Provincial
Synods.
Upon the whole therefore, whatever men talk of an
overl:ght in Zofimus, it is certain he did what was fit and
necefiary to be done in the cafe. If he would ufe thofe
Canons to enlarge his power, he mud call them Nicene Ca-
nons. For thofe onely could be prefumed to have autho-
rity fufficient to doe his bufinefs. Thus his own next Pre-
deceflbur Jnnocentius the Firji fays in his Epiflle^ ad Cle-
rurn Conjlantinopolitanum^ of theCanons, that they^
and they onely were the Canons^ which the Roman Church
flood to. Alios quippe Canones Romana non admittit Eccle-
fta. Du Pin ii^. Sozomen^ lib. 8. 7.6. De' Marca^ lib. 7.
cap. 12. par. i, ^ 2.
But, good Sir, pardon this digrefiion. It has been too
long. Our Authour forced me to it by his confident al-
ledging the Council of Chalcedon, and the Council of Flice
for the pope s Supremacy. In charity I was bound to pity
him, and tell him fomething which he did not know,* and
thereby (if poflible} to move him to take more care, if
ever he writes again. I pitied the World too, to fee it in
danger to be abufed by fuch impertinencies at this time of
day- Onely allow me the favour to acquaint you, that
Petrus de Marca, fpeaking of thofe Sardican Canons, lih. 7. Petms rie
cap. 17. par.^, ^ 7. exprefiy aiferts that they were un-
known in Africa, and other Provinces till Zofmus his days, Sacerdot.
and withall he fliews how thQ Africans at lalt came to fub-
mit to themand that was upon many, and thofe not
commendable reafons; the firfl of which is this, Ceffere
tandem oh pertinaciam fedis Apoflolicce Pontificum, qui nihil
remittere
(32)
remittere voluerunt ex jure fihi legitime quxfito in Concilio
Generali Occidents Sardicenfi nimirum ; prisfertim cim pof-
fejfioni eorum confenfijfent Africani Epifcopi^ qui ad certum
tempiis morem gejferant dejideriis Summorum Tontificum.
And the laft is from the difficulties which the incurfions of
the Vandals brought upon them, who being Avians made
it neceffiary for the Churches of Africa at any rate to pur-
chafe the favour and affiftence of the Romans, —incurfio
Vandalorum, Ariani erant, - ^ in Africa dominalantur^
Africanos necejfitate adigehat ad ar^ifimam unionem cum Ec-
clejia Romanl
It fecms then that the Topes after long conteils prevailed
not by the merits ol their Caufe, but by their fliffnefs^ or
pertinacious injifiing upon demands right or wrong • And
by making advantages of the neceflities of others, when
Vandals, and thofe too Arian Hereticks, had mafter'd
them, and lay hard upon them ; for then thofe Orthodox
Chrihians were forced to yield up their rights to the Popes,
before they could obtain neceflary reliefs irom them. Thus
faid that wife and learned .Catholkk. And he him-
felf in the writing of this gives us caufe to believe the
truth of this remark, for he then found in his own experi-
ence the fame ftiffnefs, and pertinacity, and therefore puts
in words to pleafe them quite contrary to the defign of
his Difcourfe. For he ffiews plainly that they had no
right, and yet was forced to fay they had, ex jure legitime
quaefito. He Ihews that the Sardican Fathers, who made
this Canon, after the feceffion of the others, could not
make up any Ihew of a general Council, yet fays that right
was obtained in Concilio generali, Sardicenfi nimirum.
Now, Sir, if you can think that the Roman Bilhops have
proceeded in thefe methods, I hope you will hereafter lefs
puzzle your felf, and your Friends, with your Queries con-
cerning the prodigious Power of tire Papacy; how it could
get up at firil by luch flender pretences ? and how it could
Hand with fuch weak props ? how men could be fo bold
as
(33)
as to challenge in behalf of the Roman Bifhops To I'lludrioas
a Supremacy^ fo mlmited Authority^ fo glorious a Ficege-
rency^ as the Fkariatjhip of Chrijl himfelf mud (peak ? All
thefewili be much eafier to you when you have confide-
red thefe two things ,• fird, the mighty effedls of a perti-
nacious (iiffnefi in demands right or wrong ; and fecondly,
what it is to take all advantages upon the neceilitiesof o-
thers, efpecially at fuch a time, when thofe barbarous
People, Gothsf and Vandals^ and Huns^ and Saxons, had
overrun fo many parts of the World.
X. A fecond point of Controverfie between the Church
G^Rome^ and the Oimrcho^ Epgland^ which according to
our Authour was determined by ancient Councils, is that
about the Apocryphal Books ; which he fays were taken
into the Canon of the Old Tejlament in the Third Council of P- ao.
Carthage^ Jigned hy St. Augufline^ Baruch onely not namedy
Canon 47.
Now to this it is fuflicient to fay, that the Subjedl is
.exhauded, and there is nothing left for another Writer to
add to it. The Learned Dr. Cofens in his Difcourfe of the
Canon of the Scripture, parag. 8 z. has faid more tiian e-
nough, for the fatisfaddion of any learned Roman Catholicky
as well as Protejlant; and if our Authour would pre-
fume to reply, it will cod him more pains, than the wri-
ting of a dozert fuch Books as thefe. But fome fmall re-
turn may be expeded; He fliail therefore have this; That
the Canon he quotes out of the Council of Carthage, does Canon. 47. a-
not provide for the taking of Books into the Canon of Scrip- M Binnium,
ture; but for throwing of Books out of the Church. Itsymdi^^'
fays at fird, that no Books fhould be read in Churches, Beveieg.
but thefe; and then it fays in thcclofe, that they had re-
ceived from the Fathers, that thefe were there to be read.
Now our Authour knows, that though we call thefe Books
Apocryphal, yet we reade them in our Churches; and that
as much, and more than they do in the Church of Rome;
and tliat all of them, except the two Books of the Macca-
F lees.
t 34)
Dr ei-iftriV lees. Now as to tliefe, they are not mentioned in any of
Scbnl^jLHiJl Qreek Copies of this Canon' nor }et in Crejcon'tiis his
CoIIcdion of the Canons; and how they came to
be in felted, we mud remit him to Dionyjius Exiguus for
his fatis!a(dion.
But if our Authour had any material doubt concerning
the Church of England's Dodrine about Canonical., and
Apocryphal Books, he would haVe done well to have con-
fidered the fentiments of the Dodours of the Roman
Church, before he had concluded againlb us. Now, I
believe, that Cardinal Cajetan, where he endeavours to
reconcile the Council of Carthage with Saint Augufiine,
would have given him reafon enough never to have ufed
this objedion againft the Church of England. He fays in-
deed againft Protejlants, but not thofe of the Englijh Com-
raunion, in jine Commentariorurn ad Hifl. V. ^ N. T. Ne
turberu Novitie, Ji alicuhi reperias l/lroi iflos inter Canoni-
cos fupputatos; vel in Jacris Conciliis, vel in facris Doliori-
hits; lihri ifli non funt Canonici ad confirmanda ea quce funt
fidei, pojfunt tamen did Canonici ad cedificationem fidelium^
utpote in Canone Bihlii ad hoc recepti & autorati. Cum hac
diflinEione difcernere poteris [cripta Auguflini, ^ fcripta
in provinciali Synodo Carthaginenfi.
Now this agrees well enough with the Dodrine in the
Articles , and pradice prefcribed in the Kubrick, of the
Church of England.
Can.Appfiol. And befidcs, this didindion has its foundation in a
85- very venerable Authority, for the Apofiolick Canons make
a great deal of difference, {and that upon the fame ground)
between fome, and other Books j calling fome of thcfe
(n'tddfMx, it) ayix, venerable, and holy ; but then of the
Book, called the Wifedom of Solomon, or the Son of Sirach
{and that mod certainly is the bed of the Apocrypha) fay,
it is to be learnt by the Young Men, or the Catechumens,
for the good rules and indrudions that are in it: and for
tins end it is read in the Church of England,
It
( 35 )
Tt Is fomethlng more, and to be hinted here; that the
Laodiccean Council expredy requires that no Books be
read in the Church but thofe that we accompt in flrid:
fenfe Canonical • Can. 60. And in the Canon 59. of that
'Council it is abfolutely forbidden^ that any private Hymns
or Pfalms (that is, fuch as have been made by private
Perfons, fince the confignation of the Canon of Scripture}
lliould be ufed in Churches. Now if our Authour knows
his Breviary^ and allows any Authority to thefc Councils •
He may have more reafon to objedt again ft the Church of
Rome^ for having fo many private Hymns in their Service,
than againft the Church of England, for having fo few
Books in that which is properly called the Canonical Scrip-
tares.
This bye-confideration might have given fome ftop to
a man that was not refolved to run too faft from his
Church.
3. But he mentions a third Dodbrine determined in an-
dent Councils againft usj and that is concerning the unlloudy
Sacrificexiow this is for want of matter to give words-
it is certain that the Church of England, at the end of the
Communion-fervice, in the laft ColleSl, teaches us to pray
to God, that he would accept this our Sacrifice; and our
Authour knows that it never owned any Sacrifice, but an
junbloudy Sacrifice to be offered there.
I wifii our Authour had told us whether the Sacrifice
which the Church of Rome pretends to offer, be bloudy
or unbloudy. . • .
. They tell us ordinarily that there is bloud on the Pat-
ten, and bloud in the Cup, bloud with the Body concomi-
tanter, for the benefit of the Laity •, and bloud in the Cup
to the fatisfadion of the Prieft; 1 think both thefe are of-
fered up according to their Dodrine, as a Sacrifice propi-
tiatory for the dead and the living.
They that believe Tranfuh^antiation, muft believe that
one part of the Sacrifice is really bloud, and nothing elle
F \ but
( 3^)'
but bloud ; and they may be conccrn'd to call it a bloii»-
dy Sacrifice, but not .at all to call ic unbloudy. Pope
7Jrhan the Fourth feems to have been of this mind when
he inllltuted the great Feafl of the Body of Chrijl, com-
monly called, Fejtum Corporis Chrijli : For he did it upon
this occaficn ; that a certain Holl being broken by the
Priefl, either bled, or flied drops of bloud j they fay mi-
raciiloudy, but how, or whether true or no, we know
not. Now this, I prefume, may be caJl'd a hloudy Hofl
or Sacrifice-^ Brietius^ Ann. 1x64. in thefe words tells us
the hory.
TJrhanus quartiu ex occafiorte miraculi de Eucharijlia. Mo"
Jiici a Sacerdote fra£la reddente fargument, Fejlum Corporis
Chr/Jii inflituit.
The inftitution of this Feafl was to give honour to the
Jdoff and that not as mlloudy^ but as hloudy j and it was to-
infinuate this Dodbrine, that all the other Hofts have bloud;
with them, as well as this j though the bloud does not al-
ways appear. But, as they fay, then it did ; and if fo, it
came in feafonably to confirm the Dodbrine of the Late-
ran Council about Tranfuhflantiation and that which foon
follow'd after it, the communicating of the Laity in one
Species. So happy was the Church of Rome then, to have
a Miracle, or the flory of a Miracle to come in at the nick,
of time, to patronage that which old Councils^ and old Fa-
thers, and fenfe, and reafon, and all that is in man, mufl
have difclaim'd and oppo.s'd.
But now, after all this, our Authour is moft unlucky,
to put us in mind of the true, ancient, Catholick Doc-
trine • and to fummon up old Councils in the defence of a
word, which we accept, and ufe with fubmifiion, and
that mofb properly; we believe the holy Eucharift to be a
Sacrifice, and that in plain and ftridb fenfe, an mhloudy
Sacrifice; and fo as the ancient Councils^ and Fathers did,
we call it. And though the Dodbours of the Church of
Rome ufe the fame word, yet when they refled upon the
Dodbrine
( 37 )
DodJrIne of their own Church, they mun, expfain them-
felves by a much harder figure, than we ufe when we in-
terpret the words ot our Saviour's Inftitution.
But yet our Authour will have the Councils againfi: us;
and he tells us of a Comcil at Conflantinople^ which, he fays,
was a thculand years agoe, and that it feems uied thefe
words, and fo do we; thofe are better Friends
to the Protefiant Doctrines, than he is aware of; for the
Protejlants iludied them, and learnt of them, and took
their rules and meafures, in the Reformation, as near as
they could, after the holy Scriptures, from them.
Then he cites the ninth Council of theApoJlles; now I
wilh he had told us, whether this was a thoufand, or fif-
teen hundred, or two thoufand years agoe: I thought at
firft he meant the 15 th Chapter of the Ads of the Apojiles;
But our Authour has declar'd fo much againft the Scrip-
tures, that we can never hope to find his fenfe there ; it
is poflible he means the ninth of the Apoftolick Canons.
And that is as little to his purpofe, as the ninth Council
of the Apoflles .■ to be fure it fpeaks nothing againft the in-
tereft of the Ciiurch of England^ and nothing to the ad-
vantage of the Church of Rome.
Thus it is, and will be, as often as men adventure to
write Books without skill.
4. IhQ fourth point our Authour gives us as determined
in Councils, is that of the 'veneration and mrjhip of Saints
Relicks ^ as alfo of Martyrs and holy Images which ^ he
fays, was (^according to Apojlolical Tradition) ejiahlifhed in
the fecond Council of Nice, with the general concurrences of
ancient Fathers.
This Council indeed fpeaks to the point, for which it is al-
ledged ; but becaufe our Authour is pleas'd to fortify it with.
concurrences; I'll give him account of fome other Councils, ■.
that as to time, do almoft concur with this; they treat
upon the fame fubjed:, and determine as refolutely ; and.
when he has ballanced all the concurrences together, per-
haps.
P. 2o;
(38)
liaps he may find as little pieafurc in this allegation, as in
all the reft.
The firft Council that ever determined any thing about
the worjhip of Imaqes was at Conftantinople ^ Anno 75-4.
* See the y^Eis * Tlus Called it felf the (eventh general Councif and fo it
cfteemcd for thirty years after.
c2/;>iBinnius, This condemned the worfliip of Images, and declared
f.p\. Co\. that it was abominable, that Images were Idols, and the
Worflftppers of them Idolaters; and that all and every I-
mage was to be thrown out of Chriftian Churches; and
they fpake as high in this way, as any have done fince the
t5ffBinnius Reformation- t This appears by the A^ls and Canons of
hu CoUcaion^^l^Q fgcoucl Nicene Council where thofe Fathers fpeak a-
as before-, and ■ . .
BiUmmiand gam.t It.
Zomns on the A little more than thirty years after, another Council was
'canlnfof^the 5 This cancelled the Ads of the former,
Cecond Nicene ^^^d called it felf the feventh general Council. This deck-
Council. J ed the worjhip of Images to he lawfuH., but gave no requi-
iite bounds and meafures to it, nor yet taught the expcdi-
ency of it.
This was done when Irene., an Imperious Woman, in the
behalf of her young Son, fwayed the Empire. But feven
years after this, Charles the Great gets another Council to
meet at Francfort; there met three hundred Biihops, who
unanimoufiy as much damned the fecond Council at Nice,
as that had damned the former: Walafridus Stralo, &
Ado Niennenjis, & Regino Prumienjis tell us, that in this
Francfort Council; PJeudofynodus Graeca pro adorandis Ima-
gin thus hahita, ^ /also feptima vocata, ah Epijeopis dam-
nata ejl. And Hincmarus Rhemenfis tells us : Tempore Ca-
roll magni Imperatoris, jujfione Apojlolkce fedis, geueralis Sy-
nodus in Francia convocante prcefato Imperatore, celehrata
ejl, ^ fecundum Scripturarum tramitem, tr adit tone mgue
rnajorum, ipfa Grrecorum Sf nodus deftruhia penitus ahdk
cata eji. And a little after he tells, that by the Autho-
rity of this Synod, the veneration of Images was fomewhat
reprefied :
( 39 )
repreflt'd : But yet Pope Adrian was of anotlicr mind, and
his SucceHburs, after the death of Charles^ Tupparum fua-
rum cultum "jehementius promoverunt^ ftirred much to ad-
Vance this ivorjhip; to which he gives a name which I lhaJl
not Englilh: iniomuch, that Lewis, the Son of Charles, was
forced to write fliarper againft the worfliip of Images, than
his Father had done. Now this is material, and it might
in reafon have flopt our Authour from laying any great
flrefs upon the fecond Nicene Council. And all this he
knew, or might have known,* for T>r. Beveredge, in his — Beve-
learned Notes upon that Cou xiL had laid ail this before '"A®""*
, . * ' //wmNicenum-
him. ^ fecundum.
But to add a little more,* in the year 8x5". Ludovicus
Tius called another Council at Taris, and this declared as
much againjl the worjhip of Images, and the fecond Council
at Nice, as that at Francfort had done before. The Ads
. of this Council lay in obfcurity, unknown a great while;
but they were printed in the year 1596. and fmce that ,
time the Friends of the prefent Church of Rome have no-
thing to fay againft them, and nothing for themfelves*^
but that Jonas Aurelianenfis difputed in that Council for
Images againft Claudius Taurinenjis. But yet for all his —Bdiarmi-
Arguments, the unanimous determinations of the reft o^wndes^ip..
the Fathers was againft them.. And befides, this very Jo-
nas, though he had fomething to fay againft Claudius, yet Jona. AuFdu-
he faid not enough to ferve the Intereft of the prefent
Church of Rome; For Be liar mine, de fcriptorihus Eccleji'
afticis, tells us, that he wrote three Books pro defenfione.
facrarum Imaginum ; But he advifes men to reade them
with caution ,* becaufe (he fays} that he, and Agahardus,
and all the chief Writers of the French Nation in that age,
are in one and the fame errour; who, though they will
allow fome worlhip for Images, )'et they deny that any
religious worlliip is to be given to them.
Thus our Authour might have feen, that we have a*^
gain ft them three Councils for one^ One in the Eaft h^-
fore-
•(40)
fore that of mofl: high and }X)ritIve againfl Image-
vvorihip : and two in the Weji: and thofe not on^ de-
daring againll that Worfliip, but as pofitively caflating
and annulling the A£ii of th^K fecond Nicene Council which
allowed it; and thefe two convened by the diredion of
two great Princes, Charles the Great^ and Lewis the PiouSy
who were the beft Friends that ever the Church of Rome
had. And with thefe Comdls agree, or very near agree,
all the chief Men of skill and learning, who were Writers
in that age in the Wefl: And then in the Eafly it is moft
certain that the fecond Nicene Council had no Credit, or
Reputation, or Authority a great while after; for all the
Hiflorians that write of the Times after the Depofition of
Irene the Emprejiy tell us of three or four Emperours im-
mediately fucceeding, who fully declar'd againfl Images,
and their worfliip; threw them out of Churches, and fe-
verely punilhed all thofe that pleaded in defence of them.
And nothing is fo common arnongft them, as fevere and
bitter complaints againfl: the Pcrfecution of the Icono-
clafts.
All this is true matter of fad, arid it is enough to de-
preciate the credit of the fecond Nlcene Council, and that
perhaps with our Authour himfelf.
But yet, for all this, it may puzzle fome others, to find
that this fecond Nicene Council appears in the World, as
the feventh General Council ^ and that in ancient as well
as modern Colledions; and not onely in the TVeJly but in
the Eajl.
The confideration of this is befide my bufinefs; but
yet it is flrange, and furprizing, and would tempt a man
to venture at a guefs, which perhaps may move others to
fpeak fomething in the cafe that is more material.
I have heard of a Proverhy or proverlial faying; that
three things joined together will doe wonders; and they
arc thefe, A little pood lucky and fome Arty and a great
deal of Face.
Now
(
41
1
J
Now the fecoiid Nicene Council has had on Its fide all
thefe three molt remarkably. as to good luck^ about
the time of this Council^ v\ hilfl Irene was Kmprefs, there
hapned a moil prodigious llrange Miracle at Berytus in
Fboenkia.
• An Image of our Saviour being wounded by a '^ew in —Brktii An-
the breafl: gave out, as my Authour fays, fo much bloud,
as being divided, would be fufficient to be kept, and
Ihown in all the Churches of the Eafl and Wefl v This was
foon carried abroad; and a little of it, as moil facred and
venerable, was repofited in moll of the famed Churches:
borne of this we find was Ihown at Mantua'^ and great
noife and talk there was about if; perhaps fome were for
the Miracle, and fome againfl it : And it is likely that
Charles the Great had not faith enough to believe it,* for
in the year 804. he 'got Pope Leo the Third to deter- '
mine the Controverfie, whether that bloud came from the
Image at Berytus, or no; and at that time he gave his
judgment againil the Image,- but when he added, that
die bloud there Ihown came out of the fide of our Saviour,
an honeil Jefuit dare not credit him.
Brietius fays, de hoc viderint eruditi. Now when this —Brier. An-
bloud was fiiown in Churches far and near, in the Eaji naks, AnSo^,.
and IVeJl, it could not but conciliate great veneration to
facred Images in the People. For they faw the bloud,
and it was ihown with a great deal of devotion ; and the
Priefls and Monks told the ilory no doubt with confidence
enough ,- and i: being told in fo many places, and fo oft,
and after the fame manner. How the Jew blafphemed our
Saviour, and how he fcofled at his facred Image; and then
how impudently he pierced it,- and then, how that very
bloud came from it,- the People could not but believe the
fiory; and believing that they could not but have a high
opinion of their Images^ and a great readinefs to receive the
Dodlrine and Practice of giving woriliip to them.
G
This
( 42 )
This Miracle happening in Irenes time, or, as Sigehert
fays, a little before; but yet after the Conftantinopolitan
Council, that had condemned Image-worlliip, came in as
feafonably to the afiiftence of Images^ and Image-xoorfhip-
pers^ as heart could willi ; if it had been contrived with
craft, and Height, it could not have happened in a more
convenient time.
This may be faid to be good luck'^ mod certainly this
Miracle, or dory of a Miracle, did great fervice to the [e-
cond Nicene Council; it was a mod powerful! mover to
gain credit and authority for it.
2. But fecondly^ there was Art ufed to give credit to
this Council; and that much more than it had, or could
deferve; and yet not more than it wanted : For feeing that
in the JVeJl the illudrious names of Charles the Great, and
Lewis the ?iom, were openly alledged, and every-where
known againd it. And the name of Irene, after her De-
pofition, would rather have blemillied than honoured it.
And no Emperour for a good while after her could be named
a friend or favourer of it j therefore JuJiinian was fetched
from his grave to ratify it.
Within lefs than a hundred years after this Council, a no-
torious piece of forgery was contrived to cheat them that
were not unwilling to be couzened.
Juflimans Novel, wherein he confirmed the firjl four
General Councils, was fcnt abroad, inlarged with the ad-
ditions of three Councils more, whereof this was the laff,
and it was done for the fake of this.
But now, though this was a very impudent cheat, for Ju-
Jlinianwzs dead two hundred years before this Council; yet
Photius and Balfamon (whether willingly or unwillingly,
who knows) were catched with it. See Dr. Eeveredgis
Notes upon the jfrjl Canon of the fecond Nicene Council j
where this trick is difcovered, and a broad intimation gi-
ven, that many more like unto it might be added
Now
( 43 )
Now fuch Arts as thefe, with fuccefs attending them,
and fo great, as to deceive fuch men as Thotius^ and Bal-
famoHj may eafily be thought able enough to fupport tlie
worft Caufe in the World; and we need not wonder to
fee the fecond Nkene Council in credit, and authority,
fince it h^d fuch mighty forces, Miracles, and Forgery to
fight for it. And both thefe unaccountably fuccefsfull;
the one in amazing the Vulgar, and the other in blunde-
ring Men of the bell skill: All the cffedt, which I know,
that fuch a Story as this can have upon an indifferent Per-
fon, and fuch as hath not totally laid afide his is to
mo^ him to reade twice or thrice that Paffage of St. Fau/,
z The^ ^. 9, lo.
3. A advantage that the fecond tdicene Council
has had, is Face. Now perhaps our Autbmr may at firft
be at a little puzzle to find this word here; and willing
to fpell the meaning of it; but he may foon cafe himfelf
of farther thought, if he refled:s but on himfelf, and his
own carriage in this Book, towards the Reverend Fathers
of our Church ; How he heads, and beards them, and
talks faucily to them : and feems to triumph in a conqueft
over them; when he has neither Senfe^ nor Reafon, nor
Scripture., nor Council for him. It's well he has Face; for
if he had not that, all things elfe would fail him : to that
he muft owe all the agreeable effeds of this Book, if per-
chance he finds any: But yet it muff: be faid, that the fame
fieps our Authour takes, others have trodden before him.
For what Petrus de Marca fays of the receiving of theiS^i/-
dican Canons, Tom. z. lib. 7. cap. ly. parag. y. that it was
done Oh pertinaciam fed is Apojlolicce Fontificum, qui nihil
remittere "joluerunt, is likewife true in this cafe.
The Council was condemned, and all the Ads of it nul-
led and callated, with full authority in tivo Councils; fo
hr 2iS Image-ivorjhip was allowed and approved in it. And
then as to the matter of it, the worfliip of Images; no
man has yet taught any confiderable good or expediency
G X that
(44) . ,
that can come to Chrirtians by it. The Objections a-
gainft it are prefling and flrong, a danger, at lead, of a
great Sin ; and that Sin fufpected to be Iciolatry, and fo
allcdgcd to be by the Councils at Cofifianthople, and Paris,
All the leeming Anfvvers made to thofe Objections were
retorted, and iully replyed to with brisknefs and fmart-
nels by Clauclim taurinenfis in Ludovkiis Pius his times:
VUeppendi- the rejoinder of Jonas Aurelianenfis does not fatisfy
cQmfigur.i, liimfelf. And nothing has appeared fince in
the World but the fame things over and over again • or a
hafiy rallying up of the broken and ihattered remains of
thole Ancient Controvertifts.
This, I think, is enough to perfuade an indifferent Bye-
ftander, that Face, or Confidence, or Pertinacity has had
a great influence in giving that Authority to the Second
N/cene Council which is challenged for it at this day.
I beg pardon for this digrefhon ; it may feem imperti-
nent to ibme, and not altogether to to others. It may
perhaps give occafion to the more Learned to examine
more firicfbly the Authority that is commonly allowed
with no very good reafon to fome other Councils.
I will onely add this one thing, for the confideration
of my Counfrey-men; that when the Decree of this Ccuh^
cil was firfl: brought into Britain^ it gave infinite difplea-
fure and difcontent to our Predecellburs, the old Britaim:
Bevercgii An- The Learned Dr. Beveredge gives us this in his Notes upon
notat.inCp^ this Council: Quanta offenjione^ quantoque odio Ecclejia no-
Britonnica Decretum prcefenth Synodi de adorandis ima-
f. 165. ginil>us, tunc tetnporls, excipiel^t, Hiftorici noflri Rogerus
Hovedenus ^ Simeon Dunelmenjis ^ aliique^ uhertim tradi-
derunt.
P. 20, y. The next thing that our Authour gives us, as deter-
mined in Ancient Councils, is that of Communion under
one Kind; which, he fays, was determined to be fufficient
hy the Council of Conjlance : Now here I will difpatch in
fhort by telling this one thing to our Authour j That in
my
( 15 )
my opinion he might as well have to!d me of a Council of
Jews met together to condemn our Saviour, as of a Council
of Chriftians that have prefumed to alter, and change the
mod (acred Inditution of our Lord.
The blefled Sacrament is moft venerable, as it came
from him ; It receives its being, nature, virtue, grace,
from his good-will and pleafure, from his inilitution.
Without this in.ditution it is nothing : For there is no
reafon for Chrifiians to communicate in the Lord's Sup-
per; to eat his Body, and to drink his Bloud • but onely
this, that it pleafcd the Lord to give that Rule and Order
to them.
Had he pleafed, he might have given us the Bread
without the Cup, or the Cup without the Bread ; and if
he had pleafed, he might have omitted both. But fince
he has given the fame order for both ; Chridians are un~
der the fame obligation, and have the fame right to
both, as to one; and that all Chridians, as well Laity, as
Pnells, for there is but one order given; and a Council
may as well debar the Prieds from the Cup, as the Laity;
and they may as well null the whole Sacrament, as
halve it.
But fince our Authour has mentioned the Council of
Ccnflance, 1 will prefume to recommend unto him a late
ingenious, and difcreet Difcourfe, publilhed by a I'erfon
of quality^ of the Authority of Councils^ and Rule of Faith.
He may there find fome remarks concerning this Council
of Conjiance^^ that may doe him more good than all the
Councils that ever he read.
6. The next thing our Authour mentions is Turgatory^ P. 21.
and the Council of Florence^ ejtahlijhing the truth of the
DoHrine concerning it. Now as to this enough has been
written already, I'll be kind to our Authour, and for his
fake fay nothing againd it. And that becaufe I know
not what profit or advantage to himfelf a Fleiv Converts
may expetd from it; For it is the trade of Indulgences and
Mafes
PI
1
(4^)
Majfes that keeps up the talk of it; as it Is a point of fj e-
culacion, Rowe is no more concerned to defend it than
w e. The Doctrine derives from Heathens^ efpecialiy the
poets; and it may give fine entertain to Wits, and idle
Pcrfons. He that has nothing to doe, m.ay tranfcribe half
a Icore Legends^ which may polTibiy make our Auihour
blulh, and be wifer than to alledge Councils in defence of
Purgatory.
7. Tlie lafl: Point which our Authour gives us, is the
Doitrine of Tranfuhjlantiation^ which he fays ivas confirmed
in the great Council of Late ran; in which near thirteen hun-
dred Fathers affifted : and in feven or eight other Councils
before that of "Trent and all the controverted Points partL
cularly^ and by name^ declared by fome of your felves^ to
have been brought into England by Augufine the Monk^ a-
bove a thoufand years fince.
Here our Authour is unhappy in every thing he fays.
Firjl^ He calls the Lateran Council Great; He means
Generaf for that is the name which mud guide its Autho-
rity, and make it confiderable; and fo fome have called
it, but with the meaneft appearance of reafon that ever
was offered ; For the Saracens then gave too much bufi-
nefs to the Eaflern Bifhops, for them to leave their Houfes,
and their Flocks, to come to Rome to make Speeches in
Councils there. /
And then fecondly^ He fays there were near thirteen
hundred Fathers afiifling in this Council; now if he had
looked upon Binnius., or Labbe^ he would have found not
above four hundred Bi(hops there, and they are the onely
Perfons that were ever reckoned for Fathers in a Council.
Thirdly^ To the end of this he tacks a Story of Augufline
the Monk, as if he thought, or would perfwade others,
that he brought into England the Dodirine of Tranfubjlan-
tiation, and the Decree of the Lateran Council for it:
"^oW- TranjubJiantiation., name, and thing, can derive no
higher than this Lateran Council j and this Council was
not
( 47 )
not in being for more than fix hundred years after the
Death of Augujiine j BeJe tells us, Lib. i. cap. 5. that he
was dead before the year 613. and this Council met not
till the year 1215". Thus miferably unhappy is our Au-
thour in his impertinent Sallies. But he mull hear more
of Augufline hereafter. At prefent our Authour's bufinefs
is to gain credit and belief to the Dodlrine of Tranfuhjlan-
tiation from the Authority of the fourth Lateran Council,
under Innocent the Third. Now to this I anfvver,
Firjl, That no Lateran Council can be prefumed to
have any confiderable Authority in it; efpecially not that
which is challenged in the behalf of Great, or General
Councils: which is a fubmiflion of Judgment, and an in-
tire refignation of Faith to the Decrees of it.
Secondly, This particular fourth Lateran Council is
liable to more Objedions than all the reft; and fome of
them fuch as are fo fharp and pungent to the fenfe of an
Englifh-man., that he can fcarce hear them without difguft
and hatred ; and therefore it may be prefumed, that what-
ever credit and authority that Council can give to Tranfuh'
Jlantiation abroad, yet it can give little or none to it in
England.
I. No Lateran Council can be prefumed to have any
confiderable Authority in it; and that for thefe reafons.
I. Becaufe thefe Lateran Councils come too near to the
indoHum feculum - that is, to an Age wherein good Lear-
ning was. hulhed afleep ; and Ignorance and Darknefs had
overfpread the World. This Romanijisy as well as Prote- Beiiarm.»»
Jiants complain of, and tell us, that neither Learned Man, chromiogia
nor Writer, was know n to have lived in it. Now before
Learning was got up and drefted, Ambition and Intereft
had done a great deal of bufinefs in the World ; and when
it is known that they have been a<5ling, all Men ufually are
fo fufpicious, as not to be over ready to give any great
credit.
z. Thofe
(48)
r. Tlfofe Laieran Councils came too thick, for we have
five of them in lefs than one hundred }ears : Since that
under Pafchal the Second generally omitted, is certainly a
/.aVerjw Council, as Baluzius^ in the Edition ot Fetrus de
3hrca, has evidently Ihown, Tom.i. pag. To the.'e
might be added at leaf! three more, and all alike Oecume-
nkal'^ for all the diftinctiOn that LalFi makes tA ithout
any reafon, is but to falve the credit of the former Col-
lebtours.
3. The matter of fome of them was of no great con-
cern; this may be prcfumed, becaufe the beft Copies of
their Ach and Canons lay by the walls fo long • For they
were not well underflood, till the curiofity and indudry
of BaluziuSy and fome others, lately brought them to
Pemis de light : tliis appears by Baluzius in the Book of Fetrus de
^orka facer- J Comparing of Binnhs his Councils with
dotii, (A tm- thofe of Lahhe.
ferii. Tern. 2. Moll of them Were convened for ill purpofes, to ad-
vancc the Papal Power, and to lellen the rights of Princes:
To this end convened, or at lead aimed the Councils un-
der Pafchal II. Callijius 11. Alexander 111. and that under
Innocent 111.
But the lafl is our bufinefs, where the Second thing is
to be fpoken to. I fay therelore
TT, This Lateran Council, under Innocent III. is liable
to lb many objcdbions, that no man, efpecially an Englift)-
man, can have any great regard for the Dodrine ol Iran-
fubJlantiatioH upon the Authority of it. Tliis will appear
if we conlider,
I. That the 70 Abbs or Canons of this Council were
never heard of for full three hundred years after Pti^Coun-
cil; and they were drfl; brought to light by Cochlaus.,
Luther s Advcrfary ; who, about ^o years after Luther %
oppofition againft the Church of Rome., either found them,
or pretended to hnd them in fome German Library', and
(4?)
f fent them to Teter Crahh^ who printed them In the Year
^ 1 517- annexed them to the reft of the Councils, as if
they had been the true A^s of that Lateran Council; for
[I which he had no Authority, but what he received from
Cochlaus.
* They are fo ill put together, that every man who
reads them, muft mifdoubt them. For feme of them are
in the ftyle of Conciliary Ads, and others fpeak after the
manner of a Narrator, who tells what was done, in a
Council. Thus fpeaks the nth, 39th, 51ft, (>ift. In
the I ith we find thefe words ,* In Lateranenfi Concilio pia
fuit injlitutione provifum. 33. Evedionum perjonarum
Hi' mediocritatem obfervent in Lateranenfi Concilio definitum.
39. De mult A Providentia fuit in Lateranenfi Concilio prohi-
ifii: bitum. See the reft, and you will find that thele and
K thofe words there uied, fpeak plainly that thefe are not
Canons of a Council. From thefe and other Arguments H/y?.
Peter Waljh has well guefied. That the words of Matthew Remonfi.
TOi Paris, who fays that Innocent propofed 70 capitula to the
n- Fathers this Council, which to fome did feem eafie, and
(Kil; to others burthenfome, gave occafion to fome Colledor to
put together what he found in the Decretals under the
isi^is name of Innocentius in Concilio Lateranenfi; and give to
his Colledion the Name of the Ads of the Lateran Council-^
it is plain that Gregory IX. who put out the Decretals, did
h!i allow the fame Authority to the Ads of a Pope, and efpe- -
.cially his Vnde, this Innocent III. as if they had been the
■jif Ads of a Council. And his Propofitions in the Lateran
jjjj; Council, though never accepted or agreed to by the Council,
would have as much Authority as the reft of the Deere
j|,j tab have.
({0
III. But then thirdly it is to be obferved farther,- That
whether thefe reputed Canons were Propofitions of Pope
^ Innocent, or real Ads of the Council, yet no great ftrefs can
^ be laid upon them, becaufe all things were then done in
IS H extra- ^
( 5° )
extraordinary Iiaile. We cannot at this day learn from
any man, that in this Council there was any fuch thing
as deliberation, or confultation; no argument was ufed,
either pro^ or con; no reafon offered, no objedJion remo-
ved; not a word is mentioned what this, or that, or the
other man faid ,- All things paft in a huddle, after a quite
different m.anner from what was ufed by the Apoftles
in their Council, Acls ly. But rnore clofely to our
prefent hufinefs as to Tranfuhjlantiation^ the Dodtrine of
^ntx.Annaks which Gur Authonr fays was here confirm'd ; and Brietius
tnAn.i2i^. pPame of it was here admitted^ in eo No-
men Tranfuhjlantiatioms admijfum fait ; it is to be ob-
ferved, that if w e fpeak ftridtly, the very Name of fran-
fuhftantiation is not to be found in all the Council; and
there is but one Paffage in it that refers either to the
Name, or Dodtrine. Cahajfutius^ a Roman Catholick, in
his laff: Colle^ion of Councils found fo little of it, that in
his Notes upon this Council^ he has not one remark upon
this Point. Nor yet has Lahbe any thing confiderable of
it, though he takes in the Notes of Binnius^ and gives us
the Errours of Almaric, which gave occafion to this Doc-
trine: yet the truth is, fomething of it is in this Council,
in the firff Canon of it: But it comes in fo fneakingly, and
fo unlike to a Conciliary Afi determining a Do^rine de
fide', that an eafie Reader might not oblerve it, and the
more accurate would have no great regard for it. It
feems to be ffurred upon the W^orld, or defign'd to pals
like a whifper thorough artificial conveniences, where
they that are near fhall perceive little of it, but at diffance
it will be noifie and loud. The words in the firff: Capital.
are thefe. Z/na veto ejl fidelium univerfalis Ecclefia, extra
quam nullus omnino falvatur. In qua idem ipfe Sacerdos,
& Sacrificium Jefus Cbrijliis : cujus corpus ^ fanguis in Sa-
cramenta Altaris fuh fpeciehus panis & vini veraciter conti-
nentur, Tranfuhjiantiatis, pane in corpus, vino in fangui-
nem potejlate divin^, ut ad perficiendum myjierium unitatis
accipia-
( 51 )
accipiamm ipfi de fuo^ quod accepit ipfe de mjlro. Thefe are
the words, and befides thefe we have nothing that refers
to this matter in the whole Council- and all that we have
is no more than one barbarous word hooked in by a Ta-
renthefis^ without any explicite and determinate fenfe.
Now this is furprizing, and amazing, that Chrillians
Ihould be obliged, and that with peril of damnation, to
believe a Dodtrine fo difficult, and fo incredible, as that
of Tranfuhjlantiation, and that onely by virtue of a mrd
that feems to be flurred upon them; mult we for this deny
our 5enfes, and our Reafons, and forget our felves to be
Men ? mull this be accounted Authority fufficient to awe
Confciences, and fubjugate Faith, and captivate Under-
Handings? God Almighty never did this, and theBIefled-.
Jefus fpake plainly, and fully, whenever he required obe-
dience under fuch fevere penalties.
If Tranfuhflantiation be de fide^ necelTary to be believed
in order to Salvation, certainly we ought to have better
grounds for it, than the Lateran Council can give. For
any indifferent Perfon W'ould require, in fuch a cafe as
this, that the Fathers of the Council ffiould have ufed all
application of mind, care, and induffry, and hearty hum-
ble prayer to God for his diredion, before they had de-
termin'd fuch a Point, and laid fuch a burthen upon
Chrijtians • but of this kind there was nothing done there.
IV. I add farther, that as there appears but little ground
for any man to believe Tranfuhflantiation by virtue of the
Lateran Council^ fo there is much lefs for an Englijh-man
to receive either that, or any other DocHrine in the Name,
and by the Authority of it. An Englijh-man can fcarce
think of it without wrath and indignation: For this was
called in the Year 1215'. about two years after the great
mortification of our King John by this Fope Innocent III.
one of the great reafons lor it was to ffiew to the World
the ?opc\ Vidory, and England's Slavery. From thence it
H i was
najl. Burton.
EJic. Oxen
pag. 263.
(52 )
In additkni. was that hc vtTote his Letter to tell the Barons^ that En-
li7im LatTrln ^
'^"ZtumlT expanded his Plumes, and Ihewed his pride and his glory,*
Editfone Lah- Here he made known to the World that Pandulphiis did
^Am%sMo. "Of go beyond commifTion, when he told that
he ought to obey his Lord the Tope, tarn in terrenis quam
in fpiritualihus, as well in earthly matters as in fpiritual;
nor yet ad:ed beyond commifTion, when he ftrefled this
unhappy Prince lo far, that he was forced to rehgn up his
Kingdoms to the Pope ,* and could not be refetled in his
Rights, till he had lubmitted to become tributary, Fajfal
and Liege-ma no this Pope, and his Succeffours, and untill
AnnalesMo- he had taken that llavilh bafe Oath, which was framed in
the fame words wherewith Vajfals and Fiffains were wont
to bind themfelves to their proper Lords; which may be
feen with many other Rrange Ciaufes contained in it, in
the Annals of Burton Monajlery, p. 270, Oxford Edition.
That all thefe things were done by command, appears
by the Alls or Propolitions of Pope Innocent in this Late-
ran Council.
-Here he breathes in the Spirit of a Conquercur, and
fpeaks as Univerfal Monarch of the World ,* he gives and
takes away at pleafure, and makes Laws for the keeping,
or forfeiting Eftates. He tells what Princes iliali be depo-
fed, and when, and how far their Subjedls lhall be free to
make head againft them ; and upon occafion not onely to
depofe, but to kill them. There he adiually determined
of the Rights to the Empire in the Caufe depending be-
tween Otho and Frederick; and there he gave away the E-
Rate, Lands and Poilcffions of Raimundus Count of tholouz
to Simon Mount ford.
And as he dealt with Princes, fo he did with private
Perfons; for there be adjudged the Eftates of all Perfons to
be liable to forfeiture, and confifcation, upon fuch faults
committed; and not onely theirs, but thofe of their Abet-
tors, Harbourers, or Receivers of them 3 as appears not
onely
Vide Addit.
ad Condi. La-
teran, tjuar-
turn in Edit.
Labb.
( 53 )
onely in the Cmnc'd^ but in the Decretals^ lih. t-it, 7.
cap.iT^. All this he did, and it will be no wonder "that
he did all this, if w e confider how^ much his mind
was elevated by his vidtory over King John; and to
what a degree of pride and haughtinels he was grown ;
indeed it was fo much, that no words can exprefs it,
except his owm : And whoever confults that remar- inBihliotheca
kabie Refcript of his to King John , and his Heirs, Cottoniana
wherein he fets dowm his Title to England^ in
ret memoriam ; mav fee a fufficient foundation to ex- £.
ped: all the reft of thofe Adions which infued after-
wards.
This may be faid of him, that he was fo far juft, that
he was not partial to 305% but he treated all alike; for as
he trampled upon Princes, and Laity; fo he moft tyran-
nically, and infolently treated the Clergy too. For in
the Year 1216. as we fee in the Chronicle de Mailros^ chronica Se
pag. 194. Oxford Edition; we have a ftrange complaint MaHro5,;».i94.
of the Religious againft him, that he went beyond all ^
Rule and "Order, Law and Canon. Inauditam^ inufita-
tarn Dominus Papa Legato concefferat autoritatem^ faciendi
'videlicet, ut ita dicam, quicquid animo tpfius federet • in
Clero, ^ Populo per Angliam, Scot tarn, Wales, confti-
tuto', tranjponendi ^ deponendi, & alios ponendi, fufpen-
dendi, ^ excommmicandi, ^ ahfolvendi, Rptfcopos & Ah-
hates., alios Ecclejiarum Pralatos, Clerkos. This I
prefume made Matthew Paris give him that Charader,
. f. 245-. as a thing well known by the experience of Prince
and People; Noverat Rex, ^ maltiplici didicerat expert-
enti^, quod Papa fuper omnes mortales amhitiofus erat, & fu-
perhus, pecuniaque Jititor infatiahilis, ^ ad omnia fcelera
pro pramiis datis, vel promiffts cereus ^ proclivis.
Now fuch a Man, as this is, wants a great deal of ad-
vantage, which another in his place might have had, in
order to the giving credit or authority to his Adions;
And if a Council under him be intirely inflaved to him.
and
(h)
and fo much at his difpofe, that it does not appear to po-
fierity that any one man in it, did upon the place fpeak a
word either for or againft the prefumed A^s of it; and if
yet it be at leaft probable, that all thofe A^s were not
Conciliarily pad, but mere Propofitions of the Tope him-
felf; without any confent, approbation, or regular deter-
mination of the Council, I think no man living can look
upon himfelf as concluded by them, or under an obligation
from them.
But an Engltfl>matt mud have an inward relucdancy and
abhorrence to lee his Faith increafed, and his Creed inlar-
ged; and himfelf put into a new danger of being adjudged
a Heretkk^ by a Height and trick of that Man, who with
intolerable pride and infolence trampled upon the Crown
and Dignity of a Kir.g oj England', and as foon as he had
done that, with an unheard-of confidence challenges to
make Laws about Kingdoms, Edates, and Patrimonies,
wherein he fubjetds them to forfeiture and confifcation up-
on the accompt of Herefie. And at the fame time he durs
in a word to a pretended Canon, that requires a Dodlrine
to be believed againd all fenfe and reafon, and fuch as
will indanger all men that are willing to ad rationally,
and difcreetly, according to their bed wits that God hath
given them, to be adjudged and condemned for Heretkks.
This certainly mud appear hard to Englijh-men to have
their Edates brought into fuch perils and hazards, efpe-
cially fince they learn from one of their own Countrey,
Mat. Paris, who was a Monk, and fo bound to great re-
gards for a Pope; and wrote in the Year 1x5*4. that this
Innocent was not onely intolerably ambitious, but infi-
nitely covetous, and fo may be prefumed really to defign
and aim at forfeitures, and not near fo much to regard
the clearing and fetling the Chridian Faith, as to make a
gin and a trap to catch People, and feife upon their E-
dates under the name of Heretkks: He that obferves how
fneakingly that Word comes into the fird Capitulum of the
reputed
( 55 )
reputed Lateran Council^ may eafily perfuade himfelf of
the likelihood of fome of thefe thoughts. And if any one
fhall rub up his memory, and add to thefe the finenefs,
and great management of Rome, when they made the
Canons of the Sardican Council to pafs in the World under
the name of the Nicene • And in oppofition to a plain ma-
nifefl: difcovery of the Errour, yet to this day to bear up
fo high, as to challenge fome great Authority unto them ;
whereas in their own nature they can deferve but very lit-
tie, being made by the broken remains of a Council, when
the greatefl: numbers were gone, and none remained, but
the faft Friends and Dependants upon Rome : And to this
let him add the Remarks that Father Paul gives upon the
firR of the Council of Trent, wherein thofe words,
Froponentihus Le^atis, were fo clofely couched, and fo fu-
pinely palled, that few heard them, and fewer apprehen-
ded the confequences of them, yet all the infuing Deter-
minatipns of that Council were intirely guided and gover-
ned by the fatal Powers of them.
He that thinks of thefe, and many other fuch like things,
may apprehend., that there is fuch a thing as art and
Height in the World : and if he does that, he will not be
over forward to give any extraordinary Authority to fuch
a Lateran Council, intirely governed by fuch a Man, as
Tope Innocent III. efpecially in fuch a Dodtrine, which it
felf durlt fcarcely fpeak out, but impofeth upon you in it,
by giving you onel}' one Word, and that a harharous one,
in all the prefumed Ahls of it. And that comes in, as it'
were, by fufprize, and mod amazing, without any deli-
beration, or confultation; but you have it there, before
you in the reading of it can be aware; and perhaps too
before the Fathers, who were convened in that Council,
themfelves could be.
Thefe Confiderations T think fufficient to perfuade any
man to think himlelf under no great obligation to believe
Tranjuhjlantiation by virtue of the Authority of this Council,
and
( )
find 1 prcfurnc it will leaft of all aHecSl the Faith oi an
Etiglijhma}!.
I lhali onely add one thing more concerning this Late-
ran Council^ v. iiich fome perhaps may think worthy of a
remark; and that is this:
ad ■ This, Lateran Council was not onely famous for new
Com/. Later. DoE.rine, but new Dolours. For here we find not onely
S'Sb. Tranfuljlantiation^ hul St. Dominick. He was at this
oil; And lie and that Dodbrine were in one and the lame
condition there, in a like obfcurity; fomething perhaps,
but not much taken notice of; but he and that v\ ent on
from thence to be molt confpicuous and remarkable :
They for fome time after gave the great noife and talk to
the World ; whereever Lranfuhjlantiation cd^vnQthe Fa-
thers of the In(iuiJition., who were the Order of Domini-
cans., foon followed after ; and thofe Perfons that were
not fubdued under the power of that Do^rine., were fuffi-
ciently awed by the Terrour of thefe Fathers. For where-
as the Senfes of Men were obfiinate .and refradary againfl:
their efpoufed Dodrine • thofe Men made ufe of one Senfe
to oppofe all the reft; for by Rods, and Scourges, and
Burnings, they fo afieded the Senfe of feeling, that this
in a moft compendious way Rilled and filenced all the o-
thers. Thus iranfuhjlantiatton grew great; And he that
would argue for it from the Authority of the Lateran
Council., does but trifle; it is, and muft, and can be no
otlierwife prevalent, than by the Authority of thefe Do-
mink an Fathers.
The Order of thefe was confirmed the year after this
Lateran Council, and that by Innocent III. Thus effedually
did this Pope doe his bufinefs, when he made a new Doc-
trine, and a new Law, he provided a new Order of Men,
and a new Office to promote it; and it is no wonder if by
fo doing he brought a new face of Chriftianity into the
World : This Monfieur Brief fays in his Annals in his re-
mark upon the Order of Dominicans and the Francifcans,
An. 1216.
( 57 )
An. ixr6. Aliam Chriflianitati faciem induxit. And I ea-
fily believe him, that the Chrijlianity whicii began to ap-
pear, and was moh vifible in the World foon after this
Later an Council^ was as different from the Primitive Cbri-
Jlianity ^ as St. Dominick was diftant in time from St- Pe-
ter ; or as his Rules were different from thofe in St. Peter s
Epifiks.
Now I have done with our Authour's Allegations from
Councils. And here according to fafliion I might be
tempted to talk a little of vitftory, and tell my Reader
what I think I have done. But here I am flopped, for
OUT Authour haspoffeft himfelf of this Poll : He has given
us in the next Paragraph, p. zi. fuch Jargon of words
that are defigned to fpeak a victory, but moft certainly
fliew an intolerable vanity, that I cannot imitate him.
For after he had reflecied upon his doughty performan-
ces; How he had found the Pope's Supremacy in the
cil of Chalcedon : and the Books called Apocrypha, put in-
to a higher rank than, we place them, as he thought by
the Council of Carthage- And the unh toady Sacrifice decreed
ly the ninth Council of the Apofiles; And the adoration of
Images eflahlijhed in the fecond Council at Nice, with the
general concurrences of Ancient Fathers; And Tranfuh[lan-
tiation owned and confirmed hy i ]oo Fathers in the great
Lateran Council-, and he might as well have'faid 13000,
and ail to like purpofe ,• whilil never a man amongfl them
fpake one word, either to prove, or difprove, or approve
, that, or any other DoArine in the Council, asfar as it appears.
And after that he had remarked, that all thefe Do^rines,
and I prefume he means the Lateran Council too, were
brought into England by Augujline the Monk, which Coun-
ci/ vtas not in being till more than fix hundred years were
pafl after the death of Augujline.
When, 1 fay, our Authour had feen that he had done all
this, he fmiled, and cockt his Beaver, and admired his
Atchievements, and then forthwith fpeaks his glories in
I thefa
( 5® )
thefe words, which I will fet down here in perpetuam ret
memoriam^ that all fuch Conquerors, as he is, may never
M'anc words wherein to exprefs their glories, or their fol-
lies: Thus he fays.
P-2t. Indeed, Fathers, when I had diligently examind this
truth, and found it mojl evident hey and the pojfihility of
anyjufl, or reafonahle contradiHion I was much fcandalizd
at the difingenuity of your Writers who whiljl they accufe
others of fallacy, impoflure, and impudence, dare advance fo
great, and demonflrahle a falprood in matter of fall, that
nothing hut ignorance can excufe them ; fo they expofe them-
felves to the greatejl cenfure of rafhnejl and indifcretion, as
mcharitahle, and unjujl to thofe whom they call their Ene-
mies, as alfo unfafe, and ahufing the credulity of their
Friends.
I admired to fee thefe words in this place, and am yet
puzzled to think, what could juft now infpire him with all
this puffinefs; He knew that he had never read one of
thefe Councils; and that he had tranfcribed from others,
without skill, or care : and he could not but know that
fome of his Allegations are moll trite, and common, and
anfwer'd moft fully, and largely, by numberlels numbers.
Why then does he feem here thus to admire his Ads, and
put "down fuch an extravagant rant ? I cannot but think
that the fpirit of his old Friends, Nailor and Muggleten,
came in to bis afliflence at the Writing of this. Perhaps
it is a Flower borrowed from fome of that fort of Perfons,
to adorn and imbelliih a Book. It is here, I am fure, out
of its place • altogether groundlefs, and fenfelefs ; and
gives us one Argument more of the mighty powers of
Face J and. what great expedances there are from it • I
do much believe that our Authour may hope for more fuc-
cefs from that one Paragraph, than from all his Allegations
out of Councils,
Our
( 5^ )
Our Authour in the next Paragrapli tells us lie deHgns
to be brief, and ilierefore laying afide other Controver-
fies, he will infifl: onely upon two^ and they are thefe.
I. The Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Catho- P. iz,
Ikk Church.
ir. The Dodfrine of Tranfulflantiation.
TheFirft of thefe I fliall confider, and leave the Second
to others, who both have, and will give full fatisfadtion,
in that Point, if he were but capable of receiving it. And I
prefunie I have g ven him more than he can aniwer in the
Ileflexions upon the Lateran Council.
T. The Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Catho-
lick Church : This he undertakes to confider how far it may p. 2u
hear^ and appear reafonahle to an impartial Reader. Thele
Words are not worth the notice, but that they tempt out
a little fufpicion ; that they are here fet for a referve, in
cafe of oppofition ; for if it be faid, as molt truly it may,
that there is not one plain proof, either of the fupreme
Authority, or Infallibility of the Roman Church in all this
Difcourfe ,• Our Authour may reply that he never under-
took to give it: All that he engaged for was appearances^ P. 2,5,
and that he has performed, by ufing the words oft •
tumbling and tofling them as Hay-makers do their mown
Grafs,- one while Authority is uppermoU, and loon after
Infallibility ; Authority muft lead in Infallibility, and In-
fallibility mull vindicate Authority; but where either of
thefe is to be found, the Man neither proves, nor knows,-
and plainly fays, that he is not concerned, whether there
be any fuch thing as Infallibility or no : p. he fays,-
Were there no Infallilility (^as I helieve th?re is) I would p. 14,
fiill fuhmit my Reafon^ and regulate my Conlcience, accor-
ding to the decrees of the fupreme, lawfull Ecclefiaflical Au-
thority This is my belief pray hlame me not. Ail this is
nothing elfe but appearances ,- for neither is the Church of
England, nor tiie Church of Rome concerned in his belief,
la or
i6o)
or his fancy, or his opinion, for thefe may be wife, or
may be fooJilh ; may be well, or may be ill grounded.
But yet it is admirable to fee what great command he has
over h.'s Reafcn and his Confcience^ihat hecan make them turn
which way he pleafes; and if he does but fuppofe a Supreme'
lawfuH Authority to be in Ehion^ or Cerinthus^ Nailor, or
Mugyjeton^ or the Church of Rome' He can be a ConvSrt to
any of them, to day to this, and to morrow to the quite
contrary,* and that with as much reafon, and as good confer-
ence, to the one, as to the other : For which way foever
he turns, he may flill fay, this is my belief, pray hlame
me not.
His lail Converfion was to tlie Church of Rome^ and he
intimates that he changed upon this belief, that there was
a Supreme laivfull Ecclefiafikal Authority to be found there :
but he has not the leaft reafon to prove it ; though it
mufl be confeft; that he has fome appearances; which I
will impartially confider in their order.
I. He gives us fome Citations from Proteflants, Tag. xi,
13. from Luther one, and from MelanSlhon another,(]whom
he calls thcFhcenix of Learning; a fine word, I wonder
from whence he borrowed it) another from Somaijtua^ or
Salmajius; Another he would give from Grotius; but what
it is, he has forgot, he thinks it is foraewhere in his Anno-
tat ions upon the New Teflament. And then, to make weight,
he throws in the Names of Jacob Cartwright., Huf, and
Beza. And from hence he argues in thefe words; Thefe
eminent Proteflants were men of great learning; and they
had fearcht^ and underflood Scripture., and Hifiory, and if
fny judgment concurs with theirs in this point {^as I profe/s
it doth) then have I found that lawfull Supreme Authority.
Now thefe are dangerous words from the mouth of a
new Convert; it is well for him that he is not now in
Spain; for if he lliould make fuch a declaration there.
That his judgment concurs with the judgment of Luther,
Melanllhon, Hufi, and Beza, in the Point of the Popes
Supremacy,
()
Supremacy^ or the Supremacy of the Church of Roue ; he
might perhaps be in danger of the ItKiuifitkn. All the
World knows the judgment of thole men in this point;
and if he were before the Fathers of the Inquifition^ they
would not be put off with a fmall Citation found they
know not where ; and perhaps infertcd by they know not
whom : He had done much better to have miflrulled his
Copy, than to depend upon fuch an Allegation.
Sure I am, that if he made any ufe of thofe mens judg-
ments, or laid any great ftrefs upon the words, whicli he
cites under their Names, in his fearch or prefumed difco-
very of a Supreme Authority of the Church of Rome; he
ufed both his Reafon and his Confcience very hardly.
It is certain that Luther did fpeak varioully of the Pope's
Power; fometimes higher and fometimes lower, as appears
to any one that reads either his Works, or Cajfanders Ci-
rations from him : And as to Melan£lhon the Phoenix of
Learning, I am not concerned to fearch what he wrote to
the Cardinal Belay. And it may be, I am civil in doing
it. He was a Wit that once charged it as an incivility
upon his Acquaintance, that he Ihould take fo much pains
to prove him a Lyar. It is certain that M'elan^hon in his
Loci Communes, where he treats profefledly upon this Sub-
jedb,^ declares fully and roundly againft all this that is ci-
ted from him : And therefore I prefume that his judgment
does not concur with Melan£lhons ; for if it does, he is no
new Convert I for he has found nothing that can call for a
fubmilfion ol Reafon, and Confcience: nothing like to that
Authority and Infallihilitj ol the Roman Catholick Church,
which a new Convert is bound to defend.
But becaufe our Authour, in defence of the Authority
and Infallihility of the Roman Church, has given fuch Cita-
tions from Frotejlants, I'll indeavour to requ.te him by
one from a very good Roman Catholick; and that is Caf-
fander. He in his Book, de Officio pii hominis, fpeaks to
this purpofe; That there are fome, who hecaufe they fee yet
remaining
1
i i 1 '
' I ' ■ i
—Pontificem vera R^mnnum,
quern Papam dicimus', tantum
Tton Dcum faciunt: ejnjque
Autoritatem non mndo Jufra
tot am Eccleftam,fed fupra ip-
Jam Scripturam Dtvinam ef-
feruntj & Jentemiam ejus Di-
"vinis Oraculis parem, imo in-
fallibilem jidei regulam con-
Jiituunt : bos non video cur
minus Pfiudocatholicos ^ Pa-
pjias appellate pojfis.
(62)
remaining amongft them not a few thingsy that have Aefcen'
Aed down from Antiquity^ or the frf Chrifiians, will keep
up the prejent Jlate of the Church jujl as it is • though it he
corrupt^ and foully ftained hy ahufes^ that have crept in hy
little and little. Nor will they juffer any thing to be alter d^
though it may he done agreeable enough to the
Decrees or Canons of the Ancients. The Roman
Bifhop., whom we call Pope., they make little lefs
than God. They fet up his Authority not onely
over the whole Churchy hut over the holy Scrip-
ture it felf'y and make bis determination equal
to the Divine Oracles^ and no lefs than an in-
fallible rule of faith. 1 fee no caufe hut that
you may give to thefe the name of falfe Cat ho-
licks and Papifls.
Thus faid that good man concerning the Sticklers for
Roman Authority, and Infallihility • and that in a time
when he contended mofl earneftly to bring in peace, and
good temper amongll Chriftians; and had endeavoured
pafhonately to perfuade men to lay afide ill Language, and
odious Names, fuch as one Party threw at another,- all
which he fays were cajl up out of Hell: fuch as thefe,-
Papifsy AntichriflianSy Miniflers of Satan ; and on the o-
ther fide, Hereticksy Schifmaticksy Apoflates. Though he
heartily wilh'd thefe Names out of the World, yet he could
be content that two or three of them were always ready
to be thrown in the teeth of fuch Perfons as our Authour
would feem to be.
This remark I give to Ihew our Authour that I do not
fet down the Sayings and Opinions of others, without
confidering firft what weight and llrefs is to be laid upon
them.
For I mull confefs that it is to me a fcanda! and matter
of offence to find this Set of Authorities,which out Authour
ufes, in the fame order, and in the lame words, in ano-
ther late Book intitled Pax vohis-, this feems to Ipeak that
the
/
( ^3 )
the Jut hours of both thefe tranfcribed, and never confidered
what force was in their Citations. Is this fair dealing with a
Man's own Confcience, or with his Readers ? wlien he is
weighing of Religions, and offering motives of Reconci-
liation, either to himfelf, or to others, to adb thus fu-
pinely ? This is worfe than to take a journey to Edinhurgh
upon the next Hackney, and never confider whether he be
a Jade or no. A journey to Heaven is long, to be fure of
greateff; importance,- He that takes up a new Religion to
carry him thither, had need ufe eyes, and ears, and heart,
and head too; St. Taul had real'on when he advifcd us to
work out our Salvation with fear and tremhling- but all men
will not doe this: they are in too much halte.
They that take fatisiadion without reafon, and in fpite
of reafon change their Religion, cannot ad with that cau-
tion which the great Apofile requires.
If I am not much out in my guefs (which I muff; leave
to the Reader's judgment, when he has compared this Set
of Citations with thofe in Tax vohis^ Pag. 70, 71.} we
have here one of the moff wretched Pleas that ever was
ufed by a Writer. It is not more than this. I have met
with fome fayings of Men, whom I care not for; when
or where, or to what end they were fpoken, I never con-
fidered ; nor yet whether upon fecond thoughts they did
not retrad them ; my judgment concurs with them^ there-
fore I have found that lawfuU Supreme Authority I fearched
for • and where this Authority iSy there is Infallihility.
That is the firft Motive to perfuade that the Roman Ca-
tholick Church has Supreme Authority over all, and Infal-
libility in the exercife of it.
He fliould now proceed to a fecond.
But inffead of that we have, Pag. 14, X5', ad, vj. a
difcourfe upon a new Subjedfo far is our Authour from
making thefe Dodrines to appear reafonahle, that for fo
long together he'll e'en let them fliift for themfelves: his
prelent bufinefs is to talk, and talk he will of Separation,
or
( <^4 )
or hew the Church of Rome can be fa id to have feparated
either from her felf, or from the Catholick Church, ei-
ther whole, or part,* and where that whole or part re-
mained from whence the Church of Rome feparated ? and
then again where flie remained^ and where Ihe may be
found ; and here he is urgent and importunate, and will
have an anfwer, and that from the Bifliops tliemfelves,*
for lie comes up clofely to the beards of them, and tells
them, In good faith ■i Fathers^ my Salvation is highly con-
cernd in this ^uejlion^ and I muft he futisfied. He prevents
them from giving fuch and fuch anfwers, and fwaggers it
bravely out in thefe words, til fooner fuffer my felf to he
knockt down with a true Protejlant Flayl^ than with fuch a
Frotejianl Anfwer ; and at lall he adds, from this reafona-
hie and important requefl^ you fhall never heat me whiljl I
live.
The Man grows w^arm, and it is well for fome, that
they are out of his way; who knows what he may doe ?
The occafion of all this noife and clamour he gives us,
in the X4th Page, in thele words; Tou had often told rne^
that She (the Church of Rome') had fallen from her primi-
tive purity^ and feparated her felffrom the one holy Catho-
lick and Apojiolkk Church. Anfwer to Proteftant Celeries,
p. lO. declared alfo to he Antichrijlian; and the true Church
latent and invifihle, hy that famoia Napper to King James,
Brocard, Fulk, Sebafl. Frances, Holpinian, and many others.
Now what is all this to the Billiops of the Church of
England > muft they anfwer for every thing that has been
faid by Fulkand Brocard^ and Napper ^ or as you call
him, that famous Napper ? I pray how famous is he ? has
any of the Bifliops of England cited him thefe forty years ?
does any of this Church reade him, or depend upon him ?
if your lludies have been upon fuch Au^ours, the Church
of Rome have no great prize of you; and thefe Motives^
as bad as they are, were good enough to make you a
Convert.
But
(^5)
But yet there remains one Expreflion cited out of a lit-
tic Book^ which it may be lew of the Billiops of England
ever faw; but yet they muft give an accompe of it, and
all the confequences he can gather from it ,• for he lays,
/>. 16. his Salvation is hi^dy concerned in it; And it is a
reafonahle and important requejl.
And mufl; the Bijhops of England be accomptable for
every little writing, which they know nothing of ? would
the Bifhops of Rome think it fair, that all the impertinen-
ces of our Authour lliould be charged upon them ? cer-
tainly no.
But he argues^ that if the Church of Rome was once a
pure and uncorrupted Church, Jhe remains fo flilf for Jhe
can neither feparate from her felf^ nor from the Catholick
Church.
Now if this Argument be good, he himfelf is bound to
anfwer for all the confequences that can come from a pre-
fumed feparation, either from it felf, or from the Catho-
lick Church ; for we have oft proved, and are always
ready to prove that the Church of Rome is not the fame,
as to purity and incorruption^ which it was. It is changed,
it is altered, multitudes of Innovations have overfpread it,
and great numbers of Errours by little and little (as Caf-
fander fays} have crept in, and prevailed over it.
But yet for all that, we own and allert that there is a
Church of Rome, as well ai a Church of Jerufalem, Alexan-
dria, and Antioch, and that^ though this^ as well as they
have erred, not onely in their living, and manner of Ceremo-
nies, hut alfo in matters of Faith. So fpeaks the Church
of England in her 19th Article. And if Ihe be a Church,
Ihe mufl: be a Member of the Catholick Church, for every
part mufl: be contained in the whole. /
None of us doubt but that the Church of Rome receives
all the Canonical Scriptures, that we do, and has the fame
Creed, and the fame Sacraments that we have; And fo Ihe
mull be a Church. But yet flie is corrupt, and foully
K Rained,
(66)
flalned, by the many additions that have been made to her
Faith, to her Sacraments, to her Worlhip, to her G(>
vernment, and to her primitive rule of Faith; and all this
in virtue of an ufurped Authority^ and vainly pretended Itt-
fillthility.
All thefe things \vc charge upon Rome, and we think
the Charge high enough ; and if our Authour could
have diftinguiflied betwixt Errour and Schifm, he might
have fpared all his impertinent Quene$ concerning Sepa-
ration from her fell, or Separation from the Catholick
Church; and where that Catholick Church is to be found j
for all this is bur trifling in an over eager purfuit of Con-
fequences from a poflible fenfe of a word. If Rome has
thus erred, Ihe may be fa id to have left, and gone from,
or be feparated from that firll, holy, Catholick and Apo-
Eolick Church, without the making of an open Schifm,
or Schifmatical Separation. For feeing particular Chur-
ches are called Catholick, as the Catholick Church in Smyr-
rta, Eujeh. lih,^. cap. 15. and the Catholick Church of A-
lexandria upon the accompt of their continuance in the
true Faith with the reft of the Church of God, or from their
coherence with that Church, which was properly and
originally called fo; upon which accompt Clemens Alex-
andrinus, Stro. 7. joins thofe two words together, thx)
}y KcL^?iixJju) the Ancient and Catholick
Church. So far then as any Church now in being fliall de-
part from the Dodrine of that Ancient Catholick Church,
and profefs great and many Errours, and broach new
Dodfrines unknown to the Primitive Churches, and lay
mighty ftreftes upon them, fo as to make them neceflary
for Communion here, and to Salvation hereafter:. Such a
Church may be faid to depart or feparate it felf, from that
ancient^ one^ holy., Catholick., and Apojlolick Church.
And now our Authour may have that fatisladion, which
he fajs he muft have, and I agree with him that his Sal-
vation is highly concerned in it. He would know where
tliat
( ^7 )
that Catholick Church, from which (he (^Rome) feparated,
remained^ and where p:e may he found; f am ferry he
knows it not, but he may cafily be taught that Ihe was,
and is in Heaven.
There are all the glorious Company of the Apoflles^ the
goodly fe/lowjhip of the Prophets, the mhle Army of Mar-
tyrs ; There are all the Servants and Saints of Jefus Chrijly
who have lived and died in the true faith ot him; and
thither all the faithful] Members of the true, holy Catho-
lick Church now living, hope by the grace of Jefus Chrifl^
in the methods of the Gofpe!, by keeping clofe to the Faith
that was once delivered to the Saints^ in their due times to
come, and be received into that moft happy and evcriafting
Communion. This js my opinion^ and for once I will pray
our Authour not to hlame me for it.
I know he may bring againll me Supreme lawfull Au-
thority^ in the name of Pope John XXII. who really de-
figned, and heartily indeavoured to make the contrary
Dodlrine to pafs for an Article of Faithand if he had li-
ved a little longer, would have declared ex Cathedra., that
the Souls of the Saintsdo not come to blifs and happinefs
until] the general Refurredion. I befeech him not to
meddle with this; but if he does, I'll promife to defend
my Opinion from Scripture, Fathers, and Councils,
and doubt not by my little Reafon fufliciently to repell
him and his Authority too.
But if he can think with me, that the Members of the
firfl: Churches, the holy Apoflles and blefled Servants of
our Lord, are in blifs and happinefs, and is will ing to find
them, and be with them ; He ought then to tiiink again
of the change of his Religion, and of this accompt that he
has given of the Motives to it; for if he ferioufly retlebts
upon his own Salvation, and is heartily concerned for it,
he will be alhamed, and repent of all I"is rude and un-
feemly treatment of the Reverend Fathers of this Church.
It IS not huffing and braving that fpeaks a religious Mind;
K 1 it
• ( ^8 )
it is not faying, In good faith. Fathers, my Salvation is con-
cerned in it, that Ipeaks a pious and hearty fenfe of that
great blefling of God. He that with humility and reve-
rence (Indies the mind and good pleaiure of Jiis Savi-
our, cannot rant; where he is ignorant, defpife his bet-
ters; trample upon thofe whom he calls Reverend Fathers: ■
6'uch anions may be agreeable to a Man that has no fenfe
of Salvation. He that has thrown off one Religion, and
forgot to take up another; He that can eafily fay, and fo
good night to Chriftianity, may doe this : But a Convert to
any Sect or Party of Chriftians (or fuch as are willing to
. be reputed Chrillians) ihould not doe it. Becaufe luch
actions fpeak a Man to be proud and ambitious, and de-
figning upon this World, and fometliing worfc than I am
willing to fay.
I mud (lop, onely in requital for fome Texts of Scrip-
ture, which, p. he advifes us to confider : I requeft
him to reade thefe. Fev. 2.5. Remember from whence thou
art fallen, and repent, and doe the firfl works. Eph. 4.14.
That we henceforth he no more Children, toffed to and fro,
and carried about with every wind of Doltrine, by the fleight
of men, and cunning craftinef, whereby they lie in wait to
deceive, z Cor. 2. 17. We are not as many, which corrupt
the word of God; but as of fincerity, but as of God, in the
fight of God fpeak we in Chrijl. Our Authour goes on,p.z'j.
P- 27- But I mud not follow him in all his Impertinencies, I
(liall fpeak of Augufline the Monk afterwards. And (hall
at prefent onely teach him one thing, which he there fays
he does not underftand. And that he gives us in thefe
words. How you Jhould rife a pure Church after you had
been buriedfo many hundred years in a corrupt Church, I do
not eafily underjland.
Thus he fays^ but yet certainly he may underfland it;
for the fame way that I advife him to take, that.he may
become a good man, was taken by our Predecejfours, and
by virtue of that proceeding they ceafed to be a corrupt
Church,
(^?)
Church, and became a pure one; and that was by re-
membring from whence they were fallen, and by repen-
tance, and by reformation; they faw the Errcurs which
fiome had taught, and proudly impofed; they were ferry
to have been fo long abufcd ; they withdrew themfelves
from fiavery, and knockt off the chains and fetters, that
an unjufl Power had laid upon them; they fludied and
learnt their true Rites and Liberties, their duties to God,
and to their Saviour, and to their Prince; and when they
knew thefe, they pradifed them. - And fo they did theiir
firfl works; that which Chrifi and his Apoftles taught, and
fo became a pure Church.
This was then done, but fuch an anfwer as this will not
fatisfy our Authour- for he inquires in the next Paragraph
by what Authority this could be done, and would not
have us to pretend to derive Authority from the Church of
Rome, when fhe was in her purity and perfetlion.
Now this is wonderfully wife, to inquire by \^'hat Au-
thority we prefume to obey God, to amend our ways, to
throw ofTErrours, to follow Truth.
Let him be affiired, that we fhall not pretend to have
derived Authority from Romeneither in her corrup-
tion, nor in her purity to doe this. And our Authour in
the next paragraph owns that we need not, in cafe the one
be an Errour, and the other be a Truth. But he adds, ive
are now feeking for that Authority which fhall declare thi^
Truths and fet forth this Errour.
Now this is honeflly faid, that he is feeking for that Au-
thority, I am fure he has made no dilcovery of it as yet.
He undertook, pag. 21,21. to Ihew that and the Infalli-
bility of ihe Church of Rome; and has talkt out eight Pa-
ges, and has not given us the lead. Argument for either of
them, now, he fa} s, he is feeking for it; and he may feek
all his days at this rate - for he leeks, juft as one did for
the Hare, in the top of the Steeple.
If
(7°)
If there were any fuch Authority and Infallibility as he
pretends, it muft be as apparent, and as vifible, as the
Church it feif, there would need no long feeking tor it.
He mult be blind, or fool, or mad, that did not fee it,
or know it.
I rather think that our Authour is feeking for Argu-
ments to prove it; and in this he is unhappy, for he finds
none.
But Pag. 28, xp, 30. he endeavours for one, and that is
to this purpofe; that there are Errours and Herefies in the
World. He tells us of Socinians^ of Luther ^ and Calvin
and Beza., and I know not how many more of late days.
P. 30. And from thence, />. he talks in thefe words,- Father
if thefe in(lances he not jufficient to require a Supreme Judge
to determine the right Faith^ and filence the ivrong., then, and
then, and I know not what; but at laft, then pray excufe
tne.^ if my reafon^ and piety., and the reverent notion which I
have of a Juji God., and a mercifull Saviour., totally force
my Judgment, and Confcience to dijfent from you in this par-
ticular.
Now this is no Argument, that there is fuch an Au-
thority in the Church, (either Eaflern or Wefiern, Roman
or Grrefian) but a wheedling Difcourfe to perfuade weak
I'crfons, that there may be fuch an onebecaufe in out
Authour s Opinion it would be fit or requifite, or proper
for God Almighty, in this method to diredb the inter efts
of his Church. And to bring People on to this belief,
here is an audacious and prefumptuous intimation, that
God would neither be wife, nor good, in cafe he did it not.
Here we beg our Authour s pardon ; we will believe
God to be wife, and good, and mercifull, whether he fets
up fuch an Authority or no : He know's what is ht, and
requifite, and proper, much better than luch pert confi-
dent men. He permits fins great, and moft enormous in
the World, though he could asealily give a flop to them
as to Errours and Herefies.
There
( 7' )
There are Errours amongh Trotejlants^ and there are Er-
rours amongfl: Rowamjls; and if the Temporal Authority
did not doe more than the Spiritual, they themfelves
would complain of many more, than now they do.
There are Errours and Herefies of late days, and tliere
were fo from the firfl: beginnings of Chriflianity, in ail
times and places; St. Paul tells of fome in his days, and
Ignatius of others, and Irenaus of others,'and thofe mod
grofs, and vile, and filthy.
Now if God had made provifion of the pretended Au-
thority and Infallibility to give dop to them; it were
mod improbable , if not impoflible that ever thefe fiiould
have been.
Their exidencc therefore is plain argument and demon-
dration, that there are no fucli powerfull means fet up,
and appointed by God, to prevent, hinder, dop, or fi-
lence them. He has done enough againd them, as he has
done againd all fins; it is prefumption not to acquiefce
in his VVifedom, or to_ challenge that he mud doe that
which we cannot prove that he has done.
But our Authour leaves this, and fays he mud proceed,
p. 30. and that he does, yet not to evidence the Authority
and Injallibility of the Roman Church by better Arguments;
but to plead the intered of it, in general, from the per-
formances of Auguftine the Monk.
This is an Argument that pleafes him; he had been"
nibling at it three times before, p.i%. p.xi. p.zj. There he
intimates that this Augti(line fii d taught the Englijh Nation
Chridianity; and that he taught them thofe very Dodrrines
as Chridian Truths which we at this lay oppoje : He fays,
p. x.i. That all the Controverted Points.^ particularly., and
By name., were declared By fome of your felves to have Been.
Brought into England By Augu.line the- Mmk above a. thou-
fand years fince.
I fuppofe he means that his Friend the famous Nir/per, or
fome oSAm Apocalyptical Acquaintance,had declared this.But
alter
( 72 )
after all,he comes to treat more clofely upon this Argument,
pag. ^o, 31, 3x. I fliall confider what he fays, and then
give a full accompt of the whole matter. But, before I
begin, I mufl: complain, {for it is a grief} that I have an
Adverfary fo weak, and yet fo confident.
For thofe two learned Men, their Mr. Cre(fey\ and our
Reverend Dean of St. Pauh have accurately confidered and
weighed all the particulars of this Difpute, and made the
bell advantages of it. But the man knows nothing of their
Writings. Pope Gregory he names, and Bede he names,
but gives us not any ground to think that ever he has read
over Bede\ Hiflory, or confulted Pope Gregorys Epiflles;
and both thefe ought to have been well fludied by a Wri-
ter upon this Subject, if he had due regard for Truth, or
his own Credit.
1. Firft, he fays. If you tell me a Story of the Ahhat of
Bangor; / anfwer^ that the particular ground of it is evi-
dently falfe and forged. Now Bede is the man that tells
us a Story of the Abhat of Bangor^ and the numbers of
2- Monks in that Abbey. And the Story, as it lies in Bede^
gives all the advantage to Proteflants that they can wilh,
lib. X. cap. 2. And if there be fomething added to that
Story from an Ancient Record found and publiflied by
Sir Henry Spelman; the skill and integrity of that excel-
lent Perfon would perfuade an indifferent man not pre-
fently to damn it for a forgery 5 for he was not likely, ei-
ther to contrive one, or to be cheated with one. But be
this what it will, the Story that Bede gives is fufficient for
our ufes, and that, I hope, he will not fay is falfe or
forged.
2. He fays, that the Britains received the Chriflian Faith
in the Apojlles days; but being perfecuted by Romans^ Pills
and Saxons, Religion fled to the Mountains, and bordering
parts of Wales, at the fame time the Church of Rome was no
lefi ajflilled by the Heathen Emperours. This is grofs igno-
ranee to talk of Saxons perfecuting the Britains, and Re-
ligion
' ( 73 )
ligron flying into Wales in the time of the Heathen Empe-
rours. Did the Man never hear of the name of Conflantine^
and of the names of tiiofe glorious Cfli"idian Emperours
that fucceeded him in the Eaji and Wejl for more, than
two hundred }ears before the flying into Wales ? I hope
he will not call them perfecHtin^Heathen Emperours^ who
brought the Empire into the Church.
The famous Council at Nice was celebrated in the Year
3 2,5'. and the coming of the Saxons under Hengifl into Bri-
tain was not till the Year 4^0, and it was near a hundred
years after that, before the Britains were difpoflefled of the
red of their Countrey, and forc'd to fecure themfeives a-
mongft the Mountains of Wales.
This our Authour might eafily have known, if he had
read Bede, but he knew it not; therefore he adds, No
wonder if in thefe days and circumflances there was hut Uttle
correfpondence between Rome and Wales.
This now is worfe and worfe ,• what! a little corref-
pondence between Rome and Britain.^ when Conftantius
was in Britain, and Conjiantine, and Theodofius, and Max-
imiis, and tlie mofl: of the chief Roman Commanders, in
their diftind: times. What! little correfportdence between
them ; though three of the Britijh Bilhops were at the
Council of Aries; and as many very probably at Nice;
and as many certainly at the Council of Ariminum ; and
of Sardica. Did this Man never hear of the names of Fe-
lagius, zndCoekJlius I or oS. Falladim-, znd Fatriciiis, and
hundreds of others who came from Rome to Britain, or
went ^XQm Britain to Rome in all this long trad: of time ?
I would be willing to think that I millake a little, ra-
ther than judge that he miflakes fo grofly.
But he will not allow it, for he will have all the \Vorld
to fee how ignorant he is : He adds to this thefe words;
But when the Church {brought from her fuhterraneous reju- i». 31.
ges, and fet upon a HilV) began to enlarge her felf, and pro-
pagate the Gofpel, Gregory the Great fent Augufline the
L Monk
f 74 )
Monk into England to fee how matters went there in this long
interval of Jileme.
Certainly he does think that Gregory the Great was the
hrh: Roman Biihop that ever favv good days'; and that all
his Preclecejfours were under the perfecuting Heathen Em-
ferours'^ for now he fays that tlie Church was brought from
her fuhterraneoiis refuges^ and now fhe was [et upon the Hilly
and now began to enlarge her felf. I wonder where he
learnt this, I hope it was from his Friend the famous Nap-
per. What is become of two and thirty Bifliops of RomOy
fo many there were between Sylvejler (who is faid to have
baptized the Empcrour Conflantine^ and this Gregory the
Great, did they all deep > did they doe nothing for the
Church, that fhe muft be faid now to inlarge her felf?
There was near three hundred years pafl from Conflantind%
pofle/Tion of the Empire, to this miffion of Augufiine the
Monk ; and was the Church all that time in fubterraneous
refuges ?
Where were thefe fubterraneous refuges, from whence
the Church came > and where was the Hill, upon which
the Church was fet, in this Gregorys days ? I know that
John of Conflaniinople was then moft ambitious, and in-
deavoured to mount up his Seat to higher power and dig-
nity, than that of Rome it felf. He challenged all the
proud Titles that the Popes afterwards ufurpt; and de-
figned to fet his Church upon the Hill. But Gregory the
Firft wrote againft him, and charged him with pride and
arrogancy; and faid plainly, that whatever Biihop (whc-
ther Roman or Conflantinopolitan') fhould aflume thofe 7/-
ties, he would be Antichriflian, or at lead the Forerunner
of Antichriji. It is certain that Gregory the Great was con-
tent to keep things as he found them ; he did not fet the
Church upon a Hill, or inlarge its power. The Romanifls
can fcarce pardon him for the great fubmiffion and defe-
rence which he yielded4o the Emperour, and the large ex-
preffions which he ufed in hisConteR againft John of Co«-
flantinople j;
( 75 )
(lantinople; for the Vroteflants flrongly argue from them
againft the pretences of the Vopei themfelves.
But our Authour adds, that Gregory fent Auguftine the
Monk into England to fee how matters went here in this long
interval of filence.
He feems to think that Augufline came as a Spy, or to
make a difcovcry of an unknown Land; but in this he is
Lke himfelf, Bill miftaken.
For Gregory knew how matters went here; He knew
that Bertha^ Queen to King Ethelbert, was a Chriftian;
and that Luidhardus^ Bijhop of Senlis, was her Chaplain;
and that he performed to her, and her Attendants, all
Chriftian Offices in the Church of St. Martins^ near Can- Bcde, ub. r.
which^was formerly built by the Romans.
And Gregory himfelf fays in a Letter, which he fent by
this Augufline to the King of France^ and was delivered by
him in his paflage hither, That the Englijh Nation were
defirous to become Chriflians. His words are thefe;
Pervenit ad nos^ Angiorum gentem ad fidem Chriflianam Greg. Epfl.
defideranter velle converti^ fed Sacerdotes veflros e vicino 5-
negligere^ ^ dejideria eorum cejfare fua adhortatione fuc-
cendere. Oh hoc igitur Auguftinum Servurn Dei prtsfen-
tium portitorem., cujus zelus & fludium bene nobis ejl cogni-
tum^ cum aim fervis Dei prtevidimiis illuc dirigendum. Qja-
bus etfamiinjunximus^ ut alijuos fecum e vicino debeant Fref-
byteros dittere., cum quibus eorum pojflnt mentes agnofcere^ &
voluntatem admonitione Juhy quantum Deus donaverit adju-
vare; and to the fame pur pole he writes in the next £-
piflle.
If our Authour feen this, he would not have faid G.eg. Ef. 59.
that Gregory, fent Augufline to fee how matters went here tn
this long interval of filence.
Bur. he goes on, and tells us, that the Britains knew him
not Qthat is Augufline^ untill he had- confirmed his Commif-
fion by Miracles.
L X
( l6 )
Now u hat had he to doe with them, or they with liim >
his Commiirion.was to convert the Saxons, or the Englijh
from their Paganifm to Chrifiianity, as Gregory fays in the
forcmenrioncd Epiflle, and Berie in thefe words. Mifit
Servurn Dei Augutlinum, ^ al/os complaresprrerl/care Ver-
hum Dei genti Anglorum. Beds calls him Ang/orum ApO'
jlohis, to them he was fenr, to them he came; and he
itad more work to doe amongft them than lie was able to
perform : The Brttatns were not in the leafl: concerned in
his Com million ; for they w ere Chrillians, and very good
Chrillians, according to our AuthQjir s accompt. For he tells
us, that the great Errours, which Auguftine found among
them, were chiefly two ; Their Afiatick Errour, concerning
the keeping of Eafler j and dijfent from the Roman Church in
the adminiflring of Baptifm.
As to the firlt of thele, their Afiatick Errour, about kee-
ping of Eafler : The Britains obferved the Rule which
they had received with their Chriflianity; and they re-
ceived that, as our Authour fays, in the days of the Apo-
(iles. The Aflaticks received the fame Rule, and the fa-
mous Martyr Tolycarp defended it floutly as an Apolloli-
cal Tradition; a whole Council under Polycrates, in the
Year 197. declared it to be the Rule of St. John, taught
and prabfifcd by him. Upon this accompt, if we fuppofe
it an Errour, it can be no great one. For there is no Tra-
ditional DoErine (either in Rome, or any other Church)
which folely ftands upon the credit of Tradition, and has
no fupport from Scripture, that can be better evidenced
to come from an Apoftle, and with the firfl: Chriflianity,
than this Tradition which the Britains, Scots, Aflaticks,
Greeks, alledged in very early times to have received in
one and the fame way. For if this be fo great an Errour,
though it be fo well attefled, and fo flrongly urged to be
an ApofloUcal Tradition; what fecurity can we have for
the truth of any other Tradition whatfoever ?
The
( 77 )
The great St. Augujlhe fliews us in his Epifile Cafulam, s.
that the name of St. Pete^z^ give no more Authority to
a Tradition, than the^ame of Sr. nor has any Tra-
dition more,grounds of credit, becaufe it comes to us by the
way of Rome^ than if it came by the way of Ephefus • the Ea-
flern Church is as creditable a Conveyancer of Tradition, as
the Weflern. Therefore if the Britains mud be accufed of
any great errour for following of this Tradition, the Ro-
man Church mud be highly condemned for requiriqg the
oblervance of fo many things, by virtue of Tradition,
when tliey have not the lead appearance of fuch Argu-
raents, as the Britains had, to prove their Traditions Apo-
dolical. The Britains kept clofe to their fird Rule, ne-
ver in the lead varied from it. The Roman Church oft
changed and altered ; and that before this Augufline the
MonPs days, as the. Learned Dean of St. PauPs lins accu-.
rately lliown in his Difcourfe againft Mr. CreJJey, And
when thofe of the Roman Communion argued againd the
Afiaticks^ and Britains, they could not difprove the Tra-
dition, or Ihew that this pratdice was an Innovation; but.
they alledged Reafons, and external Arguments, to fliew
the inconveniency of it, from the miichiefs that might,
come by fuch a compliance with the ^eivs. Thus the Ta-
bles were changed, Romanijls were for Reafon againd Tra-
dition,* and fo they ever will be, when it is for their In-,
tered.
The fecond Errour charged upon the Britains, is.
diffent from the Church of Rome in the adminiftring of Bap'
tifm. Now this, I fuppofe, is put in to make weight in
the Accufation : for though Bede has thofe words, yet he
tells not wherein their practice differ'd from the Romans^
nor yet wherein they were to be blamed; and has not one
word in all his Hifiory befides, wherein he blames either,
the Britains^ or the Irijh^ whom he calls Cifi th® language
of thofe times) ScotSy for any errour in the adminidration
of Baptifm. He fays, lib. i.^.cap. 4. of the Scots that they.
had ..
A
i'
■'S
mm
a--
r>e<!e, lib. 2,
cap. 4.
P. 31.
Bede, lib. 2.
cap. 2.
Bede, lib. 2.
cap. 2.
P. 31.
,: ,1s I"
(78)
had the fame ways and methods that the Bt itains had,
Jtmtlem vitam ac projejfionem egijjjf- and there having43een,
according to Bede., fcveral DilputesJaetween the Romanijls,
and the Scots, in leiler matters ; had tliis been their
fault, this would have been charged too upon them.
Our Juthour adds. Although in fome other matters they
differ d from the Church of Rome, yet Auguftine promifed
to tolerate them, provided they would re^ify thefe, which
the Britijh Bifhops confented to.
This is the word Pallage in all our Authours Book : for
it is manifeftly falfe, point-blank againfl: Bede's words,
who exprefly fays, that they would not confent,- and
then in the manner of citing the Paflage, there is that
fliuffling and juggle, that plainly Ihews he defigned fajf-
hood. The words in Bede are thefe; Si in trihus his mihi
ohtemperare vultis, ut Pafcha fuo tempore celehretb, ut mi-
niflerium Baptizandi, quo Deo renafcimur, juxta morem Ro-
mante fantlte Eccleftce, ^ ApoJioUcce Ecclefice compleatn j
ut genti Anglorum una nohifcum prtedketis verhum Domini,
ctctera qure agitis, quamvis morihus nojlris contraria aqua 'ni-
miter cunEa toleralimus. At illi nihil horum fe fa^uros, ne-
que ilium pro Archiepifcopo hahituros effe refpondehant.
There cannot be a more plain denial than this. How then
comes our Authour to fay that they confented The truth
is, he feems refolved to lay it, true, or falfe, and-there-
fore he leaves the laft words, wherein Bede declares the
Britains dillent; and adds to them thefe. Cum Britones
confitentur intellexiffe fe veram effe viam juflitiae, quam prat-
dicaret Auguftinus j Bede, lih. x. cap. x. And from thence
would infer, that the Britains did confent. But thefe
words belong to another matter; they are part of Bede's
Narration of the firft meeting that Augufline had with the
Britains; then if feems Augufline did a Miracle, and the
Britains had a great lenfe of it, and did confefs that Augu-
flines way was the right way: But yet for all this Round,
and haRy words, they immediately recollected themfelves,
and
i
( 19 )
and in the next moment tell him, as Bede fays,- AW Je Berie, iih.%.
pojfe ^ ahjque ftwrum coHfetiJu-^ ac licentia^ pfijcu abdicate
morihus. That without the leave and confent of their own
Clergy and Laity ^ or a Synod^ (which was upon it forthwith
called} they could not depart from their ancient Cujloms.
Thus we fee that the Britains who confejfed^ as our Au-
thour fays, yet would not confent, till they had the Opi-
nion, and Judgment of a Synod: and when Augufline pro-
pofed his Matters to the Synod, they flatly denied either
to receive his Dodlrine, or himfelf as their Archbijhop. So
then it is plainly falfe, that the Britains confented. But
yet our Authour puts down that Confefhon firft in Englifh,
and after another quite different difcourfe he puts it down in
Latine • and that on purpofe to prove a confent. Now this
muft be defigned to cheat, and couzen fome; I hope he
meant it for the Roman Catholicks; I do not fear that any
Trotejlant can be gulled by fuch a Height.
But from this Difcourfe our Authour obferves that it
may be inferred that Augufline, and the Britains agreed in
Subflantials: this may be allowed, if he means onely
thofe things which are neceflarily to be held by every
one that is a Member of the true, Catholick, Apoflolick
Church. They agreed in the fame Saviour, in the fame
Scriptures, in the fame Creeds, and in all the Dodlrine
that was maintained and declared in the firfl four General
Councils.
But this will not fuflice, for our Authour imagines that
they agreed in all the Doctrines which the Church of Rome-
at this day indeavours to impofe upon others. In order
to this, pag. 3z. he difcourfes : After all this, can we be-
lieve that the Britains, who earneflly contradilied Augufline
in thefe fmaller matters, and were fo tenacious of their own
Cufloms, would have filently received fo many, and incompa-
rably greater points of Faith, had they in like manner difa-
greed from him therein ? credat Judceus Apellai
Here
''■I?'
'»■ Ml'
i" 'i
i,r.^;J:;.i.
'■■•■ iri- :
,; ■■ll''! .. r'
,1 ' i. ^
■ ! ■■' ;■ ,r
• X
?; ;
{ So )
Here our Authour is much to be blamed, becaufe he
• will not permit us to give him civil Language ; he does
not onely betray his ignorance, but what is much vvorfe,-
in this ire challenges to have skill in Bede,^ and
Bede is the' man that contraditSts him in every thing -he
fays. For Bede tells us, that the Brita 'ms neither received
greater points of Faith , nor leller, from Augujline the
Monk, nor his Companions. But for more than one hun-
dred years after Auguftine's arrival, they efteemed all his
teachings to be vain, and trifling, and little better than
Taganijm. He concluded his Hijtory in the Year 7x5. as
appears, I 'th. 5. cap. xy. and he himfelf tells us in his Epi-
tome^ that Augufline came into England in the Year 5-97.
Lih.z. cap.zo. Yet he fays. Cum ufque hodih maris fit Britonum^ Fidem
Religionemque Anglerum pro nihtlo habere; neque in aliquo
eis magis communicare^ quam Paganis. That the Britains^ aC'
cording to their ufual way., had no ejleem at all for the Faith
and Religion of the Englijhand that they would no more
communicate with them, than with the Pagans.
Lib. 2. cap.^. And Bede does not onely fay that the Britains had fo
mean an opinion of the Romans, and their Difciples.,- but
likewife that the Scots (or Irifh^ had the fame. For
where he gives us part of the Letter that Laurentius, Mel-
Vitus, Juflus km to i\\Q Scots', He fays, that when
they had tried the Britains, they thought the Scots might
be better. Cognofcentes Brittones, Scottos meliores putavi-
mm, but yet they found both alike. For Dagamus their
Bifhop would neither eat at the fame Table, nor in the fame
Houfe with them. Dagamus Epifcopus ad nos veniens non
folum cibum nobifcum, fed nec in eodem Hofpitio, quo vef-
cebamur, fumere voluit.
In the fame page he fays that Laurentius, and the refl,
wrote to the Britains too ; Sed quantum hrec agendo profe-
cerit adhuc praefentia tempora declarant. That is, that
the prefent oppofition, which the Britains made againlt
the Romanifls in Bedes days, fuflicientiy flieweth that Lau-
rentius
I, i :
( 8i )
'rentins his Letter had no effed: upon them; and that is the
fame thing which we had before, ufque hodie^ that from
Augujline the Monk down to Bede's days, the Britains had
no regard for the Romans teaching of Faith, or Religion,
fo far as it difTer'd from their own.
From thefe two Pallages Henry of Huntingdon made Henr. Hun-
the remark which he has, lih. 3. Hiji. Nec Britannos^ nec
Scot OS velle communicare cum Anglis^ & eorum Epijcopo fan-
£lo Auguflino^ magts quam Paganis.
This is fuflicient to Ihew our Authours prefumption in
alledgingR^^ff to patronize his vain Opinations concerning
the Britains; if we give credit to him, the Britains did
not receive, either fo many, or fo great points of Faith
from Augujline the Monk; for they received none at all.
And therefore his Confequence which he draws from
thence, is like his PremiOes, good for nought. That is
this J That the Do^rines (jhefe tm Points excepted^ their
AJiatick Erroury and the difference about Baptifmj which
Auguftine taught the Saxons, had been delivered to the Bri-
tains from the Apojlles.
For feeing we have an acknowledged difference in thefe
two Points in Auguflins days, and other differences (as I
fliall fhew) brake out afterwards, and we find no manner
of agreement between Augujline and the Britains-, and no
communication between his Followers and them for an
hundred years after, but an extreme averfion and.abhor-
rence of them, and their ways ; he can no more argue
for the truth of Augujline's Dodtrines from the confent of
t\\Q Britains, than he may for the truth of all theDodtrines
which the prefent Church of Rome teaches, from the con-
fent of the prefent Church of England; we oppofe them,
and fo did they • we, and they too, rejedt their Nfovelties,
their unjufi: Ufurpations, their unreafonable Impofitions;
And though the terms of Communion which they would
lay upon us, are much harder than thofe which Augujline
offered to the Britains, yet we thank God our charity
M continues
( 82 )
continues towards them ; we call them Chriftians, and
treat them as Chriftians, (which the old Br it am would
not do) and with meeknefs and humility we endeavour
to fliew them their Errours.
This is enough to the Cafe of Augujline^ and oi Beats
Relation of it. And enough to the Firit Part of this Au-
thoHT,
Sir,
July
1687.
I am lours.
A brief
(83)
A brief Account of Auguftine, and the
Converfion of r/;^Englifti, taken out
of BedeV Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.
AVgufline after he had been received gratioufly by
King Ethelhert^ knew not what he had to doe. He
was fent to preach plain Chriftianity to thofe that
were willing to learn it: But he had a mind to doe fome-
thing elfe, and therefore foon fen^to Tope Gregory for his Bede, Uh. u
refolution of certain Queftions; mofl: of which our modern 2 7.
Hiflortans cenfure as Legal and Levitical- and think them
all, excepting three^ to be of little ufe. Two of thefe are re-
markable, the firft concerning his own power, which he
would have extended not onely over Britain, but to Frame ,•
in this latter he was reprefled, and told that the Tope could
rot, nor ought to grant it, becaufe his Tredeceffours had
before fetled it on t\\QBiJhopoiAries- yet over the Bijhops
of Britain he gives him all the power which he could wilh.
Omnes Epifcopos Britanniarum tare jraternitati committimus, Bede, Uh.i.
ut indoCli doceantur, infirmi perfuafione rohorentur, perverji c^p- 27.
autoritate corrigantur. Now it was unreafonable in Auguftine 9-
to ask this, and injuflice in Gregory to grant it: For both
mufl needs know, that this was an invafion of the Rights
of Bijhnps againfl the Canons of the Church ; againft the
Sixth of the Nicene Council, and the Eighth of the Ephefine,
which fays exprefly, that if the Rites of Churches are ta-
ken away, and that by any whatfoever, that Fad:
Ihould be null and invalid. This (Father fays} gave Bamefiu?,
j'jfl caufe and reafon to the Britijh Bilhops to withltand Cath-i{om.
Auftin; q^uia videhatur Auguftinus agere cum iis, co- ^
gendo eos ut reciperent eum pro Archiepifcopo, mandatis ex-
terorum fe fuhderent. Cum antiqui mores Ecclefice fure poftu-
larent, ut omnia inter fe Synodke agerent, turn pro Epijco-
M z porur4
,'ffl
vill
ml
lit
,y''
Bede, lib. i.
cap. 27.
Inter. 3.
Bede, lib. i.
cap. 27. in
Rsfp. 3.
Bede, lib. 2.
caj>. 2.
Bede, lib. i.
cap. I "J.
Bede, lib. 3.
cap. 7.
C84)
porum ordinationiliu.^ turn pro alt is negotih Ecclefiaflkis.
The fecond confiderable Query of Augufline was concer-
ning Rituals., Forms of Worjhip, Mijfals or Liturgies in
this he propos'd how it comes to pafs, feeing the Faith is
the fame every-where., that there is a difference in Miffals.,
one form or ujage in Rome, and another in France. Now to
this, the Pope gave him a wife and good anfwer, if he made
ufe of it; That he Ihould gather from every place, what-
ever he found beff, and mofl: pleafing to Almighty God ;
not having refpe<51: to places,but to things; and if the Forms
and Ufages of France were better than thofe of Rome, he
might freely take them^'ithout giving any partial refped
to the place where he had been bred j Flon enim pro locis
res, fed pro honis reins, loca funt amanda. This was a moft
worthy diredion of Gregory the Great - and if Augufline had
followed it, no doubt his Rules and Orders had been vene-
table and good : But it is more probable he did it not. Be-
caufe he was over bufie in faulting the Br it iff Churches;
He charges them with fbme things as intolerable; and o-
ther things, which he intimates to be many, as contrary
to Roman Ufages. Ccctera quce agitis, quamvis morilus nojlris
contraria equanimiter cunHa tolerahimus. Now the Eritijh
and French Churches, as they had the fame Faith, fo they
had much the fame Rituals, Miffals and Liturgies. They
had frequent Communications one with another; and in
difficulties about Religion, they were moft friendly, and
ready to give mutual aids and affiftanccs; Three Britiff
Bifhops were at the Council at Aries in France; and two
French Biffops, St. German, and St. Lupus, by order of a
Council, at the requeft of the Britains, came into Britain to
flop the Pelagian Herefe, to reform Errours, and compofe
Differences there. Agilhertus who was afterwards Bijhop
of Paris, came from France into Ireland, and ftaid a con-
fidtrable time there to ftudy Divinity, and improve his
skill in the Holy Scriptures. Agilhertus natione Gallus le-
gendarum gratia Scripturarum in Hybernih non parvo tempore
demO'
\
(85)
demoratiis ; And others went from Britain into France up-
on the fame account.
From hence we may eafily prcfume, that the Britijhdrifh
and French Churches had in moll things the fame Rules
and Orders amongft them; St. Jerome fays, Epijl. 5-8. Gal- Jerome,£;.58.
lice & Britannia^ Ecclejice unum Chrijlum, unam ohfervant
regulam Fidei. Upon this accompt it feems not unlikeJy,
that Auguftine might think he had as many exceptions a-
gainft the French Churches, as againfl: the Britijh. As he
faults the ways and methods of the Britains^ becaufe they
were different from the Cuffoms of the Romans^ morihiis
nojlris contraria. So he offers it to the Fope^ as a thing Bede, /;!>. 2.
worthy of confideration, that the French Mijfals were not 2-
the fame with the Romijh.
In both cafes he feems to govern himfelf by one and the
fame reafon, and that is this ; that the Forms^ Vfages and
Mijfals of Rome were the beft, and therefore all other Chur-
ehes ought to be brought into the fame methods with that.
From hence it appears that there was a difference amongft
the Romans themfelves. Tope Gregory was of one mind, and
Auguftine of another. Pope Gregory thought there were
pious and ufefull Inftitutions in other Places, as well as at .
Rome; fome as good, and fome better. And therefore he
gave advice to Auguftine to pick and choofe in every Coun-
trey whatever he thought to be beft, or moft fuitabie to
the People, whom he Ihould convert to the Chriftian Faith.
Ex ftngulis ergo quihufque Eccleftis^ qure pia^ qud Religiofa, Oede, lib. u
quce red a funt elige^ ^ hac quaft in faftciculum colled a., a pud
Anglorum mentes in confuetudinem depone. Whatever you find
in any Church tvherefoever^ that is pious., religious and righty,
take ity and teach it to the Englifh, and bring it into ufe ancC
cuftome amongf them. Herein he Ihewed himfelf to be great,
and wife, as well as Chriftian; but Auguftine was altoge-
ther Romany he would take nothing, and fcarcely allow of
any thing, that he himfelf had not been ufed to at Rome.
He adled quite contrary to the Pope's dirediions. He gave
himfelf
( 8<5 )
lilmfelf up to that fondnefs and partiality, which Grego^
above all things hated. He was for Places, and not for
Things; and inhead of teaching the plain Chriflianity to
Saxons, he bufied himfelf to bring the Falhions of Rome in-
to IVales: hereby he loft the advantages which the pru-
dence of Gregory had laid out for him. He exafperated and
difgufled both the Briti/h, znd Scotijh (or/r/y/'Churches)
and had but fmall fuccefs amongft the Englifh; for the
Chriftianity he planted amongft tpem was but fhort liv'd.
As foon as Ethelhert was 6e^, ^Augujiine's new Converts
turned Renegadoes to their old Paganifm; his Companions,
Bede, lih.z. MeUitus and Jujlus, were forced to fly ; and Laurent ins
(who miraculoufly was ftopped, as Be^e fays) began a
new work, and with much pains and labour, after the re-
turn of Mellitus and Jufius, efFetfted but little.
Paulinus, and other Mijjtonaries, came after, and did
fomething. But if we believe Bede, the Saxons were as
much obliged for their Converfion to the Scots, and to the
French, as to the Romans ; He commends the Labours of
Columha,o{ Aidan, of Ced,zs\d Ceadda, and Finan, and Caiman,
and Trumhere, and Agilhertus, and Felix, as highly as any
of the Romans. By the urfWearied labours of thefe Men,
Chriftianity found a refurredion, and after death was re-
ftored to life again j - it- lived and flourilhed, and fpread it
felf to moft parts of this IJland.
Here it muft be obferved, that in the times of thefe Men,
Chriftianity had one advantage which it wanted before;
and that is this. That a Man of a quite different temper
from Auguftine was then Archhijhop oS. Canterbury; For Ho-
norius, who was third Succeiflour to Auguftine, did as in-
duftrioufly avoid all needlefsContefts, Auguftine did pre-
cipitately run upon them. He feems to be a Man intirely
of Gregorys fpirit and temper; He was for goodnefs, and
piety, and fincere Chriftianity, and would not ftand up-
on Rituals, and Vftages of Rome y upon nicety and punSti-
Jjo; fo as for their fakes to give difturbance to fuch as were
faithfull
( Sj )
faithfull in teaching plain Chriftian Dodlrines. That whicli
Auguftine accompted intolerable, and did what he could
to extirpate, and mufl: be thought to be too much imbitte-
red againft the Profeflburs of it, if he outliv'd the flaugh-
ter of t\iQ-Monkso{Bangor^ Honorius could tolerate; for he
kept communion and fair correfpondence with Aidan and
the Scots^ though they continued in the Afiatkk Errour,
as our Authour calls it; or obferved their Eafler Feaji at a
different time from what the Romans would have them to
keep it; and that according to the fame rule which Augu-
ftine lb highly faulted in the Britijh Church, Bede tells us. Lib. 3. cap.i^,.
Hrec diffbnantia Pafchalis 'vivente Aidano patienter ah om-
nilus tolerabatur; quia etji Pafcha contra morem eorum, qui
ipfum miftrant^ facere non potuit: opera tamen fidei^ pieta-
tiSj ^ dile£lionis juxta morem omnibus Sand is conjuetum di-
ligenter exequi curavit^ unde ab omnibus^ etiam his qui de
Pafcb^ aliter fentiebdnt^ merito diligebatur^ nec folum h me-
diocribus verum ab ipjis quoque Epifcopis^ Honorio Cantuario-
rum, ^ Felice Orientalium Anglorum, venerationi habitus efl.
By this it appears, that Honorius, and Felix too, the Bi-
Jhop of the Eajl Angles, were Men of a different temper
iiom Augujline, of a higher and more inlarged Spirit; they
looked upon Chriftianity as a thing much different, and
infinitely preferable before Ufages, Cuftoms and Der
terminations.
Whilfl this Spirit governed, much was done in the pro-
pagation of Chriftianity amongft the by Aidan, Fk
nan, and Colman, all Scots, and fucceffively Bijhops of
disfarn. Finan ordained Bifliop of tht Mercians, and Bede, /,i>. 3.
Ce^Bifliop of the Eafi Saxons, by whofe Labours they re- cap.zi.
ceived again the Chriftian Faith, which they had call off
ever fince the Expulfion of Mellitus, that is for near fifty Bede, uh. 3*
years. cap.zz..
And he went on with great fuccefs in his Diocefe, rai-
fing up Churches, and ordain*g Priefts and Deacons; ma^
jore audoritate. inceptum opus explens. Fecit per loca Eccle-
(88)
'Etde,utprius.^:Ts^ Preslytcros Diaconos orJinavit, qui fihi in verhofidti^
^ minijlerio haptizandi adjuvarent.
And Bede tells us, that at the death of Deujdedit^ Arch'
hijhop of Canterhury^ there was in all Britain but one Bi-
ordained by Romans; which he calls Canonically
ordained, and that was Wini; and that he was fo little con-
cerned for Auguflines opinion in the Pafchal Controverfie,
that he joined to himfelf two Britijh Bifliops in the Ordi-
Bede, lib. 3. nation of Ceadda^ to be Archhijhop of Tork. Wini ajjumptu
focietatem Ordinationisy duohus de Britonum gente Eptfco'
pisy qui Dominicum Pajchas diem /ecus morem Canonkum ccle-
brant. Non enim erat tunc ulluSy excepto illo Wini in tota
Britannia Canonice Ordinatus.
Thus things went on eafily, with great fuccel?, and great
delight; the Gofpel was preached among the Saxons by
thefe Scots, till Wilfrid his return from Rome; He it feems
was a fprightfull Young-man, and defirous to raife himfelf
to fome greater eminency than others, upon that accompt
he travelled abroad to France,and Rome:and made it his bufi-
nefs to inform himfelf of the Ufages and Pradiices that were
there. At Rome he fludied the Controverfie about Eaflery
and there under Boniface he learnt the new Circle, and ma-
ny other things that concerned Ecclefiaftical Difcipline, as
Bede, lib. 5. Bede fays. Computum Pafchce rationahilem, & alia multa,
tap. 20. patri^ nequiverat, Ecclejiajlicis Difciplinis accommo-
da, eodem Magiflro tradente percepit; at his return from
thence, he flayed in France with Dalfinus, Bijhop of Xj-
ons; and there had his Crown lhaven, Ab eo attonjus efi, or
Bade, lib.],, as it is, lib. 3. 2,5". a quo Tonfurce Ecclefiafiae coronam fuf-
e.ip. 20. ceperat; and was defigned to be the Bip^op's Heir; & in
tanto habitus amore, ut haredem fihi ilium facere cogitaret.
So Bede fays, though we know not how he comes to join
thofe two together, unlefs he thought that Dalfinus, and
Wilfrid too had a great deal more of defigns upon the
World, than the Scotijh BifJfbps and Monks had.
He returns home, and young Alchfrid was committed
to
( 8? )
to Ills tuition ; him he entertains with Dlfcourres about
/Jcwe, and France, ahnxxi Ecclefiaflical Difciplme, Eafter and Bede,
Tonfure; and gains fo far upon his Pupil, rluc he thought 2^5.
Wilfrid^s skill in Ecclcfiaftical Affairs infinitely beyond that
of the Scots. Hujus DoSlrinam omnihus Scot arum traditioni-
hus jure prccferendam fciehat. And now began the old Que- ^ie,utprius.
ftion to Itir again, Bede fays; DefuuSio Finano., cum Colman-
ms in Epifcopatu fuccederet, & ipfe mijfus ii Scotia, Gravior
de ohfervatione Fafchce, necnon & de aliis Ecclefiaflicc vitce
difciplinis, controverfia nata eft. Colman, Bijhop o\ Lindisfarn,
was lor keeping up the Ciiftoms of his Anceflours, and Wil-
frid was for bringing in the Vfages of Rome.
The particular matters in quell ion were about Eafter and
Tonfure, or the time when that Feaft was to be kept, and
the right way of fliaving Prieils Crowns! Mot^ ergo que- Bede, /A. 3,
flione de Pafch'd vel Tonfura, vel aliis rehus Fx c left aft ic is. Up- ^5-
on thefe a Synod was called. King Ofwi and his Son Alfrid
was there, and the King made a Speech at firll, wherein
he talks, as if he thought the molt important Affairs of
Chriffian Religion were then to be determined ,• quod opor-
teret eos qui uni Deo Jervirent, unam vivendi regulam tenere,
nee difcrepare in celehratione Sacramentorum Cceleflium That Bede, utprim.
they who ferved the fame God, fhould have the Jame rule of
living, and have no difference in.the ufe of the Heavenly Sa-
craments.
In this Synod Colman and fT/Z/W/difputed in the behalf
of their leveral ways of calculating the time of Eafter; the
one alledging a Tradition from St. John, and the other
from Si. Peter : And King Ofwi at lall, who little under-
flood the force of either Argument, determined for fC//-
frid's Opinion - and that becaule he would not lofe the fa-
vourof St. Peter: for feeing both the Difputants agreed that
Chrift had faid untojSt./'e/er-1 will give unto thee the Keys
of the Kingdom of Heaven ; The King faid, If he h the
Door-keeper, I will not offend him, left there he none to open
when I come there:, fo Bede tells us in the end of the xytli
chapter, Lih. 3. N Imme-
M ri
wm
Bec'le, hb. 3.
€iip. 16,
B«(le, lib. 5.
28.
Bcde, lib.
tafi 16.
)
rmraedlatcly a^r this, Colman finding himfcdf and his
Do6lrine in contempt, leaves his Bilhoprick, and goes over
mto Ireland^ tratiaturuS'Cum fuis, quid de his facere dehehat;
and there went along with him all I'uch as would not re-
ceive this new Reform in the Points of Eafler and Tonfure.
Jffimptis his qui fequi voluerunt., id ef qui Pafcha Catholkum.^
Tonfuram corona QNant & de hoc quajlio non minima e-
rat) recipere nolehant. And a very little while after, all
the reft of the Scots throughout all England., either fubinit-
ted to the new Orders, or returned to their own Countrey:
ut Scotti omnes, qui inter Anglos morahantur, aut his manus
darenty aut redirent in patriam.
Here the Englijh Chriftians fuftered a great lofs, who of
a-fuddain were deprived of the Minifteries of fo many ex-
cellent Perfons, ^who had taught them, converted them,
baptized them, and oft communicated the Holy Sacrament
to them} and that onely for the fake of two Ufages brought
from Rome', the one of which is certainly impertinent, and
fuch as deferyes not in the leaft to be contefted j and the
other was thought tolerable hy-Honorius and Felix, and the
beft of thofe that were bufied in the converfion of the£«-
glifh. It is deplorable to think, that for the fake of thefe,
the Englijh Chriftians Ihould lole their Teachers; who, if
we believe Bede's accompt, were moft extraordinary Per-
fons, of great piety, fevere vertue, and moft fincere good-
nefs. Bedefays: Quanta parcimonia, cujufque continentia
fuerit ipfe (Colmannus} cum Pradecefforihiis fuis, tejlaha"
tur etiam locus tile, quem regelat; uhi aheuntihus eis except a
Ecclefia paucijfma domiis re pert a funt, ^c. They were Men
of great felj-denial, they had a good Church for the fervice of
God, hut very few Houfes for tbemfelves, and thofe onely
fuch, as neceffty of Rving did require ; they had no money
or flock hut in Beafls : what money the rjch gave unto them,
they prefently diflrihuted to the poor ; and they had no need-
of any, for the great ones, who came to their Church, came
thither for no other caufe hut to fay their Prayers, and to
hear
T 9" ')
'hear the Word of God', and if the King himfelf came thither,
■he faid his Prayers, and awaj he went • or if he wanted a re'
jehlion, he and his Attendants were content to partake of the '
daily Provifion for the fraternity of their Houfe. The whole
care of thefe Teachers was to ferveGod, and not the World^
to provide for the Heart, and not for the Belly: from whence
.it came to pafi, that Religion was then in great veneration;
where ever a Clerk or a Monk came, he was received hy the
People as the Servant of God. If they faw him on the road,
they ran to him, and rejoyced in the humble (I poflure to re-
ceive his lleffing. They attended to his InfiruHions, and Ex-
ho r tat ions; and every Lord $ Day they came in crowds, either
to the Church, or to their Monajiery, to learn the Word of
God. If a Priejl came hy chance into a Village, the People
gathered together, and took care that they might hear the
Word of Life from him : For upon no other accompt did the
Priefls or Clerks go abroad, hut to preach, to baptize, to
vifit the Sick, and to take care of Souls; and fo far were
they from dejigns of worldly greatnefk, that they would not ac-
cept of Eflaies, and Lands, to build Monajleries upon them,
ivhere they were not conf rained by more than ordinary inflance
from the Secular Powers.
This accompt Bede, no Friend to them, but to the ad-
verfe Party, gives of them ; and therefore it mufl: be j^re-
fumed to be true. Thofe\S£-«?/j (or Trip') then were mod
admirable Perfons, great Examples of Vertue and Piety,
a blelTing of God, and an honour to a Nation. But fuch
was the weaknefs, or the humour of thofe times, that all
thefe were to be thrown out, to make way for the recep-
tion of a few Romijh Ufages. Wilfrid had the afcendant, Bede, m. 5.
and he would have it fo. And good St. Chad amongfl: the 20.
_refl; was forced to leave the Bipoprkk of Tork, that Wil-
frid, by virtue of the Power and Authority of that Seat,
might be better inabled to carry on his Reformation accor-
ding to his new Defigns and Projeds.
This Story deferves fome Remarks and Conftderations •
N 2 and -
( p2 )
and if the prefent Romanifls would refled; upon It, they will
find caule toceafe their boalls of the performances of their
Predecellours in the converfion of the Englifh Nation.
I will add one thing, that as Augu(iine had no great fuc-
eels in his bLifinels, lo neither had Wilfrid in Ins ,• For he
was tvoice thrown out of his Bijhoprick and twice went
10 Rome Xo make Complaints; and though he was a Man
of Parts, and had a zeal for that which he thought good,
yet the efleds of his tumultuoufnefs followed him,- and he
that gave troubles to others, had troubles himfelh.
One Pallage farther there is in Bede that mull not be o^
mitted, that is, concerning Theodore^ his eledion to be
Archhifhop of Canterbury^ and his miilion hither; it feems
Egbert^ King of Kent, and Ofwi, King of the North-Hum-
brians, had agreed, after the de^ith. ot Deufdedit, to fend
Wighart to Rome to be confecrated there; and that fome
Bede, //fc.4. conlidetable time after the Bifhoprick had been void. Cef-
'* fante non pauco tempore Epifcopatu : Wighart dyed of the
Plague at Rome. Vitalian, then Pope, confiders whom to
fend over in his (lead ; he thought firfl; of one Adrian^
who refufed the Arcbbijhoprick, and commended one An-
drew, who likewife refufed; then Theodore was thought of,
and approved, yet Theodore could not be confecrated till
he had received a new Tonfure. Bede fays he was born at
Tharfiu in Cilicia, and had the Tonfure of St. Paul, after
the manner of the Orientals; Habuerat Tonfuram more Ori-
entalium Sandi Pauli Apofloli: And therefore he was flayed
at Rome {though the Englifh Nation much wanted their
Archbifhop) four months, till his Hair was grown, that
the Crown of St. Peter might be rightly Ihorn on his Head,
quatuor espeblavit menfes, donee illi coma crefceret; quo in
coronam tonderi poffet. It feems the fame temper that Wil-
/r/^^ brought mio England was then regnant at Rome - and
a great ftrefs was laid upon the right Cut, and wonder-
fully accurate they were in diflinguilhing the Tonfure of
St. peter, from that of St. Paul, and of Simon Magiis,_ as
Bede:
(5'3 )
Bede Ihews. ' And Mr. CreJJey in his Church-hlftory, after B«ie, ul. 5.
a punctual relation of the (late of this ivorthy Controverfie, cretr v////?
exprefly fays. That the Fopes of thii age took care, that ubW
St. Peter'j Ttnfure fhould onely he received /'« Britain. «. 17-
This fpeaks how vain and trifling the Romans then wercj
and it is ainazing to compare the thoughts and deflgns of
tliefe, with the accompc that Bede gives of thole ex-
cellent Scots, who were forced to leave England for their
fakes.
But Theodore, as he had been ufed himfelf, fo he was
forced to treat others; his firfl: great bufinefs was to fecure
the two Points of Eafler and Tonfure, and he durfl: not but
doe it; for he had a Spy over him, to watch his motions;
and to urge him to keep clofe to the prelent humour of
Rome. Bede tells us that Adrian came over with him, ut
eiDotlrince Cooper at or exijlens diligenter attenderet, ne quid Bed^, Hh.i,.-
ille contrarium veritati fidei, Grcecorum more, in Ecdefiam '•
cut praejfet introduceret. Here we may obferve the vafl
difference between the Counfels and Defignments of Gre-
gory the Great, and thofe of Pope Vitalian. Gregory en-
courages and exhorts his Miffionary Augufline, to gather-
and take up in every Countrey any Ufage, or Pradice, or
Mode, or Form, that is pious, and religious, and to the-
glory of God - and to have no regard for Places, but.
Things; no more for the Ufages of Rome, than for thofe of
France. But Vitalian ties his Mijfionary Theodore to keep
dole to all the ways and methods of Rome. He would have
him Ihew Rome in every thing he did, and to be intircly
of the Roman cut. He was altogether for place, and not.
for thing: He had no concern for what was pious, and
what religious, and what of good ufe in other Places. He.
was for that onely which was done at home. And though
Chriftianity was once moft pure, and mofl; gloriouflyhad
flourilhed in the Eajlern Churches, yet he particularly cau-
tioned and provided, that TEeodorefhouXd lay afide his
firlt;
(54)
firft Works, and the Tnflitutions of his Fathers^ and the
Traditions of the Eajl, and intirely govern himfelf accor-
ding to the Ufiges of Rome.
Now the efted of this is mofl remarkable ; though
Theodore fiibmitted to all this, and came u itli rcfoiut.on
to pleafe them, whofe Creatures he was; yet being a lear-
ned, ftout, and moll reverend Prelate^ he was forced in a
little time to run into open oppofition againfl: Rome. For
Wilfrid^ the great Stickler for Roman Faihions, indeavou-
red to OLitdoe him, and would always be one ftep beyond
him in the way of Romanizing. He could not confecrate
a Bijhop, but Wilfrid had fomething to fay againfl; it; nor
make a Synodal Conflitution., but he had much to fault in
it. And fo troublefome he was, that Theodore was forced
to throw him out of his Bijhoprick : upon this Wilfridap-
pealed to Rome.^ and got the Pope's Bull for his refettle-
ment; yet Theodore would not reverfe his Sentence; and
King Egbert added a fecond of Banifliment againfl him;
And neither would obey, although the Pope threatened
deprivation and excommunication to all thofe that would
not receive him.
Indeed in the fecond year of Alfrid he returned again,
but foon was banilhed again ,• and then again he appealed
to Rome: and though he had favour there, yet he recei-
ved no benefit from it here. For Wilfrid himfelf being
fummoned to appear at a Synod, upbraided tflc Englifh Bi-
fliops; That they had oppofed the Pope s Command for tm
and twenty years ; and wondered that they durjl prefer the
Conftitutions of Theodore, before the Bull of the Pope.
But for all his talk, the Synod had no more regard for
the Bull, than the King, or the Archbijhop had ; for they
added a third Sentence of Excommunication againfl him
and liis Adherents. And as long as Theodore lived, this
Papal Bull was not in the leaft regarded • but Wilfrid the
great Romam%er, Innovator and Reformer, who had van-
quiflied
(95')
quiflied the good and truly Chriftian Scots (or /r/fi} and
thought he merited much in his Contefts about Ea^er and
Tonjure, found himfelf fufficiently beaten by one who was
a mere Creature of Rome.
All this may be feen in Bede^ and in the Life of Wil- Bede, lih.-i.
frid, written by Stephen Heddius.
This fliort Narration may deferve fome few thoughts
from any candid Reader ; whether he be Vapijl or Prote-
Jlant^ Romanizer or CathoUck^ and what is more than all
thofe names, plain Chrijlian. Here any one may fee fome-
thing of the firfl: Chriftianity, and fomething of that which
wasliiperadded to it; the firft molt venerable and good,
the other vain and trifling. In the Advices of Gregory to
Augufiine, and in the Lives and Practices of Aidan, Finan
and Colman; we have a mod generous fenfe of Piety and
Religion, and noble Defignmeots mod agreeable to thofe
of our Saviour and his Apojlles. In the Aims of Augufline^
Wilfrid and Vitalian^ we have that which is low and
mean ; great values put upon little things; The Name of
bt. Peter oft ufed, and nothing elfe,* the Soul and Temper
of him feems totally to be laid afide. Great noife, and
dir, and confidence imployed to advance that which was
of no ufe : And the fame Arts ingaged in the Service
which the great St. Augufline and St. Amhrofe defpifed Aug. Ep.%6.
and trampled upon, when they found them formerly ap- Cifuiano.
pearing in like cafes.
Befides, we may here fee what mifchiefs have come
from thofe Men, who have made it their budnefs to fub-
ject the Faith and Worihip of Chridians to the Determi-
nations and Ufages of one City. Wilfrid certainly gave
much trouble, and great didurbance to Theodore^ to Kin^ ^
Egbert^ to King Alfrid; to England^ to Rome; and all
this to very little purpofe.
If any one now has a mind to fatisfy himfelf in the
difference between the old Catholicky and the old Romani-
ZSr.
(?g)
Becie, /ik-}. zer, he may compare the accompt which Bede gives of
Colrnan and his PreJecefours, with the Elogium which lie
Bede, lib. 5. gives of Acca^ Wilfrid s Succefiour ; the jirjl of thefe I
"P 2'- liave ttanHated, and the other our Adverlaries may doc,
when they think good.
THE end.
Some Books lately Printed for ,Bral>. Aylmer.
ATre^tife of the Po'fe s Su^retnucy : to which is added, A Dif-
ccurfe concerning the TJnity of the Church. By Dr. Ifaac Bai"-
row.
A Difcourfe againfi Tranfuhflantiation. By Dr. Tillotfon.
A Difcourfe concerning the Adoration of the Hop, as it is Taught
and VraBifed in the Church cjf Ronie.
A Difcourfe of the Communion in One Kind: In Anfwer to a Trea-
tife of the Bijhop of Meaux'/.
A Difcourfe agatnji Purgatory.
A Requefi to Roman Catholtcks to Anfwer the ^eries upon thefe
their following Tenets, (viz.)
§ I. Their Diiiwe Service in an Unknown Totigue. II. Their ta*
king away the Cup from the People. III. Their with holding the Serf-.
tares from the Laicks. \Y. The Adoration of Images. \f.TheIn-
'vocation of Saints and Angels. VI. The DoBrine of Merit. VII. Pur-
gatory. VIII. Their Seven Sacraments. IX. Their Priefis Intention
in Baptifm. X The Umbo of unbaptiz>ed Infants. XI. Tranjub-
Jlantiation. XII. The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Majs. Xill. Pri-
vate MaJJes. XIV. The Sacrament of Penance. XV. The Sacra-
went of Marriage, with the Clergies Refiraint therefrom. XVI. Their
Sacrament of Extream UnBion. XVII. Tradition. XVill. That
thread-bare .^efiion,IVherewas your Church Luther P XIX The
Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils. XX. The Pope's Supremacy.
XXI. The Pope's Depofing Power. XXII. Their Uucharitablenefs to
all other Chrifiians.
Now in the Prefs, A Difcourfe of the Sacrifice of the Mafs. In 4°.
\
ANSWER
T O A
DISCOURSE
AGAINST
T ranfubftantiation.
f - 71/^. 7' ynri f
Hie eft Filius meus dikdus— Ipfum audite,
Thk is my beloved Son— Hear ye Him, Matth. 17.5.
Vermi[fu' Superiorm,
LONDON,
Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Moft
Excellent Majefty, for His Houlhold and Chapel. 1687.
(3)
IntroduiJion.
IF public Applaufe^ and popular Acclamations of your
own Party^ are to be believed^ your Dilcourfe againft
Tranfubftantiation has fufficiently fhewed, that the
Scriptures cannot clearly demonfirate this miraculous
Change; nor the perpetual belief thereof in the Chri-
fiian Churchy illujlrate it; and that there are aU the rea-
fons in the World againfi it. Tet if a ferious confide ration,
and weighing of your Arguments in the Scale of Juftice, be
the Deciders of the prefent Debate, we fbaU firid neither
Scripture, nor belief of the Primitive Church, nor any rea*
fon in the World, againfl Tranfubftantiation. And there-
fore in Chriftian Duty, I think my felf obliged, to en-
deavor, after my poor manner, a difcovery of your winning
Artifices, and a removal of your plaufible Appearances; di-
viding this following Anfwer into two Parts. In my firjl,
m examin, whether there be any tolerable ground for
Tranfubftantiation. And my fecond^ is defigned to coun-
terpoife ( as you think ) your Invincible Objellions.
PART
(4)
PART I.
I Sub-divide my Firft Part into five Sedions, comprebeti-
ding the five pretended grounds, one or more of whichj
you fuppofe the Church of Rome builds this Dodrin on.
Firftj The Authority of Scripture. Or Secondly ^ the
wrpetual belief of this Dodrin in the Chriftian Church. Or
Thirdly, the Authority of the Church to make, or declare an
Article of Faith. Or Fourthly, the abfolute Neceflity of fuch
a Change, for the benefit of thofe who receive this Sacrament.
Or Fifthly, to magnify the Power of the Prieft.
SECT. 1.
Whether Scripture authorife Tranfuhftantiation.
BEfore 1 begin to difcufs whether Scripture authorife Tran-
flibftantiation : I think it convenient to premife two Re-
fledions, upon two confiderable Circumftancesi, delivered in
your Introdudion.
Firfi RefieBion upon the word Tranfuhfiantiation.
In the very firfi: entrance of your Difcourfe, you complain it
is a hard word-, and afterwards increafe your complaint with
this unparallel'd exaggeration. It was almoft 300 years before this
mijhapen Monfier of Tranfubfiantiation could be licked into that Form
in which it is now fetled and e^abltjhed in the Church of Rome. Bold
Aflertions ought to be fupwrted with great Proofs: And Mon-
ftrous Vilifications of the Divine Goodnefs expiated with more
than ordinary Repentance. Heaven forbid, that our Bleffed
Saviour fliould ever prove a mifiiapen Monfter, even to thofe
who moft oppofe revealed Truth expreffed in Tfanfubftan-
tiation.
A hard word, and who can endure it •, a new word, and who
will admit it ? St. Hilar;j anfwers you in this Reply to the Arian
Heretics,
■ _ (s)
Heretics, importuning the primitive Church of Chrift with the
likttyiVVC^ions. Say rather, if you fveak wifely^ ,
will xou not wage new Wars againftnew
tnemies •, or take frefll Cx)unlels againlt new uenena novas mtdicamentorum
TreafonS j OV drink Connterpoifon againft veno- comparationes.
mous InfeSiioas ? 'i^OT WtLsSt. Atbanafius'slntcr- Athan. d. cum Ario coram
rogation of lefs force: Are you offended at the offenderu novt-
r ^ I -Ki , ^ ■] r^r •» r^L t''te,anetiamret ippHs verttate,(]U(t
newnefs of the JSIam ? or affratd of the 'vertty of the vodbulum.
Myftery ?
The fentiment of thefe two great Ornaments of the Church,
is the common Pradice of whole Sacred Antiquity j according
to the Golden Sentence of rwcentius Lyrinenffs, vincent.Lyr.in Commonit. Esclo.
The Church ordinarily approprtates fome new term fia phrunque propter inteUigentU
to fignifie more pathetically the true Senfe off Faith, lucem, mn novum fidei jenfum nov*
Thus did the firft Oecumenical Council writfe^ appellationlt proprittate fgnat.
'oiAsci'^ Confuhfiantialj and the Arians could Nic. i.mSym.
not dkyft the hardnefs of the Word. Thus did the Ephefian Pre-
lates ftile the B. Virgin, QtoTV'A.Q^ Mother of God, ,which was Con.Ephes.
no fofter to the Nefionans. And thus did the Lateran Bifhops fiib-
cribe to Tranfubftantiation, and the Berc»^^rw«/ and Modern decret.iaMr-
oppofersof the Roman truth, expoftulate with us for this Word, an.
and modeftly term it a Milhapen Monfter.
Second Reflexion upon the Evidence of Senfe.
Here you bring in Ariffotle^ who long fince hath pronounced.
There ought to he no difpute of the matter of Senfe. I beg Par-
don if I am not at leihire, to digrefs with you towards Paga^-
nifm. Neither can I think you ferious, when you quote the
Philofopher's determination,for the Myltery of the Lords Sup-
per;, who never profeffed a revealed Religion, and died many
Hundred years before Chriftianitv was Promulgated and Efta-
blilhed. Nor do I apprehend the leaft danger to be overbur-
den'd, with the heavy matter of Senfe, when my way leads to
the Sublime matter of Revelation.
You cannot deny, Senfe, Reafon, and Faith, are three va-
rious Pcrfedions •, fo likewife are their Objefts diftinguilhed.
The *Stagyrite never pretended Senfe Ihould reach farther than * Ariftotlc..
to the Accidents and Appearance of things. And Reafons
employ was the contemplation of Eflsnce, Nacurc, and Sub-
llancc.
a
1,;^. - .i
■\tv
(O
ftance. How could AriftotU pronounce, the matter of Senfe
was never to be difputed, wnen'twas always to bepry'd intOj
and regulated by Keafor? J
Yet we do not difpute with you, the Prerogative of Senfe in
the Myftery of the Sacrament. For we fee the outward fliape
and appearance of Bread and Wine •, nor is Taft wanting. AH
this is granted. Unlefs then you perplex and embroil the Que-
ftion, Senfe repofes, without violation, quiet and contented
in its own Objeds.
Nor ought you to believe,that Reafqn can fecurely, without
Error, always determin in Natural Sciences, according to the
received impreihon, from the vifible Sign, or Objed of Senfe.
This Maxim is given to Novices entring the lift of Diale6Hcks,
and admitted by the Sed of Peripateticlb. So Reafon enlarges
the greatnefs of the Sun, and aifures us, it far exceeds in bignefs
the Terreftrial Orb, tno' Senfe inclofe it in the fmall circum-
ference of a Ball.
Senfe indeed and Rcafon combining together, and following
the prefcript of Logick, are the proper deciders of Philofophi-
cal conteliations. Senfe pleads for no more, and if the Reafon
oi ArifiotkimvWd^ it would be abundantly fatisfi'd with this
voluntary concellion.
If for all this you refolve to feat Reafon in the Chair of Judi-
caturejeven where Revelation intervenes,pivincAuthority will
calily refcue Chriftian R eligion from the information of Senfe.
Gen. % V z R^afon following the Didamen of outward exiftence, told
what appeared were Men i Revelation correded the
miftake, and alTured him they were Angels. Reafon affirmed
Luke 3.12. what delcended in the fhape of a Dove, was that Innocent Crea-
ture: Revelation reformed the Judgment, and intimated it was
the Holy Ghoft. Reafon regards the Species of Bread as inherent
to the proper Subftance: Revelation changes that Subftance in-
to the Body of Chrift. Abraham faw the figure and fhape of
Men, and .yet the Subftance of Man was wanting. The Fea-
thers in appearance, exhibited a Dove •, the real Subftance was
fupply'd with the prefence of the Holy Ghoft.
Ex nihik nil Again, it was a Maxim of Philofophy, what is^ wot frem
/5>. fomethitig. And this Evidence vanifhes at the fight of Revela-
which teaches the whole Univerfe was Created of
iu
non.
no-
thing. 'Twas a Principle, There's no return/row Vrivation, to
tbt
(?)
the Hahit^ from Death to Life-, and this perfwafion ceafes, ac-
knowledging our Saviours Rcfurreftion.
vedk Reafons reludancy proceeding from Senfes information,
(tujji muft yield to the Power of Revelation, or we mufl: ceafe to
12^' be Chriftians. Thus Julian Apoftatifea, and derided Chrifti-
ans that they were fo mipidj to bliifdfold Reafon with the bare
jM..) word of 3. Crede y you mufl Believe. This in
St. Gregory Naziatften is Ytcovdcd. St. Clement tt'
.L^ in the Second relates the fame of the h
X! Greek Philofophers, and confutes them by iW-
this Definition of Supernatural FaithFaith f ®- avyxarm^aif.
V which the Greeks look upon as vain and unreafina-
• , bUy is a voluntary Anticipation, a Pious yielding. r St/#/
*z. c irt / ^L- L- r c i'] J. ^ WrascAoc.
we Substance of tmngs which are hopd /cr,
J, • ssnd an evidence of what is not feeny according to the Divine ApoHle.
' Faith is Firft according to this Ancient Fatherj« voluntary Antki-
jfolk >. you wilfully Anticipate Faith by Reafon. .
)iM • Secondly, Faith is a pious to Divine Teftimony-, and you
, r_ boldly contradift our Saviours own words. Thirdly, It is the
Subflance of things bofdfor •, and you reply there's nothing to be
hoped for of Subflance in the Sacrament. Lahly Faith is an
, . Evidence of things not feen j and you contend Reafon evidences
the contrary.
^ Reafon rather with St./^W^wye, who de- St.Kmhr.SaperilludPfal.Omnia
® dares, IPe believe Fijher-men -y we do not Believe "P""" 'J'^ in fide. Nan creditur phi-
Philofophers. lofiphis, creditur Pifcateribus.
TMW St.Cyrilo£ Alexandriay conceived it impojf- -S'* Cyr. apud S?. Maxim. To ^
hie to believe where Reafon intermixes inquiries. ^ttaavti^ofAfSovwus iirTnm^vTeu,
St.ChryfoHom avow'd thefery letting of an. .'Ot dv yJ
How can it be, « « beginning of incredulity. " C,n-n<ni -mif eiov^Sn
it avers, that if we firft demon^ ay. in joa„.
"r Itrate and afterwards believe, we become both cogmfiere, nec credere v/iemue.
plr Ignorant and Incredulous.
J"' And our B. Saviour adds the heavy burden of Condemnati- Mark c. i6,
on^S we read in St. MatkyWho will not BelievCy Jhall be Condemned.
This is fufficient to ihcw, that Reafon in matters of Religion
'■1, ought to take her information, not from Senfe, but from the
otlf propofal of God and Divine Scriptures. Now I cxamin-,
ted I*
'fit!'
Whether
ftflf
You fay we pretend for this Do£trin the Authority ofScri-
ptiirc in thofe words of our Saviour, thts is my Body. So likewifc
do we pretend for the fame Do6trin,the Authority of Scrmture off Bo
from the 6 Chapter of St. John, which you paffing over in iflence Clirill a
as inconfiderable, I ftiall endeavor to manifeli, as of great im- ctlinot
portance. ^ , oiCki
Let us not mix confufedly the thing which our Saviour pro- audpn
mifes to give, and the manner of receiving the Gifp _ A wor- ■ 5t,ff
thyreceivingtheGift^ is Spiritually by Faith. Thisisnotcon- ral^
tefted. The (Xieftion is, What is the thing promifed to be gi- Sh it'
ven, whether me true Body of Chrift or not i ^ aiM
Our Saviour gives two Promifes, both of the fame thing, liiii
his own SubHance •, both contained in the 51 verfe of St. Jehn^ 353,
the Bread that I will give,is my Flep ^ behold the Promife of him- juIkC
felf, in the Sacrament: And, which I will give for the life of the
World, intimates the Promife of himfelf to the Crofs. The
Promifes are diftinguiihed •, the Subftance is the fame •, becaufe
the fame Spirit of Truth which delivers two Promifes, affures Ai
one Subftance. What is then this Bread which Chrift promifed
to give in the Sacrament ? Chrift anfwers it is my Flep, and 1
that Flefh he will give for the UfeoftFe World. Was this
a piece of Bread, or the true fubftantial Body of Chrift i
This is peculiarly feconded from our Saviours appealing the
murmur of the Ca^arnaiFs^ and railing their Incredulity to
the Myftery of his Flefti, by prefaging the refufcitation of his 1 I
own dead Body, What if ye paU fee the Son of Man afcend up j
where he was before ? ! SPL
If I fliould now return your Senfe of the Sacrament for a re- .
ply to our B. Saviour, and fay, we underftand the Promife gi- j
ven of your Flefh, to be Eaten in Figure only, not in Subftance; j
would not the Reader ftraight fubfiime,Then only the Figure of i (f
his Body afcended into Heaven, and fo void our B. Saviours J
Argument, and deftroy the Miraculous Afcenlion ? |
Another difcontent fucceeding among the Jews, caufedour t\
Saviour toinftance once more the Power of his Divinity. Itis \
the Spirit that epuickeneth, the Flep profiteth nothing. This Spirit I l,
they were promifed to receive in the Sacrament, and this^i- 1}
lit is -truly Chrift, God and Man.
( 9 )
The Flcfti profiteth nothing, if wc believe St. Aufiin-^ as Sci-
ence, according to St.PauJ, pffeth up : Science
all alone, barren of Charity*, for fo proper- Aug.traa. a;, injoan.
ly. Science puffeth up. Add Charity to Sci- dat Spiritm ad C(irnem,q«iirHodo ac'
ence with the Divine Apoftle, and then Sci-
T-,, t • T- ^* r 1 T-i T) 1 r "V' plurimutn: nam [t caro nthtl
ence FlourlOies and is Fruitful. The Body of prode^a, -^erbum car, mn fierct.
Chrift as a mortal and fading Creature profit— sr. Paul i. Cor. 8. sdentia infiat.
cth nothing. Joyn God to Man, and the Flefli
of Chrifi profiteth exceedingly. Thus it profited on the Crofs,
and profiteth in the Sacrament.
St. Cjril of Alexandria giving the fame lite- ^ ^ ...
ral Expofition, fays, when ChriH calledbmfelf
Spirit, he did not by this deny, that he^vas Flejh 5 ^ ^
and fo concludes, that thu Spirit ovas Chrift himfelf.
If this Spirit then be Chrift, who Promifed to give in theSa-
cramen^ what he Promifed to give for the life of the World,
on the Crofs ^ who will queftion that he did not perform what
he promifed ? Or would promife what he could not effedl ?
'Tis dangerous to limit the Power of the Deity *, 'tis impious
to queftion the Promife of God.
And yet alas! fome Men are fo enamoured with what they
can feel to have fome Subftancein it, that Idolizing with Senfe,
they are not fenfible how Chrift promifed to give himfelf in
the'Sacrament; they queftion the very Gift it felf, and endea-
vor to make good thcfe two things,
I ft. That there's rto necejjity of underfianding thefe words of our Sa-
'viour. This is my Body, in the feiife of Tranfufiftantiation.
aly. That there is a great deal of Reafon to underfiand them other-
wife. Thefe two general Arguments deferve to be the Subjed of
two Chapters.
CHAP. I.
Of the necejfity of underfianding our Saviours Words in the Senfe
of Tranfubfiantiation.
IF there be any fuch neceflity*, you pretend it muft be, either
I ft. Becaufe there are no Figurative exprtffions in Scripture, or elfe
becaufe a Sacrament admits of no Figure, aly. Tou are willing to
Band to the plain concejjion of a great Number of the mofi Learned
B Writers
Exod. 2.4.
Heb.p, v.zo.
Luke 3-2.
(10)
H^riters of the Church of Rome in this controverfe. . Thefe two
main Proofs ihallbe confidered in the following Articles.
Article i.
Examen of your Firfi Proof,
I Know not upon what account you fay, that if our Saviours
words, can be taken in the Senfe of the Roman Catholic Af-
fertion, this muft be •, either becaufe, there are no Figures in Scri-
pture-^ or becaufe, a. Sacrament admits of no Figure. Had any of
our Authors made ufe of fuch Reafons, or inclined the leaft
this way, you would not have omitted fuch Authority. But if
you Write what you have not Read, for the pretended ground
of Tranfubftantiatioii •, I'm fure you have not Writ what you
have Read, for the real underftanding thereof. I lhall remind
you ol fome few Motives, which induce Roman Catholics to
believe our Saviours words can import no lefs than the verity
of Tranfubftantiation.
FIRST MOTIVE.
The Written Law ftiadowed future Truth, and this Truth
was Chrift. So we read Mofes fprinkled with Blood, the Book,
and People, faying, This is the Blood of the Tefament -which God
hath enjoyned unto you. The Blood of the Ancient Covenant
was the Figure of the Blood of Jefus Chrift in the Sacrament.
This appears from the words of our Saviour in the Inftitution;
This is my Blood of the Ne-w Tefiament, -which is {bed for many.
This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant:
This repetition of the very fame Phrafe, is an Evidence be-
yond denyal, that the former was a Symbol of the latter. And
fince you cannot underftand the latter of Chrifts Blood fpilt
on theCrofs; Becaufe you pretend St. Luke fays, his Blood was
then Jhed, which isped for many, which* preceded the Crucifidli-
It follows neceffarily to be underftood, of the.true Blood
on
of Chrift in the Sacrament. Becaufe a Figure is not without
the Reality, nor a Shadow without a true Body.
SECONn
"1M
(")
SECOND MOTIF E.
As it is true that Jefus took Bread, fo are we taught, that he
blefled it. And what he brake, and what he gave to nis Difci-
pies, v/as without doubt, what he had bleffed or confecrated.
The Qucftion is, what tnis was ? None of the Evangelifts fay,
that he gave Bread •, they fay Jefus took Bread, and Jefus af-
fures, what was bleffed, broken, and given, was his Body,
faying, » w/ Body. If it was then Bread, as the Evange-
lill rs note, Jefus took Bread \ and after the Divine Benedidion or
Confecration became his Body, as Jefus affirms, this is my Body:
Then without extorting or racking of Scripture, without ad-
ding figurative Gloffes, ( and wicked is the Man who fuperads
to Scripture ) the facile fcnfe of Scripture readily leads to the
plain Article of Tranfubftantiation.
THIRD MOTIVE.
The Circumftances of our Saviour urge for the Literal Ac-
ceptation of This is my Body. For Jefus fpoke to his Apoftles
to his deareft Friends; preparing to bid his lafl: Adieu •, and
then, if ever. Sincerity difclofes it felf, without difficulty, and
after a facile and intelligible Method. He's Wifdom it felf,
and knew how to Phrafe his Thought. He's Omnipotent, and
fo can furmount what Human Frailty might conceive as im-
poffible. He's Goodnefs it felF and cannot deceive us. And
therefore faid what it was, and what he faid was true.
FOURTH MOTIVE
Is the conformity of Scriptures. For if Chrift had ever de-
fign'd to fignifie, that the Euchariftical Bread was only the Pi-
gurc of his Body, it would furprize us what inclin'd him to
make iife of this Speech, this is my Body •, and after fuch a choice,
to leave it barely without explanation, when he fo carefully
taught his Difciplcs the true meaning ot many eafier Parables:
'Twould aftoniffi us, finding the three Fvangelifts with St. Taul s/.Paul, i Cor.
(who teftifieshe received the fame Dcdlrin from revelation) n.
not conftrain'd, nor combining to ioyn inexpreffion, yet to re-
B a peat
Joan. inEvang,
c. I.
(12)
peat all the fame words, without the Leail alteration. And
we read in Latin. Greek, Syriac, Arabic, all Verhons and
Languages, nothing but the fame expreffion, and equal con-
iirmation.
FIFTH MOTIVE.
The very fame Interpretation of other Scriptural Paffages,
wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Chriftian Belief, en-
forces the fequel of Tranfubftantiation.
For, I believe, adhering to Scripture as the Rule of Faith,
that this Palfage, the word was made Flejh, imports a Subftantial
Joan. 10. V. 30. Union. I believe the confuhfiantiality of the Son with the Father,
Ep. I. Joan, included in thefe words, I and my Father are one. I believe one
cap. J. Divine Effence of three diftirid Perfons revealed, in Thefe three
are one. Upon thefe Teftimonies of Holy Writ SubfiantiaUy urt-
derftood, I quietly repofe my belief of the Incarnation of our
Saviour •, the Son's Divinity •, and of the fole and undivided
nature of the Bleffed Trinity.
This Method is further fccur'd. by the confent of all thofe
who are, and pretend to be true Members of Chrift's Religion.
Now if I follow this Determination, fo authorized, and fo
certain •, if I follow tliis motive of my own Convidion in other
like Articles, extending the fame uncontrol'd Interpretation,
ro this is my Body, I muft neceflarily grant this Inference, this is
my Subfiantial Body. Thus my Faith feeks to be one; as Scrip-
ture is one, and God one Truth.
As this literal Refle6tion is fincere and pious 3 the figurative
Explanation of our Saviour's Words wants no Fallacy nor Im-
piety. For, if I may prefume to give this fenfe to our Saviour's
iWords, this is not my Subftantial Body, this Prefumption
ought to be ftrongly grounded, as allowable, juft, and in hqui-
ty to be follow'd. And if fo, then I may lawfully give the fame
expofition to the three alledg'd Articles. For the Scripture ur-
ges not more out of this Paflage, The word was made Fiefs, the
fubftantial connexion of the Second Perfon with Human Na-
ture 3 or out of thefe words, I and my Father are one, the iden-
tity of the Son with the Father •, or out of, thefe Three are one, the
unity of Nature in three Divine Perfons *, than out of this is my
Body, the Subftantial Body of Ghrift.
(13)
If therefore I might lawfully underftand our Saviour's words
in an empty figurative expofition, faying, this is not my Sub-
ftantial Body, I might rightly deduce ( following the fame in-
terpretation) then the 'word was not fubfiantially made Flejh,
and fo deny the Myftery of the Incarnation; I and my Father
are not fubfiantially one, and fo profefs Arianifm •, Thefe three
are not fubfiantially one •, and fo dividing the Divine Nature,
confiitLite many Gods. Can fuch a figurative Explanation be
thought a fincere part of the True Religion, which under-
mines, and utterly defiroys the whole Fabrick of Chrifiianity ?
And ought not my own Motive in the mofi confiderable My-
fieries of Chrifiianity, contained in Scripture, be to me the
fame in the determination of the true Senfe of This is my Body ?
SIXTH MOTIVE.
The true fenfe of our Saviour's words may be gathered from-
the Dodrin which the Learned and Ancient Fathers main-
tain'd againfi incroaching Herelie.
What if I ftiould now advance, that the Succeffors of the
Apofiles upbraided Heretics for denying the Eucharifi to be the
Flefli of Chrifi, that Flefli which fuffered for us upon the
Crofs j would you not look upon it as an invincible underta-
king ? and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatim, eleded Bifhop
of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Palfion, plain-
iy delivers. They (certain Heretics, whofe
Names he thought convenient not to men- 'Ei';^fs^as (oras
tion) do not receive Eucharifis, or Sacrifices, be-
, J rr 11 t^s -n-T dia, 7n fw ouos^oy.HVTUJJ Evyetft-
caufe they do net confefs that the Euchartfi ts the ^
Flejh of our Saviour Jefits Chrifi, which Flejh fuf- Itrs'S Xpis-e, tI/jj dfmptiaii
fered for our fins, and which the Father raifeda- m rf y^yi?vTifji o
gain by his benignity. Nor is it enough to fay, St. ignar. Ep. ad
thefe Heretics could not admit the Eucharifi mymseos.
to be a Figure, becaufe they deri/d that Chrifi had true Flcfti.
This perchance is true. But it is not here the fenfe of the
Martyr, who fays exprelly, that they rejeB Eucharifis, bepaufe
they do not confefs, that the Eucharifi is that Flejh which fuffered for
our [ins. The jplelh which fuffered for us, and rofe again, was
it a Figure, or was it true Flefh I
If
( h)
If I flioiild affirm that the Language of the Second Centurv,
3oke after the fame manner, and told us that they were taught
le Eucharift was not common Bread, but was the Ficffi of our
Saviour made Man, and Jefus incarnate j would you not reply
it was a Roman Invention ? And yet St. Juliin the Martyr
leaves this convincing Teftimony. We do net
"OvTZiii-^ TluJi TO recei've thefe things as common Bread, or common
dj'^ex<;v\^ci^.v reyipni'. Drink : But as by the VJord of God Jefus Chriji
fS/M gjfy SuviouT being incarnate, had both Flejh and
for our Salvation ; fo are ove taught that this
2'. Food, by which {chanfd by digeftion in our Bo-
in the end, dics, >Cf fJui'm.QoKwi) cur Flejh and Blood are
nourifi'd, Eucharifiated for transformed3 by
the prayer of this Divine Word, is the Flejli and Blood of that Incar-
nate Jefus. If for all this you fliOuld reply, that the Euchari-
ftic Food is onely figuratively the Flefli and Blood of Chrift ^
then might the Reader likewife aver, Chrift being incarnate
had onely figuratively both Flefti and Blood. For 'tis more to
fay, the bleffed Bread is the Fleffi and Blood of Incarnate Jefus,
becaufe this Speech implies a fubftantial change, than to fay,
Jefus being incarnate had both Fleffi and Blood, becaufe this
Speech can fignifie no more than a fubftantial Union. And to
fay lefs in either, is to diminiffi and change the Martvr's Senfe.
If I ffiould inftance the Third Age was a faithful Imitator of
the precedent •, fo dividing between the Divine Myftery', and
the Grace of the Myftery, that the Body of Man received the
Body and Blood of Chrift, and the Soul was replenifficd with
the Grace of Faith, or effedt of the Sacrament ^ would you not
be furprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in
Communion ? And yet TertuUian flirniffies us with a fufficient
manifeftation of this Truth •, Saying , Our
Tertull. de Refyr. Carnu, c. 8. plg^y ivith the Body and Blood of Chrifi,that
Caro Corpore ^ Sanguine ChriJi2 > ' 1 It r- j •' *'
•vefcitur, ut Anima de Deo faginetur. OUr S oul maybe fiUed With God.
Again, Thefe words, Our Flejh is fed with
the Body and Blood of Chriji, cannot be deluded in an eating by
Faith, becaufe the Body of Man is incapable of an aft of Faith.
If 1 ffiould continue the Fathers of the Fourth Century,
when the Church was beautified, and enriched with an innu-
merable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children If I ffiould
allcdge how thefe worthy Champions of Chriftian Purity forbid
Pofterity
( 'S )
Polterity to judge of the Sacrament by Tafljand taught them the
Body was given them under the Species of Bread ^ and as Chrift
changed Water into Wine , fo did he Wine into his own
Blood •, would you not fwcar this Language was unknown in
thofe times ? And yet both the Greek and Latin Church con-
fpire in this Dodrin. Hearken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril
of Jernfalem, and acknowledge the plain
truth of thefe words. Do not judge the thing Mi? am d ydinui 'n
hyTafi. hut by Faith. Under the {pedes of Bread I*
■ ^ ^7 n J J J ../ /i ■ r -JVTrU ys AfTV, diriooU tSVITQ
ts atven to thee the Body • and under the (pectes of ^ v jf-
i 7 . I ^7 -n > 7 Xj TUVUCm, dtdblcu <71/75 £M-
trine ts given to thee the Blood. Chnjt formerly {a..---n v 'wa-n w ohovtxi-mSi-
changed Water into Wine ; and is he not to be be- Cf^trnv, ly olybx
lieved, changing Wine into his Blood ? (ulACAKdy eit iSua,. S/.Cyr. Hitr.
Nor are thefe words of the Learned Latin f. Myftag.
Bilhop Gaudentius of lefs force. Jefm giving to Gauden. Epif. Bi efT. Traft. a. in
his Dtfdples Bread and Wtne, (aid, this is my Bo-
I r 7 7. 7 7 r ■ 1 7 ■ P'teft & pnmtpt, emcit proprtum
dy : Let us believe, it is what he {aid. Truth ts 'co7pus; o- quia de ydqua Finum
incapable of Error. The Creator of all Nature, and fedt, de Vino Sanguinem facit^
Lord, who produces Bread from the Earth, made
again of this Bread (^becaufe he can, and promifed) his proper Body-,
and becaufe he did make Wine of Water, of Wine he makes his Blood.
I know there are feveral Expreffions and Comparifons in the
Fathers, which only declare a fpiritual change effeded in the
worthy Receiver. But do not the foregoing Authorities prove
fomething more, a change not in the Receiver, but in the thing
received ? and this can be no lefs than a fubftantial one. For
when Catholics ar^ie, that as Chrift changed Water into
Wine, fo does he Bread into his Body : Proteftants readily
deny the fequel, becaufe this would be to profefs Tranfubflan-
tiation. If this reafoning of Catholics include a fubftantial
change^ of the Bread into Chrift's Body, as you grant •, how
comys it to pafs, that the very fame wor^s, and very fame rea-
fonin the Father's Writings, mufthave quite another interpre-
ration ? If the Fathers had defign'd to have writ for Tranfubftan-
tiation, they could but have laid what they do, and you might
ftill explicate them in a fpirimal fenfe,or wrefl^ interpretation.
If I fhould urge on, that I rightly profefs the confecrated
Bread transfgur'd and tranfelemented into the Body of Chrift v
would you not exclaim, thefe are as hard and mifnapen words
as that of Tranfubftantiation ? and yet many Fathers of this
fourtB
-foui'th Age after Chrift, iifc the fame ExprefTions. Witncfs this
Lancuace of St. Amhroje, As often as we receive
"" S""'""-;, M h •b' -mep ofrrajp p
St. Greg. Nyfll Tom. 3. Oiat. transfigurated into Ftejh and Blood j WltllClS this
Cat. C.J 7. Vi^at h vvv T ToS Speech of St. Gregory NjJJene. I properly believe
HI the Bread fanBified, by the word of God, to be
a£fxa^ n 02? h'oyyi changed into the Body of God the Word. And this
iJlvl J- " of what appears being tranf
na5ct;i^ieirct{(fcuvo/j${juy rlA elemented, by vertue of benediction, into the Body
9^<ay. of the word Chrift.
I clofe up this Motive with thedeciiion of the Synod in Egypt,
celebrated before the fecond Oecumenical Council, to both
which prelided St. Cyril of Alexandria. Thefe Fathers compo-
ling a Creed, inferred thefe words in the end of their Introdu-
£tion, This is the Faith of the Catholic and Agoflolic Church, in
which the Faji and Weft agree. Then immmediatly follows
their Creed , divided into many Articles. What if their
Seventh Article ftiould decree the Fleftj received in the Sacra-
ment to be the very Flefti of Chrift, which made one Perfon
and two Natures in one Son •, and not two Sons, one of God,
Divine 3 and another of the Bleffed Virgin, Human, as Neflo-
rim Herctically taught •, you could require nothing more for
Tranfubftantiation. And yet thefe are their
Syii. .£gypt. Prov. Alex. ProfelT. vvords. We do not receive in the Sacrament our Sa-
Fid. Tom. 3. Cone. General. ^ . Qod forbid. Nor
etc cu-tva mivlw J«;vo,vj^s/ AM) . Zl i-r n r c a. r j nA /r- •
■Atom- dvSfUhTs- as the Flefh of a SanBified Man, or affocta-
ci'stjH'Vs, t4 Aoyu ted to the Word by unity of Dignity, hut as the true
gF tUu h'oTif\a. dF,tu,<, caW <af vivificative, and proper Flefh of the Word himjelf-,
Iwo-TToiov Xj f'hay cwn fy^iy fhe Flefh of him, who for our fake was made,
aV Son of Man.
y.y>yoT& n ly
The Council admitting with Neflorim what was received to
be true Flefh, defines againft the Heretic (who pretended our
Saviour, as he was the Son of the Virgin Mary , had not only
a Nature, but likewife a Human Perfon, and fo conftituted
two Perfons in Chrifl:) that _we do not receive this as common
Flelh, or the Flefti of an ordinary Perfon.
Secondly, The Council adds. Nor as the Flefh of a SanBified
Man, or affociated to the Word by the unity of Dignity, which ex-
eluded
( 17 )
eluded that accidental Union, by which the NePoriatis joyned
together two Perfons, that of the Son of Ood, and that of the
Son of Man, in one Chrift. ,
Thirdly, The Council declares, they receive it as the aU-vivi~
ficating, and proper Flejhof the Word, that Word who was made and
called '^Man, profefling one Perfon in Chrift, to whom this Hu-
man Nature properly belonged.
Now if all this were to be expounded of a Figure, what wre-
fting would there be of this Article ? And how could the Coun-
cil conclude the proper Fleih of Chrift was that of the Divine
Word, one Perion and two Natures, and fpeak of neither,
but of a pure Figure ? The Sacrament might have been a F_i-
gure of the Paflion, and yet two diftind Perlbns admitted in
Chrift.
SEVENTH MOTIVE.
The Council of Trent declares, that becaufe Jefus Chrift our seff. i ?. c. 4."
Redeemer, truly faid, that 'twas his own Body, which under idea perjuafum
the appearance of Bread he offered and gave to m's Difciples, the tsc-
Church of God was alwaies perfwaded, that this Wonderful change Detfutu.
was operated by the converfton of the fubftance of Bread into
the Subftance of Ch rift's precious Body, and therefore renews
the Canon of Tranfubftantiation.
And You know,that as our Saviour commanded his Apoftles
to preach the Gofpel, fo did he oblige the People to receive
the promulgated Word, and be obedient to their Paftors.
The obligation of this obedience, will laft to the end of the
world : and confequently in the mean time will be ftill due, to
the true Succeffors of the Apoftles, with whom Chrift had pro-
mifed to remain till the confummation of the World. You
cannot deny but the Romifh Church has true fucceffion from
Chrift and his Apoftles, and we are fure you have left this So-
cietv of true Succeffors.
Obedience therefore to the true Succeffors of the Apoftles,
who have defined this Catholic verity,obliges me, in the laft in-
ftance to believe, this is my Body,czn import no lefs than the fenfe
of Tranfubftantiation.
I think a flight cbnfideration of the foregoing motives, eafily
Ihews Catholics pretend not, as you would have them, that if
C Tran-
(i8)
Traofubftantiation canbe, it he, either hecaufe there are no
Figures in Scrhture, or hecaufe a Saeransent admits of no Figures.
You feem to be perfwaded of this^ your felf, turning thefe
imaginaric Reafons againft the Roman Catholic Affertion. But
ftlafs! they are no more againft, than they were for Tranfub-
ftantiation. For our Saviour's words may be literally true, and
yet many Figures admitted in Scripture. There may be given
many Spiritual interpretations of the facred Text, and yet this
paffage, the Word was made Fie ft-., litterally ftgnific that the fe-
cond Perfon of the Bleffed Trinity was fubftantially Man. There
are queftionlefs in the old and new Teftament many Figures,
and neither lookt upon as a meer Figure. There may be then
many Figures in Holy Writ, and this is my Body^ not at all be
concerned in thefe figurative interpretations.
Nor is your fecond reafon more efficacious than the former.
For thefe words, this is my Body, literally received, are not at
all prejudiced, by an outward fign or Figure of a Sacrament.
St. Aug. The very notion of a Sacrament in St. Alain's opinion, ftiews
Apud St. Ful- part, and hides the remainder. What appears in the Sacra-
of the Altar, is a fign, an accidental ffiape, or refem-
Tacramenta blancc, and this is the objeS: of Senfe. What is underftood and
^uia aiiud'vi- believed, can be no lefs than what our Bleffed Saviour warrants
detur, aliud us of, bis owfi Body. How then is the fubftance of the Elements
inteUigitur. jjQj changed, hecaufe the Eucharift is a Sacrament, and a Sacra-
S^.Paoi.Heb.i. ment is a Sign I A Man is an Image of God, yet a Subftance.
V.J. KctpstJc- "YheJ^lvintSonis a Figure of his Father^s Subftance :
TUf d <^<;dr fj-Qjxi him the fame Subftance with his Eternal Father ?
nuf osije. Error, the Son's an Image j therefore
not God. Is your Illation ftronger^ the Eucharift is a Sacra-
ment or Sign, therefore it is not the Subftance? This Error
ought to correft yours. Now thu is my Body may be taken, I
think, in the fenfe of Tranfubftantiation, and the Eucharift
remain a Sacramental Sign, or refemblance.
Had you forefeen this Anfwer, I prefume you woul have
fmothered this inftance, viz. When he gave the Cuf, htfaid^ this
Cup is the New Ttfiament in my Bloody where firft the Cup is put for
the Wine^ and if any thing he changed, it mt^ he the Cup.
The fpeedy quitting of the contefted Propofition, this is my
Body, is a ready confcffion that you were unable to difcover
therein coiich'a any Figurative expofition, and fo haften to
bufte
(I?)
Ibufic your Reader with a Metonymy contain'd in tlic word
put for Wtne. ' ,
Had this been fo, how eafily could fenfe and reafon have
unfolded, what appeared difficult ? But why do I fay, difficult ?
It is our common Language, to ask for a Cup or Glafs, when we
mean Drink. Nor was the Phrafe amongft the Jews otherwife.
This is cleared from the Triple repetition of the fame Phrafe in
S.Paul to the Corintbians^Drink this Cup.If this then was the proper i Cor. It.
fpeech, and our Saviour did not fpeak improperly j who could
be fo remote from Senfe,to guefs, the Cup or Chalice was to be
drunk? Would you not think that perfon extravagant, who
hearing you ask (in a place where People were drinking Wine)
for a Glafs, ffiould ^prehend you would fwallow down the
Glafs, and fothe Veflcl be turn'd into your Subftance? Which
muft be" true, if it be falfe, that Senfe and Reafon without the
fupport of fome farther afliftance, could be deceived in fo facile
and ufual an cxpreffion, of a Cup or Glafs, put for PPtne. If
then the Holy Ghoft had ufed in Scripture the Cup for Wine-,
I know*not who could have refufed fuch a Figure. And be-
caufe I find no Metonymy, no Figure couch'd in this is my Body,
I exclude all Figurative innnuations.
I faid if the Holy Ghoft had put the Cup for IPine. Wine you
fay, the Divine Spirit wn'tes Blood, and fo the Cup is metony-
micalJy put for the contained Drink, in the Chalice, or Blood.
For what we read in St. Luke, This Cup the Netv Teftament in Si>. LuIve 2'
my Bloody is equivalent to, this Blood, and fo the Cup is Blood. If
youfufped the fuppofal,, harken how St. Mmheus Phrafes it, Matth. 2^,
This is my Blood of the New Tejlament-, wlftch is repeated by Mark'i.(.'
Sr. Mark, and who dare contradid nvo Divine Teftimonies ?
If the Spirit of God was careful to plain fo fmall a Nicety,
in fo familiar a Phrafe, is it credible that he would have omit-
ted, the moft important in the World ? which he has done,
if ^/Siiiiwyfio^^bebut aFigureofhisBody, fince the Scrmrure
difcovers nothing to diminiffi the reality of Chrift'strue Body.
What you add, if any thinpr be chan^d, it is the Cup into the Co-
venant, is yery rtrange. Till you make this good by Reafon,
or evince it from Scripture,_ give me leave not to credit your
Authority. And if youthink the word Teftament, in this
this Cup or Blood is the New Teflament, excludes real BloOd, Ad Hcb. c <
St. proves quite the contrary, demonftrating, if there be v. is. ' '
C a a Te-
( 20 ).
a Teftamentj there muft be true Blood, and fo concludes, Where-
upon neither the firfi Tefiament^ was dedicated without. Bloody and
without Jheding of Blood is no remijjton.
LaflJy, You urge, bejides his Blood which is [aid to be Jhtd^ which
was net ttU his Paffion, which followed the Injlitution and firfi Cele-
' hration of this Sacrament.
We do not difpute with you the aftual efFufion of Chrifhs
natural Blood, which was a fanguinary Sacrifice. But can
you deny that in thofe words you alledge from St. Luke^ where
ChrilVs Blood is faid to be flied,is contained a myftical Sacrifice?
Sr. Aug. Civit. St. Aufiin calls this, the Oblation of ChrifPs Body en the Altar:
Dei, 1.17. c.io. St. Cyprian four times in the fame Epiftle, the DeminicalSacrifice:
E'^^a'dCsci the unbloody Sacrifice. Two Sacrifices wc
sr GreV Or."', acknowledge with the holy Fathers, different in manner, not
adverf Julian' diffind in fiibftante. The fame Blood fpilt naturally once up-
ayeu/ucUh Sw- on the Crofs, and myflically offered daily on the Altar. Be-
"'"t' caufe the fame Caradleriftical mark of true Blood is attributed
to both the Sacrifices. ( P'iz,.) the remiflion of Sins by efflifion
of Blood. Hence St. Matthew fpeaking of Chrift's Blood in
the Sacrament, fays, that it is fiud for^ many for remiffion of fins.
And St. Paul in the foregoing lines, without fheding of Blood is no
remiffion.
Article II.
Examen of your Second Proof.
YOU are willing to ftand in the fecond inftance, to the plain
conceflion of many learned Roman Catholic WriterSjCon-
cerning the neceflity of underftanding our Saviour's words in
the fenfe of Tranfiibftantiation. And becaufe you begin with
the conceifion of the acute Schoolman, let us examin what was
the opinion of Scotus.
Scotus diftingnifhing two forts or Claifes of People, the wor-
thy and unworthy Receivers, thus delivers
'Induhitanttr tenendum eft d bo- Jiimfclf. It is undoubtedly to be held^ the Good not
nu fumi, non modo Saeramenta iter, Sacrament ally, but alfo Spiritually receive •. the
Sacramento, ftilicet, fub viftbili tus, under the vifible fpectes, the Flejh of Chrtfi,
fptcie, cbrifti arnem 'de Virgine that Fleffi which was born of the Virgin Marj \
they
( 21 )
they do not myjiicaUy receive the benefit of the Sa- famptam ^ Sanguinem prt mbir
crament. This he proves from St. Grp^or/e the Mum fumifid mn myftkam.
Great's determination, the true Fkjh and true qux tantum^onorum efi. Scot. 1.4.
Body of Chrift is received by Sinners and unvmthy ' Mag. apnd. Scot. ILfi
Contrnunicants^ in ejjence not in beneft, Ihen quidem indign^ fumentibus vera
Scotus quotes St. Auftin for the fame evidence, chrift i caro , ^ verus Sanguis ,
and concludes with the teflimony of St. Taul, efintid, nonfttiubri efftcacid.
to the fame purpofe.
This acute Schoolman asking afterwards (^. 9.) whether unvenitur m
the Bread be changed into the Body of Chrift : Anfwers, cerpw
( num. 13.) that it is changed into the Body of Chrift.
'Tis true, he brings in one obje£ting ( «. 4. e^*». 7.) that our
Saviour's Words may receive a more facile Senfe than that of
T ranfubftantiation.
And Scotses replies, the more difficile fenfe ts not to be admitted, if N. 1 s. t^on eft
it be not true •, but if it be true, and can be proved evidently to be fo, aliquis arttcu-
then the mere difficile ought to be chojen 5 and this is the cafe of the pre-
fent Article, diftftdlem, ?tift
iile inteUeBut fitverus-, fid ft verus eft, ^ probatur evidenter eftfe verum, tportet ftecundum ilium in-
UlleUwn stnere Articulum-— Sic autem Jufpenitur de intellsBu hujus Articuli.
He pulhes on the refumpt. But why did the Church prefer
the more difficile fenfe, when Ihe might have chofen a more
facile in appearance ?
lanfwer, fays Scotus, the Scriptures are expoun- -rib eo Spiritu expofittefimt Scrip--
ded by the fame Spirit, by which they were diSlated; tura, d quo conditio fimt, Non enim
and^tis to be fuppofed, the Catholic Church expoun- f
,11 I /'V O • ■ ; I t i'- t ludverum vel non verum, fed Dei
ded them by the fame Spint, by which truth ts de- jnftituentis, fid iUum d Deo tradi-
livered, taught by the Spirit of truth, for it was tumEcclefta explitavit, direBa in
not in the power of the Church to make that true, boc, ut creditur spiritu veritath,
hut in the power of God the injlitutor. ' '• 1* 2-
Now what is^ this to your purpofe ? For if you take the con-
ceflion of Scotus^ you muft profefs both the real Prefence and
Tranfubftantiation.
And this neceflarily deduc'd from Scripture. Becaufe the
Scripture efficacioufly moved the Church to declare for the
fame Doftrin, according to Scotus's words •, it was not in the
power of the Church, to make that true or not true. The Church
then neceflarily followed Scriptural evidence. And wJiat was
neceffarily compulfive to the Church, was. not othcrwife to
ScotttSf ,
( 22)
Scotus^ who tacitly Intimated the cogent neceflity of Scriptiirfj
Autlioritv, for the real change of the fubftance of Bread into
the Body of Chrift, inftancing it was determined by the Church
for Tranfubftantiation. ^ If
Bellarmin was of Opinion,that according to the two literal fen- tiiot
fcs of tha is my fio^read in the acute School-man, the fole evi
dencc of Scripture, could not in Scotus's mind, abftrafting from
the declaration and univerfal pradice of the Church, evidently
compel the admittance of HFtanfubftantiation.
BeilattHin was fcvere enough upon Scotui,
M. YTfL,;.';£uli'. Yet he diminilhed much this fcverity, faying,
iCbriif
plainffili
adciit (fill. Scorns) quia EccUfia c L 1 JJ J ru r n .1) Unrl
Catholica inia>eralicomiltt> Scrip, the acute Schoolman added^ (hecaufe the Catbokc
iiffikD
j Sdflf
turam declaravit, ex Scriptura Jtc Church has declared in a general Council^ the true
declarant, manifefle prabariTran- meaning of Scripture^ Tranfubfiantiation may ma-
■■jitbjlatitiationem. nifeflly be proved from Scripture fo declared. But
of what mind Scotus was, the foregoing Page will fufficiently M
remind the unprejudic'd Reader. P
Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himfelf, granted evidaice of 'f
Scripture was wanting for the Roman Caufe, becaufe he laid iWii
Scotus*S affertion "ivas not altogether improbable. In like manner
you may argue, againft the ftrongeft Demonftration in nature.
You may frankly concede an acute Objeftion, not altogether
improbable, and, notwithftanding this Conccflion, ftickfaftto
the former Evidence of your Demonftration. This is Bellar.
Tain's (aie, as the following words out of the fame place reftifie.
For although^ TA^s BeUarmin, Scripture^ •which we
EtiamJtScriptara,quam nosfttpra heretofore alledged, may feem fo clear to us
addaxtmus.videtur nohts tarn clara, ' ;^ i •'i,
utpornturgerehominem non prater- that tt can compel a moderate man, thers eVl-
wum; tamen an ita fit, meriti du- dcncc of Scriptute fot Tranfubftantiation, and
bicari poteft, cum homines acutijp- Bellarmin's Opinioil J Tet the acutenefs of hight
mi, qualis Scotus, contrarium fen- under/landings leaves feme doubt: This is what is Ife
tiant. L\h. ■}.,€. zi. e Euc . not altogether improbable. jiTat
But we ought to refledt, thefe words of BeBarmin, not altoge-
ther Improbable.^ are grounded upon a meerfuppofal of two lite- I., on
ral Senfes, which touches not our Controverfte. For Bellamim |i(!ioi
plainly denies, a figurative Expofition probable of our Saviours f Ktls'
■words, fpeaking of things as they are inftituted. For thus he
aotlien
tkiff
tkSilii
h
, ^ argues, Thefe •words, this is my Body, neceffarih «\ii
■L.?. c.ip. Htecverbanecefario 1 r .J Af. I J
inArlnt,' aut -oeram mutationem either the true change of Bread as Catholics be- ttH
pants, ut vtluns Ctttholici, aut mu- lieve-, cr a metaphoricalmutation^as Cahinifiscon-
tcnl
( 23 )
tend. This Calvlniftlcal Senfe he had already, tatitnem Metaphoncam, ttt vtlurrt
declared as improbable, faying, -ute will gene- caiwnifia.
rah demonfirate that 'tts not probable our Saviour tmiverjim dtmm-
would figurativelj[peah for the Lutherans
Error holding both fublrance of Bread and the
Body together in the Sacrament, he fays it l. 3. c.ip. NaSo modo Luthint-
jhtires not in the fenfe of our Saviour s words, mrum Sententiam admittnnt.
Thus the true change of Bread into the Body
of Chrift naturallv follows according to Bellarminy from the
plain and evident Text of Scripture.
Durandus divides the fubftance of Bread into Matter and Form. Duran. 4 d. i r.
Then adds, the Bread is converted by conferation into the Bo- q- ?•
dy of our Lord 3 and the Form perifliing, the Matter is ani-
mated with the Soul of Clirift.A ftran^ manner of Explication.
But what doth this avail your caufe? For if the Form of Bread
periihes in Durandus^s explication, and the Matter be animated
with the Soul of Chrift, the remaining Accidents can neither
claim Matter nor Form of Bread, and fo the whole Subftance
of Bread is \^nting.
But Durandus calls vour Sentiment, holding Bread remains De Corp. &
after Confecration, the DoBrin of profane Novelty. Sang. Domini.
Suarez. and Faf^uez, treat Durandus ^ as one Divine doth a-
HOthers Opinion. But you might have well omitted their
names, for one that is moderately learn'd in Divinity, knows
how copioufly they both ihew from Scripture and Fathftrs, the
Roman Catholic Doffrin.
Occham. You have not faithfully delivered this Divine's An- in. 4.Sent,q,<f.
thority, who thus anfwers to the fecond Query. I fay that in
the Sacrament is true Tranfubfantiation, ^Itan eft vera
Then he delivers four manners of underftandingthisTran-
fubftantiation. i. That the Bread mity remain with the Body.
2. That the Subftance of the Bread may fuddenly be removed
away. 3. That it may return to Mitter the common fubjeft of
all, or receive fome other Form. 4. That it may be reduced
to nothing. He admits all four as poflible. The firft man-
ner he prefers in thefe words, which are your
Objeaion, The firft manner may be held., becaufe Occham. Ibidem. Primus Mt*
it is neither repugnant to Reafimy nor to Scripture^ dus p»t»ft tmeri, quia von repug-
and it more rt^onabky and eafier than the other p" Mthritati
(three)
( 24)
(three) mamerf.Thefe are Scholaftic Opinions.
And therefore this Divine leaving them, ad-
heres to the true fenfc of Tranfubftantiation
in thefe following words; Tet hecaufe we find ex-
tant the Churches aeterminatton contrary to this eX'
fofition, and all DoBors univerjally hold that tht
jubfiance of Bread remains not there^ (in the Sa-
crament •, ) Therefore I alfo hold, that the fub-
fiance of Bread remains not, but the fpecies of Bread,
and with this outward fhape of Bread coexifient
the Body ofChrifi. Will voLi acknowledge what
this Divine holds and profefies ?
Gabriel Biel. You have corrupted Bkl,
Thefe'are his words-, Although it be exprefiy deli-
vered in Scripture that the Body of Chrifi is truly
contain'd under the fpecies of Bread, yet we find not
exprefs in the Canon of the Scripture, hew the Bo-
dy of Chrifi is there, whether by converfion of fotne
thing into himfelf or whether without converfion,
the Body begins to be with the Bread, the fubfiance
and accidents of Bread remaining.
This Author is fo far from fpeaking, what you force him to
lay, as to any thing exprefi'ed in Scriptpre, a man may believe that the
fubfiance of Bread and Wine doth remain after conjecration-, that he i
proves®we ought to believe the contrary fenfe contained in Scrip-
cure. And this upon two accounts.
I. Although the manner of Chrift's exiftence in the Sacra-
ment,be not in this Divine's opinion,evidently couch'd, yet it is
lufficiently particularized, in the Canon of the Scripture. For
if this which was Bread, is Chrifi's Body, according to our Savi-
OLir's words this is my Body., and CJirilt's true Body be there ex-
preilv delivered in Scripture, as Biel affirms, it neceffiarily fol-
ows, that the Subftancc of Bread is changed. For how'can this
(which was Bread) be Chrift's true Body, and not lofe its own
fubftance?
1. He expounds.the Scripture after this fafne manner from
the LateVan Council, St. Aufiin,i St^ Ambrofe,
IticLem. Ex his & aliis phtrimis and then concludes. From tbefe and many other
jiuthoritatikw Sanfforum haheiur, authorities of Saints, 'tis held that the Body of
quod Corpus Chrifii efl in Sacra- Qhrifi ts ttt the Sacrament by Tranfubfiantiation of
the
Bihlia, ^ efl rationaiilior, ^fa-
cilior ad tenendum inter omnes mo-
dot
Siuda tamen determinatio
Ecclefi<e in contrarium exiflit, ficut
patet extra de fumm. Trin. de Fid.
Et commimiter omves DoBeres
ten.nt quod ibi non remanet fub-
Jfantia pants, idea etiam teneo quod
non remanet ibi fubflantia pants,
fed ilia fpecies, & quod sUi caexiflat
Corpus Chrifi.
Biel in Canon MifTas, Le£l. 40.
^uamvis exprcjfe traaatur in Scrip-
tura quod Chrifi Corpus fub fpecie-
bus pants continetur, tamen quomo-
do ibi fit Chrifi Corpus, an per
converfionem alicujus in ipfum, aut
fine converfione incipiat effe Corpus
Chrifii cum pasie, tnanenlibus fub-
ftantia & accidentia pants, non in-
tisnitur exprejfum in Canone Biblise.
jpV'-
iftani
!»(/«
Wii-
Klh.
.(i(*r
4'
/li,1
'iflil
l/lkl
frr\
%
at
»ik
ik
]k
to
vet!
ie.:
ari'
E:
i:
■M'
?(»
fra
nk
I III
\»
mento, per TranfubJiantiatitHetn fu6'
Jlatitiie panis ^ vini in Corpus
Sanguinem Chrifii.
McI. Canus dc Jocis Q>iii. 1. i £.
c. 13.
Extat apud Ltecatn Ssriptum *•
pertijpmum Tefiimoninm ad hujus
rei Prohitionem.
( 25 )
tht fub(iance of Bread and Wine into the Body and
Blood of Chrifi. Does this favour the Prote-
ftants ?'
You named, but expreffed not Melchior
Canus's authority, who fays, the Body and
Blood of Chrifi "was offered in the Sacrifice^ and
his proof is the evident Tefiimony of St. Luke.
This I think prejudices us not in the leaft.
Vetrus Ab Alliaco. Yoixh3.\tmilltc^t:c(tnx.cA Ab AUiaco^ who
difputing upon meer poiTibilities, propofes (among others) two
Queftions. Firil, Whether it is not poflible that the Body of
Chrilt may remain united to the fubftance of Bread in the Sa-
crament. Secondly, Whether the fubftance of Bread may
not be fuddenly removed away by divine power, the accidents
only remaining with Chrift's Body. This Divine thinks nei-
ther impoflible, and prefers the firft as more rational and con-
formable to Scriptures. Thefe are his words.
'Tis foffible the Body of Chrifi may affume the fub-
fiance of Bread, and this manner is not repugnant
to reafon, or to the authority of Scripture-, it is more
eafie and more rational than that manner, which
pretends the fubfiance of Bread leaves the accidents.
Now for the lecond. It is not impofflble to God,
thai thefubfiance of Bread may be fuddenly elfewhere
convey d, the fpecies remaining in the place coex-
ijlent to the Body of Chrif j this manner would not
be fo rational as the firf. All this is upon pof-
Abilities.
But not to enlarge in Scholaftic Opinions, when matters of
Faith are debated. Cannot I difpute of what is poflible, but
you will neccflarily deduce I deny the being of what is adu-
ally prefent ? If I Ihould fay, 'tis poflible God may create
another World, and People it with another Generation of
Creatures^ can-you deduce from this, that there is no necef-
lity of admitting ar^ Men alive at this prefent in the whole
Univcrfe ?
Cajetan, 'Tis true writ, the Scripture did not evidently en-
force the Roman Catholic Tenet. Great Wits Ipcak Ibme- in .4
times without conhderation. Yet the Good Cardinal rctraded
afterwards his Error in thefe words. Jf'e can prove Chriffs real
D i ^ J V727II*
pretence
Petrus ab Al. 4. Sent. q. S. Pif-
Jtbile ejl Corpus Chrijli affumere fub-
jiantiam panis, nec repugnat ratio-
ni, nec authoritati Bibliie j imo eji
facilior ad inteIHgendttm, ratio-
nabilior, qudtn iUe modus, qui ponit
quod fubfantia deferat accidentia.
Non eji impojjibile Deo, quod fub-
fiantia panis fubito fit alibi, renta-
nentibus fpeciebus in eodem loco, ir
eis coexiflere Corpus Cbrifii. IUe
tamen modus non effct ira rationa-
hilis, fcut prius-
(26)
prefenct from the "Words of the Gofpel. And thus in fomc manner
amended, as Soto remarks, what was before amifs.
You inftance the words you objedt out of Cajetan, in the Ro-
man Edition, are expunged hy order of Pope Pius P'. I Anfwer, a
worthy remark to demonftrate the vigilancy of the Roman See
was not wanting to blot out Innovation in its very firrt ri(e and
appearance.
Gonf. cap. Biihop Fijhery that glorious Martyr of the Church of Rom,
Baby, c. lo. confcffcth, Iff cannot prove from the bare "words of Scripture, that
Priefts conjecrate the true Body and Blood of Chrijl.
I ihall not difpute whether this concern our prefent Contro-
verfie or not •, but Tie beg 5^ou'll take the following Explication
of the Pious Biihop ^ that is, continues the holy Martyr in the
fame place, not becaufe this thing is now doubt-
a""^ ful, but becaufe the certainty of this Doclrin cannot
Jit, Jea quod ejus certituao, non tarn J ' i d n i r i t t /• i
habeatur exEvmgelti verbis, qudm be gathered fo pongly from the bare words of the
Patrum Interpretatioiie, fimul & Gojpd, AS from the Father's Interpretation, toge-
tifa tanti temporis, quern illi pofte- fher with the continued practice of jo long a time Jur-
ns rehquerimt. 'viving in fucceeding Poflerity.
The bleffed Bilhop gives us this reafon, why he provoked to
the Fathers, kf any one jhould (fays he) pertinacioufy adhere to the
pure words of Scripture, defpifng Fathers Authorities, as Luther
did.
Cap. 4. dc cap. If this will uot fuffice,rie tranflate, when you require it, the
Eabyi. Adu. Pourth Chapter of this fame Book", wherein Bifliop Fipr
Oecoianip. proves the Bread changed into ChrilPs Body from the three E-
vangelifts. And Tie rank your Objedtions colleded from L«-
thefs Inftances, and Oecolampadius's Objections on one Page, and
on the oppofite place Bilhop Fiper's Solutions to them both in
vindication of the Roman Catholic Affertion.
I finifh this Scholaftic Difceptation with this Querie,Whether
you would not think it weaknefs in me difputing for Tranfub-
llantiation, to ufe in my own defence thefe words of yours,
p?ge n. which fomewhat favour my undertaking. I readily ackm-w-
ledge the Fathers do, and that with great reajon, very much magnifp,
andfre^uently fpeak of a great Sacramental Change made by the Divine
BenedtBion. If from hence I fhould vigorouiiy affert, you gran-
ted the Fathers were for the Subftantial Change, becaufe lince
you admit a wonderhil Change made by the Divine BenediCti-
and that the Species remain unaltered, the Change muft be
ackuow-
( 27 )
ackiiov/ledgcd in the Subftanccof Bread and Wine ^ would you
not condemn this wcaknefs, and appeal to the other parts of
your Treatife to manifeft this Impoffibility ? And yet all chefe
Schoolmen aftually write (in thole very Places you mention) a-
gainft the Seftarifts, or Roman Oppofers. And almoft every
one of them, produce from Scripture and Fathers, more Rea-
fonsfor, than you have done ObjedionsagainftTranfubftanti-
ation. I appeal to your own Judgment confcious of this Truth.
And you know, that if you do follow their Writings, and imi-
tate the Religion, they profefled and died in, you muft declare
your fclf a Member of the Roman Catholic Church.
C H A P. II.
Whether there be any reafon to underfiani our Saviour''s tvords contrary
' to the fenfe of Tranfubfiantiation.
YOU arc fure there are a great manyReafons ^ and are not
leant of them. Thefe may be reduced to live Heads,
Parables, Similitudes, the Context of St. Matthew^ St. Vauho
the Corinthians, and the Silence of the Apoftles at the Inftituti-
on. I follow this order, and examin in fo many Articles,
thelc conhderable Realbns againll Tranfubftantiation.
Article I.
Whether Varables exclude the finje of Tranfubfiantiation.
TIS a Maxim among Divines, No Efficacious Argument c^i
can be drawn from Parables. This Calvin acknow- c. ij. p.'/i.
ledges. And St. Aufiin goes farther, admo- ' '
milling the DonMs, tfer to endeavour an e- »
Itablilliment ot Dogm s from Scriptural Paffa- dogmata Us qui jiium -vd obfcur^,
ges, which are obfcure, or ambiguous, ot figurative: ambigue w/ figurati dicmtur
which if true, the fenfe of Tranfubftantiation,
will not in the leaft be prcjudic'd, by your Objedions from
Parables.
Y on firfl: objed this Parable of Chrift. I am the Door. Jan- John i o.
fwer the yth verfe explicates. I am the Door of the Sheep. And
he 6ch verfe. This Farable [pake Jefus unto them. What more
D 2 prcffing
08)
prcfling a figurative imderftanding of this paflTagCj 7 am the door ?
But when we read^ This is my Body^ we cannot ovcr-fee_, ivhicb
Jhall be given for you, which maintains die Reality.
You inftance, Chrift faid, 7 am the true Vine; I anfwer, the Q-
riac interprets, 7 am the Vine of truth. Defcend to the 5tn Verfe,
and Chrift fays, 7 am the Vine, z^^you are the Branches: both a fiill
Atteftation of a Parable. But where Tefus tells me, the.Bread
"which I will give is my Flejh^ and that Fleftl which 1 will ^ive for
the life of the World^ what more conclufive for the Catholic
Interpretation ? -
You urge, St. Taul fays,- Ye are the Body of Chrift. I an-
fwer; the Apoftle declares, Verfe 13. we are fpirituallyFor
by one Spirit we are baptiz,ed into one Body. But where "Chrift faid,
my Fiefs is meat indeed^ I find added many repetitions which in-
creafe a confirmation of the true Stibftance.
You finilh, They drank of the Rock which followed them,
and that Rock was Chrift.
lanfwer, you are afraid to be juft, excluding the word
tual. For we read, v. 3. Our Fore-fathers all eat the famefpiri-
tual Meaty v. 4. and did drink all the fame fpiritual Drink for they
drank of that fpiritual Rock, and that Rock was Chrifl. What if for
a threefold word. Spiritual, in the precedent, I find a triple evi-
dence of the true fubftance of Chrift in the Sacrament, which
neceflarily requires the ftridly literal and divine fenfe of our
Bleflfed Saviour's words ? St. Luke confirms, which is fhed for
you. St. Mark, fhed for many. St. Matthew, for the remifjlon of
fins.
Article II.
Whether Similitudes exclude the fenfe of Tranfubflantiatien.
IF it be well known, as you write, that in the Hebrew Language
things are commonly faid to he that which they do fignifie •, It is not
lefs evident,that the four Similitudes you heap together,are not
prejudicial to the Catholic Expofition of our Saviour's words.
Thefe Similitudes fhall be delivered in fingle Paragraphs.
Paragraph
( 2? )
Paragraph I.
Similitude of Pharao'; Dream.
YO U 0bjc£b, Jofefh^ expounding Pharao's Dream to him,
fays, Tbe [evengood Kim are feven Tears.
I anfwer : We confider fome things as Signs, and others as
Subftances. The Sign is reafonabJy called the Thing, and yet
it is not, what it reprefents ^ fo the Portrait of a King, is faid
to be the King, that is, only reprefents his Majefty. But if we
confider a thing as a Subhancc,we cannot in common Language
affirm, it to be, what it is not. So Prudence will not give us
leave to fay, a Pen is Paper, becaufe a Pen is not reckon'd a^
mong reprefentative Signs. Jofeph reafonably affirm'd the [even
Kine are [even Tears^ and fo Pharao underftood him that they
were feven in Reprefentation, becaufe they both knew the di-
fcour fe was of Signs, as the Scripture teftifies, ver. 13. And Pha-
raoh faid unto yojefb, in my Dream, heboid I food upon the bank of the
Ri'ver, and behold there came up out of the River feven Kine.
Our Saviour's Exprefiion, this is my Body^ is as far diftant
from this Example, as the real inffitution of the Sacrament,
from the Narrative of a Dream-, and therefore ought not to be
undcrflood as the like Expreflion. But what connexion be-
tween Pharaohs Dream, and the chan^ of Bread in the Sacra-
ment ? As much as betwixt the fame Dream and our Saviour's
being Subftantially Man. If I Ihould then argue thus, as you do,
Jofeph called the feven Kine., feven Years (which Language is ufual a~
mong the Hebrews) that is, fignified feven Years, and fo would a~
ny man of fenfe under ft and the like expreffion: Therefore when
St. John fays the PPord was made Fiefs, that is, was a Figure of a
Man or Phantafm, is fuch a Dedudion, that no Language bur
Hebrew can be able to make it out.
Paragrapii
(3°)
Paragraph H.
Of one "who never beard of Tranfubfantialton.
TH 1S Similitude is very plcafant, as if we ftioirld go to Pa-
gaiis, to know what is our own Religion. However jott
believe,that he that never heard of Tranfuhfiantiation,'would never ima-
gine any fuch thing to be meant by our Saviour''s "words, I believe
a great Number of thefe who law our Saviour himfelfjdeny'd he
was God. You believe the Bread only lignifies Ch rift's Body,
becaufe you will bilieve fo ^ I diftinguilh what Chrift diftin-
guiihed ■, and becaufe he laid, this is my Body, I believe it was
his Body *, and becaufe he commanded us to do this hereafter,
for a memorial of his Death and Paffion, we obey him. Is ndt
this to follow Scripture ?
Yoil are fure it v/ould never have entred into any Man's
mind,to have thought, that our Sav'tour did literally holdhimfelf in
his hands, and give away himfelf from himfelf wit b his own hand.
And I am fure, what cannot enter into Man's thought, the DI-
vine power and Omnipotency can, and has operated.
It entred into St. Auftin^ mind, explicating this Scriptural
Paffage, as he thought, in the Scptuagint, he wns carried
in his hands. Thus to propofe your Objeflion.
Aug. m a . 5 ?. one. i. could this be underftood of Man .? for who is
^mmodo niuuigttur in tpjo Da- i - , j ,•> A u
<vidficundum liter am nm invent, carried m his oivn hands ^ a Man may be fuppor ted
THUS, in Chrijlo autem inyenimus. in Others hands, none is the burthen of his own
Ferebatur .enim Cbrifius in mani- hands. The Saint AnfwerS : We find not the li-
bus, qnando commendans ipfum Cor- feral fenfe fulfilled in David, in Chrifi we acknow-
fusfuum,ait, sac eji orpusmeum. Ig^gg ■f'Qy was carried in his hands, when
recommending his own very Body, he faid, this is my Body, for he car-
ried that Body in his hands.
It entred into the thought of our BlelTed Redeemer to make
ufe of the like Argument, before he gave us the Promife, of gi-
ving himfelf entirely in the Sacrament. For did he not in that
miraculous Multiplication of five Loaves, in the lixth Chapter
John. (. of St. John, feeding five thoufand Perfons, give the five Loaves
„ . r . in fome manner from the Loaves themfelves ?
jJce'dZ] &J2lTfeLpfr7^ Fragments fays St. Hilarie , fucceeded to
fraciii frangentes. Fragments, ana always broken, always deceived
the
( 31 )
the Breaker's hand. For tlic Qtiantity of five Loaves was given, Raban. dc
and the like Quantity iHll remained. Which Rabamts thus ele- Sang. Dom.
gantly exprefM, they -were tnultiplied by being dtmmjhed.
This Argument of out" Bleffed Saviour, if ip did not con-
vince the Obflinate Jews, it ought to prevail with Chriftians,
or at leaft filence them from laying, how can he give himjelf
from himfelf.
Paragraph III.
Similitude of the Vajjbver.
YO U compare with our Sa^n'our's words, the ancient Form
of the PafTover, ufcd by the Jews from Ezsrah time, as
St. Juftin Martyr, tells US, This Pajfover is our
Saviour and our Rfuge-, 'Not that, fiy you, they S^.Juftin.DialcumTryjsho p.ap;.
believed the Pafcal Lamb, to be fubjiantially changed ^ "
into God, who delivered them, out of the Land of
Egypt, or into the Adejjias, whom they expebled.
Strange method! and dangerous way of allegation! tending
to the depreflion of Chriftianity. Our blelled Saviour and the
Divine ApoftJes verify the fincere and literal truth of the new
Tellamentj as figuratcd, and lymbolized in the Law, Prophets
and Pfaims: and you fcrupling this Order, Judaize with the
Hebrews, and will have the Law of Grace figurative, becaufe
the written Law is full of Similitudes and Reprefentations.
And ftranger remark of yours, that the Jews did not believe the
Pafchal Lamb changed into God or the Meffias. How could they
imagine the Lamb changed into God, when they knew, God Maiac. ?.
could not receive the leaft alteration, I am the'Lord, and not
changed? or into the Meffias,when change of one thing into an-
other fuppofes both their exiftences, and the Meffias was not
yet born?. The Ifraelites only then could believe the PafTover
a bare Reprefentation, to put them in mind of that Salvation,
which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt.
But if St. Juftin fay. The Pajfover u our Saviour^ would yoU
defire a more plain expofition, than the very following word^,
that is, our Refuge ? ' Kdl<x^dyii »"
And it this Speech of St. Juftin^ were in it fclf fomewhat ob-
fcure. This Pajfover ts our Saviour-, The lame Ceremonie deli-
vered
(32)
vercd in Exodus by Mofis varying the Phrafe of the Paffover, is a .
fure Rule for underftanding any fuch like Expreflion upon this
Exod. II. account. For there we read, it is the Lord's Paffover. The Sep-
W tuagint tranllate. It is the VaJJover to'the Lord. Nor was this Ex-
preffion unknown to the Hebrews, The Tajfover to the Lord.
' m.T'?
Paragraph IV.
Similitude of a Deed.
YO11 tell us that a Deed or Writing under-Hand and Seal,
is the conveyance of a real Eftate, and truly and really to aU
effeSfs and purpofes of Law, as if the 'very material Houje and Lands
themfelz/es, could he, and were a^lually delivered into your hands.
If our Caufe were pleaded at the Bar, the Law, it feems,
you think, would make us the lofers. But if Scriptures be the
Sentence, I know not why we ftiould refufe to acknowledge
what God is plcafed to beftow on us. He tells us what he gives,
Corpw mttim. is his own Body •, why will you not believe him ?
And to come clofe to your Ob)e£tion, Do you not by the
palling of the Deed really and truly receive the Pofleflion of the
Subftantial Houfe, Lands, and Revenues in Specie? You
would little value the Writing, if you did not. Solikewife
the Sacrament conveys to the Receivers, the Poffeflion of the
Subftantial Body and Blood of our Saviour.
Article III.
Upon the Context of St. Matthew.
YO LI pretei^ that it was true Wme which our Saviour drank of,
and communicated. I Anfwer, not after Confccration. You
urge our Saviour faid ^ I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the
Vine, this was true Wine. I Anfwer, that although we cannot
colled from St. Matthew clearly, whether thefe laft words of
our Saviour belonged to the Confecrated or not Confecrated
Wine, yet that clearnefs which St. Matthew's fhortnefs feems to
want, St. Luke abundantly fupplies, defcribing the order of the
Paffover, and delivering the Inftitution of the Sacrament. So
where we read in St. Matthew ? I will not drink of the fruit of the
Vine:
Oiip, i6.
Chap. 11.
^
(3?)
Vhte: St. Luke Interprets, and his Interpretation Is true, the
fruit of the Vine before Confecration, at the Supper of tlie
Paffovcr. With dejire^ fays our Saviour^ 1 have dejired to eat this
TaJJover with you before I fujfer. For I fay unto you^ I will not any
more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And he
took the Cuf, and gave thanks, andfaid, take this and divide among " .
your felves, for Ifay unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the Fine,
untifl the Kingdom of God jhall come. Is not this a plain repetition
of St. Matthew's words ? And here ended the Paffovcr or Paf-
chal Supper. The Inftitution of the Sacrament immediately
followed while they fate at Table, and therefore St. Luke con-
tinues •, And he took Bread likewife alfo the Cup after Supper,
faying. This Cup is the New Tejlament, in my Blood, which is fhed for
you. Here is the Euchariftic Cup, which had nothing to do with
the fruit of the Vine that was ufcd before Confecration at the
Pafchal Supper.
Article IV.
The Senfe of St. Paul to the Corinthians^ i Cor. 104
Thus St. Vaul fpeaks of this Sacrament. The Cup of Blef-
fing which we blefs, is it not the Communion of the Blood of
Chrifi .? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the
Body of Chrifi ?
Thefe words, the Bread which we break, fignifie the Sacrament
For inftead of tliem, we read in the ABs of^the Apofiles, accor-
ding to the Syriac Verhon, the Eucharifi.
Now*for the meaning of the word Communion. Some will have
it to be taken for Difinbution. Thus the word Communion, is equi-
valent to doth Communicate, and makes this Senfe •, The dtfiribution
of the Sacrament, doth it not communicate to us the (true) Body of
Chrifi ? Thus_ if I ftould fay, that the diftribution of Bread in
ufual eating, is the Communion of Bread, would not any Man
of Senfe underftand this to be meant of true Bread ?
Others, notwithftanding this natural Expolition, in die be-
half of the Roman Catholic Affertion, will have the word
Communion, to lignific the Subfiance of Bread. If it muft lignifie
Subfiance, let US deal fairly, and in the place of Communion, fubfti-
tute the word Subfiance •, and fo we fliall eafily fee to what this
Subfiance belongs. The Bread which we break,is it not the *Subftance *Cc;nmunio%
of the Body of Chrifi ? E Neither
( 34)
Neither cAn the Church of Rome as well argue from the fol- Juif"'
lowing Verfe 17. For ive being many are one Bread, and one Body j
that all Chriftians are fubftaiitially chang'd, frfi into Bread, andtChtlf't
then into the Natural Body of Chrifi, as you will have it-, Becaufe Cinf ^
YouK
jdris 1.3.0,
;»Cor. ii»
lanf'
liisiiifj
Nordi'i'
we fee no Reafon in the World for this. And the Divine Apo-
ftle inftru6ts us otherwife, declaring the precife and only Rea-
y Ibn of this Unity For n^e are all Partakers of the lame Body,
'Tis Participation, not any Subftantial Change in our felves
makes us one in Chrift. Nor is a prefling Example wanting
in the Apoftle, to the fame purpofe are not they (the Pagans)
which eat of the Sacrifices, Partakers of the Altar ?
You inftance, the fame Apoftle fpeaking of the Confecration
of the Elements, ftill calls them the Bread, and the Cuf, in three ^jxnM
Verfes together. ^ ^ |iK£to*
This is Acute and Subtile. But each Witty Contrivance.is
not true. It is not true, St. Paul calls the Confecrated Elements,
the Bread and the fVtne. Wc read indeed in three Verfes toge-
ther, the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharift, as of-
ten as you eat this Bread', and this is all we read which mayiioii',
be faid without any prejudice to the Subftantial Change. And
this for two Reafons, both didated by the Holy Ghoft. Firft,' N(
By reafon of the outward appearance of Bread. Secondly, Be- Ijih
caufe it formerly was Bread. _ _ to be
The Firft Reafon St. Luke authorifes in the ABs. Behold tivoy I
iNmi
Ezod. 7.12.
000
Jlden flood by them in white aoparel. Here the bare Name of Man
is attributed to Angels, ana Angels are only Men in appearance.
The Second Reafon is deduced from two Subftantjal Con-
vcrlions. We read in Exodus, They cafl down every Man birRvd,
and they became Serpents, but Aaron's Rod JwaHowed up the Rods of
the Magicians. And in St. fohn, v/hen the Ruler of the Feafl had
tafled the Water that was Wine. He tafted Water, and the Wa-
ter was Wine-, The Serpent is called a Rod, and was a Ser-
pent: becaufe the Serpent, and the Wine, were formerly a Rod
and Water. ^ u
It is then true, that the bare Name of bread may be attribu- |
ted to the Eucharift without any prejudice of the Subftantial
Change of Bread into the true Body of Chrift.
And if it be not true that St. Paul fays, the Confecrated Ele-
ments are Bread and Wine -, it is true that St. Paul calls the
^nfecratcd Bread ChrifPs Body. Jefus took Bread, and when he
~ bad
(3S)
5"*^ had given thanks^ brake it ^ and faid, take, eat, ^St.dhryC H/e 7} ^ S}i S dpJQ-,
this is my Body, which is broken for you. So does Xe/rS.
^^^St.Chryfofiom', What is the Breads the Body of w'
Chrifi. So does St. Ambrofe-, This Bread is Fle(h,
Jiiiiew, You refumCj this is my Body which is broken, cannot be literal-
■ ly under flood of his Natural Bodybrokerij becaufe his Body was
then whole and unbroken.
I anfwer, how can you contradid our Saviour, who fays ^
this is my Body which is broken ? And if it be Chrifl's Body, 'tis
his real Body: for he had no Phantafm or imaginary Body.
Nor did I ever hear that Chrift had two real Bodies. But the "
fame Body may have two different exiffences,. a Natural, and
'1^^ Supernatural Exiftence. For if God can give a Natural Exi-
flence to what is not, can what is, hinder God from adding a
riraiM Supernatural Exiflence ?
ilenc Now chefe Words, which is broken, cannot be underftood of
rfsKf the Namral Exiftence of our Saviour's Body hanging on the
f) 41 Crofs, for there his Body was unbroken-, whence that of St.Chry~
liJjffll fifiom, we may Jee this in the Euchariji , and the contrary on tne Ibidem. Os
^ ® Crofs, His bones Jhall not be broken. jus nun conte-
E Nor is it hard to conceive, how the Body of Chrift may be
faid to be broken in the Sacrament. For as a Subftance is faid
to be viftbie, by reafon of the viftble accidents which environ
Ak it 5 Thus we commonly fay, I faw a Man, and yet nor Soul,
x.'li nor Subftance of the Body, but only the fhape and outward
KM appearance of the Subftance, was the objed of the Eye. So
'iU likewife Chrift'sBody in the Sacrament, takes the denominati-
M on of broken from the Species of Bread, which is truly divided.
kh
H Article V.
[tkS
erd The Silence of the Apofiles at the Infitution.
■Jib
YOU ought not to be furprifed if the Difciples (frequently
full of C^ieftions and Objeftions) fhould make no difficulty
taffi of this matter, when our Saviour inftituted the Sacrament:
not fo much as ask our Saviour, How can thefe things be ? or tell him,
tdEl We fee this to be Bread and Wine, and thy Body difiinB from both.
ist My reafon is, becaufe when the Jews and the Difciples were
nil), blamed for thefe inquiries, at the promife of our Saviour j
' i . E 2 • the
(3^)
the Apoftlcs (ajlifted with Divine Grace) ^ve credit to our Sa-
viour's Word^. And if they believed the Promife, why ihould
they be difquietcd at the Inftitution ?
We read after thefe words in St. John^ (where the Promife of
Chrift in the Sacrament is given, The Bread which I widgi-ve is my
Flejh:) This Paffage, the Jews therefore firove amongfl tbemfehes,
faying, how can this man give us his Flefi to eat ?
This Jewifti Oppofition was feconded with the murmur of
Chrill's Difciples, many therefore of his Difcivtes when they had
beard this, faid. This is an hard faying, who can hear it ?
This murmur after all our Saviour's Arguments to fettle the
Jews in the belief of what was promifed,ended in a plain defer-
tion or leaving of Jefus, from that time many of his Difciples went and
' walked no more with him.
Here is the relu£lancy you fought for, and the Objeftions
you demanded in the Apoitles. But do you think this Refiftance
was laudable in the Jews? Do you believe this Oppofition was
■commendable in the Difciples ? Or rather, to be dirturbed at
our Saviour's Ordination and Affertion, Is it not the beginning
of Incredulity? And yet for all this, you raife Senfc, andere6t
it as an Idol to the Peoples Devotions. Bewitching Senfe!
wliofe Allurements intice thegreateft Integrity of Nobletl: Souls,
and would win too their Thoughts,! fiefs than a God interpofed.
Hence this Speech of St. Hilary^ that great
L. I. St. Hil. <Je Trin. c. 8. De Perfccutor of Arianifm. There is folly in deck-
rueritate Carnis & Sanguinis ejus ring for Jefus Chrift^ bad We notreceived from him,
non reMus eJl ambigenit hcus, this Lejjbn of Truth. Jefus fays the Bread « fr«.
andye Wine « lr«l, Blood- aftt, thi,
re Sanguis efl. Declaration ther s left no place to doubt of the verity
of his Flefi and Blood.
St. Amb. de Abra. Patriarcha, St. Ambrofe OppofeS tO the reftlefs importU-
Quam indignutn eft HumanisTefti- nicy of Senfe, the ptefOgative of the Deity-,
tntntts de alto credamus, Det ora- asking of God what We expeEi from man. rea-
cults efernncre amns. fonof thingsy we fhould entrench upon Divine Pre^
rogatives.. And what more unworthy than to believe men in Tefimonies
they give one of another, and to defpife God in thofe he fpeaks of bimfe If?
St ChryC hie, St. Chryfojlom adds, iVe fpeak of God^ and you ask how this can be ?
liiex 0£» do you not tremble at the excefs of your Temerity ?
4jiUTn{ i ^ "A ftidbt'/letS) #eh IfeAieiS*- J
Our
<' 37 )
Out Bleffed Saviour himfelf reprehended his Difciples, fol- John (f. Sz:
lowing what Senfc fuggefted at the propofal of the Sacrament,- in
thefe wordsjj^of^ ths offend you ?
Finally, The pious Chriftian guides his unruly Senfe in the
journey towards Heaven, by the Ikady Reyns of true Faith.
Thus the Apohles overcoming their own ftubbornefs,_be-
came fupple and obedient to God's Promife and Power, infi-
nitely adtive beyond Human Imagination, and they all joyned
in St. Peter^s confeilion. And we believey and are fitre thou art Chrifi Verfe ffp.
the Son of the living God.
Thus Divine Faith another time prevailed with St. Pefer Matth. 14.
(when Senfe, Reafon, and the fury of the Sea, contradided)
to prefs the Waves with his Feet •, and hardned the watry E-
lement, into a folid Paffage. The way to Heaven is ftill by
Faith.
From all which it muft needs be very evident to any Man,who'
will pioully fearch into Truth," how little reafon there is to un-
derftand our Saviour's Words otherwife than in the fenfC-of
T ranfubftantiation.
SECT. ir.
Of the perpetual helief of this Do^rh in the Chriftian' -
Church.
I Have already manifefted how tlie Roman Catholic Church,
rightly pretends as an evidence, that the Fathers of the Pri-
mitive Ages interpreted our Saviour's Words in the fenfe of
Tranfubftantiation. But what Authors have been fo fortunate in
their Writings, that the contrived endeavours of others, have
not cull'd out fome places, not fo dark in themfelves, as they
are ftiaded with fmoth^ed Reprefentations ? Thefe your In-
duftry, with no fmall incrcafe, has compadfcd' together. Af-
ter this great Task, you are pleafed to fhew, when the Doilrin
of Tranfubftantiation firft came in. And finally, you undertake
to give a Solution to the pretended Demonftration of Mr. Ar-
f7aM a learned man in France. Thefe three Subjeds lhall be
the.Mattter of fo nwy Chapters.
CHAR
( 38 )
. C H A P. I.
IVhether ai^ of the Fathert are again(i Tranfuhfiantiation,
REfledion is the caufe of Knowledge: Divifion leads to Re-
fledion. I'll therefore divide your feleded Teftimonies,
that they may be the confideration of fo many diftind Articles.
Article 1.
Upon St. Juftin Martyr.
» "V7" OH begin unfortunately with St.
\ X whom you make exprejly to fay, that our
oKtiy ^ye^ocj hloodandflefiarenourijhedbytheconverfionofthat
Food^ -which we receive in the Sacrament,
I find "no fuch thing in the holy Martyr. 'Tis true, I read
thefe words. By which Food (jchangd in our Bodies, i(f - fjutloc-
SoAiiv) our Blood and Flejh are nouriped. What then? Bread
and Wine taken out of the Sacrament, nouriih, according to
this Paflage, Flefli and Blood, which all the World will allow
of. And I fliall believe St. fufin fays no more, till you can
prove it from the Saint's own Teftimonie. But why do I fay
Teftimonie, when the Paflage you cite, is nothing but a bare
Parenthefis ? I could heap up a great many fuch weaknefles,
colleded out of your Difcourfe, it the World were not already
too much troubled with fuch trivial Refledions. I'll take Li-
berty to add one more confiderable, viz. If natural digeftion
can change Bread and Wine into the proper Subftance of our
Bodies, how eafy will it be to Nature's Author, to change one
thing into another. Bread into the Body of Chrift ? Nor can
any moderate Man imagin any thing lefs, when the Devil
himfelf tempted Chrift to change one Subftance into another.
Stones into Bread, as a Stratcgem to find out, whether he was
God.
Look likewife into the Book of Genefis^ and you'll find that
the fole Word of God, gave, in the beginning of Creation, a
Being to all Nature : and how much more difltcult is it, to
make all things of nothing, than to change one thing into ano-
ther ?
(3?)
cher ? Does not this evidence the poffibility of Tranfubftantia-
don ? I thank you for this Objedion.
Article II.
Upon St. IreniEUS.
NO R are you more-fortunate in St. Irenaus, who fpeaking L. 4. c. jr.
of the Sacrament, fays. Bread "which is from the Earth
recei'ving the Divine Inz>ocation, is now no longer common Bread, but the
Euchartfl, conjifiing of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly.
For, what is earthly, may not unfitR be called the fpecies of
Bread and what is neavenly, Chrilt himfelf. Or what if I
fliould attribute this earthly thing to Chrift's Humanity, and
the heavenly thing to Chrift's Divinity, the Sacrament would
be rightly faid, confifiing^of two things, the one earthly, the other
heavenly ? I am hire tlieProper Subftance of Bread, is nothing
but Common Bread •, And yet St. Irenaus affirms, this ceafes af-
ter Confecration •, receiving the Divine Invocation, 'tis no longer
Common Bread, it is not what it was before.
You inftance, and elfewhere he hath this Paflage-, when L. y. c. z.
therefore the Cup that is mixt, and the Bread that is broken, receives
the iVord of God, it becomes the Eucharif of the Body and Blood of
Chrif, of which the fubfiance of our Fle(h is increafed, and fubjijis.
St. Irenaus difcourfes not here of a natural, but of fome fpiri-
tual increafe of Flefti and Blood. For he fays, our Flefi is in-
creafed with the Bread, as it becomes the Body and Blood of
Chrift, in which fenfe precifely, 'tis only fupernatural Food.
Bread, as it is fupernatural Food, or the true Body of Chrift:
in the Sacrarnent, increafes the Soul with Grace •, and Fleffi
and Blood with a Legitima^ of Immortality. Thefe two
great Benefits are neatly delivered, as the proper efteds of
Chrift's fubftantial prefence in the Sacrament,
in thefe words of the Nyjfene Dodor j As the
dire confequence of Poyfon is by Counterpoyfon pre-
vented-, fo the wholfome remedy, which operates
our Salvation, entring the Bowels of Man, thence
every-where diffufes its force' and vivifcation.
PFhat is this (wholfome) remedy ? That Body
which Jefus exhibited fironger than Death, and
Catech j 7. Oportet autem Jlcut
txitiale, ita etian falutare medi-
camentum admitti intra vifcera he-
minis, at per ilia diftrihuatar in
univerfum Corpus,, virtus ejus quod
fert opem. ^uid hoc ergs eji ? ni-
hil aliud quam iUud Corpus, quod
morte oftenfam fait efe potentius
(ij- noftra Vitcefuit initiuin.
which
'I
( 40 )
which was the hepming of Life. What can more evince Chrift's
fubftantial Prciencc, to be the produdtive Caufe of Sacramental
Cjracc, than to teftifie, this Adorable Body, which died for us,
is in ours, as a wholfome remedy, there communicating Vir-
tuc, and difpcnling heavenly Treafures ?
do is the lame true Body of Chrift prcfent in the Sacrament,
the caufe cffcdive of our future Incorruption in Glory ; and in-
crcafes in this fenfe the fubftance of Flelh and Blood, yrith a be-
de caui^t pey fii.t GratLt dtfi ginning of Immortality y as appears from
the following Lines of the lame Father. Jefusy
according to the dtjpen/dtion of Grace, enters by
Flejli into thofe who believe, mixing himfelf with
the Body of the Faithful, that Man may become
Partaker of Incorruption, by the union with this
Immortal Body.
This fccond benefit in St. Irenaus's mind increafes the Sub-
ftance of Flcfh and Blood, giving a beginning of rcfurredtion to
the Botiy • Or, to ufe this Saint's Example j
As a grain of Wheat dijj'olved. in earth, rifes by the
p07ver of God with much increafe j fa Fleflj and
Blood receiving in the Sacrament from the prefence
ofChrifs Immortal Body, the living Seed of Incor'
ruption, rife (when d/Jfolved by death') increafed
with Immortality.
This agrees well with St. Irenauss defign, demonftrating ill
the place objeded, that our Bodies are capable of Refurredion,
becaufe we receive in the Sacrament the true Body of Chrifl,
that Body which confifts of Flelh, Blood and Bones. How
can they deny, fays he, the Fle(h to be capable of the Gift of God?
For we are Members of his Body, of his Fief), and of his Bones. This
js not fpoken of a Spiritual or Metaphorical Man, for a Spirit has nei-
ther Bone nor Fiefi, but it is delivered according to
the difpofition of Man, which confifis of Flep, 6f
Nerves,and Bones,which is nourified with theCba-
lice, which is his Blood,and increafed with the Bread,
which is h'ls Body. Do not Flellt, Nerves,
Bones and Blood, belong to a true Subftantial
Body?
Apiid Occutn. Tou add St. Ireiixus'j words, preferved by Oecumenius, when the
in 1 Per. 3. Greeks had taken fame Servants of the Chrifiian Catecumem (that is,
fuch
penfattoncm, fe per Carnem inferit,
ornnibus (reAenttbia, cammiffia &
contemperatus corporibus creden-
tiurn, cjtiibtis fubJtafUia efl ess pane
dr* 'vine, ut nnione am eo quod ejt
zmmortale, ft etiatn hmao particeps
incorrnptionif.
St. Ircnaeiis. Sluemndmodutngra-
nam tritici decidens in terrain, O"
diffolutam multiplex Jurgit per Spi-
ritum Dei, fic ^ noflra Corpora
Corpore Chrijli nutrita df repofta
in terram, d" refoluta, refurgent in
fuo tempore.
* L. y. f.i. De ea difpofitione qua
ejl fecundtm hominem, qu.t ex Car-
tiibus & Nervis & OJfhus confjlit,
qu£ de Caltce, qui eft Sanguis ejus
liutritur, & de Pane, qui eft Corpus
ejus, augetur.
( 41 )
fiich as were difpofed, but not yet baptized ) and afterwards ur-
ged them by 'violence, to tell them Jome of the fecrets of the Chrtfiians.
Thefe Servants having nothing to fay, that might gratifie thofe who of-
fered violence to them, except only that they had heard from their Ma-
jlers, that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Chrijl-,
they thinking, that it was really Blood (indFlejh, declared as much to
thofe who quefffon^d them. Tl^e^ Greeks taking this di it really were
done by yhe Chriflians, difcovered it to others of the Greeks, who hers- ' '
upon put San£llis ^w^BlandlQa to the torture, to make them confejs it.
To whom Blandina boldly c^fwered, how would they endure to do this,
who ky "^^y of exercife (or abfinence) do not eat that Flejh which may
lawfully he eaten^
Now if we confidpr Blandinals Anfwei'j we fliall find therein
contained, a pious denyal of what was objeded, and a Chrifti-
an refer ve of what was received in the Sacrament, A pious denial
of eating the Fiefh and Blood of a Child, as the Greeks ( and
all Pagans) conteived, after a carnal manner, which ftiall be
more amply difcourfea hereafter. And this caufed Blandina to
fay. How could they be guilty of fuch a heinous eating ? who abftain,
uponfajling days from Fiefs which may lawfully be eaten ? A Chri-
ftian refcrve, not difcovering the Myftery to Pagans, which was
efteemed a betraying of Religion.
Thus Tharfhus the Acholyt, as vener^ablc Beda relates, having v. Bede Mar-
the blefled Sacrament about Iiim, was-feized on by theBarba- tyr, is.oar.
rians, and martyPd, becaufe he refufed to Ihew it.
St. declares the diRovery of the My- , , ,
fiery to thpfe who were not baptized, pafs'd not '' ^ '
V . a a- /-r r . rn^ r ■ -n i- Prodtdife potius quam edidife tx-
for an tnfruclion, but for a fort of Treafon tn Kelt- /yj,-
timaremur.
gion.
St. Cyril fays. We fpeak not clearlfif the Myftery to the Catecume- St. Cyril, Hier.
7ti, and we are often-tonflrained, to make ttfe of fuch Expreffons ■, Cat. 6.
which are under ft ood by the F aitfful inftrulted, and do not offend ether
Hftflants, Such was Blandina's Reply, which neither offended
the Greeks, nor betrayed the Myfiery.
i.|
■ a' !
■"■Si
m
P
Article
Sl. Ji &
(42)
Article III.
Upon Tertullian.
Marcion, Ertullian proves againft Adarcion^zs you write, the Heretique,
1. ^ p. 57. edit. ^ jhat the^ody of our SaviourjWas not a meer Phantafm and
Appearance, but a real Body, becaufe the Sacrament is a Figure^
and an Image of ha Body. His Words are thefe •, The Bread which
our Saviour took^ and gave to his Difciples, he made his own Body,
faying, this is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. But it could
not have been a Figure of his Body, if there had not been a true and
real Body. r r rr t ■
. , - , Tertullian, often fententious, and difficult in ex-
W;adLl. pr4m,^ U8Mh, an^t.
Tom. I. Creber infententiisdiff.ci- niay caiilybe miuindcritood, and milrepre-
Us in loquendo. fented.
This Father's defign here J is to confute the Mar cionites, who
defended that the God of the Old Teftament, was oppolite to
God the Father of Chrift, Author of the New Law. He makes
good this undertaking, proving the perfed agreement of both
TeftamentSj completed in Jefus, who did nof atelifli, but fulfil
the Law, when he changed the Shadow into a Body, the Figure
into Truth, As Tertullian ^irafes it, in his Fifth Book againft
ler Uitta- ^Tlfis Accompliftment he fliew'd from that of Jeremy, where
inuf lignum in we read how the Jews faiVned to the Crofs the Bread of Chrtft,
Panem ejus. jg ufg ^odj. This h"e evidenced, becaufe Bread in the Old
mac IS, n / Law, was a Figure of Chrift's Body. Tfiefc
Tertul 1.3. c 19. Contra. Marc, ^{5 Words, It is 7vhat God has revealed in
Sic enm Deus in Eycmgelto quoque Gofpel, calling Bread his Body, making
intelUgas "P"* reprefented in Bread, long before he fulpUed this Ft-
m dtdife, ctijus rftt^o Cerpus in Pa- gave from this very time (of the Prophecy)
ne Prophets Figttravis. • , Bread to be the Figure of his Body.
Thefe Words, Chrift gave the Bread, even from, the time of
Jerem)u to be the Figure of his Body, reprefenc Chrift as Mafter v
and thefe others, Jeremy reprefented in Bread the Body of Chrift,
exhibit the Prophet as Minifter. Both teftifie, that Brcad was
a Fisurc in the Written Law •, and the Subordination o'l Jeremy
" Ik t-rt
(43) _
to Jeffiy proves the concord of Chrift with the ancient Tcfta-
ment, which was TertuUian's peculiar Task.
The fame he purfues in the place by you cited, Bread^ (He Lib. 4.
made hie own Body, ^ Body^ ) that is, a Figure in
the Prophet of ChrifFs Body. This fenfc ^rees well with the
foregoing Tenor of this learned Father's Difcourfe. a. Thelc
following Words are another Confirmation, But it would not
have been a Figure of his Body, if there was not a true Body. He
does not fay, it was not a Figure, he fays, it would not have been
a Figure in the Old Law. 3. MarcionzTgutsioT yoVL, but why did
he call Bread his Body, and not fomething elfe i TertuUian anfwers,
that he argued thus, not knowing Bread was an Lib. 4. c. 40. Non intelligem
ancient Figure of the Body of Chrifi, as we learn teremfnife ijiam Figuram Corporis
from Jeremy. 4. He confirms the fame in chriftt dicenUs per ]ereTa\a.m.--
thefe Words, Tou may likewife acknowledge the autemir Sanguinis, veterem
Old Figure of Blood in Wtne. ^
It follows alfo from hence, that our Saviour's Body, was not
a Phantafm or an Appearance, which was another of the Mar-
cionits Errors, but a real Body ; not that the Sacrament, as
you would have it, but that Bread in the Old Law, as I have
demonftrated, was a Figure and Image of his Body in the Sa-
crament •, which muft be a true Body •, otherwife there is a Fi-
gure of a Figure, which your own party will not allow of.
JVor could it, adds TertuUian, have been a Figure of his Body, if there
had not been a true and real Body.
If for all this you will pretend, that as Bread in the Prophet
was a Figure, fo likewife is Bread ftill in theEucharift a Figure
of Chrift's Body-, I may without prejudice to the Catholic Be-
lief, humour you fo far, as to grant the Sacramental Bread is
a Figure, but a Figure joyned to the Reality. For if you will
fay, what you find not in TertuUian, that the Bread in the Sacra-
ment is a Figure of Chrifs Body, you cannot deny but you read in
this Father, that Chrift mah the Bread his Body, as we read in
St. John, he made IFater Wine. The Sacrament may then be a Fi-
gure, and the true Body.
Thus he proves the fame thing to be called a Figure, and
yet to be the fame fubftance, inftancing, the Word ts God, and L. t. contra
an Image too. The Catholic Church only difallows thofc Fi- 'fi
gures, which exclude the true Subltance of Chriffs Body pre- ^
fent in the Sacrament. ^ -vS
F 2 You
(44)
You urge a fecond Teftimony from the fame Author, ufing
L.de cap. 17. this Argument ag^ift the Sceptics, who re)e6ted the certainty
' V J of Senfe, He might be decei'ved in the voice from Heaven, in the fmell
of the Oyntment, ivith which he was anointed againft*hts burial, and
in the tafie of theWine, which he confecrated in theyimembrance of his
Blood. Thefe laft Words are fomewhat"
Non alium pojlea Vmi fapotem changed", TertuUian fa^^'s', he tafed not another
quod confecravit in Sanguinis fui r
confecrated in remem-
memorsam. ^ hrance of his Blood.
This learned Father eftabliflied two Principles, r. That
Chrill was truly Mam Arid a^'hat his Operations were real
like othe?^Mens. .v„
The Firft Verity, .was not here Tertullia^sTheme. .Tbis he
vindicated a.ga.in&J^arcion, wherg he proved that Chriif was
not a Phantafm, or AppearancSi'
; The Second Verity TertuUian here made good, againft the
'* Sceptics. F.cu: if the found of the Voice from Heaven was
not imaginary, if the Smell of the Perfume was not Odorife-
rous, and if tnc'-c was not another Taft of the W ine, which was
confecrated i'l remembrance of Chrift's Bloodthen thefe O-
perations of our Saviour were not diftinff from vulgar Senia-
tion, like thofe Impreffions other Men naturally receive, lin-
cere, real, and without delulion. All Catholics grant as much,
and none will deny the fameTaft of Wine after Confecration.
But the Taft is not the Subftance of Wine.
The Subftance of Wine is not here fpoken of. And the
knowledge of Subftance is the proper endeavour of Reafon.
Senfes care is to fearch into the certainty of Colour, Taft, Ac-
cidents and Appearances, which was Province againft
the Sceptics.
The whole Controverfie then between us is left by this Obje-
^fion entire and untouched.
*
Article IV.
XJfon Origen.
ORigen, on his Comment on St. Matthew^ fpeaking of the
Sacrament, hath this Paflage •, That Food which is fanBifed
hy the Word of God, and Prayer, as to that of it which is material,
goetb
^45) ■
goeth into the BeRji and is cajt cut into the Draughty which none furelj
will fay (as you remark^ of the Body of Chrift. ,
But feme have faid it of the Body of Chrid, which they
thought was conveyed under the lhape of material Accidents 6^
Bread into the Draught: which Senfe, if admitted to be On-
gen% the Learned Cardinal Beron might fay without 'injury, ' ^
Origeh talks like an Heretic. ♦ Pcron in Orig.
The fame Illuftrious Cardinal doubts whether this be^he
Work of Origen-., becaufe he fays, Erafmts was the firft that
produced this,Old Fragment-, v/here he had it, no Body
knows; and this not a Fragment, .but only a Verhon tliertof,
andcautioned. by Himfelf. _ -.j
Sixtus Senenjis fufpefts this Teftimony of Origen was depraved Sixtus Sea.' s
by Heretics. Genehrard is of the fame Opinion. .
' Thefe Critical Cenfu'res take all affurance from your Obje- ori^gen
ftion, rendring it either dubious., or depraved, or heretical.
Moreover, if Ori^ew in this Paffage, Ihould downright pre-
fcribe the Catholic Belief of the change of Bread into the Body
of Chrift, this ought not to difquiet any fobcr Inquirer. Be-
caufe his chief Error was the exclufion of the literal Senfe in
Scripture. Whereupon Lirtnenfis calls Origen the Interpreter Liiin. in
of Scripture after a new manner. St. Epiphanious complains he Comm.
turned all into Allegories. Theophih/s fays, he fupplants by Shades
and Images the Truths of Scripture. And the Church in the Theoph.' 1
Fikh Oecumenical Council, peculiarly anathematifed his pafch. i, '
WoidtS. Con, Gen. y.
Finally, If I fhould anfwer, by what is materialis underftood Collar, s.
only, the material Accidents of Bread and Wine which go in-
to the Belly, and are caft kito the Draught,what inconvenience
would f(^lov^'from your Objedion ? No more, than what
follows from what the fame Father adds by way of explication,
It is not the matter of the Bread, but the Word which is fpoken over it,
which profiteth him who worthily eateth the Lord •, and this (he fays)
he had fpoken, concerning the Typical and Symbolical Body. So that
the Matter of Bread receives the Word of God fpoken over it,
and this Word, as it changes the Subftance of Bread, fo doth it
profit the worthy Receiverand this Word Origen calls the
Typical and Symbolical Body of Chrift, becaufe the Word
is Spiritual Food. Thus the fame Father, in his Homilies up-
on Leviticus proves Chrift's Flcfh to be true Meat, becaufe all
his
\
(40
Homil. 7- in hii Speech is true Food. And he adds St. Pf/fr, St.Taul, and aU
Lcvit. CtbM the Apofiles are Food, will you conclude from hence, the Apo-
*p "^J^ue Men ?
msApoftolL 5 y®" refolve to do the bu-
finefs by drawing out of the fame Homily, a killing Letter
of the New Teftament. For if, faysOrigen, -sve take according
to the Letter^ that which is [aid, except ye eat my Flejh, and drink
my Blood, this Letter kills.
This Letter except ye eat my Fle(h, (underftood of the Subftan-
tial prefence of Chrift's Body after a Sacramental manner, in-
yifible to Senfe, under the fpecies of Bread,) is what gives life
John 6.^ in the Catholic Church, according to that of St. John^ who JhaH
eat my Flefis, Jhall live for ever.
If Roman Catholics be out of danger, the blow muft fall
elfe where. It falls upon the Capharnaits, who following the
naked Letter, carnally thought our Saviour would give his
Flelh to be ferved in as common Meat, and cut in Pieces. It
falls upon thofe who literally adhering to what they fee, be-
lieve they receive, what it fkms to be. Bread. Upon both
thefe it falls.
, . u If follow, faith Origen, the Letter, and
Y,e.sit.y.Viam.Stnjeroad(ideamut ' i r •./ j- (v
hter.,, & Secundum he: iel quod f'l according to the Jews acceptation
Jndtis J vel id quod vulgo wdetur, tnelc tlie Caphamaitv,) or accor~
uccipiamue, qua in lege Jcripta jknt, ding to what it feems commonly to he, fare you not
erubefco dicere & confteri, quia ta- of this Number) 1 blufi] to confefs what is writ in
les Leges dedtrit Deus. Law. . Thus you ftrike at Catholics with
the Killing Letter of Or/^e», and wound your felf together with
the Capharnaits.
For your warlike Argument dve me leave to propofe two
peaceable ones, out of the famePather.
The Firft is in his Homilies upon Numbers,
Horn. 7. in Numb. where lie compares the Figure with the Figu-"
Tusic in anigmate erat Manna j-^ted, the Manna witll the Body of Chrift i
Cihus. nunc autem in jpecie Caro • t?- j kt •
>verbi Dei ejl vers<e CibJ f T f
anigmate dejlgnnbi^ntur nunc in r Ujh Oj the JVotd God ts tTU€ Meat* Aftd
fpecie & "jerirate complentur. what was firfi in the Figure defigned, is now com-
pleated in truth and reality.
Homil. y. In divcrfa. §mndo Thc Second is Contained in thefe Words,
illud incorruptum acctpias epulum. When you receive the Holy Food and Incorruptible
quando vita pane &populo frueris, Banquet, when in the Bread and Cup of life, you
eat
manducas hibit CorpM ^ San-
guinem Domini, Tunc Dominui jub
teBum tuum ingreditu^, ^ tu ergo
humilians teipfum , ipmtare hunc
Centurionem,S' dicito^omine non
fum dignm, ubi enim tndigne in-
greditur, ibi ad Judicium ingrtdi-
tur accipienti.
(47 )
tat and drink the Body and Blood of our Lord, then
our Lord enters under your roof-, do you therefore
humbling your felf imitate the Centurion, and fay.
Lord, I am not "worthy thou jhouldji enter under my
Roof, for where he enters unworthily, there he en-
ters in Judgment with the Receiver. This holy
Food cannot be the fubftance of Bread, becaufe
Origen calls it an incorruptible Banyuet-, Bread is
not fuch. Nor can it be a bare typical Figure of the Lord -, for
when the Centurion faid, O Lord, 1 am not worthy, 'twas our
own Saviour prefent. And if this Humiliation, O Lord, I am
unworthy, be attributed to any thing but our Saviour there pre-
fent, how can you excufe it from Idolatrie ? Finally, this Lord
invocated, enters into the wicked, which cannot be by Faith. *
For your Church, teaches unworthy Receivers are not parta-
kcrs of the Lord in the Sacrament by Faith.
Article V.
I
Upon St. Cyprian.
Nec poteji vidtri Sanguu ejus qu»
redempti, vivificati, e(fe in Ca-
lice, quando Vinum dejic Calici,
quo Chrijii Sanguis ojlenditur. L.
Ep. 3. ad Csecilium.
YO U, objed St. Cyprian hath a whole Epiftle to Cadlius
againft thofe who gave the Communion in Water, with-
out Wine mingled with it 3 and his main Ar-
gumcnt againft them is this, that the Blood of
Chrijl with which we are redeemed and quickned,
cannot feem to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting
to the Chalice, by which the Blood of Chrifi is re-
prefented.
Ver)7 well. It is Wine in reprcfentation, and-the Blood of
Chrift is in the Cup by propriety or effcncc; for it is that Blood
with which we were redeemed and quickned, according to St. Cy-
^prian.
You argue afterwards from thefe other Words of the fame
Saint, by the Water the People is underfiood 3 by Wme the Blood of
Chrift is Jhew^n; but when in the Cup Water is mingled with Wine, the
People are united to Chrijl 3 fo tloat yon deduce, according to this
Argument, Wine in the Sacramental Cup, is no otherwife
changed into the Blood of Chriftthan the Water mixed
with it is changed into the People, which are faid to be united
to Chrift. I fhall
i,; 14
■ f
Jefus ojiendeni
gentium Popu-
lum fuccedere
in locum quern
Judai perdide-
rant de aqua
vimm fecit.
Contra Adi-
mant. c. i a.
Deur. 12..
( 4S j
I fliall not be ftri£tly put to it, for ijn Anfwer, after I have
thus propofed St. Cypriatis mind. St. Cyprian compares here the
Jews to Wine, the Gentiles to Water, at the Marriage of Ca-
naan. The want of Wine marked out the Jews, who rcfufed
to embrace the Law of Chrift-, The plentifulnefs of Water re-
prefented the Gentiles converted to Chridianity. Hence Wa-
ter comes in the Sacrament to delign the Eleded People, Wine
the Blood of Chrift, and both mixt in the Chalice, the union
of the People with Chrift. Now to your Argument. And
that I may the better coiivince you, give me leave to make ufc
of your Logic.
Water is the People as Wine is Chrift ^ then as we receive
Chrift by Faith in the Sacrament, fo do we the People : And
confequently the People fandify the Soul as Chrift doth in the .
Eucharift. Arc you not afhamed of yout Sophifm ? Or rather,
how durft you equalize the People with Chrift, Sinners with
their Saviour, Man with God ?
Again, Wine fignificd the Jews, according to St. Cyprian^
and Water the Gentiles •, now deduce from hence, the Water
was not changed into Wine ^ the Marriage of Canaan, as you
have done from the like inftance, that the mixed Chalice is
not clianged into Chfift's Body and Blood.
Article VI.
Upon St. Auguftin.
The variety of Teftimonies you gather from St. Augufiin^
cannot well without perplexity, be conftdered altogether.
I'll endeavour to decline tftisConfufibn'', examining each one of
them in fo many Paragraffes,,;^
' Paragraph I.
YO U pitch firft upon this Expreffion of St. Aufiin's in his
Book againft Adimanttis the Manichee, Our Lord did not
doubt to fay this is my Body^ ovhen he gave t^he jign of his Body.
Adimantus endeavours to demonftrate the God of the Old Te-
ftament prohibited eating of Blood, grounding himfelf upon
this Principle of Duteronomy^ 'Blood is the Soul of the Flejh, there-
by
iu! t)y to prejiidicc;,that Soul, which Jefus declared in the Gofpcl,
'3 was not lyable eo corporal harm or punifliment.
St. Auiufiin replys, the Old Law fpeaks of the Animal Soul, sig»um Ani-
and the Words of Chrift are only underftood of theRatioiul.
i5" Secondly, the Holy Dodor tells him, that Blood is called the
Soul, only becaufe it is the Sign of the Soul. This he confirms
T ■ (accommodating himfelf to the Language of the Manichees,
who were of opinion, that Bread, Corn and Grapes, naturally
"'."fignified ChrilVs Body) with this Inftance, our Saviour did not
doubt to fay, this is my Body^ when he gave (in the Manichees O-
pinion) the Sign of his Body. The Manichees Opinion was not
'^' St. Aujisn's. And he therefore forewarns us
■ ^^tocaU in aueftion Faith, becaufe he made ufe o/* Lib. 5. dehb. Arb. Nunqaidtdtiy
liictfc Manid,,; Trincifk in thdr own confiita-
™tion.
Paragraph II.
iff Q A IN T Atifiin fpeaking of Judas, whom our Lord admitted Ennarcr. in
to his laft Supper, has thcfe Words, in which he recommen- PH h
'^.dedand delivered to his Difciples, the Figure of his Body. Language,
fay you with exclamation, which would now be cenfuredfor Here fie
in the Church of Rome.
I'm confident you are already pcrfiuded to the contrary.
And I know not any Sed, which holds a Figure incompatible
with the reality. I ftiall cite two of your Learned Patrons •,
Feter Martyr fays, A Figure, as far forth as 'tis a Figure, is not repug- pet. Mart, cob-
i|S«, nant t o the prefence of the thing. And Calvin before him granted, tra Gen.
ka Figure doth not exclude the thing figurated. The Lutherans are Lutli, Adnic-
ijtmot of a contrary mind. And if you'll be pleafed to l(X)k either nit. uit.
into the Ancient or Modern Diyines among Catholics, you'll
find the fame acknowledgment. Vafchafius formerly gave this
2Lnf\src\: to Frudegardus^ inftancingSt../4«y?;»'sTefi:imony, Theje
are, Replys Vafchafius, Myftical things, in which is the verity c/Tafcb. Epla. ai
k Flefis and Blood, and none others thanChrifi's, yit in a Myfitrie, and Ptudeg.
i;( Figure, and the Words of this Myftery are called a Figurative Speech;
Co Chriji himjelf is called, by the Apoftle, a Figure, though Chrifi be the
{i-Truth. Algerus illuftrates the fame, with this ReHedion upon Aig. i. r. c.;.
iCtSt. John Bajstifi, He was called a Prophet, and more than a Prophet.
itSo the Sacrament is a Figure, and more than a Figure. To
If G thcfe
(5°)
» r T rKe Modern. Catholic School-
thefe I add ^ Meld/yuf, (d) Cardi-
(<,) Art. 13. (OSup.Auch. (f) Gordon, (g) Gomt '
U) h. u de Eucha. cap, 31. J/e», (c) Sua » k
\ J) 3. p. d. 4(f. Sea. 4. A - J 1 """
. And 1 never read any that held the contrary.
(A A-nd 1 conclude with this of St.- Auftin-, 7k
(g) Sup. Aucb.
St. Aug. de s. Virg. Blejfed Virgin did not onely conceive Chrifi fpiritu-
ally by Faith, confenting to the Angelical Salutation,
but alfo conceived him corporally, in her own Womb. How then doth
the fpiritual reception Faith exclude the fubftantial Com-
miiniot^ of Chrift's Body in St. Aufiin's Opinion ?
tkiiT®
imy
Goii
iiiicei'
The
Paragraph III.
I
T
stttt
\S,3M
ftlliiS
l:k(j
tfoji
:<in5
vtti
m
k
■ N the Third Place you cite his Comment on the 98th Pfalm,
. where treating of the fcandai which the Difciples took at
that faying of our Saviour j except ye eat the Fkjh of the Son of man,
and drink his Blood, he brings in our Saviour fpcaking thus to
them^ ye muf underftand fpirituaUy, what I have [aid unto you, jt 1'^ '
are not to eat this Body whichye fee, and to drink this Blood which jhaH '
he Jhed by thofe that fhall crucify me, I have commended a certain Sa-
crament to you, which being Spiritually underfiood, will give you
Life.
This is as much as to fay, be not fcandalized, that I told you,
ye lhall eat my Flefli, and drink my Blood, ye ihall not eat it
as ye imagine, in the fliape you fee it, bruzing, cutting, dige-
fting my Flelli. I Speak of a Sacrament, when I commend
the eating of my Body-, 'Tis this Sacrament you lhall tall,
touch, and fee in outward appearance. The Spiritual'intelli-
gence by Faith will (difcovering there my Body remaining in-
vilibly) vivify you. What more conformable to the Dodlrine
of T ranfubllantiation ?
This I fhall endeavour to manifeft in examining the fenfe of
thefe two Propolitions, which contain the force of your Argu-
ment. I. Yt muff: underfiand fpirituaUy what I have faid. 1. Te
are not to eat the Body whichye fee.
The Word SpirituaUy, excluding the Carnal fenfe of theCa-
pharnaifs, eflablilhes a miraculous or a fupernatural under-
GaL 4. ap. Handing. So when St. Paul fays, Ifaae was bom according to thi
Spirit^ He did not deny by this, that Ifaac was born of the Fleili^
but declared that the Power of God was required to fecundate
V the
am
slffil
m
At
lij
!
icSi . (50 •
(i)(. the barrennefs of his Mother. In like manner, when St.
(tj' /;» names this Word Spiritually, or Word of Spirit, he does
not deny that the Bread is Flefh, but intimates tnat the Mwer
of God is required to quicken Bread into the Body of Chrift.
And thus the firft Proportion, Te mufi under ft and what I have [aid
(iltti fpiritually, does not at all diminilh the reality of Chrift's Sub-
fiance in the Sacrament.
The Second Propolition, Te are not to eat this Body which ye fee,
" properly denotes the Quality or divers exiflence of Chrift's Bo-
dy. Thus St. Ambrofe faid that the change of Life is fuffici-
ent toyerify this Speech, I am not 1, I juftificd, am not I a fin- L. %. do P«ni»,
ner, and yet I am the fame man in fubftance. c. lo. »»»
jjjji 1 hus St. Lanfrancus anfwered Berengarius, alledging the fame
Paffage which you obled out of St. Aujlin, "Tis
not the fame, if we confider the manner of Chrifi^s
i exiflence in the Sacrament, "'tis the fame if we re-
° 'gard the Suhfiance.
% Thus the very fame Paffagc is cited in
\Graiian with this addition, Te are not to eat
L. Aveif. Bereng.
Idem qnoadfnbflantiam,non idem
quoad modum.
Apud Gratian. dc Confecratioucj
d. 11.
Ipfum & non ipfitm, Ipfum invi-
Jibiliter iy non ipfum vifibilittr.
^this Body which ye fee, I have recommended a cer-
tain Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually un-
I derflood will give you Life, ye are to eat him, and
not to eat him, ye are to eat him vifibly (under the
"^fpecies of Bread') ye are not to eat him vifibly in the Jhape of Flefh.
S And left we Ihould doubt of the realitj/ of his Flefti in the Sa-
f*crament, St. Aufl 'tn has left us this invincible Areument in the
^YamePlace ofyour Objeam^^ ^ ^
"this Father) give us that Flejl), which he received
'^^rom Mary, in which he walked on Earth, and
^'which is fir ft to be adored, before we rece'tvl it.
Language which the Church of England will
■'>enfure for Herefte!
Paragrapli IV.
De Ca-rne Maria Carnem accepit,
tn ipfa Carne hit ambulavit, cb*
ipfam Carnem nobis manducandum
dedit, nemo iSam Carnem mandu^
cat nifi prists adoraverit.
.VrOU inftancethis Tcftimony, According to that Flefls which xraa j in
1 was born of the Virgin Mary, yefhall not have me. He is afcen- John.'
^ed up into Heaven and is not here.
The forementioned Solution fatisfies this Objcdion, for we
f-re not to have him in his Natural Exiftencc, vrc arc to receive
in a Sacramental Exiflence.
G 1 Thus
(52)
Thus the variation of ftate and change of life caufed the great
1 Cor. 15. Apoftle to fay, there were two Bodys in man,^ The Animal Bo-
dy^ and the Spiritual Body \ The Animal Body is a poor Paffen-
ger upon Earth, ftnigling with Pafiions, and reftlefs Agitations.
The Spiritual Body, is the glorified Corps, when Soul and Bo-
Epl. 146. dy meet in Eternity. It is /own a Natural Body, fays St. Paul, it
^ruHbiU^fw' Spiritual Body. Which St. Au/lin thus exprcffes. It is
'ret LLUubti. Corruptible Body, it rifes an Incorruptible Body,
bile. The divers exiftence of ChrilPs Flelh, in Heaven, and on
Cap.i.adEph. the Crofs, was fufficient to Si.Jerom, to call it a Divine Body,
Aiam&ali- ^nd a Tertenc Body. Thefe two Bodies are but one in Sub-
fiance, the fame in Heaven, the fame on the Crofs, the fame
which the Virgin brought forth, and the fame in the Sacrament,
Who eats, fays St. Au/lin, of this Fle/h let him firf adore it, Adora-
tion tefiifies what it is.
Paragraph V.
Ep.aj. adBo- alledge this Similitude, from St. Au/lin, As the Sacra-
niftcium, J[ ment of the Body of Chri/i is in fome manner or /enje Chrifi^s Bo-
dy, and the Sacrament of his Blood, is the Body of Chri/l, fo the Sa-
De Confecra- crament of Faith, (meaning Baptifm) is Faith, which the glofs,
tiom t. hoc ejl. of the Canon L aw, thus expounds. It's called the Body of chri]},
that is, it fignsfies the Body of Chri/l.
Boniface inquiring how Infants, when they are baptized, are
faid to believe, and renounce the Devil, was thus infirufted
by St, Au(lin •, A Sacrament, or holy fign, is honoured for the
mofi part with the names of the thii:gs themfelves, by reafon
of which Similitude the Sacrament of Faith, (Baptifm) may be
called Faith, which Infants receiving are faid to believe. This
Anfwer exadting a confirmation,obliged the holy Prelate,pitch-
ing upon the Similitude of the Sacrament, to cafi his Eyes pre-
cilely on the fole outward appearance of the Symbols, which
in fome manner oT (tnk., are Chrifi's Body and Blood. Not ac-\
cording to the truth of the thing, as the Glols notes ^ or as St. Art-
felme expreffes, the viftble appearance 0/ Bread is
S/. Anfcl. Traft. dc Sacraro. Al- not the Body of the Lord, except , as the Canon
taris, C.I. Similitudo lUit Pavis expoutiQS it, improperly and after fome man-
per fe in/ptlfa iton eft Corpus Do- ^ figuificS and COUtainS the Body Ol
Chrifi.
What
( 5? )
What is fignified or contained is the Myfterie, which is not
prejudiced by the foregoing Speech ? For a Myfterie properly
fpeaking, is fome invmble thing. Such is that
of St. TauL If rknow all Myfteries or hidden 7*
tljing. A J the Roman Orator exprefled f
himfelf after the fame manner, when he Myjitrmm teneat.
{aid, Keep this ficret, as a My fiery.
The viiible appearance then of Bread,though not the true Bo-
dy of Chrift, may be called improperlyChrilVs Body-, and yet
the thing fignified or contained under this appearance be the
true Body of Chrift. Or as Faith infufed by baptifmal rege-
neration, to ufe St. Aufiin's comparifon, is trtte Faith fo the
thing received in the Sacrament, is the true Body of Chrift.
Paragraph VI.
YOU. add this remarkable Paffage of St. Aufiin, cited by
Gratian\ As we recei-ve the pmiUtude of his Death in Baptijm, ApudGratian.
fowe may alfo recevve the likenefs of his Flejh and Blood-., and fo nei-
ther may truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Tagans have occajion ^
to make us ridiculous for drinking, of the Blood of one that was flain.
St. Aufiin here delivers the ftri<ft Pradice of the Church in his
days, hiding from thePagans the Myftery of the Sacrament
and-adds this Reafon, in the fame place : If the Difciples of our
Lord could not patiently receive what our Lord ^
faid, how will thefe Incredulous endure us teach- ^uLrunr\Lr
ing the fame DoBrine ? But of this more here- quormdoferunt ifia increduU ?
after.
Nor does this Learned Father more exclude the reality of
Elefti, calling it the liknefs of Flejh : Than St. Paul, faying, sr.Paul,Eph.2.
Chrift appeared whilft he lived^ and converfed with Sinners
upon Earth, the likenefs of Man, aeny'd that he was truly Man.
'Tis true, many Diffenters from the Catholic Church, and
Hercticks, grounding themfelves on this Scriptural Paffage,
Chrift appeared in the-Ukenefs of Man, eagerly taught, that he
was a Phantafm, or Appearance, not a natural Man, compo-
fed of Fkfh and Bone. And you, their Faithful Imitator,
glofs after the fame jnanner, not upon Scripture, but upon a
fingle Paffage of one. Father, and this too borrowed from
Cratian.
But
( 54)
But with how little reafoti you glofs after this manner^ thefe
following Paflages of taken out of the fame will
farther demonftrate. (a) The Firft is part of the Canon,where-
in your Objc6tion is contained. Thefe are his
\V ords, exteriorly appears (in the Sacra-
ment) u a Figure •, the Truth is the Body and
Blood of Chrift, made of the Subfance of Bread
and Wine, (b) The Second PaflTage is, ih faith-
fully confefs it is before Conficration, Bread and
Wine., which Nature made', but after Confecra-
tien, the Flejh and Blood of Chrifi, which Bene-'
diBion confecrated. (c) The Third is the mean-
ing of that Paffage of our Saviour, The Bread
which IvHllgive, in the 6th of St. John-, which
words determine in St. .Bufiin's mind, How
Chrifi is Bread, not only as he is the Word, which
gives all things life j but alfo according to the Flejh
ajjumed for the life of the World, Is this not real
FleOi ?
(«) Ibidem. Veritas, dum Cor-
pus Chrijli eh" Sanguis, virtute Spi-
ritus S. ex Panis Vtni Sub-
fantia e^citur ■ figura, quod exte-
rius fentitur.
(b) De ConH d. u. can.41. Fi-
deliter fatemur ante confecrationem
ejfe Panem df Vinum, quod FJatura
formavit, pofl confecrationem verb
Chrijli Sanguinem, quod benediBio
confecravit.
(f) Can. y;. Panis quern ego
dabo, determinat quomodo Jit Panis,
non jolum fecundum iierbum, quo
njivunt omnia, fed df fecundum
Carnem ajfumptam pro mundi vita.
Paragraph VII.
YOU. mention but one more Teftimony, but fo clear a one,
as it is impoffible any man in his wits, that had believed Tran-
fubfiantiation, could have uttered. It is in his Treatife, de DoEirina
Chrifliana, where laying down feveral Rules, for the right un-
derftanding of Scripture, he gives this for one. If the Speech be
a Frecept forbidding fome heinous wickednefs, or commanding us to do
good, it is not figurative; if the contrary, it is figurative; for ex-
ample, except ye eat the Flejh of the Son of Man, and drink his Blood,
ye have no life in you : this feems to command a heinous Crime,
therefore it is a Figure, commanding us to communicate of tlie
Paflion of pur Lord.
If I lliould deny, that St. Jufiin fpeaks here of receiving the
Sacrament, you would be pnzled to find out a warrant for
your famous Affertion. For many Learned Writers judici-
cully remark, that thefe words, except ye eat of my Flejh, in Saint
Jufiin's Senfe may be thus explicated, except ye eat it by Faith,
by Piety, by Good Works, which is a Spiritual Communion
(out of the Sacrament) of the Paflion of our Lord. And if this
be
X
/
( 55 )
be true, as it is more than probably fo, St. Aufiia fays here
what all Catholics profefs ^ tor we all fay we may communi-
cate fpiritiially of the Paffion of Chrift by Faith believing in Je-
fus, when we receive not the Sacrament •, and yet we believe
in the Do6i:rine of Tranfubllantiation.
But if you will Hill keep this Holy Father, whofe Learning
has always been the-Adrairation of Mankind, cut of his ivits,
to ufe your Phrafe •, a flight rcflcdion, fuppoling he fpcaks
here of'Sacramental Communion, will help him to return to
himfelf, and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation.
I think one of a mean Capacity can diilinguiffi the manner of
eating, and the thing eaten. Which if true, St. Aufin m^y li-
terally underftand the thing eaten in the Sacrament, to be the
true Flcfli of Chrift, God and Man ^ and yet at the fame in-
ftant hold, that the manner of eating this Flelh, (to which this
Paffage, except je eat tny Fleflj, has reterenee) is Spiritual. For
although the true Body be taken in the fliape of Bread, into
the Mouth , and let down into the Stomack, yet it is not
ground with the Teeth, or feparated in pieces. W e are taught
after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flelh of the Son of Man.
Liffen to the Voice of God, and yoa'l hear the Gofpel mention
eating a Man, tahe, eat, this u my Body. The manner is Spiri- Matth. z6.
tual, for the Body is given in the Ihape of Bread •, and in this
Senle Sr. Au//» calls thefe words, except ye eat my Flejh, a figu-
rative Speech. The Subftance or the thing eaten is not here
mentioned by the Saint. But it is the true l. a. Conn-a Adverf Leg. &
Body or Ghrift, as the fame Saint affures us Pioph. c. p.
elfe-where in tnefe Lines •, IVe believe (in the Homimm chriftum Jefum Car-
Sacrament) with faithful heart and. mcuth the mandHca7idum hi-
Mediator of God and Man, Chrift Jefm, giving- danumfiddi
«Boij u h a.i bu BiJL ihrJ,
AUbou^h it AppSAT" WOf€ hoYTlbli to CAty t'hAfl to CarveJTt t>evi9?jej'ef (ludt/i majyducar^f
kill Human Flejh ■, to drink, than to fpill Human dr Humanum Sanguimm fxare,
Blood. ' fufdere.
Everv word almoft inftances a new Argument, for the truth
of the Fielh. This oral receiving with mouth God and Man •, This
horror of eating and drinking Flelh and Blond •, this Antithefis
between eating and killing, drinking and fpilling, terminated
to the fame fubftance, leaves not the leaft fcruplc to doubt, that
the thing eaten is real Fleffi and Blood. And pray what horror
would
(sO
would there be, to eat an Image of Fiefli ? or what Language
fpeaks of killing the Figure of a Man ? The fame Saint, in his
Expolition on the 33d Pfalm, hath this Paf-
In Pfal. 53. In quo tanta per^ef- lage *, He'/ truly our Lord^ ivho truly gave us his
(ft' Body to eat, in which he fo much fuffered. Elfc-
Contra Fauftum, 1. a. c. lo. whctc he fays, the Faithful receive into their
Sanguinent quo redem^ti funt, mouth that Blood which redeemed them. And in
his 27th Treatife on Sz. John ^ fpeaking of
St. Peter's Confeffion, I find this remarkable
Traift. a;, in John. TuesCkri- Sentence-, You are Chrift the Son of the living
fius Filius Dii vivt, nec dts in Car- Qg^f what you give in your Fief) and Blood,
He & Sanguine tuo, nift teiplum. . ir 1 . n/r
^ ^ ' J u nothing elje but jour own Jelf.
Now you muft acknowledge the way I have prcfcribed, or
find fome other expedient, to reconcile St. Auflin^ Wit with
the Dodrine of T ranfubftantiation, or all the W or Id will ima-
gine, you put your own to a defperate adventure.
Article VII.
YOU mention two Teftimonies out of Theodoretus's Dia-
logues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxm,
and a Heretic under the name of Erunifies, who maintai-
ned with the Eutichians, that the Humanity of Chrift after the
Afcenfion, was changed into the Divinity. I'll examine each
apart.
•
Paragraph I.
«
the Dif^ute of Qrthodoxus Eraniftes in iheFirfi Dialogue.
ORthodoxus undertakes to ftiew that the Humanity of Chrift
alwaies remain'd. This he proves, becauie the Huma-
nity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity, as we read in Ge-
Cen. 49. nefis y where Jacob prophecy'd of theMeffias, He wajhed his
Garment in IVine, and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape. Era-
nifies replys, this is underftood literally of his proper Habit,
with which he was cloathed upon Earth. Orthodoxm refumes,
that Jeftis called himfelf the Vine -, and the Fruit of the Vine,
is Wine-, and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of
the Vine. And if our Saviour be called the Vine, and the
Fruit
(S7)
Fruit of the Vine, is Wine; and froni the fide of our Saviour
ran Fountains of Blood, on the reft of iiis Body: The Prophet
rightly foretold that He wajhed bis Robe in Wine, and his Cloths in
the Blood of the Grape. Again fpeaking to Eranifies, hc purfues
with another Simile, Jefus called his Body Bread , and his
Flelh Wheat; But in the inftitution of the Sacrament he called
Bread his Body, and Wine his Blood; Though naturally the
Body is called the Body^ and Blood is called Blood; but our
Saviour changing the Kames, gave to his Body the Name of
Symbol, and to the Symbol or Sign, the Name of liis Body.
Erunifies urges to know the caufe of this change of Names. Or-
thodoxus aniwers. Nothing more eafie to the Faithful. For he
•would have thofe who partake of the Divine Myfieries, not to attend to
the nature of things, which are feen,-but by the change of Names, to
believe the change which is made by Grace; for he who called that,
which by nature is a Body, Wheat and Bread, and again called himfef
the Fine, he honoured the Symbol ovitbthe name of his Body and Blood,
not changing nature, but addingGrace to nature. This is a lull view
of the matter in debate. ■ "
We ought to refled,that as Jheodoretm compares here Scrip-
tural paflages, wherein they refcmble one another, and conle-
gucntly acknowledges the Similitude of the already mentiorid
xpreflions. So alfo was hc not ignorant of
their differences. And therefore he faid, Jefm «ominum mutathnem muta-
changed the Names,that by their change the Faithful
might believe, that alteration which Grace effehled.
The change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a
change made in the Sacrament. For he obliges the Faithful to
believe a change which is made, not in the nature of things which
are feen, for the natural Signs or outward appearances remain;
it muft be then in fome inward thing, not feen, or Subftancc of
the Symbol effeded by Grace, or the Word of God. This in
another place he proreffes in thefe Words, Chrifi gave his preti-
ous Body not only to the Eleven Apofiles, but alfo to the Tr^tor Judas.
This cannot be properly Grace added to Nature, for Judas recci-
ved his own condemnation. It muft be then the Body of Chrift Comm ia
made by Grace of the Subftance of Bread, and added to the ^pia. ad Cor.
Nature or remaining appearance of the Signs which was given
to the Traytor.
H Paragraph
(58)
Paragraph II.
Upon the continuation of the fame Difiourfe in the Second Dialogue.
ORjhod. What are thofe Symbols, which the Priell offers
to God ? Eranift. They are Symbols of the Body and Blood
of our Lord. Onhod. Of the true Body ? Eranifi. Of the true Bo-
dy. Onhod. Very right. Eranifi. Very well. Orthod. If thefe
Di'vine Myfieries reprefent the true Body, the true Body of Chrifi is
not changed into the Divinity. Eranifies perceiving himfelf caught,
cunningly retorts the Argument, in the like manner. How do
you call thefe Symbols after confecration ? Orthod. The Body
and Blood of Chrift. Eranifi. Do you believe you receive the
Body and Blood of Chrift ? Orthod. 1 do believe. Eranifi. There-
fore as the Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood,are one thing
before the invocation of the Prieft, hut after the invocation are
changed and become another thing, fo the Body of our Lord after his af
eenfion, is changed into the Divine Subfiance.
If Orthodoxas had not believed that the Symbols were truly
changed in Subftance after confecration, how could Eranifies
have deduced the change of the Human Nature into the
Divine Subftance ? He could not argue this out of his own prin-
ciple. For admitting no Body of Chrift in Heaven, how
could he pretend a real Body of Chrift in the Sacrament ?
Cent. J. c. iQ. whence the Proteftant Centuriators fay, Tbeodoretus dangeroufly
Pericultfe di- affirms, that the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Chrifi after the in-
tit. vocation of the Triefi are changed, and become another thing.
Orthodoxus anfwers, you are caught in your o-wn net, becaufe the
Myfiical Symbols after Confecration do not pafs out of their own Nature,
for they remain in their former Subfiance, Figure and Appearance^ and
may be feen and handled even as before.
As Bread is properly faid to have Subftance and Nature,
which are neither feen, nor handled •, fo likewife the Accidents
of Bread may be faid, though not fo commonly, to have their
Sf.Aug. Enarr. own Nature and Subftance, which may be feen and handled,
in Pfa). 68. Whence that of St. Aufiin, What is not a Subfiance is nothing at all.
a 'Tis in this fenfe Orthodoxus holds, the fubftance of the Symbols
nihiTtmnino remains. And left we fiiould doubt what this fubftance is, he
tfi. tells us 'tis Figure and Appearance. Nor is this a conftrained in-
terprctation:
( S9)
terpretation : For what more ufualj when we have uttered
feme word, either harfti in expreffion, or difficult to be under-
ftood, than forthwith to add another, fofter in Language, and
more obvious to the Hearer. Thus Theodoretus faying, They re~
main in their former fuhfiance, adds, that is, they remain in their for-
mer Figure and appearance, and may be feen and handled, even as be-
fore. Nor are tnefe latter Expreffions referable to Subftance,
ftridly taken for the inward thing, becaufe this properly, is
neither feen nor handled.
Now if you ask what thefe Symbols are interiorly, Theodoretus inteiUguntur
confefles, they are, what they were made, ChrifFs Body. And they /"*
are believed and adored as being thofe very things which they are be- ^
lieved. W hich Words, if the Bread be not fubftantially chan-
ged into ChrilFs Body, teach plain Idolatry.
Nor could Orthodoxus fay the interiour Subftance of the Sym-
bols, was not changed, in his own Opinion-, for this he had al-
ready granted, in thefe Words, They are changed and become after
confecration another thing.
Orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his Advcrfary in
his own Net. But this was not becaufe Eraniftes believed the
Subftance of the Symbols was not changed into Chrift's Body;
for he thought Chrift's Body v/as no where extant. How then
was he caught in his own Net ? He was caught in his own Net,
becaufe thefe Myftical Symbols, were not changed in appear-
ance, (for after confecration they may be feen and handled) and they
were Symbolsfiillof ChriJFs true Body^hxch. Eranifes had formerly
granted and therefore there was a true Body of Chrift; and.
fo the Body of Chrift was not changed into the Divinity, as
Orthodoxus had argued. Thus Eranifies was caught in his own
Net.
Nor ought Theodoretus to be cenfured for Singularity,in giving
the Name of Nature and Subftance, to accidental Beings. For
St. Hilary gives the fame to Proprieties-, Saying, That the Flames st. Hilary.
in the Babilonian Furnace, loft their Nature, though the Subftance of jumt
the Fire remained. amiferunt.
Innocent the 1 hird, that Venerable Pope and Father of the
Church, under whom was defined the Doftrin of Tranfub-
ftantiation, frankly concedes the Natural Proprieties of Bread
remain, ut paneitas. And Cardinal Po/e, another great Vin-
dicator of the fame Tenet, fays. Though there be only Fleft and
H 2 Blood
()
Card. Pole, p. 8. c. 3. do Euch. Blood in the Sacrament, notTvithfianding the Na-
Cum in Dominica menjd fit jbliim tafied. I would haVC
C^r. Sanguis,, nihihminus vini ifkewife argue, that thefe Authors are a-
,src.,iaiur. Traiifubkitiation.
Anicle VIIL
Upon Gelafiiis the Tope,
^HESE Words of Gelaftm, The Suhfiance of Bread and Wine,
doth not ceafe to be, are already fatisfied by v/hat I have faid
to Theodoretus^ that is, the outward ftiape of Bread remains.
And if thefe Words immediately following what you obje6ted5
had been, cited^ the difficulty would have been removed. They
(the inward Subftance of Bread and Wine) pafs by the operation
of the Holy Ghofi into a Divine Nature, yet remaining in the propriety
if their Nature. It is only the Proprieties of the Nature of the
Bread and Wine, the Colour, and theTaft, that remain.
The Subftance is cnanged •, For how could the inward Subftance
of Bread and Wine pals by Divine operation intoChrift's Body,
and not ceafe to be ? how can a Proteftant pafs into the Roman
Catholic Church, and become a pious Member thereof, and
not truly ceafe to be a Proteftant i
Geiaf, de duab, This GelafiMs is not the learned Pope Gelafius • and I need not
Nar. Bib. PfaU labour to provetliis. Your own Critics write, that thatTreatiie
de duabm natura^ whence you borrowed this (jbjedlion, belongs
to fome other of the fame Name. 1 fliall inftance only one
reafon. This Author ranks the Works of Eujebim Qafarienfis
among thofeof the Orthodox Fathers, which'cannot be faid
of the pious aiid learned Pope Gelafius^ who numbers the fame
Eufebm in his own Authentic Works, with Apo(^phal Wri-
ters. There is then not one of our Popes againft Tranfubftan-
tiation: And if you cannot alledg one Pope from the beginning
of Chriftianity, who teaches contrary to what is now profef-
fed in the Roinan Church, concerning this contefted Article of
Faith, is it not a great Argument that it was alwaics taught in
the Church of Cw ?
rom.. 4.
Article;
{6i)
Article IX.
Vpn Facundus.
F^c«7»i/Ki the African Biihop, )i\{iiiy{\-\%7heodorusMoffneJ}enus^ Facund p.i4t.
who had laid J That Chrifi alfo received the adoption of Sons,
reafons thus, Chriji vouchfafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption,
both when be was circumcifed and baptized-, and the Sacrament of A-
doption may he called Adoption, as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood
is hy us called his Body and Blood.
The intern Grace of the Holy Ghoft received in Baptifm,
properly conftitutes us the true Sons adoptive ot God, which
could not be conferr'd on our Saviour, for he was enriched with
the plenitude of perfedion, and was the natural Son of God.
YetChriH: maybe faid, Facundus urges, to receive the Adop-
tionofSons, becaufe he vouchfafed to receive Baptifm, theSa-
crament of Adoption. Then feeking an Example to verify
that Baptifm may be called Ado;xion, though it was not, but
only contain'd the Grace of Adoption, was forced inftancing
the BlefTed Sacrament, barely to conlider the Sacrament in the
outward Species of Bread in the Euchariif, which may be cal-
led the Body and Blood of Chrift •, bccaufe it contains the
Body and Blood> of Chrid. What is contain'd in Baptifm,
is it not the proper Grace of Adoption ? and what is con-
rained in the Confecrated Species, is the true Body and Blood
of Chrift.
Can any after this believe, that what you have objeded, pre-
judices in the leaft the Uriiverfal and received Dodrin of the
Chridian Church, of Bread and Wine fubftantiallychang'd in .
the Sacrament into the proper and true Bodv and Blood of
Chrift?
What you repeat by way of Appendix, the Names of fome
Catholic Divines, is inconliderable. Only this I can fay, you
might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf, ,
than chang'd their Words in detriment to the Scotns, i. 4. & 11. q. ?. n. 18.
Catholic Dodrin. For Scotus only fays, that Concil, Lat. Wi ex/>/uj-
the truth of fome Articles, « more explicit or • 'ventas aHqnorum
•r n. ■ T ^ r\ • ' ■ r Credenatrum maeis exflicite auam
manifeft tn theLateran Decrees,than it was in the in SyMo Uoftokruv,,
Symbols of. the Apojtles, or in the Athanafan Qregd, vel Athanafi,-■vel Nkani, &
or.
vittr, quidquid ibi dicitur effe Crt'
dendum, tenendum efi efe de fub-
Jbantiu Fidei.
( 62 )
or that of Nice ; and in a word, what ever is here
defn'd (in the Council of Later an) is to be held
as a fincere fart of our Faith.
Durandas does not fay, that he would have been of a contra-
Opinion, had not the Church defin'd for Tranfublfantia-
tion i but only tacitly infinuates, that he would have made ufe
of the Bread and A Vine, remaining with the Body of Chrift in
the Sacrament, which was poffible to God, though really falfe,
in order to folve fome Objeftions, had not the Canon of the
Church interven'd. Nor ought we to be fur-
prifed at this. For Durandus ordinarily walked
on the brink of Faith in Affertions, and there-
fore merited theTitle of Temerarius Dobior in the
Church of God. Thefe are his Words, T/&e Sub-
fiance of Bread and Wine is changed into the fubfiance
of the Body and Blood of Chrijl; yet although this
be really true, it was fofiible to God that the Body of
Chrtfi might have been in the Sacrament, with the
Sub fiance of Bread, which is not really true, for the
Church has decreed the contrary, and Jhe is frejunid
not to err in her decifions; Therefore holding the
Bread chan£d into Chrifi's Body, I anfwer to the
contrary ObjeSlions,
Tunfial Bifllop of Durham lays, from the beginning of Chri-
ftianity, no body doubted of the real prefence of Chrift in the
Sacrament, and that the Learned Ancient Writers look'd upon
the manner, how the Bread paffed into Chrift's Body, as in-
fcrutable and not to be fearched into, left we fliould feem to
tempt Chrift with the Capernaits, doubting
how this can be? But through God-almightf s pow-
er,to whom nothing is impofiible, the change of Bread
into Chrifi's Body (by Tranfubftantiation) feem'd
to Innocent the Third, and thofe who fat with him
in Council, to agree mefi with thefe Words of Chrifi,
This is my Body. And he cenfures thofe who
deny this change, with impudent boldnefs,
and oppofes them to Chrift-, faying. If we be-
lievethem (who profefs your Error) neither
f anis in Corporis Chrip fuhftm- Chrifi nor the Holy Ghofi, can change Fread into the
tinrntrmfiat. 'Subfiance of Chrifi"s Body, whofe Word made all
things of nothing. Yell
Durand. 4. 8c Numb. 9.
Subfiantia Panis CP Vini conver-
titur in fubftantiam Corporis
Sanguinis Chrifli. §iuamvis ifie
modus Jls de fatio, non efi tamen
neganhum quin alius modus p Deo
pojjibilis, fcil. quod remanente fub-
fiantia Panis Vini, Corpus &
Sanguis Chrifli ept in Sacramento.
Et Numb. I 8. Sed quia hie mo-
dus non debet- teneri, de faBo, cum
Ecclefla determinavit eppofitum,
qua non prefumitur errare in tali-
hus : idea tenendo de faBo aliam
partem, rejpondendum efl ad argti-
menta qute funt in contrarium.
Tunftal de Euchar. Sed Omni-
potentia Dei cui nihil efl impojpbile,
his qui cum Innocentio in eo Conci-
lio interfuerunt vifum efl, quod is
modus maxime, cum verbis hi fee
Chrifli, hoc efl Corpus meum, con-
gruere Hits vifus efl.
Si illis eredimus, nec Chriflus, nec
Sniritus SanBus id eflpcere p'oflit, ut
<^3)
Tell me what was Erafmm^s Thought, and Tie anfwer what
Religion he was of. In fome places he favours the Lutherans,
oftentimes he's a Catholic •, I am fure he's not a Proteftant in
that Epiftle to Conradus •, If you are perfuaded there's nothing hefides Epiftola ad
Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, I had rather he torn in pieces, than ConradumPel-
profefs what you profefs. licanum de
perfuafam eft in Synaxi nihil ejfe prxter Panem & Pinum, ego membratim difeerpi malim qu/m
profiteri quod tu profiteris, & omnia perpeti malm, quam tali flagitio contra meam conftien-
tiam admijfo ex hac uita migrare.
If Alphonfus fay ther's feldom mention in Ancient Writers Aiph. a Caftro
concerning Tranfubftantiation, thefe feldom Intimations are deHerf. 1.8.
fufficient to fhew, that 'twas always taught in the Church of
God, which ought to convince any unbyafsed Underftanding.
CHAP. II.
An Account of the coming in of Tranfuhfiantiation.
I 'Have already done this to your hand. 'Twas inftituted by
our Saviour. I fuppofe then you mean a particular Account
of the coming in of the Error againft Tranmbftantiation, and
by what attempts and degrees it was advanced againft the Ro-
mifh Church.
The firft Oppofers of this Dodrin, were the Capharnaits,
who fcandaliz'd at our Saviour's Promife, cr/d out. How can
this Man give us his Flejh to eat? This Was feconded with the
Complaint of his own Difciples •, Ihis is a hard faying, and who
can ^ear it ? Both were taxed with Incredulity, as St. John in pfai. 24. &
writes in his Sixth Chapter. And St. Aufin calls them Here- Trad, in joan.
tics, Judas heading them as their Frince and Leader, in whom, ^
without our envy, you may triumph and glory. How often
have you been incredulous with the Capharnaits, faying. How
can he give us his Fk(b ? How often with the unfaithfull Difci-
pies murmured, who can endure this DoBrin ? ^ 1
A fecond attempt was, as St. Paul delivers, made by the Co- NonlreVe 'ntes.
rintliians, who not diftinguifliing the Body of our Lord in the s.Aug.Ep.i 18,
Saci;ament, from Bread and Wine, became incredulous, Nor
believing. Not believing what ? St. Auftin replies, the true Body
ofChrift to he contam'din the Eucharifi.
A third
(^4)
A third Effay muft be acknowledged in the Simonits, Me-
nandrians, Gnoftics, and Marcionilts, who placing in Chrift
only a Phantafm, indiredly rejea:ed the verity of Clirift's true
Body and Blood in the Sacrament.
A fourth Oppohtion was from fome of the Arians, who
thirfting after Spiritual Grace^ were not folicitous for any Cor-
Sf. Cyril, Alex, poral Prefcncc, as we learn from St. Cyril, and Sc. Gregory Na-
mjohn, 1.10. zianzen.
Naz Certain Heretics meeting tcge-
Ornt. £' dc " ther for the taking away of Images, who gave this reafon ^ That
PafcLte. our Lord having left no Image of himfelf hut Bread, -which u the Image
■ of his Body, we ought to make no other Image of our Lord. This Con-
venticle, which then was efteemcd Heretical in theChriflian
World, you mention, make Orthodox, and oppofe it to the
Dcxftrin of Tranfubftantiation.
You are here again miftaken, for there was no Se6Lof
Men who profcflTed at this time in any place of the World
your Opinion againft Tranfubftantiation. For thefe Heretics
taking the word Image interiourly, for the Subftance it felf ^
faid, that as our Saviour deified Flejh which Juf-
Ex Pfcudo-Synodo Iconomacorum fered for mar!s redemption, fo ( confiituting the Eu~
An. 740. chartfiic Bread, not a falfe Image of hts natural
Eucharijii^ Panew nt non fal- j fi^ouldbe made, the Vriefi
ptW ^ nUtUT^ltS cmtllS J' 4.' 1 4.L r P-'-C t' 11 1 L /I /•
1 Spritur advmtmn SmBijican- mediating by thej^anblification of the Holy Ghofi, hts
dum Divinum Corpus fieri njoluit Divine Body. Tlicfc Words, as containing the
mediante Sacerdote. Roman Belief, Were approved in the Niccne
^nod. Nor did the Writers of the Roman
Nic. a. Dimijfo mendacio tan- Church,Condemning their Hcrefie whicli pul-
gunt pauciaum qu-.d veritatem Di- down and deftroycd Images, charge them
J,real Prrfencc, or
T ranfubftantiation.
Thefe Iconoclaft Heretics indifcreetly naming the Bread the
Image of the Body of Chrift, gave probably occafton ro the fol-
lowing Writers to difpute how it was an Image. Amongft
wlxim Scotus Erigena, towards the end of the Eight, or begin-
ning of the Ninth Century, went fo far, that he faid, ^twas
only an Image of the Body. Scarce had he broach'd this new Do-
drill , but he was ftraight cenfured by the Writers of chofe
Times.
Hincmartts
( ^5 )
Hincmartti accilfcd him that he called the Sacra- Hincmams in Scot
ment a remembrance only of the true Body and Blood Memoria tantum 'I'eri Corporis
of Chriji, Prudentius Bifhop of Troy, and Ebbo & Sanguinis Chrifii,
Prelat of Grenable, confuted the fame Erigena.
Nor did this Scot us decline the linifter Opinion of Pope Nicholas,
in his Letter to Charles the Bald, Scotus's great Patron and Friend.
Yet we never read that Scotus ever reply'd in defence of his Er-
ror^ and fo feem'd in fome manner to rctraft what before he
had imprudently fpoken. His Followers were but few, and thofe
too, taught this Error underhand, fo fearfully, that no body
could accufe them of open Hcrefie, or convince them not to
be Catholics. Thus this Intant Embrio of Error covered in the
Shell of darknefs, was at length hatch'd and brought forth by
Berengarius in the twelfth Age.
Berengarius was born at Tours in France. After he had linifhed
the ordinary courfes of Studies, he taught Grammar and Phh
lofophy. Then he was made Treafurer in St. Martin's Church.
About the Year 1149, he went for where he was kindly
entertained, and conftituted by Bruno tTie Arch Bifhop, his Arch-
deacon. Here he began to fowfeveral Errors ^ That Chil-
dren were not to be baptized; that Marriage might be diflbl ved j
that our Saviour could not enter in where his Difciples were.
The DooFs put; as we learn from Guitmundus, Theoduinus, Januis chup.
and St. Anfelm. He added a fourth Error,
which is to our prefent purpofe,That the con- ^ ^"11*'•'Theod.
fccratcd Bread ml, a F.gure ofChrifiy BoJy. An'rdfsr™ iS' o?,
Which, that he might the better maintain,
he kept poor Boys to School, educating them in all manner of
Learning, that io iw mony and intereft, he might have many
at his command. But alas all in vain, for this Error no fooner
was vented, but it was oppofed by many Learned Writers.
Among thefe, were St. Lanfrancus, St. Anfelm,
(a) Guitmundus, Durandus, Algerus, (b) Adel- (a) m fuis Lihis de Corpcre &
mannus, Hugo Lingonenjts, Humbertus, (c) Petrus Sanguine Domini.
Cluniaanps, (d) Euthymius, (e) Hugo ViUorinus Exempl. ad Bereng.
(f) Petrus Lombardus. And the fame Berenqa- I"
rius more than once abjured his Error, which \e) L^^de p.r.
during his life was nine times condemned in f/) L. 4. Seft. d. i,.
nine fcveral Councils. The firft at Rome un-
(Lr Leo thcNinth. The Second ztFercells. The Third in inc
1 Conveiit
(66)
Convent of Br ion, according to the deHres of Hen^ Duke of Nor-
mandy, to whom Iic flcd for protcftion. The Fourth at Tarts.
The Fifth at Tcm, by order from Pope The Sixth at
Borne under Nichojas the Second. The Seventh at ToiEious in
France. The Eiglith at Rome under Gregory the Seventh. The
Baron, ad Ninth at Bourdeauxj under Hugo Bien Bilhop and Lcgat of tJie
hm.iossAc. 5cc Apoflolic in France. This we have from the Writers of
thofc times cited in Baronius. The laft abjuration of this Here-
fie made by Bcrengarius, was real. For after ten years Penance,
he died peaceably in the Bofom of the Church. This we have
(a) L. J.de from (a) William of Malemsbury^ (b) Matbevf Taris., Fincemius
gcilis Ang!. BeUovacenfis; and what is moft convincing, we read in an Old
Manufcript, in St. Af^r/iVs at 7o«r/, thele Words, Obiit Magi-
z. inp. Berengarius, Grammaticus fidelis, et vere Catholicus. An. Dom.
i 18^. Many of thofe whom he had perverted, imitated his
pious return to the Church, and his Penance. 'Others more
- unfortunate, propogatcd this Figurative Expofition, and Ex-
clulion of Chrift's Body in the Sacrament, after the beft man-
ner, Induftry could invent, and Craft execute.
Hence you may gather what diligence the Enemy of Man-
kind ufcd •, how often he was forced to repeat, almoft the fame-
Stratagems, before the fearful Error durft publickly appear, or
was able to ftand in imy corner of Chriifendom.
Pray now compare, if you pleafe, the rife of Tranfubflan-
tiation with the beginning of the oppolite contradidion •, and
acknowledge without prejudice or partiality, which of the two
ought to be fmcerely embraced. Whether will you believe,.
Nine feveral Councils, or Berengarius an Avofiate, who yet af-
terwards recanted ? Whether the Holy Fathers, who vindicated
this Catholic DoStrin, St. Auftin, St. Hilary, St. Ambrofe, St. Cy-
ril, St. Jufiin, St. Ignatius Martyr •, or the Marcionits, Menan-
drians, Simonits, all Heretics, who deny the Subftantial
]^dy of Chrift? Whether laltly, you believe St. Taul, or the
Erring Corinthians •, St. John, or the incredulous Jews; our
Bleffed Saviour, or the Contradifting Calvinifts ? I leave you
to your own choice, whilft I purfue your third Principle.
C H A p;
(^7)
CHAP. III.
Exawtn of your Solution given to Mr. Arnauld'/ Dernonf ration. •
Mr. ArnauU.^ a learned man in Trance, pretended very
rightly, that it was impoffible, that our Dodrin, if it
had been new, fhould ever have come itij in any Age, and been
• received in the Church, and confequently it mufl: of neccfiity
have been the perpetual Belief of the Church in all Ages. For
if it had not been always the Do<5lrin of the Church, when
ever it had attempted firft to come in, there would have been
a great ftir and bufsle about it, and the whole Chriftian World
would have rofe up in oppohtion to it. But you have ftiewn
no fuch time, when firft it came in, and when any fuch oppo-
fition was made to it, and therefore it was always the Doftrin
of the Church.
It is true, you would fain have me believe, that Rahamts,
ArchbiQlop of Mentz,., and HeribaUm, Biihop of Auxcrre, and
Bertram oppofed this Doftrin with all their might. But what
you have alledg'd from their Writings, do not convince me,
Bertram indeed fays, the Writers of that Age talked according
to their feveral Opinions, differently about the Myfiery of Chriffs
Body and Blood, and were divided by no fmall Schifm. But what was
this Schifm? This Schifmor difference according to Bertram,
precifely coniifted in two Queftions. Firft, Whether there
was a Figure in the h^fte^. Secondly, Whether the Bread
that was chc^g'd into Chrift's Body, was the Natural Body of
Chrift, which was born of the Virgin Mary.
Bertram in the firft part of his Treatife undertook to fhew,
that there was a Figure in the Myftery, as the conclufion of his
Difcourfc in the end evidences in thefe Terms •,
from what 1 have heitberto fpoken, "tis clear, that
the Body of Chrifi, which the Faithful receive into
their Mouths, is a Figure, if we regard the vifible
Species. And left any one fhoidd impeach him
of Error in the Sacrament, he ftraight added.
But if we confider the invifible Subfiance the Body
and Blood truly there exifi, Grounding himfelf
upon this Principle, that the Subfiance of Bread
I 2 was
Bertram de Corpore Domini.
Ex his omnihus qua ha&enus di-
Ba funt, mmfiratiim ejf, Corpus dr
Sanguis Chrijli, qitce fiddium ore in
Ecdsjia percipiuntur, Figur.e funt,
fecundum Specietn vijibilerni At veto
fecundiitn in'-jifihilem fubfantiam ,
Corpus df Sanguis Chrijli vcre ex-
ijlunt.
§iuo eredunt defiruere compro-
bantur. Corpus etenim, Sanguine'm-
^ue fideliter confitentur, ^ cum hoc
faciunt, non hoc jam e fe quodprius
fuere procul dubio potejlantur, (ir fi
aliud funt qudm fuere mutationem
accepert.
Ep. ad Heri-
bald. c. 3 3.
(6S)
ivas changed, and the outward appearance only remained, lie could
not conceive how his Adverfaries (who, though they faithfully be-
lieved with Bertram and the Church, that the Bread was changed
into the true Body ofChrifl, yet they deny'd there
was any Figure in the Sacrament) could recon-
cile Faith with their Opinion, And this was his
R.eafon •, For tf the Bread and Wine were another
thing than they were before Confecration, they were
changed. Ancl if the Subftance was changed, the
vilible fpecies which remained muft be a Figure.
Rabanus fpeaking of the Second Propofition, -viz,. Whether the
Bread, which was changed into the Body of Chrifb, was the Natural
Body of Chrijl, declares, that it was not the Body of Chrift re-
ceived from the Virgin Mary in its natural exiftence, but that
it was the true Body which he received from the Virgin after a
Supernatural and Sacramental Permanency.
The firft Opinion which he rejedls, he charges with Novelty,
in the paffage you cite. Saying, Some of late not having a right
Opinion, concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord,
have faid, that this is the Body and Blood of our Lord which was born
of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord fuffered upon the Crofs^
and rofe from the Dead: which Error we have oppofed with all our
might.
The other, which was the belief of the Church, he thus de-
livers: God effeBed whatever be would in Heaven and on Earth.
From hence he deduces, that Bread is chang'd into the Body
of Chrift-, and therefore adds,wo F/ejlj,
De Sanguine Dommi, cap. 3. what was born of the Virgin Ma-
fajfa in cruce & refurrexit de Ss" Scpulch^T, And'who does not behc've thts^ if he baa
feen Chrifi upon the Crofs in the likenefs of a Servant,
how would he have underflood he was God, unlefs
F aith had prevailed with him to believe? And in the
42 Chapter of the fame Book, he fpeaks thus^
It is the fame Flefls, which was given for thee and
for all, and hanged upon the Crofs, becaufe truth
teflifies. This is my Body which fiall be given for you-,
fic 'veriias ieflatur, hoc eft Corpus ^"'jof the Chalice, This is my Blood, which flail be
meutn, quod pro 'uobis tradetur, & fPf^ pr you, for remtffion of Sins,
de Calice, hit enim Sanguis tneus efi, qui pro vtbis effundetur in remifponem peccatorum.
From
pulchro
Et cap. 3. -At verp quifquis if a
■non credit, Si vidi fet Chrifium in
Crttce in fpecie fervi, quomodo Deum
iUum intelligeret, niji per fidem
prius credidiffet ?
Cap. 42. Neque aliam Carnem
quam qua pro te, & pro omnibus
tradita eft, pependit in Cruce, quia
( ^9 )
From hence it is plaiii, that what is now the very Dodrin
of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, the two
Learned Authors you have alledged, Bertram and Rabamts, ne-
ver oppos'd.
But you tell us, though for a more clear and fatisfadory An-
fwer to the pretended Demonftration of Mr. AmauU, you have
cotJjfented to untie the knot ^ yet you could without all thefe pains
have cut it. If you ftrive to cut it with no more skill than yoii
have endeavor'd to untie it, the work muft be the labor of
fome Nobler Champion, 'Tis true, you make ufe of (in
hopes to do the buhnefs) Diogenes plain ftroke ot experience
o'recoming Zeno's denial of Motion, by walking before his Eyes.
Is then the Dgdrin of Tranfubftantiation not the belief of the
Primitive Church, becaufe Diogenes walked before Zeno'/ Eyes ?
A wilder Proceeding I never heard of from any Chriftian Di-
vine i and the bare relation of this matter of Fadl, is a full con-
futation thereof.
From the Pagan Philofophers, you run for afliftance to the
Servants in the Parable, who could not give any pundual ac-
count when the Tares were fown, or by whom: i et it was ma-
. nifeft they were mingled with the good Wheat. From hence
you haften to the Civil Wars of our Nation, where at length
our King his Gracious Majelby, Charles the Second of Great
Brittain, was happily reftorcd to his Crown, without a great
deal of fighting and Bloodfhed. From this place you take your
journy into Turky ^ and bring down the Grand Vifier (inva-
ding Chriftendom, and befiegeing Vienna) who was not oppo-
fed by the Moft Chriftian King, who had the greatefl: Army
in Chriftendom in a readinefs.
Whilft I ruminate thefe Similitudes, I cannot eafily conceive,
how you can jo^jm our Great Monarch's happy Reftauration, in
a Simily with Tares, where Wheat was fown, and with the
Grand Seigneur invading Clmiftendom, and not give occafion
to the Reader to think you either wanted circumfpedion in the
choice of your Arguments, or imprudently left a fufpicion of
your Loyalty.
And I wonder how a man of your great Wit and Judgment,
could prevail with himfelf to conclude the Nullity of Mr. Ar-
nauWs folid reafoning from Experiences or matters of Fad,
that have nothing at all to do with the Sacrament ? Why muft
Mr. Arr
(7°)
Mr. Arnaul(l''s Dcmonftration be weak and infufficient, bccaiife
the Chriftian King, not long fince repofcd in peace, with his
great Army •, or fome time ago our Gracious Monarch of hap-
py memory, was reftored to his Crown •, or becaufe St. MatbtTv
wrote the Parable of the Tares ? All the Reafon in the WorId
is too weak to make good any fuch way of proceeding. But
to anfwer precifely to what you aflimilate them in, ( wz,. from
thefe Comparilbns you would prove, that the Controverted
Do£trin might fiUntly have come in, and 7vithout oppofition, al-
though the particular time and occafioh of its firfl rifi, could not be af
fgned-,) Did not a confiderable part of Chriflendom with all
their might oppofe the Turkifti Invalion? and if alj had been
quiet, would not Vienna have been furprifcd and pilledged?
Was all England ignorant of the Reftauration of our Gracious
Monarch •, and were there none to be found to witnefs his com-
ing in ? were not the Tares, as foon as they fprung up, feen and
dilcovered i But no body, except Heretics, ever oppofed Tran-
fubftantiation •, No body but Rebels rofe againft the right Pre-
rogative of their Prince.
And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Blef-
fed Sacrament? The fame confidence is fufficient to extend the
fame Comparifon to the reft of our Chriftian Myfteries,. and
proves juft as much, that is, nothing at all, except Chriftianity
be nothing elfe but Tares.
SECT. III.
Of the Infallihle Authority of the Prefent Church for this
Do^r'tn,
YOU fav, the Roman Church made and obtruded upon
the World this Article, merely by verttie of her Autho-
rity. Seeing not any fufficient reafon^ either from Scripture, or TraJi-
tion, for the belief of it.
The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Chil-
dren,that She had Power from God to make an Article of Faith.
But She teaches us, that two Conditions are required for the
conftitution of an Article of Faith. Firft, Revelation from
God. Secondly, The Declaration of an Oecumenical Council.
Where thefe rwo agree, that we are taught, is part of our Belief.
And
(71 )
And I /hall de/ire you will only penife thcfe words of the
Council of Trent, which intimate the Reafon, why the Church
of God declared for Tranfubftantiation •, and I am perfuadcd
you'l believe She did not define thisDoftrin, neither warranted
with Scripture, nor Tradition. For the Coun-
cil fays-, Becauje Chrifi our Saviour truly JaU, Condi.Trid. Seff. 13. cap 4.
that was his Bodf , which ttnder the Species cf 0lutniam autem Chripts Redem-
Bread, he offered-, therefore the Church of God ftornofler. Corpus fuum id quod
.hv.y. Mj, .w A »/,
elares again the jatne, that by the conjecratton of (hjin fuit, idque stunc denuo
Bread and Wrae, the whole (ubjlance of Bread is SnvBa h,ec Synodus declarat per
changed into the fubfiance of the Body of our Lord, confecrationem Panis & Fini con-
and the whole fubfiance of the Wine into the fub- '^erfinem fieri mius JuhfiamU
fiance of the Blood, whtch Converfion u conveniently iZVofiJ^&ZlTfubfiaS^ FM
and properly called by the CouncilfTranfuhfianttation. y„ fubflasttiam Sanguinis ejus, quz •
converfio convcnienter (p proprie d Sancfa Catholica Ecelefia Tranjubfiantiatio appeSata efi,
SECT. IV.
Of the Necejfity of fuch a Change for the hem fit of the Re-
ceiver,
TH E Spiritual Efficacy of tiic Sacrament dracnds upon re-
cciving the thing, which our Lord inftitiited, and a.
right preparation and difpofition of mind, which makes it cf-
fedual to thofe Spiritual Ends, for which it was appointed.
As God might without any Baptifmal Water, without any
vi/ible Elements, have waflied away the Stains of Original Sin,
and given Spiritual Regeneration: So could he have made the
worthy Receivers true Partakers of the Spiritual Comfort and
Benefit de/ign'd to usyn the Lord's Supper,, without any fub-
ftantial change made in the nature of Bread and Wine.
But as we cannot fav, the Water in Baptifm, and Sjmibols
are unprofitable, as things are inditutcd by Gal, and ufelefs
for the clean/ing of Original Sin: fo likewife ought we not to
pretend, that the Fleih of Chrift is ufelefs, and profitcth no-
thing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament, becaufe Chrifi
without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament.
God
( 72 )
God inighc have pardon'd the World ^ if his only begotten
Son had not undergon lb many griefs and anguifhes, fo much
pain, and that ignominious death of the Crofs. Yet who dare
fay this Flefli was not true Flefh, or profited nothing, which
Redeemed all the World ? If it profited on the Crofs, why
docs it not profit in the Sacrament ? And if it profit not with-
out Faith, how can it profit thofe who believe.not ?
The very thought of our Saviour's Subffantial Prefence in
the Sacrament, ftrikes much a deeper imprefFion of Devotion
in my Soul, than if I refleded on bare Symbols or Signs weakly
exciting Faith in me.
And even when a Terrene Prince vifits Prifons, or in a So-
lemn Pomp enters the Capital City, his Corporal Prefence cii-
flomarily frees many Criminals from Chains, Fetters, and
Imprifonments, which the Law would otherwife not have
granted, nor the King confented too: And yet one word of
command is fufhcient to do greater execution.
S E C T. V.
Of the Power of the Priefi,
WE acknowledge a Power in thePricff, which is not in the
People. All were not conftituted Apoftles, all were
not Dodors. But we do not acknowledge a Power in the Prieft
to make God, as yoli calumniate us: we acknowledge a Power
in God to change one Subflance into another, Bread into his
Body. Till you prove this impofFible, (which is impofFible to
be dofie •, ) you'll give us leave to believe God is in the right
poflcflion of his Omnipotency, and lofes nothing of his Power
by your Detradion. And if you count this Miraculous change
ho Miracle, give it what Title you pleafe-, we will not difpute
the Name, if you contradidnot the thing.
And thus I have difpatched the firff part of my Anfwer,which
wasto vindicate the real Grounds and Reafons of the Church of
Rome, for this Dodrin.
PART
( 7? )
PARTI
' Y Second Part was defigned to anfwer your Objedi-
ons, which are of fo much the lefs force, bccaufe I
. have already fhewn, this Do£trin fufficiently war-
ranted with Divine Authority; and this eafily weighs down,
and overthrows whatever Probabilities Senfe can fuggeft,or R.ea-
foil invent. Thefe Probabilities you reduce to thefe two Heads,
Firh, The infinite Scandal of thisDoBrin, to the Chrifiian Reltgion.
And Secondly, The monfirous and infupportahle Ahfurdity of it.
CHAP. I.
Of the infinite Scandal of this Docirin to the Chrifiian Religion.
An D this upon four accounts. Firfh by reafon of the Stupi-
dity of this Dodrin. Secondly, The real barbaroufnefs of
it. Thirdly, The Bloody confequences of it. Fourthly, The
danger of Idolatry.
Article I.
Of the Stupidity of this DoBrin.
*UUy the Roman Orator, faySy -we
^ call the Fruits of the Earth and Wine „ De Natura Provid. Lb. 3. Ec
Bacchus, ufe but the common Language, hut do Zfi^tTr foeZZrefat
you think any man fo mad, as to believe what he efe ?
eats, tobeGod? lam of Cicero's Opinion. And
all rcafonable People look upon Poetical Faticies, as Extrava-
gant Reveries. But I hope the Law.of Chrift, is neither Poe-
tical nor Fabulous.' I. remember the: Poets ling how Minerva
the Goddefs of Wifdom was born of Jupiter's Under Banding.
Harken, fays Tertullian, a Fable, but a true one, like to this.
The Word of God proceeding from the Thought of his Eternal Father.
This Likenels, or Sinailitude of Poetical invention, diminilhcs
not in the Icaft, the truth of fhe Son's Divinity. Nor ought
thc.Stupidity of-eating God, in Opinion, ridicule our
St)i\io\.\xiso\9i\V\[ot^s^ Take, eat, this is p}y Body. >
K Averrdes
T'
( 74)
Dionyf. Canh. Avenbes the Arabian Phllofopherjacknowledging in his time [ft
in 4,iiQ. a. I., tliis Dodrln, tO be the Profeffiou of all Chrifttans , ought to
make (not what you lay, the Church of Rome) the Church of
Englandbluihj objcding that the whole Society of Chriftians then,
every where admitted Tranfubflantiation. I have travelled, {nys j
lie, over the World,, and have found divers SeBs, but fo fottifh a SeB
or Law I never found, as is the SeB of ChrifiianSy hecaufe with their
own Teeth they devour God, whom they worfliip.
It was great ftupidity in the People of Ifraef to fay. Come let
us make us Gods-, but.it wa5 civilly faid of them^ us make us J
Gods that may go before us, in comparifon of the Church of Eng-
landy who calumnibufly make the Catholics fay, let us make a il®®'
God, that we may eat him when we only fay, God has power
to change Bread into his Body,. a'iv'
But the grcateft Stupidity of all is, that in all Probability
you think thole common jugling Words of Hocus Vocus are nothing
elfe but a corruption, of Hoc efi Corpus y by way of a ridiculous Imitation
of the Trie ft of the Church of Rome. I grant this Imitation is
very ridiculous. And you are the fir.it Juggler with this-Di-
vine Myftsry, and with our Saviour's own Words, that ever : W"
I read of in my life. But with all the Legerdemain, and Jugling
tricks of Fal/ehood andImpojlure, youl never make me believe you,
fooner than I do the Scripture.
Nay, if Averrdes, Cicero, and'a whole Progenie of Heathen
Philosophers, were as great Jugglers as your felf, and altogether Ufi
delign'd to put a Trick upon me, you Ihould never juggle me, («Hii
Thi
tW
moftl
by the Grace of God, out of my Eaith in Chiiflr.
And Lafily,. If I ihould asbcouniil of the Philofophers ( as
you do in tlie concern of the Sacrament) to know-the true caufe
Dm
of this Univerfe, Heraclitus would tell me Atoms produced it
fend me to the Marriage in .Numbers •, The
Valentinians would bring me to the four Principles, which made
die Treatife of Peace between Verity and Silence, Light and
Profoundnefs. But whilft I let them enquire one of another,
what gave being to thefe Atoms? who thought-thefe Numbers?
whence came this Verity ?- what, is the Origin of this Silence ?
the Source of this Liglit ? the Propof this Profoimdnefs ? I reft
fE/l
contented in mind, and inftrudted with thisTalTage of Mofes •, lai
Ifi the beginning God created Heaven and Earth :: Gcxl is the Caufe of
all thingSi Qiceco may difpute with his falfe Gods: And Averrbes.
may
1 CIl
(75)
may deride Chriftians: A Jiigler may laugh at our Saviour's st. Aug. dc r.
Inhitution. Thefe words, th^ is my Body, filenccs them all, Apli. c 7.
and excites me to fay with St. Aufiin, Difpnte Ton, I mil bdie've.
Article II.
Of the Barbaroufnefs of this Doclrin,
TH E eating Man's Flelli, in its proper fhape, is no doubt
very barbarous. But I think the eating our Saviour's Flefli
undertheSpecipofBreadand Wine,appears ^
barbarous neither to Senfc, nor to Realon. ^
TheophslaB asks ( in John 6.) My does tt not f,utv Sict -n
appear Flefh to ta, but Bread? and Aufwers,/f/ dniJl^iSs^tIvj ^famv.
we (hould have horror to eat it. And what you ^ Chryf. Horn. ^4. in i. ad Cer.
call St. calls For il'''"''''"'''
what more K.iiid than to give himlelt ?
But you cannot imagin the Ancient Chriftians ever own'd
any fuch Doftrin, becaufe then we (hould have heard of it from the
Adverfaries of our Religion in every Tage of their Writings.
This cannot be expeded. For very few Pagans conccrn'd
themfelves with the Rites of Chriftianity: And of thefe the
mod Famous complain Chriftians conceal'd the Do£trins they
profeffed. Hence that Murmur of CeciUm in Minutius Felix, Why
are the Chrifiians carefuU to hide andfieal their Worfhip from Mens eyes,
fince Honefiy is never ajham'd to face Light ? And Celfus difguftcd Apud Oiigen.
upon the fame account, calls our Religion a Clandeftin or hidden '^yf^yyvmtov,
DoBrin. To which Origen occurs. Tts true, there are fome Points a-^f'
otong us not communicated to all the World, nor is this peculiar to Chri-
jlUns, The Philofophers obferv'd two forts of Principles, fome were pub-
lie and common to all-, others were private, and the Science of particular
Difciples. 'Tis therefore in vain Celfus undertakes to dfcover the Se-
crets of Chrifiians, not knowing in what they confifi. St. Aufiin, and Aitg.
St. Denys the Areopagitc teach the fame. And yet whether the
Pagans knew them, or knew them not, you will have them re- r
vile our Myfteries in every Page of ther Writings. hi;, 'c.
Nor are you contented with this, for you add, With what
confidence would they have fet the Cruelty ufed by Chrifiians in their Sa-
crament^ againfi their God Saturt^s eating his own Children, but that
no fuch Argument was then okjeBed by the Heathens to the Chrifiians,
Kl is to
1SJi
til!
111.
■ I
it
\y
I • : ■
I : >\ti'
ii
ii
■i
!b'
i :;1
i i
( 7^)
Tcrtull, Apol.
i-. 7-
D'cimur In-
fanticid^e d''
Pabulo crudi-
is to a wife Mdn inlleai of a thottjatt'd Demdnfirations^ that no fueh Do-
Br 'tn was believed.
Now fure I^m ncnpluft. For how-can I folve an Objeftion
which ftands inftcad of a thoufand Demonftrations ? V/hat
Author will happily fall into my hand, or diftatc how our A.d-
vcrfarics gathered from Slaves and Captives a rude Relation of
this Myftery, which was matter enough for them to hit us in
the Teeth, in requital of Saturn's eating his Children, with the
killing and feafting onFlefli artd Blood?
This Paffage perchancoof Tertullian may fufhcc any fobcr Un-
derftanding, that the Pagans did not omit fuch a return vou
feek after 5 Weave (fayshe) called wicked Infanticides, (Child
killers) and nouvified with raw Flejh.
Athanagoras comes nearer, and reminds iis how the Pagans-
with conndence fet the cruelty ufed by Chrifbians, in their Sa-
crament, if not againft the God Saturn's, at leaft againft Thyefles's
. , . . , (another like Hiftory) eatina his
tX 'Krntomv vfjdv feareimpeach'd {zysht, (by Pagans) of Three
(.dice, d^'oTdi=e,\ji^eicc fi^rnble Crimes, of taking away the Gods, o/Thy-
iiATiDddais eftean Banquets (eating of a Child,) and of Incefts.
St. Jufiin Martyr fits yotl with Saturn's OWn
Sr. juftin Apol. I. in fin:. Fable. 'Tis reported (fays he to the J^miLns) We
^dyxovlii y-epvvfj^ praBice Saturn's My fiery; and killing Man, exer-
'T'. Mba„d,fM.f^ar, M.UcLlaMhci,
TzJ TOf MT/y oiJUKcd. Rites of your Idolatry. Now lure I may conclude
with you, that becaufe fuch a thing was then
objeded by the Heathens to the Chriftians, it is to a wife Man
inftead of a thoufand Demonftrations, that the Dodrin of
Tranfubftantiation was believed in Primitive Ages, and then
modeftly vindicated from thefe foul Afperfions.
1 (lilIllU®
tot""
%
- [jricK!
isski',
Hff
wl
m
; teiti
1 «'
m
Article III.
Of the Bloody Confeqaences of this DoBrin.
IF this Dodrin had been the occafion of the mod Barbarous
and Bloody Tragedies, to ufe your words, that ever were
aded in the World, the Enemies of Chriftianity would have
hit them in the Teeth with thefe Cruelties of terrour, fury and
rage; and what endlefs Triumphs would they have made upon
^ this
if
( 77 )
this Subject ? But that no fiich thing was objected by the Hca-
thcns, is to a wife Man inftead of a thoufand Demouftrations.
And what you want here of Authority, you firppJy and make
up in a zealous appearance of Devotion, breaking into this Ex-
clamation •, O Ble£edSaviour! ovho can imagine that ever Men Jhould
kill one another, for not being able to believe contrary to their Senfes ■, for
being unwilling to think that thoy, [houU/} make one of the moft barbarom
things that can be imagined, a Principle of thy Religion ; for not flatte-
rin<r the Prefumption cf the Prief, who (ays he can make God.
l^his is certainly to run headlong into Hell in Heavens Road,
wheedling the People into Blind Extafies, with Hypocritically
crying out, O BleJJed Saviour 1 But all who fays, O Lord, O Lord, omnis qui
(hall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Examine your own
1 T-> r- -11 1 r J Demtne, intra'
Prayer, and Reafon will hnd matter enough to diicuis, and Rcgmm
Confcience more to correft. _ _ cakrum.
What Catholic ever faid, Firft, That Men Ihould kill one
another •, Secondly, That the moil: barbarous thing in the
World is a Myftery of Religion •, Thirdly, That we flatter
the Prieft, who fays, he can make God ?
Thefe are as true, as your Prayer is without'Calumny or
HyTpocrifie. They are as true, as there were Execrable Mur-
ders committed to drive People into this Scnfeiefs Dodrin, by
no Body, in no Place.
. But they arc not as true as the Doftrin of Tranfublfantiation
was delivered by Chrift and his Apoftles, taught by the Con-
fent of the Fathers, Divinely revealed and propi^ated to Poftc-
rity •, and fo free from Stupidity, quiet from Quelty, and a
Pious Myftery of our Religion.
Article IV.
Of the Danger of Idolatry,-
IF we Ihould be miftaken, as you fuppofe, about this Change
through the crofsnefs of the Prieft (which God forbid it
Ihould happen) not pronouncing the words of Blefling or Con-
fecration,we fhould not at all be guilty of Idolatry.For believing
only one true God, we profefs there is infinite Dirtance between
him and all Creatures: and therefore we cannot fo honour any
Creature,, as we do the true God. Nor is our Intention ever
determined-
I
C 78 )
Hctermined by the Will to adore any thing which is not God-,
So that if the Hoaft were not, through miftake, confecrated
by the Prieft, the Peoples Adoration would be terminated in
Chrill, where e're he is, becaufe it is directed to God, and not
to a Creature. The Pagans, 'tis true, or Perlians cannot be ex-
cufed from Idolatry, in worfhiping the Sun, becaufe erring
from the knowledge of the true God, they dired their Ado-
ration to what is not God, but a Creature.
ThonidykV Mr. thorndyke, one of the great Lights of your Church, was
Prejent State pg convinced in this point, that he profefles, fiould this Ch»rch
c I (0/England) declare that the Change^ ivhich we call Reformation^ is
\ grounded upon this Suppofitiofi (^of Idolatry in the Church of I
mufi then acknowledge that we (Proteftants) are the Schifmatics.
CHAP. II. Si,
1
of the Monfirom Ahfurdity of this DoBrin.
TO (hew the Abfurdity of this Dodrin, you are contented
to ask thefe few Queftions.
Queftion I. Whether ever any Man have^ or ever had greater tvi-
dence of the truth of any Divine Revelation, than every Man hath of
the Falfehood ofTranfubJlantiation.
Anfwer. If we had no furer Evidence of Revealed Truth,
than every Man liath of the Falfehood of Tranfubhantiation,
we flioula have no true Evidence for Chriftian Religion •, And
thus by your Firfl: Queftion Chriftianity would immediatly be
difpatched out of the World.
Queft. a. Suppoftng the Dodrin had been delivered in Scrip-
ture in the fame words, which we read in the Council of Trent,
Yon ask, hy what Jlronger Argument could any Man prove to me, that
fuch words were in the Bible, than I can prove to him, that Bread and
Wine after Confecration are Bread and Wtne fiid ?
Anfwer. The Senfe of the Council of Trent, and that of the
Scriptures are one and the fame. If therefore I can but appeal
to my Eyes to prove fuch'words to be in the Bible, as you d6 ap-
peal to your Senfes to prove that Bread and Wine remain after
Confecrition •, what the Scripture fays, is evidently true accor-
ding to the Teftimony of Senfe •, and your Tcftimony from
Senfe of the fubftancc of Bread remaining, is evidently falle. I,
have
(7?)
have great affurance of this. For St. Paul forbids me to believe
an Angel J if he ftiould come down from Heaven, and teach me
contrary to wliat is writ in Scripture. As th» is the fubftance
of Bread, and not my Body, is contradiftory to, tha w my Body.
And what Prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an Angel ?
And if you draw one way with vour Evidence of Senfe, and
Scriptural Evidence from Senfe draw another way,, is it not
evi^nt that your evidence is good for nothing ?
Quell:. 3. V¥hether it be reafonable to imagin, that God
fiiould make that a part of Chriftian Religion, which Jhakes the
main external E'vidente and Confirmation of the whole ? Yon mean
die Miracles v.chich were wrought by our Saviour and his Apo-
ftles, the Jfiitrance whereof did at firfi defend upon the certainty of
Senfe ?
Anfwer. With great Reafon and Juftice you appeal to the
Senfes of thofe, who fay, they faw the Miracles which Were
wrought by our Saviour, and his Apoftles ^ bccaufe their Eyes
were the proper Witneffes of Miracles: So with the fame Rea+-
foil and Juftice I appeal tp my Senfes to prove, that the words
which teach the Doftrin of Tranfubftantiation are in Scripture^
becaufe Paper, Ink, Syllables, and words, are the proper Objects
of Seeing, feeling, and hearing. How then does the Catholic
Tenet ihake the main External Evidence of the Chriftian Re-
ligion, when this external proof of Senle evidences, from Scrip-
aire, Tranfubftantiation ?
Queft. Whether our Saviour's Argument were conchfive or noti, prO'
ving to his Difciples after his Refurreftion, that his Body was
rifen, Luke X4.19. Behold my hands and my feet ^ that it is 1 my felf
for a Spirit hath not Flejh and Bones, as pufee me have.
And if feeing and handling bean uneptefiionahle Evidence that things
are what they appear to our Senfes, then the Bread- in the Sacrament is
not chanfd into the Body of Chrifi.
Anfwer. Senfe, in its own Objects, is frequently certain ^
and here we may rely on it. According to this Principle, the
Argument which our Saviour ufed, did certainly prove to the
Difciples, that what they faw and handled,, was'his true Body.
For affirmation of Flelh and Bones rightly follows from feeling^
and feeing. Thefe A61:ions belong properly to the experience
of Senfe. Bcfides, wchave all this recorded in Scripture. AnR
our Saviour made iifc of all other Arguments imaginable to
confirm.the Myftcry of his Refiirrcdion. In.
■lii
\[ h
I'I
ill:
'ill- ,
( 8o )
In fome Circiimftaiiccs the Senfes may deceive us, and then
we ought not to rely on them. Thus the Jews, defigning to
Lulvc 4. precipitate our Saviour from the top of a Mountain •, Jefm, as
we read in Scripture, pajfed through the cr07vd, and departed, and
the whole Multitude, tnifting to that Information which Senfe
gave themj believ'd he was a Ghofl:, _or Apparition. In like
manner, the fame true Body of Chrift is uibftantially prefent
in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Exiftence *, and therefore it is
not the proper Objedt of Senfe ; and fo we cannot here rely on
our Senfes. Wemuft then truftto fomething elfe,x'/2i. totheTe-
ftimony of Scripture, which is the Rule of Faith, to know furely
what Subftance or Body lies under the Species, or appearance of
Bread.
Now the Scripture teaches us, that the Bread in the Eucharift
Matth. is the Body of Chrift, This is my Body, and, the Bread which I
John 6, ^piJi ffjy plejlj, jf it be the Fleih of Chrift, as we learn
from Scripture,then the Subftance of Bread remains not; for the
remaining Subftance,at the fame timejCannot be the Subftance of
Bread, and the Subftance of the Body of Chrift. Moreover, our
Saviour left many other Teftimonies in confirmation of this
Verit)'. Our Belief is grounded on our Saviour's Words-, and
what more fecure than to build on this Immovable Rock of
Truth.
Now what fhall I fay, but that your whole Difcourfe has
been levell'd at our Saviour Jefus Chrift, and his Teftimonies,
agamft which the Gates of Hell ftiall never prevail.
sr. Auj 1. !. d. Doa. Chrifl. f Oftls of y
c. n. Si anirnum praoccnpaverit the Opinion oj .Errcr has pTepoJfeJJed A4^n^s
alicujus erroris opinio, quidcjuid Mind, whatever Scripture fhall fay in oppoption to
ahter afferuerit Scriptura fi^ura- , his Senfes, he fiippofes a Figuratme Interpretation.
: turn homines arbitrantur. fbat this Figurative receiving Chrift in
the Sacrament, prefage not a Figurative embracing of the fame
in the nexbWqrid 1 and fo you clipping the ^adow for the true
Bodyj lofc fdf ever Eternal Happinefs. ''
EccLefia fudicio SuliePla funto.
' ■ t ^
J "Mi: ; u.:; o. . . • : " ,
: /bi:^ j Tvy--7 c f ■' ■ "tC:
' r '
''F1 rvf'-/y
* &
•jCtanfttbftanttatioit SPefeitoeD
l\^^ucoivrf€^ Prov'd from
SCRIPTURE
A N S V E R
T O
The First Part
o F A
TREATISE,
I N T I T L E D,
A Difcoiirfe againjl Tranfdfimtiation,
The Firft Part.
S. Ignatim Ep. ad Smyrmos.
a.'Tsi.yQvXnA 'n o^oMy^v ^hjytvytt^t^ietvtrafxae
fTj/ac/r? XOTKeos tmi' U'2«g dnet^Ttisv H//.(oj"srst8«o«i', wr TS>
iTj-Tj ivcfn^ny^tiv • 'OiZ? d/]iMyo^i( rn eTafSit t3 Sss a"y^Hl8r7?< ct'sro9j'«3')CBCTr»
Thty afcftain from our Communion, becauft they do not confcfs the Eucharift to be the Fiefli of our
Sariour lelus Chrift,^hat very Flefli which fuffer'd for our (ins,which the Father of his bounty raifed again;
Thofe therefore which conttadift this free gift of God, die fcvupulouily Qucftioning the matter
amougft thcmielves.
pubUfl)'o toitlj allowance.
L O N D 0 N;
Printed hj Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Moft Excellent
MaieRi' for His Houfliold and ChappeL 16S7.
Tbe Vrincipal Contents of the [^^1
IntrodaBion.
l i Reafons why the Difcourfe againft Tranfubftan- i
tiation lay fo long unanrwerM.
a. The Real or Effemial Prefence of Chrifts Body
in the Sacrament, fticw'd to be the Do£trin of
the Englifli Church.
3. How the Catholic Church neceflarily inferreth
Tranlubftantiation from our Saviours words un-
derftood in a proper Senle.
4. The Pretended Demonftration to the contrary
from the Senfe of the Word Tf/ts, iri thole Words
of our Lord, This is my 'Body^ fo highly boalled tM"
of in the Ex^oftulatory Letter to Mr* Scla.ter of
Putney, (hew'd to be a mere Illulion.
. fi)(«
,ii'
ill
m
pi
t
AN
INTRODUCTION
To the enfuing
ANSWER.
SOme have wondred, whiljl others TriumpPty
and a late Writer particularly hath vainly
boajledy in a certain * Letter to a Friend^ that * Publllht at
Two great Do6lors of the Englijh Church
had baffled tbeir Adverfaries of Rome even to the
filencing of that Party, and all this was hecaufe the
Difcourfe againfi Tranfubfiantiation lay fa long un~
anjwer^d. The bell ac-county that I can give of the fo
long (ilencCy iSy that the more conf derate knew, that
the faid Difcourfe contained no new matter, but only
what had been very often objected agatnjl us fince the
Pretended Reformation of the Englijh Church, and
as often fully Anfwered, as alfo, that there have been
(a) two large Volums Writen by a Learned Catho-
lie Author, and ( b ) cited by the Difcourfer him- lums concer-
felf, wherein the Objellions againjl Iranfubjlantia-'^^'^^}'^^
tion are put much further than this late Difcourfe
urges them, and all cleaPd beyond the Power of any
folid Anfwer ; and we fnd none for many Tears laft
A 2 - pjfl fubllantiatiorj
An Introdu(5lion.
ptfifo much as offer'd, at againfl the faidTreatifes,
nor yet to a more compendious one B^ntitled ^ A Ra-
tional Difcourfe concerning Tranfubftantiation
PubliffPt 1675. hi which the chief Objections repeated
fince by the Difcourftr are fully clear'd. Monover,
the DoCtrin of the knglijh Church conctrning the Real
Prefence being no lefs vigoroujly attacqu't by, the Lite
Difcourfer^ than that of the Roman Catholic^ it was
thought more proper, 'that fome of them floould have
frji returned an Jnfver to it, becaufe they had the
greater Reafon to refent the injury done them, ftnce
a wound from a pretended Friend is more grievous
than from a profeji Adverfary.
Indeed, I would not have the Genui i Sons of the
Fngl'fh Church to think, that we differ fo much with
thern in this, Point, as fome by Mifreprefenting the
thing, would tnake us to do, feeingthat they do acknow-
j^efp. ad Apoi. ledge with Btfhop Andrews, prsslentiam non minus
Beii.c. 7.p.ii. quam nos veram ; no Jefs True Preience ofChrifts
Body in the Sacrament, than vve do , and I am
fure that, is True enough', our difference with them,
(who deny Confubfiantiation, 04 is manifefl from-
their Writings,) being only, about the not admitting
the Word Tranfubftantiation, whereas they have fo
long freely acknowledged the thing. For if the Body
of Chrifl be Really prefent in the Sacrament, and not.
with the fubjlance of Bread, it mufl be there without
it, under the External Species only of Bread, and con-,
fequently fueh a change of fubflance as the Catholic
church calls FranfuhfantiaHon, mufl certainly be
made', and there can.be no other Senfe given of that
Real Prefence which hatth been received in their
Church,
Noy>
An Introducflion?
Npw^ thit the Real Prefence of Chrifis Bodj>j to-
gether with Ws Vertue and Efficacy, is the asknorv^
kdged Belief of the Greatefi and tnofi Learned Per-
fons of I he E>fgliffi Communion is * certain^ notwith- * ril.T-.\o
flandin? the weak endeavor of an imperfect Jnfvenr D'Ccourfes
f J ' 1 / y41 A ' ^ J. f ' concerning
to the Jnimadverjions upon the Alt era'ions op the Adoration
Rubrick la:ely Piiblifbtj to/hetv the contrary. Which ofoui^ BiciTed
that it may the more plainly appear, I fjall add
Obfervation made by a Famed Doctor of tfjeir Churchy c. i. of the
ivffich will be the more Authentick. becauft it was drawn DiRourre.
- , . „ . ' Prince I at or.
from their Records. ford, \ 6><7.
It was propoled , faith this * Doctor, to have * Dr. snr»« in
the Communion Book, viz. That put forth in ti'eR;!fiuma°^
beginningof Qyieen Elizabeths Reign, fb contriv'd, tion Part 2.
that it might not exclude the Belief of the Cor-
poral Prelence : I doubt not, butthty meant after a
Spiritual manner, as Catholics do fuitablyto St. Paul aifo d--.
who ufes the words Spiritual Body to fgnifea Re I
Body exifling after a Spiritual manr.er^ For the p. 22.'in tiie
chief Defign or the Queens Council was to unite Dncioduftion.
the Nation in one Faith, and the Greater part of
the Nation continued to believe fuch a Prelence ;
(which however feems to have been deterrnin'd agai^fl
in their former Articles and Rubrick.) Thereupon,
the Rubrick that explain'd the realbn for kneel-
ing at the Sacrament, that thereby no Adoration
is intended to any Corporal Prelence of Chrills
Natural Flefh and Blood, becaufe that is only in
Heaven, which bad been in King Edwards Litur-
gy, is left out— And in the Article about the *Part 2. of
Lords Supper the Refutation of the Corporal Pre- HiiKRefo.m.
fence jv-?/Common conlent left out. — And in
the next Convocation the Articles were fubfcribed
c? with-.
An Introdu<5tion.
without them, of which, he tells us ^ he had (een
the Original. Norv^ rvhatjoevtr this DoSior {whofe
ufual PrAciice it hath been, like the Snake in the Fable,
to bite and betray the ft that have cherijht him) pre-
tends to know of a Secret concerning this matter,
(for which he doth not bring the leaf proof or Authority,
whereas he had feen the Original to be an evidence of
what he had before faid,') yet for my part I have more
Deference for the Englijh Church, than to believe that
the Real Prefence of Chrifs Body in the Sacrament
was, after fo much confideration about the matter ,
(now behold the fecret comes out^ left as a fpecula-
tive Opinion, as he faith, and not determin'd, but
every Man left to the freedom of his own mind,
becaufe an exprels Definition againft the Real Pre-
fence might drive from the Church many who
were ftill of that perfwafion. For then thofe fiu-
dioujlj altePd Articles and Rubrick had only been made
as a Trap to draw Men into Idolatry, and keep them in
it, if you will believe fome of the great Modern Wri-
tcrs who live in Communion, at prefent, with the Eng-
lijh Church, and yet deny that Real Prefence, which
was both in Queen Elizabeths time, and ever fince
believed in that Church , and tax thofe with Idolatry
who WorjJjip Chrijl thus prefent, i here for ewe have
good Reafon to allow, what he tells us afterwards, that
fbme ( we are fure that many of the mojl Learned a-
mongfl them) have fince truly inferr'd, that the
Chief Paftorsofthe Church did then difapprove
of the Definition made in King Edwardstim^, and
that they were for a Real Prefence.
And of this we can make no doubt, when we perufe
the Writings of thofe Pafors, who fueceeding them till
this
An Introduclionr
this very time^have given fo full an account of their
Faith in this mighty injlance, and yet have pajl un-
cenfur'*dj nay^ have been of greatefi efteem in their
Church. And how indeed can we imagin, that Men of
the leaf fincerity would leave an Article of infinite
concern to Mens Immortal Souls in fo undeterminat a
Senfe, that Chrijlians might believCy which they pie as''dy
either that Chrijls Body was thus Really prefent in
the Sacrament, whichy if it were not, they incurred
the guilt ofgrofs Idolatryy or that it was not foy which
if Really it waSy they were guilty of Infidelity, in not
believing Our Lord upon his Word, ani a breach of
the jirjl Commandmenty in not Worfljipping the fecond
Per [an in the Trinity y prefent ing himfelf to us in this
Sacrament; according to that jay ing , of the Great
* St. Auguftin concerning this matter ; Peccamus *
nonadorando, We fin in not Worjhipping? Such an
Equivocation as thisy in an AjfemblyofChriJlian Pa~
ftorSy upon the propofal of fo great a Pointy mujl needs
have been of far more dangerous confequence to ChrifiL
anSy than the Ambiguous Anfwers of the Delphic
Oracky were to the Heathen World. Thus far then the
bufinefs is clear* dy that the Reaf and not Virtual Pre"
fence only of Chrifis Body in the Sacramenty was the
Doclrin of the Eaglifh Church ; for what fome Men
amongfl them of great Latitude in Belief have main-
tain d to the contraryy doth not prejudice the truthywhich
the more found of that Communion have generally afi-
ferted.
Andnotwithfianding, that their Late Clergy in the
Teary 1661. in compliance to the Dijfenting Party,
by the chief management of the late Lord Shaftsbury'y
Politic Spirit ^ were induced after hard folliciting
t»
An Introclu(5lIon.
to receive an Additional Declaration^ (tho'' not Print-
id in their Kubrick Letter,^ at the end of their Com-
munion Service^ yet^ f nee they vcouldnot by any means
be brought to receive the former Declaration ofKjng
Edward the Sixth''stime^ mthout the change of thofe
words [It is here declared that no Adoration is here
intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Ef-
fential Prefence of Chrifts Natural Fkfh and Blood J
into thefe which follow [ It is here declared, that no
Adoration is here intended or ought to be done,
either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there
Bodily Received, or unto any Corporal Prefence
of Chrifts Natural Flefh and Blood ] the words
Real and Elfential, as you fee , being changed into^
Corporal; this cannot but reafonab'y be imxgin'd to
be done out of Caution to the Prefent Churchy her main-
taining ftifl a Real and Elfential Prefence of Chrifts
Body in the Sacrament; whereas thofe in the latter
time of KJng Edward feem to have denied it. More-
over, tho' tt be faid in this lajl Declaration, that the
Sacramental Bread and Wine remain ftilJ in their
very Natural Subftances, and therefore may not
be Adored, yet if by Natural Subjlances or Ejfences
htre.is no more meant-, (as the words may very well be
underjlood, and are jhewn by Catholics to be underjlood
in the Authoritks of Theodoret, and Gelafius,)
than the external and fenjible Ejfences, or properties
of Bread and Wine, and not the internal Subjlance,
or Ejfence, this Declaration wid not be repugnant, ei-
(her to the Real Prefence or to Tranfubftantiation,
and the Adoration will be terminated neither on the
Internal or External Ejfences of Bread and Wine, but
upon Ckrijl the only begotten Son of God, Really Pre-
An Introdudion.
fent in the Bkffed Sacrament ^ which the * Council* '
of Trent it felf hath declared to k the Senfe
Catholic Church as to the Point of Adoration, liixsacrmenta
Jgain, ,fthe Ufi part of this DftlaralioH n.here-^J»'j;;
in it is J aid, that the Natural Body and Blooa or fliun cultu La-
Chrill are in Heaven and not here; it being a- frUaiorandumi
gainft the Truth of Chrifts Natural Body to be at
one time in more places than one, be yet urg*d,
to prove, that the above mtntiorPd Real Prefence
of Chrifls Body in the Eucharif is not at prefent the
Do^trin of the EngltjJj Church. lanfwer,that where-
as it is there fatd, that the Natural Body and Blood
of Chrift are in Heaven, and not here, meaning
in the Sacrament', if by Natural Body be there tin-
derjlood Chrifts Body, according to the Natural man-
ner of a Bodies being prefent, and acc rding to which,
tho* in a glorified [late, it actually exifts in Heaven,
we do not fay, that the Body of Chrift is here in this
Sacrament in that natural manner, anymore than the
Dolfors of the EnglifJj Communion; but if no more
be mean't by the words. Natural Body , but the very
true and (as we may call it) Body of Chrift,
tho' prefent in a fupernatural manner, proper to the
Sacrament, it is a very bold ajfertion to fay abfolntely,
that it is againft the Truth of it to be jo, or that this
cannot pofftbly be true, fince we know fo little to what
the Omnipotence of God, which could convey this very
Body into the Room, where the Difciples were, the
Doors being faft [hut,can ex^tend it ft If,andyet the Body
the very fame Body in verity of Nature which is
in Heaven ; the Prefence of which
a late Eminent Author of the Enftijb Church,(2^ J fuf-^ feveralCon-
fciently intimates , that fbme ( he mifhphadie faid.
' - ' -J- (a) Pag 6'5.
a
An Inti*oclu(fl:ion.
very many) of their Divines have maintain'd, not-
withflanding the vain endeavors, rvhicb the Anfxperer
to the Treatife, Printed at Oxford, to jhew the fen-
timent of the Church £?/England Divines in this Point,
has us^d to rvreft them to another Senfe : For after
'* ^ having told us his own Opinion, viz. that all which
the Dodrin of his Church (meaning the Church of
England^impUes,ison!y aRealPrefence of Chrift's
Invifible Power and Grace, fo in and with the Ele-
ments, as by the Faithful receiving of them, to
convey Spiritual and Real Efte£fs to the Souls of
Men, he fubjoyns, if any one yet thinks, thatfbme
at leaft of our Divines have gone farther than this,
/. e. do feem to fpeak of the Prelence of the very
fame Body which is in Heaven, let them know,
* See their 28 f^yt he-^it is the * Doftrin of our Church I am to de-
Art.ofReiigi- fg^d, and not of every particular Divine in it. Now
firnTs r'L '^Body by thrfe wary terms, of every particular Di.
o\ chrtfi tobev'me, and feeming to fpeak, he endeavors what he
given, taien can both to diminifh the number, and their clear acknow-
ana eaten tn the , , r t ^ r f t r r, 1 • / „
Supper after an ledgment of the Prejence ofthejame Body m the Sa-
Heavenly and crament which is in Heaven, yet he could not but
ne^"zni Ca-' /ijferters of it were very many , and
tcc. where it fill are, evenjincetheDtc\2iX2it\ox\, andfuchasmay
^Biood ptejumed to know the meaning oftt, as cunningly
of chria are itorded OS it is, as well, if not better than himfelf', and
verily and in- for this, bejtdes what 1 have bad by particular converfe
received!^ ti^tih divers, I Will appeal to the jincerify ofthofe who
forecited Au- have heard the Determinations which have been made
h ^beir Learned Profeffors in the Publick Schools of
tWs Doitria. both their Vnivtrfities, ever jince this lafl Declara-
tion was recehPd, whether they are not fully fatispied,
J that they have been much more Py)fitivefor a Real Pre-
fence
An Introduction.
fence of ChriJlsBody in the Sucrxrnent^ in a further
Scnle thAn the Abovementioncd Author, And others in
their Late Difcourfes agAinfi TranfubJlantiAtion de-
clnre themfelves to be. And I have the rather given
the Senfe before expreffed of the laf claufe of their new
Declaration, which indeed is the only one it can truly
bear, becaufe the Catholic Church Authorifeth it in
the * Council of Hr^nt , by Declaring there, that * Seir. 13.
thefetwo things are not inconfiftent, viz,-
Our Saviour according to his Natural way ofExi(l-/> pugnMi,
ing, iliould fit at the Right hand of his Father in
Heaven, and that he lliould be in the fubftance
Prelent to us Sacramcntally, by that manner o^remnoihumin
Exiftence; which altho' it can fcarcely be exprefi-
fed in words, yet our mind enlightened by Faith trU (5* nobit
can be brought to conceive , that it is poflible
with God. adeffe pr^cn-
Sicrxmsn-
ulher, ea exi-
denii ntimi-, quam et(l verbk exprimert v'txpojfmus, pofftbilm umen ejje Deo cqgiu-
tione per fidem illuflnta ajfequi pofumiu.
I hope therefore, that Chr if tan Charity may in time
put A happy end to the tedivus Vifputes, which have been
fo long held about the Blejfed Sacrament; that fo
the Sacred Symbols of Peace and Unity may no longer
be made the Subjebi of Contention. Efpecially when
we conftder, that tho\ when the * ftrange Opinion, of^ PafchaSus
there being only fome certain Vertue of Chrifts m- -<1^ Fra-
Body in the Sacrament, and not that very Body it ^^s^"^ -—
' J Mirorquid vO'
. , luttquidem
imcdictre.nmnre e/ftverntuucmu Chrtfli, vtl Sanjiuhis-, fed in'Sacrxm'nto virtiitem
qtttndamcamtsiSt noncarmm. •---concerning whichaeatt^efence it is &id; V^que ai
pr^tfetis nemo deerrq/fe le^ttur, ntft qui de cbripoerraverunt. ^m^fathqc rJPumvisex hoc
quidimdeignoramii errent, nemotamen eftxikucinapeno.'qiit hocitaMco^rtdhat. quoi
mus otbis.credit V" conpieiur, ■"
* 2 felf
An Introduiflion.
wrymMf) of their Divines have maintain'd, not-
withfiAnding the vain endeavors^ which the Anjiperer
to the Treatifej Printed at Oxford, to jherv the fen-
timent of the Church o/England Divines in this Point,
has us^d to wre[i them to another Senfe : For after
having told us his own Opinion, viz. that z\\ which
the Do£i:rin of his Church (meaning the Church of
England ^implies, is only a Reaj Prefeiice of Chrift's
Invifible Power and Grace, fo in and with the Ele-
ments, as by the Faithful receiving of them, to
convey Spiritual and Real Efte£l:s to the Souls of
Men, he fubjoyns, if any one yet thinks, that fbme
at leaft of our Divines have gone farther than this,
/. €. do leem to fpeak of the Prelence of the very
lame Body which is in Heaven, let them know,
* See their 28 fty^ he(it is the * Do6\ rin of our Church I am to de-
Art.ofReiigi- fend, and not of every particular Divine in it. Now
by thofe wary terms, f/every particular DL
of chri/t wZ-e vine, and feeming to fpeak, he endeavors what he
given, ukfn duninifh the number, and their clear acknow-
Mdeaten Jnthe , , /- / r> /• r t r r, > • r ^
Supper after an ledgment of the Prejence ofthejame Body tn the Sa-
tieaveniy and (lament which is in Heaven, yet he could not but
«Cand Ca-"" ^Jferters of it were very many , and
tec. where it fill are, even fnee theDzz\2X2^xox\, andfuch asmay
todyMd *Biood pf'e/umed to know the meaning oftt, as cunningly
of chria are ftorded as it is, as well, if not better than himfelf; and
verily and *^for this, be fides what I have had by particular converfe
received!^ The divtrs, I id?ill appeal to the fincerity of thofe who
forecited Au- have heard the Determinations which have been made
wen de°fend"°'^ ^Fubltck Schools of
tWs Doflria. both their Vniverfities, ever fince this laji Declara-
tion was recekPd, whether they are not fully fatispied,
that they have been much more P*^fitivefor a Real Pre-
fence
\
An Introdu^on.
fence of Chrijls Body in the SacrArnent^ in a further
than the abovementioncd Author^ and others in
their Late Difcourfes agatnfi Tranfubjlantiation de-
dare themfelves to be. And I have the rather given
the Senfe before exprejjed of the lajl claufe of their new
Declaration, which indeed is the only one it can truly
bear, hecaufe the Catholic Church Authorifeth it in
the * Council of Lttnt , by Declaring there, that * SeiF. 13.
thefetwo things are not inconfiftent, viz.-
Our Saviour according to his Natural way ofExift- fe pugninty
ing, lliould fit at the Right hand of his Father in
Heaven, and that he Haould be in the fubftance
Prelent to us Sacramcntally, by that manner of remnoHrumin
Exiftence; which altho' it can fcarcely be exprefi-
fed in words, yet our mind enlightened by Faith tfif C? nobis
can be brought to conceive , that it is poflible
^^'"hGod.
uliter, ea exi-
Stenii ration! •, qtiam et(l verbis exprimen vixpojfumus, pofftbilm tamen ejje Deo cogita-
tione per fidem illuftnta ajjiqui pojfumus.
I hoge therefore, that Chrijlian Charity may in time
fut a hafgy end to the tedious Difputes, which have been
fo long held about the Blejfed Sacrament; that fo
the Sacred Symbols of Peace and Unity may no longer
be made the Subjebi of Contention. Efpecially when
weconftder, that tho\ when the * ftrange
there being only fome certain Vertue of Chrifts rpr/?.-ai/Fru-
Body in the Sacrament, and not that very Body it "—
' J Mirorquid vO'
, _ . ... luitquidem
nmcdtcere.noninre cfivmtsttuearm chrifii, vtl Sanguinis-, fed itrSacrmmo virtutm
(^ndamcjxnts'd nonc^nm. concerning «hichRealKrerence it is &id; Vfque ad
pr^feiis nemo deerraffe legttur, nifiquide chrtfio erraverum,.^ndfutht^r rJOuamvisex hoc
qmdam dei^noramia errent, nemo-tmen eft adhuc inapem. qtii hocitaedreco^radicat. ouod
totus-Of bis credit V" conftseiur. ■" ' ^
* 2 felf
An IntroduAion.
felf tpos jir[l privatelyabout eight hundred aiti
' eighteen Tears after our Saviours time^ by fbme Per-
fons that erred through ignorance, yet they were
ajham'd publickly to contradi£b, as fome in this lafi
Jge have done, that Real Prefence which the whole
Chriftian World believ'd and confeli, andconcer-
ning which none had ever before erred in the Churchy
but thole who had erred concerning Chrift him-
felf. Likwife, that althd* the fourth Great Council
o/Lateran, one of the Greatefl which ever was held in
the Chriflian World, that they might fut an end to the
contentions then arifen, and maintain Chrifiian veri-
ty, and peace amon^ the Faithful^ did in declaring
the Faith of the Church concerning the BlelTed Sa-
*DeClinfio crament make ufe of the word * Tranfubftantiated,
w ^xprefs precifely that Great and Supernatural change
corpus 'osfan- therein madey which the Catholic Church had in all
guis tn Sun- precedent Ages even from Chrijls time believed, as be-
fuT/pecieiM necejfartly deduced from our Saviours words, and
fMispvini exprefl by the Primitive Fathers in feveral other
vetAcUer conii- f^ynis fignifying the fame thing ; yet the Catholic
Church thought it not necejfary to determin anything
^fAne in corpus, corner ning thofe nicer fpeculations about the modes of
tyyinomja^ wonderful change, which have exercifed the more
lutntm, pote- „ J t f i • rt-r
(late Dh/m. Jubtle Wtts, even before the time of the Lateran Coun^
Concil. Late- fince.
ranenfe 4. ■'
Genet aU, yinno
Ctri/H I2i5« vid. in Binnio, c. i. p. 806.
And of this excellent moderation nfed by the Ca-
tholie Church we have a clear evidence from the pro-
ttedings of the Council of Trent in reference to this
matter
An Introdudion.
matter which ^ as * Padre Paul himfelf,
jlmding he was no great friend to Catholics in his prancofui'tf'^'
Hif or icd Relations of the Proceedings of thisCoun Edit. 1521.
cil^ relates, determin'd to ufe fo very few, and py^67.
thofe Univerfal terms in the Article of the Bleffed
one mox Gene-
Sacrament, as might fatisfie both Parties, viz. «//
Scotifis and Thomifis, and be fitly accommodated to J^overbt
the Senfc of each of them ; hut not fo as to efiablijh uU nmm pm-
their di[I inet private fpeculations, (a) Cardinal Palla-
vicino likewife tells us, fpeaking concerning the c'lr- bus, utmrifiiue.
cumfpedlion of the Tridentin Fathers, that they'-'"-
would have nothing determined concerning the seftator^us,
modus or manner of the Sacramental Prefence of queam fawfa-
Chrift. 'So far were they from prejudicing either
of the Theological ClaiTes, or from offering to dQ-fenfurn cm-
dare thofe things as Articles of Faith which were modiaptari.
not the Revelations of God, but the Ipecuktions
of Men. So that, if we can agree, that this great fu-rU del conctiio
per natural change is made in the Sacrament,
theadmijjlon of which thofe of the Englijh C Wr A "peaking of
never frove , that Prefence of Cbrijis Body in the oefiniti-
Holy Eucharifi, which they acknowledge to he (b; no cou^if hath
lefs true than we do,they will he yet left at liberty, and thefe words:
need not determin raflily concerning the manner of
it, nor[0much as anxioufly to inquire into this Point. pZecL"7£
For indeed FranjuhJlantiation is a great my- paionoin cercar
fiery of Chrifiian Religion, fo is the DoElrin^ffT^\^"°^^-
r^t rf • r • T • lontaneda qsnt
oftheJrtmty,Jo ts the incarnation of our Lord, to [embknza dt
which the Primitive Fathers do fo often compare the fu-
■' ^ d verwia delle
- „ , . CkJJi TeoJosi-
the. E percto ntente ft voile detemnure, tntorno al mcdo delU prefenza SaeTmertule di
Crifio, (b) Ptafentiam (redimus nec minus qmm vos vemm, de modo prafentk nihil
temerb defnimus-, addo , nec anxie inquirmns. Bi(hop Andrews, Refp. ad apoll. BtP.
Ct, I * p« 11 •
pernatural
An Introdudion.
fernAtuYdl chdnge m^de in the SAcrameht; Jb u the •
RefurreSiion of our Bodies \ yet thefe Articles of Chri-
fiiAH Faith are to be believed uf(m the Authority of the
Reveakr^ and not too curioufly to be pried into.
I jhall injijl only upon the Refurretlion at prejenty
to jherv horv little ground they have to believe thisy upon
the account of natural Reafon^ who rejeci the belief of
Tranfubjlantiationy by Vertue of which we receive t^
Injlrument and pledge of our Refurreclion Chrijls
Real Body in the Sacrament: Both thefe indeed may
feem contrary to Reafony before enhghtned by Faith:
For how can that convince m, that the fame Body
which dies jhall rife again ; fnce fome that eat Mans
Flejh in the extremity of Famin , or, as the Canni-
balSy out of luxuryy have the fuhjlance of the Bodiesy
r that they eaty converted into the fubjlance of their
own Bodies by the way of nourijhment: And feveral
other ways there bey by which the reduced parts of our
Dead Bodies are changed into the fubjlance of other
Human BodieSy even foy that the fame Bodies may be
claimed by many at the Refurreltion ? Notwithfian-
ding we believey that we jhall rife with the fame Bodies
we hady whiljl living. Dim fighted Reafon will asky
how this can bCy fince it is <tgainjl the Nature of a Body
to be in two places at the fame time f Tet Nature and
experience prepare us for the belief of the RefurreBiotjy
which feems to be againjl Naturey by the example of
thofe thingsy which are obvious to Senfe. Seedy as the
Apofileinflancethy is cajl intothe groundy it corrupts.,
1 CtfT. i-;. 38. and yet rifeth again y for God giveth it a Body, and
to every Seed it's own Body. So to difpoje us to
the belief of the fupernatural change made in the Sacra-
menty nothing is more familiar than Natural Tran^
fubjlantiatio/fy ■
An Introdu«5):ion.
fubfiantiation^ for our lift is fufisiaed by a dsyly chsngc
of the fubjlance of other Creatures into that of our
Bodies ; we fhouldfoon die without this: Nay we can-
not breath, but the fubfance of our Bodies is converted
into Jlir ; and he that denies this Tranfubfiantiation^
confutes himfelf while he fpeaks. Thus Bread alfo
was dayly Tranfubjlantiated into our Lords Body,
whiljlhefed upon it here on Earth. All which may
difpofe us to believe^ that the Bread in the Sacramen-
tal Confecration^ as * Gregory Nyflen teacheth us^
paffeth into the Body of Chrift the Word, not
indeed as it did by the way of manducation, and
nouriflhment , but being fuddainly transformed
into the Body of the Word, as is faid by the verbi Dei zntk
Word, This is my Body. «
And if our curious Inquirers (hall further ask ; how
this can be, fince the accidents or outward fpecies of '"w « yane
Bread (lill remain ? I delire them to refolve thefe ^
n - T J 1 r 1 r ■ 7 /7 t W"'"
yuejtions: How a thoujand jpecies can be rejieued quodammodo
from the fame Glafs at once^ to a thoufand Eyes at the /f
fame time? How the fame Glafs being whole, tran- Tah'^'pofioiZ
fmitsone intire fpecies, and yet broken into many fmall ti^rverbum Dei
pieces, every piece reflects the fame whole and intire ^
fpecies, there being^ll the while but one fubject, andlnqd'TcZe-
what that fubjebf W wherein thefe fpecies do fubflfl ? progre-
Or let them but give a true account of the nature ofil^lslZ'da!,
any fm all Particle of that matter, which compofeth the Jed/latim per'
Vniverfe, before they pry too far into the fecrcts
Divine and fupernatural My/leries, and think thattV^ZTk-
God can do nothing, but in fuch a manner ss they can rbya
comprehend. ixiTo^oits-
(j.ivos)ut dtLtUtn
^ , efla verba, boc
csrpHsmeum, Caiechet. Orat, c. 37.
Iherefort
An Introdudion.
"perndtUYal chunge made in the Sacrament; Jb is the •
RefurreSiionof our Bodies \ yetthefe Articles ofChri'
fiian Faith are to be believed uf on the Authority of the
Revealer^ and not too curioufly to be pried into.
I (hall injifi only upon the Refurreciion at prefenty
to jhew horv little ground they have to believe this y upon
the account of natural Reafon^ who reject the belief of
TranfubfiantiatioHy by Vertue of which we receive the
Injlrument and pkdge of our Refurreciion Chrijls
Real Body in the Sacrament: Both thife indeed may
feem contrary to Reafony before enhghtned by Faith:
For how can that convince us, that the fame Body
which dies jhall rife again ; fnce fome that eat Mans
Flefh in the extremity of Famin , or, as the Canni-
balSy out of luxuryy have the fubjlance of the Bodiesy
that they eaty converted into the fubjlance of their
own Bodies by the way of nourifbment: And feveral
other ways there bey by which the reduced parts of our
Dead Bodies are changed into the fubjlance of other
Human Bodiesy even foy thatthefame Bodies may be
claimed by many at the Refurreliion ? 'Notwithfian-
ding we believCy that we jhall rife with the fame Bodies
tve hady whiljl living. Dim fighted Reafon will asky
how this can be, fince it is againjl the Nature of a Body
to be in two places at the fame time f Tet Nature and
experience prepare us for the belief of the RefurreBiouy
which feems to be againjl NaturOy by the example of
thofe thingsy which are obvious to Senfe. Seedy as the
Apofilein(lancethy is caji into the groundy it corrupts^
1 Car. i-j. 38. and yet rifeth againy for God giveth it a Body, and
to every Seed it's own Body. So to difpoje us to
the belief of the fupernatural change made in the Sacra-
menty nothing is more familiar than Natural Tran^
fubjlantiatio/fy ■
An Introduclion.
fubfiAntiatio»y for our lift is fufixintd by a dAyly chsngc
of the fubJlAnce of other CrtAtures into thAt of our
Bodies ; we fhouldfoon die without this: NAytve can-
notbreAth, hut the fubftunce of our Bodies is converted
into Air ; and he that denies this Tranfubjlantiationy
confutes himfelf while he /peaks. Thus Bread alfo
was day if Tranfubfiantiated into our Lords Body,
vehilflhefed upon it here on Earth. All which may
difpofe us to believe^ that the Bread in the Saeramen-
tal Confecration^ as * Gregory Nyflen teacheth us^
paffeth into the Body of Chrift the Word, not
indeed as it did by the way of manducation, and
nourifhment , but being fuddainly transform'd
into the Body of the Word, as is faid by the verbi Dei^mii
Word, This is my Body.
And if our curious Inquirers [hall further ask ; how \usfirmmen!'^
this can be, Jince the accidents or outward fpecies ofex pine
Bread fill remain ? I delire them to refolve thefe ^
iO /7 • ri irtr I /T I 'PJ'*"' ethim
i^ejlions; How a thoujand fpecies can be rejieued quedsmmndo
from the fame Glafs at once, to a thoufand Eyes at the P'^f^erat, fic
fame time? How the fame Glafs being whole, tran-Z'Z^poffZ
fmitsone intire fpecies, and yet broken into many fmall per verbum Dei
pieces, every piece reflects the fame whole and intire ^
fpecies, there being^ll the while but one fubject, andlmquuTme-
what that fubjebt u wherein thefe fpecies do fubfifl ? ^'"ureo progrc
Or let them but give a true account of the nature
any fmall Barticle of that matter, which compofeth the Jed fiitim pf
Vniverfe, before they pry too far into the fecrcts /Kcor-
Divine and fupernatural Myfleries, and think that
Cod can do nothing, but in fuch a manner js they can
comprehend, [xi-rt'sroits-
' dtBurn
^ , efla verba, hoc
corpus meum, Caxecbet. Orat. f. 37.
7 here fort
An Introdu<5tion.
Thtrefore our jldver/aries hud good rtAfon to fay,
fpedirtg concerning the Ohje^ions againfi the Trimty,
Incarnation and the Re furred ion with identity of
CO xyx.ra^hr Bodies, (a) That if there were as plain Revelation
of the Real of Tranfubftantiation, as of thofe, then this Argu-
prefence. if it werepofTible to
pa. 2j7.
bring a thouiand more Arguments againft Tran-
fubftantiation, yet that we are to believe the Re-
velation in delpite of them all : Jgain, That
(b) Um Li- ^b) Thofe who believe the Trinity in all thofe
phecying^^°' h^'ceties of Explications which are in the Schools,
§. 20. n, id. and which now a days pafs for the DoSfrin of the
Church, believe them with as much violence to
the principles of natural and fupernatural Philo-
fbphy, as can be imagin'd to be in the Point of
Tranfubftantiation. And do not therefore infijl up,
(ODr.«;/% the Point (c) how far Reafbn is to be fubmitted
counJ^.iTy. Divine Authority, in cafe of certainty, that
ami ^65. there is a Divine Revelation for what they are to
believe. there are things, pauca,
r°d"eSmcm- not few in number, which we all believe, that, if
jeffmem rheo- human Reafbn be confulted, do not fecmlefs im-
tSerg.T'^" ' and lefs manifeflly contrad:Q:ory than,
confejf.'A. Traiifubflantiation itfeif. ^
Now, that the words of our i^rd, This is my
Body, being underjloodin a proper Senfe, as in the
enfuing Anfweris p'ozi^dthey ought to be, do necef-
farily infer Tranjubfantiation, isminifef. Becaufe^
as is allowed by all, that was Bread which our Lord
took into his hands, before he fpoke thofe Words
there mujl therefore a Change be made , otherwife it-
could not Really become Chrijh Body, nor that which
he gave his Difciples, be in a proper Senfe fo called.'
And
An Introduc^ilonr
And the AccUmts or fefiftble [pedes (lili remnintng
J (jf ds before^ the chxnge mujl he m.ide in the fubjlance.
n'lOj This Pi what the Tridentine Qounctl infers * sef.
th^e Wordsi Becaufe Chrift our Redeemer did ["'f''"-' c. 4.
ilifaffirm, that truly to be his Body whicii he ofter'd, Si''chr7fius'
under the fpecies of Bread, therefoie, it was ever
uljj^ believed in the Church of God, which alfbthe Holy ^(ulmfr^uoi
Synod now again Declares, that by the Confccrati-
fU. on of the Bread and Wine, there is a Converfion
made of the whole fubftance of Bread into the fub-
ftance of the Body of our Lord Chrift, and of the p^i" Eccu/g,
,. whole fubftance of the Wine into the lubftanee of
J'Ig. his Blood,which Converfion is,by the Holy Catholic "sj^tTdtch-
J Church fitly and properly calledTranfubftantiation.
cratmem Panu
"t fionmferi mmfubfinnUfanuinfubflMtkmCorporitchripi Domhi nolirL ^'7inius}Z'
M fiintUvm infubliaMiam [anguinu ejus, qux Converfio convtnienter K crem^ A eLff
^ CithsVm Ecclefii Tnnfubftmimo efl afpellata. •>»««
The foregoing Inference will evidently appear to he
^ 11 true, if we conjider the proper and genuin Senfe of
every particular Word in that Propofttion of our Lord ,
J JhisismyBody.
This, here m tts true and * proper Senfe, fignifes * see alfo
s iiif fomeThing, Ejfence, Subjtance, or Objelt in general, P'^(>i2T fs'i
under fuch an appearance as was Demonjlrated to Senfe, Anfwcr.
\i For if by the word, This, tvereexpreft
"J tureofthe Predicate in fuch a Propofiion, e. g. as
J This is Bread, or This is my Body, then the Fro-
pofttion would be purely Identical, or 1 autolroical
,J for it would be no more than if one jhouU fay,^ 1 his
Bread is Bread, or This my Body is my Body .•
' Whereas it is the property of the Attribute to extend,
li determtn the Idea of the Subjed, by ad-
^ ding
An Introdu<£^ioh.'
ding cle/trnefs to it. And rve mujhrememhery thai
the Engl/Jh tvordy T his > is expreji by rsro in the
Origintl Greek here^ as alfo in mofl other LangttdgeSy
not by Sro^ in the Ms^fculine Gender y fo as to agree
with d-OTt^ Bread. Now thd' there be no dijlinition
as to the Gender in the Engli/b word. This, Tet< thIo
a^TTj^, This Bread, as our Adverfaries wotilAhave
here meanty is fAfe Grammar.
In like manner the Word, Is, hath here ii*s proper
Senfe ; not as it is ufed fometimes , for Signifies.
The Word My can have Relation to no other P erf on
but our Lordy who fpoke it; nor confequently to any
ether Body , but his own, truly foy as to iis Sub'
V flanccy and therefore truly exprejlly the WordyBody ;
that y which was before Bread , at the beginning of
the Enunciation, This is my Body, being now made
to be his Body at its Conclufony becaufe in PraSiical
Propojitions as this is, with God to fay, and to doy are
the fame thing ; and thus you fee , what is meant by
each word in the Propofition, This is my Body, as
explicated by CatholicSy tho' you do not believe the My^
fiery.
■* See retcret Let us now obferve, what a Late * Expoftulator
riudieaii, hath faid againfi this Explication. He undertakes to
' Words, Ct)i0 10 m)? 'BOhp,
to m.sciitir cannot be taken in-~a literal, (1 conceive he means
ofpafxg-, proper, in oppoftion to Figurative) Senle, which
he fuppofes his Enemies themfelves of our
Party will grant , if he proves that the,
C]^t0, here mentioned is Bread;; which he thus
undertakes to do.
That, faith he, which our Saviour took into
his Hands), ( when he was about the Inftitution )
was
An Introduction.
was Bread; that which he bleffed was the fame
thing that he had taken into his hands ^ that which
he brake was the fame thing that hehadblefled ;
that which he gave them when he laid it was his
Body, was that which he had broken; But that
which he broke, which he bieffed, which he took
into his hands was Bread: Therefore it was Bread,
Vvhich he gave his Difciples, and by This, is meant
"^rhis Bread.
This ^Indu^ionjfaith theExpoJluUtor^is ibhlr * ohktve
and fb clear, that I am hire you cannot evade it. t'latthis is no
Butwhut^ Sir, if after all your mighty
This prove to be neither a fair Indu^ion, nor any tes, altlio' the
Argument at aU, but a mere Fallacy orlllufion
ceeding from rvhat Logicians cad, Ignoratio Elenchi, put the^Suh-
Ignorance of Argument or proof? And jufi fuch a je^t and Prc-
one aa This would be, if propofedto you: '^hat which
the Butcher expofed to Sale was raw Flejh ; that which See any CoL
you bought was the fame thing, that the Butcher ex- lo^lc,
pofed to Sale; that which you Eat was the fame thing
that you boughtBut that which you bought, whi^
the Butcher expos'*d to Sale was raw Flejh, therefore
you Eat raw Flejb. The IQitchin-Boy will ted you
where the Fallacy lies, and help you out at a dead lift.
But to make the matter yet more plain, I (Jjall give
you feme other infiancts in your way of Sophifry,
which the mof: ignorant at the frjl hearing will dif-
cover to be Fallacies. That which the Servants at the
Marriage ofC2Xi2i in Galiee, took from the Fountain,
was Water ; that which they poured into the Water-
pots was the fame, that they took from the Fountain ;
that which the Gttejls drank was the fame, that the
Servants put into the Water-pots ; But that which
^ 2 fht
An Introclu<5lion.
the Servants took from the Fountain, vohkh they pou*
red, into the Pots was Water ; therefore it was Water
which the Guejls drank. Or your Argument may in
A /barter way be turr?d againfi you thus : That which
Chri/l took into his hands, he gave: But) that which he
took into his hands was not Sacramental Bread, nor
virtually Chrifis Body, therefore that which he gave was
not Sacramental Bread, nor virtually Chrifis Body.
And now repeating your Argument truly, tho^ with,
out all your heap of words, I ffjall expoje it^s Fallacy
plainly. That, you fay, which Chrifl took, 8cc. he
gave; but he took Bread; therefore he gave Bread. I
difiingui/h the Major, That he took, he gave un^
changed or in the fame manner he took it, I deny:
What he took, he gave, changed and made his Body I
grant, and fo agreeing he took Bread, I deny your Con-
feyuence. Look into your Logic again, obferve it well,
and you will find, that to make a Propofition contra.
diSlory to ours, viz. That, that which Chriftgave
was his Real Body, you mufi obferve the Rules of
your Mafier Ariftotle, fo as to fpeak, de eodem mo-
do, &■ eodem tempore, which you have not here
known how to do. Tet you for ad this, would be efieemed
the Great Champion for the Protefiant caufe , and
boafi, that this your matter and Argument is fb
Demonftrative, that you cannot but Sand amazed
that Men, who pretend to reafon, can rcfufe it.
This pretended Demonfiration might be much more
expofed, had lleafure, whilfil am dtfcourfing upon fo
ferious a point, to infifi upon trifles.. Neither would
Expo- the * Remarks, which he afterwards makes, help him
in the leajl •, For tho' our Saviour did fay , accor-
ding to St. Luke and St. Paul, Cup i0 ti)e
Beto
An Introdu<5lionJ
Beto Ceftament in '^loon, parage
doth not fully determin, thity by This is my Body
is meant This Bread is my Body: For the word^Tbis^
in the Propofitiony This CupistheNewTeftament
in my Blood ; being joyned with the word Cup^ by a
known Figttrey to fignifie in /t General way, what is
contained in the Cup, only makes the Propofition to
Signife, That, which is contained in the Cup is
the New Telfament in my Blood; which in the
Evangelifis St. Matthew and St. Mark, is exprejl by
thefe words,This is my Blood of the NewTeftament;
fo that the word This fiill, altho* joyned to Cup, hath
no other kind offignijication than it hath in the Words,
This is my Body, as I have before explained them ;
Aljo if it had the Senfe which the Author of the Ex-
poflulatory Letter would give it , then the meaning
would be. This Wineisthe New Teftamentin my
Blood, or as according to St. Matthew and St. Mark,
This Wine is my Blood of the New Jejlament, which
words in the Senfe that our Adverfaries put upon them^
would in thofe cir cum fiances, wherein they were fpoken,
have been contrary to the Rules of Human Dtfcourfe,
fuitahly to what is fhew^d in the enfuing * *rag. 33.C5V.
fwer concerning the Words, This is my Body, taken
in their Senfe. ^ i
The Adverfary indeed, in This Expofulatory Let-
ter,infolently Triumphs , becaufe he hath found out
feme mifiakes in Tranfiating , &c. But his Anfwer I
to the Fathers Authorities which have been fo often f
truly cited as an undeniable Evidence againfl his 1
Party, will eafly be fhemPd to be unfatisfa^ory, |
( when we come to their proper place) and he fo f
flightly^ attacks , as you havefeen, our main Evidence ' ;|
the
An Introdu^ion.
* ipfefjnk ^ the * proper Ser?fe of cur Lords rvoris as hardly to
^utintur'^h bring the face of aft Argument againjl it; So we Read
corpus Siti- that a Humorfom (a.^ Emperor^ when he came to invade
Dei. Brftaio, only gat ner'*d Cockles, and yet for this
^ol'iKm%l" he demanded Triumph in a Letter to his Senators,
perfpeiluot c? thinking his ShelLfpoils worthy Offerings for the
exphmtum eti ^
qujm
bu n Dei ven m
ejl efflcjx , atqus emxipotens. 5". Johan. Damafcen. lib. 3. Orthodox, fidei. f.14..
- (p) Caligula.
WehaveoneRequeJl now to make to thofe whoop'
ffe the Doctrin o/Tranfubftantiation, That becaufe
it is neceffary for an Anfwerer tiknow diflin^lj what
the Ptrfons mean to whom he is to make an Anfwer,
they would dealfincerely with us ; and fince we have told
them in what Senfe every word in the Propoftion
This is my Body, is taken by us, and how the Catholic
Church doth necejfarily infer Tranfubftantiation/rowi
them, they would now deal as candidly with us, and teH
us, as plainly, as we have done, how they underjland
each of theft words. I have reafon to intreat this fa-
vor of <them, becaufe altho* they feem fometimes to
maintain onlyaY&XtmX not ReaiPTQCtnczofChrifis
Body in theSascrament, which Opinion of theirs I have
chiefly oppofed in the Enfuing Anfwer; yet at other-
* See p. n. times they * (and even the Difcourjer himfelf) rea-
courfe a^aind acknowledge a Great Supernatural change to
Tr"anruia?an- be made by the Divine Benedi£l;ion , and the Au-
tiarirn, F.dii. thorof the * Expoflnlator.y Letter hath a Referv^d
102^' Oifl'inUion, t^Chrills Natural/iW Spiritual Flefli
and Blood, feeming to allow that Chrijl hath a Spiri-
tual Body in the Sacrament: We know not but that be
intends the fame , which the Learned Author of a
Brief
An Introdudion.^
Brief Difcourfeof the Real Pre fence hath lately given m
two Bodies of Chrifl^ the one Natural in which he was Cru- ^^""1 Prefcnce,
cified, the other Spiritual belonging to him, as he is the Printed 1686.
Eternal Logos, in whom is the z<k)H, Life or Spirit, which and Licenc'd
gocsalong with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of by
Chrift, and confequcntly is rightly call'd his Body. For assc-
this^ he grounds himfelf upon that earnell: lofty and fnblime
Difeourfe (as he calls it) of our Saviour in the 6th. Chapter
of St. John, confcffingingenuoufly, that it feems to him
incredible, that under fo lofty, rayllerious a ftyle, and
earneft afleverations of what he affirms, tho' to the, fcan-
dal both of the Jews, and his own Difciples, there •
fhould not be couched fome moll weighty and profound
Truth concerning fome Real Flelh and Blood of his, touch-
ing which this vehement and fublirae Difeourfe is framed.
pa. 40. yind than again., pa. 41. and 43. It is pAzin, fays
he., that our Saviours Difeourfe in that Chapter, has for
itsObjedl orSubjed, not the manner or way of receiving
his Body and Blood, as if meant of that very Body and
Blood on the Crofs, tobercceiv'd in a Spiritual manner,
which Interpreters feveral of them (^meaning of the Re for-
mers) drive at, and which he thinks would be a very dilute
and frigid Senfeof fuch high and fervid affieverations of our
Saviour i but the Objed of his Difeourfe, /7e, is his
very Flefh and Blood it felf, to betaken (as the Fifhand
Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them;) or it is him-
felf in reference to his Flelh and Blood, which belongs to
him as he is the Eternal Logos. Thus evidently did our Sa-
viour feem tothU Learned Man^. to fpeak all along to the
very end of his Difeourfe, ofa-Really Eating his Flelh and:
Drinking his Blood; and not of the manner of Eating, as
ifitnever came nigh them, butonly they thought of Flelh.
and Blood, God knows how far diftant from them, and fo
Eatthe human Flelh of Chrill by meer thinking of it,, and
Drank his Blood after the fame imaginary manner, Thm
to avoid the Catholic Tenent of Tranllibftantiation (which he
could bear no more than the Jews) and yet verifie the IVords
Of Chrifts Bodies ^e%receiv'd verily and indeed, and fuch
other Fxprejftons found in the Catechifm and Homelies of the
Ghurck.
An Introdudion.
Chm-diof England (Mchhe ihowhUmfilfJmxdK
tain) he was driven to diftingas^s aAox^\t ^o6.y of Chrtfi^ the
one Human and Natural, the other Spiritual and Dmne, bat
both Real, has been/aid before. Good God, whatChmera s
mllnotamindfreoccH^atedwith Error, frame ton felf rather
than fabmit to the Truth ! . r .l c
Luther indeed teds m of about ten Opinions of the Sacramen-
tartans in his timeand a Book^was Tublifht in the Tear, l$2j,
in which were reckon'd no lefsthan loo feveral Exfofitions of
the Senfe of thefe words •, Hoc eft Corpus meum This n
my Body. What we would gladly know of our Adverfartes wnk
Jhomwehavenowtodeal, U, which of thefe (now two hundred
and one) Opinions, it is that they maintatn, or whether they
have any other yet in Bore (for Error hath no End) different
from all thefe. Forfurely after all, they mufi be fared to allow,
that there is but one True Senfe of our Saviours Words, viz.
either that it is his very true Subftantial Body, which u taken
and received, or a figure only, what vertue foever they pleafe
to affign toit. Jf the former, they fall in with the Catholics,
* Fiz. The or * Dr. Moors Tenet if the latter, what Vmue foever they
Author of the affign to a Figure, it is not the Real Body, nor the Body Re-
Brief Dif- ally Prefent. Let them fpeak plain, that the World may un-
cout fe, them: The Faithful are not to be deluded with Ambigu-
ftitecl ^ concern to their Immortal Souls.
IReaDer, be pleafed to obferve concerning the manner and Method of
theEnfuing Treatifeznd Jnfwer, that the Difcourfe agmU Tranfub
fMtktion is faithfully here reprinted SeSion by Sedlion, andaReoIv
made to the Seftions in their Order. Airo,that becaufe theDifcourfer
againll Tranfubllantiation would delude unwary Chrifiians bymakina
them believe, that Catholics have no proof for this Dodrin from Scrip
ture, thisfirll Part which is chiefly concerning Scripture Authoritv is
publiflitbyit felf, to be confider'd diltinftly, to which in convenient
, time, the. Second Part is to be added.
Some ERRATA'S to be Correaed.
Pag. i8. in Marg. for Prn/ire read Inlrodaaiw, p. ,7. laft line read the ffeder
p. 41. mthe.Hcbre>v Citation, read bis p.tfo. read Rt/i.lj/. Oblerv?
that ill the MarginalPJetes. p. 41. 58,the word, i/fra, hath relation to the
f Second Paic of the Anlweri which is not yet Publiflicd,
Ccanfub^
X
N,
'Cranfubttantiatiott
DEFENDED
In Anfwer to a
Treatife, Intitled, A Dilcourfe
againft Tranfubftantiation.
DISCOURSE.
Conarmng the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, one of
' the two great poftive JnfiitHtions of the Chriflian Religion,
there are two main Points of difference between Us the
Church of Komt. One, about the Do5hine of TranihhS:2.n-
tiation *, in which they thinks, but are not certain, that they
have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their fide:
The other, about the adminifiration of this Sacrament to the
People, in both kinds •, in which we are fure that we have the
Scripture and our Saviour's Jnfiitution on our fide; and that
fo plainly, that our Aiverfaries themfelves do not deny it.
ANSWER.
GOncerning the Sacrament of Union, the Lord'sovr \:vc
Supper-, which isthe chief of thofe fcveral pofi-stare the p
tive Inftitutions of Religion which Chrift hath
Ordained in his Church , there are many great differ-
B enccs
a: Craurubftautiatiou Defenbeb.
cnccs even between Proteftants therafelves j it is no
wonder therefore if there are as many between Pro-
teftants and Catholics ; Of thefe the Author gives
two inftances , the one about the Dofcrine of Tran-
fibftantiation , the other about the Adminlftration of
this Sacrament to the People in both kinds: As for that of
Tranfubftantiation, he would have done well to have told
us, in whatfuppolitionhe means to take the Word in his
Difcourfe. If he fuppofe the True, Real and Subflantial
Prefence of Chrifts Body in the Sacrament, and take the
Word Tranfubftantiation precifely, as it fignifies that
Prefence, not with the Bread,but by it's being chang'd into
his Body, this is a difference indeed, and the only proper
one in this fuppofition, between him and Catholics, in
this matter: But then if he would have proceeded fincere-
ly, and as one that was really Mafter of fo much fenfe as
he talks of in thisTreatife, he (hould have held to his Point,
and not impugned what he fuppofes •, but if he fuppofe
no fuch Real or Subftantial Prefence of Chrifts Body, and
under the name of Tranfubftantiation fight exprefly againft
the Real Prefence, through his whole Difcourfe, as it is
evident he doth, ( and therefore ought to havecall'd it a
Difcourfe againfi tlx Real Prefence^ and ids confequence
Tranfubftantiation, and not a Difcourfe only, againft Tran-
fabftantiation;) then the diffei ence is not only as he would
make it with the Catholics, but with the Lutherans alfo,
scet^voD'fcour.andthofeof hisovvn Communion,, as King Jaws,. Bifhop
f« concerning Andrcvps, Mc. aud many othets who profsfs'd
ourSionr btobelievc the Body of Chriftto be prefent in the Sacrament
the Sacrament lefts trulj than CathoHcs do. But however he compofe
this difference with them, yet the Catholics, as for their
Tcnent, do not think only, as he fays, but are certain, as
1 fhallfhew in the Procefs of this Difcourfe, that they
- the Words of our Saviour, which they do not doubt to be
Scripture, on thQtr Mc. And for the other Point,-viz.. the
Adminiftration of the Sacrament in both kinds, they are
fare that neither he, nor any of his party have, or ever can
prove, from the Scripture and our Saviours Inftitntion
that
€ranfub(tantiatiott Defennet), i
that he laid a Command upon all the Faithful to receive it
always in both kinds, and this they conftantly affirm. But
before I leave this Paragraph, I cannot but defire the
Reader to take notice of two things, firft, That how fure
foever the Author makes himfelf, that he hath the
ture and our Saviours Inftitution on his Jide^ yet his good
friend Dr. Tillotfon in his Rule of Faith, which he makes
Scripture only to be, fpeaking in his own Name, and that
of his Party, faith: We are not Infallibly certain^ that any
Teok^ ( for example S. Matthew or any other of the Evan-
gelifts,) is fo Jincient as it fret ends to be^ or that it was Writ-
ten hy him whofe Name it bears y or that this is the fenfe of fitch
and fuch fajfages in ity it is fofftble all this may be otherwift.
The fecond isjhow high foever he talk of the Catholics not
hixng certainy and his own being of having the Scrip-
t ire for them, yet he doth not vouchfafe to tell us what he
means by that Wordy viz.. whether exprefs Texts y or de-
dublions only. If exprefs T?xts: Let him produce one,
if he can, for that new Article of his Creed, (a Creed much
younger than that of Pope Pius the fourth ) I do believe
that there is not any Tranfubfiantiation in the Lord^s Suppery
or in the Elements of Bread and Wine y 6cc. If Dedudlions
only, Why may not the Catholics, who have the exprefs
Words of Scripture, that it is his Body, infer as furely
from thence , that there is a change in the Elements of
Bread and Wine, as the Proteftants, who have no fuch
exprefs Text, that it is not his Body, can do to prove,
that there is no change ?
DISCOURSE.
Of the firlh of thefe I jhall now.treat y and endeavour to
Jhew againfi the Church of Rome, That in this Sacrament
there is no fubftantial change made of the Elements of
Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Blood of
Chrill; that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, and
fufered upon the Crofs for fo they explain that hard word
T ranfubftantiation.
B 2 Of
4
CcanfttbCtantiation DefentJCD.
A N S W Z'Ki
what is meant Of the former of thefe I ftiall now treat, and
Sadon!"^"''^^"'endeavour to vindicate the Catholic Church, which de-
dares it as an Article of Faith, that by f^ertue of Confecra-
a s. Auguftin. tion in the Sacrament^ there is a Comerfon mAde of the whole
fubflance of the Bread into the fubfiance of the Body of our
Dojninits pdrticu- Lord, and of the whole fubfiance of the Wine into the fub-
'Z^pi'dt-fianceof his Blood, which Converponjhe conveniently and
tHTM illisji!' dixt- properly cads Tranfubjlamiation, a * -hardword indeed to
thofc who will not believe the great Myftery exprefled
dutiinonfermo. ky if
is Pial. 9^-
rttt CcabeUum,e\Q.
DISCOURSE.
Before I engage in this Argument, I cannot but obferve what
aft Httreafonable task we are pia upon, by the bold confidence of
our Adverfaries, todifputeantatterof Senfe\ which is one of
thofe thifigs about whi^ Arillotle hath long ftnce pronounced
there ought to be no difpute.
A N S W t R.
The Afument Before J engage in this Argnmetit, I cannot but obferve
fromCenk n\ew'i Tf^hat an unreafonable task^we are put upon by the bold: confidence
tobeienielefs. ^ Adverfory, not to difpute a matter of fenfe, (fince up-
on this all parties are agreed, that there ought to be no dif-
pute 0 hut to Anfwer all the ablurdities, which the Author
is engaged in by efpouling falfeprinciples, and among the
reft as the chief, that Senfe can judge of the internal nature
or fubftance of things: For, all that is the proper obje<ft of
Senfe, that is, the fpecies, or outward accidents of Bread
and Wine, are allowed to be prefent in the Sacrament by all
Catholics as well as Separatifts: And we ftrangely admire,
that he Ihould not remember that Rule of his Mafter
Arijlotle, which every young Scholar learns, in the be-
ginning of his Logick , that Subjlamia nan incurrit in
Ctanfubttantiation DefmnetJ, s
fe»fHS \ StSftance is not the ohjeSl of fenfe. From whence it
is apparent to all Men that have the ufe of their Reafon,
that all the Authors cracking confidence upon this Argo-
ment, is founded upon a vulgar Error flily infinuated, that
Catholics believe that which they *feein the Sacrament of'
the Eucharift, to be the fubftancc of the Body and Blood
of Chrill. But left any fhould be deceived with this o B/i wjiw re-
popular Argument^ and take up a prejudice againft os as in
good reafon they may, fince they are made to believe thSitfcfiuutinjirMi-
we would perfwade them out of their Senfes; I Iball be^^
fo far from endeavouring to do this, as the Author fondly lix S m/uii ejtu.
imagins all Catholics do •, that rather out of a deep fenti-^
ment of gratitude to the great God of Natnre, who hath
fo fearfully and wonderfully made thcfe Bodies of ours,
Ifhall freely acknowledge that theSenfes do not deceive
us at all. For the deception doth not lie, at anytime,
in theSenfes, but in the judgment, and the Senfesdo at-
ways give true hints to the mind, when their Or'gans and
the Medium are rightly difpofed, and they are employ-
cd about their proper and adequate Objcds. Whi we
may certainly conclude from thegoodnefs and veracity of
God, is, that he will not deceive iVten, the Creatnre that
he loves, and therefore ufually thcfe objedlswhich are
reprefentedto him by his Senfcs, as having relation to the
confervationofhisBody, are of fuchand fuchadetcrmi-
natefubftance, as the outwai'd andfenfible accidents do
hint them to be o£ So that he is not mifeaken inthem,
uniefs he jod^ rafhly, and tlien too there are means pro^*
videdby which he may corred his Error. Thus the fub.
fiance of Fire is generally reprcfeated under the fpecies of
ufual form of Fire : Of a Dove under tlie ufual form or Uk-
aefe of a Dove; (So that we may allow in this manner, that
ordinarily the febftance doth incur into the mind through
theSenfes,. bymransofthe accidents, but it is certain that
theSen&s cannot judge either of the febftance or accidents.)
Therefore God who is the Author of Nature^ and can
change it, when he pleafeth, that Man may not be deceived
in this hind, doth ufually inform him, when he maketh any
fubftantial
^ranfubflantiation J^cfenbct),
fubflantial change, of this Nature, in his Creatures,
which is above the reafon of Man to comprehend, from
any hints made by hisfenfes, as being truly Miraculous.
Thus, when the Holy Ghoft appeared in the form of
a Dove, Man was informed by God, that it was really the
Holy Ghoft in fubfl-ance of Nature, and not a Dove. When
the fame Holy Spirit dcfcended upon the Apoftles in the
Vifible appearance of Cloven Tongues of Fire ^ they had
notice from Heaven, that this was truly that Holy Spiric
whichcamein this Vifible ftape. When Angels appeared
in the forms of Men; they had it revealed to them, that
they were, notwithftanding, Angels. When our Lord
prefented himfelf to his Difciples under the fpecies of
Bread, he told them plainly, that it was his Body. T6
Ihew which Revelation to have been made, from the Au-
thority of Holy Scripture and Fathers, will be the fubje(ft
of theenfuingDifcourfe: This which I have here faid,bcing
fully conclufiveagainft theArgument of fenfe's being pro-
perly the Judge of fubftance. And now who is it that
abufeth the fenfes, the Author, or Catholics ? He, by ap-
plying them to judge of fubftance, which is an objcd that
is no ways adequate to them, would make them to deceive
Men; We, employing them about their proper objeds,
which are here the accidents, or outward fpecies of Bread
and Wine, which, as by them we are convinced, do ftill
remain after Confecration, prove the Miracle from fenfe ^
becaufeat the fame time that thefe appear, the under-
ftanding, being inlightened by Faith, difcernsthe true and
real fubftance of Chrifts Body, to be veiled under them,
which makes the thing truly Miraculous. To employ
therefore the fenfes about their true and adequate objedls,
and the mind about thofe which are proper to it, is ration-
al: But to advance fenfe above reafon, and even Faith it
felf; the Beaft above the Man, and the Chriftian too, as
the Author doth, isfuchapiece of ftupidity, as is not to
be paralleld.
D1 S-
'Cranrublfantiation DefenDeu.
DISCOURSE.
It might vreB. fetm firange if any Alan Jhonld write a Book^^.
to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant, and that a Musket-
ballet is not a Pike : It is every whit as hard a cafe, to be put
to maintain by a long Difcoarfe, that what we fee and handle and
tafletobe Bread Bread, and not the Body of a Man i and
what we. fee and tafetobe Winew Wine, and not Blood:
yjnd if this evidence may not pafs for fafficient without any far-
therproof, I do not fee why any ^JMan, that hath confidence
enough to do fo, may not deny any thing to be what all the World '
fees it is; or affirm any thing to be what altthe World fees it ts
not.-, and this without all pojfibility of being farther confutedi
So that the bitfinefs of Tranfubllantiationij not a controverfie
of Scripture againft Sctipture, or of Reafon agdnfl Reafon, but
of downright Impudence againfl the plainmeaningof Scripture,
and all the Senfe and Reafon of Alankind.
N SW B X,
Here the. Author , like another Lucian renoun-T^e ca:ho
cingthe Chriftian Faith, begins to ridicule the inofl
cred Myftery ofour Religion. I confefs I am very im-"'
willing to follow him in fnch dirty way as he takes. It is
not at allfuitableto the retirednefs, wherein our Devout
minds Ihould be entertained,when we conceive of a thing fo
truly Divine, tofpeakflightly. I mult intrcat therefore
the Candid Reader, to abftraft his thoughts wholly from
the Blelled Sacrament, atfuch time as any of this froth is
call back again upon the Author, which I heartily, wilh he
had fpared me the pains of doing ; and that he had kept
his Bggzti^)d.% Elephant to himfelf: The Analogy would
have been more eafily made out by thofe, who maintain
that Grace, and Vertueare the Body and Blood of Chrift
verily and indeed received (for fo an Egg is vertually at leaff
an Elephant, if according to the principle of the Philofo-
phcr. Omnia animalia generantnr ex ovo -, every Animal is
generated-.
^tanfubflantiation Defenbeb,
generated out of an Egg) thenbyfuch as hold with the
Catholic Church, that the Sacrament is not Bread and
Wine, but what verily and indeed it is, the Real Body and
Blood of Chrift. Now, how to change a 2il»skst-bullet into
a Pih, I confefs I know not; The Dragoons better under-
ftandthat piece of Martial exercife. Howfocver, I mufl:
needs acknowledge with the Author, Xh^titfeems ftran^e^
that Any Man jhould write a Books to prove that an is not
an Elephant, and that a iJUHsket-biiUet is not a Pike-, there-
fore it is a thoufand pities, that fo curious a Wit as his,
Ihould be concern'd in fo abfurd an enterprife as he believes
his to be. And yet. Good God, what will not the confident
prefumption of fome Men put them upon! he undertakes a
task fully as impoffible to be performed as that; and of in-
finitely more dangerous confequence, to prove that not
to be, which by the power of God, is really made to be
in the Sacrament. The Author knows, that the Catholic
Church grounds this wonderful change, made in the Ele-
ments, upon Divine Revelation, which depends upon the
Veracity of God: So that it will not be fo very hard a cafe,
to maintain by adifcourfemuch /hotter than this of the
Author, even our Lords Words of Inftitution, that what
we lee, andhandkj and tafte as Bread, is not Bread in
fubflance, but the Body of Chrift *, and what we fee and
tafteas Wine, is not Wine in fnbftance, but the Blood
of our Saviour, ty^ndifthis evidence tnay not pap for fuf-
ficient without any further proof, I do not fee why any Man,
that hath confidence enough to do fo, may not deny any thingto
he what all the World fees it is, or affirm anythingto he what
allthe World feesitis not ■, (/incethe Word ofGodismore
Infallible than our fenfes ) and this without all pvjfihility of
hdng farther confuted', for, he that denies the Veracity of
God, can no ways conclude his fenfes to be veracious.
The denial then of the Real Prefence, or Tranfubftanti-
avion, is not a Controvtrfy of Scripture again ft Scripture, or
of Reafonagainft Reafon, but of down^right impudence againft
the plain mtaningtf Scripture, and aSthe fcnfe and reafon of
Mankind.
DIS-
Ccanfubliantiatton DefenbeD
9
DISCOURSE.
• h u amofi Self-evident Falfehood'^ and there is na DoSirin
er Propojition in the IVorId that is of itfelf more evidently true^
than Tranfubftantiation is evidently falfe: aAnd yet if it
were fojfthle to he trne^ it would be themofi ill natisr'd and per-
nicioHS truth intheWorld^ hccaufeit would fuffer nothing elfe
to be true \ it is lik^ the Kcim2Lt\-Czth.o\icChurch^ which wiU
needs he the whole Chrijlian Churchy and will allow no other So-
cietyof Chriftians to he any part of it: ^oTranfubflantiation,
if it he true at all^ it is all truth j for it cannot he true unlefs
our Senfes and the Senfesof all Mankind be deceived about their
proper ohjeils; and if this he true and certain^ then nothing elfe
can he fo; for if we be not certain of what we fee, we can he eer-
tain of nothing.
-ANSWER.
The Oodtrin of the real Prefence or Traufubilaii-
tiation is a Truth that is evident upon the Authority of fmce depcnd?on
the Revealer; and there is no Opinion that the Author holds veracity.
is more evidently falfe, than this is evidently true: For Faith U
the evidence of things not feen, Heb. i i. i. and the heB:na-
turd truth in the World it is, which conveys us infinite blef-
lings: Which unlefs it be fo, we have noreafon to believe
any thing elfe to be true-, a Truth like that of Catholic
Church, which, unlefs it be that which hath lived in Commu-
nion with, and juft obedience to her chief Pallors, efpeci-
ally St. Peter and his lawful Succeflbrs in the See of Rome,
then there hath been no true Church upon the face of the
Earth: For fo the real Prefence or Tranfuhfiantiation, unlefs
it he true, we cannot be alTured of any truth: It mull be fo
if God be veracious, that is, unlefs what he reveals be falfe
fince the very truth of ourSenfes, and all our Faculties,
depends upon his Veracity •, and if we be not certain of
what he hath revealed, though it feem to contradid our
Senfes, wc are certain of nothing.
C DIS-
10 ccanfubfiantiation Defeniieii»
DISCOURSE.
jlfiii ytt notwithfianding ait this, there is a Company of men
in the World fo abandon'd and given Hp by God to the efftacy
of deliifion, as in good eamefi to believe this grop and palpMe
Error, and to impofe the belief of it upon the Chrifiian World hh-
der no Icfs penalties than of temporal death and eternal damna-
tion. j^nd therefore to undeceive, if pojfible, thefe deluded
Sonls, it mil bemceffary to examine the pretended grounds of fo
falfeaDoSlrin, arid to lay open the monftroM AbfurSty of it.
ANSWER.
No-tranfubftan- ^nd ytt nottcithfianding all this, there is a SeS of
clVoTFa"ithwhh World, fo abandon d and given up by God to the
our Adverfaries, efficacy of delufion , as confidently to deny this revealed
^Vpcna'ities, ttuth, and to impofe th ts ft range Kegative Article of Faith
of theirs, That in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is
not anyTranfuhflantiation of the Elements of Rread andWine
into the'Body a^ Blood of Chrifi, at or after Confecratixm by
see the Penal any per fan whatfbever, under no lefs penalties, than the tetnpO'
Lawji andTtfts. lofs of their Eftatcs and Livelihoods, the loft of their
Lives, the formal renouncing of the Catholic Faith and Re-
ligion, which is dearer to them than their Lives, and con-
fluently Sternal damnation. Therefore to undeceive, (which
we hope is poffitble,) thefe deluded Souls, it vtiU be neceffiary to
Ihew the real grounds upon which Tranfubftantiation is
built, that !b the monfirotu abfurdityoi the contrary Do-
arm may be made to appear.
D-1 S C O U R S E.
And in the kandling'Of this Argument, I jhallproceed in this
plain method.
I. I Jhall confider the pretended grounds and reafons of the
Church of Rome^ this'DoHrin.
II. / Jhall produce our Objeftioris it. %/{nd if I
can.
cranfubQantiatiott IDifentiet).
II
<an Jliev that there is no tolerable ground for it^ and that there
are invincible Objections againfi it, then every man is not only in
reafon excafed from believing this DoClrin, but hath great
caiife to believe the contrary.
first, I will conftder the pretended grounds and reafons
of the Church o/Rome for this DoClrin, Which muji be one or
more of thefe five. Either ift. The .Authority of Scripture.
Or zly. 7 he perpetual belief of this DoElrin in tioe Chrifiietn
Church, oi an evidence that they always underfiood and inter'
preted our Saviour's words. This is ray Body, inthisSenfe.
Or jly. TheAtthority of the prefent Church to makgand dc'
dare new Articles of Faith. Or ^.ly. The abfolute necejjity of
fuch a change as this in the Sacrament, to the comfort and be-
nefit of thofe who receive this Sacrament, Or jly. To magnife
the power of the Priejl, in being able to work^ fo great a Miracle.
ill. They pretend for thisDoQrin the ^Authority of Scri-
pture in thofe words of our Saviour, This is ray Body. Now
to fhew the infufficiency of this pretence, I Jhall endeavour to make
good thefe two things.
1. That there is no neceffity of underflanding thofe words of
our Saviour in the fenfeof Tranfubllantiation.
2. That there is a great deal of reafon to underfiand them
otherwife.
ANSWER.
In the handling of this Argument I Jhall proceed in this plain the Method of
method, courfe
I. I jhall conpder the folid grounds and reafons of theCa-
tholic Church/or this DoElrin.
II. I lhall welghthzObjeElions which the Author raakes
againft it. And if I can ftiew that there is a real ground
for it, and that the Ol^etJiow; againft it are weak, and in-
confiderable, then every man is not only in reafon obliged
to believe it, but hath great caufe to rejed the contrary.
Firft, I Jhall confiderthe fofid grounds and reafons of the
Catholic Church for this Doftrin. Which are at leaft
thefe fire. The Authority of Scripture, aly. Theperpe-
C 2 ttiol
Cmnfttbftantiation Defcnbetj.
tual belief of this Do^rin in the ChrifiianChttrch^ Man evi-
dtnce that they always nnderflood and interpreted oar Saviours
This is my Body, in this Senfe. Or 3ly. The Autho-
rity of the Church in every Age to declare, propofe, and ex-
hibit, when, by mifinterpretation of Heretics, they are
forc'd to it, a more explicit Senfe of the Ancient Articles
of our Faith. Or4ly. The infinite Mercy and condefcen-
Hon of God to operate fuch a change as this, for the com-
fort and benefit of thofewho receive this Sacrament. Oryly.
The juft dignity of the Priefi, whom God is pleas'd tomake
ufc of as his Minifter for the working fo miraculous 4 change.
ill. The Catholic Church hath always grounded the Do-
£lrin of the Real Prefence or Tranfubftantiationupon the
Authority of Divine Revelation in thefe words of ourSa-
viour, This is my Body. Nowtolhew the validity of this
Proof 7 fiiall endeavour to make good thefe two things.
I. That there is a necejfity of underflanding thefe words
our Saviour in the Senfe of the Real Prefence, or Tranfu^
flantiation. From whence it will necefiarily follow,
il. That there, is noreafon.Q.fa\\ioxt\\Qunderflandingthem
Ofherwife.,
D I S C O U R S F.
Firfl", That there is no. necejfity to underfland thofe words off
tar Saviour in thefenfe 0/ Tranfubllantiation. Jf there beany,
it mufl he from one of thefe two Reafons. Sitlisr becaufe there
are no figurative expreffions in Scripture, which I think, no man
ever, yet faid: or elfe, becaufe a Sacrament admits of no fl-
flareswhich would be very abfurd for any man to fay, fince'it
is of the very nature of a Sacrament to reprefent and exhibit
feme invifible grace and benefitby an outward fign and figure:
And efpeciallyflnce it cannot be denied, but that in the inflitution
of this very Sacrament our Saviour ufeth figurative exprejfions
and feveral words which cannot be^ taken jtriSllyand literally.
When he gave the Cup, he faid. This Cup is the New Tefta-
ment in my Blood, which is fliedfor you and for many for
ti\e, remiffion of Sins. Where, firfl, the. Cup k put. for
Wiae.
/
Cranfubfiautiatioii DefeuDeb.
wine contained in the Caf; or elfe if the words be literally ta-
fo as to fgnifie a fob (Iantial change^ it is not of the Wine
bat of rfceCup; and thatj not into the Blood of Chrift, but
into /fceNcwTeftament, ornew Covenant Be-
fides^ that his Blood is faid then to be jhed^ and his Body to he
broksf; which was not till his Pajfion^which f ollowed the Infitution
and frfi celebration of this Sacrament.
AN SW E K.
Firlf, That there is a necejfity of nnderfianding thofe word's „ecen:cy of
of our Saviour in the Senfe of Real Prefence or Tranfub- underft*nding
fiantiation^ For thefe two Reafons. i. Becaufe although there the°^nfrof!^'
be vazny figurative exfrejfions in Scripture., which all men al- the Real Pfc-
low, yet this,, in relation to the Cafe in hand, is notfnch.
2. Although a Sacrament admits of Figures^ which no man
is {oabfurdzsto deny, fnce it is of the very nature of a So-
crament^ to refrefent and exhibit fame invijible grace and be-
nefit by an outward Sign and Figure ; Yet the Figure doth not
lie where the Author pretends it doth. The Rule which
men ought to obferve in their difcourfe in relation toFi-
guresis this. That a Figure Ihould not be ufed which the Au^
ditor doth not eafily. apprehend to befo. To compare,
therefore, a Figure, which all .the World can eafily under-
ftand tobefo, withan expreffion which no man can Con-
ftrue to be a Figure, according to the Rules of human
Difcourfe, is very abfurd: Yetfuchis the Authorsinllance
from Scripture. From whence he alledgeth ,,that when
our Saviour gave the.Cup, he faid. This Cup is the New
Tejlament in my Bloody nhich is Jhed^for more properly pour-
ed out) for you., and for many, for the remiffion of Sins. Did
not our Lord plainly read in the minds of his Dilciples,,
that, by the Cup, they would underftand, that which was
contained in the Cup ? If any one Ihould advife the Author,
when he, is thirfty,, to drink off his Glafs,, would he be fo
inconfiderate as to fwallow it together with the Wine?
Nay further, fo unhappy is the Author, as to urge this, in-
fiance of holy Scripture.inthe firft place, which alone is
enough I
14 Cranfubnantiation Dcfentieli.
enough fully to clear the Point againil him. Neither the
ApoilJes, nor any men elfe could be fo ignorant of the man-
ner of human difcourfe, as not to apprehend, that our
Saviour, by the Cup, meant what was contained in it, which
was moil certainly Chrifts Blood j for otherwife it could
not befaid of it, as it isL«%22.20. that it was then
mt for the Apoflles, and/or many, for theremijfionof Sins:
it is faid, is poured out, in thePrefentTenfe ; not, Jhall be
poured out, in the Future j therefor^ here can be meant,
only the Blood of Chrift, as now poured out in the Sa-
crainent for them, not as it was afterwards Ihed from his
Crucified Body upon the ground. The Original runs thus,
^ Tnirffm » luttvh tDctSnxn, i* £tiJu£(i iM5,7i t/Vgj
vofuvov: Where in conftruftion agrees with 7ro7«p/ov,
and not with £iij(.ci\i. And Wine as a Figure only of Chrifts
Blood,or fignifying its virtue,could not be poured out for the
remUfion of Sins: You might with more congruity of Speech,
"hocSitnuUchrum affirm of an Image of the Bleflfed Virgin, * This is that
conceivedtheSonof God', becaufe in this there is feme
plain refemblance to the Prototype.5e^,^ a greatCritic,in his
way, though an Adverfary to the Catholic Dodtrin in this
Point, not being able to deny this Proof, would rather
have the Scripture to be thought falfe, although that be the
whole Foundation of their Faith, than change his Opinion;
,vy ScUeophafies. and faith, that it is a * Soledfm, and fhould be He
concludes that the holy Spirit, or St. Luke, that divinely
infpired Pen-man, the moft eloquent of all the Evangelifts,
could be fooner miftaken, though in a matter of fo great
moment, than himfelf; or elfe he would have the Scripture
tobefalfified, and corrupt, in this place, and not himfelf.
For he acknowledges that all the ancient Manufcripts which
he had feen, and even his own, which was of great Authori-
ty, and of venerable jintiquity, veneranda Antiquitatis, to-
gether with the Syriac Verfion, to which he gives this Elo-
gy, that it was defervedly accounted to be of greateft au-
thority, maxima merit 0 author it at is, did confpire together,
to refer the effufion of Blood to the Cup. The Author,
therefore, and all that feparate from the Catholic Church
in
^ranfubftautiation Defeiiliet).
in this Point, muft either, atlaft, be forced to confefs here,
as * 'Bezji doth concerning thofe words of our Lord, This is
my Body , That this fayiv^ thus exfrefi cavuot be retain'
edy but it mufl prove Tranfubfiantiation, after the manner of
thePapifis^ or elfe that the Holy Scripture, the Foundation
of Chriftian Faith, is made invalid: So that it is plain from
what hath been faid, thatr^'e Cup is here put far -what is con-
taitted in theCup^ and that the fo taken, dofignifie^ and
operate a fubftantial Change, not of the Cup, but of the
Wine in theO^j and that, mt'mtoihs NewTeflament, or
Covenant, but into the Blood of Chrift, in which this New Co-
venant, or Teftament is made, fealed and confirmed. Be/ides,
that his Blood is faid^ here, then to be poured out, and his
Body, then to be brok^n,and given for us, which they could not
be unlefs they were f/jcn really in the Sacrament; becaufe
the Paflion, (wherein * his Body was peirced only, not broken,
as in the Sacrament, and his Blood was Jhed from hisCru-
cified Body upon the ground, not only poured forth from
one Veflel to another, and drunk as in the Sacrament,)
followed the Inftitution and firft Celebration of this Sa-
erament.
DISCOURSE.
* Crnt't Wtfl-
fbali Hoc qui-
dim f<efe dixi-
onus, quod nwtc
quoque rufnufy
Ttiittri rcif!"*
non pojpi, 75 p«"
75V in his Chrifii
vttbis, hoc tfl
tor pus menm ,•
quia Tr.in/ubJlitK'
tiatis papiHtca
ftutuitur.
Compare
* Job. ip. 16. mA
bone of bim fbtll
nit be trs^tn,
with 1fw.11.14.
This U my Body
which it bro\tn
f^r you Wnich
gave occalionto
Sc.Chryfofiome to
{if of Chrift ,
that that which
he did not fuffct
upon the Ctoii
f(«- the love of
the€, he fufTcr:
in the Euchariftc
To« K my tody
which H irA(e*
ft jon.
But that there is no necejfity to icnderfiand our Saviour's
words in the fenfe of Tranlubftantiation, I will take the plain
eortcejfion of a great number of the mofi learned Writers of the
Church of Rome in this Controverfe. fa) Bellarmin, fb)
Suarez and (c) Vafques do acknawledgScoms the great School-
man to have faid that this Dobhin cannot be evidently pro-
ved from Scripture: ^nd Bellarmm^^»fJ this not to be im-
probable-, and SuarezVafquesfd)Durandus
to have faid as much, (e) Ochara, another famous Schoolman,
fays exprefty, that the Dodlrln which holds the Subltance
of the Bread and Wine to remain after Confecration is-nei-
ther repugnant to Reafon nor to Scripture. ff)Petrus
ab Alliaco, Cardinal of Czmhrzy, fays plainly. That the Do-
driu of the. Subltance of Bread and Wine remaining after
Confecration
(a) dt Eucb, I. J.
c I}.
(b) in\dif.tt9-
Sis.-7$.
(c; in 3 fart,
rfi/p, 180.
g«. 7S. art. 1,
t. 5-
(d) in Stni. {.4.
d'(i. tl. ijK. I,
n.15.
(«) in 4 Sntti
Ss-.s &
Hs-du 4.
3 •
ft) in 4 Sent.
gjj. 6. art. 1.
Cranfiibfiantiation Defcnbetj.
Confecfation is more eafie, and free from Abfurdif.y
more rational and no ways repugnant to the Autho-
rity of Scripture •, nay ntore , that for the other DoSlrin^
viz. of Tranfubftantiation, there is no evidence in Scri-
pture. Cgj Gabriel Biel, another great School/nan and Di-
mne of their Churchy freely declares, that as to any thing
e.\prefs'd in the Canon of the- Scriptures, a man may be-
lieve that the fubllance of Bread and Wine doth remain
^fter Confecration : and therefore he refolves the belief of
Tranfubftantiation into fome other Revelation hefides Scripture,
he fuppofeth the Church had about it. Cardinal (h)
Cajetan confejfeth that the Gofpel doth no where expreft
that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chrifl:; that we
have this from the Authority of the Church: Nay,he goes
farther. That there is nothing in the Gofpel which en-
forceth any mantounderftand thefe words of Chrifl, this
is my Body, in a proper and not a metaphorical Senfe;
but the Church having underflood them in a proper Senfe,
they are to be foexplained: Which words in ffceRoman £-
Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope ('i)PiusV.
n.i{. Cardinal fk) Contarenus, and (1) Melchior Canus one of
fk) Sacram. mofi judicious Writers that Church ever had, reckon
TheoUg. this DoBrin among thofe which are not fo exprefly found
'•5 - ' ^ _ in Scripture. J wiB add but onemore, of great authority in
tiv. 'the Church, and a reputed Martyr, (m) FiiherJSiJhop of Ro-
c i o. ». 2. chefler, who ingenuoufy confejfeth, that in the words of the Infti-
tution there is not one word from whence the true Prefence
of theFlelhand Blood of Chrifl in our Mafs can be proved:
So that we need not much contend that this DoUrin hath no cer"
tain foundation in Scripture, when this is fo fully and frankly
acknowledged by our uidverptries themfelves.
ANSWER.
s^^imtncw-' Author hath had very little Succefs yet, in that,
jupted and UjJr which he calls, a Difcourfe againft Tranfubflantiation;
therefore becaufe he would now do fome E.xecution, he is
Aaken for ibeir iConclulion by the Adwcirarr.
forc't
CranfubHantiatiott DefenD^i).
17
forc't to come down to his Adverfaries to fliarpenhis blunt
Weapons. Which, notwithftanding will prove no ad-
vantage to his Caufe. He here, then, tells us in his firft
Period, That he will take the plain Concejfion of a great
number of themofi Learned Writers of the Church of Rome in
this Controverfie, that there is N O necejjityto underfland our
Saviour s Words in the Senfe ofTranfuhftantiation. But what
if it manifellly appear from the Words of thefe Writers,
that he takes this by force, which they never gave him;
fince they all thought themfelves bound to accept the
Words in that Senfe which they acknowledge the Church
to have given of them, as deducible from Scripture by ne-
ceflary Confequence, tho' ]iot fo plainly prov'd from the
bare Words, confider'd by themfelves, as you (hall fee from
their Authorities hereunder cited ? Then he proceeds, like
a falfe Muftermafter,to make up the number of his Lift, by
calling Men that are not in it, to anfwer to other Names
than their own. Bellarmin, Suarex. , and f^afejuez. do ac- s=e all the cic»-
knowledge Scotus, &c. Again, Bellarmin grants this not to be t'he"Mar"^nrof
improbable', and Suareaand Wafquex. acknowledge Durandtu the Author's uft
to have faidasmuch. Here they are wheel'd abouta fecond f^pucdin'!?-
time to make the greater Show yet there are but two
Men in efFed after all this calling. The Author fays,
Bellarmitt,zviA. Suarez^ audL'afqueia fay, Such a Man faid fuch * Si dicdf, quod
a Thing : Why, fuch a blundering fort of an Evidence
would be flung out of any inferior Court of Judicature j it meum, exprtfs'e
faulters fo manifeftly at the very beginning, that we
may affure our felves it can never fpeak clearly. Let tunc egh
us fee therefore what * Scottu ^2xt\iiov himfelf ■, his Words
are thefe : Jf you fay that Chrift-, by faying This is my
Body, doth plainly teach us, that the Bread doth not re- TondtLnjhlZl'
main, for then the Tropofition would be falfe-, this is not co-f'^^"»i^t<'K!f,
gent: for fuppofing (fo that'tis but a Suppofition ftill)
Subftance of Bread did fiiil remain, the Sub fiance of Bread is "u>njiran,ur ac.
not demonftrated here, but what is contain d under the Bread,
as now the Accidents are Jhew'd, for then the Proportion would f*"'
be falfe but the Senfe is, that which jhall be contain d under
this fenfible Sign, is my Body. Mark, how much Scotusfz- JfgtioJenffbili eft
corpus mcum^
u vors
iS Ccanfubflautiation DefctiDet),
vers the Author's Opinion of the Senfes being Judges of
{x) ScotiK uhi what is in the Sacrament. Again he faith, ( a) T/je
^au'ai fiifulrum fo»te things that are to bebeliev'd^ ii ttiore explicitly fet down
nedendorum mi. than in thc jivofloUc^ Athanafutn ^ or Nicene Creed ; and
Tibeaim^fjZ ^ whatfoever u (by the Catholic Church) propoid to
boh -AyiftoioTum, oar Beliefs is to be held of the fabfiance of Faith, after a
Declaration made by the Church-^ he gives the Reafon
viter quicquH ibi afterwatds, Bccaafe the Scriptures are Expounded by the fame
by which they were made: And thus he concludes, fel-
dum eji de fuh- ling US iu plain terms. That the Church therefore chofe this
^oTpojffuam^e. Scnfe of Tranfuhjlantiation^ becaufe it is true ; for it was not
eiaratitrtem fo- in the Powcr of the church to make it true or falfe, bat of God
Infiitating it: Bat the Chareh Explain d the Senfe which was
Dico qMoi 10 ftn- deliver d by God. And if it be fo, that Tranfubllantiation
sc*ipml"quo* was the true Senfe, and that before the Declaration of the
Council, then there was a necejfuy to anderfland our Sa-
%umTifii^^qui'a "^iouFs Words in the Senfe of Tranfubfiantiation ^ accord-
Ttrus eji-, am ing to Scot«^, 35 Well bcfore as after the Council, fince'twas
fccXyj" %tfi- Sewye deliver dby God. Therefore when the Author faith
«ere ifiudvtrum he hath the plain Concejfion of a great number of the moft Learn-
}li Del injiTtZ' cd Writers of the Church of Rome^ reckoning Scot us in thc
fed intel- hj-ft plzcc,that thcrc is NO necejfity to anderfland our Saviour's
mdhum E^fa Words in the Senfe of Tranfuhfiantiation.^ he faith that which
en$ticuit,Sic. js, not ttue. Bellarmin indeed grants what Scotus faid of
the fubftance of Bread remaining (notwithftanding its be-
ing converted into the fubftance of Chrifts Body, as I fliall
prefently Ihew) th.7iX.it is not u4LT0G ETHER impro-
bable, Nonomnino improbabile.^ altho' there may be great
Improbability in the thing notwithftanding , (mark the
*0mmno, Aho- * Word whichthc Author is pleas'd to leave out) that
there is no place of Scripture extant fo exprefs., as that., with-
out the Declaration of the Church ( which notwithllan-
ding clears the whole matter ) can evidently compel us to
admit of Tranfubjlantiation viz. in the Senfe , of the
Thomijls, whofe way of Explication of it is fomewhat
differentfrom Scotus\ But that not .being of Faith, there
ought to be no Controverfic about it, and therefore the
•See the Preface * CouflcU ofTrm ditodly Conderan'd neither of thefe
:och«I>.fco.dC,
Cranfubllaufiatiou JBcfentJcti.
Ways. And (h) Dnrmdm himfcif after he has Dif- C") DurMi»i
coars'd Problematically uponthe Point, like a Schoolman,
at laft concludes folidly: Th2l that is not always to he cho- P»''
fen in matters of Faith, which hath feweji difficulties confe-
quent to it— That the fuhflance of Bread and IVinc is chanffid
into the fubfiance of Chrifis Body : That that only is princi- do, quod'^di.
pally effected in this Sacrament, which is fgnified by the form
of the words, viz. of Confecration. Which Argument being
urg'd by him from Scripture for Tranfubllantiation,is a
plain Evidence that he did not deny the neceflity of under- dmcm ftaT:>bi-
llanding our Saviours words in that Senfe: For he concludes 'tf
pofitively from Scripture, that both thefe things are made ffier'tmt pMu&
to be in this Sacrament, viz. The Exiflence of the Body of Tw*
Chrifi and the Converffon of the Bread into it: And what is /«•«.' ^Te«j>,
this butTranfubftantiation? Therefore what the Authors
abovemention'd fay concerning Scot#A« and Durandus, is to be non efi tamem
applied rather to their particular manner of explicating
the Doftrin ofTranfubfl;antiation,thanto the thing it felf, p'JJtbilh : con-
fince many (c) other Authors do not think -them to be mi- fofthlgwLt^
ftaken in the Point. reatons for it:
I. In his quefuMt
fidei nontjijem-
per cli/^endum illnd iid quod fequwfur ptuciores dipcultatei, Sic. i. giuod iUuifolum efficieur jn hoe
Sacra'ucnto priucifaliter, quod Jignijicaiur p rfomuui verborum.— uttumque efficitur in hoc Sacramento
Jcilicet Exifitntia corpr'u Chrifti fir converjio pank. (c) So he that writes the Scholia upon this Author^
ib.tt.iy Vana funt ergo qu^ exboe Sudrezt!'SottK objiciunt cotttra Scotum, cut fal/o imponit Sotiu, quod
affirat EccUfitm accepijfe Tranfuhjiantiatitnem a DoOoribm. Fid, eiiam Card. Perm. De hit guUo-
rmtibiK.
(d) Ocham feems to allow, that the fuhflance of Bread Cd)ochamus.
may remain tho' it forfaks its accidents, and the fabfiance tratfutpfuZ'
ofChrifl's Body doth not for fake them', and this according to chrija,
him wasonewayoffolving Tranfubftantiation, which he {ySS."""'"
is far from laying to be contrary either to Reafon or "^"(""odoponetida
Crrinf-nrp 1""'^ remaneat ibi
scripture. ^ fuJPntiapaKk,
eorptu Chriffl cexiflit fubflamrx iRi, na quod prmt fuhjlantia fit deferens acddtri'ia^iiMndanomfed
taatumctexiHens ; alio mcdo quod recedat I'ubllaniia tank fuhim Ao i!!n w-V/*;-
inajni lae c/ acc2C(<rn(<
Sutrto, quodfuhjiantia paw redigatur in nihil, ^tdlibet if.orum ejl pejfibile.
5 ^ (e) Petrus
CratifttbCtantiatiou DefenbrtJ.
^ ^ ^ Tctrui ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray was of Q--
TtrtiT^opinhfuh, plnioD that it rooi fojfihle^ and not repugnant to Reafon nor
quoj ftibjiantui the Ajtthortty of the Bible^ nay that it rvat more eafie tobe hh-
pann nmwet\ , n , r it i i rta /• »» , r.
<(s-hocfaeftdupii derflood, and more reafonable that the fuhflanceof Breadpould
'Jn7m7dJ-'""''' t-emain there where the Body of Chrifl begins tobe, and that fo
ftJrena^ the fpibflasce of the Bread flotdd be faid to pafs into the fab-
flftice of the Body of Chrift. ^ So that here isTranfubfen-
&fic'dZm7r tiation ftill plainly maintained in his Senfc; and he doth not
fTbi' believe that there was need of any other Revelation for it,
ftantian corforH: than Scriptutc.
qxoniam ubi ift
hoc, incipit tfjiiHt, fee ■»»—. prior qnidem iSt modus ej! pojjililk, nec npupnat rationi, nec aSoritati Biblic,
imo tpifjciliir ad inleUigtuium, & riiticaabilior qisam ahqttis torum.
(fJ|GabrieJBki, (f) Gabriel "Fje/tells us, that although it be exprefly de-
Mikiw liverA in Script are, that the Body of Chriflis truly contain d
ftim, quod co^Hs under the Species of Bread, and received by the Faithful, yet
^fpec^mpZis it is not found exprefly in the Canon of the Bible, how the
conti'>etur,&ap- ^dy of Chrifl is there, whether by the Converjionof fame-
thing into it : of whether the Body of Chrifl begins tobe with
fit cbrilii corpus, fbe Bread without Converflon, the fubflance and accidents of the
Bread remaining •, But he doth not deny the former of thefe
ipfumo anfme ways to be necclTarily dcduc'd ffom Scriptufc J and there-
7iZ"tf7'co'rp7s' fore this Authority makes nothing againil us. Cardinal
chrijh cum pent cajetads words wetc cenfur'd and expunged by Author!-
ty, and therefore ought not to be brought againft us.
dtmibus peois,
tion invoniwr txprt^'umin Caoioft Eiblit.
Cg) comarema CardinalC<9«Mre»;« freely declares, that a!l*Di-
ZteTrbeoiogi although it be not plainly deliver''d, viz. not in
conveaiunt, licet exprcfs wotds, yct following Reafon as their Guide ( and
TsMrk,''ttZis vfhat is this but necefTary rational dedudl;ion?J That
lameu Mumje. this (viz. whicli is doHe in the Sacrament) cannot he e^
by a local motion, but by foms thange of the fubflance
mosu halt, fid Qf Bread into the Body of Chrifl, which is call'd Tranfub'
ftantiation i
penis in corpus
Ctrijii) quam appeUant Trsnfubfiantietiontrn.
Mdlchior
%
Cranfubflantiation Defenben, 21
(h) Melchior Carnu doth acknowledg that the Church (J") Meu.ior
hath by the Spirit of Truth explain d fome things which are
accounted objcure in the Holy Writings , and that She doth exihcmt
juftly judge the Authors of the contrary Opinions to be Here- f 'clfihnlVa-
tics. But things may be neceflarily contain'd in Scrip- hentur obfcura.*^
ture, altho*^ with fome obfcurity. So that there is not fo f
much as one of thefe Authors, ( unlefs it be that which
is condemned by the Church, and therefore in that Point is
noneofoursj who hath told us. That there is no necejfuy
to underftand our Saviours Words in the Senfe of Tran-
fubftantiation.
Laftly, As if that true Martyr Bifhop Fiper, had not
fuffer'd enough already, the Author exercifes further
cruelty againft him, by a falfe and imperfedl recital of
his words, and corrupting their Senfe. This Holy Bilhop
indeed, fpeaking of the words of Inftitution , faith:
(z) There is not one word put here^ by which it can be prov^d^ (a; DeEuw^r.
that in OVR Mafsthe true Trefence of the 'Body and Blood
ofChrifi is made to be^ which lalt words, Is made to be., hie verbum
The Author falfly renders by thefe words, can be proved.
But this good Martyr doth not fay, that Chrifts words of mijjilnZJfe',?
Inftitution are not to be underftood in the Senfe of the ZbrtuT
True and Real Prefenceof his Body, asmadetobeinthat
Sacrament which our Lord himfelf Confecrated j butthat
the Power of Priefts, NOW, to Confecrate in our Mafe
after the fame manner, is not exprefs'd in the bare tvords
of Inftitution; And it is evident from the immediately fate ilkujus verbi
following words of this Reverend Bilhop, that this is his
true Senfe, which words run thus: For altho^ Chrifi made taverimu, idem
of the Bread his Flep^ and of the Wine his Bloody it doth not
therefore follow by vertue of any word here pladd., that WE Edit* Wirceburoi,"
pall efeU the fame as open as we endeavor it : As is alfo xcvjP"
plain from the other words of this Reverend Authors in
the fame Chapter. Without the Interpretation of the Fa-
thers, and the ufage of the Church by them delivered down
unto w, no body will prove out of the bare words of Scripture., cim Tttrum
that any Prieft can Confecrate the true Body and Blood of terpretaticnem ,
Chrift. For, although we allowChrift te have faid (whattfilTwdlum-,,
ScriO"" [rchabit e*.
€ranfub(}antiation Defeunen.
Scripture faith he did in this kind) to the ^pofiles out of
lu'tm"uewfiaT Luke (wdPaul, it doth not therefore follow^ that he gave the
vmm ckrijH fame Powir to all that were to ftcceed them^ for a Power of
mft."' c^fting ant Devils was given to the Afoflles. But that this
guwent Ciuji _ „ -
KTm"^hreia ^ud Pious Bifhop aflerted the change of the fub-
nuir.
ftanceof the Bread into the Body of Chrilltobe the ne-
Senfe of the words of Chrift, This is my Body^ is
von pro^terea clear from thefe words of his: (b) If the Sabfiance^ faith
he, of Bread is changed into Chrifis Body ^ Chrift ought not
i'ofttris tZZn to have faid otherwtfe than he hath faid : And again, If the
trad'dernpotefla- fubftance of Bread remain^ then Chrift omht to have fpoke
tern. Ham lUn n i • i i •
data fait pottjia, otherwtfc. Wc muIt take notice, that this Pious Biihop was
epcjendi (Le,m. defending Tradition as necelTary for the Interpretation
\b) Contra Cap. of fomc pluccs of Scdpture, and particularly fuch which
oTn-Tuvte rci^tetothe Power that thofe whofiicceed the Apoflles
Parribiis conciiu haveto Coufectatc, and upon very good Grounds, fince
qufrtUoquens ^vithout Tradition, we cannot conclude the Scripture it
sifubjiamiapamt felf to be the WordofGod^ and no Church can prove
the Succefiion of her Pallors to this high Function, which
converiatur quern- . ^ / -wiivii
admodHmiUt IS witliout doubt 3 Fundamental Point. Since therefore
%titaiitlr"''" Proteftants hold , that there is a lawful Succeffion
dixtffi chr^gus of Pallors in Gods Church, as necelFary to the Salvation of
jtant dixeru. Si Mankind, as evidently deduced from Scripture, interpre-
vtaneat [uhH-intia ... ,, r i r * i
fanu, quanquam tcd by Traditiou, tho' uot irom the bare words of the
'Xrnul'debutm Inftitution of the Eucharill, no lefs than Catholics j and
tamtn per untHt that they have as full a Right to Confecrate as the Apo-
"enu 'll^nTto themfelves, they mull therefore allow that they do
tarn banc difcor- do fo: And then there can be no doubt rais'd from the
laTmfiduifet of this holy Biihop, but that Chrifi's Body and
kicpanis ejt corpm Blood are truly in the Sacrament by way of Tranfubllan-
tiation, which Dodrin he allows to have a certain Foun-
Omnit orrtnino dation in Scripture. But the Author here would rather
pull down the Pillars on which the Church of Chrifi
trmr la. ftgnds, by interrupting the Epifcopal Succelfion, and un-
dermineits very Foundation, than not fet a Face upon his
Argument, that he may thereby delude unwary Chrilli-
ans. Upon the whole matter, it is plain from what hath
been faid; i. That not any pf thefe Catholic Authors,
which
Eanfubdaittiation Defentiet),
whiciv arc cited, held that there was no neceffity to *
underftand our Saviours words in the Senfe of Tran-
fubftantiation, but the contrary, i. That they indeed
differed only about forae curious Speculations concerning
the Dependences and Circumftances of this Dodtrin of
Tranfubftantiation, which they Difcours'd of in a Proble-
matical way; as for inftance ; Whether this Tranfub-
liantiation is a Mutation and Tranfubftantiation Pro-
dudlve, that is to fay, by vertue of which the Subftancc
of the Body isproduc'd from the Siibflance of Bread; or
a Mutation and Tranfubftantiation Addudive, that is to
fay, by vertue of which the Subftance of Bread ceafesto
be; and that of the Body be Introdu'd in it's place : And
whether in this Addudive Tranfubftantiation, the Cefla-
tionof the Subftance of Bread and Wine, is to be call'd
Annihilation ; or whether it ought to be exempt from this
Name, for as much as, altho'it ceafe to be, neverthelefs
this Ceffation of it's Effence hath not Nomentity for it's
final Term, but the Subftitutionof the Effence of the Body
of Chrift, or the like; and fuch kind of difputes which-
did not at all relate to theEflenceof the Article of Tran-
fubftantiation, but only to fome confequences, and modes
of it ; for all the School-men agree, That the Bread and
Wine are chang'd and Tranfubftantiated into the Body
and Blood of Chrift, by vertue of Confccration, the Sub-
ftances of Bread and Wineceafing to be, andthofeof the
Body and Blood being fubftituted in their place. 3. They
evidently deduce the Eflential part of the Dodrinof T ran-
fubftantiation from Scripture; and altho fome few of them
do fometimes fay, that the bare words of Scripture do
not compelltn to believe the lefs material confequences of
it, yet they do not deny that thefealfo may be rationally
deduc'd. 4. The Author doth not pretend to prove from
thefe Authorities, that thefe Writers did not hold the
Real Prefence of Chrifts Body here, but only a fign and
vertue of it, as Proteftants do, fince it is clear froni all
their Writings, that they did hold it, as proved from
Scripture. Altho I might havefaved my felf the trouble
^ranfubflantiation j©efentiei5»
of clearing this point fo largely, _ had I not thought it
convenient rather for the vindication of thefe Writers,
whom the Author hath fo grofly abufed, than for the
defendingthe Dodtrin of the Real Prefenceor Tranfub-
ftantiation. For what if feven Authors Ihould before the
Solemn Declaration of the Church have denied it to be ne-
celTarily proved from Scripture, tho' really they have
not i Are there not feventy times feven of another mind ?
"Were not the Bifhops, the Sem-Pel/tpa»s and other
Heretics, who at feveral times oppos'd the Articles of
the Chriftian Faith, vallly more numerous? And the
Author knows, that Catholic Chriftians are not to rely
upon the Judgment of any inconfiderable number of private
Dodlors Opinions concerning the Senfe of an Article of
Religion, but upon the Judgment oF the generality of
Catholic Fathers, which is difcerned in their Writings ,
and in the Decifions of the moft General Councils , and
in thcconftant and general Tradition of the Church.
DISCOURSE.
Secondly, // there he no necejfity of Hnderfiandin^ our Sa-
vionr's words in the Senfe of Tranfubflantiation, / am fare
there is a great deal of reafon to mderfland them otherwife.
Whether we conftder the likg Exfrefions in Scripture 5 as where
our Savioptr fays he is the Door, and the true Vine {which the
Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in, had it been
faid^ This is my true Body.) Jnd fo likewife where the Church
is faid to be Chrift's Body ; and the Rock whichfoSow'd the
Ifraelites to be Chrift, i Cor. to. 4. They drank of that
rock which foUowM them, and that rock was Chrift: dll
which and innumerable more like Exprejfions in Scripture every
Man underftands in a Figurative.^ and not in a firiElly Literal
and abfurd Senfe. Jlnd it is very well known^ that in the He-
brew Language things are commonly faid to be that which they
do fignifie and repr^ent; and there is not in that Language a
more proper and ufual way of expreffing a thing to fignifie fo
and fo, thanto fay that it is fo and fo. Jofeph Expand-
Craufubflanttatioit JBefenteti. 25
ing Pharaoh's 'Drmn to him^ Gen. 41. 26. fays. The feven
good Kine are feven years,the feven good Ears of Corn
are feven years, 'that is, they fgnifi'd or reprefented feven
years of plenty; and fo Vhavzohunderfiood him, and fo would
any Man of Senfe underfland the likg Exprejfions; nor do I be-
lieve that any fenfhle Man, who had never heard of Tranfub-
ftantiation being grounded upon thefe words of our Saviour,
This is ray Body, would upon reading the Inftitution of the
Sacrament in the Gofpel ever have imagindany fuch thing to
he meant by our Saviour in thofe words; but would have under-
flood his meaning to have been, this Bread fgnifies my Body,
this Cu]) fgnifies my Blood; and this which you fee me now do,
do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me : But furely it would
never have entredinto any man's Mind to have thought that our
Saviour did literally hold himfelf in his Hand, and give away
himfelf from himfelf with his own Hands.
N S W E 7^
Secondly, Since there is z necejfity of underflanding TheoifMrity be-
Saviours words in the Senfe of the Real Prefence, or miveexpreffioM
fubflantiation, J am fure there can be no reafon given to un- h. scripture
derfland them otherwife. For if we confider the exprejfions
which the Author produceth out of Scripture as refembling " '"y ^"^y, ftews
thefe, they are fo far from being lik^ them , that from to^bc"kn
thence welhall prove the quite contrary to what the Au- properly,
thor alledgeth them for: Therefore, to reduce this Head
of Difcourfe to lome Method; I fhall firft lay down the
Principles by which it is to be governed, that I may the
better afterwards draw my Conclufion.
1. Chrift ever fpakereafonably, and in a manner con-upoa
formable to good Senfe, nothing efcaping him through Tnomil^ourfel'
imprudence or miftake. grSunded.
2. His Power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our
minds i therefore it is againft reafon, that we ihould con-f«r'^^'^rc'. '*
fine it to the narrow bounds of our underflanding, or
pretend that God cannot do what we cannot conceive.
E
3. When
!■
t ' ,'' i'.,
it;r •
Hi;
* i ■ ■ •' 5 1
"1 r - ■'<
■ '''-if'!,
■ - 'f If
'IH;
' Lc'S! •'
,'ii' ilji-
t- u ■ '
;'■ )i „ ^. .
' -■ i'!'''
How Catliolics
Interpret the
words oflnftitn-
tion, ancJ how
Piotcftants.
^ranfubflantiation DefenbeD.
When theSenfeof the words whkh Chrifl: fpeaks,
if taken properly, is not contradidory to Right Reafon,
thf)' above it, and the Rule< of human'Difcourfe oblige
us to take thefe words in the proper Senfe, then we are
not to doubt ohhe Truth of them as fo taken.
That we may the better apply thefe Principles, and the
enfuing Difcourfe to the Cafe in hand, I (hall endeavor to
State it as precifely as may be, and draw it into as narrow
acompafsas lean. Chriftin thelnftitutionofthe Blefled
Sacrament faid , THIS IS MY BODY: Which
words Thofe of the Englifli Church, that do not believe
the Prefence of Chrifts Real Body in the Sacrament, yet
Attribute the efficacy thereof to the due Reception of the
Sacramental Elements (and I will Charitably fuppofe the
Author to be one of thefe ) interpret thus: This thing,
which you fee to be Bread in Subftance, is a Sign of my
Real Body, wherein the vertue of my Body, tho' it fehf
beabfent, is contained-, or whercunto this vertue is con-
joyned, or together with which it is exhibited -, which fe-
veral forts of expreffions I am forc't to ufe, that I may by
fome of them reach that Senfe which they have not yet
fufficiently explained. Catholics thus: This thing, which
by the means of your Senfes, is reprcfented to the mind
under the Species or Appearance of Bread, is my Body
in Subftance.
In thefe Explications, I fay, that by, This^ in the Pro-
pofition. This is my Body, is meant, this becaufe
this is a Pronoun Demonftrative, that doth not exprefs
any particularly determinate, and diftind Nature or Sub-
ftance: For it may be applied to any thing that is the ob-
jeCt of* Senfe, or of pure Underftanding, when it is but
confufedly reprefented to the mind : As we fay pointing
to a perfon before us, This is John, or this is Thomas^
pointing to an Animal, we fay. This is a Lamb, this is a
Dove; after we have difcourfed of the nature of the Soul,
wc may fay of Cogitation^ conceiving it in our minds, This
is the property of the Soul. But becaufe it would be great
rafhnefsof judgment, and that which is ftridly called
prejudice,
Ctanfu'btiantiation Defenueti^
prejudice, to conclude fully of the nature of any thing,
which another, that is prefumed to know it better than we
do, (hould be Ihewing to us, before he hath fully pro-
nounced hisPropofition, by which he is to difcover it's
nature : As for inftance ^ if any one holding up a Gilt
Shilling, or a Counterfeit Guiny fhould be about to in-
form us truly, that this was but a Shilling, or a Counterfeit
piece of Gold, which notwithftanding appeared to the
Senfes like Gold , we Ihodd rafhly conclude, before he
tells us fully, what it is helhews us, that it is a true piece
of Gold: Or on the other hand, if any one Ihould holdup
a true piece of Gold, which is difcoloured fo by Sulphur,
that it looks but like Silver,aHd Ihould be informing us, that
this is apiece of true Gold, we ihould, before he hath
fpoke his words, conclude it was but Silver: So it would
have been prejudice in our Lord's Difciples, to have con-
eluded of the determinate nature of that, which be held in
his Hands, when he was going to tell them, what it really
was, -viz.. his Body, before he had fully pronounced the
Propofition, faying. This is my Body: Which the Sacra-
mentarians and our Author do , ralhly determining the
thing which appears as Bread, to be fo in Subftance, upon
the exhibiting the Species, and faying, This^ which not-
withftanding, when the Propofition is finilhed, is in the
Sacrament made and declared to be the Body of Cbrill:
This therefore being a Pronoun demonftrative, it is e-
nough, that it exhibits fomething unto us, under a certain
outward appearance, without fignifying diftin6tlyr and
clearly the whole nature of the thing, for it is the prop-
^ perty of the Attribute or thing, that is affirmed of ano-
ther, toaddclearnefstothe fubjeft, or thing of which it
is affirmed, by explaining the nature of the thing, intended
to be demonftrated in the Propofition,morefully^otherwifc
the Propofition would be ridiculous j as if one Ihould fey,
this Bread is Bread, or this my Body is my Body. This
therefore in the Propofition, This is my only dif-
covers fomcReal Thing whichappearsinCicha manner ;
as for inftance, the Species-of Brea^ to the Senfes, which
E 2 our
Ccanfubftautiation Defcnm
onr Saviour, who was Truth it felf, who did know the
truth of all things, and could alter the nature of any Cre-
ated thing, by his Word, declares fully unto them to be
his Body, tho' under fuchan appearance*, fothat, whe-
ther the change was made before, or at that very iniiant
of time, when our Lord fpake the words, the latter of
which is the general opinion of Catholics ^ the Propofition
is ftridly true in a proper Senfe.
inwhatsenfa 1 fnall Only prcmife one thing more, before I examin .
the Authors pretended proofs from Scripture, becaufe I
SMrLent. ^ would by no means make the breach betwixt us wider
^han it is, which is this, That Catholics acknowledge a
rigureinthe vSacrament, no lefs than Proteftants. Thus-
the Bread and Wine, before Confecration being diltindt
things, and feparate one from the other, do refemble
Chrills Body and Blood feparated upon the Crofs, and
his Soul feparated from his Body, altho' they could not
do this in their own nature *, and till, after the firit In-
ftitution, they were expofed upon • the Altar for
fuch a ufe, as might make us coniider them as fuch re-
femblances, llnce there is not fo much of natural likenefs,,
as to call the Idea of the Paflion into our mind. We
believe alfo, that after Confecration, Chrifls Body in the
Sacrament under the Veils of the Species of Bread and
Wine, is a Figure, Similitude, or Examplar of the fame
Body of Chrift, as it CifFer'd upon the Crofs, in like
• manner as his Body when newly born, was a Refemblance,,
and Exemplar, and exprefs Image of his Body at full
growth : But this we conclude, not from thofe words of
our Lord, This is my Body^ which mull Hill be under-
flood in a proper Senfe^ but from the nature of the
thing it felf, after the Inftitution known to be made.
From whence we firmly believe the Body of Chrift to
be there J it being of the nature of a Sacrament to reprefent
and exhibit fomthing more unto us, than what it outward-
ly appears to be.
I now proceed to confider the Expreflions which the Au-
thor producethoutof Scripture, by which he would prove.
a
Eranfubnantiation DefeiibeB* 2$
a Figurative Prefcnce of Chrifls Body, in oppofition to a
Real one in the Catholic Senfe. And thi^eing the main
Proof upon which thofe, who have renounce the Authority
of the Church do pretend to build their Faith, fince they
allow that nothing ought to be admitted as an Article of
Faith which is not clearly deduced from hence *, and confe-
quently nothing ought to be condemned as contrsry to the
Chriftian Faith, but what is manifeftly repugnant to this.
From hence then it is, that he Ihould bring an evidence,
which is able to overthrow the Authority of fo many Coun-
cils, andfeveralof them General ones, as-have determined
this Point againft him, and to Ihew plainly that the whole
true vifible Church of Chrift, which hath for near MDCC
years received the Dodrin of the Real Prefence of Chrii?s
Body, hath erred in fo neceflary a Point of Faith, and been
guilty of Idolatry, even grofler than that of the Heathen
World, as the Author pretends; notwithftandingthe Evi-
denceof the fame Holy Scripture, that the Holy Spirit fhall
lead itintoall Truth, and that the Gates of Hell lhallnotbe
able to prevail againft it. Let us fee therefore how well
he acquits himfelf in this vaft enterprife, of fo great con-
cern to the Chriftian World. His Argument from Scri-
pture is this; there are other exfrejfions in Seriptnre which
are taken figuratively, therefore this muft be fo taken. Out
.of the imimerable like exprejfions in Holy Scripmre, as he is
pleafed to terra them, heciteth two very different forts-^
The firft are barely figurative, fuch as are ufed in ordinary
human difcourfe as well as Scripture, without preparing
of the mind of the Hearer beforehand, that he may re-
-ceive them. Then he compares the words of our Lords
Inftitution to a. Bream or Vifion of the Nighty that was to
be interpreted, which indeed hath fomething more of re>-
femblance than the former expreffions which he alledgeth-j
becaufeit being known that the things which are reprefent-
ed inDreams andVifionsare not real but imaginary ; yet
fince they are fometimes confidered as reprefenting real
things, that are to come to pafs, thcy.are of the nature of
Signs of Inftitution, ai^fo may come nearer to the-Cafe
Cranfubftantiation DcfcnDetj*
in hand. But be (eemsto be foon weary of thefercfem-
blances, which being fo different in nature, one from the o-
ther, are not to agree to the fame third thing, the Sa-
crawent. Then he flies from Scripture to Jitftin Martyr*s
Teftimony concerning the ancient/om of the Paffoverufed
by the Jews. Yet he knows not whether he fhould ftickto
this expreflion, which is Sacrifical or Sacramental, and fo
moft likely to refemble the Sacramental, about which he
argues \ or the former, which are not fo. For he begins
his Periods thus : Whether we confider the likg exfrejfions
in Serif ture^ as where onr Saviour faith^ &c. or, whether we
compare thefe words with the ancient form of the Tajfo'
ver: And 1 am fure thefe are not of a like nature with the
other. Surely there is no Man of common Seafe that can
admit of fuch a fort of Proof as this, from one Author that
fo fiuftuates in his judgmenta fince it hath the viiible Cha-
radter of Fallhood in its very Front, and condemns the
Real Prefence of Chrifts Body, in a proper Senfe, which
was never openly contefted in Chrifts Church till Berenga-
rim*s time, f nor fo much as privately, till the time of Vafca.
fitis, unkfs by thofe that denied the Incarnation of our Lord
it ftlf) as well as the more explicit Senfe, Tranfabjian-
tiatio/t, againft the Authority ofalltheDoiftors of the Ca-
tholic Church and its conftant Tradition for fo many Ages.
But left any one fhould be deceived with fuch a pretend-
cd Evidence from Scripture •, I ihall fhew plainly that ne-
ver a one of thefe forts of expreffions, fuits with this of
our Saviours in Sadpture, and that therefore moft certainly
all of them do not.
Thefirft, that are mentioned, are barely figurative ex-
preffions •, as where our Saviour izxth^Jam the ^oor,and the
true Wim (and the Church of Rome may triumph in this,
that our Lord faith, th2LthwFlejh is truly Meat
Joh. 6. 5 J. ) the Church is faid to be Chrifts Body, and
Chrift is termed a Rock in a Spiritual Senfe, i Cor. 10.4.
They dr(mk.of that SpiritualRock which followed them, and
that'Which before is called a Rock, vvithoutdoubt
was Chrift. Though the Author is pleas'd to leave out
the
CranfubfiantiationDefenDct. 51
the word Spiritual^ but I would advife him to have a care
of that Curfe which juftly falls upon thole that diminilh
from Holy Scripture, to favour a Party. That I may the
better demonftrate the dilTimilitude of thefe, and the other
figurative expreffions, which are by the Author alledged
out of Holy Scripture, to that proper one of our Lord,
This is my "Body \ I lhalllay down thefe Rules to diltinguilk
them by.
1. The defire which Men have to make themfelves to be
underitcxxl, and to imprint lively Ideas of that which they MprcflSonsbV
conceive themfelves, in the minds of others, and of retain-
ing them the better, doth naturally incline them tofearch
for Gomparifons and Refemblances, which may render the
Idea that they would form,the more fenfible. The reafon
of which is, becaufe things of Senle do moftaffedthe
mind, and make thedeepeft and moll lalling impreffionsv
and this Rule is the ground of molt metaphorical expref-
lions, which are of fo great ufe and ornament in human dif-
courfe.
2. Hence it foltows, that the qualities erf" the thing,
which we affirm of another in this figurative way, Ihonld be
more plain and familiar to us, or at leail fully as plain
as the thing of which we affirm it,otherwife it will not be
fit to work the effeft before mentioned.
5. Therefemblance lies ufually in but one, or but fome
few, at the molt, of thofe qualities, wherein the thing that
is affirmed is like to that thing whereof it is affirmed.
4. The inclination which Men naturally have to abridge
their difcourfe, joined with the defire of imprinting things
in the mind, by fenfible Ideas, is the caufe they ordinarily
include thefe comparifons in the fame words that the things
they are compar'd to are exprell by , fupprelling all the
terms of relation, and exprefiing them, as if the things of
which they fpeak, were really thcrfe things whkh they ulle
as Images to exprefs them the more clearly by: Thus we
find it &d. Gen. 49. 9- Jstdah is a Lions Whelp, v. 2 2.Jofepk
is a fruitful Bough. Hof. lo. t. Ifrael is an empty Fine.
5. T^ thing from which, refemblance is taken is
generaEy
CranfubHantiation DefentieB,
generally more ignoble, and of an inferior order to that of
which it is affirmed, as being more fenfible \ for the ob-
jedts of Senfe are inferior to thofe of pure Underftanding j
and heavenly things are of that exalted nature, that they
cannot be compared to any thing that is above them.
6. Therefore the terms are not convertible (for altho'
we call a Man of courage a Lion, by reafon of the refera-
blance of the quality of holdnefs, yet we terin not a Lion
a Man.j And the reafon of this is, becaufein theSubjedlis
underftood the whole Idea of the thing exprefled but in the
Predicate but fome qualities.
7. Altho' for the explaining a barely metaphorical ex-
preffion, a Parableor a Dream, that which is properly the
Predicate be put in the place of the Subjedt, yet it is rare-
ly fo ufed but upon fuch like occafions as this j and then too it
doth not lofe its nature, but is the Predicate ftill for we
arc not to mind thepofition of the words to find out the
Predicate, but the fenfe of the Propofition; As in that Pro-
polition of our Lord, fob. 6. 33. The Bread of Cod is he
Tvhich cometh down from Heaven.^ he which cometh down
from Heaven, is the Subjedl, altho' put in the place of the
Predicate, as is plain : So that, here the thing which is fig-
nified or refembled, is always the Subjedt,and the thing fig-
nifying or refembling the Predicate.
8. In Metaphors you cannot pundtually defign the thing
to which another is refembled by pointing to it, or, ufing
a pronoun Demonftrative *, as for inftance, tho' Chrift in
Scripture be called a Way, and a Shepherd, yet you cannot
fay, Chrift is Way, pointing to fome particular Way,
nor Chrift is tW; Shepherd, demonftrating fome particular
Man that is a Shepherd; nor on the other hand that Way
is Chrift, Shepherd is Chrift.
9. None ever can pretend, that after a mereMetapho-
rical Allufion in way of Dodlrin, a real Vertue Ihould be
imparted by receiving that thing to which another is
compared: As when Chrift calls himfelf a Fine in Scripture,
that the eating of the fruit of the Vinefliould have con-
veyed Chrifts Bleffing and Vertue.
CtanfubOantiation Defentieu*
It will bceafie to difcern the great difparity between the
eKpreflionof our Lord, This is my Body^ and thofe Meta-^'hcFifregoi'i^
phorical ones which the Author here alledgeth, by compa- Rules: By whicU
ringthetn together, and examining them by the foregoing merely^'
Rules. Our Saviour callethhirafelf a I^cjor^becaufe of the '
natural refemblance, which the Mind, cafting about for ouFsMiXrs°be.
the meaning of this exprelTion, imraediatly, without any
difficulty finds, and he himfelf declares; for as by a Door likJ to^the
we enter into the Houfe, fo by Chrift we enter into Hea- of confecraaon,
ven ; for through him the way is opened : tA in
like manner, becaufe from him all true Believers as Bran-
ches receive their nourifhment and growth in Grace, by
which they are enabled to bear Fruit: A "Bock.-, becaule
from him the Fountain of Living Waters doth Spring:
The Church his Body^ becaufe of the Union of the Members
ofhis Body one with another, and of all with the Head,
and the mutual afliftance which they afford each to other,
in which the Spiritual Body Refembles a Natural Body.
(a) By thefe fenfible and eafie comparifons the Idea of the (a) see RuIc i.
thing which our Saviour exprefles, by them, is more live-
ly imprinted in our Minds, and by this means the Memory
the better retains them: (b)Thefe do explain the things of (b) s-e Rule i.
which they arc affirmed, and render them the more fa-
miliar to us;(c)and yet the Refbmblance lies in but one,or, (:) sce Rule j.
at the moft butfomefew of the qualities i (d) the terms of (d) secRuic-ii
relation are fuppreffed in the firft propofal of thefe ex-
preffions, altho' explained afterwards, and one word in-
eludes the Comparifon. It is otherwife in the expreffion
of our Lord, This is my Tody ^ fuppofingthatby the Term,
This^ Bread is meant in the Sacramentarian Senfe; (i) for contriry to r. i.
the Body of Chrift is not a fit thing to Refemble Bread
by, the notion of Bread is not the more fenfibly imprinted,
by comparing Tody with it, neither doth the
Memory by this means the better retain it *, the applying
the Idea of Chrifts Body (i) to Bread doth not render the R-1-
nature of Bread more familiar, but on the contrary more
abftrufe and difficult to apprehend, (3) the Refemblance r. j.
lies in none of the vilible qualities, (4) the Terms of Re-
F lation
i 1
54 €:raufubftantiation Dtfeutiei}.
lation are not fupprefled, for no fnch Relation can'be
(f) Sec Rules 5,conccivcd. Now to proceed(e) In the former expref-
lions, the things which are exprc/led, are of an Inferior
nature to the things of which they are expreffed, yet
• morefenllble therefore the Terms are not convertible:
(OsccRu]es7,8 For altho'it befaid Chriftisthe Door^ yet we cannot
fay of any particular Door^ that it is Chrift ^ altho' it is
affirmed that Chrifi is the mte FiftCy yet we cannot fay of any
pointing to it, that it is. Chrifi ', altho' he be called
^ Rock, yet we cannot fay, defigningforae particular
that this Rock is Chrifi : For in that Propolition, the Rock
was Chrifi, we mull not regard the order of the words, but
the Senfe of the Propolition to find out the Subject and the
Predicate^ fothat when it was faid, the Rock^ was Chrifi,
the meaning is, Cljn^ was Typified by tliat Rock, or Chrifi
was like that Rock,, unlefs we-underftand, as we ought to
do from the preceding words ofthe Apoftle, by the Term
Rock,, a Spritaal Rock, and fo he was really fuch a Rock,
and not Typically fo •, Altho' it be faid, t\\2ctth€ChHrch
is the Body of Chrifi, yet we cannot affirm of the natural
(•;; Contrary to Body of Chrifi, that it is his Church. It is (g) otherwife
K. s,6,7,s. in the expreffionof our Lord: For the Predicate is here
of the lame nature with the Subject, if underftood in the
Senfe of Catholics*, it is of a Superior nature,if underftood
in the Senfe of our. Adverfaries y the Terms, if taken in
the former Senfe are convertible; for as it. was laid by
Chrift, This is my. Body, meaning the thing, that was con-
tained under the vilible Species, fo it aright be affirmed
of the fame Body, that it was, this-, which was thus con-
tainedi: Inthe latter Senfe we may as well affirm , that
the B^y of Chrifi was Bread, as that Bread was the Body
ot Chrifi, for indeed neither of thefe could be truly affir-
med, lince thefe Propofitions, in this Senfe, would be feHe,
and abfurd, there being no fenfibie Refemblance, nor no
i^ntity, for the Terms are incompatible: And therefore
wc need not conlider of the Senfe of" themv to find out which
is the Subject,. andiWhich the Predicate, for there is no
tr-ue Soofe hetetobe: fdund, nor nofrich relatic^ becaufe
; our
tcranfubftautiafIon Deftnoco. • 5 5
our Lord 'had not declared the Bread to be a fign of In-
llitution, before he fpoke thefe words, This is my Bady^
and the "Bread was not naturally a fign of his Body j as
lhall be Ihcwed in the enfuing Difcoorfe.
Well, but the' the Propofition feeni fo very abfurd in
this Senfe, where the Body of Chrifi is taken for the Pre-
dicate, or thing by which Bread is refembled i yet ifThts^
that is, the Bread Ihew'd in Chrifls Hands, according to
our Adverfaries, be taken for the Predicate, meaning by
the Propofition , This is try Body ^ that This Bread is a
Refeinblance of my Body, they will fay perhaps it is not
fo: But I lhall prove it to be fo, for thefe Reafons.
I. Becaufe if the words were to be fo underftood,then if the see Rule 7.
Predicate were reftored to its proper place, the Senfe
would be clear and obvious, as in that Propofition of our
Lord; Joh. 6. 33. The Bread of God is he which cometh
down from Heaven ; when we change the pofition of the
words, and fay. He which cometh down from Heaven is the
Bread of God ^ for now the Subjedl and Predicate have
their proper places; But it is otherwife in this Propofi-
tion. This is my Body^ meaning by, This^ the Bread then
Demonitrated; for you cannot fay, without abfurdity,
that the Body of Chrifi is this Bread^ meaning Ibmc par-
ticular Bread. 2. In Metaphorical expreflions the Pre-
dicate is not put in the place of the Subject at the firfl: pro-
pofal of the Similitude, Parable, or the like; but after-
wards when the Explanation is made, according to the
Sixth and Seventh Rules before mentioned. Thus it was
faid by our Lord, Matt. 13.24- The Kingdom of Heaven.^
(Thgjt is, Chrifi: th,c Son of Man fetting forth, and ob-
taining this Kingdom for us ) is likened to a Man that Sow-
edgood S^ed in hisTidd\ before he would fay by way of
Explication , Ker. 37. He that Sowed the good Seed is the
Son of Man^ and when he had propofed the relt of the
Parable unto thefu; then, hy way of Explication, it alio
follows ; The Field it the World : The good Seed are the
Childrenof the- Kimdonty hut the Tares are the Children of
the. wicked one '; Wnich method is alfo ufed in the Other
F 2 , . Parables
3^
See Rnlc t.
A Metaphor
conveys uo Spi-
tituaKercue.
Sec Rule g.
Tknubi Dream
doth no: refem-
ble the Saaed
words c- Confe-
•ra-ion, Tbii »
my BtJy.
Diftmaloipand
Rules for, the
folkvwintt Dif-
coerfe efthe
t
CranfubCantiation Dcfcnbcu.
Parables of Scripture, that are Explained. 3 . The Pre-
dicateorthing Refembling in thefe Metaphors, whether
it be put in the place of the Subjed, or in it's own, is
never particularifed by a Pronoun Demonftrative : For
our Lord doth not fay , Pbinting to any Hnshand-man ^
Thisi% the Son of Mm ^ or of a Vkld that he was in, Tkis
is the World', or of any(j rains of Corn, that he fees
Sown, Thefe are the Children of the Kingdom: So likewiie
it would have been improper to have faid, This my Body
is Bread j or This Bread is my Body.
Laftly, Thofe of the Englilh Church do pretend from
thefe v/ords of Chrift, Thisis?ny Body, that there isfome
Spiritual Blefllngor Vertueof Chrifis "Body (tho'the
it felf be not there) annexed to the Elements, or their
Reception, which, if they were but a mere Metaphorical
cxpreflion, like the reft mentioned by the Author, it is
highly unreafonable to conclude. Therefore for this
reafon, as alfo for all the difparities before fhevved, we
may truly affirm, that there is no fuch Refemblance, as
the Author pretends, between the foregoing expreffions
alledged out of Scripture, where our Saviour is calfd a
F'ine, a Door, &c. And that of our Lord's Inftitution,
This is my Body. *I lhallnow proceed to exarain the next
that are Cited, which are of a very different nature from
the former.
As when Jofefh Expounding Pharaohs Dream to him.
Gen. 41. 26. Says, the Seven good Kine are Seven Tears,
and the Seven good Ears of Corn, are : Which
expreffions, as alfo that out of Juflin Martyr that follows,
the Author compares to the words of Chrifts Inftitution.
Now, that 1 may ffiew, that there is no reafon thdt our
Lords words ffiould be taken in the Figurative Senfe of
thefe expreffions , but contrarywife in a proper Senfe, I
lhall lay down thefe diftindtions and Rules to Ihew the
drfparity by.
Signs are either Naturally fo, as black Qouds are a Sign
of Raiui Smoak is a Sign of Fire ; or elfe fo, only by In-
ftittttion and agreement •, concerning which latter, I a-
gain
Cranfubftantiation ©efenbctj. 37
gain diftinguifli. That of Signs of Inftitution, feme have
fo much of Natural Refemblance, as that they may fitly
be chofen to fignifie and reprefent, altho' not enough to
exhibit the Idea of the thing upon the bare fight of men-
tioning, which afterwards hy Inftitution they are to fig:-
nifie unto us (Thus a living Creature Sacrificed Typifies,
or fignifies Chrift Crucified upon the Crofs •,) and fome
have not Thus the word Mofes doth fignifie fuch a Man ;
where there is no Natural Refemblance between thefe
Letters compounded into a word , and the perfon
Reprefented by them , but this depends upon mere
Inftitution and compadl amongft Men.
2. All rational Difcourfe ufed amongft: Men is founded
upon the imperfedl penetration, at leaft, into the Minds
ofthofe with whom we difcourfe, and the prefumed Know-
ledge of them. For we regulate our Speech, according to
the apprehenfion that we believe thofe, with whom we
converfe, have of it. If we believe Mens Minds to be
prepared to underftand our Difcourfe, then we utter it
to them; if they are not able as yet to perceive what we
fay, then we muft either prepare them beforehand, or
elfe give a diftindt and formal explication of our words,
foon aftgr we have uttered them, otherwife we abufe
our Auditors. From whence it follows,
3. That that fort of improper Difcourfe, wherein we
give the Sign the name of the thing fignified,or to the thing
fignified the name of the Sign, being very rare, to make it
intelligible, it is required, i. That the Sign be plainly
Inftituted. 2. It muft be juftly prefumed, that thofe to
whom we fpeak, regard the thing as a Sign, or elfe we
ought to advertife them, that we intend to ufe it as fo..
For there is no example cither in Scripture or ordinary hu-
man Difcourfe of a like exprelfion to this of our Lords^
by which, at the very firft conftituting any thing into a
Sign, it is called the thing fignified , without preparing
the minds of the Auditors to underftand it fo. To apply Appircation of
thefe Rules to the cafe in hand, wemuftobferve, that
this Dream or YiiiQji of ^haraoht was a Sign of Inftitution, ciftioaions.
it
€:ranfubliantiafion
it having been appointed by God to figniSe fomething to
him: Again, indeed this Sign had feme fort offitnefs, in
it's own nature, to be made a Sign of what it was to re-
prefent, even more than Bread hath to reprefent Chrifls
Body^ yet it could not exhibit to Pharaohs Mind the thing
which it was to fignifie without forae explicit interpreta-
tion of good Authority, and it was fo obfcure a Sign,that
none of all his Magicians could give it. Therefore Pharaoh
propofesthisto Jofefh as a Dream^ Gen. 4i.'y. 22. Ad-
. vertifing him of what he faw in a Dream ^ wWch Jo-
feph undertaking to Interpret , Pharoah could not
but confider his words as an Interpretation of this Sign of
Inftitution •, therefore by the Second, and Third Rules, be-
forementioned, it was very rational for him to put the Pre-
dicate in the place of the Subjeft, the Sign for the thing fig-
nified, by fayingthe Seven good Kine are Seven Tears,
and the Seven good Ears of Corn are Seven Tears^ that is,
they (ignified or reprefented Seven Tears of Plenty, fmce it
is very mil known that in the Hebrevy Language things are
commonly faid to be that which they do fignifie and reprefent :
But then it mufir be known beforehand,that they do only fig-
nifie and reprefent^ otherwife it cannot be under/lood when
they only exprefs a Refemblance, and when Identity. On
the contrary, if in the exprelfion of our Lord, This is my
Body, the Bread had been a Sign of Inftitution,tho' it have
fome remote refemblance, yet fince it could not of it felf,
before plain pofitive Inftitution,bring the Idea of the thing,
fuppofed to be reprefented, to the Mind, therefore fince
there was no fuch foregoing Inftitution, or adlion to pre-
pare the Minds of the Apoftles to confider it as fo, and
rhefe words of Chrift are no explicatipn of a Sign of
Inftitution, but muft be the Original Inftitution it felf
of a Sign, if any had been here made , and the Apoftles
were no v/ays advertifed before-hand to confider the
Bread as a Sign ; fince the Predicate therefore could not
rightly here be put in the place of the Subjeft, muchlefs
a Pronoun Demonftrative be ufed according "to . a for-
mer Rule ; therefore thefe words, This is my Body, accor-
Cranfubfiautiation Oifenbeti.
ding to the known Rules of human Difcourfe, which it
were Blafphemy to fay our Lord would fwerve from ,
fo as to fpeak abfurdly , do fignifie that, That was his
Red Body which he held in his hands, and not a Sign only of
his Body^ as our Adverfaries falfly pretend. Neither do J he-
lieve, that any fenjibleman^ rrho had never heardhefoYQ of this
figurative Senfe, which the Author and Sacramentarians
have fo often inculcated into their FolloWefs, a's to make
them prejudiced in the Cafe, would upon reading the In-
Ilitution of the Sacrament in the Gofpel, or if tliey had
heard Chrift fpeak the words, ever have imagined that by
thefe words, This is my Bodyy^ no more was to be underllood,
than that, this^ which Chrift held in his hands was only a
Sign of his any more than our Saviours Apoftles and
Difciples could be made to underftand the like Words, Johfi
6. 515 living Bread that came doxtm ft'drtiHeaven.
And the Bread that I xvill give is myFleJh., which J willgiv&
for the life of the world (the J exHi therefore Jlrove amdngfi them-
felves fayingjhow can this an give ns his Flejh to eat .•') in that
Senfe: But would have underftood his meaning to have been
thus: This which hath the outward appearance of Bread
is really mg Body., This which hath the refemblance of
Wine is my Blood. Not as the Author fallacioufly propo-
feth the meaning. This Bread fignipes my Body, this Cup Jig-
nifies sny Blood, But that he fhould. ,enjoynthem to do that
vyhich they then law him do. That is,offer up, hereafter,his
Real Body and Blood, under the Species of Brtad and Wme,
by way of an unbloody Sacrifice, for a Memorial of that
Bloody one of his Body and Blood, which he was foon
after to ofter up upon the Crofs. And in this great My-
ftef y, a true Chriftian ^ one that hath an humble Scui
rightly drfpofed for the Belief of our Lords words-, a^ St.
t^ugfifiin \iz<i,-yfio fpeaking of our Lord, faith: Chrift
was carried irr his ormi hands, when recommtrtiBng to them his >" mnAHus fuit,
very Body, he faith, This is my Body. .For he carried that
Bfdy in his hands', fuch a one Ilay, can readily believe
that our 'Saviour did properly, dnd rcalfy hold Idmfeif id jfCZTmiiilt
his hand, add give'awM himfelf, but not from hkhfelf with^f"'
•' • . fun. Aug. Com-
ntS roent. in Pf. 3 3.
40 Ccanfubftatttiation DefenlieD*
his own hands\ by reafonofthe natural Connexion and
Concomitance which his Sacred Soul and Divinity haVe
with his and Blood, under the vifible Species of ^read
and Wine.
DISCOURSE.
Or whether we compare theje words of our Saviowr with the
ancient Form of the Vajfover ufed by the Jews from EzraV
(n) Dhhg. cum time,M(u) Juftiu Martyr tellsts h avnlf n/uSy i
ftm this Paflbver is our Saviour and our refuge:
•' 19- believed the Pafchal Lamb to be fabflantially
changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out
of the Land of Egypt, or into the MelHas the Saviour whom
they expecled and who was fignifed by it: But this Lamb
which they did eat, did repr^ent to them and put them in mind
of that Salvation which <fod wrought for their Fathers in
Egypt, when by the flaying of a Lamb and fprinklifig the
Blood of it upon their 'Doors their firfl-born were pajfed over
and fpared •, and did lik^wife foreflhew the Salvation of the
Meflias, the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins
of the World.
ty4 N S W E 71^
The Analogy The Author having tried feveral very different forts of
expreffions in Holy £cripture,with which he hathoffer'dto
'mjfody, compare the words of our Lord's Inftitution, feeming not
[hl®plf!h\?form fatisfied in his Mind, about their Analogy to
inLrfpture, o^to thcfo, yet not able to difcover any of a nearer refemblance,
deed fromEWraf ^eiug at 3 great lofs, hath recourfe to the Authority of
or'anyTf thT' 311 Ancicut Father, and now he will either find one or
*rovrt'ha°chrifts purpofe. For confidering
wOTdVh«e,"re that our Saviour had juftbefore this Inftitution celebra-
tWd"nd"nM"in PalTover, it^might feem reafonable to conclude,
aploperscnfc/" that hcfhould now imitate that manner of fpeaking which
he ufed fo very lately. Therefore it is but finding, or
coyning a Pafchal Form of Inftitution, fuitable to the
faying
^ranfubCiatttiatiott Oefenbeti* , 41
faying of our Lord, This is my Body^ and he may think
his work is done. What pity it is, that he could not
difcover one in all the Scripture or Fathers for his pur-
pofe, but that he mull be forc't to ufe fuch pitiful Sophi-
ftry as he here doth to impofe upon his Reader in this
manner ? Whether, faith he, we compare thefe words of our
Saviour with the ancient Form of the Pajfover ufed by the
Jews from Ezra's time, as Juftin Martyr tells us \ But
where doth he tell us fo ? There's not a word faid, by
him, that, that which is cited here, was an Ancient Form
of die PalTover, or that it was ufed by the Jews from
Fzarah time •, this is a pure Invention of the Authors,
which you will be fully convinced of, by confulting Jufiin
Martyr about the words, which were by the Jews
left out of thofe Interpretations of Ez.rd's, or Ffdras's,
wherein he expounds the Law of the Paflbver, and which
run thus : * EfdrasJ^i*^ to the People , This Pajfover,- *
Sacrifce is our Saviour and our Refuge, but if you thinks, and ^a. o 3-07^^
it enter into your Heart to conceive, that we render him abje£l ^ « ka-
in a Sign, and afterwards place our hope in him, let not this
place ve forfak^n for ever, faith the Lord of Hofis, and
you do not believe his words, nor hearken to his Preaching, T«r
you will be had in derifon by all Nations. This is all that a.v
the Father faith of the matter, where we find not one
word faid, ofwhatthe Author cites, as being Ancient
Form of the Pajfover ufed by the Jews, but only that,
thefe words, Efdras expounded the Law of the Paflbver
to the People; neither is here the leaft mention made of i-srddliv'i
it's being ufedbythe Jews from Efdras's time, all this 1% ^
the mere Fiftion of our Author , who did not confider, ^
that. Holy Scripture, and Learned Authors amongft his
own party, give us an account of the Pafchal Forms that fsiis \Sv,
were ufed, which are quite different from this, which no tfOird,f/.iay itir
Author gives us as one but himfelf. For Exod. 12.11.
God faith. It is the Lord's Pajfover, or more explicitly,
Ver. 26. 27. Itfodl come to pafs, when your Children fhall
fay unto you, what mean you by this fervice? That ye fhall dvri, irttrh
fey, it is the Sacrifice of the Lords Pajfover. And Ver, 13.
Q - . jj.
4a €:t:anfubCiantiatiou OefcuBeti.
Itisfaid, the Blood pall be te yon for a Tok», or Sign
and when I fee the Blood I will pafs over yon. And Dr.
nOD Hammond tells us that the Lamb dreftin the Pafchal Sup-
dQijpej.^ andfet upon the Table, was called. The Body of the
Pafover, or-the Body of the Tafchal Lamb^ (not the Body
V of Chrift, of which, notwithllanding, it was a Sign and
NCn^Type) another Palchal Form he tells us, was: This is
.Nn 1 the Bread of JffliSlion, referring to the unleavened Bread:
Which Forms are nothing like this Expofitory Phrafe of
Tfdras cited by Jnftin Martyr. Well, but altho' this be
not a Tnfchal Form., yet it is a certain expreflion which
Efdras ufed concerning the Paflbver, and 1 lhall now fliew
fo great a difparity between it, asfoconfidered, and that
of our Lords Inftitution , as will plainly difcover how
falfly it is urged here to prove,, that our Lords w ords
are Metaphorical. For, i. Thefe words were true in a
s proper Senfe , which our Adverfaries will not allow
Chrifts to be : The, Tajfover was a Saviour or Salvatiott
(<roT»? for a-mrrftct, a way of fpeaking ufed by other Au-
thors and explained in the following word> and a Refuge
to the Jews, in aftrid Senfe, God having appointed it as
a means and Inflrumental caufe at leall of their deliver-
ance, at it's firft Inflitution, and it was a Salvation and
Refuge to thofe who afterwards ufed it aright. Why
then may we not likewife conclude from hence, that, that
which chrift gave to his Difciples, when he faid, This is
my Body, was really his Body? 2. All the Jews, who
■ had a right underftanding of things, confidered the Sacri-
fees, that were offered as Types of Chrift the Meffias ,
and this of the Paffover more fignally asfo, as appears
from this Authority of Sfdras out of ynftin Martyr, in
thefe words. If yon think, that we render himabjell in this
Sign, and afterwards place car hope in him} Therefore it was
notatallunreafonableto Attribute the thing fignilied to
that which they regarded in their minds as a by fay-
jjigj This Tajfover Sacrifice is our Saviour and our Refuge :
Not that they could have any ground from hence to be-
lieve the Tafchal Lmh to he fubft^tmiaily changed, either into
CtanfubSantiation Defmueu, 45
Cod their Saviour , who delivered them out of the Land of
Egypt, or into the Me(fias the Saviour^ whom they expcSledy
and who was fignifyed by it : But this Lamb which they did
Eaty being known to be a Sign of Inflitution, didreprefent
to them, and put them in mind of that Salvation which God
wrought for their Fathers in Egypt, when by the (laying of a
Lamb, and fprinkjing the Blood of it upon their Doors , their
firft-born were pajjed over and fpared; and did likewife fore-
Jhew the Salvation of the Mejfias, the Lamb of God that was
to taks away the fns of the World. Now thz Bread, and
Wine, not having been at all difcovered to be fuch Signs
of our Saviours Body and Blood, to the Difciples, nor
confequently confidered as fo, it was againft the Rules of t
- human difcourfe, to fay they were his Body and Blood,
if no more was meant, than that they were Signs of them •,
and as abfurd, as for Mofes before the formal Inflitu-
tion of the Pafchal Sacrifice, recited at large in Exod. 12.
to have faid to the People upon Sacrificing a Lamb,
This is the Lords Pajfover. Or This Pajfover is your Sa-
viour. For it was to be known and confidered as a Pafibver
Sacrifice, and as a Type of the Mellias, before he could
reafonabJy have affirmed thus of it. 3. The Jewilh Pal-
fover was a Type of this Sacrament, and fo it is gener-
ally acknowledged by the * Fathers to be now that" sc-in t!,err
there ffiould be a Sign of a Sign only, a Type of that, Authorities,
which itfelfwas.buta Type, Inftitutedby Chrift, is very
unreafonabJe to imagin; efpecially fince we do not now
Jive under a Law of Shadows and Figures, but of Verity
and fubftance.
Since, therefore, the Pafchal Lamb was really, and in a
proper Senfe the Sacrifice of the Lords Pajfover according
to that true Pafchal Form in * Holy Scripture, becaufe a
true Pafchal Sacrifice was offered by the Jews aswell for a
grateful acknowledgment of their pall benefit, as of one
that was certainly to come; fince this Pajfover Sacrifice
was really a Saviour, or Salvation to the Jews, as well as
a Type of the Meffias; fince the L^^wi^drcff in the Pafchal
■Supper, was not only call'd, but really was, the Body of
G z the ^
44 CtanfubGantiation ©efenbeb;
the Pajfover Sacrifice, or Pafchd Lamb, according to the
foremention'd expreffious of Efdras , and the Rabins 9
whicli, notwithftanding we can by no means allow to be
Pafchal Forms of conftant ufage, fmce theyfo vary from
one another ; much lefs of Divine Inftitution, becaufe no
fuch are ufed in Holy Scripture} fince the Bread which
the Jews Eat, when they ufed that Phrafe, This is the
"Bre^ of Afflikion, was Real Bread; and all that Eat this
Bread, as they ought to do, were really afflided, when
"Dcm.ic.i. they ferioufly confider'd what their * Fathers fuffer'd in
Egyft} becaufe they alfo, for their own fins, deferv'd to
fulferasmuch, this Bread alfo being the fame -which their
Fathers did Eat, viz. unleavened Bread: Surely none can
befo hard of belief, as to imagin, after ferious confidera-
tion, that there was lefs of truth and reality in our Lords
words. This is my Body, in which, as is not improbable,
he might imitate feme of thefe Phrafes, than there was
even in thefe expreflions which were ufed under the Law,
of Types and Shadows. And to (hew the Analogy the
more perfectly, and not to reprefent it partially, as
'rJZ.ADifcosrfe our * Adverfarks do, we are further to confider, That
cfthe Hoi^ Eu- as the Bread of Affliftion, which was yearly Eaten by
Pafchal Solemnity, was really
Bread, and of the fame kind with that which their Fa-
thers did Eat in Egypt; and was alfo a Memorial of the
firft Bread of this kind, which their Fathers did Eat j
As the Pafchal Lamb that was yearly dreft, and really
Eaten, was the Real Body of the PalTover Sacrifice thus
yearly offer'd, and was alfo to put the Jews in mind of
the firft deliverance wrought upon the firft Pafchal Of-
fering fo Chriftians, when they renew the Sacrifice of
Eucharifl:, feed upon Chrifts Real Body, which is the
Antitype of the Pafchal Lamb, and at the fame time
* f^iJiExpofition * Remember that firft Oblation which Chrift made of
thc fafflc Bod/, altho' in a different manner upon the
branceof DtC, Crofs.
DIS:^
■Cranfuijflautiation
DISCOURSE.
[Andnothingis more common in all Language thanto givt
the name of the thing fignifkd to the Sign. tAs the delivery
of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is caWd a conveyance
or making over of fnch an Sfiate.^ and it it really fo ^ not. the
delivery of mere IVa.v and Parchfnent, but the conveyance of
a Real Eflatei, as truly and really to all effeHs and^urpofesof
Law., as if the very material Hotifes and Lands themftlves
could be and were aUually delivered into my Hands: In likp
manner the names of the things themfelves made over to us in
the new Covenant of the Gofpel between Cod and Man., are
given to the Signs and Seals of that Covenant. "By Baptifm
Chrifiians are faidto be made partakers of the Holy Ghofl^
Heb. 6. 4. aind by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we
are faid to Communicate er to he made partakers of the
Body of Chrift which was broken , and of his Blood which
was filed for us, that is ^ of the real benefits of his Death
and Pajfion. And thus St. Paul fpeaks of this Sacrament ^
1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blefling which weblefs, is it
not the Communion of the Blood of Chrift ? The Bread
which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of
Chrift? But flill it is Bread., and he fiill calls it fo, v. 1-7.-
For we being many arc one Bread and one Bodyj for we
are partakers of that one Bread. The Church of Rome
might, if they pleafed , as well argue from hence., that all
Chrifiians are fubfiantially changed, firfi into Bread , and
then into the natural Body of Chrift by their participation of
the Sacrament, becaufe they are fatd thereby to be one Bread »
and one Body, ^ndthe fame zApoftle in the next Chap-
ter, after he had fpokgn of the Confecration of the Elements,
fiill calls them the Bread and the Gup, in three verfes toge-
ther. As often as ye Eat this Bread, and Drink this Cup,
V. 26. Whofoever fhail Eat this Bread, and Drink this
Cup ofthe Lord unworthily, v. 27. Butleta Man examin
himfelf, and fo let him Eat of this Bread and Drink of
that Cup, V. 28. And MrSavmr himfelf when he had faid.
T
CtanfubQantiation Deftub^ti.
this is my Blood of the New Teftamcnt, immediately adds^
* but I fay nntoyou, 1 will not henceforth Drink of this
fruit of the Vine, until I Drink it new with you in m/
Father's Kingdom, that is ^ not till after his Refrrrenion^
rthich was the firfi Jlep of his Exaltation into the Kingdom^
given him by his Father^ when the Scripture tells as he did
Sat and Drink with his Difciples, Eat that which I obferve
from our Saviour s words is, that after the -Confecration of
the Cup and the delivering of it to his Difciples to Drink of
itf he tells them that he woidd thenceforth Drinks no more of
the frititof the yine^ which he had now Drank, with them^ till
after his Refurrebiion. From whence it is plain that it was
the fruit of the Vine,^ Real Wine,, which our Saviour Drank,
of and Communicated to his Difciples in the Sacrament.
ANSWER.
APeed'jbeim' Hetc, fiucc neither the Authority of the Fathers, nor
the Word of God can afford the Authors caufe any relief!,
''rove "ha "the he at Icugth flies to the Laws of Men, for it, where we
tCrds wy fhall fee Kim immediately caft himfelf, and be non-fuited
bea'to"""" at the very beginning of his Trial. He tells us, thzt the
delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is called
a Conveyance or making over of fuch an Eflate,, (that is, ofa
Title to fuch an Eftate) and that it really is fo ^ that we
deny, unlefs there be pofleifionalfo given, as I fhall pre-
fently fhew. And yet what do we affirm more of Chrifts
words in the Sacrament, This is my Body which is given
for you,, &c. which we have , taken from his own
mouth by the Hands of infpired Pen-men, Sealed by him-
felf with Miracles, and delivered to his Church, than that
they are a Conveyance, or making over of his Sacred Body
to us, and that they are fo really, not only in Sigh or
Figure ? He proceeds to tell us, That this Delivery of a
Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal, is not the Delivery
of mere Wax, and Parchment, but the conveyance of a Real
Efiate, as truly and really to all ejfeEls and purpofes of Law,
as if the material Houfes and Lands themfelves could be.
' Mitth. ii, tp.
CranfubQautiation Defentjcti;
tmd were dclttally delivered into my hands. Well, but Tve fay
that a Deed of Feoffment takes not effect to all parpofes
of Law, without Livery and Seifin, neither doth it, con-
vey an Eftate without that, nor a Deed of Releafe neither,
unlcfsthe Purchafer beput inPofleffion, beforehand, by a
Leafe, and then too, not by the Common Lawbut fo
necellary is Pofleffion deemed for the through Convey-
ance of an Eftate, that in cafe of abfence from the Land
or the like, th? Law-makers have by a particular Statute
necelfarily provided to give Polfeflion otherwife, for it is
not necelfary to the mmking a Man in Polleftion of an
Eftate, that he Ihould hold his Land and Houfe in his
Arms, or ftand always upon the Premifes. But I hope
the Author will not fo far endeavor to invalidate the Com-
mon Allurance of the Nation, as to maintain, that be-,
caufe the Man hath thus a Conveyance of a real Eftate to all
efeels, and pnrpofes of Law, therefore he muft not enter
upon it, dwell in the Houfe, Reap the Fruits of the ground,,
and nourilh himfclf therewith, I imagin the Purchafer
will not be put off To? In like manner, the words of
Chrift delivered, as his A<ft and Deed, bythePrieft his
Subftitute, in the Confecration _ of the Sacrament for the
life of thofethat are to Communicate, is not the bare deli-
very of fo many Words only, but the making over of a real
Title to them, tothething which is meant by them, that,
is, the Body of our Lord, as truly and really to all efebls,
andpurpofes of the Gofpel, as if it actually hung upon thf:
Crofs before their Eyes, in that Form, and with the fame
configuration, and quality of parts as it once did. Shall
they therefore be hindred from taking immediate PoffeR
fion of what is thus made over to them? No,, this were
too great a Sacriledge againft: God, and violation of the
property of a Chriftian. They fhall receive Chrifts Bo-
dy and Blood, that they may dwell in him and he in them.
They fhall partake of the Fruits of the Sacrament, as of
a goodly Heritage of their own, fmce Chrift hath given
them a juft Right and Title to it, and fhall cherifh their
Souls and Bodies therewith to Immortality. Thofewho
arc
4S Ciranfubftantiatioit Defent)eti»
are contented only to hear of, or to fee this goodly Land,
and not to go and poflcfsitj Thofe who will leave their
Fathers Houfe the Catholic Church, and go abroad to
feed upon Husks, and imaginary vertue, are the objeds
of our pity. So indeed there is a fort of a Fidion in Law,
in the Authors way of conveyance, of a Tenant by Deed
or Leafe of poiTeflion, who notwithftanding hath nothing
to do to enter upon the Eftate, or enjoy it; if the Author
be contented with fuch a Title only in t-he Sacrament,
I am forry for him. And thus the Similitude is reafonably
applied, as for our Adverfaries way , who faith, that
as the delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is
call'd a Conveyance or making over of fuch an Eflate, (he
fhould have prov'd that the Deed is called the Eftate it
felf, and not only the Conveyance of an Eftate, if he
ivould have made this phrafe any thing fuitable to that
of our Lord, This is my Itody") in likp manner the names of
the things themfelves made over to us in the New Covenant of
the C off el between God and Alan^ ajre given to the Signs and
Seals of the Covenant ; whereas there is no Analogy
between thefe things, nor truth neither in this inftance.
itisjuftasif onefliould fay, that Tenterden Steeple were
like the Goodwin Sands. I confels, I have often admired
with my felfatthisfortof Similitude, which Proteftants
are mighty big with, pretending to Illuftrate their fond
opinion about the Sacrament clearly hereby, which being
examined, proves as you fee, but a mere Tympany of the
Brain.
Other Texts of The Author having before told us, that nothing is more
aSd/anT Commou in all Languages than to give the name of the
})rov'd|nocataii thing fignificd to the Sign, proceeds now to give us ex-
of this out of Holy Scripture j by Baptifm, faith
lie, Chriftians are faid to be partakirs of the Holy Ghofi,
Heb. 6.4. And fo they really are, and their Bodies are his
Temples: Butfince Baptifm isthe Sign, and the Holy Ghoft
the thing lignified , according to him, why doth he not
bring us one inftance out of Scripture of Baptifms being
called the ffoly Ghofi , as they pretend that Bretud in
Cranfubflantiatioit H:)efenL)tt).
the words of Inftitution is called Chrifts Body ? For this
which he hath brought ofBaptifm is no Example to his
Common Rule-. We may reafonably conclude, that if the
Sacrament, of Baptifm had been fo very like this of the
Eucharift, as they would have it, it would have been In-
ftituted in a like Form, butit isquite otherwife: For nei-
ther Water, nor Baptifm it felf are called in Holy Scrip-
ture the Holy Ghoft, neither is there any Form of Con-
fecration of the Element, delivered. Indeed, by the Sa-
crament of the Lords Supper rve are aljb faid to Communicate^
or to be made partakers of the Body of» Chrifi which was bra-
ken, and his Blood that was fhedfor us; but that is his Real
Body and Blood together with all the real benefits of his
Death and Pajfion, which do thereby accrue to us. iL^nd
thus 5r. Paul fpeaks of this Sacrament, i Cor. 10.16. The
Cupof blefiing which we blejs, is it not the Communion of the
Blood of Chrifi ? The Bread which we breaks, is it not the
Communion of the Body of Chrifi ? That is, after Confecra-
tion, it really isfo; altho'the Apoflle calls ix. Bread by a
Metaphor (that being to our Souls what the ordinary
Bread is to our Bodies, true nourilhment) fo alfo it is
faid that Aarons Bod devour'd the other Rods, Exod.7. 12.
altho' it was then become a Serpent, v. i o. That Water
which was by our Lord converted into Wine is ftill called
Water, Joh. 2. 9. The tAngelszvc called Men, Gen. 19.8.
becaufe they appeared in the fhape of Men, according to
the ufual Language of Senfe, very many inltances of
which are to be found: For our Saviour had fully in-
frufled them before, that the Bread which he would give
them was his fiejh, Joh. 6. 51. The Apoflle alfo faith
again, v. 17. For we being many are one Bread, and one
Body j for we are partakers of that one Bread, and that one
Bread can fignifie nothing here but the Body of Chrifi,
which indeed is but one, altho' appearing in innumerable
places of the World at the fame, and atfeveral times,
becaufe it is flill animated by the fame one Soul and
Divinity of Chrilt -, which cannot be faid of the Bread
in the Sacrament, if but mere Bread, for then it would
H not
Craurubflantiation Defenten,
TiOthc one Bread ov Loaf, but tmtjy, and of feveral forts,
being received at very many places at the fame time:
And the true reafon here, why they arc called owe Bread
and one Body or Society of Ghriftians, is, becaufe they
are all partakers of that one Bread, viz.. the Body of Chrifiy
and therefore alfoall infpired with the fame Spirit. But,
in the Authors Senfe, it would be no reafon, but they
fliould rather have been many Bodies, becaufe they did
Eat off) mzny Breads ; So that we fee he hath ftill the
lamefuccefs, in bringing thofeTextsof Scripture to up-
hold his caufe, whish are the moft pregnant proofs a-
gainfl him. He then proceeds to teach the Catholics
how they might argue in his new way, from a Sign alrea-
dy Inftituted and known as fo, to an Enigma, or dark
faying, taken from things ofadifparate and really dif-
ferent nature, andofno acknowledg'd Refemblance, that
is, from Chalk to Cheefe *, but they beg his Pardon for
that. Well, but the fame A^oftle, in the next Chapter,
lifter he had fpken of the Confecration of the Elements, fiill
calls them the Bread and the Cnf in three verfes together, as
vftcn as ye Eat THIS Bread, and Drink. THIS Cup,
V. 26. Whofoever ftall Eat T HIS Bread and Drink THIS
Cnp of the Lord nnvsorthily, v. 27, Bat let a Man Examin
himfetf, and fo let him Sat of T H AT Bread and 'Drink.of
THAT Cap, v. 28. It is true it was Bread Metapho-
rically, but itwasftill this Bresid with an Emphafis, not
fuch Bread2iS you ordinarily Eat, but the Body of Chrifi,
which he told us was truly Meat, or Meat indeed, the true
Bread from Heaven, John.6. 32. It was a Cup, but it
was this Cup, that is, his Blood, which was truly Drinks,
w Drink, indeed, as he alfo hath taught us, John 6.55.
and after examinatm, let the true Chriftian Eat of that
Bread and Drink of that Cup, which will ftrengthen his
Body and Soul both, much more than the ordinary Bread
end Wine can his Body only. Our Saviour himfelf, when
Vthad faid. This is my Blood of the New Tefiament, im-
mediately adds, but I fay unto yon, J will not henceforth
Drink of thh Fruit of tfH (that is of the true Vine, as
our
Cranfubttantiatiott Defeniiet)»
our Lord ispleafedtocallhimfelf,) or ofthat Wine, which
by the Words of Benedidion becomes my Blood , being
Originally the Fruit of the Vinej forpoffibly it may refer
to the unconfecrated Wine that was left in the VeflelsJ un-
til I drinks it new, that is frefh and newly Confecrated again
rvithyoH in my Fathers Kingdom, or after my Refurredion,
as fome, with the Author, interpret the place; but as
others more generally, till I drink of that new Wine of
another fort and nature, in the Kingdom of my heavenly
Father, where we fliali drink of the River of his pleafnres,
Tfal.^6.^- and therefore the Authors following obferva-
tion is nothing worth. For after the Apoitles were fatisfied
that they really drank the 'Blood of our Lord in this Sa-
crament, and fed upon his Red Body, it was an eafy and
familiar Metaphor to call them Bread and Wine, becaufe
the outward Species gave a fufficient hint, for the under-
ftanding of this Figurative Speech, fuitable to the Lan-
guage of Senfe in the inftances above mentioned, out of
Scripture \ and becaufe there was true Spiritual nourilh-
ment conveyed to the faithful by the Body and Blood of our
Saviour thus received, as there is Corporeal nourilhment
received by the Natural Bread and Wine, which we take
for the refedion of our Bodies.
DISCOURSE.
Befides, if we confider that he celebrated this Sacrament bt'
fore his Pajfion, it is impojfible ihefe words fhould be underfiood
literally ofthenataral Body and Blood of Chrift-^ecoHfeitwashh
Body broken and his Blo^ (hed,w^ic/> he gave to his Difciples,
which if we underjland literally of his natural Body broken and his
bloodshed, then thefe words, this is my Body which is broken,
and this is ray Blood which is Ihed, couldnot be true, becaufe
his Body was then whole and unbroken, and his Blood not then
Jhed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice (at they af-
firm this Sacrament to be) mlefs they will fay that Propitiation
was made before Ckrifl fufered : And it is Ukgwife impojfible
that the Difciples Jhould under/land thefe words literally, be-
H 2 cauje
52
€ranfub(tantiafion ©efenben.
eanfe they not only plainly favo that what he gave them wot
Bread and Wine, but they faw likewife oa plainly that it was
not his Body which was given., but his ^ody which gave that
which was given \ no his l^ody hxdk.tt\and this Blood flied, be-
caufethey faw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body
whole and unpierc^d\ and therefore they could not underftand
thcfe words literally: If they did, can we imagine that the
^ifcifles, who upon all other occafonswere fofull of tpuejlions
and objections, Jhould mak^ no difficulty of this matter?' nor fo
much as ask^ our Saviour, how can thefe things be? that they
fhouldnot tell him, we fee this to be Bread and that to be Wine,
andwe'fee thy Body to be dijiinci from both; we fee thy Body
not broken, and thy Blood notffied.
From all which it mnfl needs be very evident, to- any mau
th.it will impartially confder things, how little reafon there is
to underftand thofe words of our Saviour, this is my Bcdy,
this is my Blood, in the fenfe o/Tranfubftantiation; nay
on the contrary , that there is very great reafon and an evident,
nect jfttyto underftand them otherwife. J proceed to Jhcw,
ad isr S W E R. '
Ghtifts body's Beftd'es, if we confder that our Lord celebrated this Sa-
Mood crament before his Paffiion, it is impoffiible that thefe 'words
bein" pouied fhouldbe Underftood otherwife than properly,of the real Body
3"^ Blood of Chrlllbccaufe it was his Body broken, and his
before he was Blood pourcd olit, which he gavc to his Difciples, which if
thescnfVof°the wc Underftand as figurative only of his natural Body broken,
Reaiicy., and his BloodJhed, then thefe words, this is my Body which is
broken, and this is my Blood which is Jhed, could not be true,
becaufe his natural, organized,and vifible Body was then whole
^ Lukgi,.,^^,c.and unbroken, and its Blood not then jhed-, yet that very
This is my Body, Body as broken in the Sacrament was .faid to be
for you,m7hc given for them, that very Blood as there poured out
prcnftnt tenfe. vvas fald then to be poured out for the remiffiion of fins :
onnftitwior'"' Therefore it was a propitiatory Sacrifice, although offered
as recited by the before, 35 wcll as after Chrlft had fuffered,toPay the full
gefiftsra"Mnthe Redemption, bccaufe its whole nature did'
yicleac ccoit. eonfill
^ranfubflautiation Defenbcb. 55
confift in the relation which it had to the Sacrifice that
was offered up for us upon the Crofs, from which it re-
ceived all its vertue: Jt was very poffible therefore for
our Lords Difcifles to underfland thefe properly , be-
caufe although they plainly faw that what he gave them had
the Species of Bread and Wine, yet they believed him,
when he faid that it was his Body that was given for
them, although his Body at the fame time gave what was
given J his Body broken and his Blood poured out for them,
although they faw him alive at that very time^ and beheld his
Body whole and anpierced^ becaufehe hadplainly told them
fo, who had the Words of eternal Life, and could not de«
ceive them j and for this reafon they could not but under-
fland his words properly : Otherwife, can we imaginthat
the Difciplesy who upon all other occafons were fo full of que-
fiions and objelHons^ if they could have conceiv'd thatthefe
words were to be underftood in a parabolical or improper
Senfe, would not have defired an Explication of them
of our Lord , as they did of other Parables, which were
more eafy to be underftood, than thefe words, in fuch a
Senfe? nor fo much as ask our Saviour^ how can thefe things ♦
be ? That they fiionld not tell him^ we fee This to be Eread^ and.
T%at to be Wine^and wefee thy Body to be difinSl from both ^ we.
fee thy Body not broken, and thy Blood not Jhed; what therefore
fhould be the mer ning of thefe words?or that our Saviour the.
true Guid,and greateil Lover of Souls,or any of his Apoflles.
after him,(hould never have given any Explanation of them?
I have already Ihewed, in anfwcr to the Author, that,
the words of our Lord, This is ?ny Body, could not, ac-
cording to the Rules of Human Difcourfe, be taken Figu--
ratively, fo as to Signifie this is a Sign of my Body ,
unlefs the Apoflles had bin before-hand prepared to un^
derftand them'as fo : There are no words Recorded by
any of the Evangelifls to difpofe them to believe the
words in fuch a fenfe, nor any indeed, that relate to the.
matter, unlefs it be fome fayings of our Lord in the
Sixth Chapter of Saint Johns Gofpel, that were delivered,
before the Inftitution of the Eucharifl, which I/hall, now
confiderc
P
j 11
i
H'V,
I
■?;'■
I' ■
V' ;
Jii
a;.
if.f
kIi'
fk
!|
mm
., '^" i'l
■i
' i** I ■
:pl
m
I atii*' r
54
C' li. r^<
Hie 6. of St.
"John's Gofpel
intcipRtted as
relating to the
r.Ieflcd Sacra-
mcnt.
CcaiifuMI-antiation Defentittia
confider, for the further Clearing of the Point, as alfo
thofe words of Saint Luke, This do in remtmbrance of mcy
ufed by our Lord, at the time of the Inflitution; and
prove that none of thefe expreflionsdo at all favor our Ad-
verfaries Figurative Scnfe, but the clean contrary.
We Read in the Sixth Chapter of Saint John's Gofpel,
that our Saviour had prepared the minds of his Difciples
before-hand, by two great Miracles, both which tended
towards theflrengthningof their Faith in the Sacred Eu-
'From v.g. to charlft j the *Former being a Figure of this Sacrament,
lince in it he multiplied Five Loaves, fo as to make them
feed five thonfand perfons, altho* the fragments which re'
mained filled twelve baskets, and were more in quantity
than the five Loaves were at the firft; fo that they needed
not to doubt, but he could feed as many thoufands as'he
pleas'd with his own precious Body, exhibited under the
Species of Bread, in the bleffed Sacrament, and yet his
Body be ftill one and the fame : The latter Ihewingthem,
that he could Convey his Body how and whither he
pleafed, which made them ask him, when they faw him
on the other lidc the Sea, without taking Ship atthelhore,
Rabbi, when eamefl thoa hither? Then he proceeds to i«i-
ftruft them inThree of the greateft Myfteries of Religion.
1. His Incarnation, or coming down from Heaven, and
taking Human Flelh upon him •, from verfe 27. where he
alfo gives them a hint of the blejfed Sacrament, that meat
thatperijheth not, tof. 51. 2. The, Real Prefence of his
Body, and Manducation thereof, in the Sacrament f which
wonderful Prefence there, the Fathers did ever compare
to the Incarnation it felf) from 51, to v. 59. 3. The
Afcenfion is mentioned, to Prove the two former Myfte-
ries.-v. 62.
Our Saviour, having ftyled himfelf the Bread of Life,
towards the beginning of the Dlfcourfe of the Incarnation,
V. 3 3, and 35, a&r fome Explication made of this. Repeats
it again twice, v. 49, and 51. to inculcate it the better
into his Difciples minds: And then inftnifts them how
they fliould be partakers of this Bread ; not by believiftg
only
V. ly.
Craulubftantiation Befctiteti. sj
only, that the Son of God came down from Heaven, and
was made Man,taking upon him Human Flefli, but by feed-
ingupon his Flefli in the Sacrament, which being a deep
Myftery, that they might not doubt of the tnith of it, he
explains to them what he meant, when he faid. i/. 51. I am
the living Bread which came down from Heaven^ if any man
eat of ».e, he full live for ever ^ not by telling them, that
by this Bread is meant the Dodrin, which he taught, or
that by, eating this Bread^ is to be underdood, the believing
of this Dodrin, in a Metaphorical or Parabolical Senfe, as
the , and Sacramentarians iondly iraagin i or in
like manner as be Explained the Parable of the Sower that 13 h.
Sowed good Seed^ telling them that the Field is the World^
the good Seed are the Children of the Kingdom \ or as when
he had faid, / have meat to eat which ye ^0x0 not of^ he ex-
plained hirafelf by faying, my Meat is to do the Will of him '*■ 5"'
that fent me, putting the Predicate in the place of the Sub-
jed in the manner before hinted, and faying, the Bread
isray Word or the Dodrin that I teach; but quite other-
wife , he alTures them, that the Bread -, that he will give 6.
them, is his Fief), which he promifeth to give for the life of
the world, and which , by an Elegant Metaphor, Chrilt
calleth Bread, becaufe it was to afford nourilhraent to the
Soul and Body both, in a Spiritual manner in the Sacra-
ment, as the ordinary Bread, was to nourilh the Body,
in a carnal manner, by way of corporeal digeftion, out of
the Sacrament: And there is no doubt but the Jews under-
ftood our Lord in a proper Senfe, when they faid, v. 5,2.
How can this Man give hs his ftefi to eat ? Our Saviour did
not anfwer this doubt, by telling them, (as he eafily might
have done in the. Sacramentarian way) that no more was
meant but believing ftedfaftjy in his Death, and applying
tothemfelves the merits of it, and which Explication he_
would have certainly given them, then, or afterwards, by
Himfelf or by his Dilciples, if no more had bin meant than t
fo; as he did in the cafe of Parables, lefs difficult to under-
ftand, than this would have bin, if it had bin by our Lord.
propofcd as one:, but proceeds, to deliver this profound.
Myftery
CraiirubliantiaUou oefentiet)*
My/lery to them, in more exprefs words, ufing a vehe-
ment Afleveration to confirm the truth of it: Verily, verily
I fay unto you, except ye eat the Flejl} of the Son of man, and
drinks his Blood, ye have no life in you : Whofo eateth my
^ ^ Flejh, and drin^th my Blood, hath eternal Life, and I will raife
^y pigjjj js * truly meat, my
Blood is truly drink.: He that eateih my Flejh, and drink§th rtiy
Blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him: As the living Father
hath fent me , and I live by the Father * So he that eateth me,
even he Jhall live by me: This is that Bread which came down
from Heaven ; not as your Fathers did eat Manna, and are
Dead: He that eateth of this Bread Jhall live for ever: All
which words, being ufed by our Lord, to clear the doubt,
and anfwer tW Queftion of the Jews, How can this man
give tu his Fle(h to eat ? I cannot imagin, how the Real Pre-
fence of Chrifts Body, and its Manducation in the Sacra- «
ment, could have bin more fully Aflerted, in order to the
difpoling of his Difciples to believe the Senfe of the Reali-
• SeetheAutho- 1^7?when he Ihould Inftitute his blelled Sacrament: And
ritics, infn. fothe* Fathers interpret this place: Anddonotfay, that
the Manna, mentioned in the ^Sverfe, which was mira-
culoufly fent from Heaven, was a Type of ordinary Bread,
made by the Hands of Men, and fet upon the Table, which
is of a far more Ignoble Nature and Icfs Significant, than
the Manna which thus came down from Heaven; but of
the Real Body of Chrifi; in the Sacrament, which was the
true Bread from Heaven, that nouriihed to Immortality :
After our Saviour had fpoke thus to them, many of the
Difciples themfelves, to whom Chriftdidnot think fit as
yet to reveal the manner of feeding upon his Body in the
Blelled Sacrament, thinking that he meant, that his Body
was to be eaten in a grofs manner,like the Capernaites, cried
out, this is a hard faying, who can hear it? To whom, as well
as to the Jews, who before arefaid to murmur at him i be-
caule he faid. Jam the Bread which came down from Heaven ;
5 and'that ask., how this Man could give them his Flejh to eat ? our
Lord xcfixt!,,doth this offend you,'3Xid then clears the Dodlrins
to them, as far as he judg'd convenient for the confirmation
of
Cranfubftantiation
of fuch high Myfteries, about which they were to exercife a
ftrong and a lively Faith, by faying thus, v. 62. What and if
ye Jhall fee the Son of Man afcendnp where he was before ? As if
he Ihould have faid, if you do not yet believe, that the
Son of Man came down from Heaven,, yet when you fee
him afcend thither again, you will be more ready to be-
lieve, that it was really God who came down, took Flelh
and dwelt amongft you ^ which Solution had relation
chiefly to the former of the Mylleries, vix.. his Incarnati-
on i but withal infinuates, that fuch as believe not his
words touching the holy Sacrament, and think it impofll-
ble for him, to give his Body to be eaten in fo many places
at once, being yet on Earth, would be much more Scanda-
lized and Tempted after theyfawor knew him to have
Afcended into Heaven.
Therefore, to clear the latter Myftery, and Solve their
doubt, who thought, like the Caperndites, that Chrift
was to have cat pieces of flejlj from his body^ and to have given
them to be eaten-, or that thought his Body to be that of
a mere Man, he tells them, v. 6^. It is the Spirit that quick::,
neth, the Flejh profiteth nothing, that is, the Flefj, which
he had told them before that they mufl: eat, altho' not in
the grofs manner, without the Spirit profiteth nothing not
but that by the Spirit quickning it, it profits very much;
Suitable to that of St. Faul. i Cor. 8.1. Knowledgepnffeth
bat Charity edifieth, that is. Knowledge without Charity
puffeth up, altho' v^htnCharity is joyned with it to enliven
it, it edifies, znd Charity it fell edifieth hy Knowledge: For
if thefe words of Chrift were to be taken in the Senfe of the
Sacramentarians, they would derogate no lefs from his Incar-
nation. Manhood and Death, than from the Real Trefence
of his Body in the Sacrament, in all which, without doubt,
the fiefii profiteth very much: Wherefore, our Lord goes
on to tell them here, that, the words, which he fpak^ unto
them, were Spirit and Life, therefore not to be underftood
in the grofs carnal Senfe, before mentioned, which fome
of his Difciples took them in: For it is the ufe of the
Scripture, to call Mans natural Senfe, carnal Reafoning,
I and
Cranfuli totiation Defenliet).
andrefifting^ or not reaching to the belief of Supernatural
Truths, Flejb and Bloody as, Matth. 16.17. Fle^ and blood
revealed not iht! to thee J Sac. but, thewords^ that I fpeak. unto
yoa, they are Spirit and Life', therefore, not to be carnally
underftood : But as by the Word of God, the World was
Created, and Nature hath been, fince, often chang'd; fo,
there is no doubt but Chrift: could, by it, change the
Bread into his Body, as he did daily, by ordinary Natu-
ral Nutrition ; but, * here in a fupernatural way. Our
Lord, therefore, faid unto them, that their Fathers did
Fat Manna, in the WHdernefs, which was but a Type of
this Heavenly Manna in the Sacrament, and yet they did
Spiritually feed upon Chrift the Melfias; for it is faid,
I Cor. 10. 3,4. That, they did all eat the fame Spiritual
Meat, and did all Brink the fame Spiritual Drinkj, for they
'Drank^of that Spiritual Rock that followed them, and that
Rock, was Chrift, and yet they are Bead, all of them a Tem-
poral, feme ofthem an Eternal Death alfo *, and thofe of
them which now live the Life Eternal, received this Life
from the Son of God, who hath now given us the Antitype
of that Manna which the Children of Ifrael did eat, viz...
his own Body in the Sacrament, fomething of a far more
excellent nature to feed upon, which will be to our Bodies,
as well as to our Souls the Seed of Immortality, the In-
ftrument, and Pledge of our Refurredtion, Afcenlion*
and Glorification. Yet as our Lord faid to his Difciples,
there are fame of you which believe not, fo we may fay ftill
of the Sacramentarians, who, notwithftanding all that
Chrift hath faid, will admit of nothing but Signs, and
Figures of imaginary vertue (whom neverthelefs ourSa-
viour hath fiO further inftrudled in any fuch eaCe Senfe,
as this, which might certainly have prevented their re-
lapfeas wellasthatof the Jews, his Difciples, and which
if any fuch Senfe had been to be admitted, would molt
certainly have been given) that they will not believe our
Lord, and therefore they £0 away and will walk,no more
mth him in tlte CommuHion of his Church.
Having, thus, made it to appear, that thefe words of
Chrifts
^raufubfiantiation Dcfeniset).
Chrifts Inftltution, This is my Body^ according to the The words, rhu
Rules of human difcourfe, ought to be taken ii\z proper
Senfe, not only ifconfidered in themfelves, but efpecially °
if we regard what Chrift hath faid before touching the
Sacrament, to difpofe his Apoltles thus to believe then; j
it will neceflariiy follow, that thofe words alfo of the
Inllitution, This do in nmembrance of me ( which relate
chiefly to the Priefts Tower zvd Dnty^ as the other did to
the Body ofChrifl; in the Sacrament, and which St. Paid
explains in thefe words, As often as ye eat this Bread and
drink, f his Cap ye few the Lords Death till he come.^) ought
not to be conitdered as a determination of the former words
of the Inllitution in a Figurative Senfc after the Sacramen-
tarian way, but as a Declaration of one great end of the
Sacrament, viz.. The calling to mind, and fetting forth
of Chrifts Death till he comes, which is fo far from being
a Reafon to prove, that Chrifts Body is not Really there,
that on the contrary, this ConimemoratioH and Annun-
ciation is founded upon the Real Prefence of Chrifts Sacri-
ficed Body and Blood in this Sacrament 5 flnce without
this, it could not be done fo elFecftually in Chrifts Church
as now it is. For , as the Jews, in eating the Peace-
Offerings, did remember that they were flain for them •
fo by OlFering here the Real Body of Chrift, after the
manner of an unbloody Sacrifice, we commemorate, and
fet forth, in this lively Exemplar, that Bloody Sacrifice
which Chrift himfelf offered in a different manner upon
the Crofs, and receive the benefit thereof; .which we
need not to queftion, fince he gives us daily of this Vidlini
to feed upon in the Bleffed Sacrament, tho' without the
horror of Blood. Shall Chriftians , then, under a pre-
tence of Celebrating the Memory of the Paflion in the
Eucharift, evacuate Chrifts Inftitution, by taking away,
from this pious G)mmemoration, that which, he out of
his tender love, hath given us as moft efficacious in it,
for the good of our Bodies (into which this Sacrifice of
Chrifts Body being received, Sanftifies them, and
Confecrates and prepares them for a Glorious Refurrefti-
^ on)
€o
Cranfubflantiation Defenueb.
on) as wells as for the good of our Souls ? Ought we not to
confider, that Jefus Chrift doth , not only Command
us to remember him, but likewife that we fliould do
this by feeding upon his Sacramented Body and Blood,
fince he doth not fay, that Bread and Wine fhouldbe a
Memorial of his Body and Blood, but that in doing what
he prefcribes us to do, which is, that in Receiving his
Body and Blood, we fliould remember him? And what
more precious and lively Memorial could he give to his
Difciples, and to all his beloved Children , what better
Legacy could he bequeath them, at his departure out of
the World,than this ? If the the Primitive Chriflians were
inflamed with Zeal and Devotion when they approach-
ed to the Monuments, where the Bodies only of Holy
Martyrs, lay Intorabed more efpecially, if they could but
touch any of their precious Reliqus, being by this means
ftirred up to a Pious Memorial, and imitation of their
Holy Lives and Deaths ^ and therefore, did Religioufly
preferve the fmallefl: pieces, and even the Nails of that
Crofs, upon which Chrifl fulfered, Commemorating
thereby his Holy Paflion ; how much more then fliould
our Memory, and Love be excited, when, we approach
to the Holy Altar, and know, that we Receive there,
tho' veiled under the Sacred Symbols, the very Body and
Blood of our Lord, who Sacrificed himfelf for us, en-
livened and quickened by his Grace and Spirit?
The Real vertue ^ proceed to fliew, for the further confirma-
ofchriftsBody tion of what I We here alledgcd, from the Authority of
>n the Sacrament, Holy Scripture, that unlefs the words of St. Johns Gofpel
cannot be proved J - j i/^i ir
from Scripture abovc mentioned, as alio the words or our Saviours Inftitu-
tion, betaken in the Senfe of the Reality or Tranfubltan-
tiation, that there is no promife to be found, in Holy
Writ, of any Spiritual vertue to accompany this Sacra-
ment ; fo that, our Adverfaries, whilft they are fo
eager to oppofe the Reality, do, as much as in them lies,
dcftroy the nature, and end of this Blefled Inftitution,
and have no argument at all to ufe againft the Socman j
who denies the Real Vertue, as well as the Real Prefence
of
unlcfs the B eal
Prefence of the
Sody be admit-
ted.
cranfubftantiation Befentjeu. 6t
of Chrifts Body, in the Sacrament: Which isthereafon,
why, I do fometimes term this Vertue, (which the An-
thor, without ground conceives to be in this Ordinance,
tho' feparate from Chrifts Real Body) Imaginary j be-
caufe there is no reafon to conclude the vertue of the
Body to be here, from Scripture, unlefs the Body be lb
too*, not that I would derogate at all from the vertue of
Chrifts Body, which by reafon of the Hypoftatical union ^
is Infinite. But this task is already performed by a Lear-^
ned Modern * Author : And the Reader may eafily dif-
cern the Truth of what I have here alferted, bymipecting lafoy. m-.
fuch places of Holy Scriptui"c as relate to this Sacrament, ^*
into the number of which they will not allow the lixth
Chapter of St. Johns Gofpel to be admitted.
Having therefore thus explained thofe places of Holy
Scripture which relate to the Blelled Sacrament, as alfo
thofe other Forms of fpeaking, both of Divine and Hu-
man Authority, which the Author is pleas'd to compare
with the Words of our Lords Inftitution, and fhew'd,
upon comparing them together, that they will not at
allfithispurpofe, but prove the quite contrary to what
he would have them to do: I fhall now fum up fuch of the
Reafons and Arguments for the underftanding the Words,
in which our Saviour Inftituted this Blefled Sacrament,
in a proper Senfe (as the Catholic Church expounds
them) as are plainly deduced from the Nature and End
of this Holy Inftitution, and the Manner of expreffing it
in Holy Scripture (which 1 intreat the Chriftian Reader
ferioufly to conlider of) and fo conclude this Head of
Difcourfe.
r. Becaufe Chrift the great Lover of Souls never fpake R«fons from
to his Apoftlesand Difciples in Figures and Parables which of*
had any obfcurity or difficult Senfe, (efpecially, if the Dif- the words of In-
courferelatedtothePraftice ofaneceflary Duty) with an
intention to keep them in Ignorance j but * that their 'seepc.nam^
humble and well difpofed minds might be the more exci-
ted and inflamed with a defire of inquiring into and under-
ftanding the true meaning ofwhathefaid, and that they
might
Ci:anriil)llantiation Defeutict).
might the better retain it: And becaufe in all fudi cafes,
even of lefs difficulty than this of the Sacrament (as par-
ticularly in the Parable of the Sower of Seed, altho'
the IVlyllery, concerning the fuccefs qf the Gofpel wijich
was herein prefigured, was pot necelfary-for every one
to know, as that of the Eucharift was) Chrift did fully
explain himfelf to his Difciples, who were alfo to in-
Urud others. Therefore fince the words of the Infti-
tution of the Blefled Sacrament, if underftood Figura-
lively, as the Protellants, and particularly the Author,
would have them to be, mull needbeallow'd to be obfcure
and difficult,becaufe they differ fo much among themfelves,
aswellasfrom the Catholic Church, about the meaning of
them, and yet none of the Evangeliffs nor St. Tad^ al-
tho'varying in expreffmg the Words of Inftitution, have
inferted any words which in the leafh explain the Senfe to
be Figurative or Parabolical", hence it follows. That the
Church hath great reafon to underltand them proper-
ly.
2. Becaufe now, jdl upon our Lords Paffion, it was
the Time for Figures and Shadows tovaniffi,aiid for Truth
and Reality tP appear j And our Lord was Inffituting the
Great Sacrament of Chriftian Religion, he could not there-
fore Ipeakwith too much force and efficacy, clpecially,
Ence hepow {pake to his Apoftles in private, to whom he
was yfed, at fuch times, tofpeak very plainly.
3. Becaufe Chrift was making hisLaft Will andTefta-
mcnt, whichwastobeexpreffedinfuch plain and diftind
Terms, that there might be no juft reafon for his Children
to contend about their Legacy: And can we be fo unworthy
as to imagin, that in this his Laft and Kindeft Bequeft,
he left us no rapre but a Morfel of Common dry Bread
to eat, pn^a little ordinary Wine and Water to drink,
inrememln-anceofhim j whereas a, kind and good natur'd
Man will leave his moft precious Jewel to his dearFriend to
remember him by,when he departs from him to take a long
Journyand to make anyconiiderable ftay? A good Father
when he is to dye, tliinks all his beil. Goods and Pof-
feffions
Craitfttbftatttmtiou Defentjcb, 6^
ftflions tXK) little to kave his Children. He wasalfode-
livering a Commandment to obfervc, which that it might
be rightly executed, ought to be promulged in a manner
very intelligible.
4. Our Lord was near his Death, and therefore it was
a time to avoid Obfcurity in Speech, fince he was not to
continue any longer amongft them to interpret it.
5. Our Saviour in the choice of thefe words had not on-
ly regard to the Apoftles, but he likewife fpake them to
all the Church in all fucceeding Ages, and knew certainly,
when he pronounced them, how they would always con-
ftrue them J and yet, for the confirmation oftheSenfc
of the Reality, did never fufFer it to be call'd in quefti-
on fo much as privately, for almoft a Thoufand Years,-
when alfo the whole Body ofhis Pallors who were endu'd (a) fit The
with extraordinary Light and Afllftance of his Holy Spi-
rit, to enable them to interpret aright the Divine Milte- rai one at Nice,
ties, had already juft before in (a) Three Councils agreed
upon this Senfe,as that which had been conftantly receiv'd (bfin the coun-
in the Church ever fince our Saviours Time, and which
was more explicitly (b) declared againfl: that one (c)Dif- &f" '•w?-
fenter who fometime after appear'd againft it, but was
afhamed of his Opinion and recanted.
Laftly, if weconfider, as hath been now fully prov'd,
That all the places of Holy Scripture, as alfo all other oiwut'L °
Forms of Human Difcourfe which are alledged by our
Adverfaries, as like to this of our Lords Inftitution, are
wholly different from it,fhewing them the quite contrary to
what they pretend them for, and that our Saviour did nei-
ther before, at, or after the Inftitutionany ways prepare
or difpofeliis Difciples to underftand thefe words in aPi-
gurative Sence, it mull needs be very evident to any Man
that will impartially regard things, that becaufe Chrift
ever fpake reafonably, and in a manner conformable to
good Senfe, and his Power infinitely exceeds the capacity
of our Minds ; therefore there is no Reafon to underflund
thofe words of our Saviours^ THIS IS MT BO DT,
and THIS IS MT B LO O Diviz Metaphorical Senfe,
as
6^ Cranfubflantiation J^efenbeD.
as the Author and the Sacramentarians do, but an eyw
dent necejftty to believe them in that proper Senfe, which
•Seethe Intro- *nccelTarily inferrethTranfubltantiation,as the Catholic
Church doth, fince Scripture interpreted by the Rules
of Human Difcourfe, as alfo the Tradition and Autho-
rity of this Church oblige us fo to do ; The latter of
which is to be the Subjed of the Second Part of the
Anfwer to the Vifconrfe agdnfi Tranfuhfiammion.
The
The Contents of the firll Part
of the Anfwer to the Dtfmrfe
• againfi Tranfii/flantiatm.
1.'TT is Jhew'd that our Adverfary dath not rightly ftate
J. the Point. Pa^e i
2. What is meant by Tranfahfiantiation. . 4
3. The Argument from Senfe pew'd to be Senfelefs. ibid.
4. The Catholic Faith is ridicul'd by the Adverfary. 7
5. The RealPrefenee and Tranfubfiantiation depends on Kjods
Veracity. 9
6. No-Tranfubflantiation an ^Article of Faith rvith our Ad-'*
verfaries^ and ejlablifid with Penalties. 10
7. The Method of the enfuing Difcourfe. 11
8. The Necejfity of under funding our Lords words in the
Senfe of the Real Prefence or Tranfsibfantiation. 13
9. The Senfe of the Schoolmen corrupted^ and their Proble-
matical Difcourfe mifaken for their Condufionby the Ad-
(Vtrjary. 16 ■
10. The Difparity between ihe Figurative Expreffions 'in Ho-
. ly Scripture., and the words of Jnfiitutiony This is my Body,
jhews that the Latter are to be taken properly. 25, See.
1:1.. Principles upon which the enfuing Difcourfe is grounded.
ibid.
1-2. How Catholics interpret the words of Infiitution., and
how'ProtefiantSix^v ."1 v .asS
' i^. In what Senfe' Catholics Alow a Figstre.in the Sacrament.
28
14. Rules to judg of Metaphorical Exprejfions by. 31,2.
15. The /Application of the forgoing Rules: by which it appear
that thofe merely Metaphorical Exprejfions of our Saviors
being a Door., a Vipe-t .^. are pot at all lif to the Form
of Confecration, Tliis Is niy Body. 33, Sec.
16. A
The CONTENTS.
i6t ^ Metafhr conveys mo Sfkkud Fmw, Page \6
17. Tije Expofition of Pharaoh's Dnam dmhmtnfrmhk tlae
Sacred wor^s of ConfecrMioo^ This is my Body. ihid»
18. DiflinBions and Mesfer thefoHomngDiJcourfeof tke
Nature of Signs, ^ ^ ibid.
19. yipplication of the foregoing fnUs and DiftinSBons,. 3 7
20. The Analogy which the words of Jnftitution^ This is my
Body,w^^k ha've to the Pafchal Form in Scripts^ or to thofe
Phrafes cited from Efdras , or any of the Rahins^ doth not
prove that Chrifts words here, are takgn Figuratively and
not in a proper Senfe. 40
21. ^ Deeds being call'd a Conveyance doth not prove that
the words, This is my Body , are not to be pakenpro-
perly. ^ ,4$
32. 7'exts of Scripture examined, and prov d not at aU to far
vow the Senfeof the Author of the Difcourfe againfiTranf-
fubftantiation. 4-7
23. Chrijl's Body beingbrak§n, andhis BloudbeingpoufedQut,
for the RemiJfwnofSini, before he was Crucified, proves the
Senjetyf the Reality, or Tranfubjiantiation, 5^3^
24. The 6th Chapter of S. John'j Gofpel interpreted as r(la-
tingto the Bleffed Sacrament. 54^
25. The words. Do this in Remembrance of me, expl4in''d.
59.
26. TheRealFhrtueofChriJis Body, in the Saerament pannqt
be proved from Scriptttre^iitslefs the Real Prefeace of his Eody
it felfbe admitted v. 60
27. Further Reafons from Scripture for the proper Senfe. ofphe
words of Inflitution, which necejfarily inferreth Tranfub-
flantiation. J \ ^ . (Jl
28. The Conclufion of this Head of Difcoarfe upon. Script we
Authority for. the Real Prefence. and. Tranfubfiantiatm',. atfd
of the firfl Part of the Anfwer to theDifcowfe againfi Tran"
fubflantiation. (Jj
riN I S.
DIALOGUE
B^ween a New
C«tl^oli( Conliett
A N D A
PROTESTANT,
Shewing the DOCTRIN of
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
\
To be as R^afonable to be Bcliev'd as the
GREAT M' T S T E R r
OF T HE
TRINITY
By all Good Catholick§.
LONDON,
^ "
Frkited by Henry HiJls^ Printer to the King's Moft Excellent
Majefty for His Houflidd and Chappcl. 168^i.
J
■w X
V-*-.
i - >
i'- ff
i ft
,.■ JLt.
^ - v *7
4U^U44
K' .
A CI M A
wT
O
.1 1 o.
':o WlJ-iTDOC -ti:
'■ .^' ^ A t'r-r • /. '■;';> 'P Jp./T i,
l / X i Xi A » i- ■' -- /-X -
-r-VEG L'vv'I'il OI Et 2d A'I
rr' ■ '
X ^ Jb jt.
1 K
v ^ 1*-P ' ':i' k ;i
aHT XO
Y- - ^
I-
1 M I il T
.c^bilofbiD booD iic ''61'
; « 5'(ni!XjC? ■
.p : .VlOQVlOi ;
<•'' '^ ;*■;: .;':q/ii>i odi o3 WJnit*! v?I birXl
• "'. Y/' ,L: L
C')
DIALOGUE
between
A New Catholic Convert,
AND A
PROTESTANT.
Concerning the Do^hins of the
Tirinity and Tra/ifaifiantiationj
Y
"1|r OU cannot imagin how much I am overjoy*d to ftc
you. I have been big with Difcourfe the.ft three
days for want of utterance. You may remember,
when we talk'd together laft, we parted in.a Difpute
concerning Tranfubftantiatlon an'd the'Holy Trinity, of their equal
Reafonablencfs and Authority.. I muft confcfi I was not at that time
fb thorowly arni'd with Realbns to flicw you the Parallel: but fince
1 have given my ftlf a little leifure to confider of it, and I am per-
fuaded I Ihall be able to give you fatisfailion.
A. Sir, you know I am always glad, of any Opportunity to gala
your good Company, but efpecialjy upon lb good an Occafion. Tie
affure you, I am not, nor ever was, an Enemy to Catholic Commit-
jiion j and if I had not too juft a Caufe, I (hoiild never fuffer my
felf 'in that which without realbnable Grounds might be call'd a wil-
fulSohirm. . , ' - ■ 1 - , ■
A. I have nojeafon to doubt your Integrity, atid therefore.Ihatl
not quelllon that: 1 Ihall'only delire'the liberty to prefs my old Argli-
A 2 ~ nient.
CO
mcnt, That you would relie on the Authority of the Church. 1
muft confefi, you have often queftion'd the doing of it j but I am
fur*^ when you fliall confider there are Myfteries as well as DocSrins
Tn the»Chriftian Religion, and when you know that Myfteries are
not to be faihom'd by Natural Reafon, you muft needs conclude,
that in fome Cafes your fafeft way is to truft Tradition. Now ccr-
tainly no one can give us fb good an Account of That, as the Church.
B. But, Sir, to be fhort; What relation has this to the prefent
Parallel of the Trinity and Tranfubftantiation ? The Authority of
the Church is another Point as difputable as That.
A. Very much: For as thefe two DoiVrins have equal ground
from Scripture, Reafon, and Tradition ; fo is there the fame Obliga-
tion of your receiving one, as well as the other. And indeed I have
flnce wonder'd at my own Profefllon, while a Proteftant, to thinfc
how blind and partial I was ; But I muft confefs, becaufe we are in
a Difpute, it is better laying by flich aggravating Circumftances j
and indeed I cannot but be fenfible what Prejudices fuch Difcouries
always make, and therefore 1 fhall fpeak nothing more of that nature.
B. But to return to the main Point; I muft tell you, I do not
think them equally grounded on Scripture, Reafon, or Tradition j
and indeed you may remember that was the old Point in difpute with
us.
A Well, Sir, to (hew you your Error, I fliall begin with the fe- %
veral Particulars in their Order j and fo, firft, as to the Tradition of
Tranfubftantiation. Now'tis evident That has been delivered with
lefs interruption than that of the Holy Trinity; That Myftery was
queftion'd in the very Infancy of the Church j nay, not only fo, but
the Arians prevail'd much againft it about the beginning of the
Fourth Age. On the other fide, Tranfubftantiation lay unquefti-
on'dand quiet a-long time; and when it came to debate, there Was
no fuch oppofition as that of Arita^ to call in queftion the Authority
of its Tradition; the Church recciv'd it unanimoufly, and in that
fcnfe cotitinu'd, till rafli Reafon attempted to fathom the unlimited
Miracles and Mylferies of God.
B. But the Fathers are not half fo exprcfs in the Do£frin of Tran-
fobftantiation, as they are in the Myftery of the Holy Trinity.
A. That's true, and there's very good Reafon for it: Tran fob-
ftantiation has not been a Do(5lrin fo long in difpute, and 'tis not
cuftomary for Men to argue unqueftionable Truths. And whereas
yoii may think that Tranfobftaniiation has of late receiv'd fuch
flirewd Repulfes by your Books, Pie affure you, you forget how much
the
(J)
the trae Catholic Zeal deftroys the Seeds of Herefies. Do you think
that fo many Bifliops, not only of the Eaftern, but of the Wcftern
Church alfo, could be Avians^ and yet fuppoft that that Opinion
wanted as plaufible a Pretence of Traditlon ? Certainly if you con-
fider that, you cannot think toeftablifli the Doflrin or the Trinity
by Tradition, more than Trapfubllantiation ; efpecially confidering
the ftrong Footfteps of that Se£f even in the Fathers now extantv
1 would cite you (bme of them, but that they are not fb much to my
main Defign, and indeed my aim is Brevity.
B. Well, Sir, 'tis true,, we cannot fo well plead Tradition to what
you have urg'd; and efpecially when I call to mind, that Arianifm
was confirm'd by a General Council: But we alledge an higher
ground ; we ftand upon the Authority of the Scriptures, and indeed .
that is the true Touchftone of ail Dodfrins.
A. 'Tis true, if you will follow the Catholic Church, and take
the Scriptures literally, you may difcover the Myftery of the Holy
Trinity in them; but if you once yield to Figurative Allufions and
Interpretations, the Avians will be as much too hard for you, as you
imagin your (elves to be for the Catholic Church. In (hort, both ,
Dodfrins will be at a lofs, and both equally require the Authority of
the Church to (upport them.
B. O no, (ureiyjtheDodlrin of the Holy Trinfry^is moreexprels »
in Scriptures than fo.
A. To fatisfie you that what I fay is Truth, becaufc.I may repre-
(ent the Parallel the clearer, I will perfonate an Arian,'. that Seft (b
often condemn'd by the Ancient Church, and you (ball (ee his Plea -
againft the Trinity is as fair as yours againft TranllJfeftantialion.
Aad becaufe this is the main Parallel, I fhall be (bmewhat the longer,
that I may give you the greater fatisfadfion.
B. I (hall be very glad to hear what you can (peak to the matter.
A. Firft then, I (ay, 'Tis highly unreafonable to interpret that
Text, I John y. 7. That there he Three in Heaven that hear record^
and thofe Three are One ; as likewi(e John i o. 30. J and my Father
are One, literally; for if we do, we not only oppo(e Scnfe and Rea-
(on, but we make Conftrudfion diredfly againft the very Scripture,
John 10. 31, 3Z, 33, 34, 35r, 365 37, 38. and John 17. ^l,^^,^3.
3. 8 And what can be urg'd more againft us in refpeft «
Tranfubftantiation ?
B. Very right. Sir, that Interpretation carries a forcible Rcafon-
ablenefs; but the Dodlrin of the Trinity do's not wholly depend upon .
tho(e two Proofs,
A. Right, ^
C4J
■A. Right, it do's ndt^ but'I can give you further Demon ftratlon
in this Parallel. A principal Ground of the Trinity is becaufe the
Son isfo oftencall'd God in Scripture,«s Rom. 9 y.d^c.
Now lif we did not comply with the Catholic Church, and make a
Literal Conftrucaion in this Qife likewife, how ftrangely Ihould we
be confounded by thofc Texts where this Godhead in Chrift is de-
clar'd to be no more than Lordlhip, and fubordinate to the Father ?
*s Heb. I. 8, 9. I Cor. 8. 4, y- i Cor. ly. 27, x8. Re'v. 3. ii,
and jfo^w 10. 3y, 36.
B. But, Sir, our Saviour forgave Sins too.
A, That's true, but only by a deputed Authority. You fee,
"when the Sons of Ztbbedee pctltion'd him, he could not grant the
final Accomplilhrncnt of Oilr Spiritual Warfare, that was the Father's
Prerogative, Mattb. xo. 25. And tho' he is to be our Judge, yet
he knows nottthe timdf ^ 3- 3^ ^im. 6. i y.
B. I muft cortfefs, thefe things a little fur prife me ; but however, !
cannot think thefe neither the only Grounds that fupport that Myfte-
ry of nbe Tfinity.
A. No, you are in the right; there is One ftrong Proof more";
x^e making of all things 'vtfibls 'and invifible is attributed to the Son,
and thatexprefly, John i. 3. Heb. i. 10. and particularly, Col. i.
i<^, 17,18, *9^ 8ut yet. for all that, if we do not adhere with the
Catholic Church to the Literal Interpretation, we are at a lofs there
too: For, flrft, 'tis plain by the reft df the Scripture, that the.Son is -
■not our only Maker, as appears by dur Creation attributed to the
Father ; and then if we compare thofe Texts to Heb. i. x, 9, 10.
I Cor, 8.'^. 'Efh. 3.9. Efh. 4. y, 6. i Cor. ly." 27, x8. we cannot
reafbnably attribute more to the Son, than his being God's Inftru-
mcnt in the Creation.
B. Bur are thefe the true and only Grounds of the Dodfrin of that
Holy My fiery ?
A. Yes verily ; for, that we are Baptlz'd in the Name of the
Father, Son, arid Holy'Ghoil, is no Argument. That were as rea-
Ibnable, if uriderftood of Chrift and the Holy Ghoft, as our Spiri-
tual Governors, as under the fuppOfal of their being Coequal with
■the Father, I Cor. 10. x. i 'Cor. \ r. ix, 13.
B. But furely, Sir, the Arians fhould have other Grounds to efta-
blifh their Opinions, befides thofe; or elfe your Parallel with Tran-
fiibftarttiation will not be fb demonftrable as you conceive. Pray in-
•form me a little further, I have a mighty defire to underftand a lit-
tic better I heir Fundamental Principles.
A. To
C J)
A. To fatisfie you,, I: JJialh Firll, Tbey. alledge- Chrift- repre-
fented- under the Law altogcibet> a? an Angel; for JEtninency cali'd
the Angel of the Piefence, Ija, 6j. 9. Eccl. y. 6. Gf». 48. ijS. Num.
.%Q. 16. Efccdi xo, xi,xx,Tcferr'd to i Cor. 1.0. 4, y,,9. Fur-
thcr,.th<^ colledl hifi) to be a Created. Being, from Col. 1. ly. Re-v.
3. 14. rfal. 8. 25. Ifa. 45". 8. Ecchis 1. 4, 9,, 24. 9. Sap.
6. i,2j 13-. And they interpret that Scripture, Thoft art my Sott.^ this
day,ha'x;e lhegotjcn.ihee, hy.Acls 13. 33. and xVet. i;. ij-, Af to
the Holy Ghqft, they pr.ove a vaft dilfonce between him and the Son,
by Jphm i;<$. 12^ 13, 14, jy. and'26, Behdes, they fay,
he ia 00 where, cali'd Gcd ■, and urge for ther probability of. their
Opinion Re.'Zf. i Xt 9-. xo, 8, x Cer. 4.4. For a& there, is an uni-
verial tempting L^il Pow^r,^ To.we may reafonably conclude, there
may be a Gopd Aibfong,Power, without any neceflity of his, being
Cod. And further, wher4ewer in the Scriptures there is made any
mention of the Three Per,fphs, there is ajwaysi declar'd .an expre/s
Gradation j, as, 1 Qpr. ix. 3,4, y. x Con i;3,. 14* Gift and- Com-
munion from the Fellowfhip of the Holy Ghoft, Grape and. Admir
nillraiion frpm the Lordlbip and Kingfoip of Chrift, and Love and.
Operation-froni the Father, the Suprernn God, the. Original Fonnr
tain, according to Eph. 4. 4, y, 6.
B. I muft Ponfoft,. Sir,, theft Opinions feern to make it neceflary
for us in that Dodlri'n too, to truft to the Authority of the Catholic
Church, and I fhall take time to confider a little upon them : But
pray, Sir, what fay you to the Reafbns of the two Dodfrins.
A. Really, Sir, I muft tell you, I think that Parallel ihuch the ea-
fieft. 'Tis ftrange new Arithmetic to a Man, to tell him, Three
diftindb Perfonlare-one-and the-ftme Individual-Nature, aniihen^ro
call foch a one the moft Pure and Simple Being; and that efpecially
when they arc dcclar'd to have various Intelledfual Powers, as appears
by John 16. ix, 13, 14, ly. and Mark 13. 31. .1 Tm. 6. ly.
ASls I. 7. For my part, I cannot tell well how the Prejudice of
Education could poffibly digcft a thing fo unrcafonable, were it
not a Divine Myftcry. I am furc, to my Carnal Reafon, there
may be as well Three hundred Perfons in the Godhead, as Three j
and I know not what can be laid of Tranfubftantiation that is
ftemingly-more abfiirch than That;
B. I muft confcfsjSir, I have had ftrange, confus'd, and furprlzlng
Thoughts of it my ftlf; but I always apprehended the Chriftian
Church a fufficieat Guide.
A. If you did, Sir, pray confider who that Catholic Mother is you
fo
(o ,
fo obey'd j and as you hav^ receiv'd the Trinity, fo receive a Doflnil
equally as Reafonable, and dcHver'd by Her, Tranfubftantiation. 1
know the Ingenuoufhels of your Temper, and you promis'd me at
firft not to be a wilful Schifmatic j and therefore I have hopes my
Reafbns, and your Confideration, will be (lifbcicnt to reduce you to
Catholic Communion.
B. Sir, 1 (hall confider of it; but as yet you only talk'd to me at
-large: I (hall defire one Favour of you bcrore we part j Pray ftate
the Parallel a little (horter, I (hall the better remember it.
A. Well, Sir, I (hall. Firfl; The Tradition of one Doflrin can^
not be ftronger than another, where both have been at leaft equally
qucftion'd. Secondly, 'Tis as reafoQable to take This is mj Body
■literally, as it is to take the(e and fny Father are one God
over all bUjJ'ed for efer, and By him all things were made^ without
reference to other Scriptures, and a Figurative Interpretation. And,
laftly, 1 think to Human Rcafon'tis as equally unreafbnable, and as
(eemingly repugnant, to fay One is Three, as it is to fay a Body is
not what it appears.
B. Very well j I (hall defire no more of you now; We only take
a little time to confider, and then you (hall know my Mind more
freely,
A> Farewell j and God give you his Holy Spirit to inilrudl you.
!«<■• I - . . ■ , 1, , .1
FINIS. '
1
A N
an s w er'
To a late
dialogue
Between a New
CathoUtfe Conbert
AND A r
PROTESTANT,
To prove the M Y ST E Pc Y ofthe T R1N11Y
to be" as abfurd a Dodrine as
TRAN SUBSTANTIATION.
By way of fiiort Notes on the faid Dialogue.
Licenfed December 7th. 1686.
L ON DO
Printed fbf 1 homos Baffin at the Qeorge neat St. DnnHan^
Church in Fleet-Jirm. 1687, , -
f«)
A
A
DIALOGUE
BETWEEN
^'')A New Catliolick Convert,
A ND A
PROTESTA NT.
Concerning the Dodrines of the
Trinity and Tranfubflantiation,
new CathoUcl{Convert begins well, for the
I firft thing he learns, is to believe the Trinity to be
1 a groundlefi, abfurd, and unreafonable Dodrine 3
and then to believe whatever the Church teaches,
if it be not more abfurd than the Dodrine of the Trinity:^
this is a great Improvement of Faith,which we Proteftantscm
never attain to,for we cannot perfwade our Underftandings or
our Faith to digeft Abfurdities; but let us hear their Dialogue.
/i. You cannot-imagine how much 1 am overjoy'd to fee you.
I have been big with Difcourfe thefe three days for want of Ut-
terance. You may remember, when we talk'd together laft, (h) vje
parted in a Diffute conctrmngTranfubilantiationand the ktly Trinity^
of their equal Reafcnablenefs and Authority. I muft confels I was not
at that time fo thorowly arm'd with Reafbns to fhew you the Pa-
rallelBut fince I hav^e given my felf a little leifitre to confider
of it, and 1 am perfwaded 1 fhali be able to give you S.uis-
fadion. A ^ (J>) This
<o
(li) This is a little miftake, if we may guefs at their laft Dif-
courfe by this Dialogue, for the Defign is not to prove,
3 hat' TranJitbUantiation and the holy Trinity have equal Reajbn-
ablenefs and Authority.butthit neither of them are reafonable,
or have any Authority. Now though we may allow them
to make as bold withTranfubftantiation as they pleafe, yet we
cannot but be fenhble of that Dilhonour which is done to
common Chriftianity, by expofing the moft facred and-ve^
nerable Myftery of it to the Scorn and Derifion of Infidels
and Hereticks. For fure they cannot think it any great credit
to the Dodtrine of the Trinity, that it cannot be proved,
eiiherhy Tradition^Scripture, or Reafon^
B. Sir, you know I am always glad of any Opportunity to gain
your good Company, but efpecially upon fo good an Occafion.
I'le allure you, I am not, nor ever was, an Enemy to Catholick
Communion; ajpid if I'had nofioo j,uft aCaufe, Uliould na^er (iif-
fer my felf in that which without reafonable Gi-ounds might be
call'd a wilful Schifni. ...
I have no reafon to doubt your Integrity, and therefore (hall
not queftion that: I fhall only defire the liberty toprels my old Ar-
gument, (<?) That you vjouU rely on the Authority of the Church. I mull
confels, you have often queftion'd the doing of it; but I am fure,
when you (hall confider there areMylleries as well asDodrines in
the Chriftian Religion, and when you know that {d) Myfierks are
not to. he fathont'd by Natural Reafon, you mull needs conclude, that
an fomeCales your {e) fafefitivay ts to trusi Tradition. Now certain-
ly no one can give us fo good an account of That, as the Church.
_ 0This opens the Scene,and (hews the whole defign of this
Dialogue, to bring men to rely on the Authority of the Church
and it is worth the while to confider, what a notable way this
is. The new Convert perfwades his Protellant Friend to
fling away Senfe, and Reafon, and Scripture, and his own pri'
vate Judgment, and to rely wholly on the Authority of the
Church 5 for whenthefe are out of the way, we may believe
the Church in any thing. No, faies the Protejiant^ I can't
believe that which is unreafonable and abfurd, whoever tells
it me. Convert., Don't you believe the Dodlrine of the Tri-
nity^ Proteft. Yes, very heartily. Why then Tran-
fubfiantiationit felf, which you ProteUants make fuch a noife
about
(3)
about,is not more unrearonable,and has as good foundation in
Tradition and Scripture, as the Doftrine ot the Trinity.
Proteji. Say you fo, my Friend, thenwhy muft I behcve the
Trinity ^ Conv. Becaufe the Church teaches it, and for the
fame reafon you muft believe Tranfubftantiation. Pro-
uU. Hold there, Sir ! what if I will believe neither ? then I
hope I need not rely upon the Authority of the Church.
Conv. But you confels you muft believe ihe Trinity, Pro-
if it be founded on Scripture anH Tradition, and
do not-contradift the Reafon of Mankind^ as I have thought
hitherto 5 but if you can perfwade me otherwife, I will be-
lieveit no longer, unlefsyou can tell me for what reafon I
muft believe that, which! have no reafon to believe. Wretch-
ed men! who care not w+iat becomes of Chriftian Religion,
if they can but eftablifti the Authority of their Church ! nay,
rare not how much they diftiohour the Church itfelf, for it
is no great Commendation of Church-Authority in matters
of Faith, that the only ufe of it is to make men believe
without Reafon, or in contradiffion to it. For it feems,were
the Chriftian Faith reafonable, there were no need of relying
on the Churches Authority, at leaft they would want one of
the beft Arguments to prove it.
(d)There are feme Myfteries above Reafon, none contrary
-to it, as Tranfubftantiation is.
(e) The univerfal Tradition of the Church, inconjunftion
with Scripture, I grant is a very good Foundation for our
Faith , but what thallwedo, when there is no certain Tra-
dition, as he proves there is not for the Dodrinc of the Tri-
nity , for though we ftiould allow, that the fafeft way is to
receive thefe Traditions from the Church, yet we cannot re-
ceive them from her, if (he have them not; and (he cannot
have them, if there be none 5 and we muft conclude there
are none, if they be not vifible. For the Churches word,
whatever Authority it have, is not Tradition..
B. But, Sir, to be (hoi t, What relation has this to thepreient Pa-
rallcl of the Trinity and Tranfubftantiation.'' The Authority of
the Church is another Point as difputable as That.
A. V ery much: For as (f) Thefe two Do^rmes have equal ground
■ from
(4;
from Scripure, Reafon, and Tradition ; fo 'is there the fame OUiga'
tion of your receiving one^ as ivell as the other. Aiid indeed I have
fince wonder'd at my ownProfeffion, (g)while a TroteBant,to think
how blind and partial I was : But I muft confefs, becaufe we are in
a Difpute, it is better laying by fuch aggravating Circumftances;
and indeed I cannot but be lenfible what Prejudices fuch Difcour-
les always make, and therefore I (hall fpeak nothing more of that
nature.
(jf) That is none at all, as he attempts to proye5 and if the
Trinity have no better then Tranfubftantiation it has none,
and then let him (how how we are obliged to believe either,
as I obferved before.
(5) For what? for not believing Tranfubftantiation as well
as the Trinity ? Did he then, while a Proteftant, believe the
Do(ftrineof the Trinity to be as wnreafonable, and to have
no better Foundation in Scripture and Tradition then Tran-
fubftantiaiion ? For otherwife he was not partial in believ-
ing one and rejedling the other, and if he did, he never un-
derftood his Religion, and then no wonder that he takes San-
6tuary in a Church which requires no ule of his underftanding.
B. But to return to the main Point; I muft tell you, I do not
think them equally grounded on Scripture, Reafon, or Traditi-
on : and indeed you may remember that was the old Point in di-
Ipute with us.
(Jo) Well, Sir, to fhew you your Error, Ifhall begin with the feveral
Particulars in their Order; and Jo, firB, as to the Tradition of Tran-
fubftantiation. Now 'tis evident That has been deliver'd with left
interruption than that of the Holy Trinity : That Myftery was
queftion'd in the very Infancy of the Church; nay, not only fo,
but the Avians prcvail'd much againft it about the beginning of the
Fourth Age. On the other fide, Tranfubftantiation lay unquefti-
on'd and quiet a long time ; and when it "came to debate, there
was no fuclt oppofition as that of Arms, tocall in qiieftion the Au-
thority of its Tradition ; the Church receiv'd it unanimoufiy, and
in that ienfe continu'd, till rafli Reafon attempted to fathom the
unlimited Miracles andMyfteries of God.
(^/^)Here is a great mixture of confidence and fallacy ;Confi-
djnceis afterting what is falfo, that Tranfubjiantiation has been
d'Hvercd vpith kfs interruption than that of the Holy Trinity: for
none of the Ancient Fathers make the lealt mention of it,
»..ither the name nor the thing was known for many hun-
der'd
(5 )
der'd years after Chrift. He himfelf modeftly grants, that
the Fathers are not half Jo expreji in the Do&rine ofTranJitb-
flantiation, as they are in the MjJiery of the Holy Trinity; And
when he grants half you may fafely conclude they fay no-
thing of it: but the fallacy confifts in attributing this filence
of the Fathers about Tranfubftantiation to the Hnquejiionable-
nefs of the Tradition, when it was wholly owing to the Igno-
ranee of the Dodtrine ; It was not oppofed in thofe days, be-
caufe they never heard of Tranfubftantiation, not becauleit
was univcrfally believed 3 which is a reafon indeed, why it
fhould not be oppofed, but not why it fhould never be men-
tioned. Whereas from that oppofition, Arius and his fol-
lowers made to the Dodrine of the Trinity, in the begin-
ningof the Fourth Century, and that great alarum it gave
immediately to the Chriftian Church 3 it is evident that it was
the received Faith at and before that time; for otherwife
Arius would not have oppofed it, nor Catholick Bifhops fo
Zealoufly have defended it.
B. But the Fathers are not half fb exprelsin theDodrinof Tran-
fubftantiation, as they are in the M dtery of the Holy Trinity.
A. That's true, and there's very good Reafon for it; Tranllib-
ftantiation has not been a Dodrine fb long in difpute, and 'tis
not cuftomary for Men to argue unqueftionable Truths. And
whereas you may think that Tranfubifantiacion has of late re-
ceiv'd fuch fhrewd Repulfes by your Books, Tie alTure you, you
forget how much the true Catholick Zeal deftroys theSeeds of He-
refies. Do you think that fo many Bifhops, not only of the £a-
ftern, but of the Weflern Church alio, could be Artans.^ and yet
fuppofe that that Opinion wanted TlaufMe a fretmce ofTraeli-
lion I Certainly if you confider that, you cannot think to eftab-
lifh the Dodrine of the Trinity by Tradition more than Tranfiib-
ftantiation ; efpecially confidering the ftrong Footfteps of that
Sedt eveja in the Fathers now extant: I would cite you fbme of
them, but that they are not fb much to my main Defign, and in-
deed my aim is Brevity.
(j) Arius did not fet up upon Tradifton,but upon a pretence
of Scripture and Reafon, and if Arianijm had had fo good
a pretence to Tradition, it is ftrange it fliould have been
thought fo new and farpizing a Doftrine at that time. It was
never
iiever heard of before AHuf^ and that is proof enough ^hat
k was no Tradition of the Chvirch, thoughvafterwards they
endeavoured to force feme expreffiorBinth^ Writings of the
Antient Fathers as^ well as of the: Scripturesy tO'countenance
rhat Hercfie. :
B. Well,Sir,i'tis true,wc cannot fb well pleadTradition to what
you have urg'd; and efpecially when I call to mind, {k) that Ari-
<Uiiii"n was confirm d by a General Council ■ But vve alledge an higher
gi'.ouad; wejtand, "upon the Authority of the Scriptures, andiu:,
deed that is tlie'truc Thhchftonc'of 'all DbctrhTe,
(if) I hope he does not mean the Council of Nice, which
was the firft General Council 5 and affetnbled on purpofe to
Eftabliftithe Catholick Faith in this point, and to condemn
Arius. And does the Church of Rome own any for a Gene-
ral Council, which confirmed Ariatrtfm} The-Council of
Syrmium indeed, where Lrberius Bilhop ofSubcribed
the Ariau Confeffion, may bid fair for it, if a Council of
Eaftern and Weftern Bilhops confirmed by the Pope, may
pafs for a General Council, but what then becomes of the
Infallibility of Popes, and Councils, and Tradition? This
is a defperate Man, who will not Ipare the Church of Rome
her felf, nor General Councils if they fland in his way, ra-
ther than allow any Tradition for the Dodrine of the Tri-
nity.
A. 'Tis true, if you will follow the Catholick Church,(/)^» J take
the Scriptures literally, you may difccver the Myfiery of the Holy Trinity
in them; but if you once yield to Figurative Allufions and Inter-
pretations, the Avians will be as much too hard for you, as you
imagin your felves to be for the Catholick Church, (w) In fhort,
both DoHrines wiU be at a lofs, and both equally require the Authority of
the Church to fupport them.
(/) If the Trinity can be prov'd by Scripture,that is all we de-
fire, fori am fure Tranfubflantiation cannot ; and as for li-
teral or figurative Expofitions of Scripture, neither of them
muft be always ufed, but as the Subject Matter and Circum-
ifances of the place require.
(m) I thought the Chriftian Church had been built upon the
Faith of the Holy Trinity, not that fupported by the Autho-
rity of the Church, unlefsthe Church can fupport her own
Foundation
C 7 )
Foundation, if there can be no Chriftian Church without
Baptifm in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghoft, that is, without profefling the Faith and Worfhip of
the ever blefled Trinity, this Dodtinemuft be believ'd be-
fore there can be any Church, on whofe Authority we muft
believe it, and therefore he has chofe the unfitted Dodrine
to build on Church Authority that he cculd have thought on.
B. O no, liirely the Dodrine of the Holy Trinity is more ex-
prels in Scriptures than lb.
A. To latisfie you that what I fay is Truth, becaufe I may repre-
fcnt the Parallel the clearer, (w)/ will perfenate an Arian,that Sedl fo
often condemn'd by the Ancient Church, and you (hall (ee his
Plea againft the Trinity is as fair as yours againft Tranfubftantia-
tion. And becaule this is the main Parallel, I fliall be Ibmevvhat
the longer, that I may give you the greater fatisfadtion.
(«) An excellent part for a Romafz CiLthoWck to ad. We read
that the Devil foraetimes transforms himfelf into an Angel of
Light, but never that an Angel of Light transformed himfelf
into a Devil. To Difpute ferioufly, and in good earned a-
gaind the Scripture Proofs of the Trinity, as he here does,
though with no great underdanding, I diould think little
better then Blafphemy , it is what would have n^er been enr
dured in the Primitive Church, and which I think no Chri-
diansof any Communion ought to endure 5 for this is not
the concernment of any particular Church, but of common
Chridianity. But though he can Perfonate an Arian fo well,
he fhould confider how he can difpute againd him. He
yields him all the Scripture Proofs for the Trinity, as not fuf-
fieient without the Authority of the Church; the Arian thanks
him for giving the Scripture on his fide, and is contented he
fhould make the bed he can of his Church Authority, and fo
continues an Ariaft dill.
B. I (hall be very glad to hear what you can fpeak to the matter.
A. (0) Firfi then, I fay, 'Tis highly unreafonable to interpret that .
Text, \ "John 5- 7* That thire be Three in Heaven that bear record,
and thefe Thi^ee are One-, as likcwile John 10. ;o. I andrny Father
are One, literally; for if we do, we not only oppolc Senfe and
Realon, but we makeConltrudtion dircdly againft the very Scrip-
ture, Jolmio. 51, 55,34,35, 36, 37,38. iin<\John ly.ai, Ja,
cs )
a;. I Cor. ?, And what can be urg'd more againfl: us in rcfpe^t
of Tranfubftantiation ?
B. Very right, Sir, that Interpretation carries a forcible Rea-
Ibnablenels, but the Dodrine of the Trinity do's not wholly de-
pend upon thofe Two Proofs,
J. Right, it do's not; but I can give you further Demonftrati-
on in this Parellel. A principal Ground of the Trinity is becaufe
the Son is lb often call'd God in Scripture, as John 1.1,2, Rem. 9,
5. &c. Now if we did'not comply with the Catholick Church,
and make a Literal Conftrudlion in this Cafe likewife,how ftrange-
ly fhould we be confounded by thofe Texts(i)7i'^ere this Godhead in
Chrifi is declard to be no more than Lord[l}ip, and fubordinate to the Fa-
therj as Heb. 1.8, 9, I Cor. 8, 4,5, I Cor. 15, 27, a8. Rev. 3, 12. and
John 10, 35, 36,
B. But, Sir, our Saviour forgave Sins too.
A. That's true, but (2) only by a deputed Juthority. You lee when
the Sons of Zebbedee petition'd him, he could not grant the final
Accomplifhment of our Spiritual Warfare, that was the Father's
Prerogative, Matth.ic.z^. And tho' he is to be our Judge, yet
he knows not the time, Mark. 13.31, i Tim. 6, 15.
B. I muft confefs, thefe things a little furprize me ; but howe-
ver, I cannot think thefe neither the only Grounds that fupport
that My fiery of the Trinity,
yf. No, you are in the right; there is one ftrong Proof more;
the making of all things vifible and invifible is attributed to the Son,
and that exprefly, John, i, 3 Heb. i. 10 and particularly, Col. 1.
16, 17, 18, 19, But yet for all that, if we do not adhere with the
Catholick Church to the Literal Interpretation, we are at a lofs
there too: For, firft, 'tis plain by the reft of Scripture, (3) that the
Son is not our only Maker, as appears by our Creation attributed to the
Father ; and then if we compare thofe Texts to Heb. 1.2, 9,10,
I Cor. 8, 6, Eph. 3, 9, Eph.4. 5, 6, I Cor. 15. 27, 28, we cannot
reafoJiably attribute more to the Son, tlian his being God's Inftru-
ment in the Creation.
B. But are thefe the trile and only Grounds of the Docftrine of
that Holy Myflery?
yf. Yes verily; for, (^f)that we are Baptized in the Name of the Fa-
ther. Son, and Holy Ghofi, is no Argument. That were as reafonabky
if under food of Chrifi and the Holy Ghofi, as cur Spiritual Governours,
as under the fuppofal of their being Co-equal with the Father,
iCor. IQ. 2, I Cor. 12, I2, 13.
(0) I do not think this a proper place, nor ajuft occafion
to enter into the difpute of the Trinity. What he here al-
: . (9^
ledges, has been anfwered a hundred times over, both by
the ancient Fathers and Modern Writers, both Romanift and
Proteftants, and if he date fay, when he has taken off his
Vizard, that they are not well, and fufficiently anfwe-
red, I will be bound to defend Catholick Chriftianity againfl:
this new kind of Liberian Roman \atholjck. But it would
move the Indignation of any good Chriftian, though a Ro-
man-Catholick, to fee fb Sacred a Myftery made the Subjedi:
of Wit and Criticifm, and little better then Drollery, (i) that
Chrift cannot be God, becaufe he is Lord, as if he could not
be God and Lord too, that he is not the Second Perfbn in
the Trinity, becaufe he is not the firfi, and therefore as a Son,
efpecially as a Mediator fubordinate to his Father. (2)That he
forgives Sins only as Priefts do,^^' a deputed Authority. (3)That
he did not make the World, becaufe the Father made it, and
therefore he is but Gods Inftrument in the Creation 5 as if in
Creation, which is the immediate effeft of Divine and Al-
mighty Power,there could be any created Inftrument. (4)That
we may be Baptized into the Name of the Son and Holy Ghoji,
as Spiritual Governours, when the Ancient Church thought
this Form of Baptifm to be the Foundation of the Creed, and
there is no other difference expreffed in the Form between
Baptijing in.the Name of the Father^ and of the Son and Holy
Gboji, but the order of Perfons.
B. But furely, Sir, the Avians fhould have other Grounds to e-
ftablifh their Opinions, befides thofe , or elfe your Parellel with
Tranflibftantiation will not be fb demonftrable as you conceive.
Pray inform me a little further, I have a mighty defire to under-
ftand a little betterth(iir Fundamental Principles.
To ficisfie you, I fliall. (p) Firfi, Tbey alkdge Chrifl reprefen-
ted under the Law altogether as an Angel; for Eminency caWd the An-
gel of the Prefence, Ifa. 65.9. Eccl. 5.6. Gen. 48. 16. Num. 10.
16. Exod.r%.io, ai, aa,. refer'd to i Cor. 10. 4, 5,9. Further, they
colle<a him to be acrcated Being,from Col.i.i\. itei;.5.i4.P^/.i 18.
Ifa./^^.%. Eccluf.l./^.,^. Eccluf.lj^.^. Sap.6.%z,i:^.('^')And tloey htter-
fret that Scripture, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee,
hy XOiS I 5 V 2, Pet. i. 17. As to (r) the Holy Ghofi, they prove
a va(i dijlar.ce between h»n a-'d the Son, by John 16. 12, I 14, i J.
and fchn I 16. Befdes, th:y lay, he is nowhere call'd God ;
and urge for the probability of their Opinion,Rev. Rev.ao.%.
B 2 1 Cor.
( 10 )
1 Ccr. 4. 4. Fur as ibire is an uni'verfal tempting Evil Vo7ver, fo we
may i:e<ilbnably conclucie, there may be a Good Affifting Power,
wicliout any nccefGty of his being Goil. _ And further, where-ever
in the Scriptures them is made any mention of the Three Perfbns,
there is always declar'd an Cj||^fs Gfadation; as i Car. 12. 5, 4,5.
2 Ccr. 15. 14. Gift and CMPunion from the Fcllowfhip of the
Holy Ghoft, Grace and Vuliftiniftration from the Lordfliip and
Kingftiip of Chriff, and I.ove and Operation from the Father, the
Supreme God,the Original Fountain,according to Ephef. 4 .4,^,6.
(p) That Chrift is called in the Old Teftament the A»gel of
the pre/ence., I grant, but affirm alfo, that the Angel of the
prejence was no created Angel, but the Lord Jehovah^ who
(pake to Mofes in the Bufti, as the Ancient Fathers grant.
ftp) To be the firft born ofevery Creature, does not prove
that heis.a Creature, but that he was begotten of God be-
fore any Creatures were made, that is, before the Creation of
the World, and that fignifies an Eternal Generation; for no-
thing was before the Creation of the World, but that which
is Eternal and uncreated, as is fufficiently intimated in'this
very Text, i Col. 16.17, 18. and then it isno injury to the
Eternal Generation of Chrift j though we grant that he was
begotten again at his Refurreftion from the Dead.
(r) As for the Holy Spirit, he is indeed called the Spirit of
Chrift, and is faid to be fent by Chrift, as he is by his Father 5
but this proves only that he is the Third Perfon in theTrini-
ty, and in the .Economy of Mans Salvation, a&s as a Vicari-
ous power to Chrift the Redeemer. But his very Office to
Infpire and Sanftifie, and dwell in the whole Chriftian
Church, and every Chriftian proves him to be God , not on-
ly becaule the Chriftia/l Church and Chriftians are his Tern-
pie, but becaufe no Created Spirit can dwell in all Chriftians.
For what this Convert alledges of an nniverfal tempting evil
power4s no better than Mankhiftnpr to aflert an evil God.For
an univerfal power is a God , and did one Devil tempt and
poflels all bad Men,as one and the fame Holy Spirit dwells in all
good Men, he would be an oraniprefent and infinite Devil,
which is what the Manichees call an evil God, and fure this is
not the Dodfrine of the Church of Romej which is a fign
that our Author is but a new Convert.
B.l
■ f ■' -
C'li)
B. I mult'coftfeft; Sir, thefe Opinions fcetn fo make it neccITiry
for us in that Doffrine too, to truh to the Authority of the Catho-
licit Church, and I fhall take time to confidei- a little upon them:
But pray. Sir, what % you to the Realbhs of the two Doftrines ?
A. KczWy, (f) Sir, lmufttellyou,lthinkthat'P.arelleltniHhthe ca-
fiefl-. 'Its ft range new Arithmetick to a man, to tell him. Three diftmcl
Perfons are one and the fame individtial Nature, and tnen to call fucll
a one the moft Pure and Simple Being ; and that efpecially when
they are deelar'd to have various Intellcd:ual Powers, as appears
by John i6. II, 15, 14, 15. and Mirk I 5. 51. I fim. 6.15. ABs i.
7. For my part, I cannot tell well how the Prejud^ of Educa-
tion could poffiblydigeft a thing fo unreafbnable, ^9^ h not a
Divine Myftery. I am fiire, (?) to my carnal Reafon,^fbire may be
as well Three Hundred PerfoiK in the Godhead, as Three', and I know
not what can be faid of Traniubftantiation, that is leemingly
more abfurd than That. .
B. I muft confefs. Sir, I have had ftrange, confus'd, and fur-
prizing Thoughts of it my felf ; but I always apprehended the
Chriftian Church a fufficient Guide.
If "you did. Sir, pray confiderwho that Catholick Mother is
yoiylb obey'd; and as you have receiv'd the Trinity, fb receive a
DdSirine'^equally as reafonable, and deliver'd by Her, Tranfub-
ftantiation. I know the Ingenuoulhefs of your_ Temper, and you
promis'd meat firft not to be a wilful Schifmatick ; and therefore
I have hopes my Reafons, and your Confideration, will be fuffi-
cient to reduce you to Catholick Communion.
B. Sir, 1 fhall confider of it; but as3'et 5'ou only talk'd to me at
large .• I fhall defi^ one Favour of you before we part; Pray ftate
the Parallel a little fhortery; I fhalljthe, better, remember it.
A. Well, Sir,'*Tfhall. Firil,'the.Tradition of one Dodlrine canr
not be ftronger than another, where both have been at leaft equal-
ly.queftion'd.t Secondly, 'Tis as reafonable to take'7/6^Tf my
Body, literally,^as it is to take thefo Texts, J and my Father are one
God (Tver all blejjedfor ever', and By him all things were made, with-
out reference to'other Scriptures, and a Figurative Interpretation.
And laftly, I think to human Reafon 'tis as equally unreafoaable,
and as feemingly repugnant, to fay One is Three, as it is to fay a
Body is not what it appears.
jB.Very well,I fnall defireno more of younowT'le only takea lit- .
tie time to conlider,and then you fhall know my mind morefreelju
A. Farewel; and God give you his Holy Spirit to inftru(ft you.
(7) And now we are come to the main Point, Whether the '
Doctrine of the Trinity be as abfurd and contradiftious as the
Doftrine
(12)
Doftnne of TrafiJubJlafjtiation^ which God forbid it fhould
be. I amfure theArithmetickjs very good ^ for Three Per-
fons and one Nature, is no bad Arithmetick. To fay, that
there are Three Perfons and but One Perfon, and but One
Nature, and yet Three Natures, had been no good Arithme-
lick, but a plain Contradifiion, that Three are One, and
One Three in the fame refpeS:, which God himfelf cannot
make true^ but Three Perfons and One Nature is no Contra-
diftion,how incomprehenfible foever it may be. He has made
it a Contr^JMon indeed by faying, That Three diBwS Per-
fons are ote and the (kme Individual Nature 5 but whoever be-
fore fatd, that the Perfon is the Nature, or that the Divine
Nature is an individual Nature, or a Nature appropriated to
one Perfon, which is the fignification of an individual Nature.
I fuppofo he had heard fomewhere of individua Trinitas, and
this he miftook for an individual Nature. Thefe are indeed
Contradiftions, and new invented Herefies, but this is not
the Catholick Dodrine of the Trinity.
(t)We cannot indeed comprehend how Three diftinftPer-
fons (hould fubfift in one Nature, for we foe no example of it
in Nature , for in finite Creatures, one finite Nature is con-
fined to one Perfon, but a finite Nature, I hope, is no rule
for an infinite Nature, and therefore an infinite Nature may
be common to more Perfons than one, though a finite Nature
cannot, and it may be, it is as intelligible how Three diftinft
Perfons may fubfift in one infinite Nature, as how three diftinO:
Faculties can be in the fame finite Soul 5 by which Compari-
foil the Ancients explain'd the Doftrine of the Trinity. The
Omniprefonce, Omnifoience, Omnipotence, Eternity of God,
areas much above our Comprehenfion, as a Plurality of Per-
fons in the Deity 5 and if men will but allow, that God is in-
comprehenfible,this can be noObjedion againft the Dodrine
of the Trinity. Natural Reafon indeed cannot difoover the
Plurality of Perfons in the Godhead, and therefore I can give
no Reafon why there ftiould be Three Perfons, and neither
more nor lefs ^ as the Plurality ofPerfons, fo the number of
them depends wholly upon Revelation, and the Scripture af-
fures me, there are but Three, and therefore 1 believe no more.
And
(la)
And becaufe there are no more, therefore I befieve it is im-
pious to fay, That there tftay he as ml/Three Hnndred Perjons
in the Gadhead, as Three.
Thus the Doftrine of the tho it be above the com-
prehenfion of our finite minds, as every thing raufl: be, which
is infinite, yet it does not contradift any neceffary Principle
ofReafon, as Tranfubjiantiation does, which is contrary to
Senfe and Reafon. Whether any Body be Bread or Flelh, fall
under the notice of Senfe, and therefore our Senfes muft judg
of it 5 and all our Senfes tell us, that the confecrated Bread and
Wine, is Bread and Wine ftill, not Flelh and Blood ^ fo that
we have greater evidence againfl: Tranfubjiantiation, than we
can have againft the Trinity 5 for we have the evidence of
Senfe,that it is not Flelh, but Breads and no man can pretend
to fuch evidence as this, that there are not Three Divine Per-
fons in the Godhead, and this makes fome difference between
them. -
As for Reafon, if we cannot underftand, what the Proper-
ties of a Body are, we can know nothings and therefore this
is a proper Objedl of human Reafon, though the Trinity is not,
and if our Reafon difcover a great many Abfurdities, and Con-
traditions, and Impoflibilities in Tranfubjiantiation^ we muft
confels, that iti^ibfurd and impoffible, as to take notice of
fome few.
To fay that the Subftance of the Bread is turned into the
natural Flelh of Chrift, which fuffered on the Crols fixteen
hundred years ago, is to fay, that the Body of Chrift is made
to day, which was 1600 years ago, which is a Contradition;
for what was made 1600 years ago, cannot be made to day,
unlefsitwas 1600 years before it was made, or was made i6oo
years after it was made, and thus the fame individual Body
rauft be, and not be at the fame time. \
It is effential to the fame Body to be but in one place at a
time, and yet all confefs, that the Body of Chrift is whole and
intirein Heaven, how then is the fame Body at the fame time
on the Altar? nay, on as many Altars as there are in the Chri-
ftian World, at the fame time.
The Body of Chrift in Heaven has the juft Proportions and
Dimcnfions of a human Body; inthe confecrated Hoft it is
dii ^
.1 »
rn;
without any extenfion or diftinftion of parts, whole anden-
tire in the leaft Crumbof Bread; now for the fame individual
Body to be extended, and not extended at the fame time, is a
oontradiftion 5 and tho we could fuppofe that Chrift could
beftow fuch a fupernatural kind of Exiftence on his Body, as
to fubfift without Extenfion of parts, yet how can the Tame
Body at the fame time be extended and not extended, as it
muft be, if the fame Body be extended in Heaven, and not
extended in the Hoft. The Sacramental Body of Chrifl: is
cloathed with the Species of Bread, isit fo in Heaven too? if
not, how is the fame Body at the fame time, with and without
the Species of Bread ? ^ The Sacramental Body of Chrift is his
dead and broken Body, the Body of Chrift in Heaven isali-
ving,glorified Body 3 now if this be the fame Body, the fame
Body muft be dead and alive, broken and whole at the fame
time.
The Romanijls tell us, that the confecrated Bread is the
whole Body of Chrift, Flefh and Blood too, which muft go
together 5 and yet that the confecrated Cup is the natural
Blood of Chrift (bed out of his Body, fo that it feems, the
fame Body on the Altar is both broken and whole, and the
fame Blood is in his Veins, and poured out of them at the
fame time. Now I would ask, Whether Qlirift in Heaven
have any Blood, which is feparated from his Body ; if he
have not, then how is the confecrated Cup, which is his Blood
(hedfor us, and therefore out of his Body, that natural Blood
which Chrift nqw has in Heaven, where to be fure, he has
no Blood, which is out of his Body, and therefore that Blood,
which is out of his Body, cannot be his natural Blood, which
he now has in Heaven.
When our Author has digefted thele Abfurdities and Con-
traditions, I can eafily furnifti him with more 5 and can there
be a greater contempt of the ever blefted Trimly^ than to
compare fo facred and venerable a Myftery, to the moft ab-
furdDotrine, which was ever invented by Men.
It will be in vain to pray to God to give m hk Holy Spirit
to inUruci us^ fill we firft learn to believe our own Senfe and
Reafon.
SECOND DIALOGUE
^ Between a New
Catlioluk Concert
A N D A
PROTESTANT.
^hewing why he cannot believe the Dodrine of
Though he do firmly believe the Dodrine
Of the Trinity.
LONDON,
Printed for B. Ajilmer, at the Three Pigeons
againft the Royal Exchange in Cornhill. 1687.
imprimatur
3.. (juil* t^ccdhnvi
• <
Between a new
CATHOUCK CONVERT
A N D A
Proteftant, &c.
IR, I much rejoyce to meet you thus happily,
O and I hope I find you at leifure.
B. I am not onely at leifure, but very much difpo-
fed to difcourfe with you farther of that matter which
you commended to my confideration when we were
laft together.
A. And 1 hope you have duly confidered it j if you
have done fo, I make no doubt but you are of my mind.
B. I do not find in my felf any inclination fo pre-
vailing as that which I have towards truth; and you
wil|, believe me when I tell you that in matters of this
nature I am not likely to be drawn from it by any
worldly intereft. I have the indifference of a Traveller,
and defire nothing but to find the right way to Heaven.
A. This perfwafion I have had of you always; and
as this difpofition to embrace the truth, where ever it is,
well becomes an honeft mind, fo I do not fear but you
are by this time convinced, that when you believe
the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity^ you cannot rcjetfb
A a the
(4)
the belief of the Do(51:rine TranfuhJiantiatio»; For
you remember that this is the queftion that we difputed
on when'we metiaft.
B. You.are very right when you fay that was the
queftion between us. And I do very well remember
that you ufed thefe very words • As thefe two
Pag. X. Doctrines have equal ground from Scripture^
Reafon and Tradition ; fo is there the fame
ohligation of your receiving the one as well as the other.
I do freely own that I believe the H. Trinity^ and that
I do not believe the Doftrine of Tranfuhflantiation ^ and
therefore do not think my felf obliged to believe the
one becaufel believe other. And, if you pleafe.to
give me the hearing, I will frankly tell you why I
cannot believe the Dodbrine of Tranfuhjiantiation true,
and then I'll give you my reafons why, though I do
believe the Holy Trinity^ I do not think my felf obliged
for the fame reafon to believe your Dodtrine of Tran-
fuhftantiation.
A. As to the firfl of thefe you may I conceive fpare
your pains. I defire not to hear your reafons againft
that Dodrine of the Catholick Church. 'Tisthe other
matter you are moft concerned in, viz. to give
good reafon why you do not believe the one as well as
the other. But I give you liberty to proceed in your'
own way.
5 I lliall be very brief as to the firft of thefe, and
onely touch upon fome things that do abfolutely lim-
der me from believing this Dodrine Tranfuhjlantia'
tion. Nothing is more certain than that this Dodrine
dehroys the evidence of Senfe, and confequentiy fub-
verts our whole Religion. We cannot be certain of
the truth of the Miracles which Jejus did, nor of his
Refurredion, if our fenfes are not to be credited even
then when the objed of them is at a due diflance, and
the medium and organ rightly difpofed, and all other re-
quilltes
C 5 )
quifites in due order. And by the very fame reafon I be-
lieve this Dodrine true I may fufped the reft of my Re-
ligion. In a word, it feems to me to be a felf-evident
falfhood, and nothing can be more evidently and ma-
nifeftly true than this is manifeftly falfe: And you will
in vain attempt to prove any of your Dodrinesfrom
the Bible, when, according to this Dodrine^ I may
not truft my Eyes, and may as well deny that there
is any fuch place of Scripture which you alledge, as
you can affirm the truth of this Dodrine, againll the
evidence of fenfe. Befides it labours with difficulties
and abfurdities that are infupporrable.
A. But we are not to rejed a Dodrine becaufe it is
attended with fome conftderable difficulties, for then
we may rejed that of the Holy Trinity^ and of the In-
carnation^ and Refurre^ion of our Bodies. And there
are great difficulties in the account of the genealogy of
fefus by St. Matthew and St. Luke., and yet I preftime
you believe thefe Dodrines, and do not queftion the
truth of either Evangelift how inconfiftent foever they
may feem to be one with another.
B. Miftake me not. Sir, I am- far from thinking
that we are to rejed thofe Dodrines which are attend-
ed with great difficulties: But yet we are certain that
Dodrine cannot be true, which if it were allowed fo
to be, would fubvert the whole Religion, and leave
nothing certain or true but it felf j nor leave us any
evidence that it felf is true.
A. Let me intreat you to fpeak to the main point,
that is, give me your reafons why when you believe
the Dodrine of \\\& Holy Trinity you ftiould rejed this
oiTranfuhJlantiation^ for it this be attended with great
difficulties, fo is the other.
B. Inis I will readily do, but muft tell you again
that I do not rejed any Dodrine becaufe of the
difficulties attending on it.
A3 ^ A. Af-
Aflign then the reafons why when you do believe
the trinity^ you deny that Dodrine which hath Eq^ud
Ground for it from Scripture^ Reafon and Tradition.
B. I can by no means grant that it hath Equal
Ground: And I will therefore give you the realons
which you demand. And
Firjiy The Doctrine of the Trinity is revealed in the
Scripture, in this both fides are agreed : The other
Doilrine is not revealed, fo the Prate-
Salmeron To. (tants with one confent affirm : And in-
<).traB. 16. {jeecj tiiofe of your Church grant that
n,Uarmm Je ^^6 Dodrinc of Tranfuhflantiation is not
Euchar. l. 3. evidently revealed in Holy Writ. Scotus
cap.i'^. affirms, as Bellarmin confefleth (^and
» thinks his Qpinion not altogether improbar
ble) that cannot be. evidently pro-
ved from any exprefs Scripture. Now the Fathers of
the Council of Idice urge the Text of H. Writ againft
the Arians. But the Church of Rome maintains their
Dodtrine upon another bottom, and tliat is the autho-
rity and declaration of the Church.
A. But do we not bring Texts of Scripture for the
proof of this Dodtrine ?
'B. That you do frequently , but then the greater
and wifer of your Divines will not lay the flrefs of the
caufe upon Scripture. I except out of
Confenf. vet. number Mr. Sclater of Putney.^ who
pag. lo. jg jQf literal fenle of thofe words.
This is my Body, becaufe the nature of a lafl Will and
Teflament requires it fliould be fo. But, alas ! he con-
fiders not what follows, where'tis faid in thefe words
of this lafl Will and Teflament, that the Cup is the New
Teflament of his Bloud, where he will be forced to ac-
knowledge a figure or two. But he that can prove
Tranfuhjlantiation from the Rahhtns, may be allowed a
greater liberty than other men think fit to take.
A. Have
f 7 )
A. Have you any other reafon to alledge why you
do not, when you believe the Trinity^ believe this
Doftrine alfo ?
B. L have, and having lliewed that your Dodrine
hath not equal ground from Scripture^ T add
Secondly^ That it hath not equal ground from Rea-
[on. 'Tis certain, and hath been abundantly made
good that your Dodrine contradid:s right Reafon : It
involves a heap of contradidions: itfuppofeth a change
pffubftance when the accidents remain, that thefe
accidents Ihould nourilh, or deftroy : That the fame
body Ihould be in many places at once, broken and
whole at the fame time j that a whole body lliould be
in a point; that every wafer Ihould be the whole bo-
dy, and yet the body be but one. That a thing can
be divided into wholes. I forbear to name much more
to the fame purpofe. The Dodtrine of the trinity is
indeed above our reafon and comprehenfion, but you
will not fay 'tis againfl; it. Befides 'tis revealed, and
'tis reafonable to believe what God fays. Befides wc
are better able to judge the nature of bodies ( upon
which account we rejedt your Dodlrlne as manifeftly
falfe ) than of the fpiritual and incomprehenfible na-
ture of God. Werejedt not what our reafon does not
comprehend. Butlhallwe therefore believe what is a
contradidlion to all the reafon of mankind t And be-
caufe we do not corrpreiiend the fublime nature of
God, may we not rely upon our fenfes when they are
employed on their proper objedls ?
A. Have you any other reafon why you reje(5l
fuhjiantiationy when you believe thsTrinity ?
B. Having ihewed that your Do«9:rine hath not E-
qual Ground from Scripture and Reafon^ I add, that it
hath not,
thtrdly^ Equal ground from Authority. Indeed you
produced none at all, and thereiore I need not cite any
in
( 8 9
in tliis place. But you your felf fay , that
Pag. 1. the Fathers are not half fo exprefs in the Do-
tirine of Tranfubftantiation, as they are in
the Myjlery of the Holy Trinity. It will be hard to re-
concile this conceffion with what you affirmed a little
above, that i\\'&{QVwoDodLnt\Q%haveE<iualgroundfrorn
tradition. But he that believes the Dod:rine it felf,
need not boggle to fay, that not half fo much is yet
Equal ground. 'Tis true you pretend to give a good
reafon why the Fathers are not half fo exprefs in the
one as in the other. Becaufe Tranfuhfiantiation hath
not been a DoEfine fo long in difpute^ and 'tis not Cujlo'
mary for men to argue unqueflionahle truths. I do eafily
believe it hath not been fo long in difpute; no fuch
thing being heard of in the primitive and belf times.
And 'tis ealier to fuppofe it an unqueftionable truth than
to prove it to herve been profefied at all. But this is
to beg and not to prove the queftion.
I will add no more reafons, though I might eafily
do it, becaufe I am for brevity as well as you. I have
abundantly fliewed that thefe two Dodrines have not
Equal ground from Scripture, Reafon and Tradition,
and that there is not the fame obligation to receive one
as the other.
And thus, Sir, though I cannot acquiefce in what you
fay, yet I heartily thank you for your good Prayer,
and beg you wou'd^joyn with me in repeating it in
behalf of allChriftfins. God give us his Holy Spirit to
injirubl us.
FINIS.
THE
! Dodrine of the T RINIT Y
AND.
i
^ranfttbftantiatton
COMPARED,
AS TO
I
\
Scripture, Reafon, and Tradition, i
In a New DIALOGUE between a|
Trotejiartt and a Papfl, j
jfirli |0art.
WHEREIN
An ANSWER is given to the late Proofs of the Anti-
quity of CtanfUbftantiatlOU, in the Books called Con-
fenfus Feterum^ and Nuhes Tejiiumy^c.
. ✓
The Second Edition. ,
IMPRIMATUR.
Hx JEdib. Lambeth, Guil.Needham RR. in Chrifto Pat. ac D.
Jan. 17. 168(5. D. Wilhelmo Archiep. Cant, a Sacrls.
L 0 N V 0 N.y Printed for TF. Rogers at the Sun over againft St.
Dunjhns Church in Fleet-Jlreet. M DC LXXX VIII.
11 kI ^ Ai i C)fij ;.6 • j
1 i •^'::' ''■^r-'V/. ,'q v:'^- . "■
€ -T. .- ". . ■ .
w ov
Kv<<-. • '■•»• J f l."
»r
*! 5J'
•ifkl
' L' C
'; v-' .A' AA-, „ i'l ■':» A' ^ .1 ^
IS7 .a s A A 5 M o ..J -
I
-1 =1
:•
I
f
' jm
.:mi3ib£.-i V'biu
! "I '"V ' ■* "J "' < " -- !• . If ' I ■ 'T
"■p, J:' O-.: (Ia i v^I ^ r'., ;ri ' '1
■: ' ■ -' . -.; '■•
. OrSii ■aU.ii'iWM -
">S i*- ' . *» « »•- *# '• ^:
,. ■'• -J ' ./t* J , i ,V, t^_.- - s
. .P.
'•■■f I '.- •:; t* ''■/
i ', ti kit 1: -/
;-.i3r'= 'n.'b.'Vwloo'il -'Jit Jiii oinrr/'-^^i iJ 'i 'V'A
;-uvO ojilp Eibna .0111 ni , ""o TJ^up
' ' ' " .'j"0 bhc .uur ';,-,-, ''-. 7 '
riMis
^ ■ 4h
■-4.1? 0
1 ^ ■'
i ii 1>
i
.;•. • - ^
•A-'. -* iMvT
:Ak.l
, oilhflDn? ..a a
- " , .2!-:i_H £ JfT-0 .U
..;.J [ ,..-.-1.--:
, 'S.\. \ . . •
iC'M ." ' fC ;
iTukfi?: 13V0 nA?k;of{j'in v<&
7,:-^ .mvzxxa.xiM
T'Vi I'll iiiirii f k „ 7v / j
.\;>a\.-liA"i :ii ri luda 2''iu.''.tv.' '.i, j.
(3)
The DoBrine of the Trinity and Tranfub-
cornfaredJ af ro Scripture,
Reafbn, and Tradition, In a Nen?
Dialogue between a Proteftant and a Pa-
pift.
Tr. "W" Remember your laft Words at parting
■ wel\ and God give his holy Spirit to inHru^ you.
■ Which have run much in my Mind : For if the
B holy Spirit inHru£i us^ what need is there of an
Infallible Church? I hope thofe were not only
words of courfe with you.
Ta. No; but I meant that the holy Spirit Jhould inHruH
you about the Authority of the Church.
Pr. Was this indeed your meaning ? Then you would
have me believe the Church Infallible, becaufe the holy
Spirit which is Infallihle will inftrudt me about it, if I feek
his Diretfiions.
P. Yes.
Fr, But then I have noReafon to believe it; for the holy
Spirit after my feeking his InHruElions., teaches me other-
wife. And if the holy Spirit is Infallible which way fo-
ever it teaches, then I am infallihly fure there is no fuch
thing as Infallihility in what you call the Catholick Church.
P. Come, come; you make too much of a fudden
ExprelTion ar partir^; I pray let us return to our main
bulinefs, which is to fliew, that there is the fame Gromd
from ScriptutCy Reaforty and Traditiony to helieve Tranfuh-
A z Jiantiation,
c 4;
Hantiation^ as there is to ielieve the trinity. And this I
affirm again, after reading the Anfwers to the former Dia-
logue; and I now come fomewhat better prepared to make
it out.
Fr. So you had need. And I "hope I ffiall be able not
only to defend the contrary, but to make it evident to you,
that there is a mighty difference in thefe two Dodtrines,
as to Scripture y Reafon, and traciitm. But I pray keep
clofe to the Point: for I hate impertinent trifling in a De-
bate of fuch Confequence.
P. I mull confefs, I over-fliot my felf a little in the
former Dialogue, when I offer'd to prove the Dodfrine of
tlie trinity unreafonahle and ahfurd: For no Church can
make fuch a Dodrine, which is unreafonable and abfurd
in it felf, not to be fo to me; No Church can make three
and one to he the fame, if they he repugnant in themfelves.
But my rneaning was, that Mens Difputes about thefe
things will never be ended, till they fubmit to the Autho-
rity of the Church.
Pr. And then they may believe three^ or three hundred
Perfons in the trinity y as the Church pleafes. Is that
your meaning?
P. No. But I faid to my Carnal Redfon it would appear
fo; but not to my Reafon as under the Condudl of an In-
fallihle Guide.
Pr. Then an Infallible Guide can make three hundred to
he hut thfee; which is a notable trick of Infallibility. ■
p. No J I tell you I meant only that we are not to fol-
low Carnal Reafon, but the Church's Authority, /, e. we
are not to fearch into Myfleries above Reafon, but only
believe what the Church delivers. And I intend now to
argue the Point fomewhat clofely with you. Do you be-
lieve that there are any Myfleries in the Chriflian Do-
<9:fine above Reafon, or not? If not, you mufl rejedb the
Trinity; if. you do, tlien you have no ground for rejedi-
C ^ }
ing Tranfuhdantiation^ becaufe it is above Reafon.
Pr. You clearly miftake us; and I perceive were very
little acquainted with our DocSrinc: for we do not reject
any Doctrine concerning God, meerly becaufe it is above
our Reafon, when it is otherwife clearly proved from
Scripture. For then we own our felves bound to fubmit
in matters of Divine Revelation concerning an Infinite
Being,though they be above our Capacity to comprehend
them. But in matters of a finite Nature^ which are far more
eafie for us to conceive , and which depend upon the Evi-
dence of Senfe, we may jufHy rejed: any Dodrine which
overthrows that Evidence, and is-not barely ahove our Reu'
/on, but repugnant to it.
P. I do not well underfland you.
Pr. So I believe ; but I will endeavour to help your Um
derftanding a little. And I pray confider thefe things:
I. That there is a great difference in our Conceptions of
Pinite and Infinite Beings. For, whatfoevef is Infiniteis
thereby owned to be above our Comprehenfion, other-
wife it would not be Infinite. The Attributes of God which
are eflential to him, as his Wifdom, Goodnefs and Power,
miift be underftood by us, fo far as to form a true Notion
of that Being which is Infinite; but then the Infinity of
thefe Attributes is above our reach. And fo his Infinite
Duration^ which we call Eternity; his Infinite Prefence
which we call his Immenfitythe Infinite Extent of his
Knowledge as to future Contingencies ; all thefe mull be
confefled to be MyHeries, not above our Reafon, but
above our Capacity. For we have great Reafon to
own them, but we have not Faculties to comprehend
them. We cannot believe a God, unlefs we hold him
to be Infinite in all Perfedions: and if he be Infinite,
he mufl be incomprehenfible ,• fp that Religion mull be
overthrown, if fomething incomprehenfible be not allow-
ed. And as to finite Beings, fo far as they run into what
we
C 6 3
we call Infinite, they are fo far out of cur reach ; as ap-
pears by the infuperable Difficulties about the Infinite Di-
vifibility of Quantity.
That we have certain Notions of fome things in the
vifible World ; both that they are, and that they have
feme Attributes efiential to them. We daily converfe with
things vifible and corporeal; and if we do not conceive
fomething true and certain in our Minds about them, we
live in a Dream and have only Phantafms and Illufions a-
bout us. If we are certain that there are real Bodies, and
not meer Appearances, there muft be fome certain way
of conveying fuch Impreffions to our Minds, from whence
they may conclude, this is a Horfe, and this a Man, and
this is Flefli, and this Blood, and this is Wood, and this
Stone ; otherwife all certainty is gone, and we muft turn
meer Scepticks.
3. That in examining the fenfe of Scripture we may
make ufe of thofe certain Notions of vifible things which
God and Nature have planted in us ; otherwife we are
not dealt with as Reafonable Creatures. And therefore
we mufl: ufe thofe Faculties God hath given us, in reading
and comparing Scriptures, and examining the fenfe that
is offered by luch Notions which are agreeable to the
nature of things. As for infiance, the Scripture frequent-
ly attributes Byes and Bars and Hands to the Almighty
muff we prefently believe God to have an Fiuma'n Shape
becaufe ot this ? No ; we compare thefe with the necef
fary Attributes of God, and from thence fee a neceffity
of interpreting thefe Expreffions in a Senfe agreeable to
the Divine Nature. So if other Expreffions of Scripture
feem to affirm that of a Body which is inconfiffent with
the Nature of it; as, that it is not vifible, or may be in
many Places at once, there is fome Reafon for me to un-
derftand them in a Senfe agreeable to the Efiential Proper-
ties of a Body.
4. There
■v
(7)
4- There is a difJerence between our not apprehending
the manner how a thing is, and the apprehending the im-
pofTibility of the thing it felf. And this is the meaning of
the diftindtion of Things alo-ve our Reafon^ and contrary
to our Reafon. If the Qt.iefl;ion ,be, how the fame indivi-
dual Nature can be communicated to three diftindl Per-
fons > We may juftly anfwer, we cannot apprehend the
manner of it, no more than we can the Divine Immenfity^
or an Infinite Amplitude without Extenfion. But if any go
about to prove there is an impoffibility in the thing, he
mufl prove that the Divine Nature can communicate it
leif no otherwife than a finite individual Nature can; For
all acknowledg the fame common Nature may be com-
municated to three Perfons, and fo the whole Contro-
verfie refls on this fingle Point as to Reafon; whether
the Divine Nature and Perfons are to be judged and meafu-
red as Human Nature and Perfons are. And in this, I think
w,e have the advantage jn point of Reafon of the An-
ti-trinitarians themfelves, although they pretend never fo
much to it-
P. Good night. Sir; I perceive you are in for an hour;
and I have not fo much time to fpare, to hear fuch long
Preachments. For my part, talk of Senfe and Reafon as long
as you will, I am for the Catholick Church.
Pr. And truly, flie is mightily obliged to you for oppo-
pofing her Authority to Seife and Re^on.
P. Call it what you will, I am for the Churches Authori-
ty J and the talk of Senfe and Reafon is but Canting without
that.
Pr. The matter is then come toafinepafs; I thought
Canting had rather been that which was fpoken againft
Senfe or Reafon. But I pray, Sir, what fay you to what I
have been difcourfing ?
P. To tell you truth, I did not mind it; for as foon as
I heard whither you were going, I clapt faft hold of the
f Church,
c -8 :
Church, as a Man would do of a Maft in a Storm, and
refolved not to let go my hold.
Pr. What T altho you Ihould fink together with it.
P. If I do, the Church muft anfwer for it; for I muft -
fink or fwim with it.
Pr. What Comfort will that be to you, when you are
called to an account for your felf ? But if you flick here,
. it is to no purpofe to talk any more with you.
jP. I think fo too. But now we are in, methinks we
fhould not give over thus; efpecially fince I began this
Dialogue about the Trinity and Tranfuhflantiation.
Pr. If you do, we know the Reafon of it. But I am re-,
iblved to pufh this matter now as far as it will go ; and
either to convince you of your Miflake, or at lead to
make you give it over wholly.
P. But if I muft go on in my Parallel, I will proceed
in my own way. I mentioned three things. Scripture^ Rea-,
fojy and Tradition- And I will begin with Tradition.
Pr. This is fomewhat an uncouth Method; but I muft
be content to follow your Condud:.
P. No, Sir, the Method is very natural ; for in Myfle-
ties above Reafon, the fafejl way is to trujl Tradition. And
ntme can give fo good account of that as the Church.
Pr. Take your own way : but I perceive Tradition with
you is the Senfe of the prefent Church • which is as hard to
conceive, as that a Nunc Hans fhould be an eternal Sue-
cefTion.
P. As to comparing Tradition, I fay, that the Myjlery
of the Trinity was quejlioned in the very Infancy of the Church,
and the Arians prevailed much againfl it in the beginning of the
fourth A.ge; hut Tranfuhflantiation lay unqueflion d and quiet
for a long time; and when it came into debate, there was no
-fuch oppojition as that of Arius,/f call in queflion the Authority
of its' Tradition; the Church received it unan'imoufly.^ and in
that Senfe continued till rajh Reafon attempted to fathom the
unlimited Miracles and MyHeries of God, pr.
i
C? )
^ and Pr. I fland amazed at the boldnefs of this AHertion:
But I find your prefent Writers are very little vers'd in An-
t tiquity; which makes them offer things concerning the
Ancient Church, efpecially as to Tranfuhftantiatibn^ w hich
thofe who had been modeft and learned, would have been
ayousif afhamed of.
(lidlif, P. I hope I may make ufe of them to juffify my felf,
tho you flight them, I mean the Confenfus Veterum, the IPu.-
binbi'i Tefl 'mm^ and the fingle Sheet about Tranfuhflantiation.
'gsn tii Take them all, and as many more as you pleafe, I
am fure you can never prove Tranfuhflantiation to have
m K-. been, and the Trinity not to have been the conffant Belief
I; inii of the Primitive Church,
aft to P- Let me manage my own Argument firft.
Pr. All the Reafon in the World.
TOed P- My Argument is. That the DoSirine of the Trinity met
^tth far more Oppofition than Tranfuhflantiation did.
,, Pr. Good Reafon for it, becaufe it was never heard of
ntlmiiS then. You may as well fay, the Tradition of the Circu-
lation of the Blood lay very quiet, from the days of Ppip'
iJUfk pocrates to the time of Partfanus. Who was there that op*
pofed things before they were thought of?
P. That is your great Miflake; for Tranfuhflantiation
was very well known, but they did not happen to fpeak fo
y P much of it, becaufe it was not oppofed.
Pr. But how is it poflible for you to know it was fo
well known, if they fpake not of it ?
P. I did not fay, they did not fpeak of it, but not fo
lyj much, or not half fo exprefs; hecat*fe it is not cuflomary for
Men to argue unqueflionahle Truths.
'Let P^- But (till how ihall it be known that the Church re-
ceived this Doctrine unanimoufly^ if they do not fpeak ex-
preily of it ? But fince you offer at no Proof of your Af-
fertion, I will make a fair offer to you, and undertake to
prove, That the Fathers fpake exprefly againfl it.
n B p.
( lO )
p. How is that ? Exprejly againfl it > God forbid.
Pr. Make of it what you pleafe, and anfwer what you
can: I begin with my Proofs.
P. Nay, then, we are in for all Night. I am now full
of bufinefs, and cannot hearken to tedious Proofs out of the
Fathers, which have been canvafled a hundred times.
Pr, I will be as fliort as I can; and I promife you not to
tranfcribe any that have hitherto written, nor to urge you
with any fpurious Writer, or lame Citation at fecond or
third hand ; and I fliall produce nothing but what I have
read, confidcred, and weighed in the Authors themfelves.
P. Since it mull: be fo; let me hear your doubty Argu-
ments, which I cannot as well turn againfl the Trinity,
For that is my Point.
Pr. I leave you to try your Skill upon them. The firfl
lhall be from the Proofs of the Truth of Chriji's Incarna-
tion; and I hope this will not hold againfl the Trinity,
And thofe Arguments which they brought to prove Chrifl
Incarnate, do overthrow Tranfuhflantiation efFedlually.
So that either we mull make the Fathers to reafon very ill
againfl Hereticks; or, if their Arguments be good, it was
impolTible they Ihould believe Tranfuhflantiation. For can
you fuppofe that any can believe it, who Ihould not barely
aflert, but make the force of an Argument to lie in this,
that the Subflance of the Bread doth not remain after Con-
fecration ? And this I now prove, not from any flight in-
confiderable Authors, but from fome of the greatell Men
in the Church in their time. I begin wkh St. Chryfoflom,
whofe Epiflle to Ccefarius is at lafl brought to light by a
learned Perfon of the Roman Communion ,• who makes no
queflion of the Sincerity of it, and faith, The Latin Tran-
flation which only he could find entire, was about five hun-
dred years old; but he hath fo confirm'd it by the Greek
Fragments of it, quoted by Ancient Greeil Authors, that
there can be no fufpicion left concerning it.
P.
II )
P, what means all this ado before you come to the
Point ?
Pr. Becaufe this Epiflle hath been formerly fo confi-
dently denied to be St. Chr-yfcjloms; and fuch care was late-
ly taken to fupprefs it.
P. But what will you do with it now you have it ?
Pr. I will tell you prefently. This Epiflle was written
by him for the fatisfa<^ion of Ccefarius a Monk, who was in
danger of being feduced by the Apollinarifls.
P. What have we to do with the Apollinarifls ^ Do you
think all hard words are akin, and fothe affinity rifes be-
tween Apollinarifls and Tranfulflantiation ?
Pr. You Ihall find it comes nearer the matter than you
imagined. For thofe Hereticks denied the Truth of the
Human Nature of Chrift after the Union, and faid that the
Properties of it did then belong to the Divine lAature j as
appears by that very Epiflle.
P. And what of all this? Do we deny the truth of
Chrift's Human Nature?
Pr. No ,• but I pray obferve the force of his Parallel.
He is proving that each Nature in Chrifl
contains its Properties; for, faith he, as
he fore Con fee rat ion we call it Breads hut
after it hy Divine Grace fan^lifying it
through the Prayer of the Priefl., it is no
longer called Breads hut the Body of our
Lord^ altho the nature of Bread remains
in it; and it doth not become two Bodies^
hut one Body of Chrifl; fo here the Divine
Nature heing joyned to the Humanthey
hoth make one Son., and one Perfon^
P. And what do you infer from hence?
Pr. Nothing more, but that the Nature of Bread doth
as certainly remain after Confecration, as the Nature of
Chrifl doth after the Vnion.
B ^ p.
Sicut enim antequam fandlificatur pa-
ni» panem nominamus, divina autem il-
lum fandtificante Gratimediante Sa-
cerdote, liberatusctt quidem ab appel-
lacione panit, dignus autem habitus eft
Dominici Corporis appellatione,etiamfi
natura Panis in ipfo permanfit, & non
duo Corpora , fed unum Corpus Filii
prasdicatur, fic & hie divina tnS'fvyi.*-
in Graec Exemplar,
Ep. Bigot) id eft inundante CorporU
Natura unum Filium, unam Perfonam
utraq; hjec fecerunt.
C IX )
p. Hold a little. For the Author of the fingle Sheet,
Papift Mifre- faith, That the Fathers hy Nature and Suhflance do often
no more than the natural Qualities, or vifihle Ap-
if art.ch.^. pearances of Things. And why may not St. ChryfoHom
P- ^3- mean fo here ?
Pr. I fay, it is impoffible he fliould. For all the Dif-
pute was about the Suhflance, and not about the Qualities,
as appears by that very Epiftle; for thofe Hereticks gran-
ted, thatChrift had z\\ tht Properties ok a Body left fhll ;
they do not deny that Chrift could fuffer, but they faid,
the Properties of a Body after the Union belonged to the
Divine Nature, the Human Nature being fwallowed up by
the Union, And therefore St. by mufl;
underftand Suhflance, and not Qualities', orelfehedoth by
no means prove that which he aimed at. So that St. Chry-
foHom doth manifeftly afiert the Suhflance of the Bread to
remain after Confecration.
P. But doth not St. Chryfoflom fuppofe then, that upon
Confecration, The Bread is united to the Divinity, as the
Human Nature is to the Divine; elfe what Parallel could he
make ?
Pr. I will deal freely with you by declaring, that not
St. Chryfoflom only, but many others of the Fathers, did
own the Bread after Confecration to be made the real Body
of ChriH', but not in your Senfe, by changing the Suh-
flame of the Elements into that Body of Chrift which is
in Heaven; but by a MyflicalZJnion, caufed by the Holy
Spirit, whereby the Bread becomes the Body of ChriH, as
that was which was conceived in the Womb of the Blefled
Virgin. But this is quite another thing from TranfuhHan-
tiation', and the Church of England owns, that after Con-
fecration, The Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of
Chrift.
P. But altho this be not Tranfuhflantiation, it may be
fomething as hard to believe or underftand.
Pr.
m
C 13 )
Pr. By no means. For all the difficulties relating to
the taking away the Suhflance of the Bread, and the Fro-
pet ties of Chrill's Body, are removed by this Hypothefis.
P. Let us then keep to our Point: but methinks this is
but a Bender appearance yet j St. Chryfojlom (lands alone
for all that I fee.
Pr, Have but a little Patience , and you (liall fee more
of his mind prefcntly. But I mud firfl tell you, that the
Eutychians afterwards were condemned in the Council of _ ■;
Chalcedon for following this Dodbrine of Apollinar 'n ; and
that Council defines, that the differences of the two Natures " " '
in Chrifi were not dejiroyed hy the Vnion; hut that their '
Properties were preferred difiitJ^ and concur to one Perfon.
And againfl thefe, the other Fathers difputed }u(l as St.
Chryfojlom had done before againft the Apoflinarifts.
Theodoret brings the fame Inflance,
and he affirms exprefly, That the Na- 'o^ Jj A cnjwli^adov
ture of the Elements is not changed, that
they do not lofe their proper Nature,
hut remain in their former Suhjlance,Fi- ^
gure and Form, and may be feen and
touched as before.
Still this is not to prove any AccT
dental Qualities, but the very Sub-
ftance of Chriil's Body to remain.
P. But was not Theodoret a Man of fufpedbed Faith in
rhe Church ? and therefore no great matter can be made
of his Teftimony.
Pr. Yield it then to us ; and fee if we do not clear
Theodoret; but your own learned Men never cjueftion him,
as to this mjitter (at lead} and the ancient Church hath
vindicated his Reputation. And he faith no more than
St. Chry/offom-before him, and others of great Edeem
'vifter him.
P- Who were they i .
Pn,
Dial. I.
Ovch jb iA]a, TT 'AyctfMV A
^ T« }y o^d d7r]d, ojoy
*1 nv. Dial. 2.
i. I
II:
r
P'
41'
! .
■ 1
■ (I '
I -.,1
ll
it
C 14)
Pr. What fay you to a Pope^ whom you account Head
of the Church ^ Pope Celafius writing againft the fame
Heretkks , produces the fame Exam-
Certe Sacramenta qu^e fumlmusCor- pjg exprefly faith, The Suhflance
'fthe BreaAmdWme doth not ceafe.
cimur confortes Namrae, & tamen effc I thougllt I fhould find yoU trip-
non de/lnit fubftantia vel natura Panis ■ ^ Pob-head of the
OC Vim. Gelar.tn Bibltoth.Patr.To^. r d r 1 a i p
Church upon us. For the Author oi
Pag. 10. the fingle Sheet faith, this was another Gelafius, as is provd
at large hy Bellarmin.
Pr, In truth, I am afliamed of the Ignorance of fuch
fmall Authors, who will be medling with things they
underftand not. For this Writer, fince Bellarmin s time,
hath been evidently proved from Teftimonies of Antiqui-
ty, fuch as Fulgentius and John the fccond , to have been
Pope Gelafius,) and that by fome of the mod learned Per-
fons of the Roman Communion,fuch as Cardinal Du Perrcny
Petavius, Sirmondus^ and others.
P. Fdave you any more that talk at this rate >
Pr. Yes. What think you of a Patriarch of Antioch^
who ufeth the fame Similitude for the fame purpofe j and
^ / he affirms, that the fenfible Subftance
ftill continues in theEucharift, tho it
sttjot 19 ^ dJicufilov (km -ifiex- hath Divine Grace joyned with it ?
I&0 Epliram. Antioch. ap. Phot. Cod. j pray, now tell me ferioufly, did
the Tradition of Tranfuhflantiation lie
unqueHiond and quiet all this while > when w^e have three
Patriarchs, of Conflantinople, Rome., and Antioch,, exprefly
againft it; and one of them owned by your Selves, to be
Head of the Church ; and held by many to be Infallible,
efpecially when he teaches the Church ; which he doth,
if ever, when he declares againft Hereticks.
P. I know not what to fay, unlefs by Nature and Suh-
fiance they meant Qualities and Properties.
Pr. I have evidently proved that could not be their
meaning. P.
C 15 )
P. But I am told Monfieur Arnaud in his elaborate De-
Jme fence againft Claude goes that way, and he faith, The
'iin* tychians and Apollinarijls did not ahfolutely deny any Suh- »
lw:t Hance to remain in Chrift's _ Body^ hut not fo as to he endued
;t, voith fuch Properties as ours have.
mtrij). Pr. I grant this is the main of his Defence; but I con-
ofti; fefs, Monfieur Arnaud hath not lb much Authority with
hfi me, as a GeneralCeuncil which declared the contni'y ; viz.
(mi That the Eutychians were condemned for not holding two Suh- Ap. Facund.
fiances or Efatures in Chrifl after the Vnion. And Domnus 8- c. 5.
kh Antiochenus,who firft laid open the Eutychian Herefie,faith,
'ky It lay in making a mixture and confufion of hoth Natures in
nl Chrifi, and fo making the Divinity paffihle ; and to the fame *
ni- purpofe others. There were fome who charged both
Apollinaris and Eutyches with holding, that Chrisl brought Ap. Canif An-
'er- his Body from Heaven., and that it was not confuhJlantiaN^,^
un, with ours ; but Apollinaris \\\m^e\f.^ in the Fragments pre-114, "127. ' '
ferved by Lecntiiis , not only denies it, but pronounces an
Anathema againjl thofe that hold it. And Vitalis of Antioch.^
tkl, A great pifciple of his, in difcourfe with Epiphaniiis^ utter-
ly denied a Caelefiial Body in Chrifl. Vincentius Lerinenfis gpipj,
]cs faith, his Herefie lay in denying two diflinhl Suhflances /« Vincent.Com- -
it; Chrifl. St. Auguflin faith, he held hut one Suhftance after the
\n) Vnion ; fo that he muft deny any Suhflance of a Body to ^
ijjil remain after the Union, which he allerted to be wholly
III fwallowed up, and the Properties to continue : Which was
U another kind of Tranfuhslantiation ; for no more of the
Siihslance of ChrNfs Body wasfuppofed to remain after the
jIk Union, than there is fuppofed to be in the Elements after
Confecration. But in both Cafes the Properties and Quail- '
^ ties were the fame ftilL And it is obfervable, that in tlie
Abfs of the Council of C hake don., Eutyches rejedfed it, as Condi. ChaJ» -
1^, a Calumny caH upon him., that he fhould hold that Chrili^^^' ^
brought a Body from Heaven. But the Eutychian Doblrine
gj. lay in taking away the SuhHance of the Body, and making
f,
C )
the Divinity the[ole Suhflance^ but with the Accidents and
Properties of the Body, And for this they produced the
Theodor.Dial. Words of Saint Johny The Word was made Flejh ; which.
^ they urged with the fame Confidence that you now do.
This is my Body. And when they were urged with Diffi-.
cuities , they made the very fame recourie to God's Omni-
potencyy and the Letter of ScripturCy and made the fame
Declamations againfl: the ufe of Reafon that you do ; and
withafthey would not have the Human Nature to be anni-
hilated, but to -be changed into the Divine ; juft as your
Authors do about the Suhflance of the Bread. So that it
is hard to imagin a more exat^ Parallel to TranfuhBantia-
tion than there is in this Dodrrine; and confequently there
can be no more evident Proof of it, than the Fathers ma-
king ufe of the Inftance of the EuchariB y to Ihew, thai
as the SuhBance of Bread doth remain after Confecration ,
fo the Subftance of ChriB's Body doth continue after the
Union. And when the Fathers from the remaining Proper-
ties do prove the SuhBance to remain, they overthrow the
polTibility of Tranfuhfiantiation. For, if they njight be
without the Subftance, their whole Argument'lofes its
force, and proves jufl nothing.
P. But all this proves nothing as to the Faith of the
Church ; being only Arguments ufed by Divines in the
heat of Difputes.
Pr. Do you then in earnefl: give up the Fathers as Dif"
put ants to us ; but retain them as Believer^ to your felves ?
But how fhould we know their Faith hut hy their Works ?
P. I perceive you have a mind to be pleafant ; but my
meaning was, that in Difputes Men may eafily over-flioot
themfelves, and ufe ineffetJFual Arguments.
Pr. But is it poffible to fuppofe they Ihould draw Argu
ments from fomething againfl the Faith of the Church .
As for inflance; Suppofe now we are difputing about Tran
fulftantiation, you Ihould bring an Argument from tht
Hum(X\
C 17 )
Hutnan NatTire ofChrtff, and fay, That as in .the Hypo-
ftatical Union the Subftance is changed, and nothing hnt
the Accidents remain; To: it is, iathd jEIerricnits
fecration. Do you think 1 ihould not prefently deny .your
Example, and fay, your very Shppofition is-So
no doubt would the Bufj.cJbiam luve done in .cafe the-Faith
of the Church had then been, that the .of.the
Elements was changed after Co»/ecratU»,m 'And
chians were the moft fottifli Difputants in the WOrldd .if
they had not brought the Dodlfine of Tranfnhflantiatton to
prove their//(frrTy. ...
?. Methink you are very long upon this Argument j
when Hiall wc have" done at this race
Pr./l takejthis yourbeft Arifwer; and fo I proceed
to a fecond Argument, which I am fure will not hold a-
gainfl; the Trinity; and that is from the natural and unfepa-
rahle Properties of ChriJPs Body, which are utterly incon-
fiftent with the b'elief of Tranfuhflantiation. And the force
of the Argument in geoeral lies in this, That the Fathers
did attribute fuch things to the Body of Chrift, which
render it uncapable of being prefent in fuch a manner in
the Sacrament as Tranfuhftantiation fuppofes. And no Men
who underftand themfelves, will aflert that at one time,
which they muft be bound to deny at another; but they
will be fure to make an Exception or Limitation, which
may reconcile both together. As if you fhould fay, That
the Body of ChriH cannot he in more places than one at once,
upon the DoPlrine of St. Thomas; ye would prefently add,
with regard to the Sacrament, i. e. not in regard of its na-
tural Prefence, hut in a Sacramental it may: So, if the Fa-
thers had an Opinion like yours as to the Body of Chrift,
they would have a Referve, or Exception, as to the Sacra-
ment. But it appears by their Writings, that they attri-
bute fuch Properties in general to the Body of Chrift, as
overthrow any fuch Prefence, without Exceptions or
C Limita-
C )
LiiTtitations, But that is not all: For I Ihali now prove,
I. Tliat they do attribute Circumfcnption to ChriJFs Body
in Heavetty fo as to exclude the poffibility of. its being upon
Earth.
X. That they deny any (udl thing, as the fupernatural
Exiflence of a Body after the manner of a Spirit.
P. What do you mean? lam quite tired already,- and
notv you are turning up the other GlaE. '■
i P^r. Since you wilt be-dabling in thefc GontroVerfies,/
you mufl: not thinh to efcape fo- eaiily: 1 have been not'
a little oliended at the Infolence of feme late Pamphlets
upon this Argument ,•: a;nd how I come to clofe Reafoningy
you would fain be gone. ■. zi j.. i .
P. I am in a little hafte at prdent; I pray totrfe quickly
to the Point.
Pr. As foon as you pleafe. What think you, if a Man
nowlhould bring an Argument to prove a matter of Faith
from hence;, That ChrifPs Body could not he in Heaven and
Earth at once, 'ivould this argumoao hold good Yet thus
Vilnius Tapfitanus argues againfl; thofe who denied twb Na-
til res in Chrift; for,, faith-he, The Bo-
Nam quando in Terra fnir, non erat ^ of Chrifi when it was OH Earthy 7vas
S^non^et ubiqtin"TTrrar&^^^^ " Heaven.-^ asfd now if is Jn Hea^eny
turn non eft, ut fecundum ipfam (Car- it is nOt lipOn 'Etirth'y an f it is fo far
Hem) Chnftom fpedtemui effe ventq- fi'.om. heingffy. thai tve exlTffl'hirk to CSme
rum de Coslo, quern fecundii/n verbum v r-r „ <■ ■ > • ri n . t . i
noblfcum efle credimui in terra. Qont. jrpm Heaven in piS- Fi^jh , ive he-
Eutfoh.l 4. ». 14. . ^ lieyesto 'het no-w 'jyefenJ on 'Edrth hy his
■ . . Diviiiity: ^ffew 'can.thWioy
itody of Ghrilt wah be in - tovwuhd laM- feme
time?" 'V' .... ,wt; • . . t;. :
p. He fpeaks this of the'-^'Niffarw/ Xjhrift's
Body, and not^oPthe Sacram'm,^'.: . h - .-^li Li ^
-vPr. The;Ai^um;ent-k/' '^'i^amter-oi
t\iQ,Ptefeiicey butfrOtty thb c§Md
not be inj JHedven-'^ind. Ear?hr atn!ierf§Me'Cilhe:' ^Aind fo
^ St.
C o( >9 )
St. That''(ihpi(i'%ilevisry ' totum prjerentem efle
where prefent as Godt hut confined to a nondubites tanquam Deum & in
. ' / • 7-r • J. loco aliquo Cocli propter veri Corpori*
certain place in Heaven according to the modum. Ad Dardan.
Meafure of his true Body.
, . P. This is only to dirpfov€'the Viiquit^ofCftinifp^o-
dy; and not his being in feverai places at the 4me tinae.
Pr. Then you yield it to be repugnant to the Nature
of a Body to be every where prefent.
P. -Yes. " iji-
Pr. But what if-th^ bV^great a"
St'^^^w^ws^Argumerif^' for'd Body fa he^pr.ejmt in fever ,oh; '=1
^places-at once >, - \ -i...
'P. I lee no fuch thing.' '_ -
Pr. No? His Argument ii from'the Confinernent rcfi a
true Body to a certain place. And if it^Se /« rltdfif fl'^s at
onchy it is aS far frOm -being confihW., it. tpqie up all
places. And"^ there are fome greatct Difficulties ,a^ to a. Bo-
dy's being diftant from it felf than in aliertin^its^i5/^«//)'.
P. I perceive yi6u are inclined tb be a 'LutPirdh. ' '
-Noifuch nnattSr.: For I think the^j^l?eqy;j^l^Prgper-
' tics^df d Finite and Infinite Being are iQcoramunicabie to
eack-Jbther, and I look on Zthi^uity as one of them.
P. Then thefame Argument will not hold as to Prefence
'rnifetvty^ placed., for this i^dtib-Inf 'mtNPerfefifn. ''
■ '^/^.-i YouWu-n fromJ 6rte Argument to ^an ^Fdr
thefe are two diftindb ways of arguing; .and the Argu-
ment ^tom \kt Repugnancy of it to the'NaturO of a' Body,
doth as welbhold'againfl: Vhiquity/^ as That it is a Divine
Perfehficn. '-'And.St. - Augtif in^ in'that i^xcellent"' Ep^iftle
doth argue from the Effential Properties and Dmenfchs
of Bodies,'and the'difference of the of a Spirit,
and^'-a-Body. I ^tay read and confider thatEpiftle, and
-you'will tbink^itf'iiri^dffible St. Auguftin believe
SranfuhfluntidPi^^ ■ - Ji: - u -
C z P.
r
C 2-0 )
T. St. Augu/ii» W3lS a great Difputant, anil futh are
wont while they are eager upon one Point, to forget ano-
ther. But St. AuguHm elfewhere doth aflert the Prefence
of Chrih's real Body in the Sacrament.
Pr. Then the plain Ct>nfe.que;ice is, that he contradid-
ed himfelf. '
P. But he doth not fpeak of a Sacramental Prefence.
Pr. What again ? But St. AugwHin makes this an ellen-
tial difference between a Divine and
Non enim Corpora funt quorum.3m-, Corporal Ptefence j that the one doth not
phor fit in tribus quam in fingulU mag- places hy its Dimenfions as the other-
nitudo, nec loca fulS molibus tencntjUt ( r , r>j- i • i-
difiantibus fpatiii fimul efle non pof- doth ^ io that Bodies cannot be in di".
fint. AdDardan. ftant places at once. What think yon
of this ?
P. I pray go on. ,
Pr. What think you of the Manichees Dodlrine , wlto-
held that ChriH mas in the Sun and Moon when he fuffered on
the Croff Was this pofTible or not ?
P. What would you draw from hence ?
Pr. Nothing mcwcj but that St..
«'^/?»difproVed it, lecaufe his Body could
Cruce efic non poflet, he at the fame time tn the Sun and
Moon ^ and upon Earth ?
P. As to the ordinary courfe of Nature ^ St. Ai^ptifins
^ Argument, holds, but not as to. the Mirayuleus Popier of
God. '
Pr. There is a difference between the ordinary Courfe of
Nature^ and unchangeable Qrder of Nature. . ,
P. Let me ht^ar this againfor, it is neW' Dodfrirte
^to us. ^ •
Pr. That's ftrangel Thofe things are hy the ordi-
nary Courfe of Nature, which cannot be changed hut by
Divine Power ^ but imply no Repugnancy for God. to al-
ter that'Courfe'; but thofe' are by triQ uncbangeythkDfder of
s'O Nature,
C I 3
Nature^ which cannot be done without overthrowing the
very Nature of the things; and fuch things are irapofli-
ble in themfelves, and therefore God himfelf cannot do
them.
jP. It feems then you fet Bounds to God's Omnipo-
tency.
Pr. Doth not the Scripture fay, there are fame things
impojfthle for God to do ?
P. Yes; fuch as are repugnant to his own PerfeSlions;
as it is impnffihle for God to lye.
Pr. But are there no other things impoflible to be
done ? What think you of making the time paft not to be
paft ?
P. That is impolTible in it felf.
Pr. But is it not impoflible for the fame Body to be in
two different times ?
P. Yes.
Pr. Why not then in two or more different Places j
fince a Body is as certainly confined, as to Place, as it is
to Time?
P. You are run now into the Point ..of Realbn, when-'
we were upon St. AuguBins Teftimony,
Pr. But I fay, St. Auguflin went upon this ground, that
it was repugnant to the Mature of a Body to be in more
places than one at the fame time. And fo like wife Cdfi-
an proves, That when ChriH was upon
Earth he could not he in Heaven., hut in loquitur in- Coslo
nzard of his Is there not
the, fame' Repugnancy for a Body in .
Heavens
C zz )
heaven to he upon Earth, as for a Body upon Earth to he^ in
Heaven ?
P- Thefe are new Queftions, which I have not met
with in our Writers, and therefore I iliail take time to
anfwer them. But all thefe Teftimonies proceed upon a
Body confidered under the Efature of a Body; but in the
Sacrament we confider ChriH's Body as prefent after the
manner of a Spirit.
Tr. That was the next thing I promifed to prove
from the Fathers, that they knew of no fuch thing, and
therefore could not believe your Dodbrine. Have you
obferved what tlie Fathers fay about the difference, of
Body and Spirit >
P. Not I; but I have read our Authors, who produce
them for our Dodbrine.
4 • • ,
Pr. That is the perpetual fault of your Writers, to
attend more to the found of their Words, than to the
force of their Reafonings. They bring places out of Po-
pular Difcourfes intended to heighten the Peoples Devo-
tion , and never compare thern with thofe Principles
which they aflert, when they come to Reafoning ,•
which would plainly fliew their other Expreflions are
to be underftood in a Myflical and Figurative Senje. But
I pray tell me, do you think the Fathers had no diflindb
Notion of a Body and Spirit, and the Eflential Properties
of both ? '
P. Yes doubtiefs.
Pr. Suppofe then they made thofe to lye in fuch things-
as are inconfiftent with the Prefence of ChriWs Bddfin the
Sacrament after the manner of a Spirit; do you think
then
C ^3 )
then they could hold it to be fo prefent ? And iF
they did not, they could not believe tranfHlJiantia-
tion.
f. Very true.
Pr. What think you then of St. Augujiin^ who makes
it impofhble for a Body to be without its Dimenfions
and Extenfion of Parts ? But you allert a Body may
be without them ; or elfe it cannot be after man-
ner of a Spirit^ as you fay it is in the Sacrament.
P. I pray lliew that St. Auguflm made it inconfillent
with the Nature of a Body to be otherwife.
Pr. He laith, fhat all Bodies how grofs or fuhtle fo-
ever they can never he all every where (J. e. cannot
be indivifibly prefent after the manner of a Spirit} hut
mufl he extended according to their feveral Farts., and "fatten '
vohether great or little., mufl take up a fpace, and fo fill Corpora,
the Place., that it cannot he all in any one Part. Is this quorum
■polTible to be reconciled with your Notion of a Body nullum po-.
being prefent after the manner of a Spirit ^ tell elTe ubi-
que totum,
quoniam per innumerabiles partes aliud alibi habeat neceflfe eft. Et quantum-
cunq; lit Corpus, feu quantulumcunque corpufculum, loci occupet fpatium
eundeinque locum fic impleat,. ut in nulla ejus parte fit totum. Ad Voluliam.
P. To be prefent after the manner of a Spirit,is with
us, to be fo prefent, as not to he extended, and to be-
wlxile in every part. ' ,
Pr. But this St. Auguflin faith, no Body can he ; and
not only there,but ehWhere he i'iithfiCake away Dirmn-
ftons from Bodies, and they_are no longer BodiesAnd
thai.
J-
i
is
!i i
■i'F
■If
i'
' 1
:'l|
' \
1
I ;
A'
t ■■
•I :
IBM
C M )
Quanquam ^ greater part takes up a greater fpace^ and a leffer
fihocdemas Or lefs ; and mufi he always lefs in the part than in the
Corporibus, whole.
quantum
• mea opinio eft, neq; fentiri poflunt, neque omnino Corpora efle recie exiftima-
rem. De Quant. Anims, c. 4. _ _ ■ - • rn.-
Quod per loci fpatium aliqua longitudine, latitudine, altitudine ita fiftitur
vel movetur, ut majore fui parte majorem locum occupet, & brcviore brevio-
rem, minufq; Ct in parte quam m toto. Ad Hieron. Ep. i
P. But he fpeaks of Extenfion in it felf, and not with
refpe<ft to Place.
Pr. That is of Extenfion that is not extended-, for
if it be, it muft have refped: to place ; but nothing
can be plainer, than that St. Auguflin doth fpeak
Non om- refpe£i to Place. And he elfewhere faith, That every
nino poteft Body muH have Place, and he extended in it.
cfle aliquod
Corpus, fiveCoelefte, five Terreftre, five Aereum, fivehumidum, quod non
minus fit in parte quam in toto, neque ullo modo poflit in loco hujus partis
fimul habere aliam partem, fed aliud hie, aliud alibi habens per quaelibet fpatia
locorum diftantia & dividua,vel potius ut ita dicam, fedili more diftenditur. C.
Epift. Manich. c. 16.
Omne Corpus locale eft, & omne locale Corpus eft. 63. Q^aeft. c. 35.
Corpus quodlibet per localia fpatia porredum eft. 83. Qusft. c. 51.
P. But he doth not fpeak this of the Sacrament.
; - Pr. BvLthefTpesLks'itoUd,]! Bodies wherefoever prefent;
and he doth not except the Sacrament, which he would
certainly have done, if he had believed as you do con-,
cerning it.
P. St. AuguHin might have particular Opinions in
this, as he had in other things.
Pr.
C )
Fr. So far from it, that I Ihall make it appear, that this ^
was the general Senfe of the Fathers. St. Gregory Nazian-
zen faith, That the Nature of Bodies requires., that they have
Figure and Shape, and may le touched, and feen, and circim-
fcrihed. St. Cyril of Alexandria faith, That if God himfelf olaL i. de°"
were a Body, he mufi he liable to the Properties of Bodies, and Trin.
he muH he in a place, as Bodies are. And all thofe Fathers,
who prove, tliat God cannot be a Body, do it from fucli
Arguments as Ihew, that they knew nothing of a Bodies
Being after the manner of a Spirit: For then the force of
their Arguments is lofl, which are taken from the Effential
Properties of a Body, fuch as Extenfion, Divifihility, and
Circumfcription. But if a Body may be without thefe, then
God may be a Body after the manner of a Spirit; and fo the
Spirituality of the Divine Nature will be taken away.
P. I never heard thefe Arguments before, and mufb take
fome time to confider.
Pr. The fooner the better,- and I am fure if you do,
you will repent being a New Convert. But I have yet
fomething to add to this Argument,- viz. That thofe who
have flated the Difference between Body and Spirit, have
made Extenfion, and taking up a place, and Divifihility, ne^ Claud. Ma-
ceffary to the very Being of a Body; and that what is not cir- "lert.de Statu
cumfcrihed, is incorporeal. 1 5'
P. Methinks your Arguments run out to a great length, c.' 14.'
I pray bring tliem into a lefs Compafs.
Pr. I proceed to a Third Argument from the Fathers,
which will not take up much time; and that is, That the
Fathers knew nothing of the Suhfijience of Accidents with'
out their Suhflance, without which Tranfuhflantiation cannot
be maintained: And therefore in the Roman Schools, thepof-
fihility of Accidents fubfifting without their Suhjehls, is de-
fended. But on the contrary, Maximus, one of the eldeli Apud. Eufeb.
of the Fathers, who lived in the Second Century, affirms
it to he of the Bffence of Accidents to he in their Suhfiance.
D St.
c lO
Bafii. Epift.43. St. Bafilimh, Nature doth not hear a difl'mhiton between Body
and Figure^ ahho Reafon wakes one.
Ifidor. Epift. Ifidore Felufiota. faith, That Quality cannot he without Suh-
, ,,
Greg. NyfTen. Gregory Njffen, That Figure cannot he wtthout Body, and
in Hexacm. p. ^ Body-cannot he conceived without Qualities: And that
De Horn. Opi- if take away Colour , and Quantity, and Refijlance, the
ficio. c. 24. whole Notion of a Body is deflroy d. Take away Space from
iSug. Ep. ad Bodies, faith St. Auguflin, and they can he no where; and if
Dardanum. they can he no where, they cannot he: And fo he faith, if we
cent. Julian. 1. ff^gir Qualities. And in plain terms,
That no Qualities, as Colours, or Form, can remain without
their Suhjehi-
ifid. Origin. And that no Accidents can he without their Suhjehl, is in ,
Bocth.dePrje- affirmed by Ifidore Hifpalenfis, Boethius, Damafcen,
die. Damaf. and Others, who give an Account of the Philofophy of the
cen.Diatc I. Ancients.
c. "' P' All this proceeds upon the old Philofophy of Accidents:
What if there be none at all ?
Pr. What then makes tht fame Imprefiion on ourSenfes
when the Suhflance is gone, as when it was there? Is there
a perpetual Miracle to deceive our Senfes? Butitisimpof-
fible to maintain Tranfuhjlantiation, as it is defined in the
Church ofwithout They may hold fome
other DocTrine in the place of it, but they cannot hold
that. And that other Dod:rine will be_as impoffible to be
underftood. For if once we fuppofe the Body of Chrift to
be in the Sacrament, in place of the Suhfance of the Bread,
which appears to our Senfes to be Bread ftill: Then fup-
pofe riiere be no Accidents, the Body of a Man muft make
the fame Impreffion on our Senfes, vj\\ich. t\\Q Suhflance of
Bread doth, which is fo horrible an Abfurdity, that the Phi-
' lofophy of Accidents cannot imply any greater than it.So that
, .y the New. Trah/uhflantfdtors h^d as good return to the Old
r- Mdmpfi'md}ohAccidehhS'-' . .'.-o'v -A . ...
C 17 )
T. I fupppfe you have now done with this Argument.
Pr. No: I have fomething farther to fay about it, which
is, that the Fathers do not only aflert, That Accidents can-
not be without their'Suhje^i^ but they confute Hereticks on
that Suppofition ,• which Ihew'd their aflurance of the Truth
of it.
Irenceus mzt^XQi^^PtitValeittiman Conjugations^ becaufe iren.i.z.c. 14.
Truth can no more be without a Subjekl, than Water without
MoifiurCy or Fire without Htat, or a Stone without Hard-
nefs; which are fo joined together^ that they cannot be fepa-
rated.
Methodius confutes Origens Fancy about the Soul ha- Apud. Phor.
ving the Shape of a Body without the Subflance, be- Cod. 834.
caufe the Shape and tloe Body cannot be feparated from each
other.
St. Auguflin proves the Immortality of the Soul from
hence, becaufe meer Accidents can never be feparated from mort. Anim.
the Bodyy fo as the mind is by abflrallion. And in another j
place he allertsit to be a monflrous abfurdDoHrine. to fup-
pofe thaty whofe Nature is to be in a Subjeliy to be capable of
fubjijling without it.
Claudianus Mamertus proves, That the Soul could not be in De Statu AnU
the Body as its Subjell; for then it could not fubfifl when the '■ 3- «• 3-
Body is deftroy d.
P. I hope you have now done with this Third Argu-
ment.
Pr. Yes; and I fliallwaityourowntimefor anAnfwer.
I go on to a Fourth: And that is from the Evidence of Senfe
averted and allowed by the Fathersy with refpe(2: to the Bo-
dy of Chrift.
P. I expedted this before now. For, as the Author of
the Single Sheet obferves: This is the Cock-Argument of one
of the Lights of your Church; and it fo far refembles the
Lighty that like zV, it makes a glaring fheWy but go to grafp
ity and you find nothinginyour hand.
D X
Pr.
( }
Pr. Then it's plain ourSenfes are deceived.
P. l^oidiStoTranfuhJiantiatioti: iox he h'elieveimore of his
Senfes than we do: for his Eyes tell him there is the Colour of
Breads and he affents to them; his Tongue, that it has the Tafle
of Bread, and he agrees to it: and fo for his Smelling and
Feeling: But then he hath a notable fetch in his Conclufion;
-viz. That his Ears tell him from the Words fpoken hy Chrifi
himjelf that it is the Body of ChriH, and he believes thefe
too. Is not here one Senfe more than you believe ? And yet
you would perfuade the World, that we do not believe our
Senfes.
Pr. This is admirable Stuff; but it mufl be tenderly
dealt with. For I pray what doth he mean when he faith,
he believes from ChriWs own Words, that it is the Body of
ChriH i What is this It > Is it the Accidents he fpeaks of be-
fore ? Are thofe Accidents then the Body of Chrifl > Is it the
Subjiance of Breadi But that is not difcerned by the Senfes
he faith: and if it were, will lie fay, that the Subftance
of Bread is the Body of Chrifl ? If neither of thefe,' then
his believing It is the Body of ChriH, fignifies nothings
for there can be no fenfe of it.
P. However, he Ihews, That we who believe Tranfubflan-
tiation, do not renounce our Senfes, as you commonly reproach
us: For we believe all that our Senfes reprefent to us,w hich
isonly the outward appearance. For, as he well obferves,
If your Eyes fee the SubHance of things, they are moH ex-
traordinary ones, and better than ours. For our parts, we
fee no farther than the Colour or Figure, &c. of things which
are only Accidents, and the entire Object of that Senfe.
Pr. Is tliere no difference between the Perception of Senfe,
and the Evidence ol Senfe? We grant, that the Perception
of our Senfes goes no farther than to the outward Accidents',
but that Perception affords fuch an Evidence by which the
Mind doth pafs Judgment upon the thing rcprefented by the
outward Senfe. I pray tell me, have you any certainty there
is
C ^9 }
is fuch a thing as a material SulHance in the World >
?. Yes.
Tr. Whence conies the certainty of the SuhHancCy fincc
your Senfes cannot dilcover it ? Do we live among nothing
but Accidents ? Or can we know nothing beyond them?
P. I grant we may know in general that there are fuch
things as SuhHances in the World.
Pr. But can we not know the difference of one Suljflance
from another, by our Senfes ? As for inftance, can we pot
know a Man from a Horfe, or an Elephant from a Moufe,
or a piece of Bread from a Church ? Or do we only know
there are fuch and fuch Accidents belong to every one of
tbefe; but our Senfes are not fo extraordinary to difcover
the Suhflances under them ? I pray anfwer me one Qiieffi-
on, Did you ever keep Lent ?
P. What a ftrange Queflion is this ? Did you not tell
me, you would avoid Impertinencies ? ^
Pr. This is none, I afliire you.
P. Then I anfwer, I think my felf obliged to keep it.
Pr. Then you thought your felf bound to abflain from
Flejhy and to eat Fijh.
P. What of all that ?
Pr. Was it the Suhjlance of Flejh you abffained from, or
only the Accidents of it ?
P. The Suhjlance }
Pr. And did you know the difference between the Sui'
Bance of Flejh and Fijh by your Tafl >
P. Yes.
Pr. Then you have an extraordinary TaB^ which goes'
to the very SuhBance ?
P. But this is off from our Bufinefs, which was about
the FatherSyUnd not our own Judgment about the Evidence
of Senfe.
Pr. I am ready for you upon that Argument. And I only
defire to know whether you think the Evidence of Senfe
fuflicb.
C 30 )
fufficient, as to the true Body of ChriH, where it is fuppo-
fed to be prefent ?
P. By no means ; For then we could not believe it to be
prefent, where we cannot perceive it. , .
Pr. But the Fathers did aflert the Evidence of Senfe to
Iren. 1.3.26. be fufficient, as to the true Body of Chrift ,• fo Irentzm^
V 7- Tertullian^ Epiphanius^ Hilary^ and St. AuguHin. I will
ne chrifttc"". prodiyce their Words at length, if you defire thenj. .
Adrerf.Marc.l. . ^ n
4.0.43.13.6.8,11. Epiphan. haer 42,64. Hilar, in Pfal. 137. Aug. c. Fault I. 29. c. t.
1.14. c. 10. 83.,Qua:ft. c. 14. Serm. 238.
P. It will be but loft labour, fince we deny not, as Cai- |
dinal Bellarmin well faith, the Evidence of Senfe to le a 1
DeEuch. 1. goodpojitive Evidence^ hut not a negative^ i.e. that it is a
Body, which is handled, and felt,and feen ; but not,that
it is no Body which is not. I
Pr. Very well! And I pray then what becomes of your
fingle Sheet tnan^^jvhofo confidently deniesto be good
pojitive Evidence as to a real Body; but only as to the out-
ward appearance ?
P. You miftake him j for he faith. We are to helieve our
SenfeSy where they are not indifpofedy and no Divine Reve* j
lation intervenesyN\iiQh. we believe there doth in this Cafe; I
and therefore, unlefs the Fathers fpeak of the Sacrament, |
we have no reafon to regard their Teftimonies in this mat-
ter. But we have ftronger Evidence againft you from the
Fathers, for they fay we are not to rely on the Evidence
of Senfe, as to the Sacrament. So St. Cyril, St. Chryfoftom,
and St. Amlrofe.
Pr. I am glad you offer any thing which deferves to be
confidered. But have you already forgot Bellarmins Rule,
That Senfe may be a good pojitive Evidence foMX. not a nega-
five, i. e. it may difcover what is prefent as a Body, but not
what is not, and cannot be fo prefent, viz. the Invifille
Grace which goes along with it; and as to this the Fathers
might well fay, we are not to truft our Senfe. p. This
C 3O
ppo p. This is making an Interpretation for them.
Pf. No fuch matter. It is the proper and genuine Senfe
[ote of their Words; as will appear from hence.
(i.} They aflert the very fame, as to the Chrifm and
uttj Baptifm:, which they do as to the Cyril. Myftag.
'rem, C^O That which they fay, our Sevfes cannot reach, is 5-
[ .] fomething of a, and not a. Body. And chryfoftMn
here the Cafe is extremely different from the Judgment Matt, hom 8?.
of Senfe, as to a material Suhflance. And if you pleafe, I Ambrof.dehis
will evidently prove from the Fathers, that that wherein
they excluded the Judgment of Senfe in the Eucharift,
G'. was fomething wholly Spititualand Immaterial,
ki P' No, no, we have been long enough upon the Fathers,
is a unlefs their Evidence were more certain one way or other,
iliat For my part, I believe on the account of Divine Revelation
in this matter. This is my Body ; here I flick, and the Fa-
your thers agreed with us herein, that Chrifl's words are not to
be taken in a figurative Senfe.
Ijjj;, Pr. The contrary hath been fb plainly, proved in a late
excellent Difcourfe of Trar^uhflantiation , that I wonder
none of your Party have yet undertaken to anfwer it; but
they write on, as if no fuch Treatife had appear'd: I fliall
■£, therefore wave all the Proofs that are there produced, till
jgj fonae tolerable Anfwer be given to them,
jg.' P. Methinks you have taken a great Liberty of talking
ubout the Fathers, as the they were all on your fide; but
our late Authors afliire us to the contrary j and I hope I may
now make ufe of them, to fhew that was
'the Faith of the Ancient Church.
, fje Pr.. With all my heart,I even long to hear what they can
fay in a matter, I think, fo clear on our fide.
P. Well, Sir, I begin with the Confenfus Vetervm, written
by one that profefled himfelf a Minijier of the Church of
fi!i
» ■ ' fr.
(32-3
Pr. Make what you can of him, now you have him ,• but
I will meddle with no perfonal Things, I defire to hear his
Arguments.
P. What fay you to/?. Selomo^ interpreting the yx.Pfal.
^ConfenfuiVe- qj: j^afers in the days of the Meftas ; to R. Mofes
22Haddarfan, on Gen. 39-1. '^tidon Pfal. i3(i ^5. to R. Caha-
na, on Gen. 49. i. who was long before the Nativity of Chrifl j
R. Johai, on Numh. z8. x. and to R. Judas, who was many
years before Chrifl came.
Pr. Can you hold your Countenance when you repeat
thefe things? But any thing mull pafs from a New Convert.
What think you of R. Cahana, and /?. Judas., who lived fo
long before our Saviour, when we know that the Jews
have no Writings preferved near to our Saviour's time,
befides the Bible, and feme fay the Paraphrafls upon it.
I would have been glad to have feen thefe Teflimonies
taken from their Original Authors, and not from Ga-
latinuSi who is known to have been a notorious Plagiary., as
to the main of his Book, and of little or no Credit as to the
reft. But it is ridiculous to produce the Teflimonies
of JewiJh Rabbins for Tranfuhjiantiation., when it is fo well
known that it is one of their greateft objecftions againft Chri'
flianity., as taught in the Roman Church, as may be feen in
Jofeph Albo, and others. But what is all this to the Tefti-
mony of the Chrijlian Fathers ?
P. Will not you let a Man Ihew a little JewiJh Learning
upon occafion ? But if you have a mind to the Fathers, you
lhall have enough of themj for I have a large Catalogue
of them to produce, from the Confenfus Feterum, Nubes
Tejlium^ and the jingle Sheet., which generally agree.
Pr. With Coccius or Bellarmin, you mean; but before you
produce them, I pray tell me what you intend to prove by
them?
P. The Dodlrine of our Church.
Pr. As to what?
P. What
C 53 ) ^
T, What have we been about all this while ?
Pr. Tranfuhflantiatiofi. Will you prove that ?
P. Why do you fufpedt me before I begin ?
Pr. I have fome Reafon for it. Let us firfl agree what
we mean by it. Do you mean the fame which the Church
of Rome doth by it, in the Council of Trent i
P. What can we mean elfe?
Pr. Let us firfl: fee what that is. The Council di Trent
declares, That the fame Body of Chrifl.^ which is in Heaveny
is reallyy truly andfuhflantially prefent in the Euchariji after
Confecration, under the Species of Bread and Wine. And
the Roman Catechifm faith, It is the very Body which was
horn of the Virgin^ and fits at the right hand of God.
That the Bread and Wine after Confecrationy lofe their proper
SulfianceSy and are changed into that very Suhftance of the
Body of Chrifl. And an Anathema is denounced againft
thofe who affirm the contrary. Now if you pleafe, proceed
to your Proofs.
p. I begin with the Ancient Liturgies, of St. Peter, St. Confenf. Vec.
James, and St. Matthew. p. 27-
Pr. Are you in earnefl ?
P. Why; what is the matter?
Pr. Do not you know, that thefe are rejected as Sup-
pojititious, by- your own Writers ? And a very late and
learned Dr. of the Sgrhon, hath given full and clear Evi- t<;ouvene Si-
denceS of it. bUothJes An-
P. Suppofe they are, Tet they may he of Antiquity enoughy
to give fome competent Tefiimony as to Tradition. dn Pin.
Pr. No fuch matter: For he proves St. Peter'j Liturgyy
to be later than the Sacramentary of St. Gregory; and lb
can prove nothing for the firfl 600 years; and the Mthio- P. 22.
pick Liturgy, or St. Matthew'Sy he fliews to be very late.
That of Sf.jamesy he thinks to have been fome time before
the Five General Councils; but by no means to have been St. P- 23.^
James's.
E p. Wliat
C 34 3
V. What think you of the Ath of St. Andrew, and
Confenf.p.30. faith therein, a&out eating the Flep) of ChriH?
Pr. I think he faith nothing to the purpofe. But T am
afliamed to find one, who hath fo long been a Minifler in
this Church, fo extreamly ignorant, as to bring thefe for
■ . good Authorities^ which are rejected with fcorfl by all Men
of Learning and Ingenuity among you.
P. I am afraid you grow angry.
Pr. I confefs, Ignorance and Confidence together, are very
provoking things; efpecially, when a Man in years pre-
tends to leave our Church on fuch pitiful Grounds.
P. But he doth produce better Authorities.
Pr. If he doth, they are not to his purpofe.
P. That mufl be tried; What fay you to Ignatius! I
hope you allow his Epiflles
Pr. I fee no reafon to the contrary. But what faith he ?
P. He faith, That fome Hereticks then would not receive
t}>e Eucharift and Oblations^ hecaufe they will not confefs the
Eucharifl to be the Flefh. of our Saviour Chrijl. And this is
Jfubes Tefti. produced by both Authors.
um, p. 109. Perfons Ignatius fpeaks of, were fuch as denied
Chrift to have any true Body., and therefore did forbear the
Eucharifl^ becaufe it was faid to be his Body. And in what
ever Senfe it were taken, it ftill fuppofed that which they
denied, viz. that he had a true Body: For, if it were fi-
guratively underhood, it was as contrary to their Dod-rine,
as if it were literally. For a Figure mufl relate to a real
^rdon*i Body., asTertu!Iianarg\\td\nt\\\sQa(Q. EwMgnatiusmthQ
c.. 40. fame mentions the trial Chrifl made of his true Body,
by the Senfes of his Difciples, Take hold of we, and handle me^
and fee., for lam no incorporeal Damon^; and immediately they
tauched him., and were convinced. Which happen'd but a few
days after Chrifl jjad faid, This is my Body; and our Savi-
our gave a Rule for judging a true Body, from an ap-
pearance, or fpiritual Subflance; A Spirit hath not Flejh and
Benes^
C 50
ai](j BoneSy as ye fee me have. Therefore it is very improbable
i that Ignatius fo foon after, ihould allert that Chrift's true
and real Body was in the Eucharift, where it could be nei
ther feen nor felt: For then he muft overtiirow the force
of his former Argument. And to what purpofe did Chrifl:
fay, That a Spirit had not Flejh and Bones., as they faw him
to have ; if a Body of Chrifl might be fo much after the
manner of a Spirit^ as tho it had Flefli and Bones, yet they
reffn' could not poffibly be difcerned ? But after all, fuppole
rjpjj., Ignatius do\h fpeak of the Subftance of Chrift's FJelh, as
prefent in the Eucharif ; yet he faith not a word of the
thanging of the Suhliance of the Bread into the Suh-
fiance of Chrifls Body; which was the thing to be
^ proved.
P. But Juflin Martyr doth fpeak of the change, and his
Words are produced by all three. And they are thus ren-
dred in the fingle Sheet. For ive do not receive this as
is \\i common Bread., or common Drink, but as by the Word of God,
tliisis Chrifl our Bedeemer being made Man, had both Flejh
and Blood for our Salvation; fo alfo, we are taught that this
'nid Tood, by which our Blood and Flejh are by a change nourifh-
ed, being confecrated by the Power of the Word, is the Flejh
and Blood of Jefus Chrifi incarnate : What fay you to
v\«v •
Pr. I defire you to confider thefe things, (i.) That
L Jujlin Martyr doth not fay, That the Bread and Wine are
by Confecration changed into the Individual Flejh and
Blood, in which Chrifl was Incarnate, but that, as by the
Power of the Word, Chrifl once had a Body in the Womb of
''' the Virgin; fo by the Power of the fame Word, upon Confecra-
1 ^ tion-, the Bread and Wine do become the Flefh and Blood of
I Chrifl Incarnate; fb that he muft mean a parallel, and not
^ j the fame Individual Body, i. e. that as the Body in the Womb
became the Body of Chrifl by the Power oj the Holy Spirit;
% fo the Holy Sfirit after Confecration, makes the Elements
' ' £2 to
<(S,
C 3^ )
to become the Flefli and Blood of Chrift, not by an Hy'
poflatkal Vnion\ but by Divine Influence, as the Church is
the Body of Chriff. And this was the true Notion of the
Ancient Church,as to this matter,and the expreflions in the
Greek Liturgies to this day confirm the fame, (i.) He
doth not in the ieaft imply that the Elements by this
change do lofe their Sulflance; for he mentions the nourifh-
ment of our Bodies ly it; but he affirms, that notwithfland-
ing their Subftance remain, yet the Divine Spirit of ChriH,
hy its Operation, doth make them become his Body. For we i
mull obferve, that he attributes the Body in the Womh.,
and on the Altar, to the fame or Divine Word. For
he did not think Hypoflatical Vnion neceflary, to make the |
Elements become the Body of Chrifl, but a Divine Energy j
was fufficient, as the Bodies aflumed hy. Angels are their
Bodies, tho there be no fuch vital Vnion, as there is between
the Soul and Body of a Man.
P. I go on to Iremzus, from whom t\vo places are produ'
P. 3 '• ced,one by the Confenfus Veterum, where he faith, that which
Iren. 1. 4. c. Bread from the Earth, perceiving the call of God, novo is not
common Br end, hut the EuchariH, confifling of two things, one
Earthly, and the other Spiritual. •
Pr. Very well i Then there is an Earthly, as well as a Spi-
ritual thing in the Eucharift, i. e. a Bodily Suhflance, and Dk ;
vine Grace. i
P. Nohe faith, The Earthly is the Accidents. |
Pr. Doth Irenceus fay fo ? - - [
P. No ^ but he means fo. - :
Pr. There is not a word to that purpofe in Trenreus ;
and therefore this is downright Prevarication. I grant Ire-
nceus doth fuppofe a change made by Divine Grace; but not
by delfroying the Elements, but by fuper-adding Divine Grace
to them; and fo the Bread becomes the Body of Chrifl, and
the Wine his Blood.
P. The
C37)
J*. The other place in Irenceus is, where he faith, That Jfc"- l-s-c-J"
as the Bread receivm^the Word of God^ is made theEucha-
riH^ which is the Body and Blood of Chrifl^ fo ^{fo our Bodies
hein^ nourifhed hy it^ and laid in the Earthy and there dif
folved^ will arife at their time^ &c.
Pr. What do you prove from this place ?
P. That the fame Divine Power is feen in making the Eu-
charifl the Body and Blood of Chrifl^ which is to be in the Re-
furreliion of the Body:
Pr. But doth this prove, that the Suhflance of the Bread
is changed into the Suhflance of ChriJFs Body >
P. Why not ?
Pr. I will give you a plain Argument againftit; for he
faith,Oar Bodies are nourifhed by the Body and Blood of Chrifl.
Do you think that Irenceus believed the fubflance of Chrifls
Body was turned into the fubflance of our Bodies^ in order to
their nourilhment ? No; he explained himfelfjuft before in
the fame place; De Calice qui efl Sanguis ejus^ nutritur; ^
de pane qui efl Corpus ejus-, augetur: So that he attributes the
nourifhment to the Bread and Wine; and therefore muft fup-
pofe the fubflance of them to remain, fince it is impolfible a
fubHantial nourifhment ihould be made by meer Accidents.
And withal, obferve, he faith cxprefly. That the Bread is
the Body of Chrifl; which your beft Writers (fuch as Bel-
larmin, Suarez and Pafquez) fay, is inconfiHent with Tran-
fubflantiation.
P. My next Author is Tertullian, who is produced by
the Confenfus Veterum^ and the Single Sheets but omitted
by the Nubes Teflium ; but the other proves. That Bread
which was the Figure of Chrifls Body in the Old Teflament,
now in the New, is changed into the real and true Body of
Chrifl.
Pr. This is a bold Attempt upon Tertullian, to prove,
that by the Figure of Chrifl's Body, he means his true con. Marcior
real Body. For his Words are, Acceptum panem ^ diflrihu-1.4. c. 4®.
turn
C 3§ )
; turn Difcipulh Corpus illtm fuum fecit^ Hoc efl Corpus meuM
. elkendoy id efly Figura Corporis met. He took the breadand
gave it to his Difciples^ and made it his Body., f^yiftg-, This is
my Body ; i.e. this is the Figure of my Body. How can thofe
men want Proofs, that can draw Tranjubflantiation from
thefe Words, which are fo plain againft it >
P. You are miftaken ; Tertullian by Figure,mQ^ntyt was
a Figure in the Old Teflament., but it was now his real Body.
Pr. You put very odd Figures upon tertullian: I appeal
to any reafonable man,whether by the latter words he doth
not explain the former ? For he puts the Senfe upon Corpus
meum, by adding dicendo to them; I e. This is the meaning
of that fpeech., wlien he calleth 'the Bread his Body.
, , P. Doth not Tertullian fay, That it had not beet^th^ Pi
gure., unlefi it had been the Truth ?
< Pr. This is again perverting his w ords, which 2X%FigH-
ratum nonfuiffet n 'tfi veritatis efj'et Corpus ; i.e.there had been
no place for a Figure of ChriJTs Body., unlefs Chriji had a true
body. For he was proving againll Marcion, thzx. Chriji had
a true Body; and among other Arguments he produces
this from the Figure of his Body., w hich he not only men-
tions here, but in other places; where he faith, That Chriji
gave the Figure of his Body to the Bread; which cannot re-
Gon.Marcion. j^te to any Figure of the Old Tejlament.
1.3.C.19.I.5.C.8. FertuUian fay afterwards,//!'*?/ the Bread
was the figure of Chriji's body in the Old Tejlament ?
Pr. What then ? He had Two Defigns againft Marcicn;
one to prove, that Chriji had a true body., w hich he doth
here from the figure oj his body: and the other, that there
was a Correfpondency of both Tejiaments : and for that pur-
pofe he ftiews, that the bread in Jeremiah, was the figure
of Chriji's body.
P. But the Author of the S'lngle Sheets cites another
Tertullian^ where he faith, that our flejh feeds on
j)e Refar, c.8. the body and Mood of Chrifl^ that our foul may be filled with
God. Pr.
(39 3
Tr. By the hody and llood of Chrifl^ he means there, the
Elements^ with Divine Grace going along with them j as ap-
pears by his defign, which is, to ihew how the hody andfoul
are joyned together in Sacramental Rites. The fiefh is wafh-
ed^ and the foul is clean fed; the flejh is anointed^ and the foul
confecrated; the flefh is fgned^and the foul confirmed; the fiefh
hath hands laid upan it., and the foul enlighten d; the fiefh
feeds on the hody and hlood of Chrifi, that the foul may he
filled with God. Now unlels Tertullian meant the Elements,
the Parallel doth not proceed; for all the reft are fpoken
of the external Symbols ; and fo this doth not at all con-
tradicft what he faith elfewhere, no more than the Paflitge
in the fecond Book adVxorem doth. For there he fpeaks of
Chrifl., with refpell to the invifihle Grace., as he doth here,
as to the outward Symbols..
P. Clemens Alexandrinus faith, That Melchifedeck gave Strom. 4.
Bread and Wine in figure of the Eucharifi.
Pr. And what then i What is this to Tranfuhflanti-
ation ?
P. Oyigen laith, When you eat and drink the hody and hlood Horn. 5. in dU
of our Lordj then our Lord enters under your roof ^c.
Pr. Are you fure that Origen faid this ? But fuppofe he
did, muft he enter with his fiefh and hones^ and not much
rather by a peculiar prefence of his. Grace t For is it not
Origen who fo carefully diftinguilhes the Typical and Sym-
holical hody of Chrififrom the Divine Wordjand fo exprefly
mentions the material part of .the Elements after Con- Comment, in-
fecration, which pafs into the Draught, (^c. Is all this meant 15,
of the Accidents only ?
P. What fay you to St. Cyprian de Ccena Domini ?
Pr. I beg your pardon, Sir; this is now known and ac-
knowledged to be a late Author, in comparifon, and can-
not come within your 600 years ; and therefore, is not
ancient enough to be conftdered.
P. But
C 40 )
Cypr.de lapfi*. But fn Bjs genuine Writings he fpeaks of thofe who of-
ferd Violence to the hody and blood of our Lord in the Eu'
charijl.
Pr. And I pray what follows ? That the fubffance of the
Ep5ft.d3.N.^. Elements is gone : Where lies theConfequence > But St. Cy-
prian faith, the bread was his body^ and the wine his blood ;
therefore their fubftance muft remain.
P. What fay you to Eufebius Emefenus ?
Pr. That he is not within our compafs ; and withal,
that he is a known Counterfeit.
P. I perceive you are hard to pleafe.
Pr. You fay very true, as to fuppofititious Writers.
P. I hope you have more Reverence for the Council of
Nice. -
Pr.. But where doth that fpeak of Tranfubflantiation '•
P. \t caWstht Eucharijl the body of Chrid.
Pr. And fo doth the Church of England ; therefore that
holds Tranfubflantiation. I pray bring no more fuch Tefti-
monies, wliich prove nothing but what we hold.
P. \ perceive you have a mind to cut me Ihort.
Pr. Not in the lea ft,where you offer any thing to the pur-
pofe. But I pray fpare thofe who only affirm, that the Eu-
» charifl is the body and blood of Chrifl after Confecration. For
I acknowledg it was the Language of the Church,efpecial-
ly in the fourth Century, when the Names of the Elements
were hardly mention'd to the Catechumens ; and all the
Difcourfes of the Fathers to them, tended to heighten the
Devotion and Efteem of the Eucharift. By which Obfer-
vation you may eafily underftand the meaning of the Elc-
quent-Writers of that Age, who fpeak with fo much
ffery andObfcurity about it- If you have any that go beyond
^ loftyexpreifions,and Rhetorical f]ights,Ipray produce them.
P. I perceive you are afraid of S.Greg. Nazianzen, and S.
Aa/f/, but efpecially S, ChryfoHomi you fence fo much be-
forehand againft Eloquent Men.
-■I" . Pr. -As
I'
•/
C 4" )
Tr. As to the other two, there is nothing material ailedg-
ed by any to this purpofe; but S. Chryfojlom^ I confefs, doth
fpeak very lofty things concerning the Sacrament in his po-
pular Difcourfes, but yet nothing that doth prove Tranfub-
jiantiation.
P. What think you of his Homilies51 andZy on S. Mat.
4(5. Homily on S. John 24. Homily on lik to tl>e Corinth, the
Homilies on Philogonius and the Crofit Are there not firange
things in them concerning the Eucharift.'.^^i^w^^ eating^ChrYjl,
and feeing him lie hefme them Jlain on the Altar; about touching um.p. i io,&c.
his Body there ^ and the Holy Spirit ^ with an innumerable Confei^Vet.
Hofl^ hoxeringover what is there propofed^ with much more
to that purpofe.
Pr. You need not to recite m.ore; for I yield that St.
delighted in the higheft flights of "his Eloquence,
on this Subjed:, in his Homilies; and he tells for what
Reafon, to excite the Reverence and Devotion of the Peo-
pie. But yet himfelf doth afford us a fuificient Key to thele
expreffions, if we attend to thefe things concerning his
manner of fpeaking:
(i.) That he affirms thofe things which no fide can al-
low to be literally underftood. As when he fo often fpeaks
of our feeing and touching Chrijl upon the Altar^ which is in-
confiftent /^dth the Dodrine of Tranfubfiantiation: For
Chrifl is utterly invifble on the Altar^ even by Divine Power^
faith Suarez. He is invifble in the Sacramentf^xxFi. Bellarmin; Difp. 33. SeeS.
and he laith alfo, that he cannot be touched. What then is ^ _
to be faid to fuch expreffions of S. Chryfoftomt'
Behold thou feefl him^ thou touchejl him., thou eateH him. Horn. 83. in
It is not his Sacrament only which is offePd us to touch, but ^
himfelf. What if you do not hear his Voice, do you not fee him Mat
ly ing before you ? In Heb. Horn.
Chrtjt Ites on the holy Table, as a Sacrifice Jlain for US. 8-
Thou fwearefl upon the holy Table where Chriji lies Jlain.
F When
In Joh. Horn.
43. ^
Horn, in Gal.
C.5.
JHom. de Re-
fur. To. 5.
Horn. 46. in
Joh.
Hem. 28. in r
Ep. ad Co-
rinth.
Horn. 24. in i
ad Corinth.
Horn. 22. in
Hebr,
Horn, de Poe.
nit. To, 6.
C 42- )
When thru fee . ur L ■' lying on the Tahle^ and the Triefi
prayings and he hy-jiei' ders purpled with his Blood.
See the Love of Chrifl; he doth not only fuffer himfelf to he
feen hy thofe who defire it., hut to he touched and eaten., and our
Teeth to he fixed in his Flejh.
Now thefe ExprefTions are on all fides granted to be lite-
rally abfurd and impoffible; and therefore we muft fay of
him as Bonaventure once faid of S. Auguflin, Plus dicitfanSlus
^ minus vult intelligi; Wemufl; make great allowancefor
fuch ExprefTions, or you muft hold a Capernaitical Senfe.
And it is denied by your felves, that Chrifl is aSiually flain
upon the Altar; and therefore you yield, that fuch Expref-
fions are to be figuratively underftood.
(x.) That he lets fall many things in fuch Difcourfes
which do give light to the reft: As,
(i.} That Flejh is improperly taken when applied to the
EuchariH.
(_z.j He calls the Sacrament the Myflical Body and Blood
of ChriH.
That the eating of Chrifl's Flejh is not to he under-
jlood literally, hut fpiritually.
(^4.) He oppofes Chrifl's facramental Prefence, and real
corporal Prefence to each other-
(5-.) He ftill exhorts the Communicants to look upwards
towards Heaven.
And now if you lay thefe things together, this Eloquent
Father will not, with all his Flights, come near to
jiantiation.
P. No! In one place he afierts the Suhflance of the Ele-
ments to he loH.
Pr. Thanks to the Latin Tranfiators, for the Greek word
as the Criticks obferve, doth not fignify to deflroy,
but to refine, and purify a Subftance. But I do not rely upon
thisj for the plain anfwer is, that S. Chryfoflom doth not there
fpeak of the Elements upon Confecration, but what becomes
of
C 43 )
of them, after they are taken down into the Stomach. St.
Chryfoflom thought it would leflen the Peoples Reverence
and Devotion, if they palled into the draught, as Origen af-
firmed; and therefore he ftarted another Opinion; viz. That
as Wax^vohen it is melted in the fire^throvos off no fuperfluities^
but it paffes indiffernally away; fo the ElementSy or MyflerieSy
as he calls themypafs imperceptibly into the fuhftance of the Bo-
dyy andfo are confumed together with it. Thereforey faith he,
approach with Reverencey not fuppojing that you receive the di-
vine body from a l\iany but as with Tongs of Fire from the Se-
raphims: Which the Author of the Confenfus Veterum tran-
Rates, but Fire from the Tongues of Seraphims. S. Chryfoflom s P, 55
Words are, Trusts: And the
Senle is, that the divine Body (i. e. the Eucharijiy after Con-
. fecrationy being by the divine Spirit made the divine Bodyy as
in St: Chryfoflom's Liturgyy there is a particular Prayer for
the Holy Ghofl to comey and fo make the Bread to be the divine Eucholog. p.
Bodyy or the holy Body of ChriftX is to be taken, not with our 77-
Mouthsy V hich can only receive the Elements,but after a dt- /
vine manner y as with Tongs offire from Seraphims; by which
he exprefies the fpiritual adis of Faith and Devotion, as moft
agreeable to that divine Spirit which makes the Elements to
become the holy Body of Chrifl. But that St. Chrnfofiom did
truly and firmly believe the Subftance of the Bread to remain
after Confecration, I have already proved from his EpilUeto.
Cafarius.
P. I pray let us not go backward, having fo much ground
to run over ftill.
Pr. I am content, if you will produce only thofe who
fpeak of the change of Subflanccy and not fuch as only menti-
on the Body and Blood of ChriH after ConfecratioUy which I
have already told you, was the Language of tlie Church;
and therefore all thofe Teftimonies are of no force in this
matter.
Fx P. Then
I
C 44 )
T. Then I muft quit the greateft part of what remains,
as Optatus^ Gaudentius^ S. ferom^and others; but I have fome
ftill left which will f«t you hard. What fay you then to
Gregory Nyjfen, who faith, the fantiified hread is changed into
the body of the Word of God. And he takes off your Anfwer
of a myftical Body; for he puts the Queflion, /dow the fame
Body can daily he diflriluted to the faithful throughout the
Worlds it remaining whole and entire in it felf >
Pr. Gregory Nyfen was a Man of Fancy, and he Ihewed it
in that Catechetical Difcourfe: However, Pronto Ducaeus
thought it a notable place to prove Tranfubflantiationysihich. I
wonder at, if he attended to the Defign of it j which was to
fliew, that as our Bodies, by eating, became fubjedl to Cor-
ruption, fo by eating they become capable of Immortality ;
and this he faith, Mufi be by receiving an immortal Bcdy into
our Bodies^fuch as the Body of Chrifi was : But then, l^ith he,
how could that body^ which is to remain whole in it felf be di-
flrihuted to all the faithful over the whole Earth? He anfwers,
by faying, That our Bodies do confiH of Bread and Wine^
which are their proper Nourifhmentand Chrifi's Body being
like ours^ that was fo too • which by the Vnim with the Word'
of God^ was changed into a Divine Dignity. But what is
this to tli^ Eucharifl^ you may fay ? He goes on therefore,
fo I believe the fanbiified Bread^ by the power of the Word of
Gody to be changed into the Body of God the Word. Not into
that Individual Body., but after the fame manner., by a Pre-
fence of the fi'tyos, or God the Word in it; and that this was
his meaning, doth evidently appear by what follows. For,
faith he, ^at Body, viz. to which he was Incarnate, was
fanllified by the Inhabitation of the Koyoj, dwelling in the
• Flejh; therefore, as the Bread was then changed into a Divine
Dignity in the Body, fo it is now •, and the Bread is changed
into-4he Body of the Khyos, ( not of fejus t hriH } as it was
faid by the Word, This is my l^ody. And fo by receiving this
Divine Body into cur bodies, they are made capable of Immor-
tality.
( 45 >
®aiK tality. And this is the true Account of Gregory Nyffens
'efoitt meaning, which if it prove any thing, proves an Imfana-
liM tc tion^ rather than Tranfuhftantiation.
T. But Hilary-s Tehimony cannot be fo avoided ; who
feitli, that we as truly eat ChrifVs Fiejh in the Sacramentyis ^2^'"
truly Incarnate ; and that we are to judg of this^ not '
ly carnal Reafon^hut hy the Words ofChri^^ who faid,
Flejh is meat indeed^ and my Blood is drink indeed.
feedi Pr. I do not deny this to be Hilarys Senfe. But yet this
<iDm proves nothing like to tranfuhHantiationPot it amounts to
no more than a Real Prefence of the Body of Chrifl in the
iwastt Sacrament; and you can make no Argument from hence,
loCo!- unlefs you can prove that the Body of Chrilb cannot be
talit]; ji-efent, unlefs the Suhflance of the Bread be deflroy'd,
which is more than can be done, or than Hilary imagin-
JiAk ed. All that he aimed at, was to prove a real Vnion be-
f, W tween Chrilb and his People,Chrifi was in them more
ank than hy meer confent; and to prove this, he lays hold of
mJB thofe words of our Saviour, My Flefh is meat indeed.^ &c,
Uh But the fubfbantial Change of the Bread into the Subibance
'Mff of Chrift'sBody,fignifies nothing to his purpofe; and 5^/-
'iht. larmin never fo much as mentions Hilary in his proofs of
relk. TranfubHantiation^ but only for the real Prefence. But I
hi' mulb add fomething more, T/iz, that ATiA/ry was one of the
teis jfrf who drew any Argument from the literal Senfe of John
uk- 6. I do not fay, who did by way of Accommodation, apply
tisw them to the Sacrament,which others might do before him. .
ftb But yet,there are fome of the eldelb Fathers,who do wholly
111,» exclude a literal Senfe, as Tertullian look'd on it, As an Ah Tertul de Re-
'kk furdity that Chrifi Jhould he thought truly to give his Flefh to carn.c.37.
Dh'j eat. Qu^fi 'usre carnem fuam illis edendam determinaffet, in'^Levk"'"'
iiwj: And Origen faith, It is a killing Letter, if thofe Words he
ito literally underHood, But this is to run into another debate,
l^ii whereas our Bufinefs is about Tranfuhflantiation. If you
have any more, let us now examine their Teftimonies.
/li: P. What
I
( 46 3
P. What fay you then to St. Amhrofe.^ho fpeaks home
Ambrof. de Bufinels, for he makes the Change to be above Nature,
and into the Body of Chrifl, born of the Virgin > There are
* ' \ long Citations out of him>but in thefe words lies the whole
flrengtli of them.
Pr. I anfwer,feveral things for clearing of his^ meaning,
(i.) That St. Ambrofe doth parallel the Change in the Eu-
chariH^ with that in Baptifm ; and to prove Regeneration
therein^ he argues from the miraculous Conception of ChriH
^ 5- in the Womb of the Virgin ; but in Baptifm no body fuppofes
the Subfiance of the Water to be taken away; and therefore
it cannot hold as to the other,from the Supernatural Change,
which may be only with refpedb to fuch a Divine Influence,
which it had not beforejConfecration. (x.) He doth pi!^-
pofely talk obfcurely and myftically about this matter, as
the Fathers were wont to do to thofe,who were to be ad-
mitted to thefe MyHeries. Sometimes one would think he
meant that the Elements arc changed into ChriWs Indivi-
dual Body born of the Virgin : and yet prefently after, he
diftinguiflies between the true Fief} of ChriH, which ivas
crucified and buried, and the Sacrament of his Flefh. If this
^ were the fame, what need any diftinc^iion ? And that this
Sacramentum Carnis, is meant of the -EuchariH, is plain by
what follows; for he cites Chrift's words, This is my Body,
(3.) He bed explains his own meaning, when he faith, not
long after. That the body of ChriH in the Sacrament, is a
Spiritual body, or a body produced by the Divine Spirit i and
fo he parallels it with that fpiritual Food, which the Ifraelites
did eat in the Wildernefi: And no man will fay, that the
SubHance of the Manna was then loft. And fince your Au-
. thors make the fame St. Ambrofe, to haVe written the Book
De Sacramentis, there is a notable paflage therein, which
5.V4!"™ explain this; for there he faith exprefly, Non iHe
Panis eH qui vadit in Corpus, fed Hie Pants Vitce Eternce qui
animce neftrte Suhftantiam fulcit. It is not the Bread which
pajfes
• C47)
pa^es into the Body^ hut the Bread of Eternal Life^ which
ftrengthens the Suhflance of our Soul. Where he not only
ciWs it Bread2Sx.ttConfecratton^ which goes to our Nourijh-
went; but he diftinguilhes it from the Bread of Eternal
Life., which fupports the Soul, which muft be underllood
of Divine Gra^e, and not of any Bodily SuhHance.
P. I perceive you will not leave us one Father of the
whole number.
Pr. Not one. And I hope this gives an incomparable
Advantage to the Dodrineof the Trinity in point of Tra-
dition, above Tranfuhjlantiation : when I have not only
proved, that the greatefl of the Fathers exprefly denied it,
but that there is not one in the whole number who affirm-
ed it. For altho there were fome difference in the way of
explaining how the Eucharift was the Body and Blood of
Chrift ; yet not one of them hitherto produced,doth give
any countenance to your Dodrine of Tranfuhjlantiation,
which the Council of Trent declared to have been the
eonflant belief of the Church in all Ages ; which is fo far
from being true, that there is as little ground to believe
that, as TranfuhHantiation it felf. And fo much as to this.
Debate, concerning the comparing the Dodrine of the
Trinity and TranfuhHantiation, in point of Tradition ; if
you have any thing to fay further, as to Scripture and
fieafon, I ffiall be ready to give you Satisfadion the next..
Opportunity.
FINIS.
BOOKS lately Vrinted for W. Rogers.
TH E Do(9:rinei and Pradices of the Church of Hpme,tTu\j Reprefented;
in Anfwer to a Book, Intituled, A Pafifi Mtfrefrefented, and peprefen-
ted, &c. Quarto. Third Edition.
An Anfwer to a Difcourfe, Intituled, Papijls protefling againfi Proteflant
Popery, being a Vindication of Paptjis not Mifreprefented by Proteftants. 4ta.
Second Edition. •
An Anfwer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between
the Reprefinter and the An/tverer. Quarto.
A View of the whole Controverfie, between the Reprejenter and the An-
fwerer \ with an Anfwer to the RepTeJenter''t laft Reply, ^to.
The Dodrine of the Trinity and Tranfubjlantiation compared as to Scrip-
ture, Reafon, and Tradition i in a new Dialogue between a Protejlant and a
Paptft, the firft Pan ; Wherein an Anfwer is given to the late Proofs of the
Antiquity of Tranfubjlantiation, in the Books called, Confenjus yeterum, and
Nubes Tefltum, 6cc. Quarto.
The Doftrine of the Trinity, and Tranjubftantiation,compired as to Scrip-
ture, Reafon, and Tradition, in a new Dialogue between a Proteftant and a
Paptft, the Second Part; Wherein the Dodrine of the Trinity is (hewed to
be agreeable to Scripture and Reafon , and Tranfubftantiation repugnant to
both. Quarto.
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature of Idolatry ; in which the Biihop o^
Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatry is Confidered and Confuted, ^to.
The Abfolute Impolllbility of TranfubRantiation dernonftrated. e^to.
A Letter to the Superiours, (whether Bilhops or Priefts) which Approve or
Licenfe she Popilh Books in England, particularly to thofe of the Jefuits Or-
^er, concerning Letvis Sabran a Jefuit.
A Prefervative againft Popery ; being fome Plain Diredions to Unlearne''
Proteftants, how to Difpute with Romijh Priefts. The Firft Part. The Fourth
Edition.
The Second Part of the Prefervative againft Popery ; (hewing how con-
trary Popery is to the True Ends of the Chriftian Religion. Fitted for the
Inftrudion of Unlearned Proteftants. The Second Edition.
A Vindication of both Parts of the Prefervative againft Popery ; in Anfwer
to the Cavils of Letoit Sabran, Jefuit.
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature,Unity aed Communion of the Catholicfc
Church ; wherein moft of the Controverts relating to the Church, are
"briefly and plainly ftated. The Firft Part. ^to.
Thefe Four laft by Wtdiam Sherlock^, D. D. Matter of the Temple.
Imprimatur,
Quil. Needham RR. in Chri-
Ex ey^dib. Lambethf fto P. ac D. D. Wilhelmo
^ ' Archiep. Cant, a Sac. Dom.
)
'THE
DOCTRINE
O F T H E
TRINITY
A.N D
'CranCubftantiatton
COMPARED,
A S T O
Scripture, Realbn, and Tradition,
I N A
New DIALOGUE between a Proteftant
and a Papift.
^econD
Wherein the Dodrine of the is fhewed to be
agreeable to Scripture and Reafon, and
ttatton repugnant to botli.
LONDON:
Printed for William Rogers at the Sun in Fleet-preet, over againft
I St. Dunfians Church. M DC LXXX VII.
%rsSK:-;<sgv56>AU%^
.1M
11 ;i^
■"■\t
Ji ;l js 'A- TM ! >-0 .
A 1'
* ^ f ,W '
'-nL-' S - f
ti
£ iiz-Viryj^ II lJ IJ U d i:. i Ai "v/D-iKi
-. ' .U^V\r,VT;
.rv. V *
Iff.
jm ;
1
-j:
1 ;
— ..i
i - f 0- f-'WJi'l ei w onh^r-a ou; no:.)ftW | s
i brti^ a j
.r;:-./i c-J ir^'^r riiAr,■.' J^3SJE5j
r
1 •'
I ■ vi o a K o ^ ■- ^ ^ ^ . _^'.
i «fl!SS5 13V0 ,-iJ"AS\-Vmu ni >.«o 3.13^:3 .;;, "" av-uu-V-. ^'Ji u^Jn i ; ^
i\]
(i)
THE
DOCTRINE
O F T H E
TRINITY
AND
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
Compared, <3^c,
Fk ""Wr Hope you are now at Leifure to proceed with
your parallel between the Dodrine of the Tri-
nity and Tranfubftantiation, as to Scripture and
Reafon.
P. Yes, and am refolved to make good all
that I have laid, as to both thofe.
Pr. And if you do, I will yield the Caufe.
P. I begin with Scripture. And the whole Difpute as
to both, depends on this: Whether the Scripture is to be
underftood Literally or Figuratively. If Literally, then
Tranfubftantiation ftands upon equal terms with the
Trinity; if-Figuratively, then the Trinity can no more be
proved From ^ripture, than Tranfiibftantiation.
Pr. As
( 2 )
Pr, As tho there might not be Reafon for a figurative
Seufe in one iphcCy and ain another. ^
P. It feems then, you refoive it into Reafon.
Pr. And I pray, into what would you refoive it ? Into no
Reafon.?
/*. Into the Authority of the Churck
Pr. Without any Reafon ?
P. No: There may be Reafon for that Authority, but
not for the thing which I believe upon it.
Pr. Then you believe the Dodirine of the Trinity,
meerly, becaufe the Church tells you it is the literal Senfe
of Scripture which you are to follow. But fuppofe a
Man fees no Reafon for this Authority of your Church;
( as for my part, I do not} have you no ReaTon to con-
vince fuch a one that he ought to believe the Trinity ?
P. Not I. For I think Men are bound to believe as the
Church Teaches them, and for that Reafon. , ; •
Pr. What is it, I pray, to believe ?
P. To believe, is to give our ARent to what God reveals.
Pr. And hath God revealed the Docflrine of the Trinity
to the Church in this Age ?
P. No; it was revealed long aga
- Pr. How doth it appear?
P. By the Scripture fenfed by the Church.
Pr. But whence come you to know that the Church is to
give the Senfe of the Scriptures ? Is it from the Scripture,
or not ?
P. From the Scripture doubtlefs, or elfe we could not be-
lieve upon the Churches Teftimony.
Pr. But fuppofe the Qyeftion be, about the Senfe of thefe
places which relate to the Churches Authority, how can a
Man come to the certain Senfe of them ?
P. Hold a little, I fee whither you are leading me • you
would fain draw me into a &iare, and have me fay, 1 be-
lieve
( 3 )
lieVe the fenfe of Scripture from the Authority of the
Church, and the Authority of the Church from the fenfc
of Scripture.
Pr. Do you not fay fo in plain terms >
P. Give me leave to anfwcr for my felf. I fay in the
cafe of the Churches Authority, I believe the Senfe of
Scripture without relying on the Churches Authority.
Pr. And why not as well in any ether ? Why not as to
the Trinity, which to my underftanding, is much plainer
there, than the Churches Authority ?
P. That is hrange : Is not the Church often fpoken of
in Scripture ? TeU the Church. Vpon this Rock will I huild
my Church.^ &c.
Pr. But we are not about the Word Churchy which is
no doubt there, but the Infallible Authority of the Church;
and whether that be more clear in the Scripture than the
Dodlrineof the Trinity.
P. I fee you have a mind to change your Difcourfe, and
to run off from the Trinity to the Churches Authority in
Matters of Faith ; which is a beaten Subjed:.
Pr. Your Church doth not tell you lb; and therefore
you may upon your own grounds be deceived; and I allure
you that you are fo ; for I intended only to lliew you, that
for Points of Faith we muft examine and compare Scrip-
ture our felves, and our Faith mull reft on Divine Revela-
tion therein contained.
P. Then you think the Trinity can be proved from Scrip-
ture ?
" Pr. Or elfe I lliould never believe it.
P. But thofe places of Scripture you go upon, may bear
a figurative Seufe, as John lo. 30. I and my Father are one ;
and I John 5.7. And thofe three are one ; and if they do
lb, you can never prove the Trinity from them.
Pr.
;
(■^ )
Pr. I fay therefore, That the Dodrine of the Trinity
doth not depend merely on thcfe places, but on very many
others, which help to the true fenfe of thefe ; but Tran-
fubflantiation depends upon one fingle Expreffion, This is
my Body ^ which relates to ^figurative thing in the Sacra-
ment j and which hath other Expreflions joined with it,
which are owned to \y^ figurative; This Cup is the Neiv Te-
fiament in my Blood; and which in the literal fenle cannot
prove Tranfubflantiation, as your own Writers confefs,
and which is difproved by thofe places of Scripture, which
aflert the Bread and the Fruit of the Vine to remain after
Confecration.
P. Shew the Literal Senfe as to the Trinity to be necefla-
ry J for I perceive you would fain go olF again.
Pr. Will you promife to hold clofe to the Argument
your felf ?
P. You need not fear me.
Pr. I pray tell me, Were there not falfe Religions in the
World when Chrift came into it to plant the true Reli-
gion ?
P. Yes J but how far is this from the bufinels >
Pr. Have a little Patience; Did not Chrift defign by his
Doiftrine to root out thofe falfe Religions t
P. That is evident from Scripture and Church Hi-
ftory.
Pr. Tlien Chrifts Religion and theirs were inconfiftent.
P. And what then ?
Pr. Wherein did this Inconfiftency lie ?
P. The Gentiles worftiipped falfe Gods inftead of the
true One.
Pr. Then the Chriftian Religion teaches the worlhip of
the true God inftead of the falfe ones.
P. Who doubts of tliat ?
Pr.
( 5 )
Pr. Then it cannot teach the Worlhip of a falfe God in-
(lead of the true One.
P. A falfe God is one that is fet up in oppofition to the
true God, as the Gods of the Heathens were.
Pr. Is it lawful the Chriflian Doccrine to give pro-
per Divine Worlhip to a Creature }
P. I think not ,• for Chrift faid, Thou /halt Worjhip the
Lord thy God, and him only jhalt thou ferve: Which our
Church underftands of proper Divine Worlliip,
Pr. But the Scripture requires proper Divine Worrtiip to
be given to Chrift j which is to require proper Divine
Worlhip to be given to a Creature, if Chrift be not true
God by Nature.
P. May not God communicate his own Worlliip to him ?
'Pr. But God hath faid, He will not give his Glory to ano-
ther^ Ifa. 4^. 8. ^And the Reafon. is confiderable, which is
there given ; I am the Lord^ that is my name; which Biews
tliat none but the true Jehovah is capable of Divine Wor-
Ihip ; for Adoration is done to God only on tlie account of
his incommunicable Perfed:ions , and therefore the Reafon
of Divine Worlhip cannot reach to any Creature. .
P. Not without Gods Will and Pleafure. But may not
God advance a mere Creature to that Dignity, as to re-
quire Divine Worlliip to be given to him by his fellow-
creatures? - .
Pr. Wherein lies the nature of that which you call pro-
per Divine Worlhip ?
P. In a due efteem of God in our Minds, as the firft
Caufe and laft End of his Creatures, and fuch Ads as are
agreeable, thereto.
Pr. Then proper Divine Worlliip dotliluppofe an Efteem
of God as infinitely above his Creatures; and how then is it
polTiblefor us to give the fame Worlhip to God, and to a
CreatureFor the diftance be infinite between-God
B ^ and
(^ )■
and his Creatures, and we muft judg of things as they are,
then we mull in our minds fuppofe a Creature to be inh-
nitely diflant from God ; and if we do fo, How is it poffi-
ble to give the fame Divine Woidliip in this fenle to God, '
and to any Creatm'e ?
P. AncLwhat now would you infer from hence >
Pr. Do not you fee already ? viz. that God cannot be
fuppofed to allow Divine Worlhip to be given to Chrift, if
he were a mere Creature ; and therefore fince fuch Divine
Worlhip is required by the Chriftian Dodtrine, it follows,
that thofe exprelTions which fpeak of his being One with the
Father.^ cannot be figuratively underftood.
P. But where is it, that fuch Divine Worlhip is required
to be given to Chrift in Scripture ? For, according to my
Principles, the Church is to fet the bounds and mealures
of Divine Woriliip, and to declare what Worlhip is due to
God; what to Chrift; what to Saints and Angels ; what
to men upon Earth; what to Images, Sacraments, ^c.
And if we depart from this Rule, I know not where we
ftiall fix.
Pr. I pray tell me, doth the difterence between God and
his Creatures, depend on the will of the Church .•>
P. No.
Pr. Is it then in the Churches Power to:give that to a
Creature, which belongs only to God
P. I think not.
Pr. Who then is to be judg what belongs to God, and
what notGod or the Church ? ■
P. God himfelfi if he pleafes. ^ )
Pr. Then our bufinefs is to fearch what his Will and Piea^
fure is injthis matter, by reading tlie Scriptures, wherein
his Will is contained .• And there we find it exprelled, That
all men (hould honour the Son, even as they honour the Father,
John 5.23, Let all the An^ls of God worJhiyiJjim,hl£h. i. 6.
Bkffing
(?)
Blefi'igt <^Mcl honoui\ and ilory^ and power le unto him that
Jitteth on the Throne^ an i to the Lamh for ever and ever.
Revel. 4- 13. that at rhe name of Jefus every knee Jhould
how^ of things in Fleaven^ and things in earthy Phil. x. 9,
If it were Gods great defign, by theChriftianDodrine, to
reftore in the world a due fenfe of the infinite diftance be-
tween God and his Creatures; could any thing be more re-
pugnant to it, than in the fame Dodtrineto advance a crea-
ture to a participation of the fame Divine Honour with
himfelf So that in plain truth, the Idolatry of the world
lay only in a bad choice of the Creatures they were to wor-
Iliip, and not in giving proper Divine WorJflhp to a Crea-
ture ,• for that Chriftianity it felf not only allows, but re-
quires,on fuppofition that Chrifl were God merely by Office,
and was originally a Creature, as we are. But I pray obferve
the force of the Apoftles Argument, fpeaking of the Gen^
tile Idolatry; he faith it lay in this, That they did fervice
unto them, which hy Nature are no Gods, Gal. 4. 8.
P. You know, Imulb now perfonate the Anti-Trinita-
rian; and he anfwers, That hy Nature no more is implied,
than truly and really, i. e. God did not advance thofe Crea-
tares among the Gentiles to that Worfhip and Honour ,
which he hath done Chrift.
?r. Then you make it lawful by the Gofpel to believe
Chrifl to be a mere Creature, and at the fame time to give
him Divine Worlhip, which ^ppofes him not to be a Crea-
ture J and fo you mufl believe iiim to be a Creature, and
not to be a Creature, at the fame time.
P. How do you make that appear >
Pr. From your own words; for you fay, proper Divine
Worfliip lies in a due efleem of God in our minds, as the firft
Caufe and lafl End, and in adions agreeable thereto ; then
to give Divine Worfhip to God, we mufl believe him to
be above all Creatures as to his Nature and Being; and there-
B z fore
i;
' 11 a ■
( 8 )
fore to give Clirift Divine Worfliip,mufl; Imply our believing
him not to be a Creature, and to be a Creature at the fame
time.
P. But the meaning of Divine WorHiip here mufl not
then relate to Ads of the Mind , but to outward Ads of
Adoration in the Church.
Pr. Were the Gentiles guilty of Idolatry in that refped,
or not >
P. Yes; but not thofe, whom God requires to Worfliip in
fuch a manner.
Pr, Then the Sin of Gentile-ldohxty lay only in gi-
ving Divine Worfliip to a Creature without Gods com-
mand; which leflens it to that degree, as to make Will-
worfliip and Idolatry the fame; and to blame the Apo-
Rom. I. 21, dies, for making fuch a dreadful Sin of it, and diflw^ading
23, Chriftians fo much from returning to the Pradice of it;
I ?oh priviledg of giving Divine Worfliip to a
Creature by Gods command, which others were damned
for doing without a command ,• which makes the Chriftian
Religion not to appear fo reafonable,as the Anti-Trinitarians
contend it is. Biit here are four foul miftakes in point
of Reafon, which they are guilty of. (i.) In making the
Sin of Idolatry fo Arbitrary a thing; which depends not
on the Nature of the Objed which is worfliipped, but
on the Will and Pleafure of God. (z.) In making the
Gentiles guilty of a great Sm, meerly in wanting a
Divine command, which was out of their Power,
In making the Chriftian Religion to fet up the Wor-
fliip of a Creature , when its defign was to root
out Idolatry. (4-) I" making a Fiditious God,
or a Creature to be advanced to the Throne of God.
Which I think is far more contradidious to Reafon,
than a Trinity of Perfons in the Unity of the fame
Nature. For nothing can be more abfurd than to make
that
X
(9)
that to be God , which wants all the ellential Attributes
and Perfed^ions of - God; as every Creature muft do: ,
Such as Self-Exiftence, Eternity, Independency, Immen-
fity, Omnipotency, What a Contradid:ion is it, to fup-
pofe a weak, impotent, depending, confined , created
God ? And fuch every Creature mufl be in its Nature,
or elfe itds no Creature. I do not at all wonder to find
the Socinians after this, to lefien the natural Knowledg of
God , and his infinite Perfections, both as to Power and
Knowledg,- for it was their concernment to bring the
Notion of God as low as pofiible, that a Creature might
be in the nearer Capacity of Ijeing made God. But
thofe who confider and know what God is, and what
he mufl be, if he be God, will find far greater difficulty
in making Man to be God, than in believing God to be
made Man. For This implies no greater difficulty, than
meerly as to our Conception," how an infinite Being can
be fo united to a finite, as to become one Perfon,-
which implies no repugnancy, but only fome thing
above our Capacity to comprehend. And we confcls
our felves puzled in the manner of conceiving how
a finite Spirit, which can pafs through a Body, can be
fo united to it, as to make a Man by that Union; yet
we all acknowledg the Truth of this. But to fuppofe a
Creature capable of being made God, is to overthrow
the ellential difference between God and his Creatures, and
the infinite Diftance between them. Which is of very
pernicious Confequence, as to the great ends of the Chriflian
Religion,which were to reform the World, and to reftore the
Diflincflion between God and his Creatures; which by the
prevakncy of Idolatry was alraofl loft in the World : Tlie
Supreme God being hardly difcerned in fuch a croud of
created and ficfbitious Gods. And this very Argument is
enough to turn my Stomack againfl Sc-cimanrfm or Aria-
nifm. f. I
( 10 )
p. I had thought all Men of fenfe among you, had been
Sccinians; I have ofcen heard them charged with being
fo.
Pr. You. fee how grofly you are deceived, not with-
{landing your pretence to Infallibility. I do not pretend
to any deep reach, but I fee reafon enough to be no Soci- ,
man.
P. Let us return to our Matter in hand. What fay you to
' thofe Texts which arefaid to be inconfident with the li-
teral Senfe of thofe before mention'd, which relate to the
Unity between Father and Son ?
Pr. What Texts do you mean ?
P. What fay you to Joh. lo. from the 30. to the 39
Pr. I wonder what it is produced for.
P. It is /aid., Joh. 10. 30. I and my Father are one; now
it is highly unreafonahle to interpret thefe words literally.^ he-
■caufe of thofe which follow.
Pr. How doth that appear ? For a;. 31. it is laid, that
the Jews took up Jlones to fione him: Which jfliews, that
they look'd on him as fpeaking BlafjDhemy. But what
Blafphemy was it for Chrifl; to declare an Unity of
Confent between him and his Father; which in Truth
is nothing, but doing his Father's Will ? Therefore it
is plain that the Jews did apprehend more in thofe
Words of our Saviour. And they explain themfelves,
V. 33. what they underftood by them, Becaufe that thott
leing a Man.^ makejl thy felf God. Which fliews that they
thought not an Vnity of Confent but of Nature^ was
meant.
P. But Chrift's anfwer Ihews, that he fpeaks only of a God
hy Office., and not hy Nature^ v 34. Jefus anfwered them. Is
it not written in your Law., I faid ye are Gods ?
Pr. I pray goon, and fee how Chrift argues, v.33,36.
If he called them Gods, unto whom the Word of God came.
( II )
Ofid the Scripture cannot le broken; fay ye of hlm^ vohom the
Father hath fent into the Worldy Thou hlafphemefi^ lecanfe I
faid I am the Son of God ?
P. This only Ihe^^ s that Chrift had greater Reafon to be
called God., but not that he was fo by Nature.
Pr. I pray go on Rill, v. 3 7,3 S. If 1 do not the Works of
my Father., believe me not. But if I do, tho ye believe not me,
believe the Works, that ye may know and believe that the Fa-
ther is in me, and I in him.
P.h it not laid elfewherOjTT'^/' he that keepeth his Command-
ments dvoelleth in him, and he in him > i Joh. 3. 24. Would
you hence infer an Unity of Nature between Chrift and
Believers ?
Pr. I do not lay the weight on the Phrafe, but as it is
the Conclufion of the Difpute between Chrift and the Jews.
And it ought to be obferved, that this was the end of the
third Conference between Chrift and the Jews upon this.
Argument. The firft was John 5-. and then from Chrift s
faying, The Father worketh hitherto, and I work., v. 17.
the Jews infer'd v. 18. That he made himfelf equal with'
God. In the fecond Conference, John S. he faid, Before
Abraham was, lam, v. 5*8. And then the]QWs took up flones
to cafi at him. After this followed this third Conference,
John. 10. and this runs again into the fame point, That
he being a Man, made himjelf God. And thefe Conferences^
were all publick,in or near the Temple, and this laft was in
Solomons Porch, John 10.23. a Place of great relbrt, and near
the place where the Sanhedrim fate, who were the Judges
in the Cafe of Blafphemy. Now the force of my Argu-
ment from hence, lies in thefe tilings:
(I.) Tl^t Chrift certainly knew, that the Jews did.
think by his Difcourfe, That he made himfelf equal with
God.
> - , (zOThat
' .(Botis
.|lj)ikt\'
■ Pr. He
tidlied
krefore
tpiil sit
(|cf.
P.fij
Jatkii
■tislm
kip
wk
Aa
Kjreffli
P.St
KHHt, 1
A I
'ktkt
®'0t'
ktfi
Vl^
f./l
siim
ik
'nj.
fr,
;K*1
'fens
a
tuc
( 12 )
X. That if it were not true, it was notorious Blafplie-
my, and fo efteemed by the Jewi\
"3. That fuch a mifiake ought to have been prefently
corrected, and in the plaincft manner; as we find it was done
by St, Pauly wiien the men of Lyflra faid, The Gods are
come down to us in the likenefs of men; for he ran in prefent-
iy among them, and faid, We are men of like paffions with
yoii^ Ads 14. 11,15- It isimpofTible for me to think, that
if Chrifl had known himfelf to be a meer man, he would
have luffered the Jews to have run away with fiich a mifiake
as this, without giving tliem the cleareft and plainefl infor-
mation ; whereas in all his Anfwers he vindicates himfelf,
and endeavours rather to faflen thofe ImprefTions upon
them, as appears by this conclufion of the lafl Conference,
That J e may know and believe^ that the Father is in me, and
I in him. Doth this look like correding a dangerous mi-
llake in the Jews ? And is it not rather a juilification of
that fenfe, which they took his words in ? And in the firft
Conference, John 5. Our Saviour is fo far from doing as
St. Paul di^ that he challenges Divine Honour as due to
himfelf. Thai all men fhould honour the Son, as they honour
the Father, v. xy From whence it follows, that Chrifl
muft be charged as one, who being a meer man, did affedfc
Divine Honour; or elfe, that being as well as Man, he
looked on it as juflly due to him. I pray tell me what
fenfe do your Friends the make of thofe words of
St. Paul, Phil. X. 6,7. Who being in the form of God, thought
it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himfelf of no
Reputation, &c. •
P. Hie fenfe they give, is this, that he did not make
a fhew or Oflentation of his own Greatnefs, but fiudi-
oufly concealed it, and therein fhewed his great Humi-
lity.
Tr. But
( 13 )
'lie- Pr. But is there any Grcatriefs like that of
and yet this he challenged to himfelf.
P. But he knew what the Father defigned him for, and
fo fpake thofe things by way of Predidiioa.
i art Pr. He knew no Creature could deferve Divine Wor/liip,
refet and he deliver'd that as part of his own Dod:rine; and
<sm therefore thofe Words, where he is laid, fo make himfeif^
i, tk equal with God, mull he underftood of Nature, and not of
itoold Qd^ce.
Mt P- But a. 17.2-2,-faith, that Chrift prayed to his
ofor- Father, for his Dilciples, That they may he one, as we are one ;
]1(I( and tJiat is not by Unity of Nature,
poa . Pr. I grant it. But our Saviour there fpealis of a true, but
■m, a lower land of Unity or elfe the Socinians mull think eve-
^ ui ry Believer as capable, of Divine Honour, as Chrift himfelf,
isni. if they take thofe Words ftridlly, That they may he one, as
d we are one.
luii;! P. St. Paul faith. He that planteth, and he that watereth,
is (me, r Cor. 3.8.
kto ' Tr. Who doubts but there qre other forts of Unjities, be-
fides that of Nature ? But, doth this prove that there is no
jififl Unity of Nature between the Father and the Son.^ If, we
have no better Arguments againft Tranfubftantiation, we
.will give over difputing. . b' , • ,
P. I know you have other Arguments for the Trinity,
; d but they prov e as little without the Authority of the Churchj
^ from thofe places where Chrijhis called God, as Joh. i. i,z.
Jii Rom. 9.5", (sc.
Pr. And I think the Argument frorri thofe places^ very
like good and ftrong, efpecially from John i. r, 2, 3. andpt
iidi. feems diredly contraryto the Whole defign of Scripture
ijjjj, to call any one God over all, Bleffed for evermore, as
Chrift is called, Rom.p but he that is God by Na^
jjf J C p. How
( H )
P. How do you prove that fohn i. i. relates to any
thing beyond the legmning of the Gofpel, and that
Chrtjl the Word^ was before John the Baptijis Preaching*
Pr. I defire any one to read the Text impartially, and
he will find the Socinian fenfe to be unnatural, forced,
obfcure and jejune, proving a thing of no moment at
that time; but the Senfe we give, to be llrong, weigh-
ty, confident, and of very great Confequence at that
time, when the Cerinthians denied the Divinity of
Chrift. The Sentences are Ihort, the Words lofty and
fignificant, the manner of beginning unufual; fo that
arty one would expe<5t fome great and extraordina-
ry matter to be faid in thefe few Verfes; but what
a fruftration were this, if after all, they intended no
than. that altho ^ohn BaptiH preached in pub-
more
lick before Chrift^ yet that Chrift was in being before
that? Which is a Scnfe fo mean, fo remote from the
occafion of his Writing, as it is deliver'd by the Ancients,
that nothing but a milerable necefiity could make Men of
Wit and Subtilty to put fuch a Senfe upon St. Johns
Words-
P. But they deny there was any fuch occafion of St.
Johns writing, as the Cerinthians Herefy at that time.
Pr. I know Socinus doth foj but he might as well
have denied that there was any fuch- Perfon as Cerinthus.
And I think the Cerinthian Herefy not only to have been the
occafion of St. Johns Writing, but that the underftanding
of it, gives the greateft and trueft light to the Words
of the Evangelift, fhewing the force and importance of
them. -
P. Wherein I pray, did that Herefy confift ?
Pr, I lhall not meddle with other parts of it, but on-
Jy what relates to the prefent Subjecft:} and that lay in thefe
things.
(i.}That
( 15 )
(^i.) That there was a Supreme and unknown Father,
who was lefore the Beginnmg^ and therefore they called him
•frepofx^fi who was the Fountain of all Emanations, /reft. I.
I. C.I. 19.
(x.) That the World was not made by him, but by a
Power at a diftance from him, called Iren. l. i.
c. 15. And in the Egyptian School wdiere Cerinthus was
educated, the Wordwas one of the intermediate
Emanations between the Father.^ and the Demiargus, Iren. i.
I. c. zi.
Q.} That this World was in a ftate of Darknefs and Con-
fufion,' as to the fupreme Father of all; only fome few had
fome beams of Light from lim, by which they knew
him.
(4,} That Jefus wai a mere Man, born as other Men are,
of Jofeph and Ma*-y^ but of extraordinary Goodnefs, Wifdom,
and Sandity,
(5.} That the Supreme Father at his Baptifm did fend
down a Divine Power upon him, in the lliape of a Dove,
which enabled him to declare the unknown Father, and to
work Miracles, which returned to its own or Ful-
ttefi above, when Jefus fuffer'd.
This is a Ihort Scheme of that Herefy, as delivered by the
ancient Fathers. And now let any one compare St. Johns
Words with it; and he will find his defign was to counter-
mine this Herefy by tw o things.
(i.) That the Ao>o< FFcrr/,was Eternal.For \h&Cerinthians
faid, the h'ayos was not in the beginning, but made a great
fpaceof time between the eternal Being of the Father, and
the Emanation of the wherein he was in perfect Silence.,
as Irenceus exprefles it (I. i. c. i.) And fo in the beginning,
doth imply the Eternity of the Word. But that is not all, for
he faith, it was with God, and was God, and was the Demiur-
gus, or the Maker of the World, and the Revcaler of God to
C z Man-
( i6 )
Mankind ^-Joh. 1.1, i, 3,4,5-, 9,10. And fo there was no
place for thofe feveral Emanations between God and the
hiyts and Demiurgus^ as the Cerinthians faid.
(x.) That the AJysf or Word, was Incarnate, which he
aihrms, v. 14. And the Word was made Flejh, and dwelt a-
mong us, &c. and was the only begotten Son of the Father;
and fo he not only cuts off the other Emanations, but de-
dares that Jefus was far from being a mere Man, And to
this purpole he brings in the Tellimony of John Baptili,
V. 15". and applies what he had faid to the Perfon of Jefus
Chrifl, V. 17. Now this being St. Johns defign, his Words af-
ford a Demonftration to us of the Union of the Divine and
Human Nature in Chrift, when he faith, The Word was
made Flejh.
P. But doth not the Scripture in other places imply that
there is a fubordination in Chrift to his Father, which is not
confiflent with fuch an Equality of Nature; fee Heh. 1.8,9.
I Cor. 8.4, 5".— 15". x7, z8. Rev.y. ix.
Pr. The firfl; place is a proof for the Divinity of Chrifl;
for the Words are; But unto the Son, he faith, Thy Throne, 0
God, is for ever and ever, &c. It is true, in the next verfe, it
is faid with refped: to his Office, Therefore God, even thy God
hath anointed thee, &c. But we do not deny that Chrift
was anointed as Mediator, and in that refpecft, God was
his God; but doth this prove that he that is Mediator,
cannot have a Divine Nature in Conjuniftion with the
Human ?
The fecond Place, I fuppofe, is miftaken, i Cor. 8. not 4.
and 5". but 6 verfe. But unto us,there is hut one God the Father,
of whom are all things , and we in him ; and one Lord Jefus
Chriji, hy whom are all things, and we hy him. And this is
one of the ftrongeft holds of the Socinians. But two Con-
fiderations will take off the feeming force of it.
(1.3 That
(17)
{i.} That the Apoftle in his difputcs with the Gentile
Idolaters, concerning whom he fpcaks, u 4, 5". doth utter-
ly deny any Divinity in the Beings they worfliipped in-
ftead of God, when he faith, An Idol is nothing in the
world^ and that there is none other God hut one. He knew
very well that they worfliipped many, 1/. 5". As there he
Gods many^ and Lords many among them; hut unto us Q Chri-
flians 3 there is hut one God^ and one Lord : i. e. we have
but one Supreme God, to whom we give Divine Worfliip ;
and inflead of the multitude of Mediators., we have but
one Mediator; and fo his defign is in oppofition to their
many Gods., to aflert the Vnity of the Divine Nature , not
fo as to exclude a diftintSfion of Perfons, but thereby to ex-
elude other Gods as the proper Objedt of Worfliip }, and
the Ztnity of a Mediator, in oppofition to their many Lords.
Qtl) That if this place excludes Chrifl; from the Unity
of Nature with God, it doth exclude him from, being the
Objedt of Divine Worfliip; for it faith. That there is no
ether God, hut One ; therefore no Creature can be made
God: And to us there is hut One God, the Father ; there-
fore the Son cannot be God. If therefore the name Lord
be talten in oppofition to God, then Chrifl; cannot be God
in any fenfe; for we mufl: have but One God: but the plain
meaning of the Apoftle was. That by one Lord he meant
one Mediator, by whom alone we have, in this new frame
of things by the Gofpel, accefs unto God the Father.
The third place,i Cor. 15-. X7,x8. fpeaks plainly of Chrifts
Kingdom, as Mediator.
The fourth place, Rev. 3.12. where Chrifl: fpeaks feve-
ral times of my God, proves no more than his words on
the Crofs, My God, my God, ivhy hafi thou forfaken me : For
furely Chrifl: might own a particular Relation to God, and
Interefl: in him, as he was in human Nature, without over-
throwing the Divine Nature in hira.
jp. But
r'-|
M. '"w
( i8 )
P. But he owns, That though he is to he our Jud^ he knows
not the time^ Mark 13. 3^. Which feems inconhuent with
the Divine Nature, which knoweth all things.
Pr. The Son there fpoken of, was Chrift, as endued with
a human Soul, when he was upon earth; which could not
underftand a fecret fo much out of the reach of mans un-
derftanding, without immediate Revelation. But ;it was
not neceflary by virtue of the Union of both Natures, that
the Divine Nature Ihould communicate to the human Soul
of Chrift all Divine Myfteries: but as the human Body
was notwithftanding fubjedl to Paffions and Infirmities in-
cident to it , fo the human Soul might continue ignorant
of the Day of Judgment in this Rate ; both to let us know
how great that fecret is, and that Chrift had the proper
capacity of a human Soul, which could not extend to fuch
things without Divine Revelation.
P. There is one Argument more, which feems to prove
Chrifts Divinity, and doth not ja/iz. The making of all things
vijihle and invijible^ being attributedtohim^ John i. 3. Heb.
I. 10. Col. I. 16,17, 18, 19.
Pr. Now I confefs this doth more than feem to me to be
a very ftrong Argument ; and that for this Reafon, the
Apoftle faith, The mvifihle things of him from the creation
of the ivorld^ are clearly feen^ being underHood by the things
which are made^ even his Eternal Power and Godhead^ Rom.
1.10. Was this Argument of the Apoftle good or not >
P. No doubt it was.
Pr. Then the Creation of the World is an Invincible
Proof of the true God.
P. What follows?
Pr. Then the making of ail things be attributed to
Chrift, he muft be true God j but this is plain in the New
Teftament, in which the making of all things is as clear-
ly attributed to the Son, as it is to the Father; All things
faith
)
( )
faith St. John, were made ly him, and without him ivas not
any thing made, that was made, John 1.3. For hy him were
all things created ,i2l\xh St. Paul, that are in heaven, and
that are in earth, vifihle and invijihle, whether they he thrones,
or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things were crea-
ted hy him, andfor him. Col. i. 16. Thou, Lord, in the hegin-
ntng haft laid the Foundation of the earth, and the heavens are
the work of thy hands, Heb. i. 10. Now compare thcfe ex-
preffions with thofe wherein the Creation is attributed to
the Father, The world is to he made hy him, Rom. i. zo.
That he hath created all things. Rev. 4.11. That of him, and
for him, and to him, are all things, Rom. 11. 36. And let
any impartial mind difcern the difference. Therefore we
have as much Reafon from Scripture to believe Chrift to
be God, as we have from the Creation of things to believe
a God.
P. But you do not take notice of the different expreffi^
ens in Scripture, concerning the Father and the Son ; All
things are faid to he of the Father, and hy the Son, i Cor.
8. 6. And that the Father created all things hy Jefus Chrift-,
Eph. 3.9. which proves no more, than that the Son was
G?ods Inftrument in the Creation.
Pr. What do you mean by Gods Inftrument in the Crea-
tion ? Do you think one Creature can create another ?
How then can the Creation prove an Infinite Power If
you believe the Inftrument uncreated, then you muft aflert
him to be true God hy Nature; and then we have all we
defire.
P. But the Socinians do not like this Anfwer of the Ari-
ans, and therefore they interpret thefe places, of the ftate
of things under the Gofpel, and not of'the Creation of the
World.
Pr.. They
( 20 )
Pr. They have not one jot mended the matter ; for,
(i.) Where the new Creation is fpoken of, feme circum-
(lances are added, which limit the fenfe to it, as when
St. Paul faith. We are created in Chrijl Jefus unto good works
that we (houl walk in them.E\i\\. z. lo. Who could poflibly
underftand this of the old Creation ? And fo, If any man
he in Chrijt Jefus^ he is a new Creatnre^ z Cor. 5-. 17. But
in the other places the fame ExprefTions are ufed, which
are attributed to the old Creation , without limitation
from circumftances, or from the Context and occafion of
them.
(zP) There are fome things faid to be created by Chrifl
Jefus^ which cannot relate to tlie new Creation; iox hy
him were all things created^ that are in heaven^ and that are
in earthy vifihle andinvifxlle^ whether they he thronesy or do-
minionSy or principalities or Powers. Col. i. 16. How are
thefe created by Preaching the Gofpel, when they are un-
capable of the proper means of it, which are the Dodtrine
of the remiirion of Sins u|X)n Repentance, and die Renew-
ing and Sandtifiing Grace of God ?
P. But St. Paul doth not mention the Heaven and Earthy
but only intelledtual Beings, Angels, and Men, .and there-
fore he fpeaks of the new Creation,
Pr, A mighty Argument indeed J Do not all things com-
prehend the Heaven and Earth.-" And the particular enume-
ration of Angels by feveral denominations, (hews that lie
fpeaks of another Creation diftindt from tliat by the Gof-
pel preached to the World ; for the Apoftles were Chrifts
inllruments in this new Creation, which they could not be
to the Invifible Powers above.
P. We have now gone xhxou^i the true and only'Grounds
mf the DoPlrine of the trinity.
Pr. You
( )..
Tr. Ycu are extreamly miftaken. For we have other
"j grounds befides thefe, although thefe naay befufficient.
iinj. p. Name one more.
Pr. I will name feveral, which you cannot difallow.
P. What are they ?
Pr. The feveral Heads of Arguments made ule of by
"j« Cardinal BelUrmmj to prove the Divinity of Chrift
!• Who alone is a convincing Evidence of the vaft difparity
between the Proofs of this Dodtrine, and of Tranfubfiari-
fitM t 'tdtion from Scripture. For,
onot I. He proves ChrilFs Divinity from thole places ofEcii. de chri-
the Old Telfament,which are expounded in the New; be-
W ing in the Old Teftament, fpoken of the true God; and
k in the New applied to Chrift. As Numb. 21. 5, 6. com-
art pared with i Cor. 10.9. Exod. 20. 2. with Jude 5. Pfal.
do- 68.18. with Eph. 4. 8,9. Pfxl. 97. 7. 8r 102. 25, 26. with
lit Jieb. I. 6, 10, II. Ifa.6. i, J. with 'Johrt 12. 41. and
ttn- Revel. 4.-8. Ifa. 8.14. with Luke 2. ^4. and Rom. 9.
idri J fa. 40. with Mat. 3. Mark 1.5. Luke i. 76. John i.
'm- 2-}.— Jfa. 45. 23. with Rom. 14. 11. — Ifa. 44. 6. with
Revel. I. 8,17. Mai. j. i. with 11. 10.
'in\ 2. From the Places of the Old Teftament> which attri-
3P- bute to Chrift thole things which belong to God; as Power
and Adoration^ Plal. 2. 7, 8, 12. Being the firjl and lajl,
m Ha. 48.1, 12, 16. Working Miracles, ID, 55. 5. Being the
5? God of Ifrael, ID. 52. 5, 6. The only God, ID. 45. 5, 6.
le The Lord of Hofts, Zach. 2.8,9, 10,11. Jehovah, Zach.
dr 3.2. Pouring out of the Spirit, Zach. 12.10.
life 3. From the Places of the New Teftament, which at-
jtbe tribute Divinity to Chrift. As when he is called, the Son
of the Living God, Mat. 16.16. The only begotten Son of
nJs Cod, John 3.16. His own Son, Rom. 8.32. His true Son,
I Joh. 5. 20. His dear Son, Col. i. 13. His Son above all
others, Heb. i. 5. The exprefs Image of his Perfon, Heb. 1.
lOC 3. Making himfelf e^ual with God, John 5. 18. Being one
D with
I.
< 22 )'
with the Father^ Joh. lo. p. Lord and God, John 20. 28.
God bleffed for ever, Rom. 9. 5. Who thought it no robbery
to be equal with God, Phil. 2. 6. One with the Father and
Sprit, I, John 5. 7. The true God, i John 5. 20.
4. From the proper Names of God, Ifa.g. 6. John 20,
28. Jcls 20. 28. Rom. 9. 5. Revel. 4. 8. i John 3. 16.
ThzrvamQ Jehovah, Jer.2,1. 5,8. Jfa.^o. 3. The Lord, by
which the LXX render Jehovah, Mat. 21. 3. Joh.i^. 13.
The mojl High, Pfal. 87. 5. A Name above every Name,
Phil. 2. 9. The Invifible One, 1 Tim. i. 17, & 6. 16. The
God of Glory, Aft. 7.2. i Cor. 2.8. Pfal. 24.7,8,9. Kjrtg
of Kjngs and Lord of Lords, i Tim. 6. 15* Revel. 17.
14. & 19. 16. The one Lord, 1 Cor. 8. 6. The true God,
John 5. 20. The only Lord, Jud. 4. The great God and our
Saviour, Titus 2.13.
/ 5. From the proper Attributes of God; as Eternity,
Prov. 8. 22, 23. Mic. 5, 2. Joh. 1.1,—* 17. 5. Immenfity,
John 3^ 13. Mat. i8. 20. On^nipotencp Roy. 1. 8.—-4.8.
, —'ii. iy. Wifdom, C0I0F 2. 3. Job. 21. 17. Majejly and
Adoration, Heb. 1.6. Mai. 3. i. Invocation, Joh. 14. 13.
Afts 7. 59. h 9.14. 2 Cor. 12. 8. i Cor. i. 3. 2 Joh. 3.
6. From the proper Works of God: as not only Crea^
tion, (of which already) but Confervation', Heb. i. 3.
Colof. I. 17. S'alv at ion, Mflth.. 1.21. Foretelling future
Events, Joh. 13.19. iPet. i. 11. Rev. 2. 23. Working
Miracles by his own Rower, Mark. 4. 39. 2ind giving Power
to others to work them. Mat. 10. i.
What think you now of the Proofs of theTrinity inScrip-
ture ? Do you think Belldrmin could produce any thing
like this for Tranlubftantiation ? No; lb far from it, that
where he lets himfelf in a whole Chapter to prove it from
Ml de EBch. Scripture, he produces a Firjl without a Second. The
1.3. c ip. jygii^e'^t, faith he, is taken from ChrijFs Words,
This is'my Body. Very well! but where is the Second?
For no more GQ11I4 be produced, but this one Tingle PaT
fage,
( 2^ ).
fage, about which he fpends his whole Chapter, and
then betakes himfelf prefently to the Fathers,
P. But one plain and clear place is fulEcient, if we be
certain of the fenfe of that one; for we are as much
bound to believe God when we are fure he fpeaks it once,
as an hundred times.
Pr. We have been all this while comparing thele two
Doftrines as to Scripture, and now you fee the difpropor-
tion fb very great, as to number and njarietyy you fay, one
is Osgood as an hundred; but that one had need to be won-
derfuily clear, which this is very far from, fince many of
your own Writers do confefs Tranliibftantiation cannot be
drawn from it; as Bellarmin hknfelf owns, and he affirms
it not to be improbable, that no place of Scripture is fo clear
and exprefs for Tranfubjlantiation, but learned and acute
Men may doubt whether it can he drawn from it, fetting afde
the Churches Declaration. But neither Bellarmin, nor any
one who attends to the force of the former Proofs of the
Divinity of Cliriff, can fay, that any reafonable Man can
doubt of it; and that he muftat la ft refolve all into the
Church's Authority.
P. Have not learned and acute Men doubted of the
Divinity of Chrift, asof Tranfubffantiation? And there-
fore in that refpeft they are both alike.
Pr. We do not infift upon Men's bare doubting, but
on the Reafon of their doubting. And when but one
fingle Place is produced, which is yeilded not to be fuiH-
cient of it felf to prove the Dottrine; there is much
more caufe of doubting, than where fuch multitudes
of Places are produced ; and no doubt is made by thofe
who favour Tranfubfiantiation, but.that they do fully prove
the Divinity of Chriff.
P. It feems then we muff come to Reafon at laff. And
for my part, I muff tell you, I I think that Parallel much
the eafiefi. For, that three dijlinbl Perfons Jhould be in one
D 2 - indivi'
( 24 )
iadividual NaturC) and that the moji pure andjimple Bein^y
feems to me to he more abfurd than Tranfuhftantiation.
Pr. Let us fet afide the comparing Ablutdities at pre-
Lent, and only examin in point of Reafon, the great Ah>-
furdity of three Perfons being in one Individual Divine
Nature.
P. I did hardly believe you would have the courage to
defend the Doftrine of the Trinity in point of Reaibn;
but I fee you are a bold Man, and will venture farther
than wiier Men.
Pr. It may be others have not had the leifure or curio^
fity to examine a Myftery believed to be fo much out of
die reach , of our Underftanding; or have confounded
themlelves and others fo much with School-termsy as to
leave the matter rather more obfcure than it was before.
But I lhall endeavour to makethings as clear as they will
bear. And that which I infiit upon is, that the Abfur-
dities are not to appearance fo great as thofeof Tranfob-
ftantiatfon. And therefore I. defire you to produce thofe
which appear the mod dreadful;
P. I mail reduce all to.thefe.two, wlwch comprehend
the red».,.
1. How there can be three Perfons and but one God.
2. How thefe can agree in a.thirdy and. not agree among
themfelves.
For the hrif,. it feems very abfurd, that there fhould
be three Perfons really diftinft, whereof every one is God,
and. yet there Hiould not be three Gods; for nothing is
more contradicfious than to make tlu'ee not to be three,
or three to be but one,
Pr. I hope now you will give me leave. to make an
Anlwer to your Difficulty, as diftinQ: as poffible. We do
not lay., that three Perfons are.but one Perfon, or that one
Nature is three Natures; but that there are three Perfons
in . one Nature, If therefore one Individual Natme be
commu—
communicable to three Perlbns, there is no ap|->earance of
Abfiirdity in this Dodrine. And on the other fide, it will
tyre- be impofTible there fhould be three Gods, where there is
one and the fame Individual Nature; for three Gods muft
have three feveral Divine Natures, lince it is the Divine
EfTence which makes a God. But to make this moj-e
plain,. Do you make any difference between Nature and
w. Perfon f
"P. Yes.
Pr. Wherein lies it ?
P. Excufe me, Sir, for you have undertaken to explain
Wflf thefe things..
a/a/ . T^r. I will begin with Which Name was ori-
ginally taken among the Romans from fbme remarkable
fe diftinaion of one from another; either by fbme outward
fwi appearance, as a Vizard or Habit,,, or fbme particular
Al)i" (^ality or Difpofition. And from hence it came to be
ml"' applied > to thofe inward Properties, whereby one Intelli-
sils; gent Being is diflinguifhed from another; and from thofe
Properties, to the Perfbn who had them. Thus Perfon is
;M ufedieven by Tu/^ liimfelf, at leaft twenty times in his
Books of Rhetorick: and the old Civil Law fpeaks of
Perfonal Rights and Perfonal Anions. So that the Crb
ticks, fuch as ValU^ and others, had no caufC to find fault
with Boethius, for applying the. Notion of a Perfon^ to
iM Rn inielligent Being fubfiHing by it felf (and'fb the Soul
fll, is no Perfbn in Men, but the Man confiding of Soul and
i^li Body) having fame incommunicable Properties belonging to
it him. Therefore I cannot but wonder at the nicenefs of
fbme late Men, who would have the Names of Perfony
5 3 and HypoJlafiSy and Trinityy to be kiid afide; fince them-
ei felves confefs Bofthiscs his definition of a Perfbn to,be true
(C enough ; but they fay, it belongs to the CreatnreSy and not
jjjj to Gody for it veotdd make three Gods. Which is to flip-
•k pofe, without proving it, tliat the Divine. Nature can
P commu--
( 2^ )
communicate it feif after no other manner than a created
Nature can.
This is now to be more ftriftly enquired into. And it
is very weU'obierved by Bocthinfy de Trin. 1.1. T^rincip'
urn fluralitatis a Iter it as ejl : That Diverfity is the Reafon-
of Plurality : And therefore in the Trinity, fo far as they
are different, they are three, i. e. in regard of Perfonal
Properties and Relations', but fo far as they agree, they
are but ONE, that is, as to the Divine Nature.
It is very true, that according to Arithmetick, Three
tannot be One, nor One Threebut we muft diftinguifh
between the bare Numeration, and the Things numbred.
The repetition of three Vnits, certainly makes three di-
ftin£f Numbers ; but it doth not make three F-erfons : o
be three Natures. And therefore as to the T hings them-
folves, we muft go from the bare Nimsers to confider
their Nature. Where-ever there is a real diftinOiion, we
may multiply the Number, tho the Subjefl be but One.
As fuppofo we fay the Soul hath three Faculties, Under-
{landing, Will and Memory; we may, without the leaft
abfordity fay, there are Three and One; and thofo three
not confounded with each other, and yet there is but One
Soul.
P. But the Socinians objc£f, that there is a difference
between three Properties, and three difiinci Perfons; be-
caufe a Perfon is an Individual Being; and fo three Per-
fons muft be three Individual Beings; and therefore as
there is but one Divine Being, there can be but one Per-
fon.
Pr. This is the main ftrength of the Caufo; to which
I anftver, That altho a Per/on be an Individual Being,
yet it implies two Things in it; ( i.) Something com-
mon with others of the fame Nature *, as three Men have
one ahd the fame Nature, tho they be three Perfons.
(2.) Something peculiar and incommunicate to any o-
therj
( 27 )
ther; fo that Joh» cannot be Paer, nor Paer^ James.
P. But what is it which makes one not to be the other,
when they have the fame common Nature ?
Pr. You ask a hard Qi^eftion, vsz. about tlie Principle
of Individuation ; but if it be fb hard to relblve it, as to
created Beings, there is certainly far lefs Reafbn for us to
be uniatisfied, if it appear difficult to clear tlie Difference
of Nature and Per fan in an infinite Being. Yet all Man-
kind are agreed in the Thing, viz. That there is a Com-
mimity of the fame Nature, and a real Diftinftion of
Perfbns among Men, tho they cannot tell what that is
which difcriminates the Humane Nature in Johny from
the ftme Humane Nature in Peter and James. And it is
obfervable, that as Beings arife in Perfebfion above each
other, it is flill fo much harder to affign that which is
called the Principle of Individuation. In grofs and mate-
rial Beings we can difcern a number of Accidents, or pe-
culiar Modes and Properties, which diftinguifli them
from each other; but it is much harder to affign it in
Spiritual and Intclleftual Beings, whofe Natures and Dif-
ferences lie not fb open to our Underftandings. If fb be
then it appears more difficult in an infinite and incompre-
henfible Being, what Caufe have we to wonder at it ?
But we muff always make a difference between what
we have reafbn to believe, and what we have a power to
conceive. Altho we have all the Reafbn in the World to
believe that there is a God, i. e. a Being Infinite in all
Perfeftions; yet we mufl yield that his Effential Attri-
butes are above our comprehenfion.
As for Inff ance ^
(i.) We muft believe God to be Eternal, or we can-
not believe him to be God. For, if he once were not, it
is impoffible he fhould ever be. And therefore we con-
elude neceffary Exiffence to be an Effential Attribute of
the Divine Nature. But then, how to conceive that a
Being
i 11
t fi
I
Aii'"
n M'l' r
i'j f |li f"'', ■
( 28 )
Being fliOLiId be from it felf, is at leaft as hard, as how one
and the lame Individual Nature Ihould be communicated
to three diftinft Perfons; nay, it is fomewhat harder,
liiice we fee fomething like this in other Beings; but we
can fee no manner of ilefemblance of a thing that hath
its Being wholly from it felf.
( 2.) We muft allow God to be Omntfrefent^ or elfe we.
mull fuppoie him fb confined and limited to a certain
place, as to be excluded from any other; and if he can
Ad in all Places, lie muft either be prefent in them, or
his Power muft be larger than his Being, which is Infi-
nite; but after this, we have not a Power to conceive
liQw a Being lliould be prefent in the whole World, and
not to be extended ; and if it be extended, how it fliould
be uncapable of being divided into Parts; which is cer-
tainly repugnant to the Divine Nature. I tlierefore pro-
duce thefe two Inftances, to let the AntitriniParUns fee,
that what they objed in Point of Reafon as to the In-
comprehenfibility of theMyfteryof the Trinity, will in
confequence overthrow the Divine Nature. But as there
is the higheft Realbn to believe there is a God, tho wc
cannot comprehend his Perfedions ; fb there may be great
Reafbn to believe the Dodrine of the Trinity, thowc
cannot comprehend the manner of it.
T. I had thought you intended to explain the Myftery
■of it, and now you tell us it is IncomprehenftbU.
Pr. It is a good ftep to our believing it, to make it
plain, that the DiiHculty of our Conception ought not
to hinder our Faith. And I have made fbme advance to-
wards the explication of it, by fliewing, that fince Man-
kind.arc agreed about the difference between N^tture and
Perfon^ the whole Difficulty comes to this, that the fame
common Nature in Mankind makes three Perfons; but
that it is the fame Individual Nature in all the Perfons of
the Trinity.
And
X,
( 29 ) ^
And now let us confider the Infinite Perfeftion and Sim-
pJicity of the Divine Nature ; and we fhall think it iin-
reafbnable that it fhould be lb.bounded as to the manner
of its Communication, as the Nature of Man is. Every
Individual Man hath not only Individual Properties, but
an Individual Nature, u e. the common Nature of Man,
limited by icme unaccountable Principle, that doth make
him different from allotlierMen having the lame Na-
ture with himlelf. The Difficulty then doth not lie in a
Community of Nature., and a DiJlincHon of Perfons, for
that is granted among Men, but in the Unity of Nature
with the difference of Perfons. And fiippofing the Divine
Nature to be infinite in its Perfection, I do not fee h jw it
is capable of being bounded, as the common Nature of
Man in Individuals is; and if it be not capable of being
bounded and limited, it muft diffuie it lelf into all the
Perfons in the fame individual manner ; and fb this Do-
Ctrine of the Trinity is not repugnant to Reafon.
P. But what fay you to the Athanafian Creed j is not
that repugnant to humane Reafbn P
Pr. I think not; but tliat it is a juft Explication of the
DoClrine of the Trinity rightly nnderftood.
P. I fee now you arc upon hard Points, you wdll ftick
at nothing, and Tranfubjlantiation it felf will down with
you anon.
Pr. I doubt that; but at prefent we are upon tlie Jtha-
nafian Creed. And I defire but one Principle to clear it,
wliich follows from what is laid already, viz. That what
is affirmed of the Divine Nature, as fueh, mufb be com-
mon to all three Perfons; but whatever is affirmed of
the feveral Perfbns, as fuch, mufi: be peculiar to them.-
felves. Now this is a clear Principle of Reafon, and
hath no appearance of abfurdity in it. And from hence
the Athanafian Creed will eafily be cleared. For Eternity,
Incomyrehenfibility, Omniptency, belonging to the Divine
E Nature,
Nature, as fuch, we ought to lay, ThAt they are not three
Eternals, three IncompreljenJihles, three Almighties, but One
Eternal, One Incomprehenfible, One Almighty. Becaufe
the Attributes belonging to the Perfons, by reafon of the
Divine Nature, and the Attributes being really the lame
with it, the Nature is the proper Subjed of them;
which being but One, we are not to diffinguidi them as
to EJfcntial Attributes, but only as to Perfonal Relations
and Properties.
P. But if the Tiiree Perfons be Co'sternal, how is k
polTible to conceive tliere llaould not be three Eternals ?
Pr. This feems the hardeit Expreffion in tlie whole
Creed ; but it is to be interpreted by the Scope and Dc-
fign of it: Which is, that the Ejfential Attributes are not
to be diftinguifhed, though t\\Q Perfons be. And lb E-
ternity is not taken as a Perfonal Attribute, but as Ejfen-
tial and fo they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal.
And the great Defign of the Creed was, to fhew, that
* the Chriftian Church did not believe fuch a Trinity as
confuted of three Perfons, unequal and different in Na-
ture, and Subjiance, and Duration.
P. But what fay you to the damning all thofe who do
not believe it, in the beginning and end of it ?
Pr. This is off from our Bufinefs. But to let you fee I
will not avoid the Difficulties you offer, I will give an An-
fvver even to this. The meaning is not, that every one
is damned who doth not conceive aright of the Difference
of Nature and Perfon in the Trinity, or of the Effential
and Perfonal Attributes ; but that thofe who fet up in op-
^pofition to it the worfliip of a raeer Creature as God, or
the worfhip of more Gods than one, or who wilfully
rejeT this Article of the Chriffian Faith, when it is duly
propofed to them, are guilty of a damning Sin. For even
tlie disbelief of Chriffianity it felf, is not fuppofed to be
the Caiife of Mens Damnation, but where tlie DoTrine
- ^ of
( p )
of tlic Gcfpel iiath been propofejd in a way of Credibility.
If when this Doftrine ol' the Trinity is propofcd to j\4ens
Minds, they will not confider it, nor wei^h the Argu-
ments on both fides impartially, but with fcorn and con-
tempt rejeO; it, and endeavour to bring reproach upon
Chriftianity for the fake of it, and difturb the Peace of
the Church about it; fuch cannot be faid to receive or
believe it faithfully^and by fuch Sins tliey do run the liazard
of perijhing everlajlingly.
P. I fee you have a mind to fmooth every thing relating
to the Trinity, I willi you would do the fame about Tran-
fuhfiantiation. But yet you have not anfwer'd the other,
great Difficulty in Point of Reafbn, viz,. That thofe things
rvhtch agree or difagree in a third, mujl agree or dijagree one
miththe other. And therefore if the Father be God, the
Son God, and the Holy Ghoft God ; then the Father muft
be Son and Holy Ghoft, and the Son and Holy Ghoft mufi:
be the Father. If not, then they are really the fame,
and really diftindl; the fame as to Elfence, diftiiuft as to
Peribns; and fb they are the fame, and not the fame,
which is a Contradiftion.
Pr. And now I think you have drawn out the moft re-
fined Spirits of Socinianifm, to make the Dcflrine of the
Trinity and Tranfubftantiation parallel, becaufe you fay, it
implies a Contradiction; which is the neareft Parallel
you have yet offered at. But this terrible Argument is
grcunded on the fame Suppofition, viz. That the Divine
Elfence is no more capable of communicating it felf to
three diftinCt Perlbn's, than any- created Being is. The
Reafbn of that Axiom being, tliat created 'Fhings, by
reafbn of their finite Nature, cannot dirfufe or communi-
cate therafelves to more than one; and therefore thbfc
which agree in a.Third, muft agree together; but fuppc-
fing it pcffible that tl]e fame finite Nature .cculcl cxtehd it
felf to feveral Individuals, it would beyrrefuVthainCwxTed,
E 2 ' the
the Axiom did hold only, where they did adequately and
reciprocally agree, and not where they did agree only irt
Eflence, but diiTer'd in the manner of Subfiftence. For
where a different manner of Subfiftence is flippoled poffi-
ble, in the fame Individual Nature, the Agreement in
that cannot take away that Difference which is confiftent |
with it; which we attribute to the unlimitednefs and
perfedion of the Divine Nature.
P. But you can bring no other Jnftance but the thing
in Queffion ; and therefore this is a Pet it to Principiiy or
taking that for granted which is in Difpute.
I do not think it to be fb, where the Reaibn is
affigned from the peculiar Properties of the Divine Na-
ture, to which there can be no parallel. And I think it ;
very unreafbnable in the Socinitins, to lend us to created
Beings for the Rules and Meafures of our Judgment con-
cerning a Being acknowledged to be Infinite.
P. Are not the Divine Perfons Infinite, as well as the
Divine Nature? and therefore as created Perfons do take
in the whole Nature," fb infinite Perfbns will do the infi-
nite Nature.
Pr. No queffion, but the are infinite in regard
of t\\t Nature is fb ; but if an infinite Nature be
communicable to more Perfbns than One, every fuch Per-
fbn cannot appropriate the whole Nature to it felf.
P. If the difference he on the account of Infinity, then
there muff be an infinite number of Perfons in the Di-
vine Elfence.
Pr. I anfwer, that infinitenefs of Number is no Per-
feftion; and as to the number of Perfbns, we follow not
our own Conjeftures, nor the Authority of the Church ^
but Divine Revelation^ which hath affured us, that there
is but one God, and yet there are three that are one. Which
depends not meerly on the place of St.John^ but the Form
of Baptifm is remarkable to this purpofe, which joyns to-
gether
getlier the Father^ the Son^ and the Holy Ghoji; without
any other diftinciion befides that of Order and Relation.
And it is againft the fundamental defign of Chriftianity,
to joyn any Created Beings together with God in lb fo-
lemn an AO: of Religion. And St.Faal joyns them toge- ,
ther in his Benediftion : The Grace of our Lord Jefuc Chrijl,
and the Love of God, and the Communion of the Holy Ghoft
he with you all. Amen, 2 Cor. 12. 14. From whence the
Chriftian Church hath always believed a Trinity of
Ferfons in the Vnity of the Divine Nature.
P. You have taken a great deal of pains to clear the
Doftrine of the Trinity from any ablurdity in point of
Reafon, why fliiould you not do as much now as to Tran-
fubfiantiation f
Pr. In plain truth, becaufe I cannot; for here lies a vafi:
difference between them. In the Trinity we confider'd
an Infinite Being, to which no bounds can be let without
deftroying its Nature ; but in Tranfubftantiation, wefup-
pofc a true finite Body, which hath its natural bounds
and limits to one certain Place, and yet you will and muff
fuppole this Body to be equally preient in many tlioufand
diftant Places at the lame time; which implies lb great a
Repugnancy to the very Nature of a Body, that I can by
no means give my Affent to it.
P. Alas! Is this it which chokes your Realbn, lb that
ypu cannot fwallow the .Dcbtrine of "the Cliurcii in this
matter ?
You do not confider, that tho we allow nothing Inf-
nit em the Body it felf; yet we fuppofe an Infinite Power
to be imploy'd about it: and an Infinite Powder may pro-
duce things above our Comprehenfions, about Bodies in
themfelves finite.
Pr. This is the utmofl: your Caufe will bear; but I
pray tell me, Is there any fuch thing as a Repugnancy in
tlie Nature of things or not ? i. e. Are there not iome.
things.
things which are endued with fuch Properties, that if
you alter them, you deftroy their very Nature ; as, to
fuppofean indivifible Line, a Triangle without Lines, a
Body without Dimenfions ?
P. Hold a little ; a Body muft have Dimenfions belong-
ing to itjbut it is not neceffary it fliould have thofe Dimen-
fions where-ever it is prelent. Por it may be prefent in
one Place as a Body, and in another after the manner of a
Spirit.
Pr. You might as well have laid, a Body may be con-
fider'd two ways ; as it is a Body, and as it is not a Body;
for there can be no Body, where there are no Dimenfions j
proper to it. '
P. See how you are mifiraken; for it is not the Dimen- '
fwns rvhich feem to hinder a Body being in more places at once^
but its Unity \ as Bellarmin well oblerv"- _
Pr. I fay both of them hinder fk^dy can
no more be without its Dimenfions, ; ,. witnout
Divifibility.
P. I grant, that naturally it cannot,but by Divine Power
it may.
Pr. Will you make the Power of God to change the
ElTential Properties of things, while the things them-
felves remain in their true Nature ? You may as well fay,
that naturally Man is a Reafbnable Creature.; but by Di-
vine Power he may be a true Man, and yet want the
Ikiculty of Reafbning : That naturally two and two make
four, but God can make two, and two to be joyned toge-
ther in a fujxrnatural manner, fb as that four fliall not
refult from them ; that tho, naturally fpeaking, white-
walking a Wall makes it look white, yet by an extraor-
dinary Power, there may be the preience of all things
which make a Wall wliite, yet it fhall not do fb; .juif fb
it is to make a Body prefent, and yet to have no Ditnen-
fioiisof a Body. ' Is there may real diiferencc between the
Nature
^ 35 )
Nature of a Body and Spirit ? Wherein lies it ? Is it not
as repugnant for a Body to be after the manner of a Spi-
rit, as for a Body and Spirit to be tlie fame ?
P. All this proceeds upon not confidering the difference
between the Effential Extenfion of a Body, and that which
is quantitative, and hath relation to Blace.
Pr. The EJfential Extenfion of a Body without Qmn-
tity, is Non-fenfe, and a ContradiQ-ion. For it is to make
a Body extended and not extended, at the fame time. I
pray tell me what you mean by a Body, as it is oppofed to
a Spirit ?
P. I mean as all Mankind do, fuch a Subftance which
confiifs of Parts extended and divifible.
Pr. Then being extended and divifible, are the natural
and effential Properties of a Body. And therefore, to
fiippofe a Body not to be extended and divifible, is to
fiippofe it not to be a Body, which is a plain Contra-
didlion.
P. You are to diffinguiOi between the Intrinfecal
Quantity, which is an infeparable Property of a Body,
and tlie Extrinfecal Relation it hath to a Place.
Pr. Intrinfecal Quantity without Relation to Place, is
intrinfecal Non-fenfe. For, how is it pofEble for extended
Parts to have no Relation to Place ?
P. By Relation to Place, I mean, when the Parts of a
Body anfwer to the Parts of a Place: but by Intrinfecal
Quantity, I mean, that there is the real order and propor-
tion of Parts in the Body it felf, but it doth not fill up the
Place.
Pr. Then you do fiippofe the Body of Clirifi: in the
Euchariff, to have all the diftinQ: Paits of a Body, with
their due Order and Proportion, but to be in the Sacra-
ment after an indivifible manner.
P. Why not ?
Pr..
Pr. Do you think it poflTible for the real and entire Bo-
dy of a Man to becrouded into the compafs of a Wa-
fer, with all the difference of its Parts, fo that no true
Part of the Body be miffing ?
P. -Ves, by Divine Power. ^ ,
Pr. Do you think a far lefs thing poffible than that,
-viz,, that a Man's Head, and Shoulders, and Arms, fhould
be contained entire and diff:in6t under the Nail of his little
Finger ?
P. Why not ?
Pr. Then why may not the greateft Body be within
the leaft ? Why may not an Elephant be caught in a
Moufe-trap, and a Rhinoceros be put into a Snuff-box ? F'or
either there is a Repugnancy in the Nature of the thing,
for a greater Body to be within a lefs, or there is not; if
not, then thefe mentioned Inffances are poffible; if there
be, then the fuppofition of Divine Power can give no
relief, unleE you fiippofe, that God can do things repug-
nant in themfelves, L e. that he can do things which can-
not be done. But I pray tell me, if the very Body of
Chrift be by Prmfubjianttation in the Wafer, with all its
Parts in their due order, then the Head muff be diffant
from the Feet, and all the other Organs in their proper
places : but this cannot poffibly be fuppofed, where there
is no meafure of diftance as Place is, and the whole Body
is in a point.
P. I fay again, there is the juft order of Parts confi-
dered in themfel'uesj but not mth refgecl to Place.
Pr. Then it is impoffible there fliould be any diftance;
without which it is impoffible there fliould be the order
of Parrs in a Human Body. Thus, there is a Repugnan-
cy in the very fuppofition of Chrift's Body being in the
Wafer, tho there were but one fingle Wafer; but when
to this we add, that it is equally thus prefent in thoufands
of Wafers at what diftance of Place fbever, the Abfiir-
dities
dides do increafe and multiply fo fait upon us, that if
is Iiardly poflible to imagin any thing concerning a Body,
which doth imply more than this doth. As that one and
tlic fame Body fliould be indivifibly prefcnt in many places,
where it murt be divided from it lelf, by lb many Bodies
iliterpofing: fb that it is impolfible to apprehend how
two Bodies can be divided from one another more elfeftu-
ally, than ftich a Body muft be from it ielf, if it be pre-
lent in many places at once.
P. I pray Bop here ; for reckon up as many Ablurdi-
ties as you will, they are all but the Effefts of Carnal
Reafon^ and w^e mull captivate our Vnderjlanding to the
Obedience of Faith.
Pr. Then it is to no purpole to argue any farther, on
the point of Reafon ; and I thought you defigned this for
one part of your Parallel.
P. So I did; and I Bill fay, there are things as hard to
make out about the Trinity^ which you have not yet
taken notice of.
Pr. I pray let us hear them, that we may put an end to
this Difcourfe.
P. What fay you then to one and thefame Nature being
in three diBinbt Perfbns, which Beilarmin faith, is more
wonderful, than that one Body jhould be in many Places ; be-<
caufe the Nature is identified with the Perfons, but the Body
is not fo with the Places in which it isprejent. If therefore
^he fame Nature be not divided from it felf in the Perfbns
of the Trinity, how much more eafily mav one Body
be prefent in feveral places, and not be divided from it
felf?
Pr. It is Brange neither Beilarmin nor you fliould dif-
cern tlie diiference. For the reafbn why a Body muB be
divided from it felf, being in feveral places, is, becaufe it
is finite) and there being no Penetration of Dimenfions in
F Bodies,
C ^8 ) .
Bodies, the interpoling of other Bodies muft needs divide
the fame Body in diftant places; but the Reafon why the
fame Divine Nature may be in feveral Perfons, is, becaufe
it is Infinite; and therefore nothing can bound or difcon-
tinue it. , n • f
P. You have talked much of Contradictions; Is there
any greater about Tranfubftantiation, than that of Eter-
nalGeneratior^o^ the Son in the My fiery of the TrinityJ
for, if it be not proper Generation, then you cannot infer
from it, that the Son is of the fame Subfiance with the Fa-
therif it be, then it muft be a proceeding from not be-
ing to being, and fo an Eternal Generation is a Contra-
diftion.
Pr. It is a Rule in common Reaibn, That all Attributes
muft be underftood according to the Nature of the Sub-
jefts. And therefore, if the SubjeCt here fpoken of, be
of fuch a Nature, as to be uncapableof proceeding from
not being to beings then whatever is affirmed of it, muft
be fb underftood, as not to deftroy its Nature. The Term
of Generation alone is not, it may be, fufficient to prove
the Son Co-effential with the Father, becaufe it might
have been ufed improperly and metaphorically. But
when from the Scripture, it othcrwife appears that the
Son of God being the Word, was in the beginning with
God, and ivas God, John i. i. and we fbon after find him
called the only begotten (f the Father, Ver. 14. and the
only begotten Son, Ver. 10. we have reafon to infer from
hence his Eternal Generation. Which muft not be un-
derftood in fuch a mean fenfe as is agreeable to Creatures,
but as it is confiftent with the Effential Attributes of
God, of which neceffary Exiftence is one. So that by
Eternal Generation, no more can be meant, than fuch
an Emanation of the Son from the Father, as doth fuppofe
them to have the ^me Nature and Co-exiftence: which
is
^ J f ^
is bell: repreiented by the Rays of the Sun coming from
the Fountain of Light, if they were permanent, and not
fucceflive.
P, What fay you then to the Myfiery of the Incarmti-
on ? h it not more wonderful) as Bellarmin obferves, that
there jhould be one Hypofiafis in two Natures, than one Body
in two Places ? fince the Vnion is greater between the Hy-
pojlafis and the Natures, than between the Body and the
Places it is inthe one, being intrinfecal and fubjlantial,
the other extrinfecal and accidental. And that Hypo-
jlafis is the fame with the Divine Nature, and yet is mojl
clofely united with the Human Nature, which is fo different
from the Divine', fo that it is incomprehenfible by us, how
in that Vnion the Natures are not confounded, or the Hypo-
fiafis divided.
Pr, Suppofe now we grant all this, that there is an
incomprehenfible Myfiery in the Incarnation, what fol-
lows from thence? Have I not hitherto owned, that
there miifl be fbmething incomprehenfible by us, in
what relates to the Divine Nature ? And it is the lefs
wonder it is fb in the Incarnation, wherein an Union
is implied between an Infinite and Finite Nature; when
the Union of the Soul and Body, though both Finite,
is above our Comprehenfion, though we our felves con-
fill of Souls and Bodies fb united ? But what Confe-
quence is it, if we are not able to explain this, that
then we mufl admit that the fame Body may be not
meerly in two, but in ten thoufand places at the the fame
time ? i. e. If we cannot explain the Hypofatical Vnion,
then all manner of Abfiirditics mull go dowh with us, that
relate to things of a very difierent Nature from it.
P. I am glad to find you are fet at lafl, and that now
you have a Difficulty before you which you can never get
through.
F 2 Pr.
( 4° )
Pr. Bo not too confidentI hiVQ only hitherto denied
'the Confequence as to the Difficulties
tion. But it is pofTible, that fetting afide the Confufion
of School-Terms, I may be able to give a far mere intel-
ligible and reafbnablc Account of the hicarriAtton it felf,
-tlian you can ever do of Tra.n[iihflmticition.
P. Firft fliew that it is pofiible, and then explain the
manner of it.
Pr. But let us in the firft place agree what we mean
by it.
P. By the Incarnatioriy I mean, the Union of the Di-
vine and Humane Nature, fb as to make one Perfbn in
Chifift.
Pr. If this be not polHble, it muft either be, i. Be-
caule two Natures difierent from each other, cannot be
united to make one Perfon : The contrary whereof ap-
pears in the union of Soul and Body to the Perfbn of a
Man. Or, 2. becaufe it.is impoffible that an Infinite
Nature fhould be united to a Finite.
P. Plow can tiiere be an Union pofiible, between two
Beings infinitely diflant from each other ?
Pr. Not in that refpeft wherein the Dtfiance is hji-
nite; but if there be nothing deftruTive to either Na-
turein fiich an Union, and the Infinite Nature do con-
defcend to it, why may it not be fo united to an Intelli-
gent Finite Being, as to make one Perfbn' together with
it? For inrefpebiof Union, the Diftance is not-fb great
between Tinite and Infinite^ as between Body and Sft^
rit.
P. The Diffance is Infinite in one Cafe, but not in the
other.
Pr. I do nor fpeak of them, with Refpebt to Perfe-
ciionsy but to Vtnion ; and an infinite Diftance in that
muft imply an abfblute Repugnancy, which you canniever.
prove,.:.
( 41 )
prove: Voi'^CmcQBody and Spirit may be united to make one
Perfbn,anlnrmite Spirit may be united to a Finite Nature.
P. But the manner of the Hypojiatical Vnion is impoF
fible to be conceived.
Br. l^et the thing be granted poflible, and the difficul-
ty of conceiving the manner may be as great in the Uni-
on of Soul and Body. W ilPyou undertake to explain that
to me ? and yet I hope you believe it. But, let us hear
your Difficulties again, wiiich you objeft from Bettur-
mine.
P. That there /bou/d be hut one HypoJiaJjs in two Na-
tares ; and that in the Union the Natures (loould not he con-
founded., nor the Hypoftafis divided.
Pr. All thefe Difficulties arife from the fenfe of the
word Hypoftafis. Which originally figniPes a Real Being,
and not luch which depends only on Fancy and Imagina-
tion ; from thence its fignification was enlarged, not only
to things real, (in oppohtion to meer Appearances, and
Creatures of the Mind) but to fiich a thing which did
fuhfiH of it felf and had not its fubfiftence in another,
as Accidents liid. So that an Hypojlafis was ureal Suh~
(lance which had fuhfislence in it felf. But fiich are of two
kinds, as the Greek Fathers oblerve. (i.) Such as are real
Subftances in themfelves, but yet are capable of being
joined with another, to make up a Perfon ; thus the Soul
and Body have two different Hypojlafes, and make up but
one Perfon of a Man. (2.) It is taken, for a compleat
individual Suhfislence, which is not joined with any other as a
Part; and lb Hypojiajis is the lame with a Perfon, which
is nothing elle but a compleat, intelligent, individual Hypo- -
Jlafis. And in this fenle there can be but one Hypo/lafis in
Chrift, i.e. one Perfon, tho there be two Natures.
P. But our Divines fay, that the Humane Nature af-
ter the Union hath no Plypojlajis, it being Bvallowed up
by the Divine. Fn.
Pr. I know they do ; but if they mean that the Hu-
ntiane Nature, after the Union, lofes that fuhjijlence
which is proper to the JPumdne Nature, it is impoilible
for them to avoid the Eutychim Herefy, condemned by the
Council of Chdcedon j but if they mean no more than
that there is a true Nature, but no Perfbn, fave only that
which refiilts from both Natures ; they then agree with
the Senfc of the Church, which condemned the Eatychi-
ans. For as much as the Herefies of Nejiorm and Euty-
ches differ'd in themlelves, they were both built on the
fame Ground, viz.. tliat there could be no true Nature,
but there muft be a Perfbn ; and that two Natures could
not make one Perfon. From whence Nefiorim afferted
there were tm Perfons in Chriji and Euty ches denied
that there were two Natures.
P. What doth all this fignify, but that the Authority
of the Church muft determine whether there be two Na-
tures, or two Perfons in Chrift ?
Pr. It feems then, the whole Bufinefs wherein the Ge-
neral Councils were fb warmly concerned, was only to
make an Ecclefiajlical Dictionaryand to appoint what
words are to be ufed, and what not. Do you think
then, there were no ftich real Herefies as Nejlorianifm
and Eutychianifm, but only they happened to take the
words Nature and Perfon in another fenfe than the Church
would have Men ufe them?
P. I truft the Church for all thefe things.
Pr. Then if the Church would have you affirm two
Perfons and one Nature, or two Natures and one Perfon, it
were all one to you.
P. Why not ? fince the Church muft determine.
Pr. What if you had been to difjiute with Nefiorius
and Eutyches ?
P. I would have told them, they muft fubmit to the
Church about the ufe of words.
Pr.
( 4S )
Pr. And tlicy would have laughed at you for your
pains: For the Controverfy was really about the
of ChrijFs Incarnation, (as the Fathers proved, and the
CounGils determined) which in Confequence was rejefted
by both of them; as I will evidently prove, if you have
any longer Patience.
P. I beg your pardon, Sir, I have heard enough of all
Conlcience already.
Prr I think fb too, to make you afhamed of your Pa-
rallel between the Do5frine of the' Trinity, and Tranfub-
Jlantiation.
And methinks, for the fake of our common Chrifliani-
ty, you fhould no more venture upon fuch bold and unrea-
fonable Compariibns. Do you in earneft think, it is all
one,whether Men do believe a God, or Providence, or Hea-
ven, or Hell, or the Trinity and Incarnation of Chrift, if
they do not believe Tranfubfiantiation ? "We have heard
much of late about Old and Nerv Popery ; but if this be
the way of Reprefenting New Popery, by expofing the
common Articles of Faith; it will iet the Minds of all
good Chriftians farther from it than ever. For upon the
very fame Grounds, we may expefl: another Parallel be-
tween the, belief of a God and Tranfubfiantiation ; theef-
feft of which will be, the expofing of all Religion. This
is a very deftruftive and mifchievous Method of Proceed-
ing ; but our comfort is, that it is very unreafonable j as I
hope, hath fully appeared by this Difcourfc.
FINIS.
Errata omitted in the former Dklogm,
PAgc 10. line 2$, delewr.
18. 1.2, dele not.
14. Marg. 1. 8. read
In this Dialogue.
PAge 4. line §. read vi^. the Sacrament.
5. 1. 19. for done, r.dne.,
8. 1. 30. for fitiitious, r. faCiitiom.
23. 1.22. r, donbted as well. , Boo^s
Books Printed for William Rogers.
THa Dodiiiies and Praiftices of the Church of Rome truly PLeprefen-
ted i in Anfwcr to a Book intituled, A Papili Mii-rcprelented and
- Reprefentcd, &c. .Qmrto,
An Anfwer to a Difcourfe intituled, Papifts Protefiing againft Prote-
ftajit Popery i -being'a Vindication of Papiiis not Mifrepreiented by Pro-
teftants ; and containing a particular Examination of Monfieur de Me-
late Bifllop. of Condom^ his Expolition of the Dodrineof the
Church of Rome, in the Articles of Invocation of Saints, and the
Worfliip of Images, occalidned by that Difcourfe. ^HAvto.
An Anfh'er to the Amicable Accommodation of the Difference be-
tween the Repnefenter and Anfwerer. ^Arto.
A View of the whole Controvcrfy between the Reprefenter and the
Anfwerer, with an Anfwer to the Reprefentcr's lafi Reply *, in which
are laid open fome of the Methods by which Proteftants are Miffepre-
fented. by Papifts. ^arte,
A Difcourfe againft Tranftibflantiatipn, in OEiavo. price 3d.
Sermons and Difcouifes, fbme of wiiich never before printed i the
third Volume. By the Pveverend Dr. TiV/otyew Y)cmoi Camerhury. 80.
A Manual for a Chriftian Soldier. Written by Erafmtu, and Tranf-
lated into Eriglifh. Twelve^.
The Dodrinc of the Trinity and Tranfubftantiation, compared as
to Scripture, Reafon, and Tradition. In a new Dialogue between a
Proteftant and a Papift. The hrft Part. Wherein an Anfwer is given to
the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Tranfubfjantiation, in the Books
czWtdCofifetj/HS P^eterum, Nubes Tefiium, See. ^arto.
• • . < t
The Dodrine of tlie Trinity, and Tianfubftantiation coinpared, as to
Scripture, Reafon, and Tradition. In a new Dialogue between a Pro-
tertant and a Papilh The fecond Part. Wherein the Dodrineot the Tri-
nity is fhewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Feeafon, and Tranfub-
fiantiation repugnant to both, '
THE
CatJoM Snftoet
TO THE
I N A
LETTER
Directed to the
Proving the
^^^efence ?
The SCRIp'tuRE only.
Mark 16.16. He that Believeth^ and is Baptized^ Jhall he Saved,
hut he that Believeth not, Jhall he Damnd.
LONDON,
Printed for John and Thomas Lane at the Sign of the Golden-Anchor \
at the Corner of Wild-jlreet, nexr Duke-Jlreet. 1687. ,
•'I
k ^
( 3 5
' ' ■ ■' ■ ■ .11 iin I
The Gatholick Anfwer to the
Seekers Requeft, &c.
Sir,
Your Requeft happening to a Prefs of my Acquaintance,
gave Me the Opportunity of an early Pcrufal; near the
End whereof, I found Your plain Dealing with the Gentle-
men Mtnifiers of the Church of England-, telling them,
( Paj. 8.) in thefe, or the like Words, That 'twas Tour being in Dif-
cenrfe with 4 Gentleman of the Ca!i\rLo\\.ck Perfwafion, that moved Tou
to this way of Tryal 5 who boldly affirm'd, That he would prove the Ca-
tholick Dottrine of the Real Pretence, by the Exprefs Word of. God,
out of Teur eww Bibles j and that he Challenged all England to produce
him Jo much as One plain Text, from the Beginning of to the
End of Revelations, to prove the Contrary, if they could, then he
would be of Their Keligion, or of any Other They'd appoint him j which,
if he parted with his Own, he thought 'twas all's one. Upon reading
whereof, I found my felf concern'd, as being the very Pcrtbn with
whom You had the faid Difcourfc ; wherein I own to have utter'd
the above ExpreflTions or Words, to that EfFcffl: And what I faid
then, I'll ftill perform j tho', for a fingle Man to Challenge all
England, I confefs, was a little Rafh; but, in the Senfe I fpake it,
I again confirm it; that is, I will prove the Cotholick DoBrtne of the
Real Pretence, by the Bible only j and I defie the World to produce Me
One plain Text, to prove the Contrary; if they can, I will be of Their
Religion, or any other They'll appoint: For, if there be any more
than One Religion True, there raav be Forty,
But, upon the whole, I find You are refolvcd to try, what
Scriptures We have fi)r it, and what Proteflants have againfi: it}
wherein, I am fo far from blaming You, that I highly Applaud and
Commend Your Zeal to know the Truth, cfpccially in a Matter
C 4 ) .
ofjio Icfs Importance to You, than an Eternity of Blifs or Torments;
for, as You have well Noted { Pag. 3. ; that, Without
Heb, 11, 6. Faith it is impejfible to pleafe GoA-, and, that the
Epbef. 4. J. which is pleafing to God/\$ But One fo, without pica-
fing of Gerf,. by Believing this One Faith, 'tis Impoffible
Tidark 16. 6. to be Saved, according to Sr. Mark^, He that Believeth
not J floaH be Damned: And St-^ames tells US, That who-
2. Id. ever OfFendeth in One Point, He is Guilty of All: But
becaufe this Difcoiirfe tends to a Controvcrfie of ano-
ther Nature, I am not willing to purfuc itj and therefore, do fct
forward to the Matter in Queftion, which is, That You may be fatif-
fied in the great point of the Lord's- Supper, by the Scripture only,,
(and not by feveral ways of Arguing,as. is, iifual, ^c.) to whichi Tub-
nut, and accordingly,thall endeavour to perform thebcft I can, -But,
firft, You defire to know, (Pag. 4.) What it is We Believe of the Lords
Supper? Whereunto I anfwer, and refolvc in ihs Affirhsative of
IVhat You your Self propofc, or in plain terms, I Firmly and Truly
Believe, by the fame Faith I believe /iGod, That in the Eucharift, or
Sacrament ( as Tou call it ) of the Lord's-Supper, as Celebrated in
the Catholick Church, is Truly, Really, and Subfiantially contained
under the Forms of Bread and Wine, the True Body and Blood, together
with the.Souland Divinity of Our Lord ]eCnsCh.n% in the felf-fame
Subflance wherein he now Sitteth at. the Right Hand of the Father
which is ;■» Heaven ; and that is., in the verySubftance wherein He was
Born of the Virgin, and wherein He Lived and Dyed for Vs 5 with this
DiiTercncc only. That He was Vifible to the Eye of Flefli then, and
Invifible tothefamc now; for, with Our Mortal Eyes, we can no
more fee Him fitting at the Right Hand of the Father, which is in
Heaven, than we can fee Him (in Form and Subftance ) in the
Sacrament of the Lord?s-Supper, which is on Earth ; tho' by the
Eye of Faith, we See and Believe him as Firmly in the One, as
Subftantially in the Other : For, could We with Our Eyes and Senfe
of Flefh, See, Feel, Smell, andTafte (if we could diftinguilh) the
Tlelh and Blood of Chrift in the Sacrament, it would not be of
Faith J for, according to St. Paul, Faith is the Evi-
Hch. II. I. vidence of Things not (ten: that is, By Faith we Be-
lieve what we cannot See, nor by the Senfe of Flefh
comprehend: For, as Our Saviour faid in the Gofpct,
6.61. according to St. The Flefhprofilteth nothing, it is
the
( 5)
the Spirit that o^uickeneth \ but, as Our Sacred Lord
faid, in the next Vcrfe, There we feme cf 2»» that Believe
not.-, and 1 am Sorry for it, efpecially for You, fiom the
bottom of my i-icart, without Equivocation,or Mental Refcrvation
to the contrary; which are Maxims We utterly abhor in all Cafes,
wherein any thing of Sincerity, Truth, or Good of Our Neighbour
isconccrn'd; tho', by the Enemies of Truth, it is father'd upontls,
as a Fundamental of Our : but, tliat I may not Digrcfs front
the intent You are upon, I return to tell You, l hat in the above,
I haveTruly and Really laid down the Subftance cf rvhat We Believe
of the Lord's-Sftpper; which Doflrine of the Real rrefence,and Being
oflChrifi't Body and Blood in the Sacrament, I Affirm and Prove by
thcExprefs WordsmfGci^Himfcir, in the following Texts, as taken
from a Bible of Your own , Printed at London by Bonhatn Norton,
and John Bil, in the Year 1628. And as the Bible is Afferted by D,
71 in a late Conference, to be the Protefiant Rule of Faith; fo, I hope,
no Protefiant will fefufe to beTryed by his own Rule-, tho', I fear,
whoever Anfwcrs Your Requeft, of thcFrotefiantPsiXcy, that he will
be forced to fly from his Rule, and betake hirafelf to Equivocation,
and twenty other Figures and Fancies of his own ; for he will never
be able to ftand by his Rule, nor will his Rule ever hand by him :
Wherefore, torheSummof Your Requeft, which is, ThatVVeJhould
lay doVfH all the Scripture We can, to prove the ylffirmative of Our
Fart} and. That the of Parliament-Efiabl.Jh^d Mmlfiers, Jloould
produce all the Scripture They can or have, to prove the Negative of
Their Fart; 1 fay, the Negative, for. That they Deny, what We
Affirm for Truth; and this I find is the Fro and Con, that You'd
be Refolved in ; and that the Methods You take, are, as it were.
Judiciary,'to hear the Evidence on Both Sides; the Scriptures,
as You Repute'em, being the Recorded Evidcnceof Truth ; and
( as I conceive ) Your Defign is to hear the Evidence, and not the
Parties, by what You fay, ( Fag, 7.) Without troubling Our felves.
to tellTou the meaning on't i to which I fubmic, as near aspoffible;
tho', let mc tell You, 'tis a little ha'rd of Our fide, tlrat You will not
hear Our other Witnefles, who are without Number, in all Ages •
fince Chrifi, that have Believed and Taught this very Dodlrine of the
RealFrefence,^sWc o^t^^eCacholickQ'nmch do now Believe andTcach
it; But, to Your Requeft, Thefeare the Texts which I produce of
tX\eCatholickFdxx, to prove Our faid ^firm-it ive: And,
Firft,.
C ^ )
Firft, I prove Chrifi\ Promifc ( before He Inftituted the Sacra-
incnt ) that, He wotildgive us the Brexd to.' Eat, which came down
fromHeaven ; and thatjF^e Breadwhich he would give us^was his Flejhy
which hi!. Would give for the Life of the World.
St. John, Chap. 6.
Vcrf 48, I am that Bread of Life, fays Chrift.
49. Tour Fathers did Eat in the Wilder ncfs, and are Dead.
5*0. This is the Bread which comet h down from Heaven, that a Man
may Eat thereof, and not Die.
5" I. I am the Living Bread which came down from Heaven-, if any
Man Eat of this Bread, he fhall Live for ever; and the Bread that I
will give, is My Elefh, which 1 will give for the Life tf the Wtnr Id.
5'4. IVh-ofo Eateth My Elefh, and Drinketh My Blood, hath Eternal
Life-, and 1 will raife him up at the laflDay.
y y. For My Flejh is Meat indeed, and My Blood is Drink indeed.
y6. He that Eateth My Flejh, and Drinketh My Blood, dwelletb in
Me^ and / in him.
yy, yJs the Living Father hath fent Aie, and I live by the Father;
0 he that Eateth Me, even he Jhailltve by Me.
y8 This is that Bread which came down from Heaven: not as your
Fathers 'did Eat Manna, and are Dead: He that Eateth of this Bread
Jkall live for ever. But ( as He faith Vcr. 64. J there are fame of you
that Believe not: Which fbme ( of Unbelievers ) is fince encreafed,
by the nnmcroiis Otf-fprings of the Pretended Reformation Lady:
For Troteflantsncm, like Murmuring Jews then, ftrive {Ibid Cap.
Ver. yi. ) yimorgfi thcmfelves, faying, How can this Man give us
his Elefh to Eat ? And as the Difciplc's mnrmur'd then, who, Fer. 60.
faid, This is an hard faying, who can hear it ? And from that time,
rver. 66 ) Went back, and Walked no more With Flim: -So Protejlants,
who before were of Us, do now go back, with their How can this
be ? 'Tis an hard faying. Who can either hear or believe it ? and for
thiscanfe, Walk no^morewith us : But, mto P-rotefants, as unto
murmurrng our Saviour Anf^vers, and faith, fohn G. wr, 53.
• P'crily, verily, I fay unto you. Except ye Eat the Elefh of the Son of
Man, and firing his Blood, ye have no Life in you: And unto Prote-
fiants, as unto the Unbelieving Difcipks, (For Jefas knew from the
Befnning ( ver. 64 J whs they we e that Believed not, and who Jhould
Betray him^ faith, VCr. 61,62. Doth this Offendycu I What if ye
fhall
( 7 )
fhaU fet the Son of Man j^fcend Hp where he was before ? For that
the Doftrine of the Refurredlion was of more difficulty to be Be-
lievcd, than this of giving us Bread to Eat, which fhould be his
Flclh; and to (hew the World, that He meant as Hefaid, He fuf-
fers all forts of Murmurers, fews, Difciplcs, and Protefiants,
to go back, and walk no more with Him; without fo much as telling
them, 'twas but a Parable, or a Figure of his Body, or the like •,
But, to the contrary, confirms it, Ver.6i. It is the Spirit that quicken-
eth^the Flejhprofitteth nothing: the vpcrds that I fpake untojou-, ^i\
are&pirtr,anhtbEvarcilife : For, ifWe were not Quickeqed by the
Spirit to Believe, Wcmight, like Jews and PreteJlantSy murmur too:
For, tho'theFleffi ofChnfi did infinitely profit Salvation unto Us ;
yet Our Flefh profitteth not this Faith in Us to Believe; vvliereby
Chrif might not complain of Us, as he did of Them j ver. <54. But
there are fame of you that Believe not: And unto Us, as unto the
Twelve, chriftizxth, ver.6'j. Will ye alfo go away ? But, with Pe/er,
We Believe, and with Peter we Anfwer j wr, 68, 69. Lord, to whom
JhaH we go ? Thou hafi the words of Eternal Life; and we Believe, and
are fure, that Thou art Chrift, the Son of the Living God; who can
neither Deceive, nor be Deceived.
In the next place, I prove. That, notwithffanding the Repulfe
this Dodrinc met with, by the Murmuring of the ^ews, and the
going back of the Unbelieving Difciples, with their hard faying.
Who can hear it ? and not only to be Rejedled of them, but of Pro-
tefiants and Others in after Ages; for, Chrifr knew from the Be-
ginning, who they were, and who they fhould be, that Believed
not, and would not Believe: Yet, fo abfolutely neceffary to Our
Salvation was the giving Us this Bread, (which fhould be his Flefh)
to Eat, that ( mindful of his Promife j the Eve before his Paffion,
Mat.z6.'x6. Jefus took^Bread, and Bleffed it, and Brake it, and gave
it to the Difciples, and faid. Take, Eat, ts my !2^oOy. And I
defie all the Minifters in England, to produce fo much as One
Text to prove it was not his Body: the fame being again confirm'd
by St. Mark, chap. 14. ver. 22. And as they did Eat, Jefus took Bread,
and Blefed, and Brake it, and gave to them, and faid. Take', Eat,
Sifeia is mp IBoCiy; And who dare give Chrifl the Lye; and fay,
TAs not fs>; tho' the fame be again confirmed by^ St. Luke ,
chap. 21. ver. 19. And He took Bread, and gave Thanks, and brake
it, and gave unto them, faying, ChtS iS luy , which is given
for you; SCfctB DO in l<Jememt)zance Of me. And in like manner of
the Cup, in all thefe places, that it was his Bleod •, and the fame a-
gain by St. faul, i Cer. chap. ir. ver.^ 23, 24, zf, 26, 27, 28, and
29. to which I refer the Seeper; and in the fame Chapter, with Sr.
Paul, fay, ver.^o. For this cauft, many are Weak^ and Sickly among
you, md many Sleep •, who have not Faith to Believe it, nor Scrip-
ture to Difproveitj if they have, afllire yotir felf, I will .perform
my Word, and be of Their, or any other Religion, they fliall
appoint Me.
Wherefore, I fit down With the above Authorities, as being fuf-
ficicnt to prove the Real Prefence of Chrijl's Body and Blood in the
Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper \ and expect to hear what Scrip-
ture Authorities they have, to produce againft it; and (b fbon as
they Open, fear not, but We will Trace the Scent, till the Fox be
unkennell'd : If they go to Figures and Parables, We know how
to handle them j but, let them beware how ^hey offer any thing,
without (hewing a Rule for it; For, fince th::y have Alferted the
'Biile to be Their Rule of Faith, They cannot take it ill, if by
Their own Rule, they be Well-Rul'd: Which (till next Occafion)
.is what offers, From,
S I R,
Tour always linmblej and
obliged Ser'uanty
N.N.
F 1 U I S.
■ l
t
Imprimatur.
7. , „ Libellus cui Titulus, An
iti, Anfiper to tl^ Seeker,
H. MAVRICK
■—ng-
lcij)vie^uyrf€
Contrary to
SCRIPTURE:
^ o r, t h b
Protestant*s Answ-br
to the
SEEKER'S RE Q.U EST.
•
j o h n vi.
It is the fpirit that qukkneth, the flejh profteth nothing j
the words that I/peak unto you, they are fpirit, and
they are life.-"^
LONDON:
Printed for Dor man Newman, at the Kings-
Arms in the Voultrey, 1688.
I
A N
ANSWER
T O T H E
SEEKER;
SIR,
YO U are the pleafantefl: Seeker I ever met with
for you firfl; fuppofe Controverfies already de-
termined, and then feek a way to refolve them.
What greater Difpute have we had, than whe-
the.r the Title of Catholkk juftly belongs to thofe of the
Church of Rome, fo as to exclude all that are not of Her
Communion ? But this you give up in the Perfon of a
Seeker, calling thofe Catholicks by way of diftindion
from us, who call us by the name of Heretkks. If you
do not know the meaning of the word, you are 2. Seeker
indeed j if you do, and give it fo to them as to exclude
us, we do by no means allow you to be a Seeker; for you
have found that which none but the DomtiHs had found
before you, viz. That a Leg or Arm may be called the
whole Body. But in this matter I am the greateft^'^e^er
of the two, for I am to feek both for Senle and Reafon
in it.
Call us T rote Hants as often as you pleafe ; it puts us in
A ^ mind
An Anfwer to the Seeker,
' mind of Errors renounced by us under that name, which
we are not adiamed of, as long as we know there was fo
great reafon for it; and we think we have Realbn enough
to fatisfie any impartial Seet'er; but ioxUind Seekers there
"is nothing fo proper as an Implicit Faith z-nd Tranfub-
ftantiation. Of all Suhjelis methinks a Seeker Ihould not
have pitched Aon Trankibftantiation, unlefs he were to
for his Senfes ; andof all places he lliould not have
fought for it in Scripture, unlefs he were refolved as well
'to Seek where it was not, as where it was to be found.
But now to come to your method of feeking.
You tell xks^ThatgenerallyJpeaking of ChriJliaHS in this
our little Englifli Worlds you find hut two forts pretending
to Chrijlianity^ Catbolicks of one fort^ and Protejlants of all
forts ; by this indeed you feem to be ignorant of the
great diverfity of Opinions in the Roman Communion,
and with what heat and concern each Party maintains
their particular Sentiments; but if you had caft your
Eye a little while ago intobefore the foftand gen-
tie methods of converting had proved fuccefsful, you
might with greater certainty have found Proteftarrts of
one fort, and Catholicks of all forts.
Notwithftanding this difcouragement from the biafe
of your Judgment, I thought it neceflary to take your
Requefl into confideration J which tho not due to the falle
Pretences of a diflatisfied Confcience , yet, is to the care
we ought to have of our Fellow-Chriftians fafety left it
Ihould be endangered by fuch plaufible Infinuations ) and
the advantage may accrew thereby to a lefs prejudiced
Reader than your ifelf.
Before I proceed, give me leave to premife one thing,
That tho we make Scripture the Rule of our Faith, and
are willing in matters of that concernment to be tried
by the Bible, becaufe we know not where to find a better
Rule ; yet 'tis reafonable to except againft what you infi-
nuate.
An Anfmer to the Seekjer.
nuate, as-if the Church of England own'd no Dodrlnes
but what are Contained in exprefs words in Scripture.
F.or, befides our Pofitive Articles, we have a great many
Negative ones, for which we are beholden to the Corrup-
tiom^and Innovations of the Church of Rome ; fo that to
requite plain and exprefs words of Scripture, to prove
that fush a Dodrine is not there taught, is to demand
a proof the thing is not capable of. All things are not
equally liable to the fame fort of Demonllration ; and
he that in every cafe will not believe without a Mathe-
raatical one, will be in great danger of being an Infidel.
Wife men require proof according to the nature of the
matter in debate; .he that goes beyond this, gives evi-
dence fufiicient he has no mind to be convinced ; 'tis
enough for us to Ihow that Tranfuhflantiation is not
taught in Scripture; and that thofe that pretend 'tis
there, cannot Ihow it; nay, that the literal fenfe con-
eludes not for it, and that our notion of the Real Pre-
fence is agreeable to it.
Indeed the Scriptures are fo Right a foundation for the
SuperRrudure of Tranfuhflantation^ that the moft difcer-
ning Men of the Communion of the Church of Romei
who have been Eminent for Learning, have frankly con-
fell the whole matter; and thought their Faith in this par-
tkular wanted an adventitious fupport, which has made
them (though in vain) call upon Ancient Fathers, and the
Authority of the Church for help at time of need. Now
one would have thought this might be taken notice of by:
one that fets up for a Seeker ; but'tis a fign you are but
lately engaged in this employment; and have made but
a little progrefs in your defign ; or elfe you could never
think it reafonable to oppofe the Authority of one un-
known Anfwerer of that Communion, to the profeft Opi-
nion of fo many great Divines in that Church. But be-
caufe I am willing to further the propofal of an impartial ;
cnquiryj.
^ An Anfwer to the Seek§r»
enquiry, fo agreeable to Proteftant Principles, and fo
contrary to Popifli ones: I will dired: you to places which
you may examine at your own leifure, uliere you will
find this point freely granted by our Adverfaries.
De Eucha. Amongft thcfc 1 fliall begin with Scofus, who held
1.3. C.13. (kith Bellarmme')^ that there was not one place of Scrip-
ture fo exprefs, that without the determination oi the
Church, it would evidently compel a man to receive
Tranjuluflantiation. To him I may add Cardinal Alliaco
(a) in 4. (a)^ Gahriel Btel (F) , Fijher Bifliop of Rochejier (c
ArT ^ ^nd Cardinal Cajetan (d'), who faith, particularly, that
in Can. thefe words. This is my Bodyare not fufficient to prove
Mif. Led. fetting afide the Authority of the Church, fince there
(c)'contra is nothing appears from the Gofpel to enforce one to believe
Capt. Ba- that they are to be taken properly. Which words are lb
fjj in left out in the Roman Edition by
Wq^75- order of Pope Pius the V. as Suarez faith (e).
Ar. I. I lhall conclude this point with Bellarmine^ who after
recited the Opininon of Scotus, that there is no
place of Scripture fo exprefs^ &c. adds, And that is not al'
together improbable : For although the Scriptures feem to us
to be fo clear., that they compel a man not obflinate ; yet it
may defervedly be doubted, feeing the mofl learned and a<-
cute Men, fuch as Scotus was, thought otherwife. And as
it's confefied of the words of Confecration, This is my
Body, fo the 6th. Chapter of St. John has undergone the
Albertinus, who went to the bottom of
' " this Controverfie in his excellent Treatife de Euchar.
reckons up about Thirty Learned offeveral degrees in the
Roman Communion, who rejed: the application of that
Chapter as not ferving to this purpofe. Methinks thefe
full and free Concellions Ihould fufficiently fatisfie yoif
how little they of the Church of Rome lay the ftrefs of
this Caufe upon the clearnefs of Scripture ; and 'tis likely
if you had known it, you would have been difcouragecl
in your attempt. gut
An Anfwer to the Seeder, 5
But becaufe (if you are to be believed} you do not, p, 4.
you fay, mderjland Greek and Latin, and that I may be as
impartial in my Advice, as you would feem to be in Re-
quelling it, I defire you to confult even thofe who arc
concerned moll of all in this matter, and particularly tlie
Author of your Cathottck Anfiver, who has undertook what
the abovefaid Learned Perfons defpaired of, to prove Tran-
fuhfiantiation to the full of your Requell by exprefs and
plain Texts of Scripture.
I mull confefs, that I was pleafed at the motion you p. 5.
make to your Friends of the Communion of the Church
of Rome^ that they fet forth all Scripture-proof they can in
this cafe j being beforehand fatisfied, that when 10 great
a man as Cardinal Bellarmin produced a Firll without a | 3
Second, that their AH could not be much fince that rime
improved ; but however, your Anfwerer it feeffls has
read that which Cardinal Bellarmin had not feen ,• for by
a certain Bible of our own, Printed at London for Bonham
Norton and John Bill^ he has found out a great part of p. p
a Chapter which the Cardinal had overlook'd, and that
in your way,without going to Figures and Farahles. Pag.8.
But befides what thefe Divines have granted (which to
be fure was from the force of uncontroulable reafon} the
Literal Senfe of the places of Scripture heproduces^isnot
for him and his Dodlrine, which he thus delivers. Fag. 4.
I firmly and truly believe ^ by the fame Faith I believe a
<jod, That in the Eucharifl^ as celebrated in the Catholick
Church, [ of Rome, he means ] is truly, really, and fub-
JiantiaHy contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine,
the true Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divi-
nity of our Lord Jefus Chrijt, in the felf- fame Subflance
wherein He fitteth at the Right hand of the Father which
is in Heaven, and that is in the very Subjlance wherein he
was horn of the Virgin, and wherein He Lived and Died
for us. Unto which if he had aKlded, -that this is by the,
B Con-i
An Anfwer to the Seeker^
Converfion of the Bread into the Body, and Wine into -
the Blood of Chrift, he had more fully fpoken the fence
of his Church; and, as I conceive, his own too. This he
faith he firmly and truly believes with the fame Faith he
believes a God\ and without doubt would have us fup-
pofe that he has as much reafon, and as good Authority
from Scripture for his Faith in the one, as the other, with-
out Zt>in^ to Figures and Parables.
Let us then take up the Caufe, and fee what he is ob-
liged to prove, and how he proves it. The 'firfl: place he
produces is John 6. 48. &c. From which^afon we are
now to expedl that therein are plainly ancTexprefly con-
tained thefe things.
I. That our Saviour fpeaks this properly of the Sa-
crament or of His Flefh and Blood eaten and drank in
the Sacrament alone. For if he fpeaks of their Eating his
Flefh and Drinking of his Blood out of the Sacrament, or
out of the Sacrament as well as in it, it's not to the An-
Jiverers ipurpofe. 1
That by the words Flefh and Blood are there under-
flood the proper Flejh and Blood of Chrifl, In the very
Subftance wherein he was born of the Virgin,, lived, died, and
is now in Heaven, and that this was properly to be Eaten
and Drank.
3. That this Flejh and Blood is made by the Converfi-
on of the Bread into the Flejh, and of the Wine into the
BloodoiQWA, and is upon fuch converfion, really, truly,
and fubjiantially contained under the Forms, and without
the Subflance oj Bread and Wine,
But how far are thefe from the words as well as the
meaning of our Saviour For,
I. This difcourfe of our Saviour had no fpecial refe-
rence to the Sacrament: For the Sacrament was not in-
'.flituied till above a year after (as the time of this dif-
I courfe fliews,,'yfir. 4.I and fo could not be underflood by
'V the
111
a
An Anfvoer to the Seeker,
the Difclples in that fenfe, 'The eating the Flefh, and
drinking the Blooddi our Saviour here fpoken of, could not
have a fpeciai reference to the Sacrament, becaufe that
might be done out of the Sacrament as well as in it; and
at that prefent, as well as a year after.
Thisthefe 5'5.54,5'5r,5-(^,f7. dofliew: Where our
Saviour faith. Except ye Eat the Elejh of the Son of 'Mdh,
and Drink his Bloody ye have no life in you : Whofo Eateth
my Flefh and Drinketh my Blood hath Eternal Life^ and I
will raife him up at the lafl day, &c. In all which verfes
the prefent time is ftiH fpoken of. Except ye Eat and
Drink He that Eateth and Drinketh My Flejh is
Meat, &c. Now if Chrift's Flejh might be eaten, and His
Blood drank out of the Sacrament (as is evident from the
Senfe, and which the Anfwerer values more, the letter of
it) then it could not be underftood of that Flefh and
Blood which the Bread and Wine are converted into in
the Sacrament, nor of carnal eating hisand drink-
ing his Blood: which was the fecond thing we were to
feek for in thefe words.
X. The Senfe therefore of eating the Flefh and drink-
ing the Blood, muft be Figurative, and fignify no more
than coming to Chrift, and believing in him.
fiJThey are Figurative, becaufe Bread, and Flefh and
mood, and Chrijl, are indifferently ufed, the fame things
being affirmed and denied of them promifcuoufly, ver.
35', 38,48, 51, 5-3,5*7, 58. So Coming, and Believing,
and Eating, ver. 35,44, 47,5-1, 53. And this is confirmed
by what our Saviour gives as the Key of it, ver. 53. It is
the Spirit that quickeneth, &c. and by what St. Peter an-
fwers in the clofe of all, that this was fpoke of Chrifl and
faith in him, verfe 68. Thou haji the Words or Do(Trine
of Eternal Life-, We helieve, and are fure that thou art the
Chrift, the Son of the Living God, that came down from
Heaven, and was to give his Flejh for the Life of the
World. B z z. It
8 An Anfwer to the Seeker.
muft not be properly and literaly underflood, for
then all that thus properly eat the Flefh and drink the
Blood Q,{Chriil would have Eternal Life, according to our
Saviour's Aflertion, ver. 5'4. Who jo eateth my Flejh and
drinketh my Blood, hath Eternal Life: hath upon fo doing
a never failing title to it.
(3:) To which I lhall add againft them, That then the Sa-
crament in both kinds will be ncceflary to all for Salvation,
which the Church of Rome declares to be unnecedary with
an Anathema. For fo it is affirmed by our Saviour, ver. 53.
Except ye eat the Flefh of the Son of Man, and drink his
Blood, ye have no Life in you. This Cardinal Cajetan al-
lows, and therefore contends with great earneflnefs, and
ufes many Arguments to fhew, that this difcourfe of our
Comment Saviour doth not deliver a precept of eating and drinking
in ver, 53- the Sacrament of the Eucharifi.
Having got a little under the Covert of fo great a
Man, I will make bold to look upon your Champion, who
defies all our Armies of Scripture Authorities, threatens to
unkennel the Fox; and if, faith he, they go to Figures and
Parables, we know how to handle them. P. 8.
If he means to handle us by Scripture and Reafon, we
fliould willingly attend his motions; if he has other ways
in his Eye, they are below our Indignation and Enquiry.
But methinks one that pretends to have read this Myfteri-
ous and Sublime Difcourfe of our Saviour, fliould not have
this Antipathy to Figures and Parables, and crofs himfelf
wherever they are named. For I remember not any dif-
courfe in Scripture (fetting afide what is Prophetical, or
fet out in a Parabolical Scheme} where there is more of
Figure than in this of our Saviour, where I am certain that
in the zy verfes utter'd by him from v. i6. there are no lefs
then twenty expreffions of that kind. Let the Anfwer er tell
me without a Figure, what is that Meatwhxoh endures to
Everlafting life; How the Son vt^^s-Sealedhy the Father.
How
An Anfwer to the Seeker.
How Jefusis and the Bread that came down from
Heaven. How the Bread and the Flefli of Chrifl: could be
tliefame, u 5*7. And how (if the fame) it could come
from Heaven, when he was of the Seed of David accord-
ing to the Flelh. LafHy, How one of his Church can dare
to talk of a Literal Senfe of, Except ye eat the Flejh of the
Son of man, and drink his Blood, which denies the Cup to
the Laity. Or how he can without Blafpemy fay. That
in the Eucharifl is contained the true Body and Blood, toge-
ther with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jefus Chrifl,
and yet literally Interpret v. 5:7. he that eateth me; fince
if Chrifl be not, but where heintirely is, then he muft be
eaten intirely .• If he defers his handling us, till he refolves
thefe Points without a Figure and Parable, we may fit
fafe, and the Church of England, tho in an humble Plain,
may continue as long as that which is upon the feven
Hills. But fuppofmg that he fliould attempt this, yet this
is not all. For,
3. Here is nothing of the Converlion of the Bread in-
to the Body, nor of the Wine into the Blood of Chrifl,
but rather the contrary j for if the words are literally to
be underflood, then they would rather infer the Conver-
fion of Chrifis Flelh and Blood into Bread and Wine, when
he faith, v. 48. the bread of life, u 55. My flejh is
meat ( or bread ) indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
By this time you fee what is like to become of one of
hispofitive Scriptures for the B.sal Prefance, which you
requefled, and he has ventui'd to produce ; and becaufe
you are a new Seeker, and it's likely not acquainted with
what has been written on the Proteflant fide, let me for
once requefl you to perufea plain and rational Paraphrafe
upon this Chapter, publiihed the lafl year 3 and if you be
a Seeker after Truth, as you preten^ />, j. I am certain
there you may find it; or that your Anfwerer will not be
able to furnifh you with a better.
It's
An Anfiper to the Seeker^
It's time now to pafs to his Second Proof, and they are
"the words. This is my hody: Here I mull: commend your
Anfwereras much as he doth you ; it was wholfomc Ad-
vice you gave, That the Parties Ihould produce their
Texts without troubling themfehes to tell the Meaning cnt^
and he has engaged to fuhmit to it as near as pojfthle^ p, 5.
Put how thefe words will prove the Dodrine of Tranfub-
ftantiation, without he give them a Meanings l am to feek;
for I am as fure as they are words , That the Dodrine
of Tranfubftantiation is no more the Literal than it can
be the Rational Meaning of the;n : For where is there
one word of what he firmly and truly believes by the fame
Faith he believes a God^ That the This^ whatever it means,
is the true Body and Bloody together with the SouPand Divi-
nity of our Lord Jefus, in the felf-fame Subflance wherein he
,was horn of the Virgin ? Where, That this true Body and
Blood, is truly, really, and fubftantially contained under the
Forms of Bread andWine > Where, That the Bread and
Wine are upon Confecration turned into the true Body and
Blood of Chrift ? And with fubmiffion to you, I would on-
ly ask,What is the this, of which Chrift faith, it is my ho-
dy ? If it be Bread, then the Bread is in the Literal Senfe,
the Subftance of Chrifts Body, and fo overthrowsthe
Change pretended to be made in Tranfubftantiation j for
a thing cannot be faid to be changed into what it is al-
ready ; if by the This, is not meant the Bread, then the
Bread could never be turned into the Body of Chrift by
virtue of the words. This is my Body; let the Anfwerer
take his choice ; and becaufe we that are not to feek, are
not fo eafily fatisfied as you that are, I defire he would fa-
vour us with his Meaning about it; for I afliire him, as we
have not Faith to believe that which the Scripture hath
not taught, fo I do not think that he has faid any thing
that may move an unprejudiced Perfon to think that it
has any ground from the Scriptures,- nor,what he pretends,
■ that
An Anfwer to the Seeker. 11
that it has fo much as the Letter of it for them, as I have
fhewed.
And here I might ftop.; Tranfubflantiation, if not in
the Scriptures produced by the Anfwerer, is furely not in
Scripture; and having fliewed that it is not in them, I
need not to proceed ; the convidlion of which, without
doubt, extorted that ConfefTion from fuch Learned Per
fons as Oc/jaw the great Schoolman (a)^ and Cardinal
//aco (^}, That the Doctrine which holds the Bread and 4^'
Wine remain after Confecration ^ is neither contrary
Reafon nor Scripture ; for if it be not proved, it is difpro- 4. CL?.
•ved^ and the Dodtrine of the Protellants would be un-^^-''"^.
doubtedly true, if that be falfe. But becaufe you ihall An'2. '
have no occafion to think us lefs civil to (Irangefs, oriels
concerned to make a Profelyte of a Seeker, and fuch a
one as you,who tell us you are refohed to he either Catho-
lick or ProteHant^as the VerdOi upon this Tryal Jhallgop.^.
I will firft of all tell you what our Church doth hold,"
and then point you to thofe Scriptures which it doth
ground this its Dodtrine upon.
1. Our Church holds,That Tranfubflantiation is repug-
nant to the plain words of Scripture, and overthroweth
the Nature of a Sactament, Art. z8.
2. That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain after
Confecration in their Natural Subflances j and the natu-
ral Body and Blood of Chrifl are in Heaven, and not here.,
Ruhrick after the Corny
3. That the Body of Chrifl is given, taken, and eaten,
in the Supper only after an Heavenly and Spiritual man-,
ner; and the means whereby the Body of Chrifl is recei-.
ved and eaten, is Faith, Art. z8, 29.
From ^whence you fee^, That in the Opinion of our
Church, there is no other Subflance diflributed among tha
Communicants than that of Bread and Wine ; and that
the Body of Chrifl is no other wife prefent, than it is eaten,
that -
An Anfwer to the Seeker]
that is, after an heavenly andfpiritualmanner^ in the fpiri-
tual Bleffings and effedtsofhis Merits,and fufferings in his
Body, to thofe that do believe .• And in this fenfe we own
a Real Prefence, tho at the fame time we deny it in the
fenfe of the Church of Rome, that it's the Body of Chrift,
and not Bread and Wine, and as truly^ really^ andfulflan-
tially fo, as that in which he died^ and now fits at the Right
Hand of God.
And now if you will be pleafed to confider the follow-
ing Texts,you will find the fame Dod:rine abundantly con-
firmed, and very agreeable to our Saviours Inflitution.
I Cor. 11. X3,24. The Lord Jefiusthe fame night in
which he was betrayed., took h ead, and when he had given
thanks^ he brake it, and faid. Take, eat, this is my body which
is broken for you, this do in remembrance of me.
Matt 26. 27,28,29. And he took the cup,and gave thanks,
and gave it to them, faying. Drink ye all of it, for this is my
blood of the new tejlament, which is Jhed for many for the re-
mijfion of fins; I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of
the vine,until that day I drink it new with you in my Fathers
kingdom*
Mark 14. 23,24. And he took the cup, and when he had
given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it,
and he faid unto them. This is my blood of the new tefiament
which is jhed for many.
Luke 22. 19,20. And he took bread,andgave thanks, and
brake it, and gave unto them, faying. This is my body which is
given for you, this do in remembrance of me ; likewife alfo the
cup after fupper, faying. This cup is the new tefiament in my
blood which is Jhed for you.
Adfs 2.42. They continuedfiedfafi in the Apofiles dohirine
and fellow (hip, and in breaking of bread.
Adts 20. 7. Z/pon the firfi day of the week, when the Difci- '
pies came together to break bread.
I Cor.
An Anfwer to the Seeker.
I Cor. 10. 16J, The cup of lie fwg which we hlefs^ is
it not the communion of the hlocd of Chrifi > the bread
vohich we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chrifi ^
For we being many are one bread and one body ; for we are all
partakers of that one bread.
I Cor. II. 26. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink
this cup, ye do P^ew the Lords death till he come.—Whqfoever
Jhall eat this Bread, and drink this Cup of the Lord unwor-
thily—Let a man examine himfelf, and fo let him eat of that
. Bread, and drink of that Cup.
Adts I. II. - ■ This fame Jefus, who is taken up from
you into Heaven, Pad fo come in like manner, as ye have feen
him go into Heaven.
Adts 3. XI. Whom the Heaven mufl receive, until the
times of reflitution of all things '•
Luke 24. 39. Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I
my [elf: hanMe, me and fee, for a Spirit hath not fiep and
hones, as fe fee me have.
Adts 1.3. To whom alfohe pewed himfelf alive after his
pajfon, being feen of them forty days.
I John 1.1. Which we have feen with our eyes, which
we hang looked upon, and our hands have handled.
Hebr. 9. xS. So ChriP was once offered to hear the fins of
many; and unto them that look for him ff all he appear the
fecond time'" '
Hebr. 10.12. This man, after he had offered one
facrjfice for finSyfor ever fat down on the rigfit hand of God.
Phil. 3.21. Ghrift has a glorious Body.
Thefe are the chief, thb not all the Scripture-proofs ^
which do difprove the Dodlrine of the Remip^VitcK,
C and
An Anfwer to the Seeker.
and eftablifli our own. And having, according to your
Requeff, fet them do\i'n in words at length, with Book,
Chapter and Ferfe i give me leave, becaufe you area
Seeker, to lead you a little farther, and to fliew you what
ufe we make of thefe Quotations.
1. It's apparent from hence,. That there are many
things in our blefled Saviours Inflitution, and Admini-
llrafion of the Holy Supper, that cannot have a literal
Senfe. As, when he faith, This is my Body, which u hro-
ken for you y before it was broken. This Cup is the New
Teflament in my Blood, Matt. z6. a8. i Cor. 11. 24.
And then, if we give a figurative Explication of the
words J This is my Body; w e may by fo doing no more
depart from the true Senfe of them, nor in the Anfwerer's
prophane Phrafe, p. 7. no more give Chrifi the lye, than
they themfelves, or we do, when both do take the Cup
for the Wine in the Cup; and the Wine in the Cup for the
Sign or Seal of the New Teflament.
2. It mufl be granted farther, that it s not fo much
the literal words, as the meaning of the words, that is
to be attended j and what the Tenor and Drift of our
Saviour's Difcourfe, the ufage of Words and Phrafes, and
the reafon of the thing diredls to, that is the mean-
ing of the wordi For, who would be fo fenflefs as to af-
firm, that the material Cup is the New Teflamfnt, or
that they properly drank the Cup, becaufe it's fo affirm-
ed in Words? And as fenflefs do others think it, to fay,
with the Anfwerer, That what was Bread, is properly and
Juhfiantially the Body of Chrifi, becaufe it's laid, This is
my Body.
3. Whether the Senfe be literal or figurative, the
Scripture-proofs are for us, and not for them. In many
Inflances belonging to this cafe, the very letter is for us.
As ' . / ■
- . ■ I. The
••
A
J -
An Anfrver to the Seeker, 15
1. The Letter is for us, That in the Lords Supper
there is no fubftantial change of the Elements upon Con-
deration, but that they remain of the fame fubftance,.and
are as really and properly Bread and Wine after Confecra-
tion, as before. For this we have the Apoftle St. Faul^
who calls it five times Breads after he had recited the In-
flitution, I Cor. II. Z7, 28. 10.1*5,17. And accord-
ingly the whole Solemnity had from it the name of
breaking Bread, A^s 2,42. 20, 7.
For this we have alfo our Saviour himfelf, who after
he had faid, this is my Blood; in the next verfe calls it,
the fruit of the Vine^ Matth. 2*5.28,29. Mark 14.24, 25'.
And that no fuch change was ever defign'd by the words
of Confecration (ufually fo cali'd) as that of tranfuhflan-
tiation, is evident from the Order obferv'd in St. MarFs
Relation of it, who faith, that ail the Apoftles fiiit drank
of the Cup, and that then our Saviour faid unto them,
this is my Body^ c. 14. 23,24. According to which, the
Apoftles could only drink the fubftance of the Wine; for
fuch it is without Confecration, and Confecration is not
without thofe words, as the Church of Rome holds.
2. The Letter is for us. That the Body had the natural
Properties belonging to a Body, when our Saviour cele-
brated his laft Supper. And the words muft be underftood
in the fame Scnfe now, as they were then; and confe-
fequently, the Body has the fame eflential Properties as
then, that is, to^be extended, finite, and circumfcribed,
X«^e24. 39. A^lsi."^. ijohni.i.
3. The Letter is for us, That the Body of Chrift is to
continue in Heaven, whither he alcended, till the Con-
clufion of the World, A^s 1.11. 3.21. Hehr. 9. 28.
4. The Letter is for us, that Chrift was but once of-
fered as a propitiatcwy Sacrifice; His Body was but once
broken, and His Blood but once Ihed j and that His Body
is Glorified, and not to be brought down again, nor to
C 2 be
f
:
i6 An Anfrver to the Seeker.
be ofFcr'd up again on the Earth. lo. iz. Phil.
3.ZI.
But perhaps you will fay, What is all this to This is
my Body ? I anfwer very much. For if there be no Sub-
ftantial Change in the Elements upon and after Confecra-
tion; If the Body of Chrift at the Supper, had, and has
(as far as is confillent with a Glorified State) the Ellen-
tial properties of a Body j If the Body of Chrift is to
continue in Heaven, without being.upon the Earth till the
Confummation of all things; If Chrift was to ofter but
once, and the Body he offered in, is now Glorified, then
Tranjuhjlantiation^ which is contrary to all thefe, cannot
be true: Nor can the words, This is my Body, be under-
flood of Tranfuhflantiation; becaufe the Scripture can no
more contradicft it felf, than it can, in our Saviours phrafe,.
he broken. And if the Scriptures above-faid are literally
true, then there can be noSubftantial Change intheEle-
ments, but Bread it was, and Bread it is ftill; then the
Par. 2, Body of Chrift, with its Bones and Sinews, (as the Roman-
0.4. n. 33. Catechifm affirms) cannot be crowded into the compals
of a Wafer; nor be in Heaven and Eartli, and thoufands
of places at one and the fame time. Then it cannot be
together a Glorified Body in Heaven, and a fuffering
Body on the Earth: And then Tranfuhflantiation cannot
have the like reafon to he believed, as we believe a God ,•
and we are then to underftand how far your Anfwerer be- ,
lieves a God, that profeffetli for himfelf, / Firmly and
Truly Believe by the fame Faith I believe a God, that in the
Eucharifl is Truly, Really and Subflantially the True Body
and Blood, &c. ofChrifl,
Thus far the Letter of Scripture is for us, and lb is the
Scripture alfo where the Words are Figurative, as in thefe
of This is my Body: Which if taken literally can no more
be reconciled to the Dodlrine of Tranfuhflantiation^ than
that can be to Senfe and Reafon.
? - Tliis
An Anfwer to the Seeker. 17
This I have fhewed before, page 10. But before I pro-
ceeci, give me leave to fet you right as to our Dodirine
(which I perceive you are very liable to mif-reprefent, I
fliould fay miftake, if you are a Seehr.^ You thus addrefs
your felf to the Minifters of the Church o'i England^ If ye Pag.(5_
fay that it is Bread and Wine after Conjecration, mthout any
change from what it was before; and that Us Adminifired only
as a Fignre of Chrifis Body and Bloody in remembrance of
His Death only^ iStc. If by the words without any change^
you mean of the Subftance, we allow it; and do own,
that there is no other change in the Elements, but what is ^
in their Ufe, and Office. But the latter , 'tis Ad-
minijired only as a Figure., &c. is none of our Dodtrine.
For we always eileem this Sacrament as a Divine Inftitu-
tion and Means of Grace, and that by a worthy participa-
tion of it, we partake of that Grace which is thereto pro-
mifed, therein exhibited, and thereby conveighed. So that
tliough we own it to be a Figure of Chrifi's Body., and
that it's to be celebrated in Remembrance of His Death j
yet that 'tis Only a Figure, and a Remembrance, is
a pure Invention, and which we owe to the fame par-
tiality that inclined you to conceal and palliate the Do-
dtrine of the Church of Rome., having in your hngie
ffieet put it five feveral ways^ and herein I acknowledge
the to be the more ingenuous of the Two. As
for ourDodtrine, to clear it of alldifputes, take it in the '
words of Arch-Biffiop-C/'^/«>wer. Chrifi is Figuratively Only CMh. Do*
in the Bread and Wine-, Spiritually in thofe that receive this^ffff^f^
Bread andWineWorthily ^.but Truly., and as to his Bndy and to corf.
Flefh he is in Heaven Only. , fang.
And that 'tis Fkuratively Bread and Wine j or, which
is the fame, that the Words., this is mj Body., are Figura- -
tively to be underflood, I lhall prove from the Scriptures
before mentioned.
lis
I. The
18 An Anfwer to the Seeker.
I. The word This, in This is my Body, is a proof of it.
DsEucha. grants that if the Pronoun This is underflood
& tsx.i'g. of the Bread, that then the word Body mufl be Figura-
tively underftood. And whether it be not This Bread,
let the Text explain. For what was it Chrift took and
let before them, but Bread ? What did he break, blefs,
and give, but Bread And of what did he fay, This is
my Body, but of what he had thus taken, blelfed, broke
and given ?
z. It's faid, That in the fame night he was betrayed, he
took Bread, 11.23. that is, before he fuffered And
if what our Sa^^iour then gave, and the Apollles eat, was
truly and fubftantially his Body, and his Body really bro-
ken, and his Blood truly Ihed, then his Body was bro-
ken, and his Blood ihed, while his Body was whole
and not broken, and his Blood in its proper Channels,
and not flied. But if the words broken and P)ed, were
in that Supper to be underftood Sacramentally, and not
literally ; then there is no reafon from the words. This
is my Body, to underftand them literally, and not Sacra-
mentally or Figuratively. For it's as well faid of His Bo-
, dy, it is Broken, as of the Species (in their Phrafe), This
is my Body.
So that the words. This is my Body, can no more prove
the Prefence of Chrift's Body and Blood in a natural
fenfe, than they can the Adual Breaking of his Body
and pouring out his Blood before it was broken and
ftied.
3. Jefus himfelf then took the Bread, and brake it, and
gave it, when he faid. This is my Body; and yet Jefus had
at that time a Body which was not broken, nor given,
nor that they eat; and while he faid thefe words, and
they thus partook of what he called his Body, his Body
remained entire before them. So that the fame Body was
broke and whole; one body, and two, if the Body he gave,
and
tli IS
An Anfwer to the Seeker.
and they eat, was as much his Body, as the Body that
gave it, and that they did not eat.
4. He faid. Do this in rememhrance of me ; he had told
them before, Mxt z6. 11. Me ye have not always ivith
you ; and fo being to be abfent, as he took care to fend
them a Comforter, fo he left with them this Inftitution to
keep up the remembrance of his own Sufferings and Death;
but if he was to be always prefent in his Body upon Con-
fecration, and as much as he was at this Inflitution, that
would have been inconfiftent with Remembrance,for tho
the rememhrance of its- heing^ doth not make it ceafe to he^ P- 7
as you either with little Sincerity or Judgment do infi-
nuate ) yet it fuppofes the Abfence of the Being ; and
therefore an Inflitution to make the Body to be adlually
prefent, and yet therein to folemnize the remembrance of
that Body, is tofuppofe the body to be prefent and abfent
at the fame time.
Toconcludethis,,you fay,/iJg. 5". that your defign is,
That when both parties have given in all the Scripture evi-
dence they can^ that the fum of loth fhall be publifhed togc
ther in one piece: And therefore for your eafe and your
betterdiredion (who are mighty fubjed: to miflake be-
twixt Ignorance, and a worfe reafon, Infincerity } I will
make bold to fum up what hath been faid on both fides
and which both have attempted, to prove from Scripture]
and then leave you and every one tojudg which has the
Bible (the Rule as well as the Evidence of Faith} for them,'.
^9
thi'
it W
An Anfwer to the Seeker,
The Church (?/Rome.
JEfiis the fame night he
was betrayed, took
Bread- and wlien he had
given Thanks, ^c. he faid,
Take, Eat, This is my Body;
This^ Ibmewhat, This 6read,
• or This fpecies. This figure,
form or appearance ofBread,
is my Body^ is really, truly,
and fubftantially, my true
Body and Blood, Bones and
Sinews, together with my
Soul and Divinity , and in
the very fubftance wherein
I was born of my Mother,
and ihall fit down at the
Right Hand of my Hea-
venly Father. Nay, as much
is This my Body, as that Bo'
dy you fee before you, and
which delivers aftd fpeaks
this to you; and this that
1 my fdf now take, and eat,
and give to each of you to
eat,is the fame intire and un-
divided body, and as fully
and intirely fo, as if it was
but one. And tho I depart,
and lhall bodily afcend into
Heaven, and am there bodi-
ly to continue to the end
of the world, yet as often as
The Church of England.
JEfm the fame night he was
betrayed.^ took Bread.^ and
ivhen he had given Thanks.,
&c. he faid, Take,Eat,TldiS is
my Body ; This Bread and
the breaking of it j This Cup
and the pouring out of the
Wine, and the dijlribution of
both among you , is Q as the
Lamb we have jufi now eaten,
is the Fajfover ) the Memori-
al. Figure,and Reprefentation
of myBody, and my Sufferings
in it that I am now to under-
go, and of that Blood I am to
Jhed for the Remiffon of Sins.
Andhecaufe TJhall leave you,
and you may he ayt to forget
me and my Sufferings, I do
appoint this Supper to be con-
tinned to the end of the world
for the Remembrance of me.
For as often as ye eat this
Bread,and drink this Cup, ye
do Jhew forth my death, and
your belief of it. And as
this Cup is the Sign and Seal
of the New Teflament or Co-
venant which is to he confirm-
ed by my Blood, fo this is a
pledg of it to you, and of all
the benefits thereby purcha-
An Anfvper to the See/^er.
Church of Rome.
you, and the Catholick
Church after you, celebrate
this Supper j by virtue of
thefe words,77;« is my Body^
the Bread and Wine you ce-
iebrate it in, lhall be fob-
ftantially changed into my
proper Flefli and Blood ,
wherelbever and whenfoe-
ver it is; and I lhall be as
truly prefent in my Body,
at all times, and in all pla-
ces in the Eucharift, as I am
now with you, and lhall be
as properly offered up upon
the Altar by the Prieft, for
a Propitiation , under the
form of a Wafer, as I lhall
be to morrow upon the
Crofs in my own Form and
Subllance. And now my
command is, that as oft as
you do this, you would do
it in rememhrance of me^ that
am thus bodily prefent with
you, whenever you do Re-
member me.
Church of England.
\
fed, and which, in the worthy
participation of This ye {hall
receive: for the bread which
yon break is the Communicn of
my Body; and the Cup of
Blefjing which is bleffed^ is
the Communion of my Blood,
in all the Spiritual Fruits,
Advantages, and Blefings of
it. And all this Ifhall as cer-
tainly give, and you as cer-
tainly receive, as if I was bo-
dily prefent, and you were to
receive them, as you do thefe
Elementsf^rom my own hands.
D
I hope
2 2 An Anfvper to the Seeker.
1 hope by this time, it appears, that Tranfuhflantiati'
on (^or the change of the Suhjlance of Bread and Winef
in the Supper of the Lord^ cannot^ as our Church fays, he
proved by Holy Writ y as is evident from the whole ac-
count of the Inflitution , and from the Pradice of the
Apoftles where we find it recorded, and the current of
Scripture.
Now, Sir, all this being taken together, will certainly
deflroy what the Catholick Anjwerer has advanced, and
will fupercede any further critical Examination of his
Pamphlet: but if what I have now ofFer'd, may not pafs
for a fufficient Proof, I fliall defpair of convincing you;
and inftead of any further attempt of that nature, turn
Seeker my felf, and beg you to give me as plain Letter
of Scripture, to prove Chrift was neither a Door, a Rock,
nor a Vine j as I can , that he was really all three; for
who dare give ChriB the lye ? That you would be pleafed
farther to prove, that all Chriftians are not changed ,into
Clirifls natural Body, when the ApoRle fays, Eph. ^r. zo.
We are Members of his Body^ of his Flejh, and of his
Bones; and do not betake your fcif to equivocation, and
twenty other Figures and Fancies of your own, as the Catho-
lick Anfwerer wifely advifes.
I lhall obferve but one thing more, and that is the
Applaufe and Commendation the Catholick Anfwerer gives
to your Zeal to know the Truth, by trying what Scriptures
they have for it, and what the Protejlants have againji it,
and that he is far from blaming-you in that procedure. I
am afraid this is but a Copy of his Countenance. I am
fure 'tis very oppofite to the Dodfrine and Practice of the
Church of Rome, which has long time dilcovered the evil
effedfs of being too familiar with the Bible, and therefore
has wifely lockt it up in a Language unknown to the
Common People, and fuffers it to be read only by thofe
who entirely fubmit their underRandings to the fenfe
of
An Anfwer to the Seeker.
of their Church. Alas I This'dangerous Book has given
birth to many a Peftilent Herefie; and Ihould People be
too bufie with it, the infediion would encreafe, and foon
overfpread the World; at beft 'tis apt to raife Chimsera's in
good Peoples minds, and where they have their Mother
the Church at hand, how unfafe is it to feek for any far-
ther diretJlions. Befides, the fame reafon he gives for try-
ing this Do<3:rine by Scripture, be.caufe it imports an eter-
fiity of hlifs or torment, will make People apt to defire
the fame afliirance for other Dodrines, and then farewel
the Worlhip of Images, Invocation of Saints, Purgatory,
^c. with many other of their Innovations and Errors
which depend upon Tradition, and which his Church de-
fires not fo eafily to part with. And becaufe he thinks it
hard that you mil not hear his other Witnejfes, ivho are
without numher in all Ages fince Chriji Qis he faith}, let me
beg the favour of you fo far to comply with his defire, as
to perufe a late Learned Treatife which gives A full Vitw
of the Do^rines and Prapices of the Antient Church relating
to the Eucharifl j and there you will find what reafon he
had for his complaint.
Having thus far proceeded. It's time to put you in mind
of your Refolution, and the Condition upon which you
are to chufe your Religion; and to put your Anfwerer
in mind of his Proteftation to change his. But that I
conceive is too late, fince, as far as I percieve,you are much
at one for your Religion and Sincerity. And if I may
judg of you Both by the Agreement betwixt you of
pradifing Equivocation, and denying it, you are certain-
ly of one Religion, or of none. I have not had the good
fortune of your Anfwerer, that your Requefl and his An-
fwer, have happened to a Prefs of my Acquaintance^ to give
me the opportunity of an.early perufaf or elfe you might
have liad this Reply to both in better time j and a cer-
tain
An Anfwer to the Seek^r^
tain Friend of yours bad not been three Weeks without
But tho no time is toofoon for fatisfyjngof foch as have?
an honeft Confcience; yet I am fenfible, if at no time, it
had been time enough for the fatisfying of yours. And
therefore, before you fend another RequeH, pray take a
little more care to fhew your felf fincere,* and that you
oither prove your felf inearneft foto be; or if you have
no regard to that, yet take fomc care that you better dif-
femble it.
THE
Catholick Letter
TO THE
SEEKER:
O R, A
REPLY
T O T H E
^oteftant SlnOuer.
Shewing,
That C ATHOLICKS have Exprefs
Scriptures, for Believing the |^;tglcriC0j
and, That Protejiants have none at all, for De-
nying It,
St. Mark IV., verf. ii, ix.
To Them that are Without, all thefe Thw^s are done in Tar a-
hies; That they may See, and not Terceiye j Hear^ and not
Vnderfland.
" 0nbUfliet) lOiitl) :^lloU)ance.
LO NDON, Printed for John Lane, at the Golden-Anchor, the
Corner Shop of lE/^e-Street, next Duke-Sxxtet. 1688.
o T-i. J a ir
i.- \ ^ ^ X_/ / i.-
'OVBri JVAU r\ 1 i i Cf^ai
35:!-^H€J l«5?./ =>': -r.irul.a |(P«
•!oG 10^ .iir* 3S onon^ 3V£?.l xVa\.v/v' 1
■ ■ - _\V
,&
1-1
i' jh'ii .;. -"--i ' '
[■i T '• A .. '. .v-.•-•<, \' Ci" v.i> ■'v''' <1
} W. .-vcv-v. V. •
\ t
1 ■
► _ . .*1 N
.f- £?v
%
>' V
'Av: A vV "loi b'Jir'.i'l'l - V. • '.;. A O A ' p^,
■-■ • f '• -J
4 ^ -j" ■"
THE
Catholick Letter
TO THE
SEEKER, &c.
I
I
5/i?>
Hope theje Lines will over-take You, e're You proceed
to pafs ^tUtCnCC upon what has been faid by Either
Party, in Anfw#to your EtQUCft, concerning the
Efai fence,* and the rather, for that in my
Anfiver, I was ( as it were } Silent, becaufc of the
Ties You had pur upon Us, to fatisfie your
Confcience by the Scripture only; for, that your De- Requefi,
fign was to fee what Scriptures VVe had for it,and what 4> J >7-
the Others had againfi it; and, That nothing hut Scrip-
ture, (without troubling ourfelves to tell lou the meaning onf)
fould fatisfie Tou in the Matter : To which I fubmitted, as
near as poflible I could. And I humbly conceived the Prote-
flant Anfivtrer would have done fo too j but, on the contrary,
he hath not only quitted the Queftion, but has crowded Three
Sheets and an half of Paper, for the moft part, with pretended
Ecalon0 and irigurC0, without producing fo much as One
Text, pertinent, to difprove the Etal lP,lt£cnCC; or to prove
any One Text, by me alledged, to be either Figuratively or
Paraholicaily fpoken j or that, for they muft be under-
B llcod
2 The Catholick Letter
flood; But fays, ( by no Authority^ but his own )
Protcft. That the Senfe of Eating the Flefh^ and Drinking the
^ttf.Fag. Bloody ^Ull be jfigUCcltitlf; and, right or wrong,
7' 8, 10. they gtt jfiguratlTe, and inufl not be properly
and litteraliy unda:flood; For Iam-,[{h.yshc^ as
fure as they M-e Words, that the JMflrine of Tranfubflantiation
is no more the Literal, than it can le the Rational Meaning of them,
&CC. But, to have made You as fure as himfelf, methinks, he
fhould have proved, by exprds Scripture, tiiat thofe Texts
which I produced were Figurative or Paraholical; and that
they are nor to be imderflood in the plain and proper Senfe
wherein they were fpoken ; otherwife how dotli he think we
lhall take his bare Word,ox that his private Meaning of the
Text fhall pafsLipon us koxGofpel: But, not to delay on this
particular, pray obferve how the Gentleman has evaded the
Q^flion, which was of the Real and Immediate Prefence of the
Body and Blood of Chrtfl in the Sacrament, " Whether we belie- .
" ved it or not ? if We believed it. We were to produce what
" Scripture We aiuld to juflifie Our fakl Belief', and, if They
" deny'd it. They were to produce what Scripture They could,
" to prove That their Negative. But, inflead of fpeaking to
the Ecal Pi^cfciice, he has betaken himfelf to CtaillUIl-.
fhltttiation, a Word devifed by the Church to exprels the
Converjion that's made in the Sacrament, by the Divine Word;
as the Word Confubfiantial or Confuhflantiate, was devifed a--
gainil the Arians, to exprcfs tlie Subflance of tlie Sons being
Coequal, the fame v^ ith the Subflance of the Father - and, if
the Requefl had been of the Confuhflantiality of the Son, the
Arians, with as much Reafon, might have Anfwered, Tioat
'twas enough for them to Jhew, that Confuhflantiality is not
Taught in Scripture, as the Proteflant Anfwerer has done • where
(Pag,. be fays. That 'tis enou^o for them tofhew, r/^orTran-
fubflantiation is not taught in Scripture, tho' the Being of Clirifl'j
Body and Blood in the Sacrament, is; At which rate, if per-
mltted,
to the Seeker. 3
mittCfljhc'JI Sham off*the reft of their Negatiw DeSitines; info-
much, that when you come to ths, Infa/lihility of the Churchy
Invocation of Saints, Purgatory, &c. and require him to fhew
Exprefs Scripture, to prove, That the Church is not Infallihle,
That wc muft no^Invocate the Saints to Pray for us,That there
is no Third Place in tiie other Life, befides Heaven and Hell,
he'il think to ftop your Mouth with his, 'Tis enough for them
to Jh€w,that\nh\\i\y\\xtY is not Taught in Scripture; thd. That the
Churth can never Err, be: That Invocation of Saints is not
Taught in Scripture • tho' Prayer to Saints, and that they do Pray
for us, be: That Purgatory is not Taught in Scripture, the a
Third Place in the other Life, he ,• whereby he quits the Sub-
fiance, to wrangle at the \Vord, by which the Suljiance is ex-
prefs'd: He might as well fay,The Trinity anHncarnation are not
Taught in Scripture • the Words being no more there, than
Tranfuhjlantiation, Purgatory, or the reft: But how far this
way of Anfmring will take with You, I know not. For My
part, I humbly conceived your Meaning was purely to be fa-
tisft^ in the Suljiance of what We believed of the ill
ffnC^; and to ftiewYou wliat Authorhki We had from Scrip-
ture, for fuch Owe Beliefnot doubting, if We agreed in the
Subjlance of the Believed, that ever We fliould differ a-
bout a Word fufficiently proper to exprefs it.
The Gentleman ipvoct^As, and tells you, 3.) That
Tou are but lately engaged in this Employment, or elfe Ton would
never (fays he) think it reajonahle, to oppofe the Authority of One
Vnknown Anfwerer of that Commmion, to the profefsd Opinion of
fo Many great Divines of that Church, &tc. And from thence in-
fers a Concurrence of fome of our Divines with him, in this
particular, to wit, ( Pag. 4.) That there was not One place of
Scripture fo Exprefs, that without the determination of the Church,
it would evidently compel a Man to receive Tranfubftantiation :
And the fame might as well be faid of the Confubflantiality
of tlie Son " That there is no Scripture fo Exprefs, as with-
B z "out
4- The Catholick- Letter
out the determination of the Churchy it would evidently
" compel a Man to receive it: But what is this to the Being,
or not Being of the Body and Blood of Chrifl in the Sacrament. ?
Had he produced Scotus, Bellarmine, or any of the Holy Fathers,
to difprove theKfal it had been fomething, tho
not to your purpofe; for the Requejl was, QPag. 4.) To fatisfie
You by the Scripture only j and not by citing of (our Modern
Divines, or) Ancient Greek and Latin Fathers; but by the Fx-
prefs Text, and plain fVord of God, as Written, andfet forth in
our Englijh Bihles, and no otherwife: And this was the Rule
that I walk'd by, in my Anfwer; not that I thereby Renounced
the Determination of the Church in this, or any other point of
Faith: God forbid, but that I fliouldalways prefer their Vrti-
verfal Confent, to my Private Opinion! Wherefore, if what Sce^
tus and Bellarmine have faid in that Matter, will do the Gentle-
man a Kindnefs, he fliall have it, not only from them, but from
all the Faithful-, that altho' the Scripture were never fo plairyAX
would yet fubmit to the Determination of the Church, for the
true Senfe and Meaning thereof: But if fo, as we muft go to
t)\Q Determination of the Church, for the Senfe of Scripture.;
what then becomes of thTixBihle-only-Rule-of Faith l
Tht Gentlemanson, and QPag. y.) advifeth YoutoCoa-
fult even Thofe, who are moft concern d; and particularly,(fays
he) The Author of your Catholick Anfwetj who has Vndertook
( what the ahovefaid Learned Perfons defpair d of^ to Prove
CcaufubflantiatiOn to thefuU of jour Kcqutd, hy Exprefs
and Plain Texts of Scripture: And, in the fame Page, tells you,
Tour Catholick Anfwerer, it feems, has Read That, which Car-
dinal Bellarmine had not feen; and that he had found out a great
part of a Chapter, which the Cardinal had Over-look'd. But,
to turn his own Cannon upon Himfelf, I may,with more Truth,
Retort on him, 1 hat he has Read, it feems, in my Anfwer, what
I never Writ;, and has found a great part thereof, for which
YOU> and 31, to : For I do not find die Word
Ccan-
tff the Seeker. 5
^riinfubftantiation fo much as Mentioned in either your
Requefl, or my Anfiver i for Juftification wliereof, I refer to
Both: Wherefore, how Sincere the Gentleman has keen, in this
particular, let tiie World Judge. Indeed, the Title ot my An-
fiver fays,i??obins Keai i??efntce bp ©tripture onlp;
and fo doth tlic Current^ throughout the whole Difcburfe; but
not one Word of Tranfuhflantiation: For that the Controverfie
was not about the Word CcatlfUbftantiation; but, about
the Eeal PiJffcnce, or Suhjlanee Believed and Deny d in the
Sacrament. But, here you'll fay, (perhaps) IVhat's this to the
Purpofe ? Is not the Real Prefence and Tranfubftantiation all
as one ? No, trulyj they are not fo all one as you may think:
For, there is a great deal of difference betwixt a Man^
and the.by which he is diftinguilli'd; and the Meafurcs
that are taken to prove him a Man^ arc not the fame with
Thofe which arc us'd to prove his Name is Thomas: And fo
of the lord's Supper. 'Tis one thing to prove the Real Frc'
fence^ and Being of CHRISTs Body and Blood in the Sacra-
ment- and,'tis Another to fhew Reafons, why this My fieri-
cus Change of Bread and Wine., into the Body and Blood of
CHRIST, is,by the Church TR ANSVBSTANTIaTIOH-
though, whoever believes the One, can't in Truth deny
the Other: For, if what our Saviour faid, (when, Matth. x6.
Verf. x6. JESVS took Bread, and hleffed it, and brake it, and
gave it to the Difciples ; and faid, TAKE, EAT, THIS IS
MT BODT) bo true, That it was,as He faid, his Body; tlun
it implies a Change from its former being Bread, to 'its pre-
fent being his Body. And-this Myjkrious Change, the Holy
Catholick Church doth \>ro)pitx{y q^^TRANSVBSTaNTIaTI-
ON: Not that the Subftance of Bread is Changed, accord-
ing to Senfual Tajle, but according to Divine Faith in JESVS
CHRIST. Wlicrefore the Gentleman, methinks, lliouid net
have Ban'er'd altogether, as he doth, at the Word TRAN-
SVBSTANTIaTION; but have fpoke to the Sdjlance; and
B 3 have
-6 The Catholick Letter
have either Confefs'd the REAL PRESENCE^ or have pro
cluc'd nothing but SCRlFtVRE to Difprove it, as was Re
quefled.
The Gentleman proceeds, notwithftanding ,• and tells you,
Pag. 6. lhat this Difcourfe of our SaviourV, (meaning That
in the 6th. Chapter St. fohnf had no fpecial Reference to the
Sacrament; for that the Sacrament was not Inftituted.^ till (fays
he} aho've a Tear after^ as the Time of this Difcourfe ffews^ Verf.
4, Cffc. Very well! On which pleafe to remark: That the
Sacrament was not then Inftitiited, I grant, as I did before, in
my Anfwer^ Pag. 6. where 1 faid, Pirjf Ipro've Chrifbi Pramife
before He Injlituted //je Sacrament, and fo hr t\\Q Gentle-
man might have fpar'd his Labour: But, that the
was not Inflituted till above a Year after, is what he can fliew
no Rule for: For the Text,which he cites to prove his Af-
fertion, is this, John 6. Verf. 4. Jnd the Pajfover^ a Feafl of
the Jews was nigh. Now, that this word Jl5igl) lliould figni-
fie abOtiC ilYCtlt afttr, is fuch a Figure, as never was. Where-
as St. Luke hath the fame Word, faying, Chap.x-L.Verf.i.
Now the Feafi of Vnleavend Bread drew which is cal-
fed the PASSQNER; and immediately the Pajfyver follow-
ed, as appears by the Chapter, And St. Mark treats not of the
Paffover.,ti\[ within Two Days of it, {^y\t^^^Chap. 14. Nerf. i.
After Two Days was the Feafl of the Paffover: So St. Matth.
2.6. Ne^f. z. Te know^ that after Two Days is the Feafl of the
Paffovery &c. I do mot- fay. That the W-ord jl5igb?
fignifies fo near .as Two Days ; nor do I find, by exprefs and
plain Scripture^ that it is to 1^ taken for above a Tear after.
But, whether what s faid in the 6th. Chapter of St. John^ have
any Reference to the is the For, though
our Saviour did not then Inflitute the Sacrament ; yet He
fays, Nerf. 51. And the Bread which I will give^ is my Flefh^
which 3! EilUll give for the Life of the World. By which You
fee, that, though He did not then give us t\iis Bread', yet
He
To the Seeker 7-
He promis'd, He would give us Bread tv Eat^ which fhduld be
the very famewhich he would,and afterwards did,give for
P^'o the lafe of the World. Now, Whether this abfolute Promile
sRf hath any Reference to the enfuing Performance, be You the
Judge? when, at his laadi Supper^ He took Bread., and hie [fed
ir, and brake it, and gave it to his Difdples., and [aid, TAKE,
EAT, This is MT BODT. if tlierjefore this Bread, which
'itiilt He here gives us to Eat, fa3dng, TAKE, eat, this is MV
'//(fc BODT, be not that whiclr He promis'd He would give
us to Eat, which Ihould be his Flejh, pray ask your Frote-
teflant Anfvoerer, Where, When, and How, did christ give
ire, ID us Bread to Eat, which Ihould be his Flejh, if This be it
'•Mift not ? ■ _
intk- The (jentleman goes on, and (Fag. 7.} tells You: Thefe
'■mt Terfes, (viz. 53, 54, 56, 57.) do Jhew, where our Saviour
diew/ faith, EXCEPT TE EAT, and WHOSO EATETH, (Stc. in
sAl- all which the Prefent Time is fpoken of. But, why the Gentleman
14<j " fliould begin at Terf and thereby skip Ferf.^i. I know
not,' where CHRIST told them before, lhat He WOVLD
to (in tlie Future Tenfej give them Bread to Eat, which fliould
'irf.h he his Flejh-, and then tells them, That EXCEPT THET
id DID EAT, and WHOSO EATETH, &c. Not that He did
lb- then GIFE, or that they did then EAT his Flejh, or drink
oftk his Blood; which they could not do, before He took it, lief-
fi fed it, brake it, and gave it; For at that Time when He fpake,
ttk as in the 6th. Chapter of St. John, He only told Them, He
tit W07JLD give it; and, the Eve before his Paffion, He PER-
k, FORM'D it: And from tliatTime, I fuppofe, the Obligation
d bears force, Ferf^T,. That, Except ye EA T the FLESH of
'itr. the Son of Man, and DRINK his BLOOD, ye have no Life in
ave yo:i: He dotli not fay. Except ye EAT it, before IGIFE
^ it; but firit faid. He WOVLD give it • and then, EXCEPT
1 THEP did EA T, &c. The Gentleman, however, from the
" above-mention'd Texts, infinuates, " That CHRIsVs Flejh
" and
j-et
He
8 The Catholick Letter
and Blood may be Eaten and Drank out of the Sacrament,
" as Qfays he) is evident from the Senfe and Letter of it: If
" fo, then ^continues he) it could not be underflood of that
" Flejh and Blood, which the Bread and Wine are Converted
" into, in the Sacrament; nor (adds he) of Carnal Eating liis
' " Flef^, and Drinking Blood.-—As to his Carnal Eating;
We beg his Pardon, if he means, as we Eat Beef, and other
Meats: For that WeTruly and Really Receive the Body and
Blood of CFFRIST, in the Sacrament, (to ufe his own Words,
Fag. IX.} after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner: And fo far
We fliould Agree, did We not Differ in This, That They Re-
ceive it in Figure and Fancy only, and We Receive it in Suh-
fiance and Truth. —" But, that 'tis evident, (as he fays) from
" the Letter and Senfe of it, That the Flejh and Blood of
" CHRIST may be Eaten out of the Sacrament, and even Be-
fore it was Inflituted, —is indeed fuch a Figure, as
none but Himfelf can unriddle. For my part, I have read St.
John on this Occafion; and I can't find it fo evident, as he
fays it is: Pray, Sir, do you Confult the Words, and fee,
whether thofe Texts do imply, the Eating and Drinking the
Flejh and Blood of CHRIST, SDut of the Sacrament, as well as
31lX itor in any other manner, than under the Forms of
Bread and Wine, according to both the Promife, and Infiitu-
tioni Or, Whether they could £<7^ it, before He it? For,
in the 6th. Chapter ol St. John, CHRIST did not give them
his Flejh to Eat, nor his Blood to Drink: But told them. He
would give them BREAD to Eat, which fliould be his FLESH',
but, before He GAFE it, 'twas impofiible for them to £^T
it.
He further proceeds, and tells You, (Fag. 8.) " That it
" mufl; not be Properly and Laterally imderftood: For then
" ^hus Properly Eat and Drink the Flejh and
" Blood of CHRIST, would have Eternal Life, according to
" our Saviours Aflertion, Ferf. 5-4.—Very true! ThelTbr-
to the Seeker. ^
Recerjers (^who perfevcre to the End} have fo* but the
t'mverthy^ quite contrary: And we can (hew You a Rule for
it, viz. I Cor. 11. zy, zp. Wherefore., whofoeverP^all Eat this
BREAD, and Drink this C tl P the Lord Vnworthity^ Jhall
he guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord; For., he that Eat;-
eth andDrinketh UNWORTHILY, Eateth andDrinketh
Damnation to himfelf not dtfcerning the LOR D*r BODY:
Wherefore the Worthy may receive to Eternal Life, and the
Zhtmrthy to Eternal Death. And the Words, t AKE, EAT,
This is MTBODT, maybe properlyunderflood; the?r<?-
'tejlant Mujl-hee's to the contrary, notwithftanding.
The Gentleman tells you further, in the fame Rage; " That
" then, the Sacrament in both Kinds, will be neceflary to Sal-
" vation, — As to this of Both Kinds, it doth not properly
Relate either to Your Requejl, or My Anfwer; but is n'Con-
troverfie deferving to be Argued by it felf, in convenient Time
and Place: And, befides, I do not fee where the nece'Rity lies,
of defining the Sacrament in Both Kinds, to One, that believes
it in Neither; not biitthkt 1 am ready to fatisfic You in this
particular, where, and when You pleafe.
The Gentleman (^Pag. 8.) lharply refiedls upon what I faid
in my Anfwer, p. 8. That if they went jfoFigures^/W Parables,
ive knew how to handle them. From whence he Infinuates fome
Extraordinary way of handling: For my part, I take GOD
to Witnels, I had no other meaning in it, than to handle
them by the BIBLE, as I faid, to Rule them by their own
Rule: Wherefore, let the Evil be to them that think it.
As to what he fays, Pag. 8. " Of the Antipathy I fhould
have to Figures and Parables; and Crofs my Self, where-ever
" they are Named; — I do not fee, by what I have Writ, where
the Gentleman can have the leaft Ground for this Crofs and
Antipathous Reflellion: For, to the contrary, I highly venerate
thofe Difcourfes, wherein our Saviour was often pleafed to
exprefs himlHf by way of Barable, &c^ But that v\'hich 1
"C abhor.
i-o Tie Catholick Letter
ablior, (and which, Indeed, would make a Saint Blefs hlmfelf)
is, To fee Men mould GOD's Word into what Form they
pleafe, and make every thing a Figure^ that doth not fquare
with their Fancy: Is itbecaule our Savmrfpakc fome things
by way of Faralle^ that All he faid was fuch > or, That he ne-
Ver fpake otherwile ? If fo, and that the Scriptures are fo full
pf fccret Meanings, How cbmes it, that mean Capacities are-
(by tlic Church of St. Martins^ left to themfelves,-to Judge
of the true fence of Scripture^ according to D. /. who tells
you, in his true Account of a Conference^ p. i8. " That a Man,
after ufing all Chrillian means, and the help of all Mini- ■
" Ilerial Guides polTible, mull at laft Judge for himfelf.
A fpecial Adertion indeed! which, if true. What need of
Teachers, feeing that every Man muft teach himfelf, by be-
ihg a Jud^e of theTeict to himfelf at lafl ? But, not to detain
ybh oh this particular,
Let hs come to what the Gentleman defires, pag. 8. " That
^ I iboiild tell him, without a Figure, wiiat is that Meat which
endureth to everlafting Life, whereof our Saviour fpeaks in
"-•the Sixth Chapter of St. John, verf.zy. Labour not for the
^ Meat which Perifheth, but for THAT MEAT which endu-^
" reth unto everlafli'ng Life, ivhich the Son of Man fhall give
" unto you ffor him hath God the Father fealed: Why, truly,
jpor my part, I do not fee where the difficulty lies in tliefe
"wotds 6iLabouring for that Meat which endureth to ever.lafling
Life, which the Son of Man Jhall give unto you •, it being but a
Preamble to what immediately follows, in the fame Chapter,
e^ Givin? us his FLESH to EAT, which is the true Meat that
'endureth unto everlaflin^ Life: And bcfides. He tells us. That
the Meat which endureth unto everldfling Life, Jhould be given
us by the Son of'Man • agreeable to what he fays, 'verf.^i,f^.
And the BREAD that F will give, FLESH, which f
will grve for the Life of the Worl2: For my FLESH is 'Meat
indeed, and my BLOOD is Drink indeed: which, without
a
*
to the Seeker. n
a I humbly conceive, is that MB AT vohkh enduretb
mito everlajling Lrfe. As to his, Mow the Son was Sealed by
the Father, and the red; of his Mow's • they are fuch JewiJh
exprelTions, as tltat all C/;r^/^«-pretenders ought to be aflia-
med of them: For C MR 1ST no fooncr fpake of this Do-
(drine of giving us his FLESH to Eat^ but the Jews came up
with Mow too; faying, verf.^z. Mow can this Man give
us his FI-ESH to Eat ? So Jewijh it is, to queftion GO
how he could do it? how this? how that? and if. How he
made the World of Nothing beaslted ? Can we Anfwer, but
by his fole Word ? And, lliall it not be Eifficient for us to
take his Word, when he tells us. The Son of Man was Sealed
of GOD the Father? and Believe him, without calling of
G 0 D to queftion Mow^ or diving into the fecrets of Heaven,
So, How he came down, ^c. and the reft of his Mow's, if
they are not fufficiently plain in the Bi^Je, fo as to be clearlj'-
underftood, I'll agree with the Gentleman, and fubmit to the
determination of tlie Church,- and fo muft TO V, and all the
SEEKERS in England, if what the Prot eft ant Anfiverer
■{nfinuates, be true: For, if thefe expr.efs and plain wcyds of
Chrifl be a Figure, where he fays as plain, ;is plain can be,
That he would give aj B R E A D to Eat, wlich Jhould he his
FLESH; and accordingly. Me took Bread, and Bieffed it, and
Brake it, and gave it; faying, T AKE, E A T, TH13 IS
MY BODY; I fay, if thefe.words are Figurative, and .muft
not be properly underftood. Idee no Reafon, why the whole
Bible fhould not be 2^ figure too; For, if ever C MRIST
was Plain in any thing, 'twas in this; efpecially in a Point,
wherein there was never more occafion .to Expound, if a
Figure, than hen the Jews (to whom He came} murmurd,
and faid, Mow can this Man gtve us his Flefh to Eat ? and
when fome of the Difciples faid. It was an hard faying; who
could hear it? andthereuponwallted no more with Him; He,
that, in Cafes of lefs Moment, always explain d his ParaUes^,
C z Ihould
12 The Catholick Letter
ihould yet be Dark and Figurative in This, of that Importance,
whicli occafioned not only the Murmuring of the JewSj and
Departure of the Difciples^ ; but alfo occafions (as
CHRIST well forefaw) our differences at Dap:
Should He, I fay, explain l^imfelf in matters of lefs weight,
and yet be Dark in this great Concern, is what would be con-
trary to his-Wifdom and Goodnefs. But,fo far was CHRIST
from meaning otherwife than plainly, as hefpake, thai to tire
murmuring Jem he confirms it, (yerf. 5-3.) with ?^^Verilj^
verily^ I fay unto you^ Except ye EAT the F L E S H of the
Son of Man^ and DRINK his B L O O D, je have no Life
inyou ; and to the Unbelieving Difciples, (verf. 61, 6z.) with
a Doth this offend you .> What if ye fhall fee the Son of Man
afcend up, where he^ was before } Whereas, when he fpake by
Tarables. He explained himfelf to them; as Mat.i-^. 3, And
hefpake many things to them in Parables, faying, Behold a Sower,
&c. or, when he fpake by way of Similitude; as Mat. 18.23.
Therefore is the Kingdom of Heaven LIKENED unto a cer-
tain King. Mat. zo. i. For the Kingdom of Heaven is LI K E
unto a Man, that is an Houfholder. Mat. zz. i, z. And'] E S U S
anfwered, and fpake unto them again by PARABLES, and
faid. Tide Kingdom, of Heaven is LIKE unto, f^c. Mat. z 5.1.
Then fhall the Kingdom- of Heaven be LI K EN E D . unto Ten
yirgins,&ic. See Mark ty.r.^ Mark iz. i. Luke ix.16. Luke
13.18,19. Liike 15.3. Luke 19.11. Luke zo. 9. and you'll
find, that in all Cafes, CHRIST fpake not by PA RA B LBS,
without telling them it was fo, and Expounding the fame unto
them. But, becaufe the Gentleman is more particular,/><7^.zz.
upon that of C HR IS T's being a Door, a Vine, a Rock, Ltc.
let's fee, whether the Parity 'twixt, I am the DO OR, the
VIN E, be the fame with, The B R E kDthat I will five,
is my FLESH, which I will give for the Life, of the World; or,
with what he faid at his Laft Supper, when He. took BREAD,
and B/efed it, arid Brake it, and Gave it, and faid, T A K.E,
EAT,
to the Seeker. ly
EAT, THISISMYBODY; without ever Explaining
a Syllable to the contrary : Whereas, irr that of the
X>00/?, John 10. the Text tells us, It was a TARABLE^
faying, KerjC6. This PARABLE fpake JESUS unto them^
Wherefore, if the Vroteftant Anfiverer would be fo kind,
as to produce as plain Scripture for this of the Sacrament's,
being a Figure^ as I have done for the Doors being a Parable^
he'll doubtlcfs oblige TOV^ and certainly gain aProfelyteof
ME. And, in like manner of the Fine; C HR IS T faith,
J)h. 15". r. I am the True VINE, and my Father is the Huf-
landman', as before, Mat, zo.i. where he likened the King-
dom of Heaven to a Man, that is an Houjholder,; and fo goes
on, Explaining the famelaying, Ferf. 4. As the Branch can-
not hear fruit of it Self, except it abide i« VIN E; m more
can ye, except ye abide m M E; which (if you read the Chap-
ter) you'll find to be more plain: And, in like manner, of the
ROCK; That heivas the CORNER STONE, upon which
the Foundation ivas laid; and no other Foundation can any Man
lay, than what CHRIST has lay d; for on Him is Built the
whole jlruHure of our Salvation: Wherefore, whether thefe
parables of the DOO R, the FINE, &c. be as plain, as,
TAKE, EAT, THIS IS MY BODY, be Tou, or any Im-
partial Soul, the Judge in his own Confcience,
As to what he fays QPag.cfl) " That if the fVcrds are Literal-
" ly to be iinderflood, they would rather Infer the Converfion
" of ChriJPs Flefh and Blood into Bread and Wine: — For Proof
whereof, let's go to the Words of Converfion themfelves, Mat.
z6. z6, Z7, z8. where it is faid, Chrift took Bread, andBlejfed
it, and Brake it, and gave it, and faid. Take, Eat, This is My
BODT; he doth not fay, Take, Eat, my BODT is this BREAD :
And in like manner ol the CV P ; For this is my Bkod: vtWxch
Words, This is my BODl, This is my BLOOD., are the Word#.,
of Converfion, and do no ways imply a Change of Chriji's
Flefh into Bread, nor of his Blood into Wine; but, to the con-
' . trary,
^14- The Catholick Letter
trary, they plainly Infer the Converfion of Bread and Wine
into both the Body and Blood of Chrijl. As to the Texts he
brings from the 6th. oi St. John., there was no Converfion then
made; nor do They make for him: Befides, that he, who but
jiifl now {Pag. 6. of his Anfwer ) told us, " That this Difcourfe
" in St. John, had no fpecial Reference to the Sacrament,—{[\o\.\\d
now apply tiiem, notwithftanding, is an odd way of Ihifting;
liowevcr, as 'tis, thcfe are the Words, ( John, 6.48, 5'5'.) I am
that Bread of Life, for my Fkflo is Meat indeed, and my Blotd
is Drink indeed: Had the Words been. My Flejh is Bread iH'
deed, as the Gentleman would fain have them, if you obferve
it, {Pag. 6.) then indeed he would have hadfomething of liis
fide; but as they are, they make clear againft him. As to thofe
Words, wr.48. I am that Bread of Life; methinks, they are
Efficiently explained by the following Texts; where he fays,
v.'yO. This is the Bread which comet h down from Heaven, ver.j;"!.
/am the Living Bread, &c. which Bread he tells us plainly, is
• his Flejh, fiying, Fer.'yi. And the Bread that I will give, 'is my
Flejh • and not, that the Flejh which He would give, was Bread-
But that. That Bread was his Flejh; which, as faid, is fuffici-
cntly plain; if not, rather than differ, I'll joyn in Opinion v/ith
the Protejlant Jnfwerer, and thofe other Divines', and with
Him and Them, fubmit to the Determination of the Church.
There is one Argument yet, on which the Gentleman feems
much to depend, (Pag.^l) where he fa\'^,'" Since ikchrijl he
" not, but where he intirely is, then (fays he) he muff be
" Eaten intirely, ^c.—From whence he concludes tlie not Being
of Chriji's Body in the Sacrament, becahfe ( as he conceives} he
is not tliere for Reafons fnot ScrifotureJ) of his own.
To which I Anfwer, andgrant, ThdiChrtJi is Not, but where
He is Intire; for that there is no feparation to be made of his
n6r divifion of his into Parts; but that He is to
remain One Chrijl Intire for ever: But,- as ail things are poffible
to G.v/; fo, whether who is perfed G^//, may not be h-
tir$
to the Seeker. 15
tire ill the Sacrament^ and in many places, at one and the fame
7'me^ is tlie Qu^rc ? which, if fully Relolvcd, will overthrow
all his Reajorthig Ware bcfidcs: Wherefore, that Chrijl is AV,
but where He is Intire^ is granted; and that Chrijl may be In-
tire^ the' Vttfeeft^ Vnfelt^ or Tajled in the Sacrament^ is proved,
by what we . read in John zo. 19. When Chrift entred the
Room where the Difciples were JJfemhkd^ the Doors heing fajl
for fear of the Jews, and catne^ andJlood^ and /pake in the mid'Ji
of them. And after Eight days Q as we read in the fame Gha}>
ter, ver. z6.} Chrift entred again^ when the Doors ivere clofe
Jhut. and Jlood^ and /pake in the mid'Ji of the Difciples: Now,
tlutChriJl was Intire when He Jlood^ and fpake in the mid'ft of
tliem, muft be granted: But how came He thro'? was his Be-
dy IntireyEstendedf'inite.yecA Circimfcrihed with Limhs^Bones.^
Flejh^ and Sinews^ when He entred thro' Walls or Doors that
were clofe ? That He was Entire when He pad; thro', muft b^j
by the Gentleman ^ own Argument., as well as Mine, Of Chrift's
being Mot., but where He is Intire; wherefore, Chrif wafs In-
tire when He came thro', or He came not thro' at ail: but
Chrijl came Thro\ was there, and was Intire too; for Chrijl
is Not, but where He is Intire: Nay, fuch is the infinite Pow-
er.of God, that tho'they were enclofcd in Wads, every where
a Mile thick, hwould yet bepoftible iot Chrijl to enter/a//>e
thro' all, and return in the lame Incomprehenfible manner:
And, by the fame Reafon as Chrijl's Body pafleth Intire thro'
Stone-Walls, by the fame Reafon Mis Body may ht Intire in the
Sacrament; and by the lame Infinite Power, the Body of Chrijl
may be in Hea^aen, and on Earth in Innumerable Places, at one
and the fame Time; the Gentleman's Arguments QPar.iSl)
to the contr^, notwithftanding. For that Chrijl hat?i faid.
Mat. 18. zo. That where Two Qr Three are gathered together in
.my Name, there am I ( fays Chrift } in the mid'Ji of them: By
which you fee, that wlicrefoever the are Afiemblcd
together, in his Name, tiiat Chrijl is there in the mid'ft of them;
if
IS The Catholick Letter
if then, Chr/Jl be in the mid'Hof tliofc Aflemblies, He Is'tliere
or He is not there at all: But Chrifl^ tho' Invifible, is
in the mici'ft of them, or the Word deceives us; which to
thinkJs Blafphemy; it being, by God, again confirm'd, fayihg.
Mat. ^;2,o. And loe, I am with you always, even unto the end of
the World: By all which is proved. That Chrifi may as well
hQlnt'ire inihQSacrament, as be Intire when hepafleth thro'
Walls and Doors, that are clofe; as aifo it is proved. That ChriJ}
may be in more places than One, at the fame Time • for. How
many Afiemblies of the Faithful are there in the World, that
are gathered together in his Name, at the fame Moment, and
Chrijl in the mid'ft of every of them ? Nor can the Froteflant
Anfwerer ever be able to deny the fame, without denying Chrijl
to be a Perfeifi', and an Omnipotent God.
Wherefore to his lo Pag. where we find the Gentleman hota't
theWordd^l0,to know what it means,which,of it felf,wanteth
Scnfe; but to know its meaning here, ask the Queftion, What >
and our Saviour will relblve you ,• where. Mat. z6. z6. As
they were Eating, Jefus took Bread, and Bleffed it, and Brake it,
and gave it the Difciples, and Jaid, Take, Eat, This is (^what
MY BODY; he did not, after he had Blefled it, fay, Take,
Eat, This is B RE AD; but, Take, Eat, This is my BO DT:
than which, nothing can be more plain, than that it was his
BODT; and that the Word Hoc,or This, referred thereto: For if
it were to remain ( as the Protejiant Anfwerer fays, Pag.i y.)
as really and properly Bread, after Confecration, as before, the
Word Hoc, or This, m the Neuter Gender, had never been ap-
plyed to a Suhjlantive of the Mafculine • for it would be Non-
fcnfe, and Improper to fay. Hoc eji Panis: Wherefore, it's
plain, that the Word Hoc being of the Neuter, related proper-
ly and truly to the VIord Body, wiiich is aifo of the Neuter ;
and not to the Word Bread, which is of th^ Mafculine: But,,
l ecaufe the Gentleman gives us cur choice, let us fuppofc it
ctlicrwife, that the Word [ Cljig J referred to the B R E A
and
to th'e Seeker. 17
and not to the 5 0 D T; as fuppofe the Words had been thus.
This BREAD is My boot: It yet follows, ^hat it is his bo-
D 7\ and not that it was to remain bread', for that He
had faid, It was his bod t: And altho' it was firft bread,
yet He afterwards concludes it to be his bodt; laying,
Take, eat, This is MT Dr. But how plain
foever God or Man could fpeak, Sophiflers will find whereat
to quibble; for the fputter he makes at the Word ^^10, is in-
deed nothing elfe; and for fuch the Gentleman defigns it, as he
doth all the reft of his Arguments, by what appearx in the fame
Eaye, Cio.} where he aflures me,* That TTey have not Faith
" to believe that, wliich the Scripture hath not Taught.
From whence I gather. That notwithftanding all his Argu-
ments to difprove the REAL PRESENCE; yet he hath not
Faith i^o Face) to deny it. For, that ^Pag. 3.) he telis
you, " That befides their Pojitive Articles, they have a great
" many Negative Ones j and to require plain and exprefs
" Words of Scripture, to prove that fuch a DoHrine is not there
" Taught, is to demand a Proof tiie thing is not capable of:—
Wherefore tlie Gentleman, how Ingenioufly foever he may
argue again ft the REAL PRESENCE -, yet he hath not
Eaith to believe. That in the Sacrament of the Lord's-Supper,
IS not contain'd the True, Real, and SulflantialBody of Chrijl j
for, that he hath not Faith to believe, \^ hat the Scripture
hath not Taught •, and the Scripture hath no where Taught,
That in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharifi, is not contain'd
the Body and Blood oi'Clrrifl; The Gentleman, therefore, can
have no Faith to deny it; all his Arguments to the contrary,
notwithftanding.
But before we part his TenthPage, let us note his QThere's:^
Wisere (fays he}/x there one Word? Where, That this True
Body and Blood? Where, That the Bread and Wine are, upon
Confecrationpurnd into the True Body and Blood of Chrift? Csc.
Which truly, are Where's indeed ; and one Ihould think, that
D ib
18' The Catholick Letter
fo many JVheres, were not without a Wherefore; And, be-
caule tl>c GeHtleman dehres to know the Where^ he
Mat. 26. fliall alfo know the Whe^: Jsfus took BREAD,
2^,27,18. and Bleffed it, and Brake it, and gave it to the Di'
fciplest,andfaid,rAKE,EAr, THIS IS Ml
BODT; and He took the CV ?, and gave thanks, and gave it
to them faying,Drinkye All of Itfor, THIS IS Ml BLOOD^
And There it was, and Here it is, by Power of thefe Words of
God, This is MT boot, this is MT blood, that the
Bread and Wine are turn'd into the Body and Blood of Chrijl:
He doth no fay Here, as He did when He fpake the Parable of
the DOOR, the FINE, and the reib. That this Parable fpake •
He unto them -, or, that this BREAD is Like, Or Likened un-
to his BODT, or a Figure of his BODT- but abfolutely,
Take, EAT, This is MT BODT; And for fuchwe oiight
to take it, and believe it, till the Protefiant Anfverer be able
to produce as plain Scripture again ft it, as I have done for it.
The proceeds, and ( ir.) tells you, wliat
their Church holds, (he lliould have faid of the iSltal
for that was the ^cere') and delivers their Opinion in different
manners; to wit:
1. "Onr ChurchTioX^s (^fays hef)T\\it Ccanfubftantia-
" tiOn is Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture, and o-
" verthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, Art. 28.
2. "That the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain after
*' Confecration, in their natural Subftances;. and the natural
" Body and Blood of Chrifi, are in Heaven, and not Here. Ruhr.
" after the Com.
" That the Body of Chrijl is Given jTaken, tm^Eaten in the
" Supper only, after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner; and
" the means whereby the Body of Chrijl is Received and Eaten,
" is Faith, Art. 2 8,29.—And in three Lines after, he tells you,
" That there is no other Subftance diftributed among the Com-
" munkantsfhzw that of Bread and Wine.—And thefe, put toge-
ther,
to the Seekef.
ther,make fiicli zMedley^x\m a Man knows not what tobeliev®
of it: Firft, 'Tis Repugnant to the plain Words of Scripture'^ tlio'
they are not able to produce one Syllahle out of the whole
Bible^ to difprove it. Secondly, The Natural Body and Blood of
Chrift are in Heaven^ and not Here; tho', at tile fame time,
they tell you, That the Body of C HR IS /, f who had but
One Body) is Cafefll, andCiUClt, in tloe Supper^ after
an Heavenly and Spiritual mannerand in Three Lines after,
denies it again; which are fuch Contradihiions^ that a Bujhel
of Figures will ne'rc reconcile cm: For, If the Body and Blood
of Chrijl be confin'd in Heaven^ and not Sacrament 21 afl,
How can the Body of Chrifi be Givenj Taken^ and Eaten in the
Supper^ after any vc\2ssntr^ Heavenly or Vnheavenly^ if th.o Body
of Chrijl be not There at all to be Grven^ Taken^ or Eaten t
or, how can the Body of Chrijl be ( as he fays } Given^ Taken^
and Eaten in the Supper; when, at the fame time, he tells you,
"There is no other Subftance diflributed to the. Communicants ^
" than that of Bread and Wine ?
As to the Words, Heavenly and Spiritual Manner^ I would
They did truly believe it fo; for then They would believe it as
We do; that is. That the Body o^ChriJl is truly Given^ Taken^
and Eaten in the Sacrament^ after an Heavenly and Spiritual
Manner • for after shCarnaf Senfual Manner receive it not-;
but this Heavenly and Spiritual Manner^ We believe to be a
True and Real Manner; and not a Deceitful^ Figurative^ Fihli'
tkus Manner '^ as if all that is Heavenly^ were but Figure and
Fancy. If Ydu grant the Body and Bloodoi Chrijl to be in the
Sacrament:, after a Spiritual Manner., you rfiuft alfo grant it
There after a True Manneror, to There after a Spiritual
Manner., is not to be There after a Real Manner: If Chrijl be
There in Spirit, He is alfo There in Truth; and if Thtre in
Spirit and Truth, all my Jrguments are granted, by tht Gentle-
man's own ConeefTions, as well as Mine, Of C HR IST's
being Not, but where he is htire: Wherclbre, WChriJl be in
D t the
10 • The Catholick Letter
the Sacrament after any Manner^ He is There after fuch an ///-
titre^ Real, 2nd Suhjlantial Manner, as We believe and profefs
Him, or He is in no Manner There at all • for Chrift is Not at
all, but where He Truly and Intirely is.
In the Twelfth and Thirteenth Pages of the Proteflant An-
fwer, the Gentleman produceth all the Scriptures he had, or at
leaft, all the chiefefl; Texts he could, to difprove our Dodirine^
of the Ecal PilCfcnCf, and Being ol C HRIST's BO D2
znd BLOOD in tht Sacrament: Which Scriptures, by Him
produced againfl it, together with thofe by Me alledged and
alT^ncd iTOil it, arc as followeth:
The Catholick Texts for
the Real Prefenee.
I. 5r.John 6. v. 48. I am that 1. i Cor. \ i,\.'L'^,i.^.The
Bread of Life, fays Chrijl. Lord JESZ/S, the fame Night
II. Tour Fathers did inivhich He was Betray d,took
eat Manna in the Wildernefs, and Bread-, and, when He hadgi-
are Dead. ven Thanks, He brake it, and
III. Ver.5'0. This is the Bread faid; Take, Eat,10 rTl^
which cometh down from Heaven, " ^
The Proteftant Texts
agamft It.
that a Man may Eat thereof, and
not Die.
IV. Verf. ^1. Tarn the Living
Bread, which came down from
Heaven; If any Man Eat of this
Bread, he Jhall Live fof ever j
and the Bread that I will give,
i0 my which Twill give
for the Life of the World.
y. Verf. 54. Wkofo Eateth my
Flefh,
'^d\}y>,ivhich is Broken for you-,
this do in Remembrance of Me.
II. 5r.Mat. 26. V. zy, a8,
29. And He took the Cup, and
gave Thanks, and gave it to
them: faying. Drink ye all of
it • for, chi010 'BlOOtJ
of the New Tejlament, which
is fked for many for the Remif-
fion of Sins: I will not Drink
henceforth of this Fruit of the
Fine,
to the Seeker.
Catholick Texts, c^Nr.
Flejh ^ and Dr'mketh my Bloody
hath Eternal L/fe, and I will raife
him up at the lafl Day.
VI. Verf] 5*5'. FormyFleJhis
Meat indeed., and my Blood is
Drink indeed.
VII. Verf 5'6. He that Eateth
my Flefh., and Drinketh my Blood.,
divelleth in Me, and I in Him.
VIII. Verf. $7. As the Living
Father hath fent Me, and I live
hy the Father; fo he that Eateth
Me, even he jhall Live by Me.
IX. Verf. 58. This is that
Bread which came down from
Heaven: Elot as your Fathers did
eat Manna, and are Dead: He
that Eateth of this Bread, Jhall
Live for ever.
X. 5r.Matt. x6. v. z6. And
as they were Eating, Jefus took
Bread, and Blejfed it, and brake
it, and gave it to the Difciples ,•
and faid. Take, Eat, tgi
mr 'Boup.
X1; Verf. 17. And he took the
Cup, and gave Thanks, and gave it
to them J faying. Drink ye all of it.
XII. Verf z8. IS
mv oslooD of the New Tejla-
ment, which is fhed for many, for
the Remiffwn of Sins.
xm. St.
21
<•
Proteftant Texts,
Vine,until I drink it New with
you in my Father s Kingdom.
III. iS'^.Mar.i4.v.235X4.
And He took the Cup, and
when He had given Thanks,
He ?ave it to them, and they
all drank of it; and He faid
unto them, Ct)is IS
'BlOOl) of the NewTeJlament,
which is Shed for many.
IV. St. Luk. XX. V. 19,20.
And He took Bread, and qave
7
Thanks, and Brake it, and
gave unto them ; faying,
Ts nip'^Otip, ivhich is given
for you; This do in Remem'
brance of Me: ■ Likewife alfo
the Cup after Supper; faying^
This Cup is the New Tejlament
in my Blood, which is Shed for
you.
V. Ad:. X. V. 42. They con-
tinued JledfaJl in the Apojlles
Doilrine and Fellowjhip, and
in Breaking of Bread.
VI. A^.xo.v.7.Z>ponthe
Firjl Day of the Week, ivhen
the Difcipies came together to
break Bread.
VII. I Cor. 10. V. 16,17.,
The Cup of Blejfng, wNch we
blejs, Is it not the Communion
of
Hii
.1 *
The Catholick Letter
22
Catholick Texts, (^c.
XIII. St. Mark 14, v.xz. And
as they did Eat., took Bread
and Blejfedand hrake it ^ and
gavejo them, and [aid. Take, Eat,
€1)1010 'BOB?-
XIV. Verf. 23. And He took
the Cup, and when he had given
Thanks, he gave it to them, and
^hej all Drank of it .
X V. Verf. V4. And He [aid
unto them, ChlS IS lH? 15lOOD
rf the iTeiv Teflament, which is
jhed for many.
XVI. St.ljdk.vx.v.iy. And
He took Bread, and gave Thanks,
and Brake it, and gave unto them;
faying,%\i\Q 15 lU)' which
is given for ycu; This do in Re-
mcmhrance of Me.
XVI I. Verf. zo. Likewife al-
fo the Cup after Supper; faying.
This Cll.0 is the ikew Teflament
in 5^]? which is Shed for
ysu.
XVIII. I Cor. 11. V. 13. For
J have Receiv d.of tloe LORD,that
which alfo I Deliver d unto you
That the Lord J£S?^S,.the fame
flight in which He was Betray d,
took Bread.
X IX. Verf.z4. And when He
■had given Thanks, He Brake it •
and
Proteftanc Texts,
ofthel^lOQXi of C FIR IS T>
The Bread which we hreak. Is
it not the Communion of the
16013^ of CHRIST? For
iVe leing many, are one Bread,
and one Body; for We are all
Partakers of that one B^ead.
VIII. iCor.ii.v.zS.For
as often as ye eat this Bread,
and drink this Cup, ye do Jhew
the LO RD's Death till He
crjine. Whofoever Jhall eat
this Bread, and drink this Cup
of the LO RD Vnworthily.—
Let a Man examine- himfelf,
^ fo let him eat of that Bread,
and drink of that Cup.
IX. A6I. I. V. 11. —This
fame JEST'S,, whods taken
up fromyouinto Heaven, (hall
fo come in like manner, as ye
have- feen Him go into Hea-
ven.
X. hfk.y^.v.ziWhcmthe
Heaven mufl Recei ve,until the
Times of the Reflitution of all
Things.
X I. St. Luk.z4. V.39. Be-
hold my Hands, and my Feet,
that it is I my Self: Handle
Me, and fee; for a Spirit hath
not
to the Seeker.
23-
Cathclick TcKts, C^V.
c-ndfaid^ Take^ Eat, Cl)iS 10 ttT^
'SODy, v^hkh is Broken for you •
I'his do in Rememhrance of Me.
X X. Verf. z 5*. After tire fame
manner alfo. He took the Cufychen
He had Sttppd ;faying,This CUP
is the nevdfeflament in my "BlOOD;
this do ye, as oft as ye Drink it, in
Rememhrance of Me.
XXI. Verf.x6. For as often
as ye Eat this Bread, and Drink
this Cup, ye do fbew the LORD's
Death till He come.
XXII. Verf.z;. Wherefore,
whofoever Jhall Eat this Bread,
and Drink this Cup (f the LORD
Zimvorthily, fhall be guilty of the
Body and Blood of the LORD.
XXIII. Verf. z8. But let a
Man Examine himfelf and fo let
him Eat of that Bread, and Drink
of that Cup.
XXIV. Verf ic,.For he that
Eateth and Drinketh Zimvorthily,
Eateth and Drinketh Damnation
to himfelf, not difcerning the
lord's Body.
Thus having truly laid down the Scriptures on borfi fides,
I doubt not but it doth appear, that the Texts brought on the
Catholtck Part, are abundantly fufficient and plain for the
Being of ChriJPs Body and Blood in the Sacrament; and that
Thofe
Proteftant Texts, ^ r.
not Flejh and Bones, as ye fee
Me have.
XII. K(k.\.v.'^.TcM>hom
alfo He Jheived himfelf alive,
after his FaJfion.-"'BeingJeen
of them Forty Days.
Xin. I Joh.i.v.i.—Which
we have feen with our Eyes,
which we have lock'd upon, and
our Hands have handled.
XIV. Heb. 9. V. 28. So
C HR is T was on:e Offer d,
to hear the Sins of many; and
unto them that look for Him,
fhall He appear the Second
Time.
XV. Heb.io.v. IX.—This
M A N, after He had Offer d
one Sacrifice for Sins, for ever
fate down on the Right Hand
of GOD.
XVI. Phil. 3. V. xr. Chrifl
has a Glorious BO DP.
24 Catliolick Letter
Thofe produced on the Proteflant /^rr,are alfo exprefly jf 0^ it,
or not at all agaiuft it; for that it is impoffible to bring one
Text out of the whole Bihle^ to prove, That the Body and Blood
of Chrifl is not in th« Sacrament^ as in effed: is confeflcd by
the Proteflant Anfw. Pag, 3. where he fays, "That the Church
*'0^England do hold kvQYsXDotlrines^ which are not contain'd
"in Exprcfs Words in Scripture-,, for {^fays he^ befides their
" Pofltive Articles,, they have a great many Negative Ones:—
" So that to require plain and exprefs Words of Scripture, to
" prove that fuch a Dotlrine is not there Taught, is (fays Ik 3
" to demand a Proof, the thing is not capable of. Where-
fore, the denying of the being one of their
Negative Dotlrines or Articles; it's plain, That the Gentleman
doth not pretend to produce thofe Texts to prove. That the
Body and Blood oTChrifl is not in the Sacrament; but lays em
before you, hoping you'll think they do, becaufe the Word
Bread is mentioned (fayshc, Pag.ist) Five times ly St. Paul,
after he recited the Inflitution, Very good! and why not the
Word BREAD, I pray, as well as the Word CV P, feeing by
the Word BREAD is meant the Communion of the Body of
■Chrifl; as by the Word CV P,Qi Cor. i o. 16,17.} is fignified
the Communion of the Blood of Chrifl t And befides, St. Paul
mentions not the Words CVP and BREAD, but he explains
them to be the Body and Blood of Chrifl; as, i Cor. 11. zC.
where he tells ye. As often as ye Eat this BREAD, and Drink
this CVP, ye do Jheiv the Lord's Death till He come-, which
Death of the Lord was not fliewn, but by Offering up
of his True and KczS.Body znd Blood: And Fer.zy. he tells
ye, iVhofoever jhall Eat this BREAD, and Drink this CVP of
the LORD VNWORTHIL T, fhafl le guilty of the BODT
and BLOOD of the LORD: Wherefore, if it were not the
Body and Blood of the LORD, how could they be guilty of
the Body and Blood, if the Body and Blood be not there to be
guilty of? And further, Fer. 28, 29, He that Eateth and
Dtink-
to Seeker. 215
Dr'mketh V N WO RTH I Ll\ E-iteth and Drinketh D A M-
' Ef AT'10 N to himfelf^ no-t difcenting the LORD's BOOT:
whidi ftili confirms it to be the BODT of the LORD;
or, how doth he fay, Condemn d^ not difperning the LOR D'x
BODT^ if the Body of the LORD be not there to be difcerned*
Wherefore St, Paul fpeaketh not, but in Confirmation of its
being the Body and Blood of C HR IS T; or 'twould be hard,
a Sinner fhould be Damn d, meerly for Moderate Eating and
Drinking of bare Bread and Wine i For, according to the Pro-
teJlant Jnfwerer^ the Sacrament is no mor^who tells you, Pag,
n. " That there is no other Subftance diftribiited among
" the Communicants^an that olBread and Wine: And Pag. 15-.
" That they are as really and properlyand Wine, after
Confecration^ as before.
And further, The faid Texts are laid before'You; for
that, in fome of them, it is faid, THIS D 0 IN REMEM-
BRANCE of me : To which I Anfwer, and fay. That thofe
Words, This do in Rememhrance of Me^ do no way Relate to
the Laiety^ who only receive the Sacrament-^ but to the Priejls,
who Confecrate and AdminiRer-they^we; for it is nowhere
faid, This Eht.^ This Take.^ This Receive; but. This do in Re-
membrance of Afe;whereas it is not at all theOiRce of xhtLaiety^
(nor have they the Power to do as our Saviour then did, Blefs
and Adminifler the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to Them-
felves or Others;) but the Office of theiPriefis^ to whom was
given(by thefe Words, This do., &c.}a particular Power to da
die fame as Chriji then did, -TakQ, Bread and Wine, Blefs it,
and Adminifler it, as he did for his Body, and his Blood.
Nor do the Words / N REMEMBRANCE any way ferve
Their turn; for, as You unanfwerably have obferved, {Pagy,
of your Requefi^That the Rememhrance of its Being, doth nuvay
make it ceafe to Be', which Argument the Protejiant Anfaterer.
would fain Confute; where, F.-ig. 19. he tells You, " Tho'
■ "-the Remcn)brancc of its Being, do no way make it ceafe
E
26 The Gatholick Letter
" Be ; yet (fays he ) it fuppofeth the Abfence of the Being;
w-hich is to fiippole the Body to be Prefent and Abfent at the
fame Time : A piece of Soph 'tfiry fo weak, as I admire a Man
of Senfe fhould infift thereon; as if my Rememlrance di your
being with me, when prefent, did any way fuppofe your Ab-
fence from me, at the fame time: It is furely Nonfenfe to think,
thQ Retnemhrattce o^ a Thing prefent, did, or could in the
lea ft,fuppofe the Abfence of the lame Thing, at the fame time;
for, tho' it be confefs'd , "U'e may Rememher the Being
of a Thing, when Abfent • yet the Rememlrance of the fame
Thing, when Prefent, doth not at all fuppofe the Ahfence and
the Prefence too, of the fame Thing, at one and the fame time:
Wherefore die Remembrance of ChriJPs Body and Blood's being
Prefent in the Sacrament^ doth no ways fuppofe the Abfence of
the Beings nor make the Being ceafe to Be.
And further. The faid Scriptures are produced; for that, in •
fome of them, it is fakl, T///S IS MT BODf which is Broken
for you ^ " Before (fays he^ Pag. 14.) it was Broke; Whence
he conckides it not to be the Body of CHRIS f becaufe as
he conceives) the Body of CHRISt was not then Broke. But
before We proceed, 'tis requifite to inform your Self, wdie-
ther CHRISt had two Bodies.^ One Figurative^ and the Other
Real'^ I fuppofe, 'twill be refolved, that CHRISt had but One
Bodyand that was a true^ Real^2im\ Subfiantial Body; and
not a Figurative or Deluftve Body: Wherefore, if C HRI St
had but On? Body:, 'twas of that Body he fpake, when He faid,
tHis IS MT BODT^ which is Broken for you • and to doubt,
that what CHRISt faid, either Improjier or Untrue,
is to profeisour felves Inf dels and Jews at once; for none but
fuch, can queftion G 0 D's Veracity: Wherefore, as what he
faid, was certainly true; fo it was undoubtedly proper, when
he faid, iVh'ich is BROKEN FOR TOZf. For proof whereof,
i anfwer, That tlio' his Natural Body be there, yet the man- -
ifer of its Being, is Spiritual znd Sacramentaland the man-
ner
•*
to the Seeker.
nerof its Breakhg^ follows the manner of Its Beinghis Body
is There Broken in tlie5/2;«, not in t\\e Suljlance: Moreover
thofe Words, WHICH IS BROKEHy do prove fas the Holy
Catholick Church always did, and ever will hold) it to be a True
and Proper Sacrifice I for the Being Broken^ does explain the
nature of a Sacrifice^ which imports the defl:rii(Jbion of the
Thing Offered, if Corruptible^ and lyable to Dejlrutlion: But
the Body CHRIST being Incorruptible and Immortal^ can't
be really hurt; therefore, the manner of Breakings is only
Myfiical and Reprefentative: But if this manner ot Breaking
do not pleafe the Gentleman^ let us f to verifie the Words of
Chrijl, whole Truth he fo much doubts) fee,whether the Body
of Chrijl were not otherwife Broke^ before He hjiituted the
Sacrament I or rather, whether hisSf-^ had not been f/ercee/,
and his Blood had not been Spilt • for that it is written, John
19. 36. A Bone of Him jhallnot be broke: And another Scrip-
ture faith. Ibid. Yer. 37. They jhaU look on Him whom they
Pierced: Wherefore, the Body of CHRIST was not other-
wife Naturally Broken^ than by Piercing of his Body^ and SpH-
ling of his Blood. Now, that his Body^ at that time, had been
Pierced., and his Blood had been Spilt., appears, (S'r. when aV
Eight Days Old He began to fmart for us: Which Piercing of
his Flejh, 2T\dSpillingo^\\\sBlood, at \\iS'Circumcifion, was^fbl-
lowed by Vnfpcakable Pains, Rejllefs Labours, Travels, and
FaftingS', infomiich, that his whole Life, from the Hour of
\i\s Birth, to the Moment of his Death, was but One PaJJion-
continued: What, I pray, his Agony in the Garden e What His
being CrcH;«y with Thorns, 2.r\d Bloody Whipping^ at the Pillar I
That, in the Opinion of this Gentleman, his Body was not at all
Broke, nor his Blood in the leaft Shed, till Confummate for
us upon the Crofs: Wherefore, with Truth, our might
have faid of his Body which isBroke, and of his Blood which
IS Shed, without fuppofing that any thing he faid, was either
Improper or Untrue:
E -X And
28 The Catholick Letter
And the faid Scriptures a.re produced, for that it is faid, /
Kijll not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine^ until I drink
it new with you in my Fathers Kingdom'^ vvhicli our"
might have faid, and not at allRecal his firfl Aflurance: for
we do not deny the ufe of Figures in Exprejjion; as the Word
CZ> for his Blood contain'd in it; and the Word BREAD,
for his Body contain^ under that Form; But there is no Ft^- ■
gure in tkixs Myjlery which excludes, but aflerts the Reality of
CHRIST's Body and Blood in the Sacrament: For the terms
CV P and BRBAD, fometimes ufed by the Apnfiles after the
Injlhution, as by us at this day, do not at all deflroy th.Q Suh-
fiance^ for which our Saviour gave them, when he faid; E aT,
THIS IS MP BODT; DRIKK, I'HIS IS MT BLOOD:
Nor do I fee, what Reafon they have to Carp at either of the
faid Terms, C VP cox BREAD, feeing. Both are explained by
St. Paul, I Cor. to. I (5,17. One for the Communion of the Blood,
the Other for the Communion of the Body of Chriji: Nor do the
Words of oxixBaviour, where he fpeaks of the Fruit of the F'ine,
fignifie the Wine which was Confecrated into his Blood', for
that they were fpoken of the CV P, whereof they Drank at
Supper; and not of the Confecrated CVP, which He hflituted
not till after Supper; as appears by St. Luke:, who gives the
plaineft Order of it. Chap. zz. 14,15", 16,17,18. where it is
iaid, And when the flour was come. He fate down, and.the Twelve
Apoflles with HimAnd He faid unto 'fhem,lVith defire, I have
defired.to Eat this Paffover with Tou, before I Suffer: For I fay
unto Tou, / wi/I not any more EaT thereof, until it he fulfilled in
the Kingdom of God. And He took the Cup, andgaveThanks,
and faid, Take This, and divide it among your felves: For I fay
unto Tou, I will not drink of the Fruit of the Vine, until the King^
dom of God [hall come. Where you fee, our Saviour Tipoke, of
not EaTING, as well as not DRINK I NO; that is, of the
TafcaLLamh and Cup 2X Supper: for that He did not Inflitute
the Sacrarmnt of bis Body and Blood till afterwards- as we read,
Vtr.
_ to the Seeker. 2$
19, xo. That, He took Bread^ and gave Thanks^ and hrake
it^ and gave unto them; faying^ This is my Body^ which is given
for Tou; This do in Remetnhrance of me. Likewife alfo the CZfP
after SVPP BR •faying^ This CVP is the NewTeJlament in my
Bloody which is fhedfor you: Wherefore, we are todiftinguifh
the CZ/F, which He bid them divide at Supper^ and of which
He laid. He v/ould not Drink until the Kingdom of God fhall
come; from the CztP, which He Blelled, and gave to them after
Supper; faying. It was his Blood-, for nothing can be more
plain, than that what our Saviour faid of not Eating, and not.
Drinking, was of the Pajfover or Sacrifice, according to the
Law-, ^d not of the New Sacrifice, orTeflanient in his Blood,
according to the Gofpel: But if this Order, wherein St. Luke
hath it, which fpeaks of Two Cups, and which is certainly true,
be not acceptable to the Ohjlinate, let us fuppofe it otherwife,
and that the Words, Fruit of the Vine, were (as they were not}
faid of the Confecrated Cup-, it would yet follow. That the
meaning of them could in no wife be applyed to tht SuIfiance
of Wine, proceeding from an Earthly Vine -, but to the Sul'
fiance oi his Blood, the Fruit (Pi the Heaoienly Vine: For that it
was to be Drank New with them in His Father s Kingdom ;
and in W\.s Father s Kingdom, which is Heaven, they neither
keep Taverns, nor Drink Wine, the Fruit therefore of tlic
Vine, ferves for neither Fruit nor Wine to them.
As.to what the fays (F^rg. i y.} of the Order ob-
ferv'd in St. TlF^rFs Relation of it; —" Who faith, X^fays the
" Protefiant Anfwerer } That ail the Apoftles firll Drank of
" xhQ Cup- and that then our Saviour faid unto them, THIS
" IS MT BODT, Chap. 14. v. 13, 24. For my part, I
find no fuch thing in St. Mark, as. That all the Apoftles fir ft
Drank of the Cup - and then that ou? fhould tell them,
It was his Body: Wherefore it's a great Miftake 'twixt the
tCll'ttCr, and the IpniltCr; and when theyMend tteir Fi//,
VldW Anfwer: But (in the mean time} whether St.AIark ex-
prellerh
30 The Catholick Letter
pre/lech the Words in tlie fame Order as they were fpoke, or
no, it matters not; feeing he has the Subftance of what was
faid, and wherein they all agree; to wit, That it was his "BoDV,
and his "BlooD *. And it's alfo apparent, That CHRIST firft
Gavs Thanks^ and Blejfed it^ before He Gave it; and before
He gave it, they could not have it; nor before they had it,
could they either Eat it, or Drink it.
The Gentleman continues (^Pag. i j".) to tell you. That the
Tetter is for Tleem^ (meaning. That in the Sacrament is not
xrontain'd the Body C H RIST {) for. That C HR IS T's
Body had the Natural Properties belonging to a Body^ Extend-
ed^ Finite^ andCircumfcribed: And therefore, like another Ti-
dymus^ he will not Believe^ except he fee^ and into the Prints
of the Nails of his Hands^ put his Fingers; and into his Side^
thruft his Hand: So Senfual was he, that to feel with his
Finger the Wound in his Side, would not fufiice, unlefs there-
in he thruft his whole Hand. Even fo this Gentleman: For,
GO D's Holy Word, fo often repeated to Confirm the Being
of his BO D T and BLOOD in the Sacrament^ will not fiif-
fice, unlefs he See and Feel the Body, Extended, Finite, and
C'rciimfcrib'd. But, methinks, the Reproof our gave
to One DidjmuSy might be a Warning to All the Didymuss^
that lliould ever happen after him; when, John zo.v.zg. he
told him, Thomas^ Becaufe thou hajl SEEN Tf/e, thou hajl BE-
LI EVED: Bleffed are they^ that have NOT Seen^ and yet
HA VE Believed. Wherelore, to Believe but what we See,
• Feel, ..Tafte, and Smell, is to be Brutes^ not Chrijlians and
worfe than Thomas^ who Saw but the Humanity^ yet Believ'd
: the Divinity di C HRIST. Pray, how was his Body to be
SecU, Extended, Finite, and Circumfcrib'd, when He pene-
tratcd and pafs'd through Walls and Doors that were clofe,as
proved Pag. lo? For, by the fame Reafon that You prove,
That CHRIST^s Body can pafs Intire through Walls or
Moors J when clofe; by the fame Reafon will 1 prove, That
C HR IS T's
to the Seeker. 31
CHRIS T's Body may be in the Sacrament Intire, though
no more to he feen There, tlian to be feen parting through the
thickelt [Vails. But, upon the Whole, the Gentleman argues
mort: Perndiourty ol C H R IS as if He were not GOD; nor
diflingullhing between his <©lo^iOU0 '^ODP, and £)at0, or
any other Corruptthle Carkafs: As He is Perfect: G 0 D, all
Things are portible to Him ; If fo, Where then is theDifficul-
ty to believe, but that C HRiSi may as well be Contain'd
under the Forms ERE AD and WIN E^as the Holy Ghoft
under the Form of a D 0 VE., with Feather., Beak^
Wing^ and all the Properties of a Fovoh Or, as 3-
the lame Spirit., in the Form of TONGVES of i z
FIRE t both which to our Eyes were but as a
perfecT Dove, and as perfcd: Tongues: Yet thofc dirterent
Objcdfs to the Eye of Flejh, were but one Holy Ghoft to the
Eye of Faith; whereas, if Faith had been grounded upon
Senfe, they could never have believ'd that Bird in Feather and
Form, and thofe Tongues of Flelh in Flame, to be one and the
fame Holy Ghofi. Therefore, nothing can be more plain, than
that Objedbs may be one thing to the Eye of Flejh, and ano-
ther thing to the Eye of Faith; for to our Sef^, it was a per-
fed: Bird; but to our Faith^ it was tlie^<7^ Ghoft. Even fo
the Sacrament, to our Sight andTalbe, is but \)\a]n Bread and
Wine; but, to our Faith (in GOD's Word,') it is the Real
and Intire and "BlOOi) of C HR 1S T; ami the Ah-
thorities we have 'ixom. Scripture, arc far more ample for be-
licving the Latter to be the 'Bot)? and BlOOD of CHRIST,
than for believing the Fomiersrto be ^t Holy Ghoft,
As to the E'ght lart: Texts, wdiich the Gentleman has pro-
due'd to difprove our Dodrine of tlie.-Eeal (to
wit, AH. I. v. 11. Acl. 3. V. zi. St. Luk. X4. v. 39. aH.i. v.
3. I Job. I. V. I. Heh.^.v.a^. Heh. 10.v^ iz. Phil. 3. v.xi.}
they no way relate.to the Sacrament, but to th^ Rejltrrelion
and Afcenfton of C HR IS / s Body: From wJienee he con-
eludes J
3 2 The Catholick Lener
dudes5 " That C HRIST is confind in Heaven only^and
" can be no where elfe, till He comes to judge the and
" the Dea J; and, of confeqnence,fixt at the Right Hand of the
" Father-, a'nd cannot be, as We fuppofe, in Heaven and Earth,
" info many Places at the fame Time.—Which barren Con-
ceit o? CHRIST is fufficiently Anfwer'd, Pag, 15,16. vyhere it is
prov'd from Scriptftres, Thd^t although C HRIST Afcend-
ed, and be in^Heaven- yet it argues not, but that He is, and
may be on Earth too; For, That He is a Perfed:, and an
Omnipotent GODj and haspromis'd, Hat.-i^. v.zo. that
He will he with us always, even to the End of the World: And,
' Mat. 18. V. vo. That, Where Two or Three are gather d toge-
ther, in his Name, that He is in the midfl of them. And fur-
ther, it appears. That our Saviour is not fo Confin d in
ven, as that He cannot alfo be :upon£ar^/^; , for we read. That
He Defcended, and overthrew-. in tlie Way to Damaft
cus, andfpoke to him ; faying,(^. 9. v.4,;5.)5W, Saul,why
perfecutefl thou me ^ And he faid. Who art thou. Lord? And
the Lord faid, I am fESVS, v)hom thou perfecutefl. Where-
fore the Gentleman's Notion, of C HR IS T's being only in
Heaven, you fee, is frivolous; for that CHRIST not only
fpake with Saul in the High-way; but has promised, as before.
To be-ivith us always, even to the End of the World. And it's
further prov'd. That CHRIST may be adually Prefent,
without being Seen : - For, when Hcipake 10 Saul, the Men
that Traveli'd with him-.to Damt^cus, AQQA hy (^^.9. v. 7.)
fpeechlefs, hearing a Voice, hid feeing -no Man. By all which
it's plain, That C H R 1S T may be on Earth, and in many
Places, at the fame Time, a$ well as in Heaven; or elfe He
could not be with us always, even to the End of the World - nor
with /» the Way - -nor in the Midjl of all the AlTem-
felies of-the Faithful, that are gather d together in his Name, in
k) many Places, tliroughout the World, at one and the fame
Time. ThQ Gentleman's Arguments are. therefore of no' Ef-
fedf
to the Seeker. 33
,fih(f -ft, which (P. IC, 16.) he brings to prove Cbrifl only In Heaven,
10 where elfe: For, although thofc Texts do prove the RefurnElion,
',T enfm, and oi CHRlSTxv^ Heaven-, yet they do not at all
' f leftrov the Power olt CHRIS T's being in divers Places, at the fame
'7' 'imc according to his Divine Will. And pleafe to note, That it is im-
oflible for any thing to be in the Will, which is not in the Power of
tei ; Q X) Wherefore, as it was in his Will, fproved by his Word) to give
IS Bread to Eat, which Ihould hch\sFleJh j fo it was in his Power, that,
'isd fhat Bread fhould hehisF/eJh, tho nomoreTafted m the Sacrament.
an'dn han Seen when He fpake unto Sattl: And that He (whofe Greatnefs
n k Heavens are not able to contain) had both the Power, and
' J J :hc Will, to be Conceived in the Womb of the Blejfed Firgin, contrary
-oihe Courfe of Nature; where, from almoft Nothing, He encreafed
0 be Born a CJHU-God, and to Die ^God-Man ; and in whofe Power
ti nir- t vras, to oafs, with his Body Intire, through Walls or Doors, that were
Ha- dofe; in his Power likewife it is, to be Contained in the fiuallcft Par-
Tbt icie o( Bread. Wherefore,with the Believing let us Believe;
ind not with the Murmuring ^rwr. Doubt, how he could give us his
■ flefh to'Eat, and his Blood to Drink; nor, with the Incredulous Difei-
f''n lies fay 'Tts an hard Saying, who can hear it ? nor for this Caufe, go back,
• ® fas'they did) and walk no morewjth CHRIST, as They do, who
fc jgny the Being of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament, fo exprefly con-
firmed by Him, in whofe Iforc/there is no Contradidion: Wherefore,
oiilf the Defeft is not in the IFor^; but in the Carnal Imagination of Thofe,'
'iott who have not to Believe it, nor Scr;;>t«re to Difprove it; nor is
li y it Hard but to the Obflinate-, nor Incredible, but to the
^ Wherefore, to conclude, I humbly fubmit the whole to your Prudent
7 Conjideration,'and Remind You of your Refolation, (Tag. j.) " That You
" would be either CathoUck or Troteflant, as the Verdidl upon this Tryal
/■) " fhould go •, and that the Succefs fhould depend upon the Evidence;
ic5l '«which Evidence (in your Opinion) was the Bible-, and that whoever
my " produced the fulleft and cleareft Teftimony, had the Truth on his fide.--
He Wherefere as you Value the'PrfrWfafetyofyourSoii!, pleafe ferioufly
nnr to diftinguifh and Perufc the Texts, which I have affigned for it; and
thofe which the Proteftant Anfwerer has brought againft it; and I doubt
not,but it will appear. That the Scriptures affigned on theC^r part,
are'abundantly Expreffivc and Plain for the Being of Chrifth Body and.
BUod in the Sacrament; and that.the Scriptures produced on the Prote-
fiant part, are alfo Exprefly for it, or not^t all againfl it: For that what
itf I have olfef d, is the Exprefs IVord of GOD-, who, promifing,raid, That
■J , . F the
. 34- Tbe CathoHck Letter, &c. «'>
the Bread which He weuldgive, wot his Flejh, which He Would give far tk
'Ltfe of the World i and performing, Took Bread, Blsfed Brake it, i
■gave it 5 f'*yMfgi Take,Eat,"this is Body; ^^'h'.chWords of Promifc an 1
Pe^ormance,are Pbritive,and have never yet (by DivineAHthority)\iti 1 \
contradidled; for that 'tisimpofTibre to produce one Syllable out oftlj
whoIej^W^jjo, prove the contrary: .Wherefore feeing, that trotefiatn 11
cannptprpve, hf Exp-efs Scriptuh, 'l^ti^t Bread which Bkj \\
. fed, and gave at \\\s, Saf>per, jvas'riothrs PUfh j that Caiholicks caj 1 ^
and do, that it was} I hope, You will be fomuch tire more convinc'd t
believe the ReAl PRESENCE, by how much the Words of GOL j
are more powerful than the Arguments of MAN-, l fay, than the At /
guments or Words of Man-, for, that the. Arguments alledgcd by th< It
Frttefiant Anfwerer, againft the Real Prefence, are ail of Man, dnd nol / *
of God, they are His Words, and hot'the Words of God': Whereas thofi
Abtblute andExprefs, Take, Eat, This''is mj BODY, are the Wordsoi
Cod, and ;iot of Man; and He neither i as, nor can produce one Text^ '
tocontradidthem; Wherefore, I expe. : to hear of your Satisfadion, 1
and'Declaration for ilxQ Cathofick^ FH^ch, in this particular; and not 1
that You behave your Self like fllof hivblous. Vain, and Impertinent \\
Enquirers j who, when convinc'd ! . ne Point, mind it no more, but \
defire to be latisfied of Anothc':; • ning, as it were,' an affurance to I
thcmfelvcs, that tho' Weare r:',;;.: ' he RealPrefence, wemay bewrong /
in reference to the InfalHhiUty •, an.! if right inThatjfuch is their Igno- ^
ranee, to think We Err in Praying to Saints, ute of Images, Purgatory,
or in fomcthing elfe, they know not what: And thus, like Ma^'Pyet,
they Chatter, andHopfromfi//y7?to.S;</X>, from Porwf to Po;«r, without
fixing upon as they ought to do, where-ever they find it.
Wherefore, I pray, be Satisfied in This of the Real Prefence, or Pro-
pofe your Doubts, before You proceed to xhtInfalUb'iltty cftheChureh,
or to any other Point of Faith, in Difference betwixt lis, and the
Church of Er.gland-, for fb You will beStedfaft to fbmething, arid not
be wavering, and Carrie^ away with every Wind of Dofkrine; but
Fix your Standard among the Faithful, andEncafnp With th% P/o/of
the Ever-Living and Ail-Powerful GOD, for the Security and Eternal
Peace of your SouT. Which Peace, that YoumayEn^y forallEtcr'^
■city, is. Prayed for by Him, that is, . ,
S I Ry'
loiifs in alt Chr'tfUsn Duty, ,
N.N.!
u .
iz ^l^C0U/rj^ THE
Proteftant's Anfwer
T O T H E
Catljolttk tetter
T 0 T H E
SEEKER^
O R, -A
VINDICATION
OF THE--
PROTESTANT'S ANSWER,
To the S E E KE R's Requcft.
- ! .■■SI.
> '
-■ ■
IMPRIMATUR, T'
Liber cui Titulus, \^The Proteflant's Anfiver to the Ca-
tholkk Letter to the Seeker.^ &c.]
11. Mtmice RR. in Chrifto
■hiaii 11. 1^88. P. D. Wilhdmo Archiep.
Cant, a Sacris.
LO DON, Printed and are to be Sold by RanJal
Taylor, near Stationers-Hall, M DCLXXKVIII.
THE
CONTENTS.
TH E matter in debate flated p. -u
The Sum of the Trotefiant Anfwer p. 4.
Tranfubflantiation confeH by many of the Church o/Rome
not to be proved by Scripture^ pag. 5-.
Job. 6. 48. confidedp. 5.
Not for Tranfubflantiation, by the confefion of fever al in
the Church of Rome, Ibid.
It's alfo proved by feveral Arguments.
As that place had no fpecial reference to the Sacrament
p. 7.
Eating the Flefh then fpoken of may he out of the Sacra'
ment as well as in it^ Ibid.
Proved to concern thofie prefent as well as others. p. 8.
Thefenfe of eating the Flejh of Chrifi proved to he Figu-
rative., p. 10.
Of Figurative Speeches^ ' p. iz.
Particularly here^ P* 13?
Of Chrifi's being a Fine, &C. P- 17.
The words. This is my Body, confidered, P- 18.
Of the wordThiSy p. 12..
Of Chris's being in the Sacrament after a Spiritual man-
Ibid.
The Texts produced by Parotefiants for it, p.
I. The Letter of Scripture for the P rote [I ant DoHrine,
\ P- 2.6.
^i.) Where it's call'd Bread,and the Fruit of the Vine.
A z (^2,.} The
The Contents.
(^1.) The Body of Chrifl had the Natural properties of
^ Body^ _ p. 19,
C-) dhe Body of Chrift is in Heaven^ and circuwfcri-
hed, . , . . P- 32-.
(4.} lhat ChriJTs Body is Glorified^ and fo not a Sa-
orifice, p. 33.
, The words which are Figurative, are for us, fuch are
thefe. This is my Body, Ibid.
i'J.
THE
THE
PROTESTANT's ANSWER
T O T H E
Catholick Letter
T O T H E
SEEKER,&c.
HEre's a Catbolic}{_ Letter to the Seek^, or a Keply to the
Proteftant Jnfmr to the Seeker. But what's become of
the Seekp" himfelf, fof this four Months pall: ? What
of the Declaration he was in the Conclufion to make
for the Catholick^ Faith of Koine ^ which we are now told of?
That,according to the method, it feems agreed on, he may, after ^
Sentence pafs^d in this cafe, proceed to the InfaVihility of the Churchy ^
or other Points (f Faith in difference betvpixt them and the Church of
England; as our Author intimates there a little too early. The
Seeker had indeed given reafon enough to judg on which fide he
was to be fatis.fied: Thgt tho feemingly he was fent out like the
Dove, to try where he might find reft for the Sole of his Foot,
yet we may fee beforehand, what was the Ark he was to
return to; and that they were as fure of him, as they are of a
Convert before they offer a Conference. Where's now the Re-
folution he was to come to ? Has the Proteflant Anftver to the
Seek^s Kequejf broke thefe Meafures, and forced them to think of
another Expedient ? Our Author cannot altogether diffemble
if. It feems the Seeker was to put certain Lies upon his Anfwer-
ers, to which his Friend on the fide of the Church of Kome
B fubmit-
A Vindication of the
fubmitted^ and it veas humbly conceived the Proteliant Anfrverer would
have done fo too-, as our Author fignifies, p. i. But he being a
k)ver of Liberty more than Couitftiip? and of Truth, and Rca-
fon more than both, took upon himfelf, as its thought, too
much Authority, when together with his Anfwcr to the Seekers
Kequefi^ he wrote a Reply to the Catholick^ Anfwer to the See^rs
Requeft. This isa.courfe our Author complains of,and perhaps he
has fome reafon for it. But what has he to accufe the Pmeftant
Anfwerer of? That he has evaded, the ^ejiion. As how ? Of this
he gives a threefold Inftance.
1. That he has uftd the Word Rranfubjiantiation. Of this our
Author thus complains, p. 2. and y. I do not find the word Tran-
fubftantiation, fo. much as mentioned in either your Requeft, or my
Anfrver. JFherfbre^ how fincere the Gentleman has been in this parti-
cidar^ let the IVorld fitdg. A material Point! who would not
think now, that the word Rranfubjiantiation was abominated by
him, and as little ufed in their Church, as it is in ours? It's ht
therefore to know our Authors mind in it. Of this he faith, It'/
a word devifed by the Church to cxprejs the Converfinn that^s tnade in the
Sacratient^ — and which myficrious change the Holy Catholick^ [ the
Roman]! Church doth Tranfubftantiation, p. 2, and 5-
Now, where is the fault? Whfte the infincerity ? The inimceri-
ty they may take to-themfelves; but the fault is, that when they
thought by the ufe of the Phrafe, Real Prefence^ common to both
them and us, and by the forbearance of the woxd-Tranfubjian-
tiationi which is peculiar to themfelvcs, that they ndght have
impofed upon the unwary Reader, the Proteflant Anfwerer ufed the
irorc^.Tranfubflantiation for their Real Prefence, and fo their de-
iign is difcover'd, and in part defeated.
2. He :faith. The Proteflant Anfwerer evaded the Queftipn.when
mftcad of /peaking to-the Real Prefeirce, he betook^ himfelf to Tran-
fubftantiation, p. 2. Now, who would not think upon this
charge, that his Real Prefence and franfuhflantiatiorr, arc as incon-
fiftent-as Truth and Falthood ? Here indeed he has put a Qucfti-
on, which Tconfels I ihould have been ready to ask; What's
this to the purpofeb Is not the Pie^l Prefence Tranfubftantiation
all as one/ p- "ye And i flioirld-be as ready to ask again, If they
are all as one, how was the Queilron evaded, when nqtead of
fpeaking to the Real Prefence, the Anfwerer hetoo\ himfejf to Tran-
fUbfiaiitiation ?
Protejiant's Anfwer to the Seeker, ^
fubftantiation> In this, he thus acutely Anfwers. No tmjy^
they are not aU as one-, as you may think. For there is a great deal of
dUFerence betrvixt a Man, and the Name by which he is dijiinguijhed-—
N^is one thing to prove the Pieal Prefence, and being of Chrifis Body
and Blood in the Sacrament ■, and another to /hew, why liJs cloange is
by the Church calTd Tranfubfiantiation ; tho whoever believes the one,
car/t in J'ruth deny the other. That is, the Real Prefence and Tran-
fuhjiantiatiom, are not all as one, becaufe they are all as one: And
the Anfwerer has evaded the Queftion, by ufing the one for the
other, becaufe whoever helia'es the'one, can't in Truth deny the other.
3. But he has not yet concluded the Charge. For faith he.
Whereas the Controverjy is not about the word, the Anfwerer has
altogether banter'd at the word Tranfubfiantiation, and not fpok^n to
the Subfance, p. 5* So before, The AticLns with as much reafon might
haveobjeUid againji the word Confubfiantial (which was devijed againjl
them) as the Proteftant Anfwerer has done, where p. 3. he fays,
" That it's enough for them to /hew that Tranfubfiantiation is not
" taught in Scripture, tho the Being of Chrijls Body and Blood in the
" Sacrament is, p. If our Author's skill in reafoning be no
better than it appears to be in Ecclefiaflical Hiftory, his Adverfary
has no great reafon to fear him. That the word Confubfiantial
was ufed againfi the Arians, I acknowledg; but that it was devifed
agaiiut them fas our Author faith) is fpoken at adventure. For the
contrary is evident that it was in ufe long before in the Chriftian
Church. So (■3\t.\vFufebius,We have k'iown certain Learned and Famous Eccl. Hifl. 1. r,
Bifhops and Wnters among the Ancients, who reafoning repon the Divinity c. 8.
of the Father and Son,have ufed the Confubfiantial, or iiiiiffiot.
But to return to the Chargejwhere is this Controverfy managed in
the Anfwer about this uidcriptural word Tranfubfiantiation, which
the Proteftant Anfwerer altogether banter'd at ? He has found it
out in fomewhat that is not there 5 I (hall here fet down the
Words of the Anfwer, with his, and let's fee how they agree,
Cath. Letter, p. 2. Protefiant Anfwerer, p. 3.
He [the Proteftant AnfwEr- 'Tis enough for us to (hew,
cr ^ fays, That 'tis enough for that Tranfubfiantiation is not
them to jhew that Tranfubiian- taught in Scripture, and that
tiaaon is not taught in Scrip- thofe that pretend 'tis there,
tunc , tho the Being of Chrifis cannot fhew it; nay, that the
B 2 Body
A Vindication of the
Body and Blood in the Sacrament literal Seiife concludes not for
is, it; and^that our notion of the
Keal Prefence, is agreeable to it.
- Where this Author is guilty of a double Pervetfion. Firft,
That he tranflates what is fpoken of Iranfubjlantiation in the no-
tion, to the Word (when there is not a Syllable that looks,
that way) and then, that he would reprefent the Real Prefence,
in the Proteftant, that is a fpiritual, Senfe, to be an acknowledg-
ment of the Being of Chrifts Body and Blood in the Sacrament, in
their way.
But after our Author has for fome Pages entertain'd himfelf in
managing this imaginary difpute againft his Adverrary,yet in Con-
futation of himfelf he rinds out another fort of matter that he is-
obliged to confider, and if he can, to confute.
The Proteflant Anfrrer confifts of two Parts.
In the rirft, arc confidered the Texts produced in the Catho-
tick^ Anfvper to the Seeker^ to prove their Real Prefence^ which I
hope I may now call Iranfubjlantiation.
In the fecond, There is given a Catalogue of fuch Texts, as
maintain the Proteftant Dodirine of Chrifts Spiritual Prefence,
and in Confutation of the Corporal Prefence held in the Church
of Rome. And now let us view our Author's Undertaking, and
fee how he has quitted himfelf in both of thefe.
PART I. Sea. r.
Sedf. TTTTE are to confider in the firft place, how our Author has
W Vindicated his own Anfwer to the Seekp's Rtquejl^ and
what Reply there is made to the Objedions and Arguments di-
reded againft his pretended Proofs from Scripture.
In the entrance upon this matter, the Proteflant Anfrvcrer fug-
gefted, that the Seel^r had put an unreafbnable Task upon his
Catholick^PrieJls, to prove their Real Prefence, or franfubjlantiation^
by the exprep Text, and plain Word of God', fince Perfons of the
greateft Note, for Quality and Learning, in their Church, have
freely given it up, and granted it to be a vain attempt. Such
as
Froteftant's An[wer to the Seeker.
as Scotus and Bid, among the Schoolmen, and the Cardinals,
AHiacn^ Fijher.^ Cajetan and Bellamin. What faith our Author to
this ?
Firft, faith he, SuppoiTng it was Co as thefe Authors fay,
That" there is not one place of Scripture fo exprefs, that mthout the
" Determination of the Churcb, it would evidently compel a Man to
^''receive Tranfubftantiation. — Tet the fame might as rrell be faid
of the Confubjlantiality of the Son, p. 3. Will our Author venture
to fay, there is no more from Scripture to prove the Confub-
ftantiality of the vSon, than there is to prove franfubflantiation ?
Or hath he any heart to fay it, after the publiftiing the Doctrine
of the Trinity and Tranfuhftantiation compared, and as long as that
Book lies unanfwered ? But let that be as it will. What, faith
he,if this to the Bcing,nr not Being of the Body and Blood of Clorijl in the
Sacrament ? Had he produced Scotus, Bellarmin, &c. to difprnve
the Real Prefence, it had been fmething, tho not to your purpofe. For
theRequefi was to fatisjie you by So'ipture only, and not by citing our
Modern Divines, &c. but by the exprefs Text, &c. But 1 think it
was to the purpofe to (hew that fome of the moft Eminent in
their Church declare it is not to be proved in that way, and I
think to declare it cannot be proved, is little better than to dip
prove it.
At laft our Author is content to yield up Scotus, one of his
Modern Divines, and Bellarmin', and he adds, if what they have faid
in that matter, will do the Gentleman a kindnefs, he Jhall have it not
only from them, but all the Faithful. If fo, I fear our Author then
will be left alone; for if all the Faithful are of the fame mind'
with Scotus and Bellarmin-, then his Undertaking to prove
Tranfuhftantiation by the exprefs Texts of Scripture, will be a fruit-
lefs Attempt. But we go too far, for that's to be underftood
with a referve, viz. Scripture without the Determination cf the
Church is not fo exprefs, &e. This premifed, our Author cheerful-
ly proceeds. That altho the Scripture were never fo plain, we would yet
fubmit to the Determination cf the Church, for the true Senfe and
Meaning thereof. So that tho he pleads Scripture, 'and would
fain find out fomewhat that looks like an exprefs Text yet he
doth it not, nor would be underftood, that he thereby renounced
the Determination of the Church. For whether the Scripture be
plain for it or not, is not the Foot this matter refts upon; and
altho it were never Jo plain , yet the Church is to give it the true
t meaning,
I
A Vindication of the
meaning \ and whatever meaning the Church gives it, that is the
true meaning 5 and fo, if the Church had determined agaiuft Iran- .
fubilantiation, as it has determined for it, there would have been
ftili exprefs 'texts-, and the cafe had been alike refolved.
SECT. II.
A T lafl: we are come to the main feat of the Controverfie,p.d.
XX TheCatholick^Anfmrer had produced two places of Scrip-
ture as his^/^/« texts for tranfuh iantiationithe Hrft is,^y/'.<5.48.Here
the Prote^ant Anfmrer interpofed, and hrft direded the Seeker,
where he might hnd about thirty Writers of the Rorrm Church,
who rejed that Text as not ferving to our Author's purpofc,
Pag. 4. and then proceeds to Ihew for what reafons they and
we do fo rejed it.
Arg. I. As it had no fpecial reference to the Sacrament; and
that for two Reafons: i. Becaufe this Difoourfe of our Saviour
was delivered above a year before, ver. 4.
To this hrft our Author replies.
That the fourth Verfo, [ihe Palfover,aFeaJi of the Jevps, was
nigh'] k no Rule to Jhen> the Sacrament was not injlituted above a year
after. For, faith he, that this word Nigh, (houldfignife above a year
after, is fuch a Figure as never was : And fo gravely repairs to his
Concordance to prove the word Nigh is not by exprefs and plain
Scripture to be tak^n for above a year after. Certainly there was ne-
ver naore need of exprefs and plain 5'OT^t«r£,when men cannot look
^ Chapter or two before them.For would any one that was con-
verfant in the Gorpels,think that St. fohn here, and St. Lukg 22.
1. muft needs fpeak of the fame PalTover, becaufe St. Luke hath
the fame word. Now the Feafi of unleavened bread drew nigh,which is
calFd the Pajfover. I fee our Author wants here a little informa-
tion. Let him therefore turn to Chap.y.v.2,& 14. and he will hnd
a Feaft of Tabernacles ; and go on to Chap. I3» i. and he will
hnd another Paftbver. Now I hope I need not acquaint him that
thefe two Feafts of the Tabernacles and Paftbver were kept in
different Months, and that the fame Palfover could not be be-
fore and after the Feaft of Tabernacles i and confequently, it
muft be a year betwixt the Paffover, J(?/>.d.4.and that Joh.i^.i.
and as much; above a year betwixt our Saviour's Dilccurle, JohjS.
and the Paftbver,as that was before the approaching Palfover that
was faid to be Nigh. f 2. The
Proteftant^s Anfwer to tfoe Seeker.
2. The Proteftant Anfrverer proceeded to (hew that this DiC-
conrfe of our Saviour had nofpecial reference to the Sacrament,
becaufe the eating the Flejh^and drinking the Blood here fpoken of^might
be out of the Sacrament as vpell as in it, and at that prefent as rvell as
a year after. This he proved from Fcr/. 53, 54, 5<5, 57. In all
which the prefent time is (fill fpoken o^^Exceptye eat. He that eat-
eth.—My flejh is meat.
To this our Author replies :
To fay, fhat the fleih of Chr'^l may be eaten out of the Sacra-
ment, and even before it rvas i).f ituted, &c. is indeed fuch a Figure,
as none but himfcif can unriddle, p. 8.
I anfwer,But .to fay fas he doth) that Chriji tvouldgive us bread
to eat in the Sacrament, rrhich fjould he the vtoy fame ficjh irhich he
vpould,and afterrvards did'give for'the life of the world, that is, that
he (hould give it before it was given,is a Figure I doubt our Au-
thor himfelfcmnGt unrictdle ; Who faith again, xhzx before he gave
it, ^tivas impoffhle for thetn to eat it ; but he gave it not, till he
gave it on the Crofs.
f2}But to fay that the Flefli of Chrift here fpoken of fan Expo-
fition our Author left out) might be eaten out of the Sacrament,
as^well as in it," is no Riddfe , if it be true. And it is true if
our Saviour fpoke here of his Flefli that mdght be, and was then
to be eaten, at the fame time as he fpoke it, by all thole that
were then his prefent Auditors ; as the AnEverer proved from
verfes 53, 54, Sec.
To this our AiAhor oppofes verf. 5. The Bread which I will give
is my flejh, 8cc. Where, faith he, Chriji promifed, and tpld them be-
fore that be would (in tire- Future Tenfe) give them bread to eat, which
fhouldhe the ileryfami flejh, which he would, and afterwards did, give
far the life of the world. Whence he infers, If the bread which he in
the Sacrament gives us to eat, faying, Takp, Eat, Thi^s is my Body, be
not. that Bread which he promijjd lae would give lis to eat, pray ask^
your Protejlant Anfwerer, where, when, and how did Chriji give us
Bread to eat, which fhould be his fle(h, if this be not ? Pag. 7. What
is a little out of its place, in our Author, I haVe here laid toge-
ther, that I may give it its full force:
To this I aniwer :
1. I readily own with our Author, that the words, I will give,
cxrntain a promife, but then we differ about the time when they
were (ulrilled. He faith, they refer to Us laji Supper, when he hok^
Bread,
8 A Vindication of the
Bready See. under the Forms of Bread and Wine. But now if I am
examined upon the Where, the When, and the Hon>,l (hould re-
fer it to the Crofs i and that becaufe of the following words,
The Bread which I will give is my Flejh, which I will give for the life
of the world. For he gave not his FXtVa. for the life of the world in the
Sacrament, but after the inftitution of that, on the Crofs; not
Under the Forms of Bread and Wine, but in his own proper Form,
and vifible to the Spedators. The reafon of his miftake feems.
to be, that he reads the Future Tenfe after this manner, our
Saviour told them that he would give them Bread to eat, which fhould
he his Flefh. Where he is guilty of two over-lights. Firft, that
he applies that to the Future which is fpoken of the Prefent,for
he reads it fhould be his Flejh, as if it was rirft Bread, and then
was to be Flefh, fo put the better colour upon their Doffrine of
Tranfuhflantiation v whereas our Saviour faith, the Bread // my
Fleff}, which is diredtly againlt it; and if it lignities any thing of
that nature, would rather prove that his Fleih Ihould be Bread.
For it's not faid, the Bread which I will give fhall be my Flelh,
but rather that which is my Flelh, I will give to be Bread.
2. He alters the Terms of the Text,for the words are. Which
I will give far the life of the world", and lie reads them, Which I
will give them to Eat: as if the promife refer'd only to the Bread
which they lliould eat; and not to the Fielli which was to be
given for the world. So that we lee what's like to become of
his Queftion, he prays his Seeker to ask his Prote/lant Anfwerer,
viz. Where, When and How did Chriji give us Bread to eat which
fhould be his Flefh, if this be it not in the Sacrament ? For he muff
frame his Queftion anew, if he would have it to the purpofe ;
and mult read St. John again (notwithllanding what he faith he
has done on this occafion, Pag 8.) and whatever he found before,
I am apt to think after this little light given to him, he will not
find thofe words in this Chapter, He would give them Bread to eat,
which fhould be lois Flefh. And if he reads the Frotejiant Anfwer
again, he will find no occafion for thofe words. Where, See. if
this be it not ? For the Anfwerer did not except the Sacrament,
and fay the eating the Flelh, and drinking the Blood here fpo-
ken of, could not be in the Sacrament, but that it might be out
of the Sacrament as well as in it; intimating thereby that it was
not to be underllood in a fenfe peculiar to the Sacrament, but
in a fenfe common to that and other Offices of Religion ; and
that
Proteflant's Anfwer to the Seeker.
that eating and drinking were (as he {hcw'd J but other words
for coming and believing.
3. But our Author has a further referve, and offers at a pecu-
liar Expofition of thofe Phrafes,! fuppofe it's (iii his phrare;;>.2.)
his private meaning/jp v. 53, 8cc. Except ye eat^—be that cateth. Not^
laith he, that he did then give, or that they did theh eat his Flcfh, and
drink^ his Blood, whkh they could not do before he too\ it, bleffed it,
braise it ', and gaye it. For at that time rvhen he /pake this, he only told
them he rvould gzi'e it, and the Eve before his Pajjion, he performed it.
And from that time I fuppofe the Obligation hears force, ver. 53. Ex-
ceptye eat, &CC.
I will fuppofe that the Prefent doth not here exclude the Fu-
ture, and that he that eateth my Flejh, and drinkpth my Blood hath
Eternal life, will always hold true, and what all ages as well as
thofe then prefent would partake of; but methinks it's very'
hard to make the prefent exclude it felf, and to tell us that
tley did not,and could not then eat the Flejh of Chrijl,\vhcn our J'^avi-
our faith they might and ought,as is evident from what follows.
Let us go to the thing to be eaten, and it's reprefented in the
Prefent Tenfe, z'. 51. This is the Bread, v. 51.1 am the Bread.
V. $2. Is my Flelh. i'. 55. My Flelh is meat.
Let us go to the air, and in correfpondence to the objedh, it's
allb in the prefent, v. 51. If any man eat. Thus the jervs un-
derftood it, r. 52. How can this man give us his Flelh to eat ?
And accordingly our Saviour anfwers, v. 53. Except ye eat,8cc.
ye have no life in you. He fpeaks it to thofe prefent, ye; and them
applies it univerfally, v. 54. IVhofo eateth my Flejh, &c.
Let us go to the thing figniHed by Eating and Drinking, and
it's after the fame manner, v. 3 y. He that cometh, and he that
believeth, z". 3 8,40,45,47.
I (hall conclude this with what was faid in the Protejiant An-
frver. If Chrifl's Flelh here fpoken of, might be eaten, and his
Blood drank oirt of the Sacrament, then it could not here be
underftood of that Flelh and Blood which our Author faith the
Bread and Wine are converted into in the Sacrament; nor, I may
add, of carnal eating his Flelh, and drinking his Blood.
Our Author refents this ill, for he faith, As to his carnal ea-
ting, rve beg his pardon, if he means as tve eat Beef, and other Meats.
For that vae truly and reaty receive the Body and Blood of Chriji (to ufe
his orvn wards') after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner; We jhould-
G
agree
10
A Vindication of the
^'agree^ did m not difer in this, that they receive it in Figttre and Fan-
(y only^ and rve receive it in Snbjiance and Truths
Here I ackncwkdg 1 intended no hurt in the world, but
thought I had exprcit my feli innocently enough. For when I
had read in the Catholick^ Anfvper^ that -in the Eucharijl is Iruly^
Really, and Snbjiantially contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine,
the Rrue Body and Blood of our Lord Jcfus in the very Suhftance wherein
he mas born of the Virgin, and wherein he lived and died for us, with
this diference only, that he was viflble to the eye of Flefh then, and
invifhle to the fame now. I thought the word carnal was exprelTive
of the thing, and indeed I find no great reafon to alter it; For,
•I. had 1 CiiA Metaphorically OiXMl Figuratively, that by no means
would fuit what is corporal. And belides, I learn too from our
Amthor, Pag. 17. that that is a deceitful, fclitieus manner. 2. Had
1 faid corporal, I fee little diftance betwixt that and carnal} for as
Body and Flelh is all one, fo is corporal and carnal. 3. Had I
chofcn the word Spiritual, that's a kind of contradidlion, if ap-
plied to a Body } for Spiritual eating of a Body is little better
than bodily eating of a fpirit. And when a Real Prefence by Faith
would not content them, if we deny a Real Prefence by fenfe,
Seekpr, Pag. 6. I had as much reafon to believe a Spiritual eating
would be no more allowed than a Spiritual Prefence. 4. Had
I exprefs'd it by Heavenly, when it was fomewhat eaten arid
drank corporally , and that what we took with the mouth was
the very Body of Chrift, it could not be fufficiently expreilive
of it.
It was further urged,
Arg. 2. Upon mature Confideration of the whole , it ap-
pear'd to the Proiefiant Anfwerer,x.h^t the fenfe of Eating the Flelh
of Chrift in this place muft be Figurative, and fignifies no other
than coming to Chrift, and Believing in him } which fure is out of
the Sacrament, as well as in it. And this indeed he proved
from rhe promifcuous ufe of the v> ords in that Chapter ; but
this our Author conceals from his Reader, that he might not
too apparently contradid what he had faid, Pag. 2. That he
(h ^ftthority but his own) that the fenfe of Eating the Flejh,
mt{i be Figurative; and right or wrong they are Figurative, upon his
own bare word, without Scripture.
But as the Protefiant Anfwerer argued from the words and
phrafes of the Chapter, fo from the current of our Saviour's
Difcourfe,
Proiejiant's Anfvper to the Seeker.
Difcourfe, that it couTd not be properly and literally under-
flood;
(I.) Becaufe then all that properly Eat the Flefli of Chrifl,
would according to our Saviour's promife, te 54* Hait 'Eternal
Life ; Whofo "Eateth-, &c.
To this our Author anfwers,Ffry true! but with a qualification
that recalls what he had granted. For it's to be underflood,
faith he, of IForthy Kecehers. But this is by no means conliflent
with our Saviour's Reafoning, which if the Flefli to be eat, and
the Eating of it were to be underflood properly, will neceflPari-
ly infer the Salvation of all fuch as thus Eat after this manner;
as well unworthy as«worthy. Since all that Eat his Fle(h, and
drink his Blood, in the fenfe there meant, are the perfons tp
whom Eternal Life ispromifed ; but if properly Eating hisFlefli
be the fenfe of our Saviour's Expreflions there, us'd, then we
know what follows.
2. The Protejlant Anfmrer urged further. That if the words
Eating the Flejh, and 'Drinking the 'Bloody be properly toEe under-,
flcfod, then the Receiving the Sacrament in both Kinds will be
neceflary to Salvation; it being affirmed, v. Except ye eat the^
Fklhefthe Son of man., and drink^his Blood, ye have no life in you 5
and he fhewed that for this reafon, amongft others. Cardinal
Cajetan would not admit that this DifcOurfe of our.Saviour.be- -
long'd to the Eucharifl.
What faith our Author to this ? Truly nothing. As to this,
faith he, of both kinds, it doth not properly relate either to your reqmft, ,
or my Anfwer. A Reply that may be made in any cafe..
He goes on, And befides, I do not fee mhere the neceffity lies of dc''
fining the Sacrament in both Kinds to one that believes it in neither..
That >s, as much as to fay, 1 beg his pardon, I will not vouchr
fafe an Anfwer to fuch an one as he is ; but however, methinks
he might have faid fomewhat, if it had been only for the fatis-
fadion of the diftrefled Seekp-, to whom he writes his Utter to
let him fee that there is no confequence in this Argument. .It
pulled Cardinal Cajetan,^. man of fenfe and fagacity; and furely
the Seek^ may then be led away by the error of it, and it may
put off his Declaration for the Catholick^Faith Months longer.
But there is no danger, it was not neceffary to one that do;h not
believe 5 but he declares he is ready to fatisfie his Seek^r,^ that is,
one that doth believe, as we may conceive.
C 2 1 kuD -V
~
I
I
'f
f
u
f.
i
r
ii
i
ill
14
■I.'
12 A Vindication of the
I know not whether this may not liave put our Author a
little out of humour, for he cannot but abhor, he faith, to fee
men mould Gods JVord into rchat Form they pleafe, and mskg every
thing a Figure, that doth not fquare with their Fancy. Is it becaufe
cur Saviour fpake fame things by way of Farable, that all he [aid was
fuch ? Or that he nrver fpake otherwife ? H>w comes it that mean Ca-
pacitks are (by the Church of St. MaftinVJ left to themfelves, tojudg
of the true fenje of Scripture, according to D. T. who tells you in his
True Account of a Conference, " That a man after ufng all Clori'
" jtian Means, and the help of all Minifierial Guides pofible, mufx at
lajl judg for himfelf.- J fpecial Ajfertion indeed ! IFhich if
true, what need of Teachers ? dec. Pag.
But how cloth he mould the Word of God into what Form he'
pleafes, that underrtands that Figuratively which was Figura-
tively fpokeii ? And to whom doth our Author fpeak when he
thus Expollulates, Is it becaufe our Saviour fpak^ fome things by way
of Parable, that all hefaid was fuch ? Had he no other way to get
clear of his Adverfary, but to fix this upon him ? And had he
no other way to meet with thole that plead for the perfpi-
cuity of Scripture, but to tell the world, that they own out
Saviour never fpake otherwife than in Parables ? How mean and ri-
diculous is this ? But however this was a fair occafion as he
thought to make a fpecial Remarque upon the Dodrine taught
by the Church of St. Martins. Now here the Protefant Anfwerer
is more immediately concerned as a Parifhioner (though one
of the Mean Capacities there taught) and would fain fee how our
Author would manage himfelf in a debate upon that Argu-
ment -, efpecially when after his Exclamation againft it, he him-
felf is forced to acknowledg the reafonablenefs of it. For if a
man muji not at laji judg for himfelf ^ or if fo, that there will be
no need of Teachers i then it's in vain to fend Anfwers and Let-
ters to a Seek^, and to propofe Texts to his Examination"; And
yet in th is fpecial way doth our Author proceed from the begin-
ning to the end of his Letter. He leaves it to his Seeker to paft
fentence upon what has been faid by either party, Pag.i. Whether, faith
he, this hath any rrference, he you the Judg. Pag. 7, 13. He de-
fires him to cqnfult the words, and fee whether thofe Texts do imply,
&c. Pag.8. Serioufy to difiinguijh andperufe the Texts, Pag^^. So
that it feems this fpecial Ajfertion ought to be one of his own,
who teaches his Seek^ fo far, after the fame way as mean Capa'
cities are taught by the Church at St^ Martin'r. To
)ri
fie
5(ry
(ttfi
'itB
!4Ci.
'&Cki-
mi It
^idif
'mbi
igm-
;n lie
npjy
)get
dlie
rfoi'
a®
alii-
issk
w^c
'm
OK
u
Igu-
w
fi
he
!t-
id
n*
f/
i
>0
n,
I'
0
Protejlant's Anfwer to the Seeker.
To come to a clofe of this Argument 5 the Protefiant A 'nfwmf
the better to reprefcnt his Adverfaries weaknefs in decrying Fi^
gum and Parables.him how this Difcourfe of our Saviour fo
abounded in them, that there were no lefs than twenty expreffi-*
onsof that kind in it •, and accordingly drew out (everalof them
for our Author to try his skill upon, and to refolve them mth-
out a Figure^ Pag. 8. Firft, faith he. Let the CathoUch^ Anfivtrer
tell me without a Figure, wMt is that meat which endures to Fverlafi-'
ing Life ? Here our Author labours hard to prove that the meat
in V. 27. is the Bread and Flelh, 51. and concludes, whkh
■Flelh, without a Figure, J humbly conceive is that meat which endureth
unto Everlajiing Life. But I as humbly conceive he has not reach'd
the point; for granting the Meat, the Bread , and the Flefh
to be one and the fame, yet how is the Flelh of Chrill Bread
and Meat without a Metaphor, when it's only fpiritually and
not Corporally Eaten, as he faith, and when neither capable of
digeftion, nor we of nourilhment by it ? Again, if this be Eaten,
only in the Sacrament, how can it under the Form of Bread
endure to Everlafting Life, or how can it be Meat that thus en-
dures, when it is not to be Eaten in Heaven, and all Sacraments
and Inftitutions ceafe ?
The other Queftions were. How the Son was fealed by the Fa-
ther s' How Jefus is Bread, and the Bread that came down from Hea-
ven? How the Bread and the Flejh cfChrif could be the fame? v. 57.
And if the fame, how it could come from Heaven, when he was of the
SeedofTiSMtdi, according to the Flejh? How one of his Church can
talk^of a literal Senfe of, [except ye drink his Blood], which denies the
Cup to the Laity ?
To all thefe our Author returns a general Anfwer, As to his.
How the Son was fealed by the Father, and the reji qf his How's?
they are fuch Jewifll Exprejjions, as that all Clorijiian pretenders ought
to be ajhamed of them. So the Jews faid, v. 52. How can this malt
give us his Flejh to eat? So Jewilh it is to quejiion God, how he could
do it ? How this ? How that ? And fo he runs on to the Creation,
and Incarnation, &c. I am a little at a lofs here, to what caufe
our Authors miftake is to be affign'd ? Surely he could not but
underftand that the How relates not to the manner. How thefe
things be ? But, how thefe things could be thus applied to our
Saviour without a Figure ? I am afraid that he faw the difficul-
ty, and fo llipt away from it j for clfe, why Ihould he anfwer
diredlly
14 A Vindication of the
diredly to the firft Query, -which would more plaufibly bear it}
and indiredly and fraudulently to the reft? And yet, as if he
had to a Demonftration proved what he had undertaken, and
effedually confuted his Adverfary, he will ftill have the words
exprefs and plain, without a Figure. For thus he concludes,
p. 11. If tbefe exprefr and flain words of Chrifi be a Figure, where
he fays as plain, as plain can he, that he would give us Bread to
eat, which ftiould be his Flefli, [ but which I have (hewed be-
fore, he did not fay.^ 1 fty-> if ^hefe words are Figurative, and mufi
not be properly under(iood, I fee no Reafen, why the whole Bible Jhould not
be a Figure too. For if ever Chrift was plain in any thing, 'twas in
this 5 efpeciaVy in a Point, wherein there was never more occafon to
expound, if a Figure, than when the Jews (to whom he came} mW'
mured and faid. How can this man give us his Flejhtoeat? jlnd
when fame of the TDifciples faid it was an hard faying, and thereupon
walked no more with him. He that, in cafes of lefs moment always
explained his Parables, Jhould yet be Hark^ and Figurative in this of
that Importance, and which he well forefaw, occafwns our differences at.
this day, it would be contrary to his Wifdom and Goodnefs. But fo
far was Chrifi from this , that he confirms it, v. 53* hVixh a verily,
verily, except ye eat the Flefh, See.
I have tranfcribed this the more at large, becaufe it contains
fome things very peculiar, and is indeed the utmoft force of what
he hath for his Defence.
I Anfwer to this. * ' ^
!• In General, it's manifeft. That our Saviour is not literally
plain i fince it's acknowledg'd that his Di(cour(e is Figu-
rative, from ver. 32. to vtr. 51. And is it not ftrange, that
when he had fo long difcours'd after that manner, that yet in
one verfe, he (hould mean literally, and which if literally un-
derftood, would be fo manifeft a Contradiction to the Senfe and
Reafon of Mankind, that if he had literally faid he was Bread, he
could not have more aftoniflied them, than when he faid, ex-
cept ye eat the Flefh of the Son of Man, See. if properly and lite-
rally to be underftood.
2. Whereas he faith our Saviour always explain'd his Para-
bles ■, that is too largely fpoken. For even thofe,which he chufes
out of Mark^j. 10, 15, 51, were not expounded to the Multi-
tude 3 and ft his Argument fignify any thing, muft therefore be
properly
Vroteftant s Anfvper to the Seeker,
f tear it' properly underftood by them. But why did not he propound
as if ht the cafe in Difpute, and give us a like inrtance in figurative and
Kn, and metaphorical Expreffions; Such as our Saviour ufes in this
Ik words Chapter? For, are Sealing^ Httngring^ &c. to be underftood
asdades properly,becaufe it's not faid,that they are to be underftood Figu-
ratively? Nay, are eating his F/^, and drinking his Biooi/, to
be underftood properly ? Then certainly, the Capernaits were in
cWV the right, that thought our Saviour fpoke of carnal Eating,
"WiflJir which yet our Author will not allow.
'iHtJkHe 3' He faith, There was never more occafion to expound, if a Figure,
Wi rvhen the Jews murmured, and fame of his Vifciples roent away,
'I ucajk' he fatv, occafions our Differences, '
cm) m
uit? A ' fiO As for the murmuring of the Jeivs, there was no fuch
ihkrar. for our Saviour's expounding it; For thus alfo they mur-
mured, becaufe that Chrill faid, I am the Bread that came down
j, from Heaven, v. 41. And yet, tho he took notice of it, ver. 43.
firmcsi be tiiought not himfelf concerned to explain his meaning, where
there might be more reafon for their miftake, than there could
ffivw/y,i be in this. Indeed our Saviour look'd upon them as an obftinate
and intradable fort of People, and fo did purpofely conceal him-
it'tM? often, as was obferved before. Market And this we
{ok/ic without fome light in, in the cafe before us. For this
Difcourfe of his, was in the Synagogue, v. 5p. and they were
the fame People that before were offended and cavilled, ver. 41,52.
And therefore our Saviour left them in the Dark, tho after-
y, wards, when his Difciples murmured, v. 60, 61, 6-^, he tells
them, it was fpiritually to be underftood.
Tfdii bit thofe Difciples, it doth not appear, that they
jffttin him, becaufe they were offended at his fay-
i®. '"gi (fof tbat he explain'd it to them) but becaufe he gave an
Intimation that he difcovered their infincerity, v. 6\. There are
'</d fc; "fy^tt that believe not', and it follows, From that time many of
.y his Difciples went bacl{j, dec. - ^
Vlii!' Neither was there any fuch occafion for out Saviour's
" expounding himfelf from our differences; If he had meant it pro-
, p perly, I grant there could never be more occafion, becaufe it's a Do-
. drine fo contrary to the Senfe and Reafon of Mankind; but when
^ it's not fo explain'd, the Senfe and Reafon of Mankind may be
thought a fufficient Security againft miftake. And there might
OlOfO'l
I ^ A Vindication of the
be as much reafoit for our Saviour to expound himfelf, when he
faith, he is Bread-, a-Poor, a a
But all this while, our Author -fuppofes our Saviour not to
have explain'd himfelf. I grant it, he did not do it on their fide •,
but I think he has done it to all attentive and unprejudiced
minds; if they will either confult the foregoing part of this dif-
courfe , where he fpeaks of himfelf, under the Allufions of
Bread Fk(h^ .33, 35, 48, 51. and of believing in him un-
der the the Metaphors of Coming and Eating., v. 3 5, 47, 5r,
do,<51,(52. or if they confult the Conclufion,v.<53. where he tells
his offended Difciples, It^s the Spirit that quickneth, &c. As if he
had faid, The eating my Fh(h., and drinking my Blood., which I
propound to you, is not as thofe cavilling Jeivr did mifconflrue .
it; and as you, I perceive, miltake; for in that Flejh , I am to
afcend into Heaven; but it's the heeding and obeying my Pre-
cepts, the receiving my Dodfrine, and believing in me as your
Redeemer, that I require, and you are to regard. And indeed,
thus St. Peter underftood him, who concludes alraoll in the fame,
words, Lord., to xvhotn Jhall roe go ? 'Lhou hafi the rrords of Eternal
Life. And we believe., dec. v. 68, 6p.
4. He faith. That Chrijl woi fo far from meaning othe-itvife than
plainly, as he fpak^, that to the murmuring Jervs he. confirms it, v.yj.
with a Verily, verily, I Jay tmto you. Except, See., IfHoereas in Para-
hies he explained himfelf to them. That is, our Saviour meant plain--
ly, becaufe he did not explain himfelf. But, faith he, he confirmed
it. What did he coiafiim ? Did he contirm the Literal fenfe ?
That he did not before give, and fo could not confirm. Or
doth the Repetition of it without Explication fhew it to be the
Literal fenfe ? That he contends for. But then by parity of
reafon our Saviour meant properly, when he Laid, I am the
Door. For it's there faid in confirmation of, what was be-
fore : Verily, verily, I fay unto you, I am the Door, .Joh. 10. i, 7..
But why did our Saviour repeat it ? Without doubt to lliqw
that he fpoke it not inconfiderately ; and if I add, to explain,
wliat he before faid, it's not without fomewhat in the Text to
cDuntepance it. For before he fpoke of himfelf under the notion
of Flefh, V. 51,53, but then of Flefh and Blood, to intimate both
the violence 31^ manner of His Death; whieh he did ufually
fpeak with more caution and referve about.
If
Trotefiant*s Anfwer to the Seeker. 17
- If we refled upon what has been faid, we fee how unwarily
(\ am loth to add more) our Author delivers himfelf, when lie
faith, Jftbefe vrords are Fi^nrative , I fee no reafm n>by tbe vebole
Bible fr}mid not be a Figure too. And if ever Chriji was plain in any
tbing.it was in tbis. And, which 1 cannot recite without feme in-
dig,nation ; Sbould.he explain himfelf in matters of lefs weight., and
yet be dark^in this great concern., is what would be contraiy to his wif-
dom andgoodnefr, p. lo, ii. So that there (hill be no fenfe or
perfpicui^y in Scripture, nor wKdom and goodnefs in our Savi-
our, if their Dcdrine be not his, and he be not of the fame
mind with them.
Indeed after all our Author's confidence in this matter, and
his qiiefiioning all things, if this be quelfioned : he determines
that which the greatert Authority in his Church, the Council
of Trent., would not determine. For when it had been (harply
debated for and againft thefe words being undcrftood of the
Eucharifi, it was at lalf agreed for the fatisfadion of both (ides,
neither to affirm nor deny it, and to yield to thofe that deni'd
it, that they had Fathers and Dodors on their fide. And thus
the C ouncil concludes 5 However that Hifcourfe fof our Saviour's,
Job. 6. J be nnderflood according to tbe divers Interpretations of tbe
Holy Fathers and Dodors., Self 21, c. I.
Here our Author takes a great leap from Pag. p. of the Jn-
fwer., to Fag.22. but becaufe it's not amifs, I (hall follow h'm :
The Protejiant Anfwerer put it to them to give as plain Letter of
Scriptwre to prove Chriji was neither a Door., Rock.^., nor Vine., as he
could that be was all Three: Or that all Cbrijlians are not turnd into
Chrift's Natural Body, when itf faid Ephef. 5.20 JVe are members
of his Body. This he did to (hew that the Phrafes, Eating the
Flefh, and, This is my Body, were not of thcmfelves fufficient to
enforce us to take them in a proper fenfe , Itnce it's no more
plainly faid, Except ye eat the Fkfh, &c. and, Tbis is my Body ;
than it s faid, I am tbe Door, The Vine, &c.
Now what courfe doth our Author take to alToil this ? LetT
fee, faith he, whether the parity 'twixt I am tbe Door, The Vine, See.
be tbe fame with, Tbe Bread is my Flefh, and, This is my Body, with-
out ever explaining a Syllable to tbe contrary. Here he is a little too
forward. For he is to remember that the thing required is to
give as pliin Scripture to prove that Chriji was neither a Door, nor
Vine, Sic. as there is for it. He knows who faid it, I will prove the
D Catbo-
A Vindication of the
CaihflUckJDoBrm of the Real Trefence^and Idefie the rvo-rld to frove the
contrary. Cath.Anfw.to the Seeker,P<ij7.i. and that declares again,
J/'j- impojfthle to bring'one 'Text out of the rphole Bible to prove that the
Body and Blood of Chriji is not in the Sacrament^ Cath. Letter, Fag.
24. If now he fo ex'peds, t>en it may be fo expedted from him,
that he ihould prove the Negative, and that by as plain a Text
he diould (liew Chrid is not a Door or Vine, as we can {hew that
he is. I mull confefs I put him upon a Ridiculous Task,but who
can help it, it's in his own way. But to leave this trifling, let
us return to fee.his parity i though I doubt we (han't much bet-
ter our felves. As for the Toor, he faith, The Text tells us it was
a Parable, Joh. JO. 6. This Farable-fpak$ Jfus. Wherefore if the
Frotejiant Anfwerer would he fo kind, as to produce plain Scripture for
this of the Sacrament's being a Figure, as 1 have done for the DooFs
being a Parable, he'I certainly gain a Frofelyte of me. • As for gaining
him a Profelyte by plain Scripture, T have reafon to defpair,who
declares beforehand that though the Scripture were never fo plain, he
would yet fubmit to thi determination of the Church, Pag. 4. But
where is this plain Scripture for the door's being a Parable ? He
points to the verfe. But what was the Parable he fpoke ? It's in
the Verfes foregoing about a door,\ grant; But not of Chrift's
being the Door 5 for that follows after, Ver.'j. Then faid Jefus
unto them again. Verily, verily, I am the door. So that if he keeps
to his own way without explaining a Syllable, he is where he was,
and Chrift may be as properly a door, as we may properly Eat
the Flelh of Chrift.
He goes on : In like manner of the Vine, Chrifi faith, Joh. 15. i.
I am the true Vine, and my Father is the Husbandman, as Mat. 2 o. r.
when he likened the Kingdom of lieaven to an Houjholder i and fo goes
on explaining the fame, ver. 4. As the Branch cannot, dec. Which if
you read the Chapter, youlfnd to be more plain. I perceive he is very
ferious, and I am of his mind, if the Seekp- read on, he would
hnd it plain, that Chrift is not properly a Vine, and lb fay I, if
he reads Joh. 6. he would hnd it as plain, that Eating the Flefh
of Chrift is not properly to be underftood. But if words will
oblige us without attending the fenfe, and we muft take them'
as we hnd them without explaining a Syllable, then 1 fay ftill it's
as plainly faid, I am the true Vine, as my Flefh is meat indeed •, and
according to our Author's way of Expofltion, this can be no
Parable. For, faith he,you'l find in all cafes Clrcijl fpak$ not by Para-
* I.)..
P rot eft ant's Anfwer to the Seeker^
hkf rvithoHt telling them it tvas fo^ Pag. 12. But here it's not fb
faid i for as before, fo after the words, 'z*. 4. Js the Branch, &c.
he faith, r. 5. I am the Vine.
He goes on : In like manner of the Rec\, That he was the Corner'
Jione, upon which the Foundation was laid, &c. But how doth he
prove Chrift was not properly a Rock according to his own
way ? Becaufe, faith he, he is a Corner-done, and a Foundati- .
on, which is jud as if he had been asked, how he would prove,
withont explaining a Syllable, Chrift is not properly a Corner-
ftone, or a Foundation and he Ihould fay, becaufe he is a Kock.
But what faith he to the laft Inftance, to prove as plainly, Chrifii-
ans are not turned into ChrijFs Natural Body, when it's [aid we. are
members of his Body, Ephef. 5. 20 ? To this an Anfwer is to be
expedted.
Well, after all his windings and turnings, his and
without explainings, and his reading, and his in lik^ manners, and
his Rules for underftahding Parables, the words are as plain
and exprefi that Chrift is a Door, a Vine, a Rock,, we are mem-
bers of ChrijVs Body, as they are that we Eat the Flejh of Chrift;
and if one be properly to be underftood , there is as much
reafon from the meer words for the like underftanding the,
other.
After this Digrellion, our Author undertakes the laft Argu-
ment of the Protejiant Anfwerer, viz.
Arg. 3^- Here is nothing of the Converfion of the Bread in-
to the Body of Chrift •, but rather the contrary s Tor if the
words are Literally to be underftood, then they womd rather
infer the converfion of Chrift's Flelh and Blood into Bread and
Wine , when he faith, I am the Bread of Life, v. 5. My Flejh is
meat (or Bread) indeed.
As to the firft, which is the converfion of the Bread into the
Body "of Chrift , and the chief thing propofed to hirri, he
hath filently paft it over ; perhaps he faw here alfo no ne'ceffity of
defining or proving it to one that believes it not. But to make up
this defecfi he gives his Adverfary a grave Reprimend, that
when he had juji before faid, that thefe words bad no fpecidl Reference
to the Sacrament, he Jhould now fo apply thfm, b^ an odd way of
pujjing. And why did he not as fharply admonifh him for oifer-
ing to fhew that the words might infer the converfion of Chrift's
D 2 Flelh
A Vindication of the
Fklh into Bread? For both alike belonged to him. Our Author
it (eeins apjirehended not all this was Argumaimm ad hmimm.
But how doth he clear tlie Point, and Ihew they inter no fuch
converlion? F'irit he faith, f>r proof whereof-, [_T hat Chriii's Fleth
is not turn'd into Bread^ kt us go to the words of Converfwn, This
is my Bod)'. But, meihinks. it would have better becauie him to
have tirft proved the Converlion ot the Bread into Flelh frorn
thefe words. As for St. John., he giants that had the words
been. My FLjh is Bread indeed, as his Adverfary would fain have
them, then he wotfldhave Jomething on his Jid-e. But it that be the
fciife of it, and the words Bread and Meat are ufed by our Sa
viour promitcuoully i then it's fo far acknowledged. And for
that 1 lhall refer our Author to v. 26, 2y. but he will not allow
V. 48. to look that way, nor indeed will 1. But yet they will as
foon prove Chritl turned into Bread, as the words the Bread that
I will give is my F/e/^»,will prove the Bread turn'd into his Flefh;
which they fo little do, that they rather would imply the con-
trary, if underllood literally, as I havelhewed pag. b.
But he concludes, rather than differ. Fie joyn in opinion with the
Frotefiant Anfwerer, and thefe other Divines, and with him and them
fuhmit to the Determination of the Church. But where is this the opi-
nion of the Frotefiant Anfwerer ? Surely our Author is like him
in Arifiotle, that where ever he went,tancied he faw himfelf. But
what need is there to go to the Church in this cafe ? For I hope
he will think fenfe and reafon fufficient to inlfrudf men whether
thofe words will prove that Chrilt was turned into Bread ; And
we think fenfe and reafon as fufficient to inform them whether
the wordfcof our Saviour will prove that Bread was turn'd into
Chrift's Flefh
I now thought this matter had been at an end, when the'
Frotefiant Anfwerer pad from this Argument to the fecond Text.
But our Author has not yet done with him.-For he tells m,'lhere
is one Argument yet, on which the Gentleman feems much to depend
fp^g' 9') tFhen he fays, " Since ifChriji be not, but vahax he intirely
" then ffeys he J he mufi be eaten intirely, &"€. From whence he
concludes the not being of Chrifi's Body in the Sacrament, becaufe fas
he conceivesfi he is not there intire, for rcafons (not Scripture') of his
own, p. 14. Blefs me ! thought I, where am I now ? in the land
of Oberon ? What lhall I fay ? he quotes pag. 9. 1 haltily turn'd
thither, and there I was fatished my memory had not yet tor-
faken
Trotejiant s A^ifver to the Seeker.
faken mc. The cafe is thus, the Aiifrv,rci\ as is before obfcrved,
to Ihew the abfurdity of our Author's appealirg to the mere Let-
tcr, put feveral Queries to him out of this Chapter, which he.
■delired him to refolve in his own way, rvkhont gning to F/grtres.
The lait of which was this, bnv be con literjHy interpret^ ver. 57.
\_He that eatetb me~\ tbat holds in the K.-tchnriji is contained the true
Fniy and Bloody together mtb the Soid and Divinity of our Lord Je-
'''"fits Chriji.—Since if Chriji be not but rvbcrebeintircly is^ben he muji
he eaten wt/rr/j'.TJiis Queltioii amongfi others was there drop'd by
our Author •, and the reafon is apparent,for he mud either have
acknowledged that tlie words H: that eatetb me^ muft be under-
ftcxjd Figuratively and Spiritually, and not Corporally: Or elfe
that the Soul and Divinity of Chrid mud be Eaten with his
Body : Or that the Soul and Divinity of Chrid are not in the
Eu.harid with his Body. The cafe, 1 confefs, is hard to one that
has foraewhat elfe to rcfped: than truth ; and therefore it be-
came him to he filcnt. But why he diould now bring it on the
Stage under another guife, 1 can't imagin, when thus to refume
it,and pervert it mud as much expofe his infincerity as the omif-
lion of it before,did his inability to anfwer it.The Reader will fee
that the Argument and the concluiion are none of the Jnfneer-
rr's ; for that Propofition, rrhere ever Chriji is, there he intirely //,is
a principle of our Author's,and which is there made ufe of againd
him that profefs'd to believe rvith the fame Faith he believes a God,
that in the Euchariji is truly and fubjimtially contained the true Body
and Blood, together rrith the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jefus
Chriji, Cath. Anfw. to Seekp", p.4. And where our Author found
the Concluiion,! know not, for there is nothing in the Frotfiant
Anfrverhhis to this,that from thence concludes the not Being ofChtilFr
Body in the Sacrament, hccaufe he is not there intire.
However it may not beamifs to fee how our Author relieves
himClf; Saith he, "to rvhich, I anfwer and grant, that Chriji is not,
but where he is intire. And whether Chriji who is perfeCi God, may not
be intire tn the Sacrament, and in many places at one and the fame time,
is the ^ery ? which if fully refolved, will overtlorow all his reafoning
Ware befides ? Well, how will he prove Chrid intirely in the
Sacrament ? That is, the true Body of Chriji with the Soul and Di-
vinity. That was forgot before, and fo is not to be remembred;
but if it may be accepted for a full and intire Anfwer, he will
prove his Bodj may be intire in many places at one and the fame
A Vindication of the
time. What he faith of that, belongs to another place, and lhall
there be confidered, p. 2c). But what is this to his Soul and
Diviiiity i and to the literal fenle of he that eateth me, and the
Argument the Anftverer preft upon him ? He will be able to an-*
fwer it, when he can prove his Propofition, that Chriji is not,
' hut where he is intire 5 for then his Body muft be Omniprefent as
well as his Divinity, which after all the may he's , and his at-
tempts to prove it poiPiblc for Chrill's Body to be in many pla-
ces at one and the fame rime", I fuppofe he will have no aUow
ance topublijh, if he* fhould have the imprudence to maintain.
SECT. III.
WE are at length come to his fecond Text to prove his
Keal Frefence, viz. Ihis is my Body. Here the Frotefiant
Anftverer Ihew'd how abfurd the direftion of the Seek^ was,
that his Anfwerers Ihould produce their Texts, without troubling
themfelves to tell the meaning ont, becaufe he was certain that the
DoArine of Tranfuhjiantiation could never be the literal meaning
of thofe words. As for example, faith he, Where is there one
word, that the [[This] whatever it means, is the true Body and Blood,
together with the Soul and Divinity of Chriji, in the felf-fame Sub-
fiance wherein he was born of the Virgin ? Where that this true Body
and Blood is truly, really and fubfiantially contained under the Forms of
Bread and Wine Where that the Bread and Wine are upon Confecra-
tion turned into the true Body and Blood (f CJm(i ? Let us fee how
our Author replies to this, p. 17. Let us note his Where's. Where,
fays he, is there one word? Where that this true Body and Blood?
Where that the Bread and Wine are upon Confecration, turn'd into the
True Body and Blood of Chriji, &c. Which truly, are Where's indeed ?
But what's become of the Soul and Divinity of Chriji ? What of
the felf-fame. Subjiance wherein he was born of the Virgin ? What of
the true Body, truly, really, and fubjiantially contain d under the Forms
of Bread and Wine ? Which are what he profefs'd frmly and truly
to believe ly the jame Faith he believes a God? And where (to add
another Where) will he find thefe literally in the words, Lhis is
my Body ? He tells us one would think, that fo many Where's were not
without a Wherefore. And becaufe the Gentleman deftres to kpow the
Where, he (hall alfo k>iow the When. Certainly now to the Confu-
tation of Scotus and Biel, &c. and the confufion of all Hereticks,
We
Proteftant s Ayifwer to the Seeker.
We (hall have a plain xlifcovery, and that in fo many words we
[hall Hnd, thz trxc Body and Bloody together iritb the Soul andDi-
vinity of Chrili-, See. For this go we to his rrhen Jefus took^Bread,
&c. andfaid-i "This if my Body-, Mat. 2^. Then it rvas^ faith he,
and., Here it is by porcer of theje rrnrds of God., This is my Body., that
the Bread is turned into the Body of Chrifi. This is indeed a fubmijji-
on to the Seek^^s diredfion to produce the tvords without a mean-
in^^., and it is fo becaufe it is (o ; This js my Body^ doth turn
the Bread into the Body, becaufe there are the words. This is
my Body, I hope the Reader is fatisfied, for in truth I am.
The next thing propofed by the Prot. Anfiverer was, what the
meaning is of This., in. This is my Body ? If, faith he, it be Bread,
then the Bread is in the literal fenfe, the fubttance of Chrili's
Body, and fo overthrows the change to be made in Tranfub-
jiantiation. If by This., is not meant the Bread, then the Bread,
could never be turned into the Body of Chrili by vertue of the
words. This is my Body. Our Author readily anfwers, As\the
^eliion. What? and our Saviour will refolve you. Mat. 26.26. This
is (what.?) my Body, he did not fay, after he had blejfed it. Say,
Takg, Eat, This is Bread, but my Body ; than^which, nothing can be
more plain, than that it w,ts his Body. And to make all fure, he fe- ,
rioufly proves it, becaufe it's not hie, but hoc eft panis. It's well
apTof in the Greek, is of the fame Gender with panis. But let us
admit pf this Learned Criticifm fthough by the' xvay let me ob-
ferve for our Author's inftrudiion, when the Article relates to
thefentence, it's to be put in the Neuter Gender) the difH-
culty put. yet remains ; for if the This relates to Body, then the
fenfe is. This Body is my Body. But faith he, let tis fuppofe
This to refer to Bread, It yet fallows that it is his Body. But it fol-
lows alfo, as the Anfwerer argued, that then the Bread is the
Subliance of Chrift's Bodyjaccording to the Letter ; and fo could
not be turned into it. So that our Author has left the difficulty
as he found it.
But becaufe the Anfwerer here Hid,We have not Faith to believer-
that which the Scripture hath not taught, he very fubtilly argues af-
ter this manner : From whence, faith he, I gather, that notwithlian-
ding all his Arguments to difprove the Real Prefcnce, yet he hath not
Faith (though face) to deny it. For that pag. 3. he tells you that " be-
" fides their pofitive Articles, they have a great many Negative ones,
[and the Anfwerer tells you, for which we are "beholden to th?,
Corr-
2 4 A Vindication of the
Corruptions and Innovations of the Church of Kcmfj &cc. For
that he hath not faith to believe^ rvh it the Scripture hath not t I'tght,
that in the Ettchariii is not contain d the Body of Chr'f. The Gentleman
therefore can have no Faith to deny it. A very quaint Argument ;
which I (hall difmifs with a parallel Indance. He that hath not
Faith to believe that which the Scripture hath not taught, hath
not Faith to deny that to be of Faith which the Scripture doth
not teach; And therefore becaufe Mihmetifn is not taught in
Scripture, he hath not ^aith to deny it. But this (pirit of acute-
nefs doth not lall long, for having labour'd to find inconfiuen-
cies in the Do(ffrine of the Church of England as fet down in the
Anfwer, he blunders without end. He allows what our Church
faith. Thai the Body of Chriji is eaten in the Sacrament after an H;a-
veniy and Spiritual manner i but he adds, but this rve helirtoe to be a
true and real manner^ not a Deceitful-, Figurative-, or FicHtinus man-
If you grant it after a Spiritual manner., you muji
ncr. —
grant it there after a true maimer. If Chriji be there in Spirit-.,
be is alfo there in "Iruth ; and if there in Spirit and Truth, all my
Arguments are granted. 1 think not; for the Church oi.England
faith, it's only after an ITavenly and Spiritual m inner. So that
though they do agree, where Chrih is in Spirit, he is there in
Truth j yet I doubt me the w( ri only alters the cafe, for he may
be there in Spirit and in Truth, and yet not be Corporally there.
And I queftion whether any thing lefs will fatisfie our Author
and fo it appears ; For, faith he, Chriji is there after fuch an Intire,
Real and Subjiantial manner, as rve believe, or he is in no manner there
at all, p. ip, 20.
P A R T 11. _S;ct:. I.
Part 2. Sed. T T Avlng thus coniidered the Texts produced by the Citholic\
I. J. J. Anfwer to the Seeker, and (hew'd how little they ferve their
Caufe; I (hall proceed to the Second Part, and that is to vindi-
cate the Texts produced in the Prot- jiant Anfiver, from the Ex-
ceptions of our Author. Here our Author fets his Texts againft
thofe of the Proteifant j but it would have done well if he had
hrit fet down what it is he (hould prove on his own lide, viz.
^ That in the Eucharlji is truly, really a"d fuhjianti.iUy contained, under
* the
Troteftanfs Anfwer to the Seeker.
ihe Forms of Bread and TFine-, the true Body and Bloody together ivith
the Soul and.Divtnity of Chrijl in tJoe fame fuhjiance wherein hejvas
horn, of the Virgin., and wherein he lived and died for us i and this by
the Converfwn of the whole Bread into^the Body^ and the Wine into the
Blood of Chrijk If this had been done, how meSTnly would it
have look'd, though he brought his 24 Texts to prove it?
and furely he could not then have had the conlidence to have
faid, as he now dothj I doubt not but it appears that the "texts
bi'ought on the Catholicf^ j^Ptoman^ Jic/e are abundantly plain and fuf-
ficient for the Being of Cloriji's Body in the Sacrament., ys thus fet
down. And it would doubtleis have been fome gratirication
to his Ptcader, if he had given us-a Paraphrale as his Adverfary
had done, according to thefe his Sentiments.
But'here he faith that the An^weret pretends not to prove by thefe
texts that the Body and Blood ofChriji are not in the Sacrament., p. 24
W hy fo ? Becaufe it's one of their Negative Articles, and to
" require plain and exprefs words of Scripture to prove fuch a •
" thing is hot there taught, is, fays he, to demand a proof, the
thing is not capable of.- As if fuppofe there was not-expref
words of Scripture to conintc Arianifm., therefore that could not
be confuted by Scripture. It's enough that what is not in Scrip-
ture is no Article of Faith j it's enough that there are fuch Pro-
pofitions in Scripture as are fufficient to refute it, though there
Ihould not be exprefs words. But however if he will take it in
the words of our Article,and if it may be to his content,we (hall
find it pofitively faid that Tranfubjiantiation is repugnant to the plain
words of Scripture. And we have our Author acknowledging that
his Adverfary undertakes to (hew 'that the Proteftants have the
Letter of Scripture for them, meaning fas he faith) that in the Sa-^
crament is Not contained the Body of Clmfl, p. 30. And now let us
try whether the Anfwerer did not give them more than his bare
word for it; .in the ufe he made of his own Quotations. As he
obferved from thence.
SECT. 11.
I. TpHat' it's no contradidfion to our Saviour's manner ofSedl
1 fpeaking, to interpret thefe words Figuratively,fince our
Author after*all Kis Exclamations of gjving Chrift the Lie^s forced
E ftha
26 A Vindication of the
(tho here he flips over it) elfewhere to acknowledg ("hat the ■
Cup, yea and the word Bread-, is fo ufed, p. 28.
2. That in many Inftances the Letter of Scripture is for us:
As,
Jrg. I.' That there is no Subftantial change in the Elements,
but they remain the fame Bread and Wine after, Confecration as
before. So it's five times cali'd Bread, i Cor. 10. 26, &c. and
the whole Soletnnity is cali'd Breaking of Bread, Adf. 2. 42.
To this our Author replies feveral ways, as, By the word Bread,
faith he, /> fneant the Commwiion of the Body cf^ Chrij):, as by the
word Cup is ftgnified the Communion of the Blood of Clyrijl, p.24.
But to this I anfwer,
• I. That if the words Bread and Cup are not to be under-
flood Literally, but with a thereby is meant, and thereby is figni-
fed, then there is no mere reafon from the bare words to un-
derfland. This is my Body Literally : And that it may be as well
• interpreted, This is the Pveprefentation,and Sign of ray Body;, as
this Bread is the Communion of my Body.. ®
2. From hence it follows. That if the Bread be the Commu-
nion of the Body of Chfift, as'the Cup is the Communion of
the Blood of Chrift, then the Bread is no more changed than
the Cup j but as the Cup remains the Cup, fo the Bread re-
mains the Bread ih-the Communion.
• 3* If the Bread be the Communion of the ^dy of Chrift,
then the Communion of the Body of Chrift is m the Commu-
nion of the Bread ; and fo the Bread is ftill Bread.
4. Our Author has not touched the Point,which was to (hew
the Letter of Scripture is for us, when it calls it Bread after
Confecration.
But he faith, Saint Paul mentions not the words, Cup
and Bread, but he explains them to be the Body and Blood of Ckrijl,
1 Cor. 11.2 5. ^s often as ye eat this Bread, ye do (hew the Lords
death, which was not Jhewn, but by offering up his true and Keal Body
and Blood.
I anfwer,fo we may better fay he mentions not theBody of Chrift,
but he explains it, when he five times afterwards calls it Bread :
But how doth the Jhewing of the Death of Chrift prove the Bread
to be his Body , when it rather proves it not to be his*Body, be-.
caufe his Body is not, according to them, vilible,and to be fhewn ?.
He faith further. How could they be guilty of the Body and Blood
of the Lord, v. 27. if the Body and Blood be not there ? ' I an-
Trot eft ant's Anfwer to the Seeker.
I anfwer, As perfons may'be guilty of it out of the Sacra-
ment: Thus we read Heb. 6. 6. JVho cruciHe to themfelves tin Son
ofGodafrcfh. And Chap. lO.ip. Who trod underfoot the Blood of
the Covenant. And fo by unworihy receiving of the Lords-Sup-
per, in whith his Death was Commemorated and Reprefented,
they after the fame manner were by Interpretation guilty of the
Body and Blood of the Lord. And this the next ver. 2p. (hews,
not difcerning the Lords Body ; which can be underftood only of a
Spiritual difcerning by Faith. Or rather as the word
figniries, difcriminatingi
Lailly, he adds, ^Lrvould be hard a Sinner jhould be damndmeer-
ly for moderate eating and drinking Wine •, for accm'ding to tl^e Prote-
fiant ^nfwerer^ the Sacrament is no more^ rcho tells you, p. 11. There
is no other' Subjiance dijiributed among the Communicants, than that of
Bread and Wine. ••
1. But our Author had gone three or four Lines further,
he would have found thofe -vwrds, pag. ii. The Body of Chrif
is not otherxvife prefent than it is eaten, that is,'after an Heavenly and
Spiritual Manner, in the Spiritual Blefjings and effeUs of his Merits
and Sufferings in his Body, to thofc that believe. So that he preva-
ricates, when he faith. Sinners are damnd meerly for moderate eat-
ing and drinking, and that We eiieem the Sacrament no more.
2. \Ve look upon it as a Divine Infitution, and by virtue of that
Injiitution a means of Grace ; and that by a tvortioy participation of it,
we partak^ of that Grace which is thereto promifed, therein exhibited,
and thereby conveighed, as it's there declared, p. 17. and confe-
quently the damnation threatned is- to the contempt of God!s
Ordinance, and of the Sufferings of Chtift therein reprefented,
and of the Grace of God purchafed by thofe Sufferings, and
therein to be obtained.
The Anfwerer fhew'd,alfo as the Bread,fo the Wine was with-
out alteration, from Mat. 26. 28. who after he had faid. This
is my Blood, calls it the Fruit of the Vine. And from the'order in
St. Market^.2:},2^. where the Apoillesare faid to have drank
of it, before our Saviour faid. This is my Blood.
This Branch of the Argument our Author divides from the
other, and calls it forward three or four Pages , Pag. 28. for
it gave too much light to the other, whilft 'they were toge-
ther. •
As to the former Text, I will not drink, of the fruit of the Vine,
E 2 he
26 AVincfication of the
Ctho here he flips over it) elfewhere to acknowledg tliat the •
Cup, yea and the word Bread, is fo ufed, p. 28.
2. That in many Inftances the Letter of Scripture is for us:
As,
Jrg. I.'That there is no Subftantial change in the Elements,
but they remain the fame Bread and Wine after Confecration as
before. So it's five times call'd Bread, i Cor. 10. 26, &c. and
the whole Soleninity is call'd Breaking of Bread, Adt. 2. 42.
To this our Author replies feveral ways, as. By the tvord Bread,
faith he, is pieant the Communion of the Body of yChriJ^:, as by the
vpord Cup is ftgnified the Communion of the Blood of Ckriji, p.24.
But to this I anfwer, . "
« I. That if the words Bread and Cup are not to be under-
flood Literally, but with a thereby is meant, and thereby is figni-
fed, then there is no mere teafon from the bare words to un-
derfland, fhis is my Body Literally : And that it may be as well
• interpreted, This is the Pveprefentation,and Sign of ray Body;, as
this Bread is the Communion of my Body..
2. From hence it follows. That if the Bread be the Commu-
nion of the Body of Chfift, as the Cup is the Communion of
the Blood of Chrift, then the Bread is no more changed than
the Cup •, but as the Cup remains the Cup, fo the Bread re-
mains the Bread ih-the Communion.
• 3. If the Bread be the Communion of the Body of Chrift,
then the Communion of the Body of Chrift is m the Commu-
nion of the Bread ; and fo the Bread is ftill Bread.
4. Our Author has not touched the Point,which was to ftiew
the Letter of Scripture is for us, when it calls it Bread after
Confecration.
But he faith, Saint Paul mentions not the xvords, Cup
and Bread, btu he explains them to he the Body and Blood of Chriji,
I Cor. 11.26. As often as ye eat this Bread, ye do (htrr the Lords
death, rchich vpas not Jhemn, hut by offering up his True and Keal Body
and Blood.
I anfwer,fo we may better fay he mentions nottheBody of Chrift,
but he explains it, when he ftve times afterwards calls it Bread :
But how doth the jhercing of the Death of Chrift prove the Bread
to be his Body , wheja it rather proves it not to be his"Body, be-.
caufe his Body is not, according to them, vilible,and to be fhewn ?.
He faith further, Hojv could they be guilty of the Body and Blood
of the Lord, v. 27. r/ the Body and Blood be not there ? ' I an-
Protefiant's Anfwer to the Seeker,
I anfwer, As perfoiis map be guilty of 1^ out of the Sacra-
ment: Thus we read Uth. 6. 6. JVho cruciHe to themfelves tlye Son
of God afrcfh. And Chap. lO.ip. Who trod underfoot the Blood of
the Covenant. And fo by unworfhy receiving of the Lords Sup-
per, in whith his Death was Commemorated and Reprefented,
they after the fame manner were by Interpretation guilty of the
Body and Blood of the Lord. And this the next ver. 2^. (hews,
not difcerning the Lords Body ; which can be underftood only ot a
Spiritual difcerning by Faith. Or rather as the word S'ta.xfiraf
figniries, difcriminatingi
Laitly, he adds, ^Lrpould be hard a Sinner Jhould be damndmeer-
ly for moderate eating and drinking Wine j far according to tl^e Prote-
fant ainfrverer., the Sacrament is no more., rvho tells you, p. 11. There
is no other' Subjiance dijiributed among the Communicants., than that of
Bread and Wine.
1. But^f our Author had gone three or four Lines further,
he would have found thofe words, pag. ii. The Body of Chrif
is not othertvife prefent than it is eaten, that is,'after an Heavenly and
Spiritual Manner, in the Spiritual Blefings and effeCis of his Merits
and Sufferings in his Body, to thofe that believe. So that he preva-
ricates, when he faith, Sinners are damn d meerly for moderate eat-
ing and drinking, and that We elleem the Sacrament no more.
2. VC'e look upon it as a Divine Injiitution, and by virtue of that
Injiitution a means of Grace •, and that by a rvortloy participation of it,
we partakp. of that Grace which is thereto promifed, therein exhibited,
and thereby conveighed, as it's there declared, p. 17. and confe-
quently the damnation threatned is- to the contempt of God!s
Ordinance, and of the Sufferings of Chtift therein reprefented,
and of the Grace of God purchafed by thofe SufTermgs, and
therein to be obtained.
The Anfwerer fhew'd,alfo as the Bread,fo the Wine was with-
out alteration, from Mat. 26. 28. who after he had faid. This
is my Blood, calls it the Fruit of the Vine. And from the'crder in
St. Mark^i^.2-^,2/\.. where the Apoftles are faid to have drank
of it, before our Saviour faid. This is my Blood.
This Branch of the Argument our Author divides from the
other, and calls it forward three or four Pages , Pag. 28. for
it gave too much light to the other, whilfl 'they were toge-
ther. •
As to the former Text, I will not drink, "f the fruit of the Vine,
E 2 he
A Vindication of the
he faith, St.LukQ gives the plainej} orther of it. Chap. 2 2. 14. and
that there it hits relation to the Vafchal Cup,
I grjiit, that in St. Luke it rnore immediately is joyn'd to the
Pafchal Feall, but yet in St. Matthew and Chrill is laid to
have rpoke thefc words after the delivery of the Cup in the
Lords-Supper. -And the Icall that can be obferved from hence is,
that it was indifferently to be applied to either; and fo it more
ftrongly argues that it was alike to be underilood[that the Wine
in the Euchariflical Cup was the natural fruit of the Vine, as,
that in the Pafchall as that the fublfance of both was one and
the fame, and no rnore change in the one than the other.
But, fuppofe this,yet, faith he, the meaning of thefe words could in
no wife bS applied to the Shbjiance of Wtne proceeding from an Earthly
Vine ; but to the Subfinnce of his Blood, the fruit of the Hecwenly Vine,
for that it was to be drank^new with them in his Father^s Kingdom,
which is Heaven, where they neither keep faverns, nor dtcinhjF'ine,
Some perfons while they charge others with irreverence,
themfelves feem to have loft all due .reverence for holy things.
We will fuppofe,ih favour of our Author, that by the Kingdom
of God our Saviour means Heaven, and by the Fruit of the Vm, he
means the Subftance of Chrift's Blood ; yet how will it ^follow
that it's the fame Fruit of the Vine they drink of in Heaven as
. they drank of in the Sacrament; fince the Blood of Chrift is
IX) more drank in Heaven, than Wine nor is the Sacrament any
more adminiftred there, than the Paffover ? So that if by the
Kingdom of God, Heaven is to be underftood, then the phrafe,
fillldrink^it new, fignines Myftically and Figuratively according
to the manner of Scripture, which fets forth the happinefs of
that ftate by eating, Mat.S. 11. Luki 14. 15. and the excellency
and perfedfion of it by the word New, Revel. 14. 13, &c. Arid
fo the meaning is, I (hall not henceforth thus eat with you ;
the next^eftival I.(hall obferve, will be in Heaveiv,there we that
have now thus eat and drank together, (hall partake of the feli-
city of that ftate ; and this fruit of the Earthly Vine lhall be
exchanged for Rivers of Heavenly Plcafures,which we lhall there
be entertained with.
The next thing obferved !)y the Jnfwerer in proof of the Sub-
ftancf of the Wine continuing fo after Confecration, was from
the order obferved in St. Mark,i'^, 23. where it's faid the Dif-
^ ciples
• Protejfant s A?ifiver to the SeeK^er.
ciplcs drank of the Wine, before our Saviour faid , Ihk is my
bIooJ.
Here our i^uthor thinks himfdf excus'd fiotn an Anbver, be-
caufe of an Error in the Prefs, Bosly being- put for Blood. But if
he turned to the Text,he might fee that place was quoted right,
and common fenfe would ierve to rediHe it. However he cour-
teoufly offers fbmewhat in the mean time, by way of Anfwer,
viz. IVhethcr St. Mark exprejfcth the reords in the fame order as thy
reerc fpok^n or noy it matter's not ; feeing, he has the Sithfiance of rrhat
vpas faid-, and rrhcrein they all agree ; to reit^ that it rvas his Blood.
And it's alfo apparent that Chrijl firji gave thanks^ and bUffed it, be-
fore he gave it, dec. pag. 29. But doth it not matter whether St.
M/r^expreffeth the words in order > Certainly if the order he
recites it in, were the order obferyed by our Saviour, arid that
the Apoftles received the Cup, and drank of the Wine befote
the vpords of Converfton^^s they call them) were ufed, then it fol-
lows (^as'the. Anftrerer argued) that they only drank of the Sub-
fiance of the Wine, and that the words, 7his is my Blood, sould
not fignifie, and much lefs produce a Converfion of the Wine
into the Blood of Chrift. This our. Author was fcnhble of, and
therefore in his Anfwer left out the main part of it. For what
tho all the Evangeliils agree that the words, 7his it my Blood;
were then ufed by our Saviour ? What though 6hri(i frft gave
thanks, and blejjed it, before he gave it, if he did not alfb ufe the
words of Converfon before he gave it ? For all the refl he might
do, and yet the Wine be Wine flill fas they own.) But thus it
was,if SuMark^is right in the order, and it feeras to be the proper
order, becaufe he only fpeaks. of the particular, that they alldrank^
of it. But we are not to have any thing to the purpofef/7/ fas
he faith) the Bill be amended, and that I take for his belt An-
fwer.
•
Arg. 2. The Protefant Anfmrer^hcv/td. the Letter of Scripture
is for us, that our Saviour's Body had the natural and inrepara-_
ble Propcr des of a Bqdy, fuch as Extenfion, Circumfcription, &c.
p 15. Here our Author calls in the Faith of a Chriftian, and the
Almighty Power of God to his Succour 5 and looks upon the
Anfvaercrzs a fccond Didymus, becaufe he will, like him, not believe
excephefees ; and mrfr/f than him, rvhofarrhnt the fdmianity, yet
believed the fivinity of Clorijl, p. 30. But why all-this , when he
believes all the Scripture teaches , and reafon it felf juflifies ?
May
30
4 Vindication of the
May not a man believe,, unkls he believes contrary to what he
hiirifeir fees, and the Scripture teaches ? Or why is he rvorfe thzn
Thomas^ when Thomas would not believe unlefs he faw ? But
the Ar.fwcrer is one of thofe ( Thanks be to God ) whom our
Saviour pronounced Blefled, That have not fea^andyet have believed.
What is there he, would have him believe ? It is what was never
put to Tlwrms-y for our Saviour convinced him by an ocular De-
monftration, Joh. 20. 27. Reach hither thy finger^ and behold^ dec.
As much as if he had laid, The Pvefurred):ion is real, for it's a
real Body that is before thee ; and it's my Body, for reach hither
thy finger^ &c. It's plain our Saviour here thought he gave an
unqueltionable Proof of the Truth of his Refurredion by Ihew-
ing his Body to Thomas^ which could not have been, had not his
Body had the properties of an human body,without which it could
ngt haVe been a Body s or which if it had been without, Thomas
could not have been convinced in that way^ that it was his Body.
But our Author here undertakes to prove,that this was not the
Condition of our Saviour's Body; or, that he could by his power
fepafate thefe effential Properties of a Body from his Body. Here
I muft confefs my felf indebted to him for an anfwer to what he
offered to this purpofe before, but not to the purpofe of the Ar-
gument there, and here repeats. Pr.zy, faith he, horv was his Bo-
dy to befeen^ Extended, Finite, and Circumfcribed, when hepajs'd through
Walls and Doors that wereclofe^ John 20. 17. He entred the room,
the Doors being Jhut. How came he through ? Was his Body In-
' tire. Extended, Finite, and Circumfcribed with Limbs, Bones, and Si-
news ? Such is the Infinite Power of God, that though they were
inclofed in walls every where a Mile thicl{, "'twould yet be pojfible for
Chrifl to enter intire through all, p.. 15-
Here is one thing omitted, and that is to prove, that as the
Doors were fhut, when they affembled, for fear of the Jews ("as
the Evangeliftfaith J To they were not opened by Chrift,when
he came and flood in the midft of them s till which be proved,
we fliall fay the letter of Scripture is for us, and that Chrili's
Body had Flelh and Bones, might be beheld and felt, and did
neither come through the Walls, nor indeed" could do, fo long as
it remains true that the Penetration of Dimenlions is impollible.
But I had need to recal this ; for I am for ever iilenced if what
he faith be true, that the Anfwerer argues petfidioufiy of Chriji, as
if he were not God, not dijiinguijhing betweeen bis Glorims Body and ours ;
for
Proteftanfs Anfwer to the Seeker.
for asGodt alltlmgs arepojftbk to him. But where is thziperfidiouf-
nefs:, fince no more is denied foChrilt,than is to God?F'cr becaiife
all things are polTible to God, doth he think that it's porfdmtf
to fay, that it's not polTible for God to be ignorant or unfaithful,
or circuraftrib'd, and fo to exiif after the manner of a Body ? Or
doth he think it's perJidioHs to fay;.it's impoffible to make the
Body of Chrilf to have been exillent in different rimes, and real-
ly to have been exillent before it was exillent, dnd yet not to be
exillent till it was? Or is it perpdious to fay, it's impoffible to
make the circunafcribed Body of Chrill to be Omniprcfcnt ?
Thelallhe feems to affirm by his often repeated Maxim, That
Chri(i is not hut rvhere he is intire, and'placing therein the Difference
between Chrifl's Glorious Body and ours. But of that inore.anon.
Our Author, as he would prove the Body of Chrill might lofe
all the Properties of a Body,fo alfo that it mig!* be contained under
the Forms of Bread and TTz«e, that is, to all appearance it might
have all the Properties of thofe Elements, ayd yet be none of
•them , but the Body of Chrill alone. And this he reafons
upon,after this manner. Where is the difficulty to believe but this may
he^ as the Holy Ghoft under the Form of a T>ove^ with Feather^ Fea^^
Wing-, and all the properties of a Fowl ? Or in the Form of longues of
Fire ? Both which to our eyes were but as a perfeti Dove., and as ^feCi
'tongues i yet thofe different objeds to the eye of Flejh., were bW one
Holy Gholi to the Eye of Faith, therefore nothing cdn be more plain
than that O^e&s may be one thing to the-Eye of Flefh^ ant-another thing
to'the Eye of Faith. So in the Sacrament., to our fight and tafl is plain ^
Bread and Wine., but to our Faith (in Gods word) n is the Real and
Intire Body and Blood of Chrifi.
An inllance and inference.not at all to the purpofe. For the
Quellion isnot,Whether a Spiritual Being may not be under the
appearance of a Body? for lb it was with the Angels when they
appeared as men, and the Holy Ghoft when it appeared like a
. E)ove. Neither is the Queftipn, whether an Objed may be one
thing to the eye of Flejh.,znd another to the eye of F.aith ? for lb our
Saviour appear'd to be man, and yet was God as well as man. All
which yet is befides the matter, for inthefe cafes there is an invi-
fible.Being under a vilible reprefentation,or a'n Inviilble Being in
union to a viiible.But here are two ob jeds vifible in their own na-
ture,r/z.theBody ofChriliandBreadjand the one of thefe fo turn'd
into the other, that there are all the Properties of a vilible Being,
which
A yindieatioti of the
which is not there,wz.Bread ; and none of the properties of that
vKIbleBeing which is therc,t7z.the Body ofChrilt.So that the que-
llion (hould be thus proposed, Whether what is an objed of
fenre,may have all the properties of.another fenlible objed, with-
out being that thing which they are the properties of y and none
of the propeities belonging tct its own nature and being?
Jrg. The -Prot'jhnt Jnftverer fliew'd, that the" Letter of
Scripture is for us, that the Body of Chrili; as it arceaded,fo is
to continue in Heaven till the concluiion of tii£ world 5 and fb
cannot be in Heaven and Earth at tlie fame time. This our Au-
thor calls a barren conceit ; but as barren as it is, it is true, and
has Scripture and Reafon on its (ide , notwithlfanding what he
has objeded to the contrary. 1 he rirlt Argument he offers in
Anfwcr to this is^that he is a perfeii and omnipotent God. And that
he may be, and yet not reconcile contradidions (as has been
juft before (hewed.J He conlirms it by Scripture, Mat. 18. 20.
c. 28. 20. IVhere tr^o or three are gathered together in my name, there
am I in the midfi of them. And if there, he is there intire, or not at all,
15. 32.'But when Chrilt promifed to be in the midtf of
them, did he promTe to be there Corporally ? If bodily, I would
fain know under what Form he is there ? And if he be intire
whf^iCver he is, and yet he is every where as God, then the
BodjTof Chrid muit be as Omniprefent as his Divinity 5 and fo
there would be no need,nor indeed poffibility of his Defcending.
He adds. Oar Saviour is not fo confned in Heaven, as that he can-
not alfo be upon Earth 5 for vee read that he Defended and overthreva
Saul in the rvay to Damafcus, and fpok^ to him, Ad. p. 4* ^td he
may be aHually prcfent.rvithout being feen^ for the men rritio Saul fano no
man, v. 7. By all which it^s plain, that Cbrifi may be in Earth, and
in many places at the famt time, as well as in Heaven,
But fo this I anfwer, (i.) It's not certain that the Apoftle
faw, or that Chrift appeared to his Flejhly eye. For elfewhere he .
is faid to fee hun in a trance. Ad. 22I 17. and here v. 4i to fall
on the Earth •, and fo God is laid to be feen, when yet there was
no timilitude, EW. 24.10. Deut,<\.. 12.
(2.) If he was fesn bodily, yet it's* not faid, as our Author
would have it, that he Dfcended, and was bodily prefent.
But :t might be as with St. who looked up to Heaven, and
faw Jefusjianding on the right hand of God, Ad. 7.55. And fo here
V. 3.
Proteftavt's Anfwer to the Seeker.
3. it's faid, that there fhined round about (St. Paul) a light from
Heaven.
(3.) Much lefs is there fo much as any intimation of what
our Author faith, that Chrift was Bodily in Heaven and the Earth
at the fame time. -For if he was in in the one, it's certain he was
not Bodily in the other. And this our Author unwittingly ac-
knowledges, when he faith Chrijl defended and overthretv Saul.
So Vigilim "Tapfttanus, When the Body of Chriji was in the Earthy it
was not in Heaven; and now becaufe it is in Heaven., *tis not in the
Earth.
Arg. 4. The Anfwerer argued on. That the Letter is for us,
that Chrift was but once offered as a Propitiatory Sacririce, &c.
that his Body is QloriHed,an.d ro not to be.offer'd, He^'.^.2 8,e$-e.
But to this our Author has made no Reply.
SECT. III.
FRom hence the Brot. Anfwerer proceeded to fhew, that as the
Letter of Scripture is for us, fb are the words which are Fi-
gurative, as in thofe, 1 his is my Body, p.ib. The method was
here orderly and dilfincff, but our Author runs one into another.
I fhall gather up what he faith as well as I can. The Arguments
by which the Anfwerer proved thofe words to be Figurative, are.
as followeth.
Arg. I. From the word fhis, which if to be underftood of
the Bread, Bdlarmine grants, then the word Body muft be Figu-
ratively undcrftood. And that it was the Bread, at leaft in con-
jun<3:ion with the other adfs relating to it, the ^wfjvtrtr lhew'd,
which our Author lets pafs.
Arg.2.T\\t Anfwerer argues, if the words are to be underftood
literally and properly, when thefe words were faid by our Savi-
our, then the Body would be broken, before it was broken.
To this our Author anfwers, (i.) P. 2d. "though his Natural
Body be there, yet the manner of iFs Being is Spiritual and Sacramen-
tal, ahd the manner of its Breaking follows the manner of its Being', his
Body is there Broken in the Sign, not the Subjiance.
I anfwer,That to fpeak of a Body's being after the manner of-
F a Spl-
A Vindication of the
a Spirit, is as much as to fay on the contrary, A Spirit exifts af-
ter the manner of a Body ; that is. That Body nay be a Spirit,
and a Spirit a Body.
2. If the Body be in the maniur of its Being only Spiritual
and Sacramental, and the brraking in the manner of its break-
iiig be only Spiritual , tlien why not the Body be only Spiritual
and Sacramental ? Or why fnould we any more profefs our jUves
Jevos or InHclcls (as he would have it J to doubt ^ ivktlxr-, tuy to af-
prm, what Chr/ji Jaid was improper and Metaphorical, when wc
fay, Ibis is my Body is to be underilood Figuratively and Spi-
ritually,than it's to fay (as he dothj it's broken Spiritually ; lince,
as the ^///iverfr obferv'ddt's as well faid,7/vV is brokrn^as 7his is my
Body: And our Author faith, iJtjmnamier of its being and brcaklngy
are Spiritual and Sucramental-, Myfncal and Keprcfntative ?
3. But this is belide-s the cafe ; for the (^cltion is not about
the manner of Breaking, but how Chrilt could fay. This is
Broken fif not Figuratively undcrftood) before it was broken.
But to this wc arc to exped: an Anfwer.
Biit he adds (2.^ Moreover thefe words [_whicb is brok^n"^ do provt
(as the Holy CatholkkCburcb always did^ and ever will hold) it to be
a true, proper Sucripce 5 for the being broken, explains the Nature of a
Sacrifice, which imports the dejirudion of tlx thing offered, if co/rup-
tihle and liable to dejirudion : But the Body of Chriji being Incorrupti-
hie and Immortal, can't be really hurt, therefore the manner of breaking,
is only Myftical and Keprefentative.
Setting afide that what he faith concerning the Cathclick
Church, is fpokcn Gratis, I anfwer. If the nature of a Sacri-
fee imports the dejiruliion of the thing ojfered,if corruptible and liable to
dcjiruCiion,th.zn the Body of Chrilt mull have been de/lroy'd (if a
proper Sacrificejbefore it was deftroy'd^for theBody of Chrlfl(when
Chrifl fpoke thefe words, This is my Body) was certainly liable
to dejlrudion. And fo he has faftned the Objedion, inftead of an-
fwering it.
(3.) He concludes,^ this manner of Breaking, pleafes not the Gen-
tleman ( as in truth it doth not, and he has now given his Rea-
Ions for it ) let us fee whether the Body of Chriji ivere not otberwife
Brok^ before be inliituted the Sacrament. Now his Body was pierced,
and Blood fpilt at his Circumcifion, followed by mfpeakpble Pains, reji-
lejs Labours, See. IFhat his Agony in the Garden ? fFhat his being
crowned withThorns and Bloody JFhipping at the Pillar,^ JFhers-
fan
Prote/lant s Anfwer to the Seeker.
fore rvith "Truth our Saviour tjtight have faid of bis Body \jrhich is brokf]
Without ltt[)poftiigaiiy thing improper or untrue.
1. What doch OLir Author mean when he faith-he would /re,
fifnjither the Body op Chid were not otherwife broken before he injiituted
the Sacrament : And inltances in \\\s Agony in the Garden., his crown-
ing with Thorns., and whipping? Dotlffie think thefe were betbre
-the Sacrament ?
2. If this was the meaning of our Saviour, when he faid,
This is my Body tvhich is broken, that he was Circumcifed, and in
an Agony, &c. then where is the Sacrifice, which he faith, im-
Ports the dejirubiion of the thing? Which thefe things were neither
literally nor inyllically.
Arg. 3. The Anfwerer urged, that Jefus himfelf then took
the Bread, &c. when he faid. This is my Body, and yet Jefus had
at that time a Body which was not broken, dt-c. no not fo much
as inyllically. So that the fame Body v\ as whole and broken.
Here our Author is filent.
Arg. 4. He argued from the words, Do this in Bemembrance of
me, which fuppofes abfence , and tlierefore an Inltitution fet up
in remembrance, and yet in which the Body was to be actually
prefent, is to fuppofe the Body to be ablent and prefent at the
fame time.
To this he anfwers.
1. Thatthofe words no way relate to the Laity, who only receive the
Sacrament, hut to the Prielis,who confecrate and adminijier, for it's no
where faid. This Eat, This Tak^, This Receive, but, This Do.
A. I. If this be fo, then there is no command to the People to
receive.
2. To whom did the Apofile write his Epiltle, but to Laity
as well as Prtefts ?
3. Surely he did not read < Cor. 11.24. where the Apoftle
faith. Take, Eat, This is my Body. This do-. What? but. Take,
Eat j fo V. 2^. This do ye, as oft as ye drink^ it in remembrance of me.
This do: What ? but, Drink^ this.
But after all, what is this to the Argument? For whether
thefe Words were fpoke to the Laity or Prielts, relates not to the
Cafe 5 but the Qneftionis, Whether Remembrance of Perfons,
is in its true Notion conf llAit with Prefence ?
F 2 To
A Vindication of the
To tliis.he anfwcrs,
"The Seek^ UHMftvevably ohfeTVsd-,th:it the ^entewhrcince of its ^ein^-,
doth no xvay make it ceaje to he- A wife Obfervation 1 But what then ?
Doth it not fuppofe the Abfence of the thing
This he faith is zrveak^pcce of Sophijiry-, as if., faith he, myKe-
memhrance of ymr being xvithme, rvhen ?refent,did any wife fuppofe
y^itr Abfence from me.
But I thought,with the reft of Mankind, that Remembrance
and Sight areas diftind in their notion, as Abfcnce and Prefence;
and that I may as well fee what is Abfent, as remember what is
Prefent: What is Prefent we fee and know, but what is Unfeen
and Abfent, we remember.
After all, we fee that the Author has left no Rule to dire(ft a
true Seeker to, no Guide to dired him, no Arguments to fettle
his wavering mind; and if there be not a better Rule, Guide, or
Arguments than he has offered toward his Convidtion, there is
no help for it, but the Secl^cr muft liveanddye a Setkif.
It's impoftible to convince a man that has Senfe and Pveafon,
that he muft not ufe than, and that whatever ufe they may be
of in Temporal Matters-, they ought to be of none in Religion ;
and he that will undertake this diflrcult task, muft either prove
he doth not contradicft himfelf when he will ftiewand refer him
to the Letter of Scripture, and wi(h him to ufe his Eyes to fee it,
And his reafon to judg of it; or elfe he muft prove that both
parts of a Contradidfion may be true. And having brought our
Author hither, I may fafely leave him, and conclude his Argu-
blent, together.
FINIS.
E R K A f A.
PAg.io. 1. 21. for Seeker fag. 6. r. [Seeker pag. 6."] with Bracei. P.27. 1.
52. for who r. where.
_ _ D . V E R T I S E M E N T.
Tranfubftanriation contrary to Scripture; or the froteftant'i Anfwer
to the Seeker s Requeft.
An Apology for the Pulpitt; being in Anfwer to a late Book, Intituled,
Good Advice to the Pulpits. Together with an Appendix, containing a
Defence of Dr. Tentfon't Sermon about Alms ; in a. Letter to the Author
of thU Apology.
Imprimatur,
Liber cui Titulus, \.The Abfolutejmpof-
phility of Tranfubftantiation Demonftrated. ]
j , . GuH. tffeedham RR. in Chriflo
3- 1^88' P. ac p. D. Wilhelmo Ar-
- chicp. a Sacr. Dom.
u
13 THE
Abfolute Impoflibility
O F
CmnCuibftanttatton
r
DEMONSTRATED.
1''
.
LONDON:
Printed for William Rogers^ at the Sun over-againfl St.
Dunjlans Church in Fleetflreet. M E>C LXXXVIII.
- . —'
THE
PREFACE.
UPON a careful Review of this enfuing Dif-
courfe^ I find no caufe to make any ahatement
from the Title of it ^ which promifes to the
Reader no lefs than flri^ Demonflration. Jf
any of the following Arguments fhould happen to fall jhort
of thefe pretenfions to the highejl and clearefl fort of
Proof that can he^ it is wholly My faulty and I will mend
it upon the frjl Notice of it. For I am fure that the
Suhjelt-matter is capable of the mojl rigorous Demonjlra-
tion that ever was ; and it has always been held.^ That
the Effential Properties and Affections of a Body, fuch
as Quantity., Figure, and its relation to Place, &c. are
the Proper SubjeCl of Demonflration. And let me here .
add. That fuch a DoClrine as Tranfubftantiation, net-
ther is, nor can be, a Matter of Revelation.
For Scripture was given us. Either to Reveal
things which were unknown to us by Natural Light: Such
as the manner of the Creation of the World, and the grea-
ter and more amazing Secret of the Redemption of it,
wherein all Heaven was engaged; the Father fent the
Son, and the Son afterwards fent the Holy Ghofl; upon
which occafion we have a clear and manifefl declaration
of that DoClrine, which is commonly called the Trinity
of Perfons in the Godhead, which was not fo exprefs be-
fore, under the Old Teftament. To thefe may be added,
B the
The Preface.
the ajfurance which is given us of a Refurretlion^ and of
a future Judgmenty and of the different portion of good
and had men ; of the one in Happinefs with all the hleff
fed Company of Heaven^ and of the ether in Eternal Tor-
ments prepared for the Devil and his Angels. Now thefe
are things which were Vndifcoverahle hy Natural LigJ^t ■
hut heingKevealed.^ are very agreeable to it.^ and in no-
wife contradihl it.
Or (xdly) Tofurnijh us with an Hijlory of Providence,
and of Gods government of the World: Wherein mofl of
the Divine Attributes are vijihly difplayed. His Ho-
linefs and Juflice are to he feen in his Judgments, his
Mercy in Deliverances, his Power in Miracles-, his Know-
ledg, Faithfulnefs and Truth, in Prophefies-, and the like.
Now this part of Scripture does only clear up and exem-
plify our Natural Knowledg of God • and our Reafon is fo
far from being dijlreffedyhat it is very much ftrengthened
and confirmed by it: As, to compare great 'things with
fmall, the Grammar Rule is proved and confirmed by the
Example.
Or Qdly} It was given us to improve our Natural
Notices, and inforce our Natural Obligations to thofe
Duties, which we owe to God, our Neighbour, and our
fetves. And here our Reafon triumphs, and is made
perfebi.
Or (^4thly} To eflablifh certain Religious Ordinances
and Inftitutions ; fuch as are the Sacraments, Religious
Affemblies, Preaching, and the like : which our very
Reafon d.es fubfcribe and approve as wife and holy Ap-
pointments, and as highly Injlrumental to a good life.
Now thefe are matters worthy of God, and fuch as all
the Wifdom in the World would expebt (hould ie the Con-
tents of a Divine Revelation. If God jhould vouchfafe
to make new D fcoveries to the World, a man would look
fo.
The Preface.
for fomevohat of this nature^ which fhould improve us,
and fupply the defeats of Humane Vnderftanding, and
tend to the perfecting of our Nature. But no man would
expert, that God Jhould fend after us from Heaven to
unteach us all that ever he had taught us in the day of
'cur Creation, and to blefs us with fuch Difcoveries as
thefe. That the fame Body is in the fame Place, and
is not in the fame Place at the fame time. That the
Duration of Hours is the Duration of i688 Tears.
That a Miles Diflance, and the Dijlance of loooo Miles
is Equal. That the fame thing may Exifl and not Exijl
at once. That the felf-fame fingle thing may have two con-
trary Natures at the fame time, and not he what it is ,•
^ together with the rejl of the Myjltries of Tranfubflan-
tiation. We are Jure that a Divine Revelation cannot
contradihl the Common Senfe and Reafon of Mankind; for
that would he to pronounce them Falfe Witnefles of God,
when hy thefe alone we know that there is a God, and are
led to the difcovery of his Eternal Power and Godhead;
which mujl he known before we can think of Revelation.
For it is in vain to talk of the Word of God, till we know
that there is a God whofe Word this Revelation is. In
fhort, If any fuppofed Revelation fhould centradill the
plain Principles of Reafon, it would he the fame thing, or
rather worfe, than if that Revelation jhould contradiCi it
felf. For if a Revelation fhould contradili it felf, we
could not indeed receive it upon thofe terms, hecaufe we
fhould he hound to believe it and disbelieve it at once,
and therefore we could not believe it at qll • But if this
Revelation fhould contradiH the plain Principles of Rea-
fon, then it would overthrow that TJnderflanding which we
are fure we received from the hands of God: And there-
fore if we fhould renounce our Reafon to believe fuch a Re-
Velation, we mufi in that cafe part with a Certainty for
B X an
The Preface;
an Vncertainty. For we cannot know (unlefs we will re-
ceive it hlindfold^ and then we know nothing That ever
any Revelation came from God^ till our Reafon has made
it cut to us that it did : And therefore to abandon our
Reafon for the fake of any Revelation, is to make our
felves furer of the thing proved^ than of the Proof it felf
which is very ahfurd; for that which makes us certain of
another things muft needs he firjl and hefl known to us.
/ fhould not have put fuch a Cafe as this^ for it is an
impojfihle Cafe, hut that the Papifts themfelves have put
it, and have decided it the wrong way, and have made
Axiomes and felf-evident Principles out of the falfe de-
termination of it. So Cartes concludes his Fir ft Book of
Principles; " That we muH fix this in our minds as the
" chief and principal Rule, That thofe things which are
revealed to us hy God, are to he believed as the moH
certain of all others : And altho perchance the moft
clear and evident Light of Reafon that can be, fhould
" feem to fuggefl to us the contrary, yet we muH believe
" Divine Authority alone, rather than our own Judg-
" ment. Now this I fay is an impojfihle Cafe ; for we
have not a more clear and evident proof, than the moH
clear and moPl evident Light of Reafon that can he, Ei-
ther that God has revealed any one DoEirine in particular.
Or made any Revelation at all. Or that there is a God^
And therefore if any revealed DoEirine in particular can
he fuppofed to contradiEl the moB clear and and moB
evident Light of Reafon that can he, fo that it ought to
he fet afide, and disbelieved as Falfe; Then that Do-
Eirine does therein overthrow both its own Credit, and
the belief of a Revelation in general, and even of a Deity :
And confequently it is, as I faid, an Impojfihle Cafe, and
a perfeEi InconfiBency ; for at once it fuppofes the belief
of a Divine Revelation, and yet deBroys the belief of any
fuch thing. The
The Preface.
Hje Gentlemen of the Port Royal, in their Logick or
Art of Thinking, have advanced this Rule of Cartes to
the fiate and degree of an Axiome, or undouhted Princi-
pie: For in Part 47 Chap. 7. they make this, together
with two other Axiomes which ujher it in,to be the Foun-
dation of Faith, I Jhall confider them all three,
AX 10 ME VIII.
A Man ought not to deny that which is clear and
evident, for not being able to comprehend that which
is oblcure. This is but a lame Axiome; for tho it be
Truth, yet it is not the whole Truth in this matter: For
a Mcin ought not to deny that which is clear and evident
upon any account whatfoever. He ought not to go againfl
known Truth, (_for that is the Englijh of what is clear
and evident} for the fake of any thing, either known or
unknown.
AX 10 ME \X.
It is of the nature of a Finite mind, not to be able
to comprehend that which is Infinite. This is an un-
doubted Truth, and no man can gainfay it; only it has th^
misfortune to be found here in bad company, and to^e
applied to falfe purpofes, as we foall fee by and by.
AXlOME X.
The Teftimony of a Perfon infinitely powerful, in-
finitely wife, infinitely good, and infinitely true,
ought to have more force ttf perfuade our Minds,
than the mofl: convincing Reafons. But I ask again.,
Have we any more, than the mofi convincing Reafons, to
The Preface.
perfuadeus that there is any fuch Per/on thus qualified}
Or that this Infinitely Credible and Adorable Being has
given any Teflimony at all ? If not^ Then I fay ^ that this
Axiome is an Inconfiflency^ it fupplants it felf and un-
dermines the very ground on which it (lands. That mufl
needs be a very tottering and ruinous foundation of Faith^
which is eflablifhed upon a contrariety and oppofition to
the Mojl Convincing Reafons: But an ahfurd Religion
may be glad of fuch Axiomes as it can get^ and muft be
content to be ferved with an abfurd Logic.
The Meffieurs prqmife us here to fay fomewhat more of
Faith afterwards^ which accordingly they do., Chap. ii.
and therefore thither we will follow them, and fee how
they apply thefe Axiomes to eflablifh Tranfubflantia-
tion : Where firjl they inculcate their former Axiome in
thofe words, " II eft certain, &c. It is certain that
" Divine Faith ought to have more power over our Minds,
than our own' Reafon. And this is certain, even by
*' Reafon it felf, which fhews us, that we ought always
*' to prefer that which is more certain, before that
*' which is lefs certain j 'and that it is more certain that
" what God fays is true, than what our Reafon perjuades
us; becaufe God is more uncapalle of Deceiving us,
than our Reafon of being Deceived. Now, if what
theafon perfuades us be not certain, when, for infiance,
it perfuades us that there is a God, then there is no pof
fible certainty of a Revelation, which Jhall (land in com-
petition with Reafon, and be preferred before it. And
therefore this is the the old Enchantment over again,
which perf".lily turns the Reafon of Mankind into a Stone,
fo that it cannot move one flep either forward or back-
ward. For if the mofl clear and evident light of Rea-
Jon that can be, fas Cartes'j word isf if fhe mofl con-
vincing Reafons fas the Port-Royal word /j'} may be
falfe,
" rifi
"Ph
II w,
'M i
k
^Mtkh
■'Mitji-,
''iilM,'? I
WtlHtf!'
Ctip. i:
ii [((k
Mm
hiomea
itmtk
ittHfoi/;,'
dlili:.:
d
(/rimti
uik(
imlii]'
it. ^
<f
taSm
ffinjlfl
j0!'
The Preface.
fa^y Then it is impojfthle for us to know any thing;
I^ay, it is impojfihle for us fo much as to knoWy that we
know nothing.
But in the very next words they relent^ and tell us
quite another flory. "Neanmoins a confiderer, 6:c.
" Neverthelefs to conjider things exaHlj/y that which we
" evidently petceive, both by Reafon^ or by the faithful
report oj our Senfesy is never contrary to that which
" Divine Faith teaches us. But that which makes us
" believe fo, iSy that we take no heed where it is that
the evidence of our Reafon and of our Senfes ought to
flopy and to go no further. Me thinks men Jhould con-
fider things exalllyy before they lay down Axiomes and
frfi Principlesy and not after : For now it feems that
Revelation is never contrary to the evidence of Reafon^
or the faithful report of our Senfes, (for if they are
never contrary to that, then that is never contrary to
them) and therefore the oppofition which was fuppofed to
be betwixt them, and the renouncing of Reafon, and
cleaving to Faith, which followed thereupon, proves to be
wholly a miftake. So that they have plainly given up
their loth Axiome for Nonfenfe; and now they are up-
on a new que ft ion, which is concerning the jujl bounds
and full extent of Senfe and Reafon, and to Jhew how
Jhort Jighted they both are, in difcerning a bit of
Bread.
Their next words are thefe: " Par exemple, &c.
" For Example, Our Senfes Ihew us clearly in the Sa-
crament fome rcundnefs and whitenefs j but our Senfes
" do not teach us whether it be the jubftance of Bread
" which caufes our eyes to perceive this Roundnefs and
*' Whitenefs ; And thus Faith is not contrary to the evi-
** dence of our Senfes, when it tells us, that this is not
the fub(lance of Bread, which is abolifhed, having
" been
VJl
The Preface.
" heen changed into the Body of Jefus Chrifl hy the My-
*'\flery of Tranfubftantiation, and that we fee nothing
more than the fpecies and appearances of Bread which
" fiill remain^ although the fuhflance he aholifhed^ and he
" no more. When the Papifts are difpofed to make them-
felves merry with the follies of us poor Hereticks., there
is no fuch happy fuhjeli of their Drollery as this., That
we pretend to fee Suhjlances, and have fuch exquijite
Senfes as will penetrate farther and deeper than all other
mens. Now on the other hand we can tell them very fe-
rioufly, that we never faw Roundnejs or Whitenefs in our
lives, nor can any of our Senfes Jhew us any fuch rarities:
We cannot deny hut that we have feen Round and fVhite
Suhfiances or Bodies, or pieces of Matter, call them what
you will; hut as for Roundnefs and Whitenefs, we helieve
them to he ohjelis fo dazling, that they would certainly
hlindus. The roundnefs, and whitenefs, and fweeinefs
which they fee and taji in the Sacrament without a Suh'
jell, are the round, and white, and fweet nothings which
we never yet faw nor tafled, tho we fometimes promife
them to our Children for Fairings : But Suhfiances we
continually fee, and cannot look hejide them: For every
thing which is feen, heard, fmelt, tajied, or felt, is a
Suhjlance, and which is more, it is a grofs material Suh-
(lance, or elfe it could not affell and make an impreffion
upon fuch grofs material organs of Senfe as ours are.
What is it that fo feelingly moves our Senfes, and refills
our Touch, hut a Body or Material Suhflance } For Ten
thoufand Roundneffes and Whiteneffes will not make up
One ohjeli of Senfe. And as for the inflame which lies
before m, of a piece of Bread, it is a Suhflance the
mofl familiar, and the hefl known to us of all others.
We can fee, and tafle, and feel, and fmell it, and know
it blindfold. And not only we^ hut mofl of the Crea-
■ tures
HfljSe'i
The Preface.
tares ahout us can fee^ and tafte^ and fme/l the Suhfiance
of Bread as well as ive^ and know it very diflinlily^ and
will fingle it out from twenty other Round and White
Suhjlances whatfoever. And their Senfes were certainly
given^ them to difcern Suhfiances^ and not Accidents^ for
other wife a round and white Stone ^ or a round and white
Chip^^vould ferve their turn as well; hut Figure and Co-
lour are not their hufinefs^ hut a Suhfiance^ which will
nourijh them, and which will he altered and afftmilated
into the fuhjlance of Flefh and Blood. And therefore
whether the fuhjlance of a Wafer he Bread, or whether
it he a Human Body, I will refer it wholly to all the
Animals in the World, which'love Bread, and w'lll not
feize upon a living Man j for they are competent and in-
different judges in this matter: Always excepting thofe
Anirmls which are the^ Majlers of The School of the
Euchafift;; for they are all Parties and Bigots, and
efpeciady the Dog of Lisbon. In fhort, I challenge all
the World to tell me, what there is belonging to the fuh-
fiance of Bread, which we do not fee and difcern hy our
fenfes, and which is not faithfully reported to us hy them.
And therefore when our Jenfes evidently fhew us, that a
Wafer is the fuhjlance of Bread, and on the other hand,
the Popijh Faith teaches us that it is not the fuhjlance
of Bread, hut the fuhjlance of a Human Body, That •
Faith is plainly contrary to the ev'idence of our Senfes;
which hecaufe the Meflieurs faid before. Divine Fa'ith
Never is, it leaves their Faith under a different cha-
r alter from that which is Divine.
They proceed in the follow'ingwords, " Nollre raifon
de mefme, &c. Our Reafm in like manner Jhews us
" that one fingle Body is not at the fame time in divers
" places, nor two Bodies in one and the fame place; hut
C *^this
The Preface.
this eught to he under (iced of the natural condition of
" Bodies^ hecaufe it would he a defehi of Reafon for a
" Man to imagine that our Mind^ heing Finite^ is ahle to
" comprehend how far the Infinite ¥ owe r of God reaches.
" Jnd therefore when Hereticks, in order to dejiroy
" the Myfleries of Faith^ as the Trinity., Incarnation
and Eucharijl., do ohjeB thofe Pretended Impojfihilities
" which they draw from Reafon, in this very thing they
themfelves do vifihly depart from Reafon, in pretend-
" ing to he ahle to Comprehend in their Finite Mind the
" Infinite extent of the Power of God.
In this fhort pajfage there are many things liahle to
exception. For Reafon does not cnly/hew us,
that one fmgls Body is not at the fame time in divers
Places., hut it /hews us alfo that it cannot be in divers
Places at once, for this reafon, hecaufe in that cafip one
(ingle Body would he divers Bodies, which is a Contra-
diHion. And therefore (xly,} The Limitation ivhich
follows, is falfe. That this ought to he underfiood of the
Natural Condition of Bodies, and reflrained only to that.
For whether Bodies he in a Natural condition, or Super-
natural, one jingle Body cannot he divers Bodies at the
fame time, for then it is no longer one fingle Body. No
Supernatural cafe or condition can make a ContradiHion to
he true. For in/lance, St. John Baptift told the Jews
that God was ahle of thofe Stones, which lay upon the
Banks of Jordan, to raife up Children unto Abraham.
In their Natural condition they were Stones, hut in this
Supernatural condition they ivould have heen Men; hut
in no condition was it poffihle for them to he both Stones
and Men at the fame time, hecaufe it is a Repugnancy.
For to fay, a Stone is a Man, is to fay a Stone is not a
Stone, that is to fay, it is not, or it is nothing at all,
which
The Preface.
vohkh I hope no Man will fay is the work of an Infinite
Power. AnI therefore C3ly,} in f'lying That One Body
cannot he in divers places at once, we do not thereby
imagine that a Finite Mind can comprehend how far the
Infinite Power of God reaches ; *This is both a falfe
charge, and a falfe inference. For what has Omnipotency
to do with Nothing ? To effell Nothing, is a derogation to
all Power, much more is it beneath that which is Infi-
nite. When therefore we vindicate the Divine Power,
and ajfert the Infinity of it, and fay it is removed at
the greatejl difiance from all defefU Is this to fay that
a Finite mind can comprehend it ? No; God forbid that
our heads fhould be filled with fuch crofs Popifh Contra-
diflions, as to fay, that every ContradiFlion is Impofftble,
and yet this Contradiflion is Pojftble; That a Finite
may hold an Infinite, and that the Greater may be con-
tained by the Lefs. We admire and adore the Infinite
Power of God, and we are fenfible of it every Minute,
for in Him we live and move and have our Being, and
yet we do not comprehend it; neither have we the leajl
thought or imagination of Comprehending it; for we
know that this is utterly Inconfijlent with the neceffary
Imperfeflion and Limitation of a Creature jlate. The
Infinite Power of God Jlands like a Great Mountain.
Now we can fee a great Mountain only by parts, and can-
not view it all round at once, much lefs can we grafp or
comprehend it, and take it up in our Arms. But yet as
we know and fee, that this incomprehenfible Mountain
which is an Objell too big for our Senfes } is not a
Valley; fo we are full as fure that Perfeliion is not Im-
perfeflion, and that Infinite Power ^ tho we never pre-
tended to meafure the extent of it} is free from all
Impotency, and cannot atchieve Impofibilities and No-
C X things.
The Preface.
things. As voe know hy his Necefary Esiflence that
God cannot ceafe to Be^ and hy his Infinite Wifidom that
he cannot Err., and hy his Infinite Truth that it is Im-
pojfihle for God to lye : So we are affured hy his Infi-
nite Power that he cannot make a Contraditlion, a No-
thing., an Inccnfifiency., which is always unmade again as
fafl as it is made. If God fhculd Create and Annihi-
late a thing at once., he would plainly effeli neither., and
nothing would follow upon fuch an Impoffihle Alt.
(4thly,} The Meffieurs infinuate, as if the Impoffi-
hilities which are brought againfl Tranfubflantiation
were of the.fame fort, and as Falfe and Pretended.,
as thofe which are ohjelied againji the Trinity, and the
Incarnation of our Saviour; hut I fhall leave that to the
judgment of every indifferent Reader, after he has
weighed and confidered the following Difcourfe.
And thus I have at leafl ftaken thofe Axiomes, which
were purpofely erelled as Strongholds, to cover and fhel-
ter the ahfurd DeUrines of the Church of Rome, and ef-
pecially that of Tranfubflantiation, hy feigning that Re-
velation and Reafon are at variance, and that in that
Cafe Reafon is to he abandoned. It may juflly he ad-
mired that Cartes, a Man of clear Senfe, fiould begin
fuch Rules ; hut it is to he rememhred. That he was to
make fome amends for the hold Truths he had elfewhere
delivered; and likewifg. That he was able to ccmple-
ment the Church of Rome, as well as he did particular
Perfons, without being a Slave to his Complement: for
when he was preffed ivith what he had faid upon fuch
Occafions, and with his own very ivords •, he ufed to ted
them, Urbanitas Styli Gaiiici te fefellit, you did not
underfiand a French Complement. I doubt not hut the
Learned Men of the Tort Royal did very well under-
1: (land
The Preface.
xm
fland it; hut it is their Craft to make filver Shrines for
Diana ; and all the Commendation roe can give them^ is
to fay, that they are very ahle Workmen, and Maflers
of their Trade, fuch a one as it is.
To conclude, Reafon is that whereby we chufe our Re-
ligion, and judg whether it be a Revelation which came
from God, and whereby we dijiinguifh betwixt the Bible
and the Alchoran. _And, as Cartes fays. If a Turk Pretp ad
or a Heathen, being induced by fome Falfe Reafonings,
fhould embrace Chriftianity, and did not know that it
came from God, he would not thereupon he a Chriflian,
but rather he would he guilty of a Sin, in not ufing his
Reafon aright. Reafon is that whereby we interpret a
Revelation •, or elfe a man can give no reafon why he in-
terprets it in that manner, rather than in another. And
as St. Paul fpeaks in another Cafe, Do ye not know
that the Saints lliall judg the World ? ^c. Do ye not
know that Reafon mujl judg of the Sum of Religion ?
And if the whole mufl be judged by it. Is it unworthy
to judg in the fmallefl Matters, fuch as a Phrafe, or a
Figure ? Shall it not judge in fo plain and fo eafe a Cafe
as this ? That ChrifPs Body on which the Woman poured
her Alabafter Box of Ointment, Matth. i6. iz. was Ins
living Natural Body ; And the Body which Jofeph of
Arimathea begged and buried, Matth. %y. 58. was his
dead Natural Body; And the Body of Chrift which is to
he Edified, Eph. 4. iz. is the Church, or Society of all
Chriflian People; And the Body of Chrijl which is to be
eaten, Matth. z5. z6. is the Sign, or Sacrament, or
Memorial of his Body ? If Reafon may not judg in this
Cafe, by confidering and examining thefe feveral Places,
but is to be fet afide or renounced, and the Letter of
Scripture to determine it; Then I am fure, that if the
Com'
The Preface. ^ ^
Communicant, hy vertue of thofe words, This is my
Body, eats the Natural Body of Chrifl either dead or liofGoi
alive, At the fame time he alfo eats up all Chriflian i,|,(
Beople hy vertue of St. Vve^s words^ who in like manner
exprejly calls Them the Body of Chrift. In a word,
whatfoever is believed or done in Religion, mufi he hy ' jii*
Reafon, or elfe it is an Irrational Belief and Vratlice.
For Reafon is the Principle of a Man; and ivhatfoever
is not done hy it, is not done hy the Man, it is not an
Humane Ahi, hut the AH of a Brute. Whenever there-
fore I become a Scholar in the School of the Eucharift,
and renounce the Reafon which God has given me, to em-
brace the Romifli DoHrine <7/Tranfubftantiation, I am
fully refolved to keep a decorum in it, and I will cer-
tainly go over to that Church upon all Four.
I have not thus much tnffled upon Reafon, hecaufe we
are deflitute of Scripture-proof, to Jhew that Tranfub-
flantiation is falfe; for we have not a clearer and ful-
ler evidence from Revelation,that our Saviour came into
the World, than we have that his Body, even fince his
RefurreHion, is fuch, as cannot poffihly he prefent in
form of Bread, As to name no more, Luke vy. 39. Be-
hold my hands and my feet, that it is I my felf: han-
die me and fee, for a Spirit hath not flelli and bones,
as ye fee me have. Thefe are the Scripture-marks of
our Saviour s Body, which he himfelf gave on purpofe to
know it hy. But can we poffihly behold Hands and Feet
in a Wafer ? Can we handle and fee Flefh and Bones in
it > If we cannot. Then it is not He himfelf; otherivife
thefe are fallacious Marks of him, for roundnefs and
whitenels, and no Hands and Feet, and no Flefh and
Bones, might have been the Marks as well. But I was
hereby willing to fhew, that as Scripture is againH
t Tranfub-
The Preface,
(5 ig Tranfubftantiation, fo the primitive Light of Reafon is
ie(ii\ •> TJnwritten as well as the Written
^njlm Tranfubftantiation tends
''twiisf; deHruBion of all that is Man or ChriHian in us;
So on the other hand^ Commofi Senfe, Reafon^ ChriHia'
iwHt within us, does rife up in oppofition
j3f fo monHrous and mifchievous a Do^rinc.
1) mr
'vntk
Eiick:
't, tits
on, h
mllcr^
"Wit?,
■fsti
ik
mi
mij:
fsaii
ha:'
In:
flit It
ll:k
illm
T.H £
ABSOLUTE IMPOSSIBILITY
O F
CranCuIiUantiatiou
DEMONSTRATED.-
TRanfuhHantiation is not the Name of one
fingle Abfurdity, but it fignifies as Le-
gion does, many Thoufands in one. For
which reafon it is very hard to draw
them up, or put them into any good order, which
however I fhali endeavour to do under thefe two
Heads;
Firfl^ Of Intellectual Ahfurdities.
And Secondly^ Of Practical Ahfurdities.
»
I. The firft Head is of Intellectual Ahfurdities ;
by which I mean fuch Falihoods as are repugnant
to the common Reafon and Underftanding of Man-
kind. And I purpofely wave all thofe Ahfurdities of
TranfuhBantiation which contradidt our Senfes, be-
caufe if a man be bent upon it, and will outface me
out of all all my fenfes, as I cannot believe him, fo I
D can-
The Ahfolute Impo[fihility of
cannot difprove him : If he fays the Sun does not
fhine, when at the fame time I am really dazled
with the liglit and brightnefs of it, I can only fay
as I find, and appeal to his own fenfes, and defire
him to do me right. In cafe a Romanifl fhould bear
me down, that the Bible in my hand is not a Book,
but the living Judg of Controverfie, Pope Innccent
the Eleventh, and all the Bifhops of the Chriftian
World fitting together in Council; I can't help my
felf: efpecially if he pretend to have chang'd the
Book into fuch, and fo many living men by faying
fome powerfully charming words over it; and fur-
ther, if in condefcenfion and compliance with the
frailty of human fenfe, he likewife acknou ledges
that it looks like a Printed and Bound Book, and is
cloath'd with all the Accidents and Properties of a
Book, and that one part of the Enchantment lies
in this, that tho in all appearance it is a Book, yet
it is in reality Pope Innocent the Eleventh, and an
Afiembly of living Bilhops ; in this cafe I can't
ufe my fenfes, becaufe he has already fdreclofed the
ufe and evidence of them. But if he goes on to
tell me utter Impofribilities,and after having affirm'd
to me that the two Epiflles of St. Teter are nothing
elfe but Pope Innocent in perfon j and that the very
fame Holy Father (whom I think I have in my hand
at London^ is alfo at the felf fame time perfonally
prefent at Ao/>?f,and at Taris^znd at Vienna^2,n^ in ten
thoufand other very remote places,* he then puts me
into a way to break the Enchantment, and to over-
throw his Delufion with fuch Arguments, as will
not be fatisfied by faying. That the fenfes may he de-
ceivedy and cannot dive into the ejfence of things.
It
Tranfubftantiation Vemonjirated 9
It is not fuch a light and ludicrous Cheat as this
I have been now fpeaking of, which the Cliurch of
Rome has put upon the World for many Ages toge-
ther; for then I queftion, whether I Ihould ever have
employed my Pen againfl: it; (though it is an indig-
nity to mankind to impofe upon them, to deceive
and make children of them) but the Romijh delu-
fion is of an higher nature, for it is the Cheat of a
bit of Bread which you mufl believe to be a man's
body, nay to be a God : And accordingly if you
will not worlliip and bow down to this bit of Bread,
and acknowledg it to be your Maker, then lhall
you be condemned for an Heretkk; then will they
zealoufly tell you, T/jat they mil no more pray for you^ of Martyrs in
than they voiU for a Dog; and that as your B^dy fries Qv
in a Smith field-Fir ey fo your Soul fhall for ever hum
in Hell. And therefore it is of as great confequence
to men,as their fouls and bodies are worth, to know
the truth of this matter; for which caufe I earnefl-
ly intrcat them to weigh and ponder the Arguments, /
and carefully to attend to the Demonftrations,which
I lhall here lay down before them.
To proceed with the more ftrength and clearnefs
in this matter, and to avoid needlefs Repetitions,
and fuch like incumbrances of a Difcourfe, I fliall
here premife fome very reafonable Demands, which
without any man's leave I lhall take for granted:
I. I hat a Dod:rinc which confills of ImpolTibilities,
is an impoBible Doctrine, t. That Omnipotency
it felf cannot make an ImpolTibility ; for what can-
not be done at all,cannot be done by Almighty Pow-
er. Suppcfing an infinite excefs of Power,' (as we
are fure there is in God) yet it cannot do what can-
D z not
The Absolute lmpo[fihility of
not be done. 3. That a Contradidion is an Im-
pofTibility.
From thefe Premifes I fliall infer,That every Con-
tradidbion which is contained in the Dodrine of
tranjtilHantiatknA^ an undoubted proof of the Im-
poflibility of it; fo that it never was, is, or can be
be true, and that the pretence of Omnipotency it
felf cannot fupport it.
I. The firft and moft obvious Contradidions in
it, are thofe which follow upon aflerting, That the
felf-fame Body is in Heaven and Earth, and upon in-
numerable far diftant Altars at once..
A
B
C
D
D
D
For let A, B, C, be fo many different and far di»
flant Places, and let D be the fame Body in thofe
diftant Places, and then you may behold thefe ma-
nifejft Contradidions. Firft, D is in A, and D is
not in A, for it is in B, which is not in A. Again, D
is wholly in B, and D is wholly out of 3, for it is in
C, which is wholly out of B. And thus you may
ring Changes of endlefs Contradidions; for ftill as
you multiply thefe Places, the Contradidions will
all along encreafe and multiply upon you, till they
come to exceed Millions of Millions.
To avoid the force of this and fuch like Demon-
ftrations,the Reprefenter of Popery tells us, "That
" Chrift gives to his Body a fupernatural manner of
"Exiftence,
Tranfuhflantiation Demonftratecf.
" Exigence, by which being left without Extenfion
" of Parts, and rendred independent of Place, it
" may be one and the fame in marr}^ Places at once,
" and whole m every part of the %mbols, and not
" obnoxious to any Corporeal Contingencies. Thus
far he. It may be, a few new-devifed terms, and
half a dozen Inconfiflent Words contradidrioufly
jumbled together , are able to overthrow a^
Demonlfration. We wilf"try whether they can
or no. As for the Privileges and Prerogatives of this
Body (which it mufl; always be carefully remem-
bred is an Organized Human Body } to Exift with-
out Extenfion of Parts, to be whple in every part of
the Symbols, and not to be obnoxious to any Cor-
poreal Contingencies, they are Myfteries which
will keep cold, and we lhall confider them by and
by. The Thing to be thought of at prefent,. is,
A Supernatural manner of ExifiencCy voherehy this
Body is rendred independent of FlacCy and may he hhe
and the fame in many Elaces at once.
This Body which exifts in a Supernatural man-
ner, mufl either, (i.} Be every where, and in all
Places; which manner of Exiflence is Immenfe
and Infinite, and peculiar to God alone. It is a Di-
vine Attribute ; and where there is one Divine
Attribute, there are all the reft.' But if by an Im-
poffible Suppofttion, this manner of Exiftence were
Communicable to a Body, yet. it would not ferve
their purpofe ; for then this Body would be in too
many Places at once, in all other Places out of the
Sacrament,as well as in it^and fo there would be no
ne^d of Priefls to make ChrifPs Body in the Sacra-
ment, wljich Would be a'thing ve^ry indonvenient,
• at
1
The Ahfolute l??ipo[fihiIity of
at leafl: for that Order of Men. Or elfe C^0 This
Body which is Independent of Place, muft be in no
Place ; and then with it's Supernatural manner of
Exiftence, it does not Exill at all; for that which
is No-where, is nothing. Or ( 3^/}' and la/l/y ) It
mufl; hefomewhere; for let the manner of Exiflence
jpe what it will. Natural, or Supernatural, or In-
finite, flill this Body, which is independent of
Place, mufl; either be Every-where , or Some-
where, or No-where; if this Body be Every-where^
as was ftiewed before, it would be Infinite, which is
Blafphemy; for if a Body may have Divine Attri-
butes, and be a God, then God may be a Body.
And then again, if thisBodybQ Mo-wkereytisNon-
Exiflent and Nothing. And therefore it remains
that it be Some where: And this is eafily granted ;
for it is faid to be in many Places at once, which is
many Some-wheres. Well-, if it may be in many
Places at once, it may be in one of thofe many
Places: This is undeniable, and mufl be granted
us. Let us make ufe therefore once again, of the
former Scheme, and let this one Place be A, and D
the Body in it; a.nd now. at lafl, though this Body
D be independent of Place, yet we are fure of it
in one Place, for it is in A. But, it feems, it may
be in feveral other places at the fame time: Be it
fo, and let B and C be two of thofe other Places,
and let D be the felf-fame independent Body in
thofe Places ; and then we are haunted again with
all the former Contradicflions. D is in A, and at
the fame time D is not in A, for it is in B, which
is not in.A. Again, D,is^ wholly in B, and D is
wholly out of "B atcthe fame time, for it is in C,
which
Tranfubjiantiation 'Demonftrated.
U'hich is wholly out of B. So that this pretended
Supernatural manner of Exiflence, is full of Con-
tradidions, that is to fay, it is ImpolTible. Which
was to be Demonftrated.
In this foregoing Demonftration I have taken the
word Place in the largeft Senfe, fo as to contain
Angels and Spirits, who are Somewhere^ and who
cannot be Elfewhere at the fame time. And this I
did on purpofe to fliew, That though the Body of
Chrift Ihould be prefent after the manner of a
Spirit, without filling a Place, or having any rela-
tion to the Dlmenfions of it, Q which was the old
Hy pot hefts, before the Reprefenter came with his
new Jargon ) ; and tho it took up no more room
than a Thought does in a Man's Mind, yet it were
impolTible for it to be in many Places at once. So
that if we Ihould grant Matter to be Immaterial,
and a Body to be a Spirit, yet the Papifts are fo
intangled in the Abfurdity of this Dodrine, that it
would do them no good to allow them half a fcore
Contradidions, neither would it any way relieve
them, or free them from the reft. Whereas on the
other hand, a Body is known to fill and pofiefs the
Place in which it is, and is circumfcribed by the.
bounds and limits of the Place, whidi is commen-
furate to the Magnitude and Figure of the Body;
So that if a Body Ihould be in many Places at once,
it might not only have quite contrary Situations,
and be Eajly Wefl^ Norths and South of it felf, be
above it felf, and below it felf all at once ,• but alfo
it would be Circumfcrihed and not Circumfcrthed at
the fame time j which is a very plain and open Con-
tradidion.
t The
g The Mfolute Tmfoffibility of
z-The Second Head of Contradidions are thofe
which attend the Dodrineof Tranfubflantiation in
point of Time. Every thing that has now a Being,
either always had a Being, and is Eternal ; which
^ only God is; or elfe it had a beginning of its Being,
in which it has continued ever fince J which is the
condition of all Creatures; and this Continuance of
a Creature in Being we call the Duration of it,
which, is fo ehential to all Subftances, whether Ma-
terial or Immaterial, that it is abfolutely infeparable
from them: For when their Being began, their Du-
ration began; and when their Duration ceales, their
Being ceafes. This Duration is counted by Days,
Months, and Years, and fuch like greater or leBer
portions ot Time, which Time h nothing elfe but
the meafure of Duration, whereby we reckon how
long a Subftance has continued or perfevered in
Being. . And now we have a Teft in our hands, to
try whether it be not abfolutely impoflible for the
Tranfubflantiation-Body in the Sacrament to be
the very Body of Chrill, which was born of the
Virgin Mary.
The Body'which was born of the Virgin Mary
lias continued in Being 1688 years; whereas the Bo-
Ctf)Confidunt dy wliich the Pried (a) made yeflerday, has conti-
chriftiCorp^ nued in Being but one Day ; but the Duration of
&Sanguinem fo u , rk • r ,/loo
Catech. Trid. OHQ. Day Only caiinot be the Duration or 1688
de Euchffsi. years : And the Duration of 168 8 years is now in-
feparable from the Body of Chrifl born of the Vir-
^ giti Maryy for the Duration of a Subflance is infepa-
rable from the Subflance ; therefore the Body
which the Fried made yeflerday, cannot be the
Body which was born of the Virgin Mary. Which
was to be Demondrated. Again,
Tranfubftantiation Vemonflrated.
Again; If the Body in the Sacrament which was
made, that is, began to be yefterday, is the fame
Body which has continued 1688 Years, then the
fame Body continued 1687 Years, and upwards,
before it began j:o be ; but before it began to be,
it was not in Being ; and confequently, in every
Minute during that 1687 years, the fame Body
was in Being, and was not in Being. Which
amounts to Millions of Con traditions.
Once more. It muft be granted, Tl&vtf the Canfe
is in Being before the Effect; and it would be a dou-
ble Repugnancy to fay the contrary; for then the
ElFet would be both before its felf, for it is not an
Effet till it be Caufed ; and alfo before its Caufe,
and fo would be Caufed by that which is not. Now
the Caufes of the Tranfubftantiation-Body are thefe
ambngfl: others, i. The Bread out of which it is
produced; which is fo neceflary, that this Change
cannot be wrought out of any other Subftance in
the World, Flefli nor Filh, Pillar nor Port, nor any
thing elfe that can be named; and therefore this is
the neceflary Matter of the Tranfubftantiation-
Body, or the Caufe out of which it is made, x/y, The
Baker by whom the Bread was made; for he that is
a Caufe of the Caufe, is a Caufe of the thing Cau-
fed. 3/y, The Marvellous Operator, thePrieft,who
makes the Body , together with his Intention.
4/y, Which feems to be an InHrumental Caufe, his
Pronouncing thefe words, Hoc enimejl Corpus meim^
in one Breath. 5/y, The Confideration which moved
him to fay a Mais at that time.
E But
. The Ahfolute Im^offibility of
But neither the Bread,nor the Baker,nor the Prieft,
nor his Intention, nor his Voice, nor his Breath, nor
the Propofal, fuppofe of Twelve-pence, to him to fay
a Mafs; neither all nor any of thefe, which were
the Caiifesof that Tranfubflantiation Body, which
was made yeflerday, and did contribute more or
lefs to the producing of it; I fay, none of thefe
Caufes wcpe in Being an Hundred years ago ,• and
if the Caufes were not in Being, much lefs was the
Effed: in Being, otherwife the Effect mufl be before
the Caufe, which is impoffible. But the Body of
Chrifl, born of the Virgin Mary^ was in being
1600 Years ago, which is more than One hundred
Years ago, and this is impoffible for the Tranfub-
ftantiation-Body which was made yeflerday ; there-
fore it is impoffible for the Tranfubflantiation-Body
to be the Body of Chrifl born of the Virgin Mary.
a^E. D.
I wonder, that when the Reprefenter's hand was
in, and he had made Chrifl's Body Independent
of Place^ he had not likewife made it Independent of
time., for that was full as neceflary to be done as the
other.
3. The Third Head of Contradidions are thofe
which relate to Quantity ; under which Head I
was going to Demortflrate, That the fame Body
cannot at the fame time be Bigger and Lefs than it
it felf J That it cannot be an Organized Human
Body, Five Foot and an half long, and at the fame
' time be flowed within the Compafs of a Wafer no
bigger than a Sis^pence, nay within the compafs
of
Tranfuhftantiatiofi T)e??ion[lratecf. 11
of every Crumb of that Wafer , though not fo
big as a Pins-head. But I am interrupted from
proceeding any further in this Attempt ; for by a
wonderful Conveyance, the very Subjed-Matter
of my Demonftration is taken away ; and inftead
of a Solid Body, with Figure.and Dimenfions, with
different and diflind: parts, divifible and meafura-
bie, they have left me only the Appearance of a
Body, which no Demonftration can fallen upon.
For they fay, this Body is indued with a Super-
natural manner of Exiftence^ hy which being left
without Extenfion of Parts^ it may he whole in every
part of the Symbols^ and not obnoxious to any Corpo-
real Contingencies. Nowtho w e cannot demonflrate
any Property of fuch an incomprehenfible Body as
this is, ( no more than we can draw the Pidbureof
a Non-entity, or weigh it in a Pair of Scales)
for it fcorns and tramples upon all the Principles
and Axioms of Euclid-, yet we may a little confl-
der the Terms of Art by which it is exprefl.
I. Itis^s! Body without Extenfion of Parts. So
that it is a vvhole which has Parts, though thofe
Parts are without Extenfion; and accordingly as
it follows. It may he whole in every Part of the
Symbols. But if the Parts be without Extenfion,
fo is the Whole, for the Whole is nothing elfe but
all the Parts put together. Now at this rate, a
Part is as big as the Whole, and has as much Ex-
tenfion, becaufe either of them has none at all.
Is this indeed the Body which the Wonder-working
Prieft produces! A Body without Extenfion is
a mere Nothing, and a perfedb Contradidi-
Ex on
12 The Ahfolute Impffibility of
on in Terms; for Extenfion is the very Eflence of
a Body, and the Foundation of ail the other Pro-
perties that are in it; the 3 Dimenfions, as alfo Fi-
gure, Divifibility, and Impenetrability, do all flow
from it. Again ; fo much as you add to the C^an-
tity of a Body, fo much you add to the Subftance ;
and fo much of the Extenfion as you take away,
juft fo much of the Subftance goes along with it.
In a word, Body and Extenfion are Reciprocal,
for every Body is an extended Subftance, and
every extended Subftance is a Body; fo that
they are but different Names for the fame thing.
a. This Body is w/jo/e in every part of .the Sym-
holsy that is, of the Elements of Bread and Wine.
But the Bread has, fuppofe, an Hundred diftindl
Parts, one of which is not the other, and therefore
this Body being Whole in every diftindf Part, has
an Hundred diftind: Wholes, one of which is not
the other, and yet is but One Body all the while,
which, as I take it, is Contradidion by whole-
fale.
3. This Body is not Obnoxious to any Corporeal
Contingencies. If it be a Body, what may happen
to one Body, may happen to another. To ufe
Terences words in this cafe, Homo fum nihil Hu-
manum a me alienum puto : 1 am a Man, and what
is incident to a Man, is incident to me. And fo if
a Body could fpeak, it would lay, Corpus fum nihil
corporeum a me alienum puto; I am a Body, and
what belongs to a Body, belongs to me. What-
ever Body is fubjed to be eaten, is fubjed to be
prefled
Tranfubftantiation Vemonftrate^. 13
prefled and grinded with the Teeth, to be fwal-
lowed down, and afterwards voided ; and I fup-
pofe this lad: Claufe was added on purpofe to
avoid fuch Inconveniencies, and to fave the Ho-
nour of this Body, which they call God's Body:
But in my Opinion it was a needlefs Claufe ,
for a Body without Extcnfion can never take hurt,
nor come to any damage at all. For a man may
bite till his Jaws ake, and grind all his Teeth out
of his Head, before he can faflen upon that whichis
not, and which never yet had any Exiftence in the
world, fave in a parcel of infignificant words ill put
together on purpofe to amufe unwary people.
It is an endlefs thing to encounter lhadows, and
to oppofe thefe manifeft Impoflibilities, which are
fo contrary to the Reafon of Mankind, that the
Tapifls themfelves own they would not hold them,
were it not for the fake of Revelation: which is to
be believed, they fay, before Reafon, and ought to
outweigh all other Reafons. They are over-ruled,
they fay, in this cafe, by the exprefs words of our
Saviour, who in the fame night in which he was
Betrayed, took Bread, and faid, Take^ Eat^ This is
my Body^ do this in Rememhrance of me; And who
has all Power in Heaven and Earth to make his
words good. We allow thefe words to be our Sa-
viour s, neither do we queflion his Power, but con-
elude. That he accomplifhed all that he intended,
and did make the Bread his Body in that fenfe in
which he meant it fhould be. So far we are agreed
on both fideSv The Queflion therefore in fhort is
+ this.
The Ahfolute Impo(fibility of
this, What he did to the Bread, when he faid, this
IS my Body > Whether he Metamorphofed and chan-
ged the nature of it ? or only altered the ufe of it,
that it might be a Token of his Body, and ferve
to remember him by,to all thofe excellent purpofes
^f Religion which we acknowledg to be defign'd
by him.
This latter is undoubtedly the true fenfe, confi-
deringall the circumRances of the place. As Ci/?.}
confidering that our Saviour was upon his Depar-
ture, at which time men ufe to leave Memorials of
themfelves with their Friends, to be Reraembred
by in their Abfence. Confidering that the
frequent ufe of the word />, imports no more than
Signifies. As in very many Places, where the Scri-
pture fays one thing is another, it means only that
that thing mull be Expounded by the Other, it fig-
nifies or Rands for the other: And confequently.
This is my Body^ i. e. This fignifies my Body, is the
Literal fenfe. And (3^0 confidering that Claufe
which fliews the end and meaning of this whole
paRage, and is the very Key to unlock it. Do this
in Remembrance of me. For it is an abfurd fpeech to
fay, Take my Body in Remembrance of my Body ;
Take me for a Token to Remernber me by. So that
if there were not one Contradidion or ^mpolfibili-
ty, or any fuch Rock to be Riunned in the DocRrine
of Jranfuhflantiation, yet every thing in the Text
leads us into this fenfe, which I have now deliver-
ed ; We are plainly determined to this fenfe, by rea-
fons taken out of the very bowels of the Text; the
Text expounds its felf.
t But
Tranfubflantiaticn De7?ionfl:rated. 15
But ftill the Tafifls are very urgent and yrelTing
upon us, and fay, Thatunlcfs we believe the Bread
to be changed into Chrifl's Real and Natural Body,
when he fays it Is his Body, we make him a Lyar.
Take heed of that. For our Saviour calls many
things by the name of thofe things into which they
never were fubRantially changed.He called his Body
a Temple, when he faid, Deftroy this Temple^nd in
three days I will rear it up: And yet his Body was
never fubrtantially changed into a Pile of Building.
And fo likewife when that Temple was in deftroy-
ing, and our Blefted Redeemer was hanging upon
the Crofs, we have a marvellous tender paTlage of
his dutiful care to provide for his Mother, when
he was in the extremity of his fufferings Job. 19,
16i t"]. feeing his Mother and his Difciple fohn
ftanding together by the Crofs, he faid to her, Wo-
maHy heboid thy Son. Which was equivalent to this
Propofition, That Man is thy Son. And he faid to
John^ Behold thy Mother ; wherein he calls the V^ir-
gin AJary Johns Mother, which llie was not. But
upon this John took her for his Mother, and carried
her home to his own Houfe. And fo in this preient
cafe, This is my Body. Look not upon this as com-
mon Bread, for it ftands for my Body; confider it
under that notion, and remember me by it. Behold
thy Mother : Repute her as fuch. But if it be a Re-
fledion upon our Saviour to fay that it is Bread,
when he calls it his Body, is it not the fame Refledti-
on upon Saint Paul to fay. That it is not Bread,
when he calls it Bread three or four times over >
I Cor. II,
No,
16 The Ahfolute Impoffihility of
No, no, it was not Scripture which led the Paptfls
into the Dodlrine of Tranfuhflantiation \ but by en-
gaging themfeives in the defence of Image-worlhip,
they were betrayed into it; and were driven to take
fhelter and fandbuary in it, to avoid the force of an
Argument which they could not otherwife anfwer.
Every body knows, that when Image-worlhip was
firil; fet up, there was a great number of Chriftians
who ftoutly oppofed it, and gathered Councils to
condemn it; and thefe went by the name of Image-
Breakers. On the other fide the Tmage-worjhippers
were furioufly bent upon i*:, and gathered Councils
to maintain it, particularly that famous one of
Blefled Memory, the fecond Nkene Council. In
thefe Oppofitions and Difputes, one Argument
which the Image-breakers made ufe of in Reference
to the Images of our Saviour, was this. If our Sa-
viour has left one Image of himfelf, which is of Di-
vine Inftitution, then it is not lawful to eredb other
Images of him which are of humane invention ;
But he has left one Image of himfelf, (namely in
the Sacrament) which is of Divine Inftitution, Ergo.
To make it good,That the Sacrament was an Image
of our Saviour of his own Appointment, they Ihew
that all the Ancient Fathers had called it the Image,
the Figure, the Type, the Antitype, the Refem-
blance or Reprefentation of our Saviour. This very
Argument was ufed by the preceding Council at
CoHflantinople., and is recited by the Nicene Council,
which was prefently after. But how does the Nicene
Council anfwer it ? They could not deny the Major
Propofition, and therefore they were forced to break
through the Minor after this falliion: They fay
that
Tranfuhftantiation Vemonftrated, 17
that the Sacrament is not the Image, Refcmblance,
Figure, Type, Antitype of our Saviour, but his own
Body; for he himfelf exprefly fays, //cc e(i- corpus
meum. It is not therefore an Image or Figure of him,
but it is he himfelf in Perfon. And thus they refcued
and difengaged themfelves from a very ciofe and
diftreffing Argument, and fo their fliow of Image-
wor/liip went on.
This is the firfl time that the Literal Interpre-
tation, as they call it, of Hoc eH corpus meum^ is
to be met with, which it is plain likewife the for-
mer Council was not aware of; for if they could
have forefeen fo full and fo ready an Anfwer, com-
mon fenfe would never have fullered them to make
ufe of that Argument. Now after the Literal In-
terpretation was thus broached to ferve a prefent
turn, and they had ufed it as a man does the next
thing that comes to hand to flop a gap, it was
yet a long time before Tranjuhftantiation was ira-
pofed as a Dodtrine of Faith : It had done good
fervice in folving an Argument, and the Image-
Breakers were all broken and deflroyed themfelves,
and therefore there was no further occalion for it.
But in procefs of time they could not but difco-
ver many other advantages in it \ as, amongft the
reft. That it would deck the Priefthood with the
higheft honour in the world, and advance them
above all Thrones and Crowned Heads, if it were
once believed that they could make their Maker
when they pleafed. And therefore it is no wonder
that they were fo very lliarp upon Berengariur,
when he fet himfelf to oppofe it. And from that
F time
i 8 The Ahfolute Imp[fihility of
time forwards they were forming this Doc^-rinc
into fhape , and at laft, four hundred and odd
years after the firft invention of it, it was made
an Article of Faith in the Great Lateran Council,
and Chriftened by the name of tranfuhflantiation.
This was done by a good Token in King Johns
time, when the Pope made himfelf Landlord of
the Realm of England^ and put it under a fervile
Tribute , which lafled for feveral Kings Reigns.
Thus you fee the Rife of Tranfuhflantiation^ u hich
came not into the world by the Tapifls Ricking
clofe to the Scripture, but by their cleaving to
the Idolatry of Image-worfliip; whereby they
are /<?/», according to David's imprecation, from
one wickednefs to another.
But what we call an Idol, that they fay is God's
Body , which they affirm to be the plain and
literal ffenfe of thofe words, This is my Body ; let
us therefore fee at laft what their Literal Expo-
fition is. Now it runs after this manner. This
which I now give you to eat was lately Bread,
but I have changed the fubftance of the Bread
into the felf-fame Body with which I now deliver
it to you : I tell you the late Bread is I my felf,
*Catech.Trid. it mine own Body. * For in that which ybu
de^ uch. Sfff. hands, allure ypur felves there
is whole ChriR ; I am there Body and Soul, yea,.
and my Divinity is there alfo : So that there is
contained under the appearance of that bit of
Bread, my Divine Nature , and my whole Hu-
mane Nature which confifts of my Soul, and all
the parts of my Body, together v\ ith my Blood.
t My
Tranfubftantiation Demonflrated
My true real Natural Body which was born of the
Virgin Mary is there, together with whatfoever
belongs to a true Humane Body, as Bones and
Sinews, You will fay that notwithdanding all
that I have faid , it appears to be Bread dill.
That is true j for though the fubdance of the
Bread be gone, yet the figure, colour, fmell, tade,
and all the other Qualities and Conditions of the
Bread remain, and f hang by Geometry. * And f 44-
this 1 have mod wifely ordered : For thefe Acci- aUa^r^nlfa"^
dents of Bread difguife my Body, That it may the fubfientant.
better go down, and that you may not be filled
with horror at the eating of Man's flefli, which muni Ho^'
humane nature deteds. And then befides, what "atura
would the Infidel world fay, if they faw you de- h^orrm Hu-
vouring your Lord, and eating him up in his own manaj carnis
lhape ? And ladly, this way of Receiving of my
Body , the more remote it is from your fen-
fes, the better it is for the improvement of your
Faith , and will make it the more Meritorious.
But you will wonder , efpecially now I am by in
Perfon, and you have an opportunity of compa-
ring this one fame Body together, how this large
Bod>^ which you fee is at lead five Foot and a
half long, and of a proportionable bulk, can be
contained at the fame time within the compafs of
a fmall crumb of Bread , without any Alteration
at all; for it is the felf fame body within the
Sacrament, as it is without. Now you may'foon
be fatisfied in that Point. * For as I am now * Sea. 43J
fitting at Table, I am in the condition of other
bodies which are in a place , which are always
endued with Magnitude j but the other fame I
F 2 which
The Abfolute hiipffihility of
which am in the Sacrament, am not as in a place,
but I am there as a fubftance, and under that
notion I am neither big nor little , for that be-
longs to Quantity, which is in another Predica-
ment. For the fubftance of the Bread is turned
into my fubftance, not into my Magnitude or
Quantity. Now no body doubts but a fubftance
may be contained in a little room as well as in
a great. For both the fubftance of Air, and its
whole Nature, mull: be alike in a fmall portion of
Air as in a greater, as alfo the whole nature of
Water no lefs in a fmall Pitcher, than in a River.
Seeing therefore that my Body fucceeds and
comes in the place of the fubftance of the bread,
you muft acknowledg, That my Body is in the
Sacrament plainly after the fame manner, as the
fubftance of the bread was before the Confecra-
tion. But to fay, whether the fubftance of the
bread was under a greater bulk, or under a lefs,
was nothing at all to the thing.
Now this Expofition of thefe words, This is my
Body^ is an Authentick and Infallible Expofition,
for it is the very Interpretation of them which the
Romijh Church delivers to all her Parifli Priefts in
the 7V<?«?-Catechifm, which was \vritten on pur-
pofe for their inftrudbion ; fo that I have taken it
from the Fountain head, and have it at the firft
hand. This they fay is the meaning of thofe
words of our Saviour, This is my Body ; and there-
fore they make our Saviour to fay all this : which
is fuch a fenfe of his words, as any confiderate
Chriftian would fooner die, than put it upon them.
* To
Tranfuhliantiation Demonftrated.
Is this the Senfe, and proper Meaning of
an Organized Human Body, That it has no Mag-
nitude, and is neither Little nor Big ? That it
is a Solid , Mally Bulk , confifting of Flefh and
Blood, Bones and Sinews, and yet can be perceived
by no Senfe ; can neither be feen, felt, nor under-
flood, but only Believed? That it has a Head,
Trunk, and Four large Limbs, which may all be
contained in the compafs of a Pins-head j which,
according to the Letter, will not hold the Fourth
part of a Little-finger Nail? Methinks thefe are
all flrange Figures, and the mofl harfh Abufes of
Speech imaginable. At this rate, the Literal Senfe
of Eaji, is Weft, and the Literal Senfe of Noon-
day is Midnight. The Private Spirit never made
fuch Expofitions as thefe, neither would any man
alive receive them, if he were not firfl Pradlis'd
upon, and his Belief widened for that Purpofe.
We have an Inflance of thefe Preparatory Arts
in the npid SeclFion, where the Paflors are charged
if they cannot otherwife avoid difcourfing of thefe
Matters, Lo remember in the fir ft place that they fore-
arm the minds of the Faithful, with that faying,
Luke 1. 37. For with God nothingfhall he Impoffille.
This is neither better nor worle than one of their
Pious Frauds; for I am fure they know, that this
Scripture is very deceitfully applied to the Cafe of
Tranfuhflantiation. The Virgin Mary fcrupled the
PofTibility of her being a Mother when fhe knew
not a Man, and asked, How this thing could he ?
Upon this the Angel told her , That the mofl Fligh
would employ his Power in it, and bring it to pafs
in an extraordinary way, to whom nothing was
Impof-
The Abfolute lm^Q[fihility of
ImpofTible: And the Omnipotence of God was a
juft ground of her Belief upon this occafion, who
very well knew, That as God had made the Firft
Adam^ fo if he pleafed he could make the Second,
without the Concurrence of either Man or Wo-
man; and as he had formed Eve of her Huf-
band's Rib, fo he could make the Meffiah of the
Subltance of his Mother. So that tho this was
befide the common Courfe of Nature, yet God was
not tyed to that; for what he had done, he might
do again. But what Argument is this to induce the
belief of Tranfubftantiation, which involves ma-
nifold Contradidiions , which the Papills them-
felves acknowledg do not fall under tiie Divine
Power > They themfelves know full well that the
Scripture fays. It is Impofible for God to Lye^ to
whom nothing is Impoffible; and he who can do all
things, cam'ot deny himfelf becaule thefe are Con-
tradid:ions to his own Being. And for the like
reafon they know that he cannot make a Contra-
di(2:ion in any kind, becaufe a Contradidbion de-
flroys it felf, it has within it felf an utter Repug-
nance to Being. To make a Thing to be, and not
to be, at the fame time, is fuch an Inconfiftency,
that one part of it overthrows the other; and there-
fore it is no Adl of PolTibillty, but is an utter Im-
polTibility, which is the Contradidbion of all Power,
even of that which is Infinite. Methinks St. Au-
Jlin very well lays open the Reafon, why an Al-
mighty Power cannot make a Contradidbion.
Contra Fauftum 1.1.6. C. 5-. Quifquis dicit^ ft Omnipo-
tensejl Deus., faciat ut qucefabia funt faBanonfuerint^
non videt hoc fe dicere^ ft Omnipotent eji^ faciat ut ea
qucs
Tranfubftantiation Vemonftratecf.
qu^e vera fmt, eo ipfo quo vera fuut, falfa fint. Who-
foever fays, If God be Almighty, let him make
thofe things which have been Done, never to have
been Done, does-mot fee that he fays this in other
words. If he be Almighty, let him make the things
which are True, to be Falfe, even wherein they
are True. So that the Angel does not tell us in
this Text, That the Dodbrine of Tranfubhantia-
tion Jhall not he Impoffihle with God ; he does not
tell us that God can make a Heap of Contradi-
(Tions: No, for if all the Angels of Heaven { ac-
cording to St- Auflins ExprelTion } fliould fay. That
a Thing may he Falfe^ even wherein it is True ; fo
may what they fay be, and confequcntly there is
no believing of them, nor indeed of any Being in
the World upon thofe Terms. We are able there-
fore to bring their Expofitions of Scripture upon
this occafion, to this Infallible Teft. If they con-
contain in them things Contradidfious and Im-
po/Iible, then they are not the True Senfe and
Meaning of that Revelation which came from God,
for if he cannot Do an Impoffibility, neither can
he Say it.
And juft fuch as their Divinity Expofitions are,
fo deceitful are their Philofophical Illuflrations :
As particularly, when they Ihew, how the whole
Body of Chrift may be in the leaft Particle, or
Crumbling of the Bread, by the Two Inftances
of Air and Water. Their words are thefe, * The
' Subflance of Bread is turned into the Sub-
* fiance of Chrifl, not into his Magnitude or
* Qyantity. Now no body doubts but a Sub-
' fiance
L
The Ahfolute Impoffibility of
* fiance may be contained in a little room as well
' as in a great. For both the Subflance of Air,
' and its whole Nature, mufl be alike in a fmall
' portion of Air, as in a greater ; as alfo the
* whole Nature of Water, no lefs in a Imall Pitcher-
' fill, than in a River. In thefe words there are
no lefs than two Egregious Fallacies. For,
I. Their Inftances are of Fiomogeneous or Si-
milar Bodies , that is , fuch Bodies whofe Parts
are all Alike, and which have the fame Name and
Nature ; fo every Part of Air is Air, and every
drop of Water is Water, and has the whole Nature
of Water in it, as well as that Aggregate body of
it, which is in the Ocean: But thefe Inftances
are very deceitfully applied to an Heterogeneous
Diftimilar Organized Body, as a Human Body is,
which confifts of Parts altogether Unlike, and of
Different Names and Natures. For Bone is not
Flefh, nor either of them Blood, nor any of them
Brain. The Thumb-nail has not the whole Nature
of the Eye , nor the Skull of the Cawl: The
Hand is not the Heart, nor the Head the Foot.
And as thefe Parts are of Different Natures, fo
there is a NecefTity of their keeping a confidera-
ble Diftance in their Situation, becaufe there are
many Eflential Parts of the body interpofed be-
twixt them, which would otherwife be fwallow-
ed up.
But xly^ Suppofe an Human Body were no Com-
pound, but as pure Element as Air or Water, yet
the fame Subflance could not be contained in a
lefs room as well as in a greater. For the Air which
is
Tranfubftantiation DemonJlrateJ.
is contained in a Bubble, is indeed a Subftance of
Air, but it is not the fame Subflance of A ir as fills
a Chamber, for it is not the Hundredth part of
that Subftance. Nor is a Spoonful of Water the
fame Subftance with an Hogfhead of Water; for
an Hogfliead of Water cannot be contained
in a Spoon, but is at leaft a Thoufand Spoon-
fuls: And in common Arithm.etick, Units are
not the fame with Thoufands. So that when
they bring Air and Water to prove that the fame
Subftance may be contained in a little room, as
well as in a greater, their Proofs feem to partake
of the Nature of thofe Two Elements, for they
are as Light as the one, and as Weak as the other.
This tedious Digreflion, which has proceeded
to an unexpedfed length, has not been wholly Un-
profitable; for I have again recovered Materials
out of the Infallible Expofition it felf, to furnilh
my intended Demonftration, which I lhall now
re-aftiime. In the 3i/?Se(ftion we are told , That
the Real Body of Chrift is in the Sacrament, and
whatfoever belongs to the Nature of a Body, as
Bones and Sinews: And that All the Parts of the
Body are contained in it ; and in the fmalleft
Crumb of it, Se^. 4x. From whence I gather.
That if All the Parts of the Body are contained in
the fmalleft Crumb, then the Hand is, which is
one of the Parts of the Body; and if the whole
Hand, then all the Fingers and Thumb, for they
are Parts of the Hand, which is Part of the Body ;
and for the fame reafon if all the fingers, then all
the joynts of thofe fingers. Now I want but One
G joynt
The Ahfolute lmpo[fihility of
joynt of any one Finger to manifefl the Contra-
didions and Abfurdities of this Dodrine; nay ,
the Bone in the firft joynt .of the fore-finger will
ferve the Turn. Now a Bone is a folid firm hard
Subftance, which as to its Ufe ferves to ftrengthen
the fabrick of the Body. And if it have not thefe
Properties, it is not a Bone, it is not the thing we
fpeak of; for a fluid loofe or foft Subftance is not a
Bone, neither will it ferve for the above mentio-
ned Ufe in the Body. Having therefore thefe Pro-
perties, it confifts of Parts Extended Impenetra-
ble and firmly joined together, fo that they can-
not be feparated without great force, and confe-
quently they refift the Touch, and feel Hard. Be-
fides, this Bone in particular is of a Cylindrical
Figure, an Inch long, and as,much in compafs
round about. Now if any of the Parts of this
Bone be Dimini/hed , then All the Parts of the
Body are not there , for the Parts of this Bohe
which are Parts of the Body, are not tfiere: And
if the Parts be Altered, the Nature of the Thing
is deftroyed, and it is not a Bone.
So that with much ado we have gained a Bone
Entire, of an Inch in Magnitude, which according
to the Infallible Dodrine is contained in a Crumb
of the Sacrament of the Compals of a Pins-head.
Now the Fortieth Part of this Bone is equal to that
Crumb, as is manifeft either by applying them to
one another, or by their filling the fame Place
but the Crumb is Greater than the whole Bone,
for it Contains it, and therefore the Fortieth
Part of the Bone is Greater than the whole Bone,
t which.
Tranfubjlan tiation Vemonflrated,
which is ImpofTible. So that the whole Bone
cannot Poffibly be Cbntained in that Crumb, but
yet it is Contained in it, which is a plain Contra-
didbion. E. D.
Corollary. Now if that Bone cannot be Con-
tained in fuch a Crumb of the Sacrament, much
iefs can the whole Body, for that Bone is not the
Five hundredth Part of the Whole Body: Which
we have proved, by the Hypothefis, to be there
Full and Entire, and in its Juft Dimenfions; becaufe
All the Tarts of the Body are there., and confe-
quently Every Part of Every Member of the Bo-
dy, which make up the Integrity of the whole.
So that we have here at Once about Twenty Thou-
fand Contradidlions, that is to fay, fo many Impof-
fibilities.
Again , This is an Everlafting Truth ; Thofe
things which are Equal to One and the fame things
are Equal to one another : Infomuch that all the
Syllogifms and Demonftrations in the World are
in a manner built upon this Axiome: And who-
ever gainlays it, muft aflert one of thefe Two
Things, Either that One and the Same thing is
not the Same j Or elfe that what is Equal, is not
Equal at the fame time. Now a Body of Five
Foot and an half long, and One Foot Diameter,
is equal to the Natural Body of Chrifl; j but a
Crumb of Bread lefs than a Pins-head is equal to
the felf-fame Natural Body of Chrift, for a Crumb
of Bread as big as a Pins-head is bigger than the
Natural Body of Chrift, and Contains it, there-
•G X fore
2 8 The Ahfolute Jvi^offibility of
fore a Crumb of Bread lefs than a Pins-head, is
equal to a Body of Five Foot and an half long, and
One Foot Diameter.
Furthermore, by another Undeniable Maxim,
which fays. If of Eq^ual things you take as much
from the One as from the Other ^ the Remainders
/had he Equal^ Let us take the Qiiantity of a
Pins head from the Body of Five Foot and an
half long, and there remains a Body of Five Foot,
Five Inches, and Two Barley Corns, and fomewhat
better : Let us likewife take the fame Quantity
of a Pins-head from the Crumb of Bread which is
lefs than a Pins-head, and there remains Tranfuh-
flantiation, that is to fay, fomething Worfe and
Lefs than Nothing. Neverthelefs, becaufe they
are the Equal Remainders of Equal Bodies, as much
having been taken away from the one as from the
other, I fay that the Remainder of the Crumb is
Equal to the Remainder of the Body of Five
Foot and an half long, which is clearly ImpolTible.
(LE.D.
In this daft Demonftration, for difpatch fake, I
have been forced to do as the Papifts do, and to
lay Contradictions and Impoffibilities upon Heaps,
becaufe I haften to proceeci to other Heads : Only
Imuft ftay to Demonftrate fome Grofs Contradi-
(ftions,. which may be referred either to this
Head of Quantity, or to the former of Place.
Suppofing Chrift's Natural Body to be five
Foot and an half>long, and one Foot Diameter,
if
Tranfubflantiation Vemonftrated. 2^
if the felf-fame body be in another place at the
fame time, where ever it is, the felf-fame body
muft have the felf-famc Dimenfions, as we have
already proved ; and confequently if it be in four
feveral places at once, it i« but five Foot and an Coroii. r,
half long, and at the fame time it is four times
five Foot and an half long , which is two and
twenty Foot long : And fo likewife it is but one
Foot Diameter, and at the fame time it is four
times one Foot Diameter, which is two Foot
Diameter. And by the vail; number of Places
in which the Papifls have bellowed it, it will
be but five Foot and an half long, and one Foot
Diameter, and at the fiime time it will be as big
as Mount Atla^ , or Pen Men Maur^ or the Pic of
Tenariff.
4. The fourth Head of Contradidlions are
thofe which relate to Number, in fpig'it of which
the Papifls make ten thoufand feveral bodies to
be but one and the fame body. Now as we
have already proved it to be impofiible for one
and the fame body to be in feveral diftant Pla-
ces, fo we fliall here demonftrate that it is equally
impofiible for what is in feveral diftant Places to be
one and the fame body. ;
The Unity of a body confifts in this. That it
he undivided from it felf, and divided from all
other Bodies ; fo that if a body be an Individual
body, that is to fay one and the fame , it muft
be undivided from it felf Now if Chrift's body
in the Pix at Limejlreet be the fame Individual
body
I
5 o The Ahfolute lm^o[fihiUty of
body which is in the Fix at St. James's, or at
Pofnank in the Higher Poland^ then the felf-fame
Individual body is both undivided from it felf,
and divided from it felf. For in the former cafe the
fame Individual body is divided from it felf not
* Trent Cat ^ Wonderful Coverlets of the Acci-
de E^ch.SeS dents of bread, and by the lefs wonderful Covers
50. Admira- of two Pixes, but alfo by the greateft part of
mento'^^^"" great Cities London and Wejlminfler. And
in the latter cafe of Pofnanie in Poland^ it is di-
vided from it felf by vail Trades of Land, and a
very wide Sea ; fo that the felf-fame individual
body is undivided from it felf, and yet at the fame
time is divided from it felf, which is impolTible.
<:L E. D.
On the other hand. There is not any thing
which more Infallibly proves a real diftindfion
betwixt Subftances, and Ihews that they are di-
vers, and that the one is not the other, than this,
That the one can he without the other^ and that they
can exifl feparately and apart. Now Chrift's body
at Limejlreet in London^ and Chrift's body at Pof-
nanie in Poland do exift feparately and apart, for
it is a long and weary Pilgrimage to go from one
to the other : And the one can be without the
other, for that body at Pofnanie was many years
without the other, and had raifed thirty ifix Per-
fons from the Dead long before the body at Lime-
Jireet was made. And therefore thefe are diftindl
and divers Bodies, that is to fay, they arc not the
fame Body; And yet they are the fame Body,
which is impoffible. Which was to be Demonftra-
ted. Corel-
Tranfubftantiation Vernonpratecf. 31
Corollary. It is to be fuppofed that vvhen Anti-
Chrift comes with Lying Wonders, no body will
be fo Unmannerly as to call them Lying Wonders,
and therefore we lliall not Quellion the Truth of
any one of thofe Miracles which are in the School
of the Eucharifl (jT): Only thus much we gather W
from the Former Demonftration , That the good Prm'
Example of the Birds, (f) Bealls and Vermin, which at London
worlliipped Gods Body in other Ages and Countries, ^school of
is wholly Ufelefs to us. For the Gods Body which the Eucharift,
is at Limeflreet., and St. James's, or any where here- '7> 8,
abouts to be had, is not the fame Gods Body which
thofe Devout Creatures meekly Worfliipped, and
which the Stubborn Black Florfe (c} was forced to (c) Preface
Worlliip with one Knee; and therefore we are not the School
in a capacity of Worlhippingthe fame Gods Body,
if we would. '
y. The next Head of Contradidlions is of thofe
that arife from the confideration of that fpace or
Diflance which is betwixt one body and another,
which is always meafured by a ftraight Line
drawn from a point of the one body, to a point
of the other body ; which is the ihortefl Line
that can be drawn betwixt them, and confequent-
ly there can be but one ftraight line drawn be-
twixt the fame Terms , which meafures and de-
fcribes the juft diftance of them. Now we are al-
lowed to draw a ftraight Line from any one Point
to another.
We will therefore draw a ftraight line from a
Point of Chrift's Body
at
The Ahfolute lmpo[fibility of
at St. James's A, which fliall touch the felf-fame
Point of the fame Body at Wildhoufe B, and be
continued to a Point of the Monument in Fijh-
fireet C. Now I fay, That the Line B C, and
the Line A B C are one and the fame Line, becaufe
each of them is a ftraight Line drawn betwixt
the felf-fame Terms, which can be but only one
ftraight Line, and therefore the Line B C, and
the Line ABC being one and the fame Line, are
equal; but the Line 6 C is only a part of the Line
ABC, and confequently a part is equal to the
whole, which is impoffible. So likewife the Di-
fiance from the Monument to Wildhoufe, and the
Diftance from the Monument'x.o St. James's Houfe
is all one, though St. James's be half a mile far-
ther off from it than the other, which is impoffi-
ble. Ui E. D.
Corollary. From the fame Demonflration it fol-
lows,that St. Peter's in Romeforpus Church
at Pofnanie in Poland y and other the remoteft pla-
ces
Tranfuhjlantiation Demonflrated,
ces in the world where God's Body is, are as near
Neighbours to the Monument in Fijhflreet as the
very Mafs-houfe in Limejlreet is. And there is like-
wife an infinite variety of other ContradicSbions,
which would refult from drawing but half a fcore
right Lines from God's Body which is in fo many
feveral Quarters, which Ihould all meet together
in the Point C. which, as the meanell Mathema-
tician eafily underftands, would not only confound
all Diflances, but alfo overthrow all the Everlafting
Principles of Geometry.
6. The Sixth Head of Contradi(5tions is in refe-
rence to Quality, whereby a Thing is rendred Like
or Unlike to another. Now the felf-lame Body
of Chrift, by the Dodbrine of Tranfubllantiation
has quite contrary Qualities, and is Like and Un-
like to it felf at the fame time. For in Heaven it
is in Form of an Human Body, and in Earth it is
in Form of Bread. And lb again upon Earth, it
has a Light about it like a Pillar of Fire which
reaches up to Heaven, and it has not fuch a Light
about it at the fame time. It is ftabbed by a Jew,
and is Red with Blood, and at the fame time the
fame Body has no Rednefs nor Mark of Blood
upon it. It is marked with a Crucifix, and at the
fame time it is not marked with a Crucifix, but
with I H S and a Glory. Now thefe are mani-
fell Contradid:ions, for the felf-fame thing is af-
firmed and denied of the felf-fame Body at the felf-
fame time.
But before I proceed to Demonllrate the Con-
H tradi(3:ions
The Ahfolute Impo/fibility of
tradidbns and ImpofTibilities which fall under this
Head, left I lliould lofe all my pains in fo doing, it
will be fit to confider a fiiuffling Anfwcr which the
Papifts have invented to rid their hands of all
Contradictions of this kind. It is in thefe words,
A Body in two Places is Equivalent to Two Bodies^
and therefore one may fay of it the rnofl Oppofite
things without Ccntraditlion. It feems this is no new
Anluer, but I confefs it was New to me,- for I
firft met with it in the late Six Conferences con-
cerning the Eucharift,/'. 89. where that very Lear-
ned and Judicious Author has anfwercd it, and fent
it home again with fuch Arguments ad HvminemyiS
would clofe the Mouths of any body but Papifts.
But becaufe it now alfo lies juft crofs my way, I
ought likewife to fay fomethingto it.
i/?. Therefore I fay. That the Suppofition of
One Body in Two Places at once, is an utter Tm-
poflibility; which I have already Demonftrated over
and over again, both under the ifi Head of Place,
and alfo under the 4?/.; Head of Number, ^/y, One
Body Equivalent to Two, that is, One Body which
to all Intents and Purpofes is Two, is a Contradi-
(ftion in Terms; for at this rate One and One is
Three, and Three and One is Five, and in fiiort,
there is a full end of all Arithmetick. 3^, It is
not One Body in Two Places which will ferve
their turn, but itmuft be One Body in Ten Thou-
fand Places, For it muft be One Body in form of
Flelli, and the fame Body in form of New Bread,
and the fame Body in form of Old Bread, and
the fame Body in form of Sweet Wine, and the
t. fame
Trarifuhjlantiation Venionjirated 35
fame Body in form of Sowre Wine, and the fame
Body at LtmeHreet^ at Rome^ at Avignion , and
in a word, in all Places, where a bit of Bread, a
Mafs Pried, and a Slate are to be found together.
And this, as I have already flaewn, draws after it
Millions of Millions of Contradictions, ^thly^ I
fay. That even the Impoffible Suppofition of One
Bociy in feveral Places, does plainly deny all Diffe-
rence and Diflimilitude in that Body ; it allows
indeed a Multiplication of the fame Body, but it
perfectly excludes any Alteration of it: For if it be
Altered, it is not the Body which was fuppofed
to be Multiplied. For inftance, I will fuppofe the ~
fame Pint of Milk to be in feveral Places, but then
it muft be a Pint of Milk in all thofe Places. For
I cannot fay , without Contradiction , That the
fame Pint of Milk in another Place is neither Pint,
Half pint, nor Spoonful, but perhaps an unper-
ceivable Drop, for then it is a Pint and not a Pint.
And fo likewife I cannot fay, That it is a Pint of
Milk in this Place in the form of Milk, and in ano-
ther Place it is a Pint of Milk in form of A^ua
vit(E, having the Smell, Tafte, Colour and Vir-
tues of Aqua vitce : In another Place it is a Pint of
Milk in the form of a Pen-full of Ink : And in
another Place it is a Pint of Milk in the form of a
Bandelier full of Gunpowder. Forinthefe cafes it
is fo Altered that it is not Milk, it is not the Thing
we fpoke of, and which we fuppofed to be Multi-
plied : And at the fame time though it be neither
Milk nor Meafure, yet in the way of Tranfub-
ftantiation it is ffill a very good Pint of Milk.
Thefe Men Imd bettet let their Contradictions
H X alone,
The Abfolute Jmp[fihility of
alone, than offer to aflbil them, for the Dcdfrine
of Tranfubftantiation is perfedly of the nature of
Birdlime, the more they ftir and flutter in it, the
fafler they are caught.
So that this ferry Evafion being of the fame
piece with Tranfubftantiation it felf, or rather
an aggravation of Contradi(2:ion, I fhallfetit afide
as if it had never been, and proceed to my intended
Demonflration,
We have not in our Minds a clearer and brighter
firfl Principle than this is. That nothing can be Pre-
fent and Ahjent from the fame Suhjeil at the fame
time. Now the Mark of I H S is Prefent to
Chrifts Body being imprinted upon it, and at the
fame time it is Abfent from the felf-fame Body,
having inllead of I HS a Crucifix Upon it, arid
therefore the Mark of IH S is Prefent to Chrifts
Body, and Abfent from the felf-fame Body at the
fame time, which is Impoffible. Q. E. D.
Again, Gods Body in Form of Bread is not
Gods Body in Form of Wine; for if it were, then
the Form of Bread, and the Form of Wine would
be the fame; Wine would be Bread, and Bread
would be Wine, that is to fay, Bread would be
Not Bread. But according to the Papifts, Gods
Body in Form of Bread, is Gods Body in Form of
Wine, that is to fay. Bread is not Bread, which
is Impoffible. Which was to be Dcmonflrated.
7. The
Tranfubflantiation Demonflratecf.
37
7. The laft Head of Contradi(9:ions arife from
this part of the DocStrine of Tranfubftantiation,
which fays, ' That when the Subftances of Bread
'and Wine are abolifhed, and wholly ceafe to Be,
' flill all the Accidents of Bread and Wine are feen
' to Remain without any Subjed: at all. For the
' Subftances of Bread and Wine are departed and
' gone, and thefe Accidents cannot cleave and be
* united to the Body and Blood of Chrifl: , and
* therefore it remains, That in a Supernatural
' way they mult fubfift of thcmfelves. This is
their own Infallible Dodrine, Trifl. Catech. de Etich.
SeQ' 2 5-. © 44, In which few words there" is plenty
of Contradidions.
For (ly?, ) IlhallDemonRrate, That Accidents
fubfiRing without a Subjed, are Subflances, that is
to lay, are not Accidents. And becaufe the Papifts
themlelves are lenfible how Abfurd and Impollible
this Dodrine of theirs is, therefore they fl) to Mi-
racle and Omnipotency , which is no Refuge nor
Sanduary for Contradidions and ImpolTibilities, as
we have already Ihewn.
Now the very Ellence of an Accident is to fubfift-
in aSubjed,and the FUence of a Subftance is to fub-
fill of it felf without a Subjed fo that if God by
his Omnipotency lliould make an Accident to fubfiflf
of it felf without a Subjed, he would give one and
the fame fingle Thing Two contrary Natures ;
Whereby the fame thing would be what k is, and
would not be what it is j it would fubfift in a Sub-
t jed,
38 The Abfolute lmpo[fibility of
jc(ft, and not fubfift in a Subjed: at the fame time,
u hich is ImpofTible. E. D.
I have been beholden to the great Philofopher
Des Cartes^ a Man of their own Communion, for
this Demonftration, and have gathered it out of his
Anfwer to the Fourth and Sixth Objedtions which
were made againft his Meditations, and out of his
Notes upon the Prcgramma, of Regius as I fuppofe.
And it has been heretofore no fmail diverfion to me
. to fee how the Papifls flood on Tiptoe, when that
great Reflorer of Natural Knowledg appeared, ex-
pedling whether his New Philofophy would favour
their Old Tranfubflantiation. But when they found
that he was not a Man for Subflantial Accidents,
and fuch kind of ContradidFious Stuffy Dr. Arnault
of the Sorbonne^ puts it home to him in the Fourth
Objedlions, and tells him , That according to his
Philofophy, the Dodlrine of the Church concerning
the Sacrament of the Altar could not remain fafe
and found ; becaufe it is of Faith, That the Acci-
dents in the Sacrament remain without a Subjedl;
whereas Monfieur Cartes {eemed to hold, (for he
had not as yet fpoke out, nor exprefled himfelf ful-
ly in that matter ), That Accidents are Infepara-
ble from a SubjedF, and that a Body, and the Affe-
dlions of that Body could not fubhfl apart, nor be
made to Exifl feparately by an Infinite Power,
Wherefore Monfieur AmaulJ prays him to take great
care, left that while he is proving a God, and the
Immortality of the Soul, he Ihouid endanger that
Faith by which himfelf hoped to befaved.
Here
Tranfuhftantiation Vemonftratec/.
Wtx&Cartes was befet, and forced to declare him-
felf, and therefore was put upon his Invention, which
was firft to contrive a way of folving the Appcaran-
ces of Bread and Wine which are in the Sacrament,
by a New Hypothefis of the Superficies; which lie
told them he lliould more fully make out in his Thy-
fics : And wlien he had thusfirfi: entertained them
with a new Hypothefis, then he Ihews them what
Impofiible Abfurdities Real Accidents are, and how
full of Repugnancy and Contradicftions ; and that
thefe Contradidfions made men DiRenters from the
Church of Rome. And then he concludes. That he
hoped the Time would come, when the Divines of
that Church would hifs the Dodlrine of Real Ac-
cidents out of the world, as an Unreafonable, In-
comprehenfible, and Unfafe Dodirineto be Believed ;
and that his Superficies would be embraced inflead
of it, as Certain and Indubitable. Monfieur Arnault
was a Man of fenfe, and therefore I doubt not but he
let fall his Ears at this Anfwer. And the Taris Di-
vines fent Cartes word afterwards in their fixth Ob-
jedions. Scruple the jth. That they did not under-
fland his Superficies, and knew not what to make of
it: And that thohe put them in hope that he would
make things plainer in his Phyfics., yet they were in-
dined to Believe they Ihould never part with their
old Opinion concerning Accidents, for his new
one.
But tho they were of this mind, yet we find a
very confiderablePerfon, EpiJl.Vol. z. Epif.y who
had better thoughts of it, and fays. That he had
happily Ihewn how the Infeparablenefs of Accidents
from
40 The Abfolute Impojfihility of
from a Subftance, might be confiftent with the Sa-
crament of the Altar; but then he defiresto know of
J,whether he had bethought hirafelf of a way to
Reconcile another part ot. his Philofophy with
Chrifts Body, being without Local Extenfion upon
the Altar, for otherwife he would expofe to great
Peril the mofl facred thing in the world. Upon this
Canes flops fhort, and does not care to give any
thing more concerning the Sacranient under his
hand, but offers to meet him if he pleafes, and to
tell him his Conjedlures by word of mouth, ihid
EpiH. 4.
And was not this a pleafant way of proceeding >
Which is in effect as if they had faid. Sir, You are
a great Philofopher of our own Church, you know
we hold the Dodlrine of Tranfubflantiation, and
you your felf hope to be faved by it; fee there-
fore what can be done for it, pray make it as rea-
fonableasyou can. It is too like the Comical Story
of the Woman, who after Ihe had eaten Pig in Smith-
fieldy went to Rahhi Buijy^ and prays him to make
the eating of Ezg as lawful as he can. And is it not'
likewife a neat turn to quiet them with his Dodirine
of the Superficies ?
Now the Superficies is much fuch another Ratio-
nale of Tranfubflantiation , as the following Ar-
gument is a proof of Purgatory. If there be one
whofe words are recorded in Scripture, who when
he died went neither to Heaven nor Hell, then there
is fuch a Middle place as Purgatory; but there is
one whofe words are recorded in Scripture, ^c.
Ergo.
Tranfubftantiation Demonjirated,
Er^o. I have feen a Papift catch at this Syliogifm ve-
ry greedily, and as Impatient to know who that
One was, as if he would prefently have gone a Con-
verting with the Argument. But he was as blank
when he was told that it was Balaams Als, as I fancy
Dr. Arnault was, when he had read and confidered
the long Story of the Superficies; which, I believe,
never yet drew one of thofe back again to the
Church of Rome^ whom Cartes complains the Do-
dbrine of Real Accidents drove away.
This Propofition, Nihili nullie pofiunt efie
Afiecibiones, 7hat Uothing cannot pojjihly have any
Qualities or Affe£tions^ is a Neceflary and Everlafting
Truth; and it is fo clear and felf-evident, that all
words and difcourfe about it would but darken the
Natural Light which is in it. Now a Wafer or fing-
ing Cake is an Extended, Round, White Subftance,
having all the Qualities and Affe(5tions of Bread;
and when this Subftance (a^ wholly ceafes to be, it
is nothing. But if the Extenfion, Roundnefs, White- ut Omnino
nefs, and all the Bready Qualities of it flill Remain, definant.
then at the fame time there do Remain the Extenfi-
on, the Roundnefs, the Whitenefs, and the Bready
Qualities or Afiedions of Nothing, which is Im-
polfible.
And that Nothing, whofe Extenfion, Roundnef^
Whitenefs and Bready Qyalities are flill Remaining,
is an Extended, Round, White and Bready Nothing ;
which are fo many Contradidions and Impoffibili-
ties. Q. E. D.
I
The Abfolute Im^offihility of
I fee that I muft either break off Abruptly, or
never have done. For I find the Dividing of the
Accidents of a Wafer into 3 Parts, which is one of
the Operations performed in the Mafs; and with
the felf-farae Divifion, the Dividing of ChriiVs Bo-
dy into 3 Wholes; and many more of their Ab-
furdities coming thick into my head ; and there-
fore I will here Conclude in time.
Allthefe DemonBrations hitherto are Arguments
to all Mankind, I have now an Argument or Two
a J Hominem^ or to the Papills themfelves.
And i7?, By their own Infallible Dodirine of
Concomitancy I lhall Demonftrate, That there has
been never a God's Body,as they call it, upon Earth
thefe i(5oo Years ; Provided they will allow me,
Firft, That Chrifl's Body has been in Heaven thefe
1600 Years. And That Heaven and Earth are
different and diftant Places. I reckon that Infallibi-
lity her felf, either has granted me both thefe Poftu-
lata already, in thefe following words, 7r. Cat. de
Euch.Se^. 37. But it is plainly Impojfihle., That the
Body of ChrijlJhouldhe in the Sacrament., hy coming out
of one Place into another, for fo it would come to pafs,
that the Body of Chrijl would he Ahfent from its Seat
in Heaven',(fio'^ I prefume,if it has not been Abfent
from its Seat in Heaven, to conie and be Prefent in
the Sacrament thefe i(5bo Years, it has not been
Abfent upon any other Account ) : Or elfe I reckon
that becaufe the things Demanded are very Reafo-
nable,flie will not now flick at theGranting of them.
Now the Rule of Concomitancy is this, TV. Cat. de
■ * Euch.
Tran[iibjiantiation Demonjlrated
Euch. Se^. 33. Si cnimduoaliqua inter fe reiplacon-
jungantur, Ubi unum fit, ibi alterum etiam efle
Necefle eft. If any two things are Really joined toge-
ther^ ivhere the one is^ there of Necejfity the other
muH he alfo. That is to fay, it is Impoffible for it
to be in any other PJace. But no two tilings in the
World are more Really joined together, than one
and the fame thing is with it felf,- and if it were
not fo, no one thing could be Really joined to ano-
ther. The Union of one and the fame thing with
it felf, is the moll clofe and intimate that can be,and
confequently the Concomitancy mull be the ilridb-
ell. Nay the very Reafon, Ground, Bottom, and
Foundation of the Rule of Concomitancy is this,
Becaufe from Two fingle Things Really joyned to-
gether, there refults One Compound. The Union is
the Caufe of the Concomitancy, becaufe it is Im-
poRible for the fame thing to be Divided from it felf.
So that if two things which are Really joined toge-
ther, muR always of Neceflity keep company toge-
ther, then it is utterly Impoffible for one and the
fame thing to llraggle from it felf, but it mull ever
be its own Individual Companion.
From thefe Premifes I fay. That Chrill's Body
having been in Heaven thefe i6oo Years, if in that
Space of Time it has been upon Altars here on
Earth, then it has not been at the fame time where
it has been, but it has broken the Rule of Conco-
mitancy, and has Rrangely llragled from it felf;
which is Impoffible. Q^E. D.
I have lludied with all the Application of Mind
of which I am capable, to forecall in my thoughts
I A wbat
The Ahfolute lmpc[fihility of
what fault the Papifls would find with any of the
former Reafonings, or with this laft in particular,
and cannot forelee nor imagine any. For though we
fhouid allow Chrift's Body to be Independent of
Place, or to have any other Impoffible Prerogatives
which they lift to Invent, yet ftill this Body muft be
fubjedb to the Rule of Concomitancy, becaufe they
themfelves are forced to make ufe of it to prove
that the Body of Chrift; is under the Species of
Wine, and that the Blood of Chrift: is under the
Species of Bread ; and it is the only Proof they
have. .Now if of NeceftTity the Body muft; be by
Concomitancy where the Blood is, then by an ante-
cedent Necclfity the Blood muft: be where the Blood
is ; for the Blood's being there is the caufe of the
Bodies being there likewife. So the Body being un-
der the Form of Bread, is the reafon that the Blood
is there alfo; but then to be fure the Body muft: be
there. From whence, a.^ Ilhewed before, it undenia-
bly follows, That Chrift's Body is only in Fieaven j
or elfe it is not where it is, which overthrows the
very Foundation of Concomitancy.
2,. The Second Argument fliall be drawn from
their Form of Confecra.tion, For this is my Body,
being the words of our Saviour from whence they
have wrefted the Docftrine of Tranfubftantiation.
Now to give them a Samplar of their own, and to
Ihew them how they themfelves interpret Scripture,
I fay that it appears by the very words of Confecra-
tion, That the Prieft himfelf is alfo Tranfubftan-
tiated j for the Body is Chrift's, and yet the Prieft
fays it is A/y Body, which cannot be True, unlefs the
Prieft
Tran[ub{iantiation Demonftratecf. 45
Prieft and Chrift be the fame ; And that cannot be,
but by an Admirable Change and Converfion,which
the Holy Catholick Church has conveniently and
properly named Tranfubftantiation. No, fay the Pa-
pifts in great anger, There is no fuch Change at all,
for the Prieft only ftands for Chrift, and (a) fuftains (a) Se&. 82.
his Perfon,* heonly Reprefents him in that Acftion,
and is in Chrift's ftead ,* fo that we are not to look nam gerenL°
upon the Prieft in that folemn A<ftion as Friar Jolm^
but as Chrift himfelf. And therefore the Prieft may
fay with Truth, this is My Body^ tho Literally and
Properly, and in ftricftnefs of Speech, it is Cbrifl's
Bcdy^ and not His. To which I again reply. Why
this is the very Expofition of thefe words of our
Saviour, for which the Hereticks have all along been
Burnt, namely, This Bread ftands for my Body, and
Reprefents it in this Adlion ; it is inftead of my Bo-
dy, and bears the Character of it j and you are
not fo much to confider it as Bread, but to look up-
on it as the Reprefentation of my Body, which is
given for you. And therefore with Truth I can fay
it is my Body^ though Literally, and Properly, and
in ftritftnefs of Speech, it is Bread, and not my Ma-
tural Body.
Now therefore let the Papifts give or take. Either
the Bread is not Tranfubftantiated ; or if it be, by
virtue of the felf-fame words the Prieft is Tranfub-
ftantiated too. For every word in the Prolation
with one Breath, (except the word Enim, Sedf lo.}
does Operate as well as Signifie, and Does what it
Says; and therefore if the word Corpus be efte(ftual
to make it a Body, then the word Meum makes it
t the
m
t
'ili,
■ .!• t'■
The Abfolute Impo[fibi lity of
the Prieils Body. The Wit of Man cannot find an
Evafion, and I doubt not but I am able to maintain
this Argument againfi; all the Popilh Priefts in the
world. For all the Advantage lies clearly on the
Proteftant Side. For our Saviour vifibly took Bread,
and gave it the office of Reprefenting him, and
maJe it the Figure of his Body^ as Tertullians word
is ; Fie ereded it as a (landing Memorial to be ufed
in Rememlranceor Commemoration of him^ as S Lukes
word is ; To fhew forth his Death till he come, as
S. Paul fpeaks. 'Tis true, he commanded his Difci-
pies to repeat the fame Adlion, and to do as he had
done; But where did he bid the Priefl to Perfonate
him That he gave us the Bread by the Name of
his Body, Three of the Four Gofpels witnefs, and
by the Name of his Broken Body, S. Paul witnefies;
But where did he ever fay, That Flehimfelf would
always Sacrifice himfelf by the Priefls Flands, and
fay. Hoc ef Corpus meum^ to the end of the world,
by the Priefls Mouth ? And further. There is not
one word which the Papifls have faid in behalf of
the Bread being Tranfubilantiated, but holds as
flrongly for the Priefls being Tranfubflantiated ;
which makes full as much for the Dignity and Maje-
fly of the Sacrament, for the abafing and mortifying
of our Deceivable Senfes , and for the improving
and exalting our Faith, and making it Meritorious,
as the other can.
We have gained fuch confiderable Advan-
tages by the foregoing part of our Difcourfe,
that now we are able unalterably to renounce
the Do^^lrine of Tranfubftantiation. For ha-
Tra?tfub/ian tiation Vemonflratec/.
vlng Demonflrated the ImpofTibility of it, We
have thereby Demonftrated , that though Heaven
and Earth lltould pafs away, yet that Dodbrine
can never be True. We have likewifc at the fame
time Demonftrated the Proteftant Expofition of
thofe words of our Saviour, This is my Body^ to be
' the true and neceflary Senfe of them; for either
there is a Change of the Bread into the Body of
Chrifl, or there is not: But becaufe fuch a Change
is an utter Impollibility, as we have abundantly
proved, therefore it remains, That the Proteftant
Dodtrine, which aflerts there is no fucii Change,
is Dcmonftrably True. We have alfo made it
as clear as the Light, That neither the Letter of a
Divine Revelation^ nor the pretence of an Infinite
Power^ nor any thing in the world can fupport
one fingle Contradiction; becaufe if one Tingle
Contradidbion could Band, it would deflroy the
very Beirfg of God himfelf, and deprive the world
of the Adorable Objedb of all Religion. For fup-
poTing it Impojfihle for a Being of Necejfary Exifience
to Exijly which is but fuppofing a Contradidbion,
and we have immediately loft the Author of all
Divine Revelation; And not only fo, but the whole
Univerfe likewife muft prefently Tink into Nothing,
or rather indeed it could never have been at all.
But more particularly we fliall find the Benefit
of the former DemonRrations in the fliort re-
mainder of our prcfcnt Difcourfe, for they will
add to what we have further to fay againfl Tran-
fubflantiation all the force and flrength w hich De-
monftration can give. Ccjlenis the jeluit acknow-
ledges, (and I fuppofe all Papifts with him ) that
The Ahfolute Impoffibility of
Jf the Bread he not changed into the Body of ChriH,
the worjhip of the H>(1 is gr fs Idolatry; But we
are paft all Ifs and Ands^ and have Demonftrated
tliat there can be no luch Change of the Bread into
Chrift's Body: And confequently we have Demon-
ftrated that (fuppofing that Jefuits Conceflion
juft } the Papifts in worlhipping of the Hoft, are
guilty of grofs Idolatry, and the Beft Friends
they have in the world cannot free them from it.
So likewife it can be no longer a Moot-point, or
a difputable matter, whether it be Criminal to
call the Hoft their hord Gody their Makery their
Formery and their Creator ; when we have Demon-
ftrated that it cannot be fo, and that it is only a
bit of Bread; and to affirm Bread to be a God, if
it be not Blafphemy, it wants a name in our Lan-
guage. In ffiort, That can never be a Divine
Myftery which is not in a Poffibility of being
a Divine Truth : And confequently the Myftery
and Miraculoufneft of TranfuhftantiatioHy which has
been the old and dark ftronghold of Popery, is ut-
terly demolilhed : And the Papifts having loft that
flielter, not only all the Abfurdities of their Belief
concerning it will fall upon them with their whole
weight, but alfo all their abfurd Pradices in refer-
ence to it, to which I lliall now proceed.
%. The fecond General Head is of Trallical Ah-
furditiesy by which I mean fuch unreafonable and
unworthy Ad:ions as are done by the Papifts in
purfuance of their Dcdtrine of Jranfuhftantiation.
And here I can by no means charge them with ea-
ting tlieir Maker, or eating Man's flefli, and drink-
ing
rran[ubjiantiatiQ7i Demonftrated.
InjT Man's blood in the Sacrament : For I have
Ihewn ip to be impoflible for them to do cither of
thefe. But yet bccaufe they intend and profefs to
do both, perhaps the guiit is no left than if they
really did them. And the Abfurdity of their Pra-
dbice in this behalf is very equally matched with
the Abfurdity and Contradidbioufneft of their Be-
lief. For as they hold the Sacrament to be the Na-
tural Body of Chrifl:, and yet fay it is in feveral
Places at once, and is made at feveral times, and is
in the Form of Bread, whereby it appears to
be not the Natural Body of Chrifl:, but a piece of
Bread ; wherein they fay and unlay at once : So
likewife they worlliip and ferve, and pray to that
which I have Demonitrated to be a bit of Bread as
if it-were a God, and immediately they undo all
that they have done, and treat him not at all like
a God, but eat him up as if he were a bit of Bread.
So alfo they lay exprefly. That the common Nature
of Mankind abhors the eating of Man's flefli, and
drinking of Man's blood, and yet they eat and
drink that, of which they fay they have greater
Ahurance that it is Man's flelh, and Man's blood,
than the Tellimony of all their Senfes can give
them.
But omitting thefe things, and the great Indig-
nity which is offered to our Blelled Saviour by fuch
like Prabbices, I lhall take notice of their Idola-
try in worlhipping a piece of Bread as if it were
God himfelf. And this Pradbice is unavoidable Ido-
latry if the Dodbrine of Tranfuhjiantiation ihould
chance to be falfe : And if it be not falfe, then a
K thou-
The Ahfolute Jmpoffibility of
thoufand Millions of Q)ntradidtions muft be all of
them true. So that if the Apoftlcs rent their Clothes
wlien the Lycaonians faid that the Gods were come
down in the likenefs of Men^ and were going to give
them Divine Honour ; furely they would hardly
fpare their flelb, but rend that too, if they fliould
be fliewn more than an Hundred God-Almighties
together in the Form of Breads and fhould fee Di-
vine Worfliip paid to them : Efpecially, fince the
Apoftles Evangelized men to turn away from Ido-
latry to the Living God who made Heaven and
Earth ; if moreover the Papifts fliould plead Gofpel
for their Idolatry, and fay that they were Evange-
lized into it: I have often thought what St. Paul
and Barnahas would have faid and done in that
Cafe. But what they then cried out and faid to
the Lycaonians, Sirs^ why do ye thefe things ? For
we are men of like Pajfions with you; methinks the
Hoft it felf fays as loud every day to the Papifts ;
* Sirs, why do ye thefe things ? For I am no C^jedt
* of Worfliip, but like another piece of Bread, I have
' all the Properties, and am fubjecft: to all the Cafu-
* alties of any other bit of Bread : ' For either I am
* prefently eaten and fwallowed down as any other
' Bread is, or elfe if I be kept, I grow Stale and
* Mouldy. I am put into a Box for fear of Mif-
* chances, for if the Moufe gets me, 1 am gone.
' Alas, I am Bread, I am no God. Thus to my
Apprehenfton the Hoft it felf continually cries out
and reafons with them. And Oh would to God that
they would confider to as good purpofe as the Lyca-
onians did ! I fliould be content to endure great hard-
Ihips to fee that Happy Day.
And
Tranfubflantiation Vemonflratecf.
And now, 0 ye PapiHs^ I have difcharged my
Confcience; for it has troubled me that I had not
long fincc laid thefe things plain and open before
you. And if I knew how to incline you to confi-
der them, I would not think much to kneel down
at your Feet. But if you will not confider them
with that evennefs of mind which is always necef-
fary to Convidbion, but rather will confider them
with that prejudice and indignation which ihall
put you upon Contradiding and Objeding, and
ufing all your Subtilties and Evafions j then 1 beg
of you to do this throughly, and fpare me not. For
I have written this Difcourfe only for the Honour
of God, and out of love to Trutl^ which never
lofes any thing by being Tried and Examined, but
ftill comes the Brighter out of the Fire. It is the
Caufe of God my Saviour who died for me, and I
am willing to fpend the remainder of my days in
it, or lay down my life for it, even which of the
two He lhall pleafe.
And as for you, 0 ye Protefiants^ you have great
reafon to Blefs God, that you were Born into the
World fince the Reformation ; whereby you enjoy
the Benefit of having God's own Book in your
own Vulgar Tongue: And thereby are taught to
know God and his Creatures afunder, and have
learnt to diftinguilh our Saviour Chrift from his Sa-
craments, and to know your Maker from a Bit of
Bread. Who have the Advantage of reading God's
pure Word , without either Romijh Comments or
Rhemijh Annotations which overthrow the Text.
Who are allowed to fee with your own Eyes, That
K ^ if
The Abfolute Impoffibility of
if Scripture fliould be fo forced and wrefted as the
Papifts have ufed it in this Cafe,then we mufl all be
Anthropomorphites^ and either Believe that God is of
Human Shape^ or elfe give him the Lye I know not
how oft. For the Right Hand of God, and many
other Bodily parts of him, are ten times oftner af-
ferted in Scripture, than This is my Body. If the Pa-
pifts fay. That the Scripture in affirming that God
is a Spirit, doesfufficiently redifie all fuch blockifh
Miftakes ; I fay fo too : And withal, that our Savi.
our has done abundantly more to prevent and fore-
clofe the no lefs blameable miftake concerning Tran-
fubRantiation. For after he had called the Cup his
R/W, he afterwards again called it the Fruit of the
Vine ; and after his Refurredfion it felf, he gave his
Difciples thisTeft tojudg anddifcern his Body, and
to know it by, Luke 24.3 9. Behold my hands and my
feet, that it is I my felf: handle me and fee: for a
fpirit hath not flefh and hones, as ye fee me have. From
whence we are bound to conclude. That where we
cannot fee Hands and Feet, where we cannot fee and
feel Flelh and Bones, where we cannot handle and
fee Chrifl's Body, there it is not he himfelf: Well
may there be fomeSign, or Token, or Memorial of
his Body, but it cannot be he himfelf. I lhall not
Rand to enquire whether this be the Criterion to
know Human Bodies from thofe Bodies which An-
gels heretofore afTumed ; but we are fure that thefe
are Infallible Marks to know our Saviour's Body by,
and that is all our prefent Bufinefs.
But as for the Noife they have lately nrmde about
our Saviour's furprizing the Difciples, and entring
into
Tra7ijuhflai}tiation Vemonftrate^.
into the rcjom, when the Doors were fhut^ there ne-
ver was any thing more precarious than the fenfe
which the Papifls have put upon that place, as if
our Saviour had pajfed through the Doors. For there
were Two Things,as appears.by the Scripture,v hich
diflurbed the Dilciples; Firft, That a Perfon fliould
come into the Room without knocking or giving
them any warning, when they had made all falfy
and kept themfelvesclofe/fr/c^rr ^ the Jews : And
the Second was, That he entred in fuch a manner
as made them apprehend him to be a Spirit. Now
how did ever Angels or Spirits enter into a Room,
or St. Teter come out of Prifon under the condud:
of an Angel, but by the Doors opening before
them of their own accord, and fliutting again after
them} As in the cafe of all the Apollles, u here the
Officers found the Prifon fhut with all Jafety^Ad^s
And I never yet heard or read of Angel or Spirit,
which entred a Room through Crannies or Key-
holes, or through Inch-boards. But let that be as it
will, if our Saviour had entred in any fuch manner,
Jit had abfolutely overthrown the Criterion which
he gave them at the fame time to judg of his Body,
andtoDemonllrate thathe wasnot a Spirit. For
common fenfe would have taught the Difciples to
reply. It is true indeed^ whatever you are, Man or
Spirit, that , you have now a grofs Human Body,
and we cannot deny it ,• but that, it feems, is only
when you pleafe, for you had not fuch a one a while
ago, when you were pleafed to come in at the Key-
hole; whereas there was nothing at all of this, but
they knew and owned him, and were glad to lee the
Lord. But to conclude, Is not this a very pertinent
proof
The Ahfolute Impffibility of, dec.
proof of Tranfubftantiadon, when the Docffrine
of Tranfubftantiation allerts a thing quite contrary
to the PaJJi»g through Doors > For it aflerts that our
Saviour's Body is Prefent in a Room, not by being
Tranflated,or by Pafling out of one Place into ano-
ther, but by being produced in all frelli Places, and
by being Within Doors, and Without Doors, at the
fame Time.
In Ihort, 0 my Proteflant Countrymen, You are
Happy, if you know your own Happinefs, and are
not weary of it. While you have the Light, Re-
joice in it, and walk worthy of it; and then God
will continue it to you and to your Pofterity. So
he it.
FINIS.
BooI\s lately Trmtedfor W. Rogers.
The Do(5lrines and Praciicei of the Church of l{pme, truly Repre-
fented ■, in Anfwerto a Book intituled, A Papiji Mijreprejented, and
Peprefented, &c. Quarto.
An Anfwer to a Difcourfe intituled, PapiJlj protejling againft Protejlant
Popery, being a Vindication of Papijls not Mifiepre/ented hy Protejiants:
And containing a particular Examination of Monfieur de Meaux , late
Bilhop of Condom, hu Expofition of the Dodtrine of the Church o^Ppme,
in the Articles of Invocationof Saints, JVorfhip of Images, occalioned by
that Difcourfe. Quarto.
An Anfwer.to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between
the peprefenter and the Anfrxerer. Quarto.
A View of the whole Controverfie between the peprefenter and the
Anfwerer } with an Anfwer to the peprejinter's laft peply ; in which are
laid open fome of the Methods by which Protejiants are Mifreprefented
by Papijls. Quarto.
The Doctrine of the Trinity, and Tranjubjlantiation, compared as to
Scripture, peafon, znd Tradition-, in a new Dialogue between a Prate.
Jlant and a PapiJl, the Firff Part: Wherein an Anfwer is given to the late
Proofs of the Antiquity o{TranJubJlantiation,in the Books called. Cow/en-
[us Veterum, and Nubes Tejlium, &c. Quarto.
The Dodlrine of the Trinity and Tranjubjlantiation, compared as to
Scripture, ^afon, and Tradition ; in a new Dialogue between a Protejlant
and a Papiji, the Second Part: Wherein the Dodtrine of the Trinity is
(hewed to be agreeable to Scripture and Peafon, and Tranjubjlantiation
repugnant to both. Quarto.
An Anfwer to the Eighth Chapter of the peprejinter's Second Part, in
the firft Dialogue between him and his Lay.Friend.
Of the Authority of Councils, and the Rule of Faith. By a Perfon of
Quality ; With an Anfwer to the Eight Thejes, hid down for the Tryal
of the Englijh peformation , in a Book that came lately from Oxford.
Sermons and Difcourfes, fome of which never before Printed ; The
Third Volume. By the Reverend Dr. Dean of Canterbury, ivo.
A
Books lately Printed for W. Rogers.
A Manual for a Chrijiian Soldier, Written by Erajmus, and Tranflated
into Engltjh. Twelves.
A new and eafie Method to learn to Sin^ by Book, whereby one ( who
hath a good Voice and Ear) may without other help, learn to Sing true
by Notes. Defign'd chiefly for, and applied to the promoting of Pfal-
mody\ and furnilhed with Variety of Pfalm-Tunes in Parts , with Dire-
dtions for that kind of Singing.
A Book of Cyphers or Letters Reverft ; being a Work very pleafant
and ufeful, as well for Gentlemen as all forts of Artificers, Engravers,
Painters, Carvers, Chacers, Embroiderers, Where you may find a
Cypher for any Name whatfoever , curioufly compofed after the neweft
Mode. By Jeremiah Marlow. Price Bound 5 s.
A Perfwafive to frequent Communion in the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper. By JohnTdlotfcn, Dean of Canterbury. In Oftavo. Price d
A Difcourfe againft In Oilavo, Price 3
The State of the Church of Rpmt when the Reformation began, as it
a.jipears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Julius III by Creatures
of their Own With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book. 40.
A Letter toa Friend, ReflecSIing on fome PafTages in a Letter to the
D. of P. in Anfwer to the Arguing Part of his firft Letter to Mr. G.
The P^efleEler's Defence of his Letter to a Friend, againft the Furiou®
Aflaults of Mr. I S. in his fecond Catholic Letter. In four Dialogues. 40-
A Sermon Preached ht the Funeral of the Reverend Bmj.Calamy^ D.D.
and lare Minifler of St. Lawrence Jury, Land. Jan. 7th, t686. By JV. Sher-
locl{^ D. D. Mafter of the Temple.
A Vindication of fome Proteftant Principles of Church-Unity and
Catholick-Communion, from, the Charge of Agreement with the Church
of Bpme, In Anfwer to a late Pamphlet, Intituled, An Agreement be-
tween the Church of England and the church of Rome, evinced from the
Concert ation of fome of her Sons with their Brethren the Dijfenters. By
jVtUtam Sherlock, D. D. Mafter of the Temple-
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature of Idolatry ; in which a late Au-
thor's true and only^Notion of Idolatry is Confidered and Confuted. 40.
The Protejlant Befolv'd ; or, a Dijcourje [hewing the Vnreafonablenefs
of his Tirnsng Roman Catholick/or Salvation. The ^d Edition.
A Difcourfe concerning the Nature of Idolatry: In which the Bifliop of
Oxford's True and Only Notion of Idolatry is Confidered and Confuted. 40.
A Prcfervative againft Popery; Being fome Plain Direiftions to Unlearn-
ed Proceftants, how to Difpute with Bpmijh Prietts. The Firft Part. By
William Sherlock^, D. D. The a^th Edition.
Imprimatur.
Hen. Maurice K"" V, D. Wilbelmo
januariiii. Arcbiep. Cant, a Sacris.
j685. '
ZI "
An Historical
TREATISE
WRITTEN
By an A LI T H O R of the Communion
of the Churx^h of ROME.
TOUCHING
tEranCttJjftantiattom
WHEREIN
Is made appear ^ That according to the
Principles of That Church ,
This Doctrine cannot be an
Article of FAIT H..
S;econD 6l)i'tton«
LONDON,
Printed for IRtC'^atl) (2Lt)lftXieU, at the Rofezn.6. Crown
in S. PauPs Church-Yard.. MDCLXXXVlI.
on i
■■ ■»— ' ,'.■: ■.'— —
THE '
PREFACE.
IT is weU knonvn that there are in the Communion ofthe
Church 0/Rome, a great many Learned Perfons,^
that do not approve qf all which it teacheth^ and that
do earnefily long for a Reformation^ although they
remain within its bofome. But it is no lefs true
that there shut very few, that have the courage to make their
thoughts known, and ^tis no hard matter to guefs at the Red'
fons of it.
In the lajl Age, one Picherel, andfome others of great
note,wrote folid Tre at ifes on certain matters ofControverficy
and explain d t hemfelves jujl as Protejlants do now. And
in the frefent, Monfieur de Marca did the fame, on the
Doctine of the Eucharift, and Barnes, an Eminent Be-
nedi£line, on moft of the principal Quejlions wherein Pro'
tejlants differ from the Church of Rome. But as if every
one feared [uch ufage as Father Paolo, and poor Barnes
found, for the Liberty they had taken, the works of thefe
fincere and learned Men, have almo(l always been fupprejl
during their Life-time, and notfuffefdto come abroad till
after their Deceafe.
It is therefore fomething more than ordinary, to behold
the Work of a P erf on now living, and of the Communion
of the Church o/Rome, that dares (hew the like affeHion
for the Reformation of his Church in the DoHrine of the
A I Eucharift,
The Preface.
Eucharifl", and that heartily rvijhes^ the Bijhops and Clergy
o/'France, tvould take it into their ferious confideration.
This Per [on is confiderable for his Quality, but much more
for his great Learning. He was an intimate friend of the
late Monfieur de Launoy's, a noted Divine of the Faculty
Paris, who mightily defired to fee a free Council, wherein
Men might fpeak their thoughts touching the Reforming of
//?(? RomiOa Church', and it flainly appears he was of the
f^me judgment with phis Eminent Per]on, touching the Do-
Brine ofT ranllibftantiation.
The Reader may reft ajfured that the Author s Manufcript
Copy has been exaBly follow^ din the Edition of this Work ;
which not only his Letters, now in our Hands, wHljuftife,
but alfo the Original of thefe Papers, which he jenttoa
Friend to be Printed.
It is to be hoped tlse World will not take it ill, if the Au-
thor of this Work be not more particularly defcribed, which
(otil'd not be done without expefing him to the malice of thofe
who ufe all manner of ways to deftroy fuch of their party,
aY- do own the Truth. It nearly behoves the Rifhops and
Clergy of F\:^y\cc, to make fome ferious RefteBions up-
on what ■ the Author thought ft to reprefent to them concer-
ning Tranrubftantiation. The fame might have been faid
to the other Articles of the RomFh. be lief, which are re^
jeBed by Prof eft ants, as fo many additions to the ancient
Faith of the Primitive Chriftianswhich are imposed upon
Mens confciences by the Clergy, by fuch unheard-of ways,
and that are fo cont rary to- the nature of Religion. If fhch
Renionftranees as thefe, are-not of fufficient force to make
them change their proceedings againft P r ot eft ants ', they
will at leaft ferve to Jhew their Injuft ice before Men, and
will one day aggravate their condemnation before the Tribu-
nal ofG-od. t
A N
(';
An Historical
-^i! I,/
TREATISE
O F
tlTmCnbftanttotton.
Written by one of tho
C H V R C H of ROME.
TH E Bifliopsof Erance in their laft Jjfmbly held at xhe Clergy
Paris \n the year 1682. compoi.'d a/'<iy?or4/Terre/-of Frii««'s
addrefled to the Proteftants, to invite them to return Method to
to the Communion of the Church of Rome. And
becaufe in order to put an end to their differences in Matters of' ^ "
Religion, fome RmIc mull be agreed on to be received by the
different Parties •, they laid down feveral Principles which they
called Methodsy as fit to be made ufe of, whereby to judge what
Ihould be received as an Article of Faith.
In the Fourththey laid down as a eJMaximy that the
true means to difcern what relates to matter of Faith, or not *,
is to fee if the Article which is to be admitted, was always be-
lieved as Matter of Faith i that is to fay, th.ti the French Bifhops
admitted in their paftoral Letter, the Maxim which Vtncentius
Lyrinenfis left us above 1100. years ago •, That great Care mufibe
taken to retain in the Catholick Church, what hath been believed every
where, by all, and at all times, as being the true Means whereby
to difcern what is Matter of Faith, and what is not. This fame
is the Rule given by Pope Pius the Fourth, who obliges them to
fwear in the profeffion of Faith, added to the Council of Trent,
That
The Preface.
Eucharlfl:, and that heartily rvijhesy the Bijhofs and Clergy
of France, would take it into their ferious confideration.
This Perfon is confiderable for his Quality, but much more
for his great Learning. He was an intimate friend of the
late Moiifieur de Launoy's, a noted Divine of the ¥ acuity
o/'Faris, who mightily defired to fee a free Council, wherein
Men might fpeak their thoughts touching the Reforming of
the RomiOi Church', and it plainly appears he was of the
fame judgment with fhis Eminent Per/on, touching the Do-
Brine ofT ranfiibftantiation.
The Reader may reft ajfured that the Author s Manufcript
Copy has been exaBly follow^ din the Edition of this Work
which not only his Letters, now in our Hands, willjuftife,
but alfo the Original of thefe Papers, which he jent to a
Friend to be Printed.
It is to be hoped tlse World will not take it ill, if the Au-
thor of this Work be not more particularly def :ribed, which
could not be done without expofmg him to the malice of thofe
who ufe all manner of ways to deftroy fuch of their party,
aY- do own the Truth. It nearly behoves the Bifhops and
Clergy of France, to make fome ferious RefteUions up-
on what the Author thought ft to reprefent to them concer-
ning Tranfubftantiation. The fame might have been faid
to the other Articles of the RofnFAi be lief, which are re^
ft Bed by P rotefl ants, as fo many additions to the ancient'
Faith of the-Primitive Chriftians which are imposed upon
Dtlens confciences- by the Clergy, by fuch unheard-of ways,
and that are fo cont r-ary t & the nature of Religion. If fkch
tCenio'^ftranees as thefe, are-not offufficient force to make
them change their proceedings againft P r ot eft ants ', they
will at leaft ferve to Jhetv t heir Injuftice before Men, and
will one day aggravate- their condemnation before the Tribw
nalofGod. c
A N
AN Histor-ical ' ' \
TREATISE
O F - ' •
Ctantttbftanttatton.
Written by one of the
C H ZJ R C H of R 0 M E,
TH E Bi/hopsof Erance in their laft Jjfmhly held at jhc Clergy
Paris \n the year 1681. compoi'd aLerrer of Fm««'s
addrefied to the Proteftants, to Invite them to return Method to
to the Communion of the Church of Rome. And
becaufe in order to put an end to their differences in Matters ""esoti-wrti.
Religion, fome Rule muff: be agreed on to be received by the
different Parties *, they laid down feveral Principles which they
called Methods^ as fit to be made ufe of, whereby to judge vvhat
Ihould be received as an Article of Faith.
In the Fourth Mthod they laid down as a tJ^axim, that the
true means to difcern what relates to matter of Faith, or not •,
is to fee if the Article which is to be admitted, was always be-
lieved as Matter of Faith \ that is to fay, th.n the French Bilhops
admitted in their paftoral Letter, the Maxim which Vtncentius
Lyrinenfis left us above 1100. years ago •, That great Care tnufihe
taken to retain in the Caihdick Church, what hath been believed every
where, by all, and at all times, as being the true Means whereby
to difcern what is Matter of Faith, and what is not. This fame
is the Rule given by Pope Pius the Fourth, who obliges themto
fwear in the profeffion of Faith, added to the Council of Trent,
That
X An Hijiorical Treatife of Tranfuhfiantiation,
f Stemium That the Holy Scriptures (hould not be Interpreted, f But by
untnimm con- f^g unatJtmoHs confent of the Ancient Fathers,
finfm Patrum. Proteftants have thought this Maxim fo reafonable, that
... Monficur Lanoque a French Minifter, faith in his Preface to the
theTrotc- ^ Hifiory of the EHcharifi, that he believes there is no Man ofSenfe,
ftanti. but ought to admit of it. Audit was received as a
by the Reform*dC?;«rc/7 of England, by Philip MelanBhon, by
feter Martyr, Gallafins, Scultetus, Cafaubon, Grotins, Vofftas, Ftr.a,
and by Gefelius, ( who recites their Authorities, jf iirtue Prc^cc
of his Hijlory of Memorable things from the Creation of the World,
totheyearofChrifi, 1125.
Tranfubftan- Seeing therefore that the Bifhops oi^France have propos'J to
tiation to be us fojulb a Method, let US examine if the Dc^Irine of Tranfub-
cxatiuned by Jiantiationbc Z Dokrine of Fdth j and prove it,BiOt hecaijfe the
Council of Trenthzs defin'd it fo •, Or that the Council of Later an
in the year 1215. fuppos'd it to be fo, non quiaipfam quam tenemw
fidem commendaverit Milevitanns Optatus, vel tJdiediolanenfis Am-
hro(ius,aut quia Colltgarum Nojtrorum Conciliis ipfa frxdiClaefifzhh
S. Auftin againft the Donatifts, De unit, Ecckf. cap. 16. But be-
caufe'tiscontain'd in the Holy Scriptures, and underftood in that
< Senfe by the unanimous confent oI the Dolors and Cjuncils that
i have gone before us.
This is what we now undertake to perform by the affiflance of
i God's holy Spirit, and with a difpoficion of Mind free from all
Malice and Prejudice, according to what Cafar faith in Salufi,.
IB the beginning of the Book of Cataline, Omnes homines qui de
Kebus diibiis confultant, ah ira & odio vacuo t ejfe debere, & haul
facile animumpervidere verum, ubi ilia oficiunt. And St. Auftin
I upon the Book againft the Letter of the Manichean, by them
called the Letter of Foundation ; Vt autem facUius mitrfcatis, Crv.
nemo neftrum fe jam quaramus quaft ab utrifque nefciatur, it a enim
dtligenter concorditer qusri poterit, (i nulla temeraria prafumptione
inventa & cognita ejfe credatur.
But not to over-burthen this finall Treatife with too great
a number of Arguments or Citations, we will chiefly examine
IWO thingsFirft, who thofe Catholic^ Dollars are, that believed
the Dolirine of Tranfubflantiation not to be ancient. Secondly,//
xehat thofe DoSlors have writ be true : And whether we can indeed
produce ftffcient Authorities to believe that the ancient Church did not
hold nor believe it.
THE
An Fitfiorkal Treattfs of Tranfuhjlantiatmu
PART I.
IN the firfl: place, That there have been Catholick Doclors Several Do
which have taught, that Tranfubfi^mation is no ancient
Dodrine, *SHarez. formally aflerteth it, although indeed he ;(ui|^'^'^have'bc-
faith, their Opinion ought to be corrected. The truth, is, Peter lieved the Do-
Z.ow/'^r^MafteroftheSentences, lait.h exprefly, Siqiuras qualis^t\ncofTrm-
fit ilU conver/toy an formalism anfubfiantialisy an alterins generis,
finite non audeo. ly ancient!*^*
Secondly, t ^cotus faith. That there were formerly three Opi- *Suar'ez
nions touching the changing the Bread into the 'Body of Chrtfi, in ?. Tom. in
the firft of which held that thz Bread remain'd in the Euchanfi,
In the Paragraph, quantHm ergoadiflumartkulHm, &c. he faith,
that at preient the Church of Rome holds Tranfuhftantiaiion. Nunc 1.4. d. i r.
a/item ipfa tenet ( San£ba Rom. Ecclefia) panem tranfubfiantiari. f Scotus in
And a little under, he faith, adtertium uhi fiat vis, dkendtim quod 4- d-11. f. ?.
Ecclefia declaravit ifium intelleBum effe de veritate fidei, in illo Sym •
holo edito fub Innocentio tertio in Concilio Lateranenfi. And fiace
this Declaration made by this Council held in the year 1215 if-
is an Article of Faith. Tenendum efi effe de fubfiantia fidei, hoc pofi
ifiam declarationem folemnem. * Bellarmine doth own that Scotus * Lib. 5. de
did believe Tranfubfiantiationvi&s no Article of Faith before the 23.
Cb««o7 ofZiit^MOT under/wwocewt the Thirdbut he adds , that
'twas becaufe Scotus did not know of the Council held under
Gregory the Seventh, and that he had not read the Authorities of
the Fathers which faith Bellarmine, I have now recited.
Thirdly, f Peter Dayly, Cardinal and Bi(hop of Cambray faith, f p. Dayiyon
It doth not clearly follow from theOetermination of theChurch, 4fh Sent. q.«.
that the fubftance of Bread ceafeth, therefore he doth not be- 4-
lieve this to be the ancient Doftrinc.
Fourthly, * Cardinal C«/4, Excit. 1. 6. Serm. e^o. Super una *Card.CHfa-
Ohlatione, confummavit, &c. faith, That there were fomc anci- "
ent Divines which did not believe Tranfubfiantiation.
Fifthly, j- Erafmus in his Notes on the Firft to the Corinthians, /- ~
faith, That it was late ere the Church eftablifhed •—' ' ■'
tiation.
B * Sixthly,
% Jn H'tjlorlcd Treatife of Trmfuhfidntktioih
*Alphttfus a. * Sixthly, Alphonfns a Cafir-o,{^^\thj That the ancient Writers
very felciom foake of TrAnjklifimtiation,
f Seventhly, f TonllaU Biihopof DarhAm ibout the middle of
. of' the Sj- the iaflGcn ury, fpeaking of the 'Breads being changed into the
eraiuent. Body of Chrifi, faith, It were much better to leave it to the Liber-
ty of ChPiltuns to believe as they pleas'd, of the manner in
which this change is made, as it wasfradlis'd in the Church, be-
fore the Council of Lateran.
Cafincer. Eighthly, Cajfander in his Confultation with the Emperour
Maxmilian tiie Second, touching the differences cf Religion,
confcfleth that Tranfubfiantiationha. Novelty', and that 'twere
much better to keep to the terms of the Ancients i that the A*
bules therein, approach near to JJolatry,
— Nint'n.Iy, Charles dii Moulin^ the Oracle of the French Civilians,
aau Ahulm. FdiFts and Ordinances of France, aj^ainft the Injuries of
Popesy Num. 406. fpeaks in thele Termi •, Innocent the Third,
forged, or at leafteftablilhed it as a general Article of Fauh,and
as necclTiry to be believed by all, as that of the holy Trinity,
the Tranfubfiantiation the Brea.i and limine into the true Body
and true Blood of Jefus Chrift.
- ■ , Tenthly, fohn Tribarne a Spanijh Divine, in the 4th. Sent.
jo-Irwartie^Y^-^Q. ^ 3. Difp. 42. S. I. iaith, That in tfie Primitive
Church is was matter of Faith, that the Body of Jefus Chrifi was
contain'd under the Species cf Bread andWinej but that'twas
not any matter of Faith to hold that the fubfianceot Bread was
changed into the F/fjJj of Jefus fhrify and that it fabfifted no
longer after Confecratioo.
IDe Uarca Eleventhly, Monfieur A/4rc<ii, Archbifhop of Paris in his
—^pofthumousD flertations, faith, in his Frewfe Treatife of the
Sacrament cf the Eucharifiy That until S. Chryfofiont'i time, it was
believed the Bread was the Body of Jefus Chrifi by a marvelous
change that comes on the Bread *, but that it becomes united to
the incarnate Word and to his Natural Body, the Bread not
changing its Nature, and yet not going into the Draught-, which
is a kind of pious confideration which he added againit Origen,
PART
Jn Hijl orkd Tr^attfe tf TrmifuhfiantUtmu
PART II.
AS for the 5(rco;r</ Po/W, which is to fee if there is eifcfftlvely thit the An-
to be found in the Writings of the Ancients, fufficienc Au- ciencs indeed
thoricies to believe that the did not believe he-
fiantiation. Trmfub'
Before I alledge their Authorities, two Reflciftions may be"'
made,
Firft, that our own Authors do obfervc, that TranjuhfiitTiti-
ation is not exprefly mention'd nor taught in the Scriptures, confea Uiae
* ScotHs cited by BelUrmine^ of the Eucharifl, Lih, z. cap. 2^. his mz ex-
faith, It doth not plainly follow from the words of J^fus Cbnft, y in Scri-
This is my Body, that the Bread is tranfitb/iantiated. pcurc. So
fOckam faith of Tranfuhftamiatiorif that it cannot be Pro- Meatus,
vect by natural Reafon, nor by Authority of the Bible, but only t oc^ham.
by the Authority of the Ancients. '4'
* j^lforfus dt Cafiro difapptoves what Oc^oam fays. That it * Aljonfus de
can be proved by the Authority of the Ancients, for he laith, Cafiro.
That it was not to be found, no more than Indulgences were, in ^^scabuio m-
the Writings of the Ancients. du'gentiie.
Gabriel f Bielfptakm^ofTranfuhfiantiationt faith. That it is| .
not exprtfly taught in the Holy Scriptures.
Cardinal * Cajetan does not find the words of Jefus Chiill * CAfEJAN
This is my Body,c\e3t,nt\therfot the Real Prefence^noi: forTran-l'' ?• p- 8.
fuhfiantiation, without the determination of the Church be joy ned ' 5*
to them.
The fecond Refiedion, is that Tranfuhflantiation comprehend- obf. 2.
ing a great manypifficukies quite contrary to natural Reafon, None of the
none of the Jews nor Pagan Philofophers, difputingagainft
the ancient Gbriftians, ever dream'd of making any objedions aLienc Chrf
againfl it in their Difputations. Trypho the Jew charges usftam thcdif-
with things monftrous, incredible, and ftrangely invented ; asficuldtsof it.
what we teach of fe/us Chrifi's being before Aaron, and Abraham, Trjpbo.
that he rook,on him our Naturej that he tvas horn of a Ftrgin, that
B z God
Jn Hiftorkd Treatife of Tranfuhftantiatiott,
God Jhonld be born^ be made Man 7 that we (honld adore a Mtnyth^t
we jhoHldpHt our trufi in hin*^ and that we [kcnld invoke another God
bcfides the Creator, all this appears in S. Jftfiin Martyr, in his
Dialogue againft Trypho.
The Pagans reproach as for faying has a 5fl», that this
Sen Jlwuld appear in humane (hape, and they ftile it the Follies of the
Chrifiian Dijcipline that God (houldbe born, and that he ihouW
be horn of a Virgin, and be a Cod of flefh, crucified and buried ^
The la&. Judgment, the pains of eternal Fire, th^ Joys of Heaven,
the Rtfurrecltonof the Dead. All this appears by Clement oi A-
lexandria Seromat^ 1. 6. by Tertullian his .^pologet. ch, 2. a.y.
in h\%Treatife of the He [h of Chrifi, ch. 4. and y. And in his
Treatife of the Tefiimony of the Soul, ch. 4. By S, JuJiin in
his fecond Apology, and Arnobius in his fecond Book.
Nor Ctlfus, Celfus, in * Origen, fcofFs at the Incarnation, as of a thing
unworthy of Cod. In the Sixth Book, he laughs that we
eettr. Celf. fj^Qul J believe Cod fhould be born of a Virgin. In the Third
and Eighth Book, he faith of Chrifiians, That they honour
with a Religious Worfhip even above all Religion, a Man that
was a Prtfoner and that Jufered Death. He even thereby pleads-
for the plurality of his Gods .• as if Chriltians were hot fa-
tisfi'd in worjhipping one God, under colour that they adored
JifmChriftIf Chrifiians, faith he in the Eighth Book, worjhip-
pedhtit one God, they might have fome colour to defpife others. But
they p.iy infinite Honours to him that has but very lately appear d,
and yet rhey dont thinkthey difpleafe God whenthey ferve and honour
his fjMinifier.
Not Julian. Julian tlie Apofiate oppos'd the Myfiery of the Incarnation, the
r ivinity of Jefus Chrif}, the Salvation he purchased for us by the price
cfhis Blood', he reproaches ts with the glorious Title of tJMo^
ther (f God, which we give to the Blefied Virgin ', he contefts
the Adyfery of the Trinity of Perfons and Vnity of Effence, ac-
cufing us of contradiding AJofes, who faid, There is but one
( od. He reproaches us for Baprifm •, See, ftith he, what Paul
faith to them, that they are fxnhiified and cleanfed by Water, as
if Water could penetrate to the Soul, to wajh and purtfie it', Ba*
ptifm earn fo much as cleanfe a Leper, nor a Scurf, it cannot
heal a Cancer nor the Gout. He aggravates what we read, that
, God Vifits the Iniquity of the Fathers upon the Children, thereby
to endeavour to attack the DoUrine of Original Sin. He bold-
ly queftions what Cod faith in the Book of Numbers touching
Phineas
m
X
At Hijlorkal Treatife of Tranfuhfantiation.
7
Thimas^ that thruft his Javelin through the Body of an Jf-
raelite that committed Folly with a Mtdinnit^j Woman, which
turn'd away Goas Anger Irom iht Children Ifrael, and hin-
der'd him from ccnfuming them. Let ns fitppofe, faith he, that
there had been to the Nnmber of one Thottfand that had attempted
to have tranfgrejfed the Lave of Cod, ought fix hundred Thoufand to
have been defray d for the Ja^e of one Thoufand', it feems to me to
have been much jujter to have faved one iU Man with fo many good
ones, than to involve fo much good Men in the ruine of one bad
one.
There's fcarce any of our Myftcries that have not been cen-
fur'd by the Jews oi Pagans \ yet'tis very ftrange that not one
fliould accufe us of admitting in the accidents with-
out fubflance, whiteneft without any thing that*s white, roundnefs
without any thing round', weight without any thing that's weighty •,
a corruption whereunto the fpecies are fubjedt, without any thu g
that's capable of being corrupted', PPouriJlment in the Symbols^
without any thing that can nourijh •, a power in thcWtne to be fmelc
without any thing that may befmelled. No body ever reproach'J
us with fo ftrange a thing, that a Man with one word Ihould
deftroy a fubftance which he holdeth in his hands, and that never-
thelefs againft the teftimony ofall the Senfes,, 1 fee that which is
no more ', l/«/that which \ do not feel, 1 tafie that which \ do not
tajle,lunderjiand that which 1 do not underfland', I touch that which
J do not touch, that I (hould be nourijhed with nothing', that my
tafie fhould be delighted with nothing ; that my Eyes and Ears
/hould de ftruck with Nothing.
The three Refieftions we have hitherto made,That many of the Hence itfol.
antientCatholick EyoCtovshzvenotheVie'vedTrarfubfiantiation to lows, that
be antient ;Thatthey have Judged it could not evidently bededu-
ced from the Holy Scriptures', and, That the antient ?Ag?\QPhilofo' not'amicnt.
phers bave not reproached us with it, are three very Itrong Sup-
pofitions to make us mightily doubt the Antiquity of this Doeirine.
But to Ihew evidently that 'twas but in the lajl Ages that this
opinion was made an tArticle of Faith, we need only confult the
Dodtors of the Primitive Church, and fee if they have effedtivelij
explaia'd the Eucharifihy the SyflemeofTiranfubJlantiation.
riMt
An Tiijloricd TYtdt'ift of TranfuhjltiHtiation,
A g e ii,
Juft. Mar-
That the Fathers o/f/;^Second Century
did not helteye Tranfubftantiation.
jpih 2. Q JaJlln Martyr faith, " TTiat afttr the common Frayers were
•l3»" ended, there was prefented to the chief of the Brethren,
*' which was God's Minifier, the Bread and the Wine, mixt with
"Water, which he received into his hands, andpving thanks and
glory to the Father of Heaven and Earth, through Jefas
^^Chrifl his Son, and the Holy Choft, (^c. and the faid Pcefident
or Minifter having ended his thanksgiving , the People ha-
*' ving allfaid Amen, thofe whom we call Deacons and Minifters,4(f>
tending on this Holy Service, give to every one prefent at the Holy
** Communion, part of this Holy Bread, fo bleffed and glorify* d', and
** alfo of the Holy liquor mixt of Wine and Water, upon which Prayers
had been made. And a little lower, *' Behold, Lord, we do not
receive this Bread nor this Wine as common Bread and Wine,
bat as Jefas Chrift is become Flefh and Blood by the Word, foalfo
the nourijhment which by the Word is become a S^cntmcnt, and
" of which by converfion and change, cor flefli and Blood are
** ncurifh'd, « as we have learned, rfeeFlelhand Blood of Jefut
** Chrifi incarnate.
If St. Jufiin had believed that the fubftance of the Bread, Wine,
and Water had been changed after Confecration, fothat they had
•been deftroy'd, how could he have faid, that after Confecra-
tion the Deacons diddiftribute to thePeople the Bread, the
Wine, and the Water ?
Secondly, When he faith, we do not take this^rM-s/and Wine
/ as common Bread and Wine: this language atnongft the antient
Dodlors intimates, that both the one and the other do ftill fubhft,
but that by Confecration, they have acquir'd a new ufe and
quality. As when Cyril of Jentfalem Catech. ■*,. oyid Ilium, faith,
approach not to Baptifm as to common Water. Or as Gregory Nyffen
faith of Baptifm, Do not defpife the Holy Font, and look^not upon it
as common Water.
To conclude, this bleffed Martyr faith, Our Body and Blood
are nourijls'd by the change of the Encharifikal food, which converts
and
1
'''• Jn Htparkal Jreatife of TranfuhJlantiatioiC ^
a»dt(tytJs it felf ir>to tiir flefhand Blood- Thefe words plainly fliew,
that'tis the Bread and Wine which are turn*d into our Sahfitt^ee.^ AGE ii.
into our and into our feeing that'tis certain, that
the ytalF!e(band Blood of Jeibs Chrift, IS not Converted intoour
!(tU! Flefliznd B'-ood. Sq when y«/*«faith, That the Sacramental Food .
is the Bodyzx^d ^Wofjelus Chrift, that imports, that'tis not
' cmmcn Bnad aidfFine, but a and Wine which is to be
ccnfidei'd as the Fkfi and Blood of ihtWerd incarnate.
S. provesagainft and bis followers, that our ireneus '
Bodies fhall not be dcftroy'd, and by confequeoce that they lhall
wirrwl be raifed incorruptible by receiving the Sacrament, as the Bread
vtls m of the Eucharifi becomes fupernatural by the iuvocation of the
^ /e/ii Holy Ghoft.
"tfidtni cjiabhjh in the Eucharifi^ faith S. Iren^us, the Comm'anion ^dvirfuj H.e-
h k/o tznd unity of the Flefi and of the Spirit 'y for as the "Bread which is of
ttSfHt. ^he Earthy receiving the invocation of God, isnolonger common Bready
\Ho^ hut is the Sacrament composed of two things, ore Terrejhiat, and the
!■ eaher Cehjiial: So alfo our Bodies which receive the Euehariji, are nt,
ifiijit! longer corrnpuble, hut have the Hope of a future RefurrcSlion,
fiittt This pajjagc doth fuppofe, that the Breadtcmnins in the En-
chariji *, in the firft place, becaufe.if Confecration did deftroy the
fi4 /ubflance of the "Bread zud fFine, it muft.be confcfs'd the Holy,.
, g,/ Uocftor bad taken wrong meafiires, to Ihew that the Flefli is not,:
late deftroy *d by the grace of the Holy Spirit, by the Bread of the
Eucharift, which it fclf fhquld be defttoy'd b^ the grace of the
Spirit which comes upon it.
, Secondly, Becaufe a little before, faith, Flow is it they
'bd f^yr jhalL be deft cy'd and turn to corruptiany feeing it it -
gj, nouri^'d with the body asid blood of Chrifi ?
tl]f Now the Fle(li is fed by the converHon of nourifliment into the
body, which not being to be faid of is only to be
ftst apply'd to the Bread. Moreover thefe words, That the Emtharifi
■jfiit is composed of two rliwjfrjfufficiently lire w,tbat tk&Bread remaimj^or
to fay Jrenaus means by a Terrefrial thing, the aecidentt of Bread &
jj Wine, befides that S. ./iuJNnfzim in the fecond Book of SoUloejHtesy
•|tl^ Chap. 11. that *cis a thing monftrous to fay that accidents fubfift
iL without afubjefty 7rf«<<w alfo himfelf faith, Bocrfcz,. cap. 14.
thatWater cannot be without moifture,Fire without heat,aStone
without hardnefs. For thefe things are fo united, that the one
y cannot be feparated from the other, but the one muft fubfift in
the other. So in like manner, by this Terref rial thing mr.ft be
(jj pdeiftiod-j
lO
An Htjlorical Tre^aifi ofTranjuhflantiatm,
AGE ii.
Jretitus
Clm.AltxinL
¥x'Ug. I. 2,
underftood the Breads 2% S. Gregory Naz. faith in his fourth
Oration according to Bilius his ver(ion> Baptifm al[o is compos'd of
tvpo things, Water and the Spiritthe one isvifible and is meant in a
corporal manner, but the other is invifible and operates after a fpiri-
tHal manner •, the one is Typical, the other cleanfeth that which is in'
ward, andmoft hidden-
Clement of Alexandria faith the fame in different terms. The
" Blood cf Chrifi is twofold, the one is Carnal, whereby we are
deliver'd from corruption, the other is fpirituai, whereby we
are anointed, and that is to drink %\ood of Jtfus Chrift, to
"f-f partakers of the incorruption of the Lord. Now the virtue
'■'of the Word is the Holy Spirit, as the Blood is the vertue of the
" Flejh- By Anhlogy then , the Wine, mixt with Water , as
'•'the Spirit with Adan', and this mixture makes the JTine the
"pleafanter to drink, but the Spirit leadeth to incorruption. Now
" this mixture of the one with the other, to wit, of the Wine and
*'the Word, is called Eucharift, which is highly efieem'd, whereby
" thofe who worthily partake of it by Faith, are fanSlifyd both in
their Body and Soul.
When Clement of Alexandria faid that the Eucharifi is a mix-
tare of Wine and the Word, itisacompofition, a mixture, which
tignilics mix-if there was but the Word only in the Eucharift.
ture. ppj. 3 mixture is at leaftof two things. So the Fathers have
called Jefus Chrifi, a mixture of God and Man. The Tody of
S Auflln Ep. Man, faith S. Arftin, is a mixture of Body and Soul', the Perfon of
ad yo^uftO' Chrifi is a mixture of God and Man.
Theodotus.^ The Epitome of Theodotus faith, The Bread and Oyl are fanSfi-
•fed by the virtue of the narhe, and they remain not what they were be-
fore, though to look, on them they feemtobe the fame, but by virtue,
they are are changed into a Sph itual force. So water fanSiiffed is be-
come Baptifm, it not only retains what's lefs, but dlfo acquires a
fanSlification.
The author faith, The Bread is changed, but when he adds
that 'tis into a Spiritual virtue, he quite excludes the change of its
fubfiancefor by virtue, and Spiritual, cannot be underftood
any other change but that of virtue and quality, fto'vng thisAuthor
fpeaks ofthis change,as being common to the Water of Baptifm,
to the Oyl of Undion, and to the Bread of the Eucharift.
Grice
That
/in Hijlorical Treatife of Tranfuhjlantiatioru
That the Fathers of the T ri k t> CenturyAGE iii.
did not belieye Traiifubftantiation.
TErthllian in his firfl: Book againft Marcion , Ihewing that TertnllUn
Jefus Chrift is not contrary to the Creator, as this Here-
tick affirm'cf, faith in his 14th. Hitherto Je/Us Chrifi has
not condemned the Water wherewith he cleanfeth his Children, nor the
Oyl wherewith he anoints them, nor the Hony nor the Milk^where-
by he makes them his Children, nor the Bread by which he reprefents
his body.
By this pafTage, the Bread reprefents the Body of Jefns Chrifi,
therefore the Bread remains in the Sacrament, and this
is not really Jefus Chrift, becaufe what doth reprefent, is ano-
ther thing than what is reprefented.
Two things have been faid on this place of Tertullian-, firft,
that the Bread fignifies the accidents of Breadthe fecond that
the Word reprefent, does fignify in this place, to maks prefent:
As when in a Court of Juftice a Prifoner is made appear as
often as he is demanded.
Againft the former, there*s no reafon to believe t^at
Tertullian fpeaking of Water, of Oyl, of Hony, and Milk,
ihould intend to fpeak of their accidents, but of their very fub'
fiance, and that ipeakingof Bread, he Ihould ipeak only of its
accidents* _ .
Againft the fecond it's moft certain that in matter of Sa-
craraents, the term to fignify is taken literally, to (Ignify.
S. tyiafiin faith, Ep. 5. the ftgns, when applyed to Holy things,
are called Sacraments. Tertullian explains himfelf clearly
Lib. 3. againft Marcion, fo that there's no caufe of doubt-
ing, when he faith. That Jefus Chrifi has given to the
'Bread the priviledge of being the figure of his Body. The
fame 'Tertullian lib. 4. contra Marcion. cap. 40. doth
prove that Jefus Chrifi had a real Body, and not one in
(hew only, as Marcion dream'd, and he proves it by this argu-
ment: That which hath a figure o\}ght to be real and true •,
IQ now
Ti An Hijlorkd Treattje of Tranfuhjlantiation.
now Jcfus Chrift hath in the EiKharift a figure of his Body^ there-
AGE ill- fore the of ]cfas Chrift is and trw, and not aPhan^
tome>
Tertullian. chrifi^ faith Teriullimn, having taken the Bread which
he difiribated amongfi his Difcifles, be made it his Bodyy
fayingy Phis is the figure of my Body : now it had been no
figure y if Jtfas Carifi had not had a real and true Body ;
for an empty thing as a Phantafm isy is not capable of having any
figure.
From hence 'tis concluded, that the Bread being the
figure of the Body of Jefus Chrift y and that which is a figurcy
being diftinguilhed from the thing fignifiedy the Bread of
the Eucharift is not properly and truely the Body of fefus Chrifty
and fo the Bread is not deftroy'd , but remains to be the figure
of the Body of fefits Chrift.
If it be faid, the Bread is deftroy.'d, and that the acci-
dents of Bread are tht figure of the Body ^ of Jefus Chrifty this
gives up the vidlory to Marcion, to prove, that
Jefus Chrift had'a true Body, and not one in Jhewonly, becaufe
Jefus Chrift hath in the Eucharift the figure of Bready which
is Bread only in appearance. Marcion might have retorted
the argument and laid, according to you, TertulUany the
Sacrament is the figure, of the Body of Jefus Chrift •, now
as tf[\% figure is Bread in appearance j and is called Bread on-
ly becaufe of the outward accidents and qualities which it re-
tains, fo alio the Body of Jefus Chrift was only a Body in
appearance, and was called a Body becaufe it had the outward ac-
cidents and qualities,.
Again, as Tertullian faith. That Jefus Chrift diftributed to
his Difciples the Bread which he had taken to make it the
figure of his "Body •, it is moft certain he took true Bready and by
confequence, that he diftributed trite Bread.
The fame Tertullian in his Treatife of the Soul, difputing
againft the Accademitians that queftioned the truth of the
teftimony of the Senfesy faith to chem, that we muft not at
all doubt of the teftimony of the Senles, left occafion might
farther be taken to doubt the adtions of the humanity of Jefus
Chrift, that it might not be faid, That it was untrue that he law
Satan fall from Heaven •, That it was not true, that he heard
the Father's voice from heaven bearing witnefs to his Son ;
That
An Hijlorkal Treatife of Tranfuhjlantiationl i j
That he was deceived when he touched Peter^s Wifes Mother • '
That he was deceived <yhen he fmeic the fweet odour which ^ ^ ^
he was pleas'd to accept for the preparation to his Death
or. That he tafbed the Wine that he confecrated in remem-
brance of his Blood.
It is evident that to confecrate Wine in remembrance
of Bloody cannot be underftood of a fnbfiance which is de-
ftro^'d all faving the accidents *, This manner of exprcflion
in the language of the Ancients fignifyirg no more, hue
that a fubftance remains always in its firft ftatc, only at-
tains to a higher degree, which is, to be the Sacrament of
a Heavenly and fupernatural thing. To conclude, ifT<?r-
ttdlian had believed that the Wine had beendcftroy'd, and
that nothing but the appearance was left, againft the
teflimony of all the Senfes, had it not been an unpar-
donable fault in Tertulliany to prove that the Senles could not
be deceived by the Example of the Eucharifly where the
Senfes are quite deceived?
Ori^en did not believe Tranfahfiantiation when he (aid
in his Commentary on the i3tb. Chap, of S. Matth. expoun- Ongen.
ding thefe words of the Cofpely what enters into the Mouth "
defiles not the Man &C. as there's nothing that's impure of it ftif
to him that's polluted and incredulous y hut a thing is this
** by reafon of his impurity and incredulity^, fo alfo, that which pafiage, chri'
'■'■is fanilifyed by the word of Cod and Prayer, doth not fan£iify pens, pop jour
by its proper naturty him that ufes it: If it were fo, it would
*■'• alfo fanlitfy him that eats unworthily of the Lord, and none
'' fnculd have been weak^, nor fckjt nor jhould have fallen afleep,
" by reafon of fo eating . If all that enters into the Mouth
"goes into the Eellyy and there is cafi cut into the draught, this food
"which is far.Pitfyed by the word of God, and by Prayer, goes
" alfo into the Belly and is tap ouf into the draug ht, according to
" its material fubftanceBut according to the Prayer which has
" been thereunto added, it becomes profitable according to the
" meafure of Faith, by catipng the mind to become inlightned,
" having regard to whdt is profitablea^nd 'tis not the matter
" of Bread, hut the words which have been pronounc'd upon it,
" that avails him which eattth in fuch a manner as is not unwor-
"thy of the Lord, and this may he faid of the Body Typical, or
" Symbolical, Many things might be [aid aljo of the Word made
C 2 "Flejhy
14 An Htjlorical Treatife of Tranfuhjlant'iatlon,
" FleJhj and true nourifhmentf the which whofoevtr eats Jhall nevef
AGE and which no wickfd per/on can eatfor could it he that he
which continues wichsd (hould eat of the Word incarnate, feeing he
Ori^en. ct Bread of Life, it would not have been written,
Whofoevtr eateth this "Bjead Jhall live Eternally.
When he faith of the Bread of the Eucharijl, that it
fandlifieth not of it felf, it cannot he underftood of the true
"Body of Jefus Chrift, but of the Bread which remains.
When he faith, This Bread fandified by the invocation of
God, and by Prayer, remains in its material being, it means
plainly, That it remains in its former fubftance. When
he faith. That this Bread as to thematter of it goes down in-
to the Belly, and is call into the draught as the other meats :
This not being to be underftood olJefusChrijimihowt Blaf-
pheming, is neceffarily to be underftood of the Bread.
When he calls this Bread the Typical Body, it (hews plainly.
That this not being the true Body, it is notTranfubftantiated.
When having fpoken of the Typical Body, he after fpeaks
of the Word made Fle(h, which cannot but give life to
thofe which cat and receive him *, he fufficiently diftin-
guifheth the Bread of the Eucharijl from Jefus Chriji', the
former of which may be mortal, but the latter can never
be fo to thofe who receive and eat him.
This paflage is fo clear and evident, that Sixtus Senen-
(is m his Bibl. /. 6. annot. 66. found no better expedW
ent than to fay, That 'twas probable, This paftage had
been corrupted by the Hereticks. Gennehrard and Du Per-
ron fufpeded Erafmus to have ill tranflated it: But the learned
Origtttiana I. Monfieur Huet, nominated to be Biihop of Soifons, faith,
2.q. 14. It evidently appears by the Original Greek,, thzi this paflage
is no way changed.
Pag. o'- Origen faith , in Tom. 32. of his Commen-
Edit. Hueil tary on S. John, that the morfel of Bread Chrift gave to
G. L. Judas and thofe he gave the yipojlks, faying, Take, Eat, .were
of the fame fort. Now if the morfel given to Judas was true
Bread, as it is granted, and if the Bread given the other Apo-
files was not true Bread, then the one and the other were not
of the fame kind.
The
An Hiflorkal 7reatlfe of Tranfuhfiantlation. i ^
The fame Or(^f«inthe Seventh Homily on faith,Thai
Jcfus Orrifi before his Palfion, drank Wine, but being ready AGE iii.
to fuffer, he refufed to drink if, Vbi vera tempus advtnit
Cruets ftia, accipitns, inquit^ Calicem bentdixit, & dedit Difd- Origen.
fulis fuisj dictfjs, Accipite & Bibite ex hoc. Vos , iiiquit, hi-
bite quia non sccefuri eftis ad altare ^ ipfe autem tanquam
acceffurus ad altare dicit, t^meny dico nwbis quia non bibam
de generatione vitis hujus y ufque quo bibam illud novum vg.
bifcum in Regno Patris mei. Origen affirms, That our Saviour
in celebrating the Eitcharifl-y did not drink Wine, becauft iie
was ready to approach the Altar ( of his Paffioq ) anrf
that the Apoftles did drink Wine, becaufe they were not
yet ready to approach to the Altar of Martyrdom. And
that in this fcnfe, the Figure of the Old Teftament was
accomplifhed, where 'twas forbidden to Aaron and his Prieils
to drink Wine when they were about to approach tq the
Altar. All this Difcourfe is falfe, if Jefus Chrift fpake not
thefe words of PFi'w, I mllnot drink^y &c. and if what the
Apoftles drank was not true Wine.
Let us lee now what St. Cyprian faith, T^he Sacrifice of the typnian.
Lord recommends to us Vnity: for when Jefus Chrift- called his
Body y the "Bread which is made of feveral Grains, he re-
commended the Vnity of Chrifiian People; and when he called
his Blood y the Wincy made of feveral Grains and Grapes, he
reprefented one Flacky united by the Band of Charity, Now
thefe words, where Jefus Chrift called the his and:
the Wine his Bloody is as if he had faid of the Bread, "his is
my Bodyy and of the Wtney This is my Blood. And if hereunto
we add the words of the Jefuite Salmerony who faid,
Jefus Chrift had faidy This Bread is my Body, and this Wine ^
is my Bloody it would have obliged us to have underftood thefe
words in a figurative fenfe, becaufe the Bread cannot be a hu-
mane Bodyy nor the Wme Bloody but in a figurative Senfe.
Bellarmine faith the fame *, If Jefus Chrifi bad faidy This
Bread is my Bodyy this propofition muft be mderfiood in a figu-^'^"'^'^'
rathe Senfe', otherwife the Exprtjfion would be abfurd and im. *''*
pojfible. Now as we fee S. Cyprian faith, that Jefus Chrift
faid of the Body, That 'tis his Bodyy and of the Winey That
'twas hts Blood y it muft be concluded therefore that Jcfus
Chrift faid of the Bread and Winey That they were his Body
and
16 An Hiflorkal Treat ife of Tranfuhfanttation,
and Bloodt that is to fay i That the Bread and Wtne were
AGE iii-his Body ^nd Blood in Figure ^ both the one and the other
being reprefcnted and fgnfcd by the Bread and Wine. And
therefore in his Epiltle to'Cecilius, where at large he
proves the Wwe mufl: be mingled with Water., he faith, If
there be no Wine in the Cup, the Blood of Jefus Ckrifl cannot
he reprefcnted to us , hecaufe ^tis the Wine that reprefents to m
ihe "Blood of Jefut Chrifi. And again , rini ubique mentio efi^
cfr idea ponitur ut Bomini Sanguis yino intelligatur. He faith
of the Water, that, Sola Chrifii fanguinem non potefi ex-
fritntre. In aqua vidimus populum intclligi, in Vino ofiendi
Sanguinem Chrifii. So that feeing Sr. Cyprian faith , That
the Wine reprejenteth, exprefieth, fhewerh , and makes US fee
the Blood of fefus Chrifi, as the Water reprefenteth, ex-
prejfetb, and fiews US the Chrifiian People, it cannot be inia«
gin'd that St. Cyprian believed the Wine was dcftroy'd, but
on the contrary, he believed that after Confecration , the
Wine remained and that 'twas true Wine that he called
his Bloodf according to what he faith in the fame Letter, Qtda
in parte invemmus CalicemmixtfimfHfffe quern Dcminus obtulit, C^r
vinumfuifie ^uod Sangtunem fuum dixit.
That the Fathers of the V o war b Century
did not belieye Tranfubftantiation.
Eufiathius. ,
nicen.Sjn.2. iHVflathius ^ Patriarch of iAntioch, upon thefe words of
All. 6. ■ J Solomon in the Proverbs , Eat my Bread , and drinks the
Wine which 1 have prepar dfaith , That the wife Man by
the Bread and Wine did forejhew the Antitypes of the Bo/ty
of Jefus Chtifi: Now that which is a Type, is an Image ^
what is an Image cannot be the thing but in Figure', fo
that the Bread is not deftroy'd, becaufe it is the Type and the
fufibhts
— Fufebius of Cafarea, interpreting thefe words of Genefts,
Dm.Evung. Chap. 49. Verf. 12. His Eyes fiall he red with Wine y and his
Teeth
Jii Hijiorical Imttfe of Tranfuhftantiat'ion,
*7
Tteth white with Afilk> Taith, That the frfi wcrds fignifie the
Joy that the myfiical Wine doth caufe in the Difciples of Jefm AGE i\r.
Chrifi when he fdth to them-, Take^ Drinks ye ALL of this^ &c.
And thefe words., The Teeth white with Milk,, do fignifh- Eujebius.
the pttrity and cleanntfs of the Myftical Food , which are the
Symbols which fefus Chrifi left to his Difciples, commanding
them to xelehrate the Image of his proper Body *, not requiring any
mate bloody Sacrifices, and commanded to make nfe of Bread for
the Symbol of his Body.
Seeing then chat according to this ancient Doctor, the
Wine is the Symbol of the Blood of C if .ft , and the Bread
the Figure of his Body, and both the one and the other
an Image of the Body and Bloody iht Image is not that of
which tis an Image-, and by cohfeqnence, in the Eulharifi,
befides the Body of Jefus Chrifi, there is aifo Brea<i and
Wine, which do reprefent and Jhew him ^ it being, evident
by the Text of this Author, that he underftood the words
of Jefus Chrift, This U my Body,, in this fehle, This is the Sym^ .
hoi of my Body,
Cyril of ffriifalem faith , Q^emadmodum Panis Eucharifiicus Cyrilhu
pofi Spms Sanlii invocationem, non amplius efi Panis,communis, fJierofol*
fed efi Corpus Chrifii, fw & fanliumhoc unguenttsm non amplius efi Catech.
etnguentum ithid. Myfi%i,
Macharins, a noted Hermite in Egypt , who wrote
Homilies about the year 368. faith in the 27th Homily, That ^
before the birth of Jefm Chrifi, the wife Men, Holy tTUen. Kings
and Prophets, knew that Jefus. Chrifi was to come to be a redeer
mer, hut they J^ew not that he was to fujfer death, that he was
to he Cructfy^d, and that he (heuld (hed his Blood en the Croft,
and that they had not attain d fo far as to know there fhould be
a Baptifm of Fire and of the Holy Ghofi., and that in the fhurch
fhould be iffend Bread and Wine, eykntitypes of the Body and
Blood of Jefus Cbrifi, and that thofe which eat of this vifihle
Bread, fiould fpiritually eat the Fle(h of the Lurd. This Fa-
ther faying that the Antitype of the Flejh and Blood of Jefsee ,
Cbrifi is Bread and Wine, doth fiippofe the Bread remains,
as not being the Real Body of Jefus Chtift, but a Type of it;
now the Type, is not the verity , fed umbra veritatis, fajth
Sr. Ambrofe, de fide 1. 3, c. 8. and by confequcnce, there
is in the Eucharifi fomething elfe belides the Body it felf of
Jefus .
11
■ MJ
Wi
t}\ :
: t
i
■ill.
14;.
if
1!
1 H-(
ilifi. '4
(ia •■■
t<r ■;■■■'
^' •:
irii/'
i n '
■'^,1 ■
Hi '
M'
1 8 Jn H'tjlorkal Treatife of Tranfuhftantiatm.
AGE iv
Jidachartus.
Sc. Bafil.
itf. z%9.
Ephrem.
Jefus Chrifl:, And when he faith, That thofe which take the
vifihle Bread, do fpiriiually eat the Fle(h of Chrift, he gives US
fufficiently to underftand, that in this auguft Sacrament, there
is befides the Flefj of Jefus Chrill a vifible Bread, and that the
•Vffihle Bread is eaten corporally, and the Flejh of Jefus Chrifl:
fffritually.
St. Bafil, Bifilop of Cafarid, in his Epiftle to faith,
TT^at at Alexandria, and in iEgypt, each Lay-perfon for the
tnoji part, k^pt the Eucharifi by them, and communicated them'
fehes when' they pleafedand if they receive from the Priefi a
morfel of the confeerated Bread, they may receive the Holy So-
crdment daily if they lifl, taking fame of it to day, and the refi
to morrow. For, faith he, the Prtefi in the Church gives a good
Piece or Morfel of the Eucharifl, and he that takes it, doth fom-
municate himfetf at his pleasure. Now, faith he, as to the validity
and vertue of the Sacrament, it is one and the fame, whether
receives one morfel, or two, of the Priefi. In what fenfe
one
B'l i
can it be underftood that one receives feveral parts or
in the Eucharifl ? It cannot be meant of Jefus Chrift, whofc
Body cannot be divided into morfels •, it mufl: therefore be
underftood, that St. Bafil believed that th^Bread remained
in the Eucharifi as a Typical and Symbolical Body of Jefus
Chrift.
Ephrem Deacon of the Church of Edefia, contemporary
with St. Bafil, and whofe Writings St. Jerom reports in his
Catalogue, were read in the Church after the Holy Scriptures
he faith, in the Treatife he wrote, ThattJMen (hould notfearch
too curioufly into the Nature of Godconfider diligently (faith
this holy Deacon ) how Jefus Chrifl taking the Bread
into his hands, blefied and broke it as a Figure of his immaculate
Body ^ and taking the fup , he blejfed it as a Type of his blejfed
Blood, and gave it to his Difciples. It is evident that Ephrem
believed the Bread is the figure of the Body, and the Wine
the Type of the Blood of Chrifl ; figura autem non tfl Veritas,
fed imitatio verit atis, faith S. Gaudentius Exodus, Tra(ft,
2. the Body of Jefus Chrift is the verity, there muft then be
in the Sacrament, befides the real Body, a material and Typi-
cat Body, which may be the figure of the true Bodyoi Jefus
Chrift.
S. Epipha-
An Htjlorkal 7reatlfe of Iranfuhflantiatlon, j ^
S. Eptphanius having faid. That Jefus Chrifb defcended into
the Waters to be Baptiz'd, not to receive any virtue from AGE iv.
the Waters, but to confer it upon them, he adds, That'tis in
Jefus Chrifl: the Prophecy of Efay is accomplifhed, who in
the third Chap, fpeaks of the vertue of Bread and y
he gave ftrength to the Waters, illaminans eas, & roboran; in E^ceief.Deus
Typo earum in ipfo erant perficienda ; and as for the Bread, ad aqua de.
Cibus quidem panis eji , fed virtas in eo efi ad vivificationem.f^''^'^^^'
S. EpiphansHs fpeaks here of the Eacharifi as he doth of Baptifm^
he faith. That both one and the other receive their virtue
from Jefus Chrift, who communicates to them fpiritual ftrength,
liifficient to fandify, now as the Water of Baptifm is
changed only by a change of virtue, and quality, it is appa-
rent S. Epiphamas did not mean that the Bread of the £«-
charifi fliould be deftroy'd, no more than the Water was in
Baptifm •, elfe he would not have faid, that the Confecrated mcorporet re
Bread was a food, for accidents cannot nouriih, nothing can nihil augetur,
be fed by that which is not a Body^ nourilhment proceeds A dcge-
from a fubftance or matter, faith Ariftotley and ruptione
in Pradic. faith, that 'tis impoflible an accident fliould pafs „entum vei''
into the nature of a fubftance, ttt accident in fubjiantia naturam materiam par-
tranfeatfieri nulla mode potefi. tim. ibid. l,i,
Gregory Nax.ia»zxny fpeaking of the miraculous recovery ~ ^ —
of his Sifter Gergoniay fpeaks in thefe tetmsy pouring forth ^ 5.'
Flood of tears after the example of her that wajhed ChrifF's feet
with her tearsy Jhe faidy flie would not depart thence till fie had
recover d her healthy her" tears were the perfume which Jhe fpread
ever all his Bodyy Jhe mingled them with the Antitypes, or the
Symbols of the mody and Blood of Jefus Chrifi , as much at
leafi as fie could hold in her handsy and immediately, O the Mi-
racUy fie found her felf healed. And in his feventcenth Ora-
tion, this godly Prelate interceding to the Emperor's Pre-
fed, that he would extend his favour, and not deliver up the
Gity to be plundred, I fet before your Eyes the Table where
we joyntly receive the Sacramenty and the figure of my SalvatioHy
which I confecrate with the fame Mouth wherewith I makp my
requeji to you j this Sacramentj I fay^ which lifts m up ta
Heaven.
D
It
Uo , • Jn Hifior'tcd Treatife of Trmfuhfantiation^
It appears by thefe words, that S. Gregory lookt upon the
AGE iv. Confecrated BrtAd and Wine as figures ot the Body and Blood
of Jefus Chrift: now if they arc figures , then they arc
Gregory ^vlKreof they be figures, and by confequence, there
Nazianz.. jjj Sacrament fomethiog elfe befides the very "Body of
Jefus Chrift, to wit, the jB^-^^u^and WinCf which aretheT);>fx
and/^«rfrof it. For to fay that S. Gregory means only that
the accidents of Bread and Wtne are the Types and figuresj when-
he faith , his Sifter mingled her tears with the yintitypes of the
Body and Blood of Jefus Chrifi, as many as fine could keep in her
hands, Si quid Bntityporum pretiofi Corporis aut Sanguinis
tnanus thefaurtfajfet, thele words , as many as fhe could gather
in her hands y lignify, as many portions and parts of the
Eucharift as (lie could gather up, pauluhm Euchariflia, as
Sufebitu fpeaks in the lixth Book of his Hift. chap. 36. as ha-
ving gathei'd together a little of the Sacrament, and having
fcparated it from a greater Mafs, or from a greater quantity
of liquor. Now all antiquity agree, that the lines, the
fuperficies, the qualities, are infcparable from their fubje^, fo
that this little parcel of u^ntitypes, this parcel of ihe figures,
cannot be apart o[ accidents, and of appearances.
Greg. Nyjf. Gregory Nyjfen going to prove that the Water of Baptifm, for
1» his'Oration being Water, ought not to be defpifed , but that after Confc--
tjtbe Baptif. cration it hath a marvellous Virtue, he proves it by theExample
*f f of the Eucbarifi , and extream V.nBion, " The Bread, faith he,
*' before Confecration is but common Bread, but after Confecration
it is called, and is the Body of Chrififa alfo the Myfiical Oyl,
and Wine, before BenedtHion , are common things, and of no
virtue , but after BenedsHion, both of them have a great virtue.
Now thefe words fhew, that the Bread and Wtne remain after
Confecration •, for it appears that Sr. Gregory^s Defign is to
prove,, that common and ordinary things have a marvellous
force after Confecration, and if the Bread and Wine were de-
ftroy'd after Confecration, what did operate would not be a
vile and mean thing, becaufe it would be the very Body of
Jefus Chrift, and Sr. Gregory would not well have proved
that vile things have any^ marvellous virtue in them after
Cenfecration •, lov Ih^ance, Bread and Wsne, which not-fabfi-
fting after Confecration, could not have the virtue to fanilify.
S. j4mbrofcv
An Hijlor'ical Treatife ofTranJuhJlantiation, it
S. Amhrofe in his Epiftle to Juflut, explaining what ''V—A,-^
Comerlaith, it is a meafure, and that this meafure figni- AGE iv.
fies the quantity of Wine which rejoyces the heart of Man i \>'Arv»
and hav'ng explain'd the Wine, of the drinking Wii'dom, Amhrofe,
Sobriety, and Temperance, he laith, That it is tobeimderfieod^-^'^P'^-.
more fully of the Blood of Jefus Chrifi , which neither admits
increafe, mr decreafe^ as to grace; Bat of which if one receive
more or lefs, the meafure however of Redemption is eqaal to all.
Plenius de fanguine intelligitnr cujus ad gratiam nihil minuitHr^
nihil adaugetary & fi par urn fitmasy f plurhmsm hanriaSy eadem
perfeUa efi afnnibns menfura Redemptionis. This manner of
fpeaking of taking more or lefs of the "SWof J.-lbs Chrift,
is tvoc to be underftood of the proper Body of jefus Chriff,
which is indivifible •, there muft be therefore in the Euchaiift:,
be fides tht proper of Jefus Chrift, a Typical znd Symbolical
Blood, whicn is theW;«e, which is fo called, and of which we
may fay, we receive more or lefs.
The fame Father fiith elfewhere. That as often as we receive id.tom. 4. dt
the SacramentSy which by the virtue of Holy Prayer are transfigured ^A' S«
into the Flejh and Blood of Jefus Chrijly we Jhew forth the Death
of Chrifi. It is certain that by thefe words, S. Ambrofe iookc
upon the Bread and Wine as figures of the FlcJh and Bloods,
now the figure being a thing diftindt from what it reprefents,
as being two correlatives, the one of which is, not the other,
it muft be concluded, that S. Ambrofe believed that there
is Bread ^x\d Wine m th^ Eucharifi, which are the/i^«rej of the
Bread and Heavenly Power.
The fame Father fpeaking of the blefling of Afery explain-Tow. t.
ing thefe Words, y fhur his Bread is fat, he (hall feed •,
faith, Jefus Chrifi who is Afhur , that is rich, has nourifii'd Prin- f
ces. When he multiply'd the five and feven Loaves , and gave '
them to his tyipofiles to difiribnte to the multitude, he every day
gives us this Bread, faith he , when the Priefl doth confecrate :
we may alfo by this Bread underfiand the Lord himjelf ( con-
tinues S. Ambrofe ) who has given us his Flefis to eat. By
thefe words it appears S. Ambrofe diftinguifhes three forts
of Bread which Jefus Chrift gave to thefe Princes; the firft is
that which he gave in multiplying the five and feven
Loaves, John 6. and Mutth* 15. the fecond is the Bread
D z which
21 An Hijlorlcd Treatife of Tranfuhjlantiation,
which the Priefl; confecrates at Mafs; the third is that of
AGE ir. which it is faid, 1 am the "Bread of Life^ which is Jefus Ciirilt
himfelf. As then the fecond is not the fit ft, fo neither is
yjmbroie. fecond the third: The Confecrated Bread is another thing
than Jefus C^rifl, tht Bread of Life-, and by ccnfequence, there
is in the Sacrament a Bread diftinft from Jefus Chriji, the
Heavenly Bread.
Caudemtus. Gaudemius upon Exodm faith , With ^reat reafon we receive
Gaud. Bifhop Bread the figure of the Body of Chriji, becaufe as the
of Brefs, Bread is composed of many grains, which being ground into Flower
"Frefi, 2. is k.t^eaded with Water, and baked by Fire, fo alfo the Body of
Chriji is made and collebled of the whole race of Mankind, and
is perfected by the Fire of the Holy Ghojl. Now as this Author
places the figure of. the Body of Jefus Chrift in that the Bread
is made up of fundry grains, reduced into Meal, kneaded with
Water, and baked with fire ; it follows, that he believed the
Bread remained in the Sacrament, and fo much the rather bccaufe
thisBilhop faith elfewherc,^^«r<« non ejl Veritas fed imitatio veritatis.
(ijryfojlom' Chryfojlom expounding thefc words, I will no more
g drink of this fruit of the vine , until I drink it new in the
l/om. 9^.00 Kingdom of my Father, laith, becaufe Jefus Chriji had fpoke
S. Matth' " to his Difciples of his Faffion and of his Death, siow he fpeakj
to them of his KefurreSiion, making mention of his Kingdom,
** calling his refurreblion by this nameNow wherefore did Jefus
*' Chriji drink, ^f'er his RefurreClion, fearing lejl ignorant per-
^^fons (Iiould think, his RefurreClion was only imaginary , becaufe
many tookthe aSl'^of drinking as a true fign of the RefurreSlion-y
"Therefore the ^pojllesgoing to prove his Refurreblion, fay, we that
have eat and arank^with him, Jefus Chriji. Therefore ajfuring
them that thtj (hculd fee him after his RefurreEiion, and that he
wouldjlay with them, and that they might bearwitnefs of his Re
''^furreElion, might fee and behold him, tells them, 1 will no more
" drink the Fruit of the Vine, until I drin\ it with you in a new
^ manner, whereof you jhall bear tejlimony, for you {hall fee me
" after my RefurreElion-, But wherefore, continues S. Chryfoftom,.
did he drinkWine after his ReftirreElion and not Water F it is be-
caufe he would thereby dejlroy a pernicious Herefy. For becaufe
''^4here would be Hereticks that would only-make ufe of water in
the Myjlerics, be would reprefent the Myjleries •, he gave. Winey
An Hijlorkal Treatife of Tranfuhftmtiation,
and when y after the Refnrreciion y he eat his common Repafl,
" he drank,^ Wtncythe Fruit of the P^ine *, now the f^tne doth produce AGE iv,
an'dnot Water. This Paflage markech in the firft place,
That Jefus Chrift drinking the Fruit of the Fine after his Rc- ^hryj ft
furredion, and not Water, heaccomplifh'd what he faid in
celebrating the Eucharift, I will no more drink^ of thu Fruit of
the Fine y until I drinks it new in my Fathers Kingdom. This
(hews that Jefus Cnrifl drank true Wine in the Inflitutioa
of the Eucharifi , for what is to be done again , rauft needs
be done before. Secondly, St. Chryfoflom doth not only fay
that Jefus Chrill: drank Wincy but he faith further, That he
diftributed Wsne amongfthis Difciples, and the Fruit of the
Ftncy which doth not produce Water but Wine. So that thefe
words of St. Chryfofom import clearly, That the Wine re-
mains in the Eucharifi.
The fame Father on thefe words of the Firfl: to the Corin- Fm H
thiansy The Bread which we break, it it not the Communion of the
Body of Chrifi ? ( fpeaks thus ) What is the Bread f it is the
Body of Jefus Chrifi. What becomes of them which receive it ?
they become the Body of Jefus Chrif. Now this Propofition,
The Bread is the Body of Jefus Chrifi, cannot be in a Li-
teral Senfe, for faith Fafquez., The Bread without a Figure,
cannot he called the Body of Jefus Chrifi , nor the Body of Jefus
Chrifi be called Bread.
The fame Father in his Commentary upon the Epiftle to
the Galatiansy Chap. 5. explaining thefe words of the J^poftle,
The Flefij lufieth againfi the Spirit, and the Spirit againfi the
FtejhThe Mariicheans underftood by the Flefi, the fub'
fiance of the Body, and by the Spirit they underftood the
Soul; and they faid, That the Apoftle cut Man into two,
and intimated, that Man was compos'd of two contrary
Subftances, one bad, which was the Flelh^ and the other
good, which was the Spirit, which proceeded from the
good God , and the Body from the bad God. <5. Chry^
fofiom anfwers, That the Apoftle in this place doth not
call the Flefli the Body, zAtpofiolum non hie carnem appel-
Ure Corpus, as the Manicheans fuppofed, and faith , That
the Apoftle do's not always mean by the Flefh, the nature
of the Body, JTaturam Corporis, but that V-ery often by the
Bejh^
An Hftcr'icd Tre^ufe of TranfuhJlantUtion,
f/^jIj , he means fomething elfe , as evil Defiret \ and
AGE iv. having proved this by fundry pallagcs of the Apoftle, and
other holy Writers, he proves it at laft by the example
Chryfo(iom. gf the 1 ucharift, and of the Charch , which, he faith, is
called Body in the Koly Scriptures ^ he faith farther.
That the Scripture is wont to call by the narae of Flejli,
as well the Church, as the Myfieries, fa\ing, It is his
Body 1 Rurfitm Carnis vocahulo Scriptura folet apptlUre turn
A^yfteria, turn lotnm Ecckfiam, Jkens earn Chrifti Corpus ejfe. It ap-
pears by thefe words of Sc. Chryfo/tcm's, That he did not be-
lieve that the Confecratcd Bread and IVine were the fame
with the Body of Chnfi, feeing he proves by the Eucharifi,
that the ^orfccrated Bread and Wine are c^lled. Fltpj-, rnd
that the Vv^ord FUjh in this place, is taken for fome-
thing elfe befides Body, and that he puts tlie Term Flejh,
given to the Confecrated Bread and Wine , which are the
Myfteries, in the tank of other Terms of Fklh given to
evil Deftres, and to the Church, vhith are n.yftical and
figurative Terms. So St. Chryftfiom believed the Bread and
iVine remained, and are fo called the Body of Jefus Chrift
myfiically , as the Church is called the Body of JefuS
Chrift.
The fame Sr. Chryjofiom wrote a Letter to C^farius, which
indeed is not inferted in his Works, but is found in Ma-
nufcript in the Library at Florence, and it was alfo found
in England in ty^rchbifhop Cranmer's Library , it is men-
tion'd in the Bibliotheca Patrum , Printed M Collen, i6i8.
in this Bihlintheque , Tom. 4. there is found the Colledi-
ons of an ancient namelcfs Author, who wrote againft the
Severian, and Acephalian Hereticks, wherein is recited a
PalTage taken out of this Letter. So alfo Monfieur de Marca
Arch-Bilhop of Paris, acknowledges the truth of this Let-
ler in his Pofihume and French Treatife of the Euchanfi-,
witnefs the Abbot Fagget in his Letter to Monfieur de
Marca, Prcfident of the Parliament at Pan , who faith alfo
th's Letter was found by Monfieur Bigot in a Library at
Florence. St. Chryfofiom in this Letter writeth againft Apol-
Unarius , and faith, " Jcftt Chrift: is both God and Man,
*"X)od btcaufie of his Irnpafibility, Man by his Pajfion, one Son,
An Hijlorical Treatife of TruufSfantiAtion.
" one Lardy both Natures united makjng but one, the fame Fowerf
*' the fame Lominion although they be trvo different Naturesy AGE iv,
each confervas i.s ow« Nature , beeaufe they are two, and yet
without confufion *, for as the Bread before it it fanidfftd, is
" called Bread, when by the intercejfion of the Priejt, Divine
" Grace has fanEhfed it, it lofes the name of Bread , and be-
" comes worthy to be called the 'Body of Jefus Chrifi, at-
though the Nature of Bread abides in it, fo that they are
*' not two Bodies, but ore fole Body of the Son •, fo the Di-
" vine Nature being united to the Humane Nature of Jefus
Chrifi , it did not mak,e two Perfons, but one only Per fan and
one Son,
Sr. Chryfofiom faith plainly, That the Nature of Bread a-
bideth afcer Confecration y and this Father's Argument would'
be of no validity , if this nature of the Bread was no-
thing but in fbew , for Apollinarius might have made ano-
ther oppofite Argument, and fay, That indeed it might
be fa id there were two Natures in Jefus Chrift , but that
the Humane Nature was only in appearance, as the Bread-
in the Eucharifi is but in fiew, and hath only outward
and vifible qualities reraaiaing^ in it, whereby it is term'd
to be Bread*
The Author of the imperfeifl Work upon Sr., Matthew This Author
written in the time of the Emperour Theodofius, did not goes under
believe Tranfuhflantiation , when he fpake in thefe Terms In
Homily Eleventh , Jf it be dangerous to emjrloy the holy Nef .
feds about common ufes , wherein the true Body of Jefus Chrifi
is not contain d, but the Mylleries of his Body*,' how much
rather the P^ejfsls of our Bodies, which Cod has prepared to
dwell is.
'Tl:CLt
26 An Hiftorkal Trenttfe of Tranfuhfiantiatlon,
Thctt the Fathers of the Fifth Century
w^-v-s# did not helkye Tranfubftantiation.
S.Jerom. Q Jerom in his JEpiftle to EHfiochium fpeaking of^Vir-
i3* gins, faith, That when they were reproved for Drun-
kennels, they excus'd themfelves by adding Sacriledge to
Drunkennefs, faying, God forbid thAt 1 (hould ah fain from the
Blood of the Lord.
ft appears by In the Second Book againfb Jovinian it is faid , The Lord
tliefe words, in the Type of his Blood, did not offer Water , bat Wine.
that they im- yhefe vvords are indeed Jovinian s, but St. Jerom finds no
them. For he himfelf faith the fame , upon
that there' 3^ Chapter of , Verf. 12. on thefe Words,
was true ran after Goas Great ares., the Wheat, the Wine , and the Oyl,
wine in the fj^g j^Yead, and the Wine, faith he, whereof is made the
becaufe they "f Lord^ and wherein is accompli(hed the Type of his
fay. That "Blood. Now faith St. Ambrofe *, The Type is not the Truth^
fhould they but it is the Jhadow of the Truth. There muft then be in
abfiainfrom the Eucharift, Bread and Wine y diftintft from the Body
rnulTabftdn Chrift, to be the Types and Figures
alfo from the it*
Blood of the The fame Father in his Letter to Hedihia, Let us hear.
Lord. that the Bread which the Lord broke and gave his Difciples
*Defide I. 2. Lord*s own Bodyy fayingy Take, Eat, This is my Body y
and a little after he faith , If the Bread that came down from
Heaven is the Body of the Lord, and the Wine which he difiri-
bated among his Difciples his Blood, &C.
St. Jerom laith, That Jefus Chrift brake and diftributed Bread
to his Difciples, that he gave them Bread, and that the
Bread and Wine were his Fle(h and Blood. It cannot then be
faid, That what Jefus Chrift gave in communicating his Di-
fciples was not Bread and Wine •, and when he faith, both the
one and the other was his Body and Bloody it cannot beun-
derftood but onlylffguratively j for we fee above in St. Cy-
prianf
JmHiflm'icnl Treatife cf Tranfubfl^itmatiom tT
frU» i that the Jefuites Salmtrm and Reilarmme, do confels,
That if JcfusCbrift faid of the Bread, This is my Body^ it muft
be meant, Tlds Bread is the Figure of my Bodyy the one not be-
ing capable of being.the other brtt figuratively: And the Reafon —1-^ ^
is given hyiTafcjutx.-, when he faith^ If the Promun^ This^ in
the words of Cenfecration be underfiood of. the Bread) undoubtedly by
virtue of it, there can be wrought no Tranfubfiantiation, becanfe of
necefuy tke Bread, mufi needs remain ^ Si Pronomen hoc in Hits
verbis demon fir aret panem ■, fatemur fore ut'nulla converfio vit'
thte ilhrum fieri foffet) quia panis de quo entmciatur manere debeat.
The fame Stjerom in his Commentary, upon the 26 Chapter
of Sr. Matthew-i faith, Jefus Uorifi having eaten the Pafchal Lamby
took^ Bread which ftrengthens the Heart of Man, and proceeded to
the accomplifiment of the Sacrament of the true Baffover y that as
Jlielchifedeck^had offered Bread and'Wine in Figure ^ he alfo him'
feJf would, reprefent the truth of his Budy.
According to this Father, the Bread and Wine , reprefent
the Bjody and Blood of Jefus Cbrift, and therefore are not pro-
perly and truly the Flefh and Blood of Jefus Chrift, but are
fometbing ellebefides them, ancFi by confequence remain in the
Sacrament. For to fay, as fhe Author of the Second Book of
the perpetuity of the Faith of the Eucharifb doth againft Monfieur
Claude, that St. Jerom means by reprefentingy to make a thing
beprefinty we-before. refuted this Fancy, in TertulUan y who
fpcaks juft as St. Jeroffi .• And the-terms fufficicntly declare,
that St,meaning is. That Jefus Chrift made ufe of
Bread and Winci to fignifie cLnd'fitew forth h'lS Body and Blood, as
Adelchifede'ck^ hzd donethat is tofay, as he had reprefented both
the, one and the other by the Oblation of Bread and Wine.
St. adufiin in his Sermon to the newly Baptized, which it's sfffAufin
true is not found in his other Works, but was prcferv'd and is '
cited by, *' St. Fulge»ms <de Baptifmo «^thiop. Cap. 7. " What
you fee, faith he, upon the. aihar of God, you faw alfo the laff
Night J hut you were.,»otyet aware of how great a thing it is a
" Sacrament, That which you fee u Bread, and a Cup of Wine,
and it is alfo what your Eyes declare unto yow, but what your
Faith (hould infiru^'you in, is, That the B^ead is the Body of
JefusX^rifiy and the Cup his Blood.- If you.tell me, Jefus Chrifi -
is born f he was crucified, he was burled, he-rofe agaittf and is
aft^ndidiinto Heaven i whither he hasxarryd his Body, and is
E
iS An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfuhfiantiation.
prefefjt on the right hand of God, from whence he (hall come t9
A G E V. judge the quicksand the dead, how then can the Bread be his Body,
"■ and the Cup his Blood? thtfe things,my Brethren, are called Sacra-
- cc ments,hecanfe one thing is feen in them,and another thing is under-
flood by them? what is feenhath-a Corporeal Subflancewhat is
"■ mderflood hath a Spiritual Fruit. If then you defire to underfland
what the Body of Jefus Chrifl is, hearken to the Apoflle which
faith,Tou are the Body of Chrifl and his Members: If then you
" are the Body of Jefus Chrifl and his Members, it is the Myflery
*' of what you are, which is upon the Holy Table , it is the Myflery-
of the Lord, which you receive', in faying Amen, you anfwer
" and fuhfcribe to what you are. All you that are united in Charity,
you make but one Body of Jtfus Chrifl , of which you are the
** Members , which is what is flgnified by the Bread composed of
fiveral Grains, and by the Wine which is made of fundry Grapes.
For as Bread to be made a viflble Species of Bread, is made of
" fundry Grains colleSled together in one, and the Wine, &C.
Sr. yduH-in St. Auflin laith, That the Bread is the Body of Chrifl, which
cannot be but improperly and fguratively , as hith been fhewed
above; for by Confedion of Roman ^atholic\ Doftors, every ■
Propolition that faith of the Bread,,Thcii it is the Body, mult
needs be typical figurative* —
He fiith what is feen is Bread,z% our Eyes declare to iis; now
what our Eyes report to us is true Bread,as when one fays, W hat
you fee is true Gold, and Silver,ox Marble, and 'tis what your Eyes
teflifie, that is to fay. That one fees rr«e Gold, and true Marble,
and that one makes nfe of their Eyes to confirm it.
In the fame fenfe he faith •,-That Jefus Chrifl: although in
Heaven, yet the Bread is the Body, and the WirieXbk Blood, be-
caufe they are the Sacraments of it.
He faith, What one fees hath a bodily fpecies y now in this Paf-
fage, bodily fpecies, he means the very Subflanee,and not the Ac-
cidents. For he faith afterwards, fpeaking of Bread in general, as
Bread to be a vifible fpecies of Bread, muft: be made of fcveral
Grains reduced into one lump y now by the fpecies of Bread, it
is plain, Sr. Auflin there means true Bread, and a true Subflance.
Hefaith, What youyof,is and aC«p; now by Cup, he
doth not mean the appearance of a Cup, he means a true Cup. ' He
faith this Bread is the Myflery of the Lord. Which is nothing
elfe, but that 'tis Figure of the Lord, as when he faith, This
Bread
An Hijloricanreatife of TrwifuhflantUtion, 29
Ertad is the Myfiery of Believers, A4yfterinm veftrum in Menfa
Domini accifitis. That is to fay, 1 hat the Bread and W<wA.G E v.
are the Fsgnre of Jefus Chrift, as they are the Myf teal Body of
Jefus Chrill. To conclude, St. ylufiin faith, The Faith ot the _ - ~
New-baptized was to be ftrengtliciied; it was therefore here
the proper place for him to have faid , That the Bread was na
more Breadj that the Wine was no longer Wine, but that there
remained only the Occidents of the one and the other.
The fame Holy Father anfwering bUhop Boniface, whode-£^, 2j. ad
fired to know how it might be faid of an Infant newly Baptis'd, sonif.
he hath Faith,he Believes, who is incapable of believing, and of
whom no aflurance can be given what he will be afterwards •, he
faith, That as every Sunday, and Eajfer Day , is called Eafier,
and the BefitrreBlion, although the Lords Eafier , and RefurreBtion,
are things happened feveral Agespa(l', fo it may be faid. An Infant
hath Faith, becaufe he hath the Sacrament of Faith, For, faith he, tf
the Sacraments had not fome refemblance with the things whereof
they are Sacraments , they would be no Sacraments ^ as therefore m
fome fort the Sacrament of the Body of Jefus Chrifi is the Body of
Jefus Chrifi, and the Sacrament of his Blood, is the Blood of Chrifi,
fo alfo the Sacrament of Faith , is Faith', now to believe , is nothing
elfe hut to have Faith,
He faith, The Eucharifi is called Flefis and Blood, becaufe it is
both the one and the other in fome fort; now according to
St. Gregory Nyfien, What is not truly that by the name by which it Dt Op if. I. i,
is called, is hut figuratively or improperly that by the name whereof' *5*
it is called. Now that the Bread and Wine which are the Sacra-
ments of the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrifb, are his Body and 'did-
Blood in fome fort, fecundum ejuendam modum, it follows, T\\ztiir,illud aha-
Bread and Wine are not properly the F/fjh and Blood, and by five appdUti-
confcquence, are n»t Tranfubfiantiated. Moreover St. Auflin'ff*
doth explain the Manner according to which the Eucharifi is
th^Body and 'Blood of Chrilt, and he Ihews it, by reafon that
generally the figns are called by the name of the things they
ftgnifie, not that they are the things they fignifie, hut becaufe they
are the figns, and that they have fome refemblance to them.
The fame Father upon the third Pfalm, admires the Patience
of Jefus Chrift that bore the Treachery of Judds to the end,
although he was not ignorant of his Thoughts, and admitted
him to the Banquet, at which, faith St. Aufiin, Jefus Chrift
E 2 rccom-
Aa ffifhrktil Treatifi "df T'ranfuhflantuttion.
recommended and gave to his Difciples, the .Figure or T^/^/nof
0^ Sanguinis fui'FigHram Difcifulis commendavit & tradidit* Nevt
the Figure is not 'the Fr^th, hut the Imitation of the Verity.^ faith.
Gandsntius in 'Exod. Tratlatu 2. Moreover, St. ^uftin
cannot find in the Scriptures, that Jefus Chrift in inftituting the
Sacrament, gave to his Difciples the Figure of his 'Body and
Blood, but in thefe words, Take., Eat^ This is my Body, Thts
is my Blood., he muft then underftand thefe words of the IiJti-.
tution, in a figurative fenfe. And according to the fame
D/a/'® ^ which (Ijews it felf to the Senfes., and he-
Signm tfi' (hewsfomething elfe to the Mind"., It muflthen follow,
quad ftipfum That the Sign is a thing which remains, to Ihew it felf.
feofibus, The fame Father difputing againft the-iJ^ani-
freter fi aii. f-hean, Ghap. 12. and againft the Adverfary of the Law and
Thndir"" Prophets, in the Second Book, Cap. 6. who faid, The
Blood is the Soul, as is faid, Deuteronom. 12. and by confe-
quence, that Men killed the 5c«/when they fhed Blood. -S. jiu-
fiin replies, That this Precept in Deuteronomy, That Blood
mufl not be eat., 'becaufe 'tis the Soul, is a Precept that muft
he underftood as many other things contained in tlie Scri-
ptures, which are to be taken in Types, and Figuresy lllud
praceptum poficum effe dicimus Jicut alia multa dr pene omnia
Scripturarum illarum Sacramenta ftgnis c^figuris plena funt. And
concludes towards the end of that Chapter, That the
'Blood is the Soul, as the Roek^ was Chrifl , Sanguis efi jinima
e^uomodo petra erat Chrijlus. And upon Lrfirtcw , Q^fi. $0^.
The thing which fignifies, is wont to he called by the name of the
thing fignifed, as 'tis written, the jRock Chrifl : For 'tis
not faid, "The Rock.^ fls^nif'd Chrifl , hut as if it were that which
indeed it was not in fubflance , hut only in flgniflcation. And as
in the beginning of the Chapter he faith, That it mufl he
underflood in the Sign, Jefus Chrifl making no difficulty to
fay. This is my Body , when he gave the Sign of his Body. San-
guts efl Anima , praceptum illud efl in flgno pofltum , non enim
Dominus dubitavit dicere, Hoc efl Corpus meum, cum daret fignum
Corporis fui. Seeing then St. eAsiflin doth fay, That the
Blood is the Sotd, as the Rock^ was Chrifl^ and as the Euchar^
is the Sign of Jefus Chrift, he muft of neceffity have under-
ftood the Words of Inftitution of the Sacrament, in a figura-
tive
.'An SlifiorkM Treatife of Tmifuhjiantiation,
tiveTenfe-, rather, becaufe this manner
of fpeoch, Jefiis Chrifi made'no di^culty, plainly Ihews , that
Jefus Chrift did not I'peak in a ftofcr but in a. fiinrative fenfe^
as Fult^entiMi -faith-, AlthdHgh the Apoftk faith, That Jefis
Chrifi is the Head of the- Body of the Church, neverthelefs he makps
no Scruple to call Refits Chrifi the Church, which u his Body.
This manner ot fpeech is'never ufed in proper expreflions: no
Body will fay, Jefus Chrift made no difficulty to gwtCold,
or Water, if it were true Gold Or Water which he gave.
The fame holy Defhiz- faith-in feveral places after the Apoftle,
That the Bread in the Sacrament after Confecration , is bro-
ken, and difiributed-, and be doth very well recommend this
breaking the Bread, as being a great myftcry. In his Epiftle
to PaulinuSf he fai;b. In that Jefus Chrifi was known by the two D/f.
tiples in breaking the Bread, no body ought to quefiion but this
breaking was the Sacrament whereby Jefus Chrifi brings us] all
to the knowledge of his Perfon. A little before be faith By the
Prayers, we mean thofe which are faid before one begins to blefi
what is upon the Lords Table. Tne Prayers are faid when that
which is on the Lords Table is blefsed, fandifyed , and
diftributed. In his Epiftle to t'afulanus hs faith of S. Paul,
that in the night time he went to break. Bread, as it is broken
in the Sacrament of his "Body, in his Commentary upon the
firft Epiftle of S. John, It was very reafonable that Jew
fns Chrift recommending his Flelh, broke Bread, and it was
veryjuft that the Difciples knew him in breaking of Bread.
In the 140. Sermoa de temp, and in the Horn. Of the con-
fent of Evangelifts, lib.3.c. 25. and de diverfts, Serm.87.he faith,
W/tere would Jefus Chrifi be known ? In the breaking of Bread. We
are then fecttre t, we break Bread, and we know the Lord. If then
after confecration we'break Sreu^slto diftribute, then ofneceffity
the ^nrji-^'muft remain; for to fay that 'tis the-accidents which
■are broken, and difiributed, S. Anfiin doth fay the contrary, wheii
he affirms, that one and difiributes what is on the Table,
"being bleffied and fanHiffd. Now to blefs and fanliify, one (hall
-never find to have (ignifi'd to defiroy, and change the fubfi'ance.
The fame Doctor in feveral places does always call tlie
E'Dcharifl", the Sacrament of Bread and Wine, he faith, S. Paul
doth teach the^fiity of the Church in the Sacrament 0/Bread,
when he faith, We are all one Bread, and one Body. In the
queftions
AGE V.
Sr. Audin.
Aii Monym. I.
2.C. 10..
cu-n EltSlionis
Fas dicit quia
Chriflus caput
ejl CiTporis EC'
clefia, ipjum
tamen carpus
Chrifi non dw
bitat Chriftus
veraciter ap-
ptUare.
Ad Pau'in.
Ep. ss>.
Ep.S6.
TriB. 2.
Dl Ccttfinfu
Evangilijl. /.
9.f.2 5.
I, ;
1; II
i'l,
i!, ■ ■
!.|!' I'';
al
An Hijlorical Treatifs of Tranfuhjlantiation.
rV.A./^ qiKftions upon the Evangelifts, he faith, Jefus Chrift by the
AGE Sacrament oj Wine y recommends his Blood. In his Books againft
FastfiuSy xfe are very far from doin^ what the Heathens did for
Sr. Aufiin. their Godsy Ceres and Bacchus, although xvehave a ceremony of
/. t. q. 45. celebrating the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. Jslow to what end
I. 20. f. I J. were it to cak the Euchartfi a Sacrament of Bread and Winty if
there did not remain Bread and Wine after Confecration ? for
what means this manner of fpeech, the Sacrament of Bread
and Wine, but the Bread and Wme which is the Sacrament ?
As when the Apoftie faith, Rom. 4. v. 11. the fign of Circumd-
fion. What clfe doth this import, but the Circumcifton which is
theyi^w? WhsnTertulliande Baptifmo, calls, Baptilm Sacramefi-
turn aqua nofira: What elfe can that mean, but our Water which
is a Sacrament ? When S. jduflin upon S. John Traft, 11. faith.
The fgure of the Sea, figura Maris •, What more can this fignify,
but the Sea v/hich is the^^»rf ? When it is frequently faid, the
Sacrament of the Eiicharifiy what elfe can that import, but the
Eucharifb which is a Sacrament ?
Ptic quidem Father in his 5 2 Sermon, de verbis Dominialmoji
Sicrimtntm call the Sacrament the Body of Jefus Chrifl, Now if the Bread
omits corpus were the real Body of Jefus Clirilt,wherefore fhould S. Aafiia ob-
ijus dicunt. ferve that all called it the Body ofjelus Chrift ? For one cannot
make fuch a remark, but when one faith of a thing, that 'tis that
which properly it is nor. It would be ridiculous to fay, almoft all
callL'tvw 14 King-,&the reafon isjbecaufe 'tis not ftrange that per-
fons (hould be called by their names-.but on the contrary, it is very
ftrange,to call one by a name that doth not at all belong to him.
The hmz Father \xi his 26. Treatife upon S. John, going
to (hew upon thefe words of the Apoftie, They did all eat the
fame Spiritual meat, and drinks the fame Spiritual drink^'. The rela»
tion and difference there is betwixt the Sacraments of the old
and new Teftament, faith, The Fathers did eat the famefpiri-
tual food as we do, not the fame corporal food as we do \ becaufe
they did eat Manna, and as for us, we eat fomething elfe; They
drank, the fame fpiritual drink, we do, the fame as to the fignifica-
tion, but different as to viftble and outward kind. And upon S.John,
Treatife 45. If you conjider the vifiblefpecies, it was another drink,
if you confider what was fignify d by their drink, and ours, it was
one and the fame thing. Si fpeciem vifibilem intendas aliud ejb,
fi intelligibilem jignificationem , eundem' potum fpirituaUm biberunt.
And
An Hiflorkal Tr eatife of Tranfuhfantlation. ^ ^
And upon the 77, Their food was the very fame with ours,
the fame as to what it pgnify'd, hut dtjferent in kind. Idem A G E v,
myfierto cihtts illorum qui nofier j Sed pgnifcatione idem^ non fecie,
7 his reafoning does Ultimate, That the Fathers under the old —
Teftamcntdid, and we now do eat a corporal food, and that
we drink a corporal liquor.Now by, this corporal meat and drink,
we miifl; underftand either the accidents oi Bread and Wine,
or the Bod-^ and Blood of Jefus Chrift, or the Bread and Wme
it felf. It cannot be fpoken of the firft, becaufe the accidents
of Bread and Wine are only qualities, or dimetiftons; now
qualities and dimenfions are not corporal. The quality is fomc-
thing which is incorporeal, faith Nemeftus, of the Soul i as
concerning dimenfions, S. Auflin de genep ad liter am, faith, fVe
call that a Body which taketh up fome fpace by its length, by its
breadth , and by its depth, NemepMS gives the reafon of it, be-
caufe, faith he, nothing that is immaterial is a Body, for all Bodies
are material. There being'nothing matciial then in the Eutha.
rift, as is fuppos'd, there being nothing that takes up place,
that is large or long, or deep-. There is nothing corporeal in
the Sacrament, and by confequence, nothing that can be ter-
med corporal meat or drink. Moreover, when Jefus Chrift
fpeaks of corporal nourifhmentand drink in the Eucharift, as
the Fathers under the old Teftaraent had done, he fpeaks of
bodily meat and drink, S. did not underftand the cor-
poral meat and drink fpoke of by the Fathers of the old Tefta-
nient, to be only the accidents of one and the other, fo that
S. Jufiin fpeakihg in the fame terms of bodily meat and drink,
in relation to that of the Antients, he did not mean meer acci-
dents or qualities. TheBodyof Jefus Chrifi nor his Hood, c^n-
not be this corporal nourilhment which S. Auftin compares to
that of the Fathers under the Law; for by bodily meat and drink
which he faith we receive in the Eucharifb, hemeansa vifible
fubjeft, aliud illi, aliudnos,fed fpecie vijihiliy fifpeciem vifthilem inten-
das, aliud efi* It remains then that in S. .<^;y/?/'«'s ftnfe, we un-
derftand by the corporal nature the Eucharift the-vipble
Bread, the vifible Wine, and nottheir qualities rtnd accidents.
The fame Father in the third Book of the Trin. cap. 10.
fpeaking of things that are taken to fignify, faith, a thing^is
taken to fignify, either after fuch a manner, as that the thing (hould
fubftfl and remain fome time, as did the Braz.en Serpent, lift up in
the
34 4n HifimealTn4tife^of
the Wildernefsf or At do the letters of the /lifhAhtt^ or infujch 4 man-
A G E V. fjff tofignify is not to fnljijl Any long timty hut is
topafsaway and he defirof dvthcnthething 'tis to re^refentispajfed
—^ —away, as the Bread of the Sacrament y which being taken to jigmfy
pajfeth away and is conftsmed in receiving the Sacrament. S. ylufiin.
there faith, That , the Bread of the Sacrament which is taken to
lignify, paiTeth and is confumed in receiving the Sacrament;
Now if the Bread be deltroyed and Tranfubftantiated by thefe
words, This is my Bodyy then it, paiRthnot away, and isnot
confumed in the ad of receiving,
The fame Dodor in the feventeenih Of the City of God
— faith, T0 eat Bready is in the New Xefiament the facrifice of Chri-
fiiansy and againft the Enemyof the Law.l, 7. c. 20. Thofey
faith he, which read know what BMcloifedeck^ offered where he
buffed Jbrahamy and thofe which are partakersy fee that the like
facrifice is now offer d through all the World. How is it that the
Sacrifice of Chriftians, is to \{ the Bread do not re-
main ? How is it that communicating, one is partaker of what
Melchifedeck^ o?[ec'dy if in communicating, one do not receive
neither nor*f7w?
The fame Father in the third Book againft Parmeniany re-
proving the Donatiffs for forfaking the Church, tells them,\
S. Cyprian, and the other Bilhops, did not feparate themfelvcs
becaufe they would not communicate with covetous perfons,
andUfurers', but that on the contrary, they did eat with them the
Bread of the Lord, and drank, his Cup, This palTage Ihewcth,
that when S. .Auffin faid to the new Baptifed, as hath been
(hewn, thatthcjBrfrfii is the ofjefus Chrift, it could not
be underftood but fguratively: for here the Bread is faid to be
of the Lord -y now faith S. Athanafms, that which is another's'
is not that other himfelf, to whom it belongs. Idquodali-
cujus efy nen idipfum eft cujus eft. And S. Auftin ell'ewhere
diftinguilheth betwixtr> the which belongs to the Lord,
u Join. and the which is the Lord. Speaking of and the
'iria. 5?- other Apollles, he faith of theApoItles, they ate the Bread
which was the Lord *, and of Judas, He did eat the Bread of the
Lord againft the Lord; they ate life, he Death •, for 'tis faid by
S. Paul, That he which eatethmwoxthily, eateth hit own judgment
and condemnation' Seeing then that the Eucharift is diftinguilh'd
from the Lord, it neceflarily follows, That Bread remains in
the-Sacrament after Confecration. Thcw
"An Hiflorical Treatife of Tranfuhfiantiation. 5 5
The fame Father in his 93 Sermon of the_ Words of our Lord,
faith) ' 7he Lord gave to his Difciples the BleJJed Sacrament ivith his ^
« ovin hands, hut we were not at the Banquet; neverthelcfs by Faith we
' daily eat the fame Supper; and do not think that it had been any great pt- Augujtm-
^advantage to have been prefent at that Supper that he gave with his
* own hands to his Difciples, without Faith-, Faith afterwards was of
* greater advantage than treachery was then j St. Paul who believed,
^was not there prefenty and Judas who betrayed his ALaJler, was pre-
*fent. How many be there now that come to the Ccmmussion, that at-
* tho they did not fee that Table, arsd tho they never faw with their Eyes,
* nor tafied with their Talate, the Bread which the Lord held in his
* hands, neverthelefs, becaufe the fame Supper is Jlsll prepared, do there
^eat and drink their own Damnatun? It plainly appears, That the
Brerfi/which St. faith our Saviour had in his hands during
the Sacrament, ^19% true Bread, becaufe St. faith, That thofe
who at prefent participate of the Sacrament, do not Tap, nor Eat
the Bread which our Saviour held in his hands, and which he diftri-
buted, and of which the Difciples did formerly eat.
The fame Father teaching that the Good might participate of Lib. Con. Do-
the Divine Sacraments with the Wicked, faith, Judas and Peter had nat.c. 6. de
each of them a part of the fame Bread, which they received at the fame 'Pfo qu'Ppe
hand of the Lord j and neverthelefs what fociety or likenefs was there
betwixt Peter and Judas ? In the 7th Chap, the wicked and the good Manu"'^c.
hear the fame [Ford of God , do partake of the fame Sacraments, and
eat the fame holy nouriflment. Now what is this holy Food ? U'hat
is this Bread, whereof one receives one Portion, and another, ano-
ther Fart ? Are they Accidents ? But Accidents are neither Bread nor
Food. It is not the real Body of Jefus Cbrift, for it cannot be re-
ceived by Parcels -, it muft then be true Bread which remains after
Confecration, and which is, as is faid before, Blejfed, SanBijied,
and Broke in Pieces on the Holy Table to be diftributed. Benedicitur'
& SanBificatur, & ad difiribuendumcomminuitur. "
The fame Dodior in Ep. 1 zo. fpeaking of the Rich in oppofition Et ipfiquidcm
to the Poor, of whom it is faid, That they fbaU eat and be fatisfied. addu^i funt
Taefe Rich Terfcns , faith St. Auflin, have been brought to the Lords Menfam
Table , and receive from his hand^ his Body and Blot^d, but tf^ey only
adore, and are not fatisfed. For jiifb as St. Ambrofe dijftjnguifheth.
hetwixt drinking the Wine, Finum bibere\ and dririWhg r/;'the-
Wine, de Vino bibere that is to fay, to tafl: of a little Wine, de
ejus portiohe libare: fo alfo Sti Auflin his Difciple, diftingnifheth
F betwixt
3 ^ An Hifioricat Treatife of Tranfuhftantiationl
betwixt receiving the Body and Blood of the Lord, accipere Corpus
• & Savgu'tnum Domini^ and to receive of the Body and Blood of the
Lord , Accipere de Corpore & Sanguine Chrijli. St. Aufiin explains
——himlelf more fullyp when he faith in his 86/^ Epifi. That one re-
ceives in the Eucharift a Portion of the Body of the immaculate
Lamb, De Agni immaculatt Corpore partem fumere: And in the
Sermon on the V\'ords of our Lord, he faith, In receiving the Sa-
crament, we know what we Jljould think of, we receive a little, and
we are fatned in the heart, modulum accipimus & in corde faginamur.
Now that cannot be underftood of xhe proper Body of Jefiis Chrift,
which cannot be received by Parcels; therefore it muft be meant
of Bread, which is the Figure of his Body, or the Sacrament of it.
It is what St. Aufm intends, when he faith, Idee cguando manduca-
mus (when we eat JefuS Chrift) de illo partes facimus •, equidem in
Sacramento fic fit. We do not make Morfels, but it is done in Sa-
crament, that is to fay, That we break and divide the S/£» and the
Bread, which' is the Sacrament.
The fame Father faying that the Accidents cannot in any wife
fubfift without their Subjell, faith in his rd Book of Soliloquies,
Chap. 12. PVhat can reconcile what you demand ? Or who can think
it pojjible to be done, that that which is in a SubjeSi Jhould remain, the
SubjeB it [elf ceafing to be ? For "'tis a thing mcnflrous, and very far
from the Truth, that that which deth not fubffi, if it be not in a Sub jell,
can be, the Subject it felf not remaining. Alfb in the i t^th Chap, i c^th
Book, and in the Book of the Immortality of the Soul, Chap. y. The
SubjeB being changed, of necefftty all that was in the Subjeti muft be
changed. In the 8fi&Chap. What is not of it felf, if it be abandoned
by that by which it is, muft undoubtedly ceafe to be. Alfo in the i cth
Chap, and in the Book of Categories, fpeaking of Accidents, A colour
cannot be without a Subjell' And in the Epiftle to Dardanus, Take
away the Bodies from the qualifies of Bodies, they will have no place
to remain in, and by confequer.ee it is neceffary that they cannot be. And
againft Julian,- Chap. y. It^s true, faith St. Aufiin, that the things
that are in a SubjeB as the qualities are, cannot be without the SubjeH
wherein they are,as the colour or form,SiC. It's impofliblejhad St.Aufiin
believed that the Bread did not remain in the Eucharifi after Con-
fecration, that he fhoiild have efteemed that abfurd and ridiculous
which happened every day. It alfo feems that St. Aufiin had been
too wide, when he doubts in the i ^6th Ep. to Conjentius-, Whether
Jefus Chrift has Blood, when he faith on the qSr^ Pfalm, Tou jhall
i'" not
'W Ccr^iii
Softie
itilBIMOJa;
iiilintti{j;i!
''"^l ill St
'"liith, a
KiisQiS,
iftijeuG,-:
wmoli
Wltukt
'fiimti
MinSs-
»and (if
in wife
Ap,
'fmiHi k
Ivtrjls
iSdjiSf
ip.
j,^.il)t
Wi«
•kicd
Jiikur
, U
0 tl/ll
:. And
tlitp
khjili
Jup
Con-
:iito
jte:
leiiet
III
'An Hiftorical Treatife of Trayifuhjlantiation, 3 7
not eat this Body which you fee, nor (hall drink this Blood, which thofe
that fhall crucify me fhall fsed, I ha've given ycu a Sacrament, &C. A G E v.
And in the loth Book againft Faujius, The Fiefs and Blood of this
Sacrifice was promifed by Sacrifices of refemblance before the coming of Augujttne.
fiefus Chrifi ; It was given by the verity in the Vajfion ofifefus Chrtfi;
after the Afcenficn of Jefus Chriff, it is celebrated by the Sacrament of
Commemoration.
To conclude, St. Aufin in his 5 g J Sermon on the Words of our
Lordy having faid, as hath been feen before, .That of things which
are put to fignify, there are feme that are to remain, others to be
deftroy'd, when the Miniftry of their Signification is accomp!i(h*d;
as the Bread of the Sacrament; he adds, But becaufe thefe things
are obvious to men, as being praBic'd by Men, they may dejerve our
Veneration, as being Holy and Religious things ; but they cannot caufe
any wonder in us, as if they were miraculous. Certainly if St. Aufiin
had held Tranfubfiantiation, as it comprehends many things repug-
nant to natural Reafon, which are fo many aftonithing Miracles,
St. Aufiin could not have faid, That the Sacraments, wherein he in-
eludes that of the Eucharifi, have fomething in them that deferves
our Refpecl and Veneration; but have nothing that deferves our
Aflonifssnent and Admiration, '
Thefe are feme of the Reafons which made Monfieur De Mar- French Poft-
ca, Archbifliop of Prfw, Predeceflfor to him that with fo much hum. Trearife
Reputation now fills the chiefeft See of France, fay, That the Gatho- of the Euch.
lick Dodors are to blame, when they pretend that St. Aufiin ex-
pounded the Text of the Inftitution of the Eucharifi, as it is done
in the Schools. And a little before; that in Sc. Auftinh Divinity,
This is my Body, fhould be expounded in this manner. This Bread is
the Sign and Sacrament of my Body: For according to St. Aufiin,
faith Monfieur De MdrcfZ, The Sre^r^^, to fpeak properly, is but the
Sign and Sacrament of the Body, to which Jefus Chrift made no feru-
pie to give the name of the thing fignified. It is alfo. the Judgment
ofTertuHian, when he faith, When Jefus Chrifi faid, this is my Body,
That is to fay, this is the Figure of my Body ; and faith Monfieur De
Marca, The Reafons that are given to the coritrary, are not fatis-
fadoryi
Bullenger writing againft Cafaubon, recites this paflage of Theo- fhefffffff '
doret, who was a Prieft at Antioch, in the year 4.11. As the King,
faith he, and his Image are not two Kings; fo alfo the perfonal Body of
Jefus Chrifi, which Body is in the Heavens, and the Bread which is
F 2. his
3 S" An Hiftorical Treaiife of Tranfulftaniiation.
his Afitityte^ and is difirihuted to Believers by the frUft, are not tivo
A G E V. It appears by this comparifon, That T^eo^om did believe
the Bread of the Eucharift is fomething elfebefides the Body of
—^Chrift; and by confequence, he believed that there remained
true Bread in the Sacrament, and notBrf<7</in Jhew and appearance
only.
"heodoret, who in the year 415 wp Bifhcp of Cyrus, doth fo ful-
ly explain himfelf hereupon, that th'ere is no doubt to be made of
Dial. 1. his Opinion, He was pleas^'d, faith he, that thofe who participated of
the Divine Myfieries, 'piould not have any regard to the nature of the
things that arefeen; hut that they fhculd believe by the change of Names,
the change that is made by Grace: For having called his Body, Wheat
and Bread, and having called himfelf a Vine, he honours the vifib'e
Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood, not in changing their
Nature, but in adding Grace to their Nature. He could not more
fully exprefs that he did not hold Franfubjlantiation.
Arnobiusjti- Arrrohius the younger, who wrote in the year 431. upon the ^th
nior. Pfalm Qinh , fpeaking of the Sacrament, IVe have received Wheat
Accipimusfru- in the BodyJVine in the Bhofand Oyl in the Chrifm. On the i.-Ld Tfalm,
mentum, t3c. Tfalms: Let lis fee what the Church keep-
fi ^ Table, from which (he gives Bread to Believers;
Eccleftavide- She hath Oyl, wherevvith (he rcfreftieth the Head, in Ubertatem
amus,i3c. confcientia prafumcnti, Scc.
Ot\ Ffalm 103. Wereceive Sre/tibecaufeitftrengthenstheBody;
Accipimus pa- we receive Wwe, becaufe it, rejoyces the Heart; and having re-
nem quod con- ceived double comfort in the Heart, our Faces are made (hine by
prmat,G)c. Qy| of Chrifm. To conclude, on Tfalm 104. he faith thefe
Exuroens a Words, fpeaking of the Lord, lhat the Lord in the Eucharif gives us
Mortuis, (die. the Species of Bread and Wine , as he doth the Species of Oyl in Bap-
tifm-, which cannot be underftood of appearances and Accidents,
as the terms of Species of Oyl cannot be taken for the Accidents and
appearances of Oyl. Moreover, heobferves we receive in the Eucha-
rift Bre.adand Wine, as we receive 0;/in the Holy Chrifm; Now in
the Holy Chrifm, it is true Oyl that we receive", Arnobius then could
not reafbn fo, if he believed Tranfubfantiation.
The Author of the Books of the Promijes and TrediSlicns of God,
Profper. attributed to St. Profpcr by Caffiodorus, and which were written
— about the year 45:0, under the Empire of Valtntinian the -^d, re-
lates a Hiftory of a young unchaft Girl that was poireflTed with the
Devil, who in Communicating, had receiv^ a little morfel of the
Lord's
AnHiliorical Treatife of Tranfubftantiation, 39
Lord's Body, which the Prieft had moiftned j it was half an hour
before (he could (wallow it down, till Yuch time as the Prieft ton- AGE v.
chedher throat with theChalicc ; then (he cried outinftantly that
(he was healed. After which, prayeTs being made for her, fte re-
ceived a portion of the Sacrifice, and was reftor'd to her former
health. Thefe terms 0//owe portion of the Sacrifice, and of a little
^art of the moiftned Body ot the Lord by the Prieft , cannot be
underftood of the true Body of Jefus Chrifti of neceflity then the
Breadhy this Author miift be called by the name of the Body of Je-
fusChrift; and by confequence he believed it remained in theSa-
crament after Conlecration.
Hefychius,. one of the Priefts of the Church of Jerttfalem, in the jjefychius.
year 480, faith in the (econd Book on Leviticus, ch. 8. This My- — "
fiery ( (peaking of the Eucharist ) is at once Bread and Flefis, lllud
Myfierium fimulpanis & carc. In this fame place he faith, it was the
cuftom of the Church of Jerufalem in hiS time, to burn what re-
roained after the Communion.
Frocopitts of Gaza, who in all likelihood wrote in the end of the FrocopiusGa-
fifth Century, expounding thefe words of Genefis, where Jaccb zeus.
faith to y-ada. His eyes he red ivith wine, and his teeth white with "
milk, &c. applying them to our BlefTed Saviour in the Myftery of
the Sacrament, (aith, that^tisa Metaphor taken fromthofe that ha-
drank, are the merrier for it, &c. and faith that the holy Scri-
tures would dengte the gladnefs which the Lord left to hisDifci-
pies in giving them the Myfiical Wine by the word • of Inftitution,
Take, drink ye all of this: Tacfe words, (aith he, do fiiew that yefus
Chrifi doth with mercy look on all thofe that believe in him, hecaiife
^tis the nature of wir.e to make every one merry. And upon the(e
words, his teeth are white as milk, milk, faith he, doth denote to us the
whitenefs and purity of the myBical nourijhmcnt; for yefus Chriftgave
tohis Difciples the Image of his true Body; not defiring any of the bloody
facrifices of the Law, he would by the white teeth, fignifie to us the purity
of the food wherewith we are nourified; for according to holy David,
Sacrifice and burnt-offerings thou wouldeft not, but a Body hafl thou pre-
pared me.
When Frocopitis fpeaketh of the MyBical Wine that rejoyced the
Difciples, it being the natiiie of Wine to make merry ;this MyBical
Wine is not the Blocd of Jefus Chrift, for 'tis not the nature of Blcod
torejoyce. It muft therefore be meant., that Pmfp;«tfaid, by the
Wme which Jefus Chrift diftributed to his Difciples, was to be un-
derftood
40 An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfuhflantiation.
d^rftood true Wtne: and by the whitnefs of the Myfiical food, he
AGE V. meant the whitenefs of the Bread which is both food and Image,
which cannot be underftood of the tn/e Body ofjeias Chrift, which
frocop Hi^ is neither the of himfelf, not bodily] foodnor of the acci-
dents, which cannot nourifh the Body, becaufe nourifliment pro-
ceedeth from matter.
The fame Vrocofius in his Commentary on , expounding
thefe words of the Prophet, Chap. The Lord of Hofis ivill take
away from fudah and Jerufalem the ftaffof Bread and Water \ faith,
that in the firft place thefe words of the Prophet may be under-
ftood of Jefus Chrift, and of his Fhfa and Blood. The Bread be-
ing to be underftood of him of whom David (alxih, He gave them
bread from Heaven; and the waters, of thofe of which Jefus Chrift
faid to the Samaritan, Whofoever drinketb of this water, it fhallbca
fountain flowing unto everlafling Life, Then headdSj There is another
bread which giveth life to tifk world, which was taken from the Jews;
and another water, which is that of Baptijm. Now by this other
bread whixch was taken from the Jews, he means that of the Eu-
charifi s and whereas he diftinguifhes it from the bread, which is the
Lord, as he diftinguiflieth the water of Baptifm from that which
was given to the Samaritan ■, it follows, that the Bread of the Eu-
charifi is fomething that is diftingiiifiit from Jefus Chrift hifhfelf,
the Bread of Heaven,
^ —— Gelafius Bilhopof Rome, in the year 491, wrotca Treatife of the
P, Gelafius. Hatures againft Neflorius and Eutychesj and he excludes Tran-
fubflantiation, when he faith, that the fubfiance or nature of Bread
and VTine doth fiill remain.
This work isafliiredly of VopeGelafius. As is confeffed by Car-
dinal D« PfrrtW) becaufe firft cites four paflages of this
Treatife as being writ by Pope Gelafius. And Pope John the Se-
cond in EfiH. ad Amanum, alio cites fome paflages of this Work,
as being writ by Gelafius •, and though he doth not give him the
Title of Pope, 'tis becaufe his name was well enough known at
Rome when John the Second lived.
Befp. T, ad
2. Interrov.
Ferr.
That
An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfuhflantiation. 41
age vi.
That the Fathers of the SIXTH CENTURY did not
helieve Tranfubftantiation.
SAint Ftdgentius faith, The CathoUck Church doth continually offer to ffffigentius
God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghofi, a Sacrifice of Bread and FrfidTadPet
Wine thtoughout all the World. For in the fiefidy Sacrifices of the Old c. 19,
Teftament, there is a ty^eof the Fleff of Jefus Chrifi, which be ivas
to offer without Jpotfor our Sins ; hut in this SacrtUce, there is a 'Foankf-
giving and commemoration of the fame Flejh, which he offered for us,
and of the Blood which he {hed for us. He faith, That this Sacrifice
confifts in offering Bread and Wme; there muft then be true Bread
and Wme in this Sacrifice to be dffer'd.
Ephram firft a Lieutenant of the Eaftern part of the Empire, then
made Bifhop of Antiochyn the Year 516.wrote Books,which he inti- ^P"d Pho.
tuled Sacred Laws, in the firft of which difputing againft the Eu- 229.
tychians, he faith, When our Fathers faid, That JefusChrift is
composM of two Natures, they meant two Subflances, as by two
Suhftanees two Natures. No body of any fenfe, but may fay, that the
Nature of that which is to be felt, and not felt in Jefus Chrifi, is the
fame Nature. Thus it is, that the body of Jefus Chrifi, which is re-
ceived by Believers, doth not quit its fenfible Nature, and remains with-
cut being feparated from the intelligible Grace. The which he con-
firms by the Example of Water, which doth not lofe its Nature by
Confecration. This Argument is of the fame kind of that we fee of
Taeodoret, and of Gelafius, whereby thefe three others prove, that
in the Incarnation, the prefence of the Word did not deftroy the hu-
man Nature m Jefus Chrift, as the prefence of the Holy Ghofi doth
not deftroy the Subfiance of Bread and Wine in the Eucharifi. We
may fay of this Triple and fame Argument, Funiculus triplex dif- Ecclellaft. 4.
ficile rumpitur. Monfi de Marca, faith in reference to this pafTage,
and of thofe we have inftanced, of Theodoret, and St.Chryfoftom, that
thefe three Authors have owned a real change of the Bread, which
nevcrthelefs leaves the Species in their natural Subfiance.
Facundus Biftiop of Hermiana in Africa, in the year 5'yz. whole Facundus.
Books, which he wrote in Defence of theThree chapters of the Coun- UFj.
cil of Chalcedon, are juftly praiftd by FiBor of Tunes in hisChro- De viris illu-
nology, and by St; Jfidore of Sevil, and which Father Sirmond the-^"^'
Jefuic
An Hi(torical Treatife of Tranfuhftantiation.
Jefuit got out of the Vatican Library ; going about to excufe Tleo-
dore de Moffueft, who taught that Jefus Chrift had taken the Adof- |
tion of the Children of God; from whence it might have been con-
tacundus.— that he believed that Jefus Chrift is only an adoptive Son,
Lih. 9. ^ fauhfBaptifmiWhich is the Sacrament of Adoption,may he cali'dAdcption,
as we call the Sacrament of his Body and Blood,which is in the confecra-
ted Bread andlViMe,his Body and Blood,not that the Bread is properly his
Body,and the Cup his Blood-,hut,becau(e they contain in them theMy fiery
of his Body aftd Blood.Therefcre,as the faithfulSer'vants of Jefus Chrift^
receivings the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, are very rightly faid to
receive his Body and Blood \ foalfo Jefus Chrifi having received the
Sacrament of the Adoption of Children, might very well he faid to have
received the Adoption of Children.
Certainly, if the Sacrament of Bread and Wine is not properly the
Body of Jefus Chrift, as Facundus faith, but barely Body and Blood,
as Baptifm is Adoption 5 the Bread and Wine are not Tranfuhffantiated
into the Eucharift, and are but fimple figns, and fomethingthat is
diftinguifhed from the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift.
frima/tus. Vrimajius Biftiop of Adruemetum'm Africa,]n his Commentary up-
on the I oth Chapter of the iff to the Corinth, faith , As the Bread
which we break,is the Participation of the body of Chrili,fo alfo the Bread
of Idols-, is the Participation of Devils. Now as the Participation of the
Bread of Idols, is no Tranfubfiantiation, or real change into De-
vils: fo alfb the Participation ofthe Bread of the Lord, is not sireal
and fuhfiantial change of Bread 'xnto the Body of the Lord.
The fame Do^?£r, on the words of the irr/jChap. of the fame
Epiftle, where "'tis faid, That the Lord took Bread the night in which
he was betrayed, relates , That Jefus Chrift thereby gave to us the
commemoration of his Body. And on the following words, Lhe Lord,
faith he , hath given us an Etiample, to the end that as often as we
do this, we Jliould think in our minds, that Chrifi died for us. It is
for this end, that ^tis faid to us, the Body of Chrift, that fo thinking
of it, we Jhculd not be ungrateful and unthankful for his Grace. As
if any one at his Death, fjould leave to his Friend a pledgof his Love,
could he,when he fiw it, refrain from Tears,if he really loved his Friend ?
There muft therefore needs be in the Sacrament Breadand Wine to
be Pledges of Jefus Chrift, for he cannot be a pledg of himfelf.
The
^An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfuhftantiation. 43
~ »— — AGE vii.
That the Fathers of the SEVENTH and EIGHTH
CENTURY'i' did not believe Tranfubflantiation.
ISUore Bifliop of Sevil, Anno 600. faith, That by the command faFFiTirr
of JefusChrift himfelf, we do call andBW, that which Laienfis. '
being the Fruits of the Earth,is fandified and made a Sacrament by "
the invifible Operation of the Holy Ghoft. In the ifi Book of Ec- 19. '
clefiaftical Offices, he faith, Tlat the Bread is called the Body ofjefus
Chrijl, becaufe it firengthens the Body, and that the Wine is called his
Blood, becaufe it increafeth Blood in the Body; and that the Bread and
Wine are two njifible things^ which being fanBified by the Holy Ghoft
do go on to be the Sacrament of the Divine Body. Now a Sacrament fig-
nifies a holy Sign. It would therefore be a ftrange kind of way of
I(idoret if he had believ'd the Bread and Wine were tranfubfiantiated,
to fay, the Bread and Wine are two things vifible, which being fan-
diried by the Holy Ghoft, do become the Sacraments of the Divine
Body. By this Language it might as well be faid. That the Fathers
believed that the Water of Baptifm was tranfubfiantiated after their
Confecration.
The fame Biffiop faith, Melchifedecky that offer'd of the Fruits of In Alleg. Ve-
the Earth a Sacrifice to God, thereby reprelented the Priefthood ter. Teft.
or Reign of Jefus Chrift, which is the true King of Peace, of
whofe Body and Blood, that is to fay, the Oblation of Bread and Winey
is offedd throughout the World. And in the Treatife De Focat. Gen-
tium, cap. i6. "Thefe are not any longer Jewi(h Sacrifices, fuch as were
ojfeddhy Aaron the Priefi, which are now offedd by Believers, but
they are fuch Sacrifices as were prefented by Melchifedeck King of Sa-
lem, that is to fay. it is Bread and Winet the true Sacrament of tbe
Body and Blood of je/us Chrifi. He faith , The Sacrament of the
Bu^ and Blood of Jefus Chrift is Bread and Wine, That both the
one and the other are fuch Sacrifices as thofe offer'd by Mekhtfe-
deck \ there is therefore no queftion, but St. Iftdore did not believe
that the Bread was deftroy'd in the Sacrament, becaufe he efta-
bliffies the Sacrament in the Bread and Wine, fuch as Melchifedeck
had offer'd.
G Beda
An HifiorkalTreatife of Tranfuhfiantiation,
Beia, an Englilh Prieft, faith, 'That JefmChriflha'ving ended the
AGE viii. Ceremony of the Ancient Pajfover, which was celebrated in CommemSra'
tion of the Bondage in Egypt, out of which the Jews had been deliuer^df
Beda. proceeded to the new Pafjbiier y which the Church celebrates in remtm'
InLuciCZZ. brance of His Redemptiovy the his Body \ to the end, that in-
"f B/oorf of the Lamb, fubjlituting the Sacrament of
guadraglf 'h'e his Flejli and Blood in the Figure of Bread and JVme, he might (hew
ria 3<i palma- that-it was him to whom God had fworn, and repented not, faying, lljcu
rum. art a Priefl for ever after the ^Melchifedeck. Now , conti-
nues Beda, Jefus Chriji broke the Bread which he difributed to his Dif-
ciples, to (hew. That the breaking of his Body did not come to pafs with-
cut his good will. It appears from thefe words, (fubfitutmg the Sa-
crament of his Flefli and Blood in the Figure of Bread and Wine ) that
the Bread and Wine remain after Conlecration, to be the Figure of
Rom. 4- II. the Body and Blood of Chrift. As when the Apoftle faith, the fign
of Circumcifion, fignum Circumcifionis ; That is to fay, Circumci-
fton which is a fign and a figure. So Beda maketh the Sacrament
confift in the Bread and Wine. Therefore in the Homily, De Sanctis
in Epiphania, he faith, That Jefus ChriH the Heavenly Lamb, having
been offered up , transfer^d into the Creatures of Bread and WinCf
the My fiery of his Pafjiony and thereby became a Prief for ever after
Horn- afl ^c] Order o/'Mclchifedeck. And elfewhere he faith, MeJchiledeck
5 5. in Vtrg. Briefi of the moji High God, did long before the time of the legal Prieft-
S^-joan-Bapt. hoody offer up Bread and Wine. Therefore our Saviour is cabled
Prieft after the Order of Melchifedecky becaufc he abrogated the Sa-
orifices of the Law, and infiituted a Sacrifice of the fame kind to be under
the New Tefiamenty the My fiery of his Body and Blood. Certainly, As
our Myftery is no Myftery til] after Confecration; and that 'tis of
the fame Nature as was that of Melchifedeck, itmuft be concluded,
that the Bread and Wine do remain in the Sacrament of the Eu-
charift.
ffedtdius Sedulius a Scotchman, Author of the Commentaries upon St. Paul,
^— and who flouriftied about the year 735-. in his Commentary upon
the firft to the Corinthians, Chap, 11. ihith, Jefus Chrifi in the Eu-
chariji, hath left us the remembrance of himfelfy as if one going a far
journey fhould leave with his Friend the pledg of his love, to remember
their ancient Amity. There muft then needs be fomething that is not
Jefus Chrift himlelf, for no one is a pledg of himfelfi
H Ddfnafcen Oamafcen a Fryer, who lived about the year yyo, faith in his
—' fourth Book of Orthodox Law, Chap. 14. He Shew-bread did typifie
this
An Hifiorkal Treatife of Tranfuhjlantiation. 45
this Bread, and'tts ibis fure and unbloody Sacrifice "which our Saviour
foretold by the Profhet, (hould be offered to him from the rifing of the Sun AGE viii.
to the fettingof the fame, towity the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift,
which ^affeth into the fubfiance of our Body and Soul y without being hdamafcen,
confumed, without being corrupted, without going into the drafty God
forbid, but pajfing into our fubjlance for our Prefervation. Now every
Body agrees this cannot be faid of the proper Body of Jefus Chrift.
It muft then be concluded, Damafcen fuppoled that the Bread re-
mainedi
In the fame place he adds, That as in Baptifm, becaufe men are
wont to waff with JVater, and anoint them with Oyly God has added to
the JVater and Oyl, the Grace of his Holy Spirit, and has made it the
waffing of Regeneration-, fo alfo , they being accufionfidto eat Bread,
and to drink JVine and JVater, he has joined them to his Divinity, and
has made them his Body and Blood.
In the fame place. The Prophet Efay faw a light Coal; now the Coal
is not' of meer Wood, but it is joined to Fire-, fo alfo the Bread of the
Eucharifi is not common Bread, but it is united to the Divinity, and the
Body which is united to the Divinity, is not one and We fame Nature,
but the Nature of the Body is one, and that of the Divinity which is
united to it, is another.
In the fame place. How is it that the Bread is made the Body offe-
jus Chrifi, and the Wine and Water his Blood? He anfwers. The Holy
Ghofi comes and difpofes thefe things after fuch a manner as furpajfeth
our Thoughts and Exprejfions. The Bread and Wine are taken, Panis
& Vinum ajjumuntur, in Greek •sra^^ayt.SdytTsu, a Word ufed by St.
Athanafius to exprefs the Hypoflatical Union. Now thefe kinds of
Expreffions of Damafcen do imply, that the Bread and Wine do re-
main in the Sacrament.
The Council of Confiantinople compofed of 338 Bifhops, held in CmciTcon "
the viiir;& Century, for regulating the bufinefs of Image-worffip, ha-fiant. A<ft. 6.
ving condemn'd their ufe, they would by the way explain the Do-
(ftrine of the Church touching the Eucharifi, and to draw a proof
againft thofe very Images, they call it the true Image of Jefus
Chrift; they fay he gave it to his Difciples to be a Type of the
evident Commemoration of his Death; they fay that Jefus Chrift
chofe no other Species under Heaven, nor no other Type that
fhould exprefs his Incarnation. Behold then, fay they, the Image
of his quickned Body, which was made after a precious and honourable
manner^ They affirm, that as the Word did not take a Perfon,
G z that
Cone, Confi.
An Hijiorical Treatife of Xranfnhftantiation, ^
that fo the addition of a Perfon might not be made to the Divinity;
fo alfo he appointed, that an Image fliould be offered, which is a
chofen matter, to wit, the Sub fiance of Breads that has not the
. Figure of Man, to avoid giving occafion of Idolatry; As then,
fay they, the Body of Jefus Chrift which is according to Nature,
is Holy, as,having been Deified; foalfo 'tis apparent, that that
Body alfo that is by Inftitution, is Holy, and it's Image is Holy, .
as having been Deified by Grace, by a kind of Sandlificatiom i
They maintain, that as the Human Nature was Deified by its
Union with the Word, fo alfo the Bread of the Sacrament, as the
true Image of the natural Flelh of Jefus Chrift, is fandtified by
the coming of the Holy Ghoft, and becomes the Body of Jefus
Chrift, becaufe the Priefi tran<fers the Oblation from the ftate of a
common thin^,, to fomething that is Holy. To conclude, they clear-
ly diftinguift the natural Flefh of Jefus Chrift, which is living and
intelligent, from his Image, which is the Heavenly Bread , filled
with the Holy Spirit. All thefe continued Expreffions are fo far
from any Idea of Tranfubfiantiationy that one muft needs fee, that
the defiruBiof^yif the Bread and Wtne in the Sacrament, was not
believed by the Fathers of the Council, nor by the Church in their
time.
Alcuin fpeaking of the Confecrating of Bread and Wine to be
the Body and Blood of Chrift, faith, that the Sandlification of this
Myftery doth foreftiew to us the effedl of our Salvation: That by
the Water is fignified the Chnftian People j by the grains of the Wheat
ground into Meal to make Breads is meant the Union of the Univerfal
Church ivhuh is made one Body by the Fire of the Holy Ghofi, which
unites the Members to the Head; and that by the Wine is fiiewed the
Blood of the Paffton of the Lordi Doubtlefs Alcuin did not believe
Tranfubjlantiation, feeing he places in the Bread and Wine, the fig-
nification of the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift; and that he faith by
the Wine is (hewed the Blood of Jefus Chrift; for that which is a
Figure, and that which is figured; that which (heweth, and that
which is (hewed, are two different things, the one of which is not
the other. Therefore the fame Alcuin doth formally diftinguifh
the Eucharift from the Body and Blood of Jefus Chrift, when he faith
In Joan; c, 13. after St. Aufitn, Whofoever abideth not in Jefus Chrifiy and he in whom
V. 15* Chrif abideth noty doubtlefs doth not fpiritually eat his Flejh, altho he
'vifibly and carnally eats with his teeth the Sacrament of the Body and
Bloodof Jefus Chrifi,.
Charles
Alcuinus.
Ej). 6<yj
mity:
lid) is a
'k>\en,
irancatioi
omam
An Hifiorical Treatife of Tranfubftafitiatio7i. 4 7
Charles thegreati his Difciple, writing to the fame calls
the Eucharift, the Figure of the Body and Blood of the Lord. The AGE viii.
Lord, faith he , being at Supper with his Difciples, broke Br£^a;<'V,
and gave likewife the Cup, in figure of his Body and Blood; and by Carol. M.
this means offered us a very profitable Sacrament: Now what- Ofilc. S^-
ever he faid of the figure it contain'd, or that it contain'd not
the truth, the figure was never the fame as the thing is that's fi-
gured.
In the Office which was aboiifli'd in the year jo)6, :
there was this Claufe, which is ffill to be feen in the fourth Book of Cirnbrofian
Sr. jimbrofe his Sacraments, Nobis hanc oblationemadfcriptam ratio-
nabilem, acceptabilem, quod efi figura Corporis & Sanguinis Domini
nofiri fefu Chrifti.
The Ancient Roman Order doth frequently call the Bread and ofidofi
FFinej the Body and Blood of the Lord j but it fufficiently (hews —
by thefe manner of expreflions, that it doth not mean that the
Bread znd FFine are the fame .thing with the Body and Blood of Jc-
fas Chrift i for in the firft place it faith, that the Sub Deacons when
they fee the Chalice wherein is theBWof the Lord cover'd with
a Cloth, and when the Prieft hath faid thefe words at the end of
the Lords Prayer, libera nos a male, they (hould go from the Al-
tar, and prepare Chalices and clean Cloths to receive the Body of
the Lord, fearing left it fhouldfaU to the ground, and crumble to dufis
Now who doth not fee that this cannot be fpoken but of the Bread,
figuratively and improperly called the Body of Jefus Chrifi ? It
faith, That the Bifhop breaketh the Oblation on the right fide, and
that he leaveth the part which he brake, on the Altar: Now who
can fay that the Body of Jefus Chriff can be broke into parts ?
^dly. The Fradiion being made, the Deacon receives from the
Sub-Deacon the Cup, and carries it to the Chair, that the Bifhop
might communicate, who having communicated, puts part of the
holy Oblation of which he bit a Morfel,into the Arch-Deacons hands..
Can it be faid that one doth bite the true Body of Jefus Chrift, and
that one breaks off part of it ? tythly. It adds, he is to take great heed
that no part of the Body andBlood of the Lord doth remain in the Chalice j
or en the Plate. By thefe words, the Roman Order gives us to un-
derftand, that it fpeaks of fuch a Body and Blood that a part of it
may be feparated from the whole ; Now this is what can only be
faid of the Bread and FFfne» improperly called the Body and Blood
of Jefus Chrift.
The
48 An Hi[torical Treatife of Tranfuhfantiation.
The now Roman Order at prefent ufed in the Church of Rcmct
AGE viii. Joth alfo furnifli us with the like reflexions. It ex.^refly marketh.
That Jefiis Cbrift gave in the Oblation, Bread and Wme, to ccie-
Or do Qf ^.,jg and B/00^. Therein's defired, That
this BlelTed Oblation may be accepted of God in Inch a manner, as
that it might be made to us the Body and Blood of jcfus Chrift; afler
all which,is recited the Hiflory of the Inftitution.and the-Sacramen-
tal words. The Eiicharifl: is called, the Sacred Bread of Eternal
Lifeand the Cuf, theCuf of eajerlaiiing Salvation. To conclude,
They pray God to behold thofe Gifts, and that he will accept
them as he did the offering of Ahef and th^ Sacrifice of Alekhife-
deck, which it's very well known, was BrWand iVine. All which
doth plainly Ihew , That the Roman Order at this time obferved,
cannot reafonably be interpreted , but in fuppofing that theBre^?^
and Wine remain in the EuchariH after Confecration.
AGE
That the Fathers of the Ninth did not
helieve Tranfubftantiation.
^ *'^Heodorus Studita, as is related hy Michael Studita in Baronius,
jx. -I in the year 815. N. ly. feeing himfelf reduced totheextre-
—V—mity of being ftarv'd, faid to hlsDiYciple, If men are fo cruel as to
Fbeodorus make me ^erifli with hunger, the participation of the Body and Blood of
Studita. the Lord, which is the ordinary food, of my Body and Soul, (hall he my
only nourijhment: Now the real Body of Jefus Chrift cannot be the
nourifliment of the Body, therefore of necelTity this Author muft
be underitood to fpeak of Bread, which is his Body figuratively and
improperly. It is what is alfo confirm'd by this Michael Studita,voho
faith in the fame place, that Theodore had always about him, feme
parcels of the eyuickning Body of the Lord; which cannot be meant of
the true Body of Jefus Chrift, which is not now fubjeX to be broken,
nor divided.
Ahyto. Ahyto Bifhop of Bafil, fent AmbafTador hy Cbarlemaine in the
year 814, to ConHantinopIe, to Treat a Peace with the Emperor
of the Eaft, as is declared by the Annals of France, by Eginhart
Author of the Life of Charlemaine, the Annals of Fulda, Herman
Contrast, and others. This died in the year 8^6, and left a
Capitulary for inftruXionofthe Priefts of his Dlocefs, publilht by
Dom
^An Hidorical Treatife of Tranfubftantiatio?i. 4p
T>om Luke D*achery in the Sixth Tome of his Spicilegium, pag. 6^1.
nowamongft many other Inftrudtions he gives his Prieftsin hisCa- A G E ix.
picularies, this is one; 'In the fifth place, the Prieft fhould know
' what the Sacrament of Baptifm and Confirmatio7t is, and alfo what
* the Myltery of the body and blood of our Lord doth mean. How a
* vifible creature is feen in the fame Myfteries, and is neverthelefs
* the invifible. Salvation is communicated for the Souls eternal hap-
' pinefs, which is contained in faith only. By vifible creaturey he
can only mean a creature, not in appearance, but effedive ; for
otherwifej according to this Author, it muft be faid that in Bap'
tifm, and Confi'-mation, there fhould be only an apparent creature,
and not the fubftance of water and chrifm. Befides , Ahyto attri-
buted the fame effed: to thefe three Sacraments, to wit, the com-
munication of eternal and invifible Salvation to them that with
faith do receive thefe holy Sacraments.
"Theodulphus in the year 8 lo, Bifhop of Orleans, faith in his Trea- fheodul^
tife of the Order of Baptifm,'7^f re h one faving Sacrifice whschhAcl-
* chifedeck alfo offer'd under the Old Tefiarnenty in Type of the body and
* blood of our Saviour, the which the Mediator of God and Man accem-
* pitted under the New, before he was crucify d, when taking the bread
'' andwine he blejfed and gave them to his Difciples, commanding them
* to do thofe things in remembrance of him. It is this My fiery which the
* Church doth celebrate, having put an end to the ancient facrifces, offer-
ing bread, becaufe of the bread which came down from Heaven ; and
* wine, becaufe of him which faidy I am the true Vtne •, to the end that by
* the vifible Oblation of Priefis, and by the-invifible confecration of the
* Holy Ghofi, the bread and wine fhould have the dignity of the body atid
^ blood of our Lord, with which blood there is mingled feme water, ei-
' ther becaufe there came out of the fide of our Saviour water with the
* blood-, or becaufe according to the Interpretation of our Ancefiors, as
^Jefus Ckrifi is fignify'd by the wine, fo alfo the people it fignify d by
^ the water. Now this Bifhop, faying that Jefus Chrifl: gave ^re««/
to his Difciples in commemoration that this Myftery is an Oblation
of vifible bread which is confecrated by the Holy Spirit,, and which
receiveth the dignity of the body that he indifferently calls the
blood, wine, and the wine, blood; that with the blood, water is ming-
led, and that Jefus Chrift is figniff d by ihewine', that 'tis faid the
, wine fignifies Jefus Chrift, as the water doth the people; thefe words
cannot fuppofe any franfubftantiation.
The
An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfuhfantiation. 5
The Oppofers of Vafcha(ius Radbertus Frier of the Monaftry of ^
Ccrbjr, who wrote a Book of the body and blood of Jefus Chrift, i <i;in
did not believe Tranjubfiantiation. That the faid Rafchajius had fe- | :»)iiin
Oppofers of gdverfaries, appears by his own Writings, for towards the
end of his Commentary upon St. Matthew, he faith himfelf, 1 have
■-Ai
ik
in'
Radbertus. cno 01 nisv^oiiiincuiai u«. laim uiiiiicn, i oave | .,Sj£
' inlarged ufcn the Lords Supper ,a little mere than the brevity of a Com- iij,,,!
mentary would permit fbecaufe there be [ever al others that are of a differ-
ent judgment touching thefe holy Myff cries, and that Jeveral are blind,
and do nbt perceive that this bread and cup is nothing elfe but what is
feen with the eyes, and tafed with the palate. And in his Epiftle to
Frudegard, as Well as in his Commentary on St. , ch. 12.
it appears he had Oppofers, becaufe in his Epift. to Frudegard, he
faith , Tcu advife with me touching a thing that many do make doubt
of. And in his Commentary, I am told that many, faith he, do cen-
furcme, as if I had attributed to the words of our Lord, either more,
or fomething quite contrary to what the genuine fenfe permits. So that
fafchafius had adverfaries, and they did not believe FranfubHantia-
tion, becaufe they held that in the Eucharift , there was only the
virtue of the fiejh, and not the very flefh ; the virtue of the blood, and
not the very blood of ChriH. That the Eucharift was figure, and not
verity ; Jhadew of the body, and not the body it [elf. 7hey would, faith
Pafchafius, extenuate the word, bod'y, and perfwade, ^uodnonfit ve-
ra caro Chrjfti, fed quadam virtus & figura corporis Chrifti. Now
Tajchafius Rathbertus was the firft Author that wrote fully and fe-
rionfly of the truth of the body and blood of Jefus Chrift in the Eu-
charift, as Bellarmm faith , de Scriptoribus Ecclefiafticts in Tajchafio
Ratberto. And Father Sirmond faith, he is the firft that hath ex-
plain'd the fenfe of the Church touching this My fiery •, fo that,
faith he, he hath opened the way to others, In vttse Ratberti pra-
fixatjm operibus. I herefore it is nothing ftrange that
had enemies, and that he was accufed for departing froip the com-
mon Faith, and to have fpread abroad Vifions of a young Man.
For he faith to Frudegard, Tcu have, faith he, at the end of this Work,
yhe jimhcrities of Catholick Fathers fuccinhlly marked, by which you
may perceive, that 'twas not through rafhnefs, that formerly when I'm as
young, I believed theje things, but by Divine authority. He alfb en-
deavours to clear himfelf from this charge in alledging paffages, as
of Saint AuHins, the which neverthelefs are not to be found in him;
as thefe words, Receive in the Bread what hung on the Crofs, receive
in the Cup what ijjued out of the fide of Jefus ChriB. Which is not to
be found in St. Auftin. Raba-
X
V
f
IS
An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfubflantiation. ^ i
Rnbantts Archblfhop of Majance in the year 847, ftiJed by
ro«z;« in the year 84^, N. qi. the bright Star of G«rOT^»7, Ful^ens AGE ix.
Germanta Sidus ; faith in his inftitiftion of Clerks Lib. i. cap. ?i.
Oar Sawour liked better that belie'uers jbculd recei-ve with their mouth ^^banus.
the Sacarments of his Body and Blood, and that they fhculd be turned
into their nsurijbment, to the end that -by the viftbleivork the invifible
■effehi (hould be flieum. For as the material food, doth materially noarifn
the Body and [upport it, fo alfo the Word of God doth notirijh the Soul
iniitardly, and doth frenjrthen it. And in the fame place, The Sacra-
ment is one thinyr, and the virtue of the Sacrament is another. The Sa-
crament is turned into the nourifhment of the Body, but by the virtue of
the Sacrament one acquires everlafting life, the Sacrament therefore
is turned into our felvest when we do eat and drink it, fo alfo we are
converted into the Body offefus Chrijt, when we live with Piety and
Obedience.
The fame Dodlor on St. Matthew, Chap. x6. faith with Venera-
hie Beda, that Jefus Chrift hath fubftitiired inftead of the FJefh and
Blood of the Pafchal Lamb,the Sacrament of his Body and Blood. That
the Creator of the World, and the Redeemer of Mankind, making
of the very fruits of the Earth, that is to fay, of Bread and Wtne, a fit
My fiery-, turn*d it into the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, that un-
■leavened Bread and Wine mixt with watert mufl be fanclfied to be the
Sacrament of the Body and Blood of fefus Chrifl.
Afterwards he gives the reafon wherefore our Saviour chofe
and fTz«e to make them Sacraments of his Flejh and Blood,
and faith, that'tis becaufe Melchifedeck otfer'd Bread aind Wme,
and j^hat Jefus Chrift being a Prieft after the Order of Melchifedeck^
he was to imitate his Oblation. And (hewing the Reafon why the
Sacrament takes the name of the Body and Blood of the Lord, he
faith with Jfidore Archbdhop of Sevil, ^Tts becaufe Bread firengthens
the Body, it is conveniently called the Body of Jefus Chrift; and becaufe
Wine augments Blood in the Flejh and Feins, for this reafon it is com-
par'd to the Blood. Now both thefe things arevifible, nevtythelefs being
fanBif'd by the Holy Ghofi, they pafs into the Sacrament of the Divine
Body. A Sacrament which in the 5 3. Chap, he calls the MyfiicalBody
of Jefus Chrift, in oppofition to his Natural Body, from which he
diftinguilhes it, and draws a refemblance from the Myftical Body,
to the proper Body of Jefus Chrift. The holy Veffels, faith he , are
fet on the Altar, viz the Cup and Patten, which in fome fort are the
figure of the Grave of Jefus Chrifi ; for as at that time the Body of
H Jefus
Rabanus.
1
^tnaUrius.
An HiJloricalTreatife of Tranfuhftantiation.
JefusChrifiv/atlaiditi the Sefulcher, having been (mhalrnd by godly
Veo^le 5 fo alfoat prefent, the Myfiical Body of jefus Chrijf, as it were
iwbalm'd with holy Prayers.) is kept hit he holy Vejfelsto be adminijlred
to Believers by the hands of the Mtnijlers,
The fame Dodlor in his Penitential, or Letter to Krribald Bi-
Til?
(ho^ of Jtixerre, which Monfitur Baluz^e got printed at the end of
his Regino at Paris in 1671, faith, Chap. 35. Js to what you de-
mand of r/ie, whether the Sacrament after it is eat and ccnfum^d, and
cafi into the draft after the manner cf all ether meats, docs return to
the former nature it h.rd before ^twas crnfccrated at the ylltar : to
fucha neccllejs quefiton may be reply^d, The Lord himjelf fatd in the Go-
fvef that what enters into theBody goes into the Belly, and is cafi into
the draft. As for the Sacrament of the Body and Blood, it is made of
corporeal and vijible things, but it produceth an invifihle fantlif cation.,
as ovell to the Body as to the Soul. What reafon is there, that that which
is digefled in the Stomack, and is cafi t,ut into the draft, (hould return to
Its former (late, there being never any that affirmed that fuch a thing
was done ? For of late fome perfims not having a right fudgmtnt of
the Sacrament of theBody and Blood of Chrifi, have jaid,that the fame
Body, and the fame Blood of the Lord which was Born of the Virgin
Mary , and in which the Lord fs^ffered tn the Crofs, and rofe again
from the Dead, is the fame which is taken at the Altar ; againfi which
Error we have as much as was ncajjdry written to the Abbot Egilon,
explaining what ought truly to be believed of the Body of ChriB tn the
Eucharifl.
Amalarhfs, efteemed a very Learned man, in the Manufcripts
~ cited by Dom Luke D^achery a Learned BenediBin, in his Preface to
the Seventh Tome of his Spicilegium, was fent by the Emperor
Charles le Debonnair to Pope Gregory to find out Antiphonaries,
{Amalar. in Prolog. Antiphon.) and who by exprefs command of the
fame Emperor, was chofen in a Council held at Aix la Ckappel,
Anno 816. to make Rules for Prebends, as is teftified by Ademar
a Monk of .Angoulifm, in his Chronicle on the year 816, faith in
his Treatife of Church-Officcs, Lib. 3. cap. ly. That the Sacra-
ment is to us inftead of Jefus Chrifl. 'The Prtefi, faith he, bows and
recommends to God the Father, that which was offered in the room of
Jefus chrifi. In the 7.6th chap, he faith, Fhe Oblation and the Cup,
do ftgnifie the Body of the Lord , when Jefus Chrifi faid, This is the
Cup ^ my Blood, he fanPlified his Blood, which Blood was in the Body,
as the Wine is in the Chalice. In the third Book, chap, zy; he calls
the
liil,
W
;r. 1
tlie
'in
'M
'W
'tfji
H
1
wli
1
]To
'>»!!
li
i
Afi Hijlorical Treatife of Tranfuhjia^itiatlon. 5'3
theEiicharift, the Sacrament of Bread and Jyine: and faitli, that 'fe-
fui Chri(i hatb in thu Bread recommended bis Bodjy end tn the Cap, his AGE ix.
Blood.
The fame Amalaritts having been confulted by RanpartBixtho'p of
Noycn, how he underftood chofe words of Inftitution of the Eucha' ■^'"A.ad i(an.
rift, This IS the Cup in my Blood of the Nevs and Eternal Teftament, J'
with this addition which is in the Canon of the Mafs, the Myfiery 155/
of Faith; anfwers him by a Letter, wherein after having fpoken of
the Clip of the Paffover, he proceeds to that of the Eucharift ; and
having alledged what is mention'd by St. Luke, he adds, ' Toe Cup
' is in type of my Body, wherein is the Blood that Jhall run.out of my fide,
' to accomplsfts the ancient Law ; and after it is jhed, it (hall he the New
' Tefiament. And a little lower he faith, ' The Myftery is Faith, as St-
' Auftin faith in his Letter to the Biflsop Boniface, as the Sacrament of
' the Body of fefus Chrift is in fame manner the Body of Jefus Chrtfh,
' and the Sacrament of his Blood, his Blood; fo the Sacrament of Faith,
^ IS Faith. So alfo we may fay, This is the Cup of my Blood of the New
' and E'ernal Tefiament. As if he (Isould fay. This is my Blood which
' is.giojen for you.
The fame Do(n:or in a Letter which he wrote to one Gontard,
whom he calls his Son, faiths * That it is cur Saviours goodpleafure to
*jhed his Blood by the Members and Feins, for our Eternal Salvation.
• That ^lis a Body of fefus Chriji that may be cafi out in /pitting after ha-
' ving received it, and of which, a part may be flung out of the mouth.
'To all which he tkAAs,kaving fo received the Body of the Lord with a
* good intention j J disr't pretend to difpule, whether he be invflbly lifted
* up to Heaven, or whether he remains in cur Body, till the day of our
' Death, or whether he evaporates into phe Air, or whether he tjjues out
' of the Body with the Blood, or whether he goes out at the pores ; our Sa-
• viour faying, AJl that enters in at the Mouth, goes down into the Belly,
^and from thence into the draft. Sic.
Now when this great Man faith , That the Sacraraeht is to us
in the ftead of Jefus Chrift; that what is offered in-the-Eucharift is
facrific'd inftead of Jefus Chrift ; that the Cup is in Type of the
Body; that the Blood is in the Body, as the JFwe is in the Cup -, that
JefusvChrift reprefents his Body by the Bread, and'his Blood in the
JFsne; that the Sacrament of the Body is in feme fort his Body, and
that'tis, fo that the Ck^ of the Blood is Blood', that the iff-
poured forth upon our Members for our Salvhtion; that i^here isa
B(?«(;'of Jefus Chrift that may be caft out by fpitting, ahd wheifeof
H z fbme
54 An Historical Treatife of Tranfuhftantiatkn-
Tome part may be flung out of the Mouthy That he will not difpute
A G F IX. whether this BsJ;'evaporates in the Air, or whether it departs out
of the My with the blood, or whether it goes out at the pores, or
y^maLariifs._ fuffic ently (hew, That this Dodtor di-
ftingnifhed the Bread and bFine, as a Typical body, fronu ihe real Body
of Jefus Chrift; and that by confequencejhe believed the bread and
si'/wfremained after Confecration, to be called the body and blood of
jefus Chrirtjbut improperly.
Falafridus Valafudm Sirabo, Abbas Jugienfis, ftileda very Learned Man,
St-abo by Herman CcntraBed, in the year 849. '.7^/''^ Chri(l, faid he,
Lib de Reb. ^gave to bis pifciples the Sacrament of h:s Body aid Blood in the fuh-
Ecclef. c. 16. <• of Bread and ^Vine, teaching them to celebrate it in remembrance
Bdl. p. 7. To. 4 PaJIion, becaufe there could nothing be found fitter than
^ theft things to fignifie the Unity cf the Head and Members \ for as
' Bread is made of jundry Grains^ and brought into one Body by means
^ of Water and as the Wine is fqueezdd from feveral Grapes^ fo alfo
' the Body of Jtf>^s Chrif is made of the Union of a multitude of Saints.
* And a little after, he declares, That Jefus Chrifi hath chofe for us
*■ a very fit Sacrifice, for the My fiery of his Body and Bleed, in tjoat
* Melchiftdeck having offer'd Bread and Wine, he gave to his Children
^ the fame kinds of Sacraments. And afterwards, 18. That for
that great Number of Legal Ordinances, Jefus Chrift gave us the
Word of his Gofpel; fo alio inftead of the great diverfity of Sacri-
ijces, Eelievers are to reft fatisfied with the fole Oblation of Bread and
Wine.
It is evident Strabo makes the Holy Sacrament to confift in the
fubfiance of Bread and Wine, which according to him, is differenced
from the Body, becaufe it is but the memorial of it: That 'tis the
^ Figure, that it confifts in being made of fundry Grains, and the
Wine cf fundry Grapes. That the Sacrifice of the Hew Tefia-
ment, is of the fame kind z?, tfrdt of Melchifedeck, and that the
Euchariff is an Oblation of Bread and Wine. All thefe things inti-
mate, that the Bread and Wine remain in the Eucharift after Confe-
cration.
Herrtbald. Herribald was Bifhop of Auxerre, in the time that Vallafridus
Torn!'2. ch. Strabo wrote. Now he was of the fame Opinion with Rabanus.-
i9.52,and6i. Thomas Waldenfis afTures us fb. Herribald of Auxerre, faith he,
and Rabanus of Maycnce fay , That the Sacrament of the Eucharifi
goes tnto the Draft. The Anonimous Author, contemporary with
Herribald, which was publifhed, by Father the Jefuit, faith
alfo
An HiftoricalTreatife of Tranfubjiantiation. 55
alfo the fame. Neverthelefs Abbot of Ferriers, Ep. 19. rAuA.,.,A^
fpeaking of him, cz\h h\mz mo ft excelltnt Prelate, excellentijjimum ^ G E ix.
Trafulnm. In the 37th Ep. he fWes him a Man of a lofty and
Divine underftanding, Ahijjimi & Di'vmi ingenii. And Htncmart4s
Archbifhopof Keims^ calls'him the Bilhopof Venerable Oualitie?.
•"Wfi So that the very Chronicle of Auxerre intimates, that there was De P'xd ch.(5.
ingrav'd on his Monument this Infcription, Here lies the body of St.
Herribald. Therefore the Author of the iftTreatile of the Per-
fiMn, tetuttyof the EHcharifl^ faith in pag. 845, Thzt Herrthaidtuvid Rha-
laid lit ^rtwwijWere Adverfaries to Pafchafim; Tho in the id Treatile ofthc
thjt:. Perpetiiii/, in pag 841. he faith, fpeaking of the Minifter Claude,
Km: Who told him, that Amalarius and HeJribaldwere in any wife Ad-
verfaries to Fafihas ?
It appears by the Letter Fafchafus wrote toFrudegard, that he
was not of the fame Judgment Fafchafus was of, feeing he oppofes
to him St. Aufiini xgd Letter to Boniface, Stc IVidefcrt contra Wick- ^
Itff, ad Art. t •
*P«rr<?»rt?e,Prieftand Frier ofCcr^;',experienc'd in the Scriptures', jiatrammis.
equally efteem'd for his Learning and Manners, whom f Hmcmar,
II Lupus Abbot of Ferriers, his Contemporaries ; .'. Sigebert who liv'd script. Ecclef.
in the xi. Century, and Father t Cell, t the Jefuits Anonimus, do all f De Pracdeft.
make mention of, under his true name ofRatramne j wrote a Book II Ep. 79.
under the Reign of Charles the Bald., as is reported by the fame ^ Script.
Trythemius., which he intitul'd. Of the Body and Blood of the Lord : + pe^Euchr
From a Monk of Ccr^/, he was made Abbot of O'vias. The Pre-cE i.
fident: .'. Manguin fpeaking of him, faith, he was a Learned :.Maug.A\lfe'c.
Doiftor of the Church, eminent in Probity, and in Dodtrine, anHift&Chron.
undaunted defender and protector of the Cattiolick Truth, againft '7-fom.2.^
Innovators. He dedicated his Book to the Emperor the ^
Bald. Now this Authoi;did not believe Tranfubftantiation., becaufe
he faith, ' For as to the fubfiance of thoye Creatures, they are after Con-
* fecratton what they were before-, they were before Bread and Wwe.,
^ and it is plainly feen, that after Confecration.thefe created Jubfiances do-
' remain in the very fame /pedes.
And a little after he faith , * This fpiritual flefh which fpiritually J>atramnus in
* feeds Believer Si is made of grains of Wheat, by the hands of the Baker, the Apology
of thcFathers,
iiftiled a learned BenediFiin Defender of Grace, a Man of great Wifdom and Reputation ;
and in the firft treatife of the Perpetuity, p. 3. c. 5. he i» ftiled an obfeure kind of a pcrfon 5
rhat evaporated himfelf in obfeure Reafonings, which he added to thofe of the Church , and .
explained as he pleafed himfelf, at fome are pleafed to fay.
fuih
^6 An Hi(lorical Treatife of Tranfuh^antiation.
''fuch as it appears to cur fight ; but it hath neither Rnnes nor finewSy
A G I£ ix. * ncr ho didinBion cf parts, nor is it enlivtisd v^'tb a Soul, orreafona-
* blg'Jubflance. To conclude, it is unable to ir-' ::e ifi it Jelf, and if it
Ratramnus^ iglyg, it iy fbg gfecl oj a Spiritual virtue, of an invifihle, arid a '
'Divine l^irttte and Efficacy. A little £ffrer he Qirh apain, As the
' IFater repreQnts the People in the Sacrament, if it were true, that the
' Bread ccnfecrnted by Minifiers veas corporally changed into the Body of
' fefus Chrifi, it mufi alfo neccfilirily fellow, that the U'alernhich is
' mingled ovitb it overe. changed into the Blood of the faithful people ;
' for where there is but one S-.inBifioation, there ought to be but one
' Operation ; and the My fiery (hould be equal where the Reafon of the
' My fiery is the fame. It is evident there is no corporal change in the
^ Water, and by confeqitence, there is no corporal change to be expcBcd
''in the wine. All that is fiaid of the Body of the people reprefented by
' water, is under flood fpiritually, it is then a neccffary ccnfequence,
' that vjhat is faid of the Blood cf ffefus Chrifi reprejented by the ovine,
' mt'.fl be under flood fpiritually. Again , The things ovhich differ
*■ amongfi themfelves, are not one and the jame thing. The Body of ffe-
' fus Chn/i which wai dead .and roSe again, and become immortal, doth
' dye no more. Death has no more dominion ever it, it is Eternal, and
' can no more fuff^er; but that u hich is celebrated in the Church ts
' temporal and not eternal, and it is corruptible and not incorruptible.
* And again it muff then be faid» that the body ofjefus Chriff, fuch as
' it is made in the Church, was incorruptible and eternal. Ntverthe-
' lefsit cannot be denied that what is fo cut intomorfels to be eat,changed
* and corrupted, and that being eat with the teeth, it goes into theBody.
' Again,A^oiy ^tis true that the figure and the reallity are things difimfl,
' therefore the body and blood ovhich are celebrated in the Church, are dif-
' ferent from the fiejh and blood of the Body of ffefus Chrifi, which it is
' well known,ts gloriousfince his RefurreBioMt therefore the body that we
' celebrate is a pledg and figure.
Thefe words of Ratramnc or Bertram, are fo clear, that it is won-
der'd the Author of the(hould fay in the firft Treatife,
p. 5. thitBertram is an obfcure Author,and not evidently favourable
to'Calvinifisy but that the Catbolicks may explain him in a good
(enfe. I cannot tell what to call this Confidence.
Joan.Erige- John Erigen, a Scotch man , whom the Emperor Charles the
■ia. Bald commanded to write touching the B.ody znA Blood of the
— Lord , as he had done alfo to Ratramne.i which-appe^rs by Tor-
renger's Letter to Kicharsd, piibiilh'd by.DiwLiskeD' Achery 'mxhe
AfiHifiorical Treatifeof Tranfnhjlantiation. 57
Tome of his Spi:ileg, was of an Opinion contrary to Tafcha/itis,
as is acknowledged by * Lar.frank ; and Bercnger in his Epiftie to AGE ix.
the fame Lanfrank-, and Hincmar faith of ychn. Erigm , that he
taught, II That the Sacrament of the Altar ivas not the real Body and P Erlgcna.
Blood offeftis Chr 'tfi^ but only the Remembrance both of the one and
the other; And Berenger Writing to Lanfrank , faith to him , If you '
hold John for a Heretick, wbcje Judgment we have been informed of
touching the Sacrament i you mufi alfo hold for Elereticks ^ Ambrofe,
Chryfoftom, Auftin, not to mention many tnire. Neverthelefs * ^DeGefi. I{eg.
liam of Malmsbury, \\ Roger de Hoveden, Mutt hew of
fler^ fpeak of John Scot, as of the greateft Man of his time; and
Molanui Profcflbr in Divinity at the Univerfity of Lcvain , in his ^ Ad
Appendix to the Martyrology ofUjfuart, at the Letter J has left
thefe Words engraven, Jehn Scet, Martyr, tranfated D\onyf\\Xi,''s
Ecclefijjiical Hierarchy, after which by Authority of the Popes, he was
put into the number of the Martyrs of Jefus Chrifi. To conclude,
the Roman Martyrology, which we have in our Library, Printed
at Antwerp, Anno r 5-86. by order of Gregory the 1 grL, as is faid
in the Title of the Book , Manyrologium Rcmanum Juf u Gregorii
1 9, edittm, at the 4 of the Ides of November, makes mention of
John Scot: It's true, the Author of the \fi Diflertation upon John
Scot, which the Author of the Perpetuity chofe, having placed the
faid DilTertation at the end of his rd Treatife, to which he often
refers his Readers, has made in the fame Diflertation, a Chapter
which bears the Title, that Jchn Scot was not put into the Cata-
logue of Martyrs by the facred Authority of Popes, and that his
Name is not to be found in any Edition of the Roman Martyrology.
But it is alfo certain, that the fame Author, who hath alfo pub-
lifti'd the belief of the Greek Church touching Tranfubflantiation,
has inferted in the end of his Book, a Treatife Entituled, A Re-
futation of the Anfwer of a Miniifer of Gharenton, to the DiflTer-
ration which is in the end of Monfieur Arnauds Book, concerning
the Employments, the Martyrdom, and the Writings of John
Scot, or Erigen ; and the laft Chapter of this Refutation bath this
Title, A Jincere Declaration of the Author touching fame things he
had faid in his DiJJertation, the which he fnce confejjes were not true.
And in Numb. 6. of this Chapter, the Author faith in thefe Terms,
in Art. 7. p. (he ipeaks of the jth Art. of the firft DilTertation
upon John Scot, which is at the erid of Mr. Arnauds Perpetuity ;) it is
faid that 'tis falfe that there was a Martyrology Printed at Antwerp
58 Hljlorical Treatife of Tranfubftavtiatlofi.
by command of Gregory the 1in the Year I586. idly. That
AGE ix. there is not to be found in any Roman Martyrology, Printed at
Antwerp or ar\y where e'fe, the Commemoration of/c^« 5eor on
Ertyena. the Ides of November. It would be fuperfluous here to
relate the Reafons that they have had, fo pcfititely to deny thefe
matters of Fadl. It is fufficientto cbferve, Eirft, That there is a
Ronan Martyrolcgy fet forth by Order of Gregory the j 5/^, and
Printed by at in the Year 1586. tdly, That there
is feen in this Martyrclcgy, the Commemoration of John Scot on the
4ri& of the Idejof No'vember \r\ thefe words , Eodtm Die SanSliJo-
anms Scoti qui Grafii puercrum confJJ'us, Mariyrii Coronam adepti:s efi.
This Author is of good reputation, and doubtlefs was nor ignorant
of what St. Aufimisinh in fome of his Works, Jhat to Lye m a matter
of Religion, is meer Biafphemj. Neverthekfs we may obferve, be-
fore proceeding any farther, that if Scot had advanced any new
Dodtrine , he would certainly have been reproved for it by the
Church of L/owi, by Priedentitrs, by F/t)r«r, by the Councils of Fh-
lencs and Langres, which condemn'd and cenfur'd his Opinions on
the Dodtrine of Predejiination.
Trudentius. St. PrWrKt/OT Biftlop of Troys \r\ Champaign, who afllfted at the
' Councils of Paris in the Year 846, of Jcurs in 849 , at Snjjbns in
the Year 85-3. to whom Leo the wrote an honourable Letter,
which is to be fee.n in the 6th Tome of the Councils, of the which
the Bifhop of Tow/in the French Martyrology on the jth of j-jprih,
having faid , that at Treys his Anniverfary is folemnized, as of a
holy Bifhop and Confeflbr i he alfo makes a magnificent Elegy of
him. This holy Bifliop, I fay, was of the fame Judgment with
Hincmsr de John Scot in the Subjed of the Eucharilt, for Hmcwar Arch-bifhop
Pradefl.c.-3,\. Rhemes, numbers him with John Scot, againft whom he ob-
ferves neverthelefs, that he wrote touching Predeftination, and
faith, that they both held, That the Sacraments of the Altar are not
the true Body and Blood of our Lord, but only the commemoration of his
Body and Blood.
Chriflianus Chrtfiiant/s Drutmar Priefl and Frier of Corby, famous for his
Drutmarus. -Learned Works, ftith of Iliuftrious Men, as alfb the Abbot
Trythemius-, wrote a Commentary upon St. Matthew, about the
year S^y. It is in the Btblioiheca Patrum , Tom. 16. pag. 301.
* Je/fts Chrifl, faith Drutmar , took Bread, becaufe Bread firengthens
•' the heart of man, and doth better fortifie our Body than any other food,
g He therein efiablijhes the Sacrament of his Lcveh hut this propriety
An Hiflorical Treatifeof Tran[uhfta?itiation.
' ouzjot much rather to be attributed to the fpritunl Bread which ferfehUy
'• firengthens all Men, and all Creatures, becaufe ^lis by him we Live ,
* Move^ and have our Being. He blefied it: He blefled it fiy[h. he-
' caufe as in his Terfon he bletjtdall Mankind^ then afterwards he fiew- Chri/iianus
* ed that the blejjing and power of the Divine and Immortal Nature was h^'^'t^irnanes
' truly in that Nature which he had taken from the Nirgin Mary. He
' broke it: He broke the Bread which was Himfelf, becatife exp'fng
* himfelf willingly to Deaths he broke and flattered the Habitation of his
' Scult to the end that he might fatisfie us, according to what himfelf faith,
' I have power to lay down my Life, or to fave it. ylnd he gave it
' to his Difdples, faying to them, Take and Eat, this is my Rod}'.
* He gave to his Difciplesthe Sacrament of his Body for the Remifion of
' Sins, and for the keeping of Charity, to the end that not forgetting this
* aBion, they jbould always perform this in Figure, and that they jhctild
* not be unmindful of what he was about to do for them. This is my Ro-
' dy, that is to fay, Sacramentally; and having taken the Cup, he blef-
'led it, and gave it to his Difdples. As amongfi all things which are
' necejjdry to preferve Life, Bread and IVine are thofe tbat do mofi of all
' repair and jlrengthen the weaknefs of Nature: It is with great reafon
« that our Saviour was pleas'd in thefe two things to efiablijh the jMyfe-
* ry of his Sacrament; for IVine rijcyces the heart, and increafes BlocJ,
' therefore it is very fit to represent the Blood ofjefus Chrifi, becatife
* whatfoever comes from him, rejoyces with true Joy, and encreafeth
' whatfoever there is of good in us. To conclude, as a Perfon that ts go-
' ing a ling Journey, leaves to thofe u horn he loves, fome particular pledg
' of bis kindnefs, on condition that they jhouldlook daily upon it, to the end
' that they may retain him always in Remembrance; fo in like manner,
' Godby fpiritually changing the Bread into his Body, and the IFine into
' his Blood, has commanded us to celebrate this Myfiery, that thefe two
' things (hotild make us never forget what he hath done for us with his
' Body and Blood, and keep m from being unthankful and ungrateful
^ for his fo tender Love. Now becaufe water is wont to be mingled with
^ the Sacrament of his Blood, this IVater nprcfents the People for whom
' Jefus Chrifi was pleased to frfftr, and tfie IVater is not without the
' IVne, nor the Wine without the IVater^ becaufe as he died for us, fo
* aljo we jhould be ready to die for Him, and for our Brethren, that is
' to faf, for the Church, therefore there came out of his fide IVater and
' Blood'
This paffage is taken out of the Commentary, where the Author
expounds thefe words of the Inftitution, This it my Body, by thefe
i other
An HijiorlcalTreatife of Tranfuhfta?2tiatlo?t.
other words, That is to fay, \r\Sacra7m7:t^ which are words quite
A G E ix. contray to thofe of Va'chaftus; for Pafchafius faid in his Letter to
Fruiegard, fearing it ftiould be thought that Jefus fpake in Sacra-
Chrifttanus p-jgrit, he faid demonftratively, This is my Body. 'Ne pntare$ cjuia
Drumanes. Sacramento lcqi:ehatur {Dominus) <iJc. demottftratinoe dixit, hoc efi
Corpus meum. So Drutman makes a difference 'twixt the Body and
the Sacrament which he eftablifhes in the Bread and IVme, which
he blefled, brake and gave to his Difciples ■, he afcribes to the
only the Dignity of r/;e Blood of Chrift; and that, to
conclude, the Bread and JVme are fkdges of.his Lcve- Therefore
the fame Author, Chaf. thefe words, I ■will drhik no mere
of this fruit of the VmCy until I drink it nnv with yon in my Father''s
Kingdom; from thatvp'V hoar cf Supper, fjith he, he drank no fVins,
until he became immortal and incorruptible (ifter, his. Rtfurrcflion.
Florus Dta- The Deacon Flbrus wrote about the fimje fimc, an Expofition of
conns. the Mafs, which is mention'd in the Libfatheca Patrum, Tom. 6.
pag. 170. he there faith , Fhis Body and this Bleed is not gathet'd in
Ears of Corn, or in clujters of Grapes; nature doth net give it us, but
it is Confccration that_ makes it Myf 'ical to us: Jefus Chrifl is .eaten
when the Creatures of Bread uvd TFtne do pafs to. the Sacramept qf the
Body and Blood, by the ineffable SanHifeaiion ef the Holy Ghcfi. He
is eaten by parcels in the Sacranient, and remains whole and mtire \n
Heavenf and whole and intire in cur Hearts, ^gstm, All that is done
in this Oblation of the Body and Blood of cur Saviour, is a My fiery, we
there fee one thing, and we underfiand another; what we fee, hath a
corporal fubfiance; what we under fund, hath a fpiritual Fruit. He
faith, Jefus Chrifi faith to them, take, eat ye all op this j and /peaking
of the Cup, Tloe Wine, faith he, was the My ft cry of our Redemption,
and he proves it by thefe words, I mill drink r.o more of the Fruit of the
Vine. To conclude, Explaining thefe laft words of the Canon, By
which , O Lord, thou daily makefi thefe good things for us , Which
contain a kind of Thankfgiving, which in the Latin Liturgy does
follow the Confecration ; he fufficiently intimates to us, that he did
not believe the Bread and Wme were changed into the fubltance of
the Body and Blood of JeftTs Chrift, feeing he fpcaks of them, as
things God had created from the beginning of the World, which he
creates eveiy year by Propagation and Reparation, which lie fan-
dtifies, which he fills with Grace and Heavenly Benediilion , the
which himfelf expounds to be Bread and Wtne.
Hiftorkal Treatife of Tra?zfubfta?itiatio?i. 6 r
See here Nine or Ten Authors, Contemporaries with /"x.A^
which are formally contrary to his Doiftrine, befides thofe which A G E ix.
Tafchajius himfelf l^eaks of in general, in his own Writings.
To conclude the Ninth Century, there might be added the
manner that Charles the Bald, and the Count of Barcelona figned the
Peace, which was done with the Bloodoithe-Eucharift, as is report-
ed by Monfieur Baluz.e in bis Notes on Agabard^ out of Odo Aribert,
in the year 844. It was in the fame manner that Tope Theodore in
the Seventh Century figned the Condemnation of Virrhtts the Mo-
notholitey as appears by Baronim on the year 648. ^ 15-.
That the Fathers of the TENTH CENTURY did not he-
lieve Tranlubilantiation.
ALferick Archbifhop of Canterbury^ about the year 940. in one A G E x.
of his Sermons to be feen in the Fourth Book of Bedes Ecclefi- AlfertdAfBi
aftical Hiftory, cap. 24, which we have Copied in the Library of Cant.
?>t.FiElor, faith, ' The Euchariji is not the Body ofdefus Chrift corporal- TheExpurgat.
' ly, but fpiritually; not the Body in orhich he fuffered, but the Body Index Orders
^of ovbich be [pake., when ccnfecrating the Bread and TFine he faidy thefe words to
* This is my Body, this is my Blood\ he adds, the Bread is his Body, jufi I'^otted out
' as the Manna; and the Wine his Blood, as the IFtiter in the Dejart
' jvas.
There is another Sermon cited by fome under the name of IVol- Wolphinus.
fin Bifhop of Salisbiiry, others fay 'tis of Alfric , wherein the Au-
thor ufes near the fame Language. Tlods Sacrifice, fakh he, u not ApudViferi-
the Body of Jefsis Chrifi wherein he fuffered for us, nor his Blood which ds Chrifli'
he flied, but it is fpiritually made his Body and Blood, as the Manna ^
that fell from Heaven, and the Water that fprang out of the Rock St7tc2p%d.
Befides thefe two Teffimonies which fhew what was believed ofthe sdx^Htmlh
Sacrament in England,there is a Sermon feen, which was read every ^
year to the PeopIeSat Enjhr, to keep in their minds the Idea of the
Ancient Faith ; It is almolt wholly taken out of Ratramne-, Tloere
is great difference, fai:h this Homily, betwixt the Body wherein Jefus
Chrifi fuffered, and the Bbdy ovhich is confecratcd for the'Eucbarifi ;
for the Body wherein Jefus Chrifi fuffered,onas born ofthe Firgiv Mary,
and was provided wiuh Bl6cd, Bones, Nerves and Skin , with bodily
Members, and areafcnabU SeuT, but his fplrltttal Bcdy, which ove call
1 2. EiichariH,
agp:
^2 An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfuh/lantiation
?/ wheat, without
"Euchanfi,
Blood,
H^rrtger.
Idem tom» 6
t 591:
combos'd of feveral Gra^
*• without Bones .Serves, and without a Sotd. 1 he Body of Chrijl which
'saxonH^^.Death, and rofe again, flsall never dye more, it is Eternal and
Immortal; hut the Eucharifi is temporal and not eternal, it is corrupts-
hie and divided into fundry parcels, ground by the Teeth, and goes along
with the other Excrements. This Sacrament is a pledg and figure •, the
Body of fefus Chrifi is the Truth it felf; we ha ve this pledg Sacramen'
tally until we attain to the Truth, and then the pledg fhall be fulfili'd.
Afid a little lower, If we confider the Eucharifi after a corporal man-
ner, we fee 'tis a changeable and corruptible Creature; but if we con-
fider the ffiritual Virtue that is in it, we eafily fee that Life abides in
It, and that it gives Immortality to thofe that receive it with Faith.
There is great difference betwixt the invifble Virtue of this Holy Sa-
crament, and the vifible Form of its proper Nature. By Nature it is
corruptible Bread, and corruptible Wine, but by the Virtue of the Word
of God, it is truly his Body and Blood, yet not corporally but fpiritually.
A little below, he explains this change^ in faying , Jefus Chnjl by
an invifble Virtue did change th( Bread and Wine into his Body and
Blood J but 'twas after the fame manner as he heretofore changed Man-
na, and the Water that came cut of the Rock , into the fame Body and
Blood.
Fulcuinu's Fulcuin Abbot of the Monaftry of Lobes, in the County of Liege,
Tom 6 SpicTl departed this Life in the year 990, fpeaking of the Eucharifiical
dTgefiis Abb' Table, faith, That 'tis the Table on which is confumed the Sacred Body
Lab. p. 573.' of our Lord, which not being to be faid of the proper Body, cannot
be underftood but of the Bread which is called Body, an Expreffion
which in all likelihood this Abbot had learn'd of St. Aufiin, who
faith, The Bread made for that ufe, is confumed in receiving the Sacra-
ment. That which is fet on the Table is confum'd, the holy Celebration
being ended.
Herriger, Succeflbf to Fulcuin, and whom he that continued the
Hiftory of the Abbots of Lobes, mentions as a man whofe Virtue and
Knowledg was known even to Strangers, HecoUiLted, faith this Au-
thor, Jeveral Baffages of Catbolick Fathers againfi FafchafiUS Ratber-
tUS, touching the Body and Blood of our Lord,
of The Ancient Cultoms of the Monaftry of Cluny, Reprinted by
Cluny. the care of Dom Luke D' Achery, I. i. ch. 30. fay, The out fide of
Tom. fin Spec, the Challice is carefully rub'd, left there fhould the leaf drop of the
f 146. Wine and Water remain; and being confecrated, it fhculd fall to the
ground, and perifh j by Which it appears they believed the Wine and
Water
Afi Historical Treatife of Tra7ifubfia?itiatio7i. 6^
water ftill remainM after Consecration, for the true Body of Jefus
Chrift cannot perifli. Again, The Triefl divides the Hcfi^ and ^uts A G E x.
fart of it into the Blood i of one snoiety he communicates bimfelf and
with the other Joe communicates the Deacon. It cannot be Iblpoke of
the Body of Jefus Chrift ; then aTcer the Prieft has broke the Holt, Ciuny ^
he puts part of it into the Cup, after the ufiial manner, two parts
on the Patten, and covers both the one and the other with a clean
Cloath; but firft of all, he very carefully rubs the Challice, and
fhakes it with the fame hand with which he touched it, fearing,
left ihat breaking the Bread, there fliould reft fome part of the
Body of our Lord ( which cannot be faid of the true Body of Jefus
Chrift ; ^ and elfewhere is prefcrib'd what (hould be done, If there
chance to remain ever jo little of the Body of our Saviour, which is
expounded to be a very little Crum, as'twere indivifible, and like
an Atome. To conclude, treating of the Communion of fiek Folks,
it isobferv'd that the Body ofour Lord is brought from the Church, ub.'^.Ch. s8.
that it is broke, and that the Prieft holds on the Challice the part p. ziy.
that he is to bring. It muft needs be, that by the fence of thefe
cuftoms, there muft be Bread and Wme in the Sacrament, that it
may be broken, and improperly called Body.
Ratherius Bifhop of Verona faith. As to the Corporal fubftance yj f"
which the Communicant doth receive , feeing that 'tis I that do
now ask the Queftion, 1 muft alio anfwer my lelf, and I thereto clno^^ton^'
yield; for feeing that to him that receives worthily, it is the true Spidhg Tom.
Body, altho one fees that the Bread is the fame it was before ; and 2.
true Blood, altho the Wine is feen to be the fame it was; I confefs I
cannot fay nor think, what it is to him that doth receive unwor-
thily, that is to fay, that doth not abide in God. Now the Com-
municant, can he receive a corporal Subftance? Can one fay, that
one fees that the Bread is what 'twas before, if the Communicant
receives no fubftance? 7t is known on the contrary, that what is
feen, is not Bread nor Wtne.
Moreover, condemning Drunkennefs and Excefs in
fome of his Priefts, faith, that feme of them fpew'd before the Al-
tar of our Lord upon the Body and Blood of the Lamb j this can be
underftood only of the Sacrament, which borrows the Name of
the thing fignified, the abufe whereofrefledls on him that inftituted.
it.
That
^4 Hiflorical Treatife of Tranfuh[la7itiatio?i.
That the Anthers <?/E lE v EN t H C E n t u R Y not
believe Tranfubflantiation.
The Author H E Author of the Life of St. Genulphius, who in all probabi-
of the Life of j[ Jity lived in the beginning of the Eleventh Centtiry, and was
St Geniilphius. publifhed by John a Bofco a Celeflin Frier, relates of this Saint, That
from the very Day of his Ordination, he fpent the reft of his Life
without tafting any Wine, except it was that he received in the Ce-
lebration of the holy Sacrament. One would not fpeak in this man-
Lib. I. cb. 6. net, and believe that there was not iVine remaining in the Cup af-
ter Confecration.
Lmhericus. Leutherick Arch-biQiop of Sens^ who died in the year of our Lord
" logx. did not ht\\t^QTranfuh(lantiation, becaufe we read of him
in the Life of Pope John the XVII. or according to others the Ele-
venthi that in this Popes Life, LeutherickSens, laid
the Foundation and Elements of the Herejy o/Berenger. VVhence it is,
In Epi/lola Helgald wrote in the Life of King Robert,that his Dodlrine grew
^be^'t i^r^«.-3nd increafed in the World ^Crefebat, faith he, in Saculo, notwith-
ftanding the threatnings which this Prince made to depofe him
from his Dignity, if he continued to teach it.
Fulbertus Fulbert, Anno Dom. 1O07. Bifhopof Chartres, and ordain'd by
:: Leutherkk, did not believe Tranfubftantiation, when he faid in his
Jfi Epiftie to Adeod.tus, That Jefus Chrift intending to take up his
Bib pat torn ^^<^7 Heaven, left m the Sacrament for to be apledg of his Body and
Blood. Float: under the vtfible form of the (freature-, there is a fecret
Jdirtue that Operates in the holy Solemnities, That the Divine Maje-
fty is dilFus'd and fpread abroad in that , vohich before ivas but a
c9mmof} thtn^, but being fanBtfi'd by the heavenly Word, it inwardly
becomes the Body of Jefus Chrift, That this is elFecfted by the holy
Spirit that joyns, unites and binds the Sacrament to the Body of
Jeff/s Chrlf, (compaginante Spiritu fanftoj that the terrefirial -mat-
ter furp.'^lpng the Aderits of its JAature and Kind, is changed into *he
Jub fanes of "the Body of Jefus Chrift ; That this change is not impofll-
b!e, no more thai; th.it is, tvhich arrives to us hy Baptifm^ being
changed into the Bcdy if the Church-, not by any priviledge of Na-
ttire, butby the purchafe ofFaith •, Ncn Naturesprivilegio, fed fidei
pricio, being the lame outwardly, and changed inwardly : Of
Servants
AnHtfiorical Treatife of Tra?if?ibftafitiatio?t. 6%
Servants being become Children, being vile and abjed, and all of
a fiidden acquiring a new Dignity. IVhat womler is it, that A G E xi.
that produced ihefe Matures cut ofnothm^^ fltould convert them into the "
dignity cf a more excellent nature, and make them pafs into the fub- Fulbertus.
fiance of his Body ? Now the terms of pledges of the Body and Blood
of the Lord, do fofficiently (hew that he made a difference be-
tv/ixt i[\G Sacrament and his Body-, therefore we fee'before, that
Ratranme drew the fame confequence in faying, that which is a
Pledg and Image, is diftindt from that whereof it is an Image and
PJedg. Tbefe terms of a fecr£t virtue by ivhich it operates, of the
Sacred Majcfiy n-kich it fprcads abroad, of the Koh Spirit that joins
and unites, o\ the matter which is advanced to a greater dignity ■ and
in that he confirms the change cf the Bread, by that which hap-
pens to Believers in Baptijm-, and by diat which befei the Manna
jij wildermfs > as alio what he farther (ays to Rrudegard'wi his
id Epiftle of the Communicn, as of a thing whereof the Prielt
newly ordained , during 40 days, received a little Portion, par-
vam partictilam, whKh might be taken by morfels, or by bits,
minuiatim fumere^ In that he calls the faodTified Bread, Eucharifi,
and that he faith, That the Janclided Bread is called the true Body cf
Ifiefus Chrifi-, in that he faith elfewhere with St. Aujlin, That he that
abides not in Jefus Chrifi, and in whom fiefus Chrifi abideth not, doth
not eat his FUjh, nor drink his Blood, though he cats and drinks to his
condemnation, the Sacrament of fo great a thing. All this fheweth,
that Berenger had all reafon to alledg in his defence the Authority
of Fulbert, as appears by BerengeFs Letter to Richard, which Let-
ter is printed by Dom Luke TFAchery in the id Tome of his Spictleg.
If things be fo, faith Berenger to Richard, how is it that this Do-
dlrine of the Eucharift , contained in the Writings of Bilhop Ful-
bert of glorious Memory, fhonld come to my knowledg, which fome
indeed imagine to be of. this Bifhop, but was indeed taught by St.
Aufiin ? '
Bernon Abbot of Auge, who about the Year 1050. wrote a _
Treatife of things concerning the O^afs, faith in the i fl Chapter, of the
That Pope Sergtus commanded to fing the Agnus Dei at the Break- 10.
ing of the Body of the Lord ; now this being not to be underftood
of the proper Bniy of Jefus Chrift, it muff be underftood of the
Sacramem, which is the figure of his Body : They do not fpeak fo
now, they fay the Sign is broken, but they do not fay the body of
Jefus Chrift is broken : And in the Chapter he faith, that we are
refreflied
An Hiflorical Treatife of Tranfuhfantiaticn.
refreshed w 'tth the iVine which is in the Ctip^ in Tjpe of the Blocd of fc'
fus Chri}f.
Brum Bifiiop of A.rgers^^ts.% ofBerengers opinion,as appears by the
Tome of the Btbliotheca Patrunt, p. 5 t p, in a Letter the Bilhop of
Liege Writ toK. Her.ry ayainft Brum and Berenger, his Arch-Deacon.
Sigebert in his Chronicle of Mirxm his Edition at Antwerp, 1608,
faith, Lhat many did dtfpute for and againji Eerengcr, by word of
mouth, andby iVriting. The Manufcript ot this Chronicle, which
is feen in Monfienr d'Thcmh Library faith the fame - As airoCo«r<irr
de Brunwill, apud Surium 'vita Wolphelmi ad ap. Matthew of Weji~
minfer on the jxar 1080, faith, That Bennger had almoft corrup-
ted all France, Italy, and England, with his Dodtrine. Matthew
InWillel 2. Paris, and IVtlliam of Malntsbtiry do affirm , That all France was
III WilIcl./.6.3. full of his Dodlrine. Thomas Waldcnps relates the Ails of the
Council held under Gregory the jth, wherein there was a more mo-
derate Confeffion of Faith touching the Sacrament prepared, than
that wndev AhXander the rd, predccelTor to Grf^ory *, Bircnger Was
Tom. 2. Spi- forced to fign it, after which 7tL gave him Letters of Recom-
cileg.508. niendation, which Dent Luke D*Acheiy, has caufed to be printed
in one of the Tomes of his Collection. Neverthelefs it appears
by the ACts, and by Hugh de Flavigny, in the Chronicle of Verdun
in the ly? Tome of Father Bibliotheque, in 1078, that
there were feveral in that Alfembly that maintained Berengers
DoCtrine againft Tafchapus, that this Arch-Deacons Adverfaries
knew not how to anfwer his Reafons, as the C hronicle of Mount
Caffin teft fies, I. c. And Sigonius de Regno halt, relates
hh. 9. on the year 1059. That they were forc'd to fend to the
Monaftry of Mount for a learned Frier called Albert,
whom Pope faith Sigonius, made Cardinal Deacon, who
P Gregory 7. come, and not able to anfwer Berengers Arguments, defi-
red a weeks time to confider of them 3 neither was Pope
the Jth himfelf well fatisfied with what was urged againft Bennger,
feeing that Cardinal Hemon, in the life of Hddebrand, and the
Abbot of Ursberg in the year 1080, do write. That Gre^or^'the
rjtb, wavering in the Faith, caus'd a Fall to be kept by his Car-
dinals, that it might be difcover'd whether the Church of Rome,
or Bercnger were in the beft opinion touching the Body of Jefus
Chrift in the Sacrament. One argument that Gregory the yth,
was not very contrary toBerenger, is, that the Abbot o( Ursberg,
and Aver.tin, that has it fromOt/o Fraxinenps, relate on the year
leSo,
An MiftoricalTreatife of Tranfubflantiation.
1080, that thirty Biftiops and Lords being alTembJed apudBrixiam
Noff!icam, did depofe Gregory the yth, amongft other things, for ^ ^ ^ *'•
being a Difciple of Berengtrs. Before I end my Difcourfe of Be-
renger, it is neceflary to obferve, that the Confeffion that was
extorted from him, is not maintainable, feeing that, as is related
by Lanfranc and Alger ^ it is therein faid, that jfus Chrifi f'Ot ^ ^ ^
only in Sacrament, but alfo in reality, ii touched and broken by the
Teeth,
TheophyJaB Arch-Bifllop of Bulgary faid in his time, That God, jkecphylaB
COndefcending to our infirmity, doth preferve the Species of Bread Msrcum ^
and WinCf and changes them into the Virtue of the Body and Blood of c. 14.
Chrifi. Alfo in his time the Greeks did not believe Tranfubfiantia-
ttom
In all probability Nicetas FeBoratus did not' believe it, feeing Nicetas Pe-
Cardinal Humbert whom Pope Leo the <^th fent to them, upbraids Boratus.
him, Perfidious Stercoranifi, fays he to him, you think that the Partici- Humber. Torn,
pation of the Body and Blood of our Lord breaks the Fafis of Lent^ and 4- "/the
other holy Fafis, believing that the Heavenly, as well as the Terrefirial
Food, IS cafi out into the draft, by the fordid and fiinking way of the
Belly.
Alger de Saeram. 1.1. c. i. Tom. 6. of the Fathers, lib. and the Jc-
fuit Cellot, in Append. Mifcel. Opufc. 7. p. ^6/^. do frequently impute
this Error to the Greeks.
The Author of the Chronicle Malleacenfis, on the year 1083,
obferves in the Monaftry (Cormoriacenjt), That there was a Fryar
called Liferw, of fuch great Abltinence, that for Ten years time, he
drank neither Wine nor Water, but what he received in the Sacrament j
of necelfity then, what one drinks in the Eucharift, muft be true
Wtne, and true Water,
That the Authors of the TWELFTH CENTURY did not
believe Tranfubflantiation.
HOnorius Prieft and Theoiogal of the Church of Rutan, did
not believe Tranfubfiantiation, feeing Thomas Waldenfis, Tom. 2. ^ ^ ^
c. 90. faith, That this Theoiogal was of the Seit of the Bread-eaters '
of Rabanus, de SeBa Panitarum Rabani; and Honorius faith with —
Raban, that the Sacrament which is received with the Mouth, is GfmmaAnim.
K converted /. i. c. 111.
6S An Hiftorical Treatise of Tranfubfanti^fion.
AGE xii.
Honorius.
t lb. c. 63.
* lb. c. 64.
II Ibid. c. 65.
Rupertus.
A. nil.
converted into bodily food, but the Virtue of the Sacrament is that
whereby the inward-Man is fed and fatisfied. He faith alio, That
the Hoft is broken, becaufe the Bread of Angels was broken for us
upon the Crofs t,
* That the Bilhop bites one piece, that he divides it in parts, that
it is not received whole, but broke in three parts, \ that when'tis
put in the Wine, it isfhewcd that the Soul of our Lord return'd to
his Body, and he calls that which rs broke, the Body of the Lord;
then he obferves, that the Sub-Deacon receives from the Deacon
the Body of our Saviour, and that he carries it to the Priefts to di-
vide it to the People ; all this can only be underftood of the Breads
which is improperly called the Body.
Rupert Abbot of Duits, near Cologne, upon Exodus, /. 2. c. 10.
faith, That the Holy Ghoft doth not deftroy the Suhfiance of Bread,
as he did not deftroy the human Nature, when he joined it to the
fE'ord-, and in his 6th Book on St. John, of the Tarts Edition, in the
year 1638, he faith, That as the Word was made Flefh, not be-
ing changed into Flefh, but in afluming Flefh, fo alfo the Word
made Flefh, is made vijible Bread, not being changed into Bread,
but taking and transferring the Bread into the Unity of his Perfon.
We will fay no more of this Author, becaufe B'ellarmin and feveral
others, do freely confefs that Ris^ert^xd not heX\c^eTranJubftantta-
De Scriptor.
Ecclef. I. 3, c.
11. S ^5- i tion \ alfo Honorius of Auter gives him extraordinary Commenda-
De Script. Ec-
cleC
'Zionaras.
lorn. 6. Cyr.
Alex, in Notis
vulcani ad lib.
adverf. An-
thropom.
nar. Ep. 2-
Francus.
Amalaricusi
tions, faying. That Rupert illuminated with a Vifion of the Holy
Ghoft, explained almoft all the Holy Scriptures in an Admirable
ftile.
Zonaras in the Eafi did not believe Tranfubfiantiation, feeing he
faith of the Eucharifl, That it is a Shew-bread which ts fubjebi to Cor-
ruptioH, and which is eat and ground with the Teeth, Tanis Tropojitio-
nis corruptioni efi obnoxius, ut pote caro exifiens vere Chrifii, & fecatur
dentibus nojlris^ & molitur. So that he was of the Opinion of Damaf
cen and Rupert.
The Abbot Francus, in all likelihood, Abbot of Lobes, did notap-
prove the Opinion of Tranfubfiantiation, feeing the Centuriators of
Magdebourgh obferve, that he had no right Judgment of the Lords
Supper, allerting that the true Body of Chrift was not in the Holy
Sacrament.
Amalaricus Bifhop of Chartres in they ear 1107. a man of great
Reputation for his Knowledg and Wifdom , faith Gaugwin in his
6th Book of the Hiftory of France, in the Reign of fbilip the Auguft,
amongft
An HiftoricalTreatife of Tranfubfiantiatwi. 6^
amongft other things, denied Tranfuhfiantiation. Bernard of LttX' Catal. in
emhurg, Vrateolus and Alphonfus alafiro, report the fame oTAtnaury, ^'"''"'■contra
as alfb Genebrard in his Chronicle, Lib. 4. Anno iziy. ' p
OfmioHS of Authors of the thirteenth century,
and afterwards J touching Tranfubflantlation. ,
It's true, Pope Innocent the did condemn this Amaury at the
Council of Lateran, after his Death, in the year 111 y. but
'tis not faid wherefore; and what was tranfadted in this Council,
deferves not to be much regarded , if it be confider'd after what
manner things were there tranfadted. The Pope, who then pre-
fided, was a man full of vain Glory and Ambition; Mathew Paris
and Mathew of Weflminfler intimate fo much of him, and that the
liberty of voting and fpeaking was denied to the Prelates of the Af-
fembly, for they were not feen to propofe, nor deliberate, nor ad-
vife, nor prepare any of the Conititutions which were there in great
numbers; but they were prefented to the Council ready drawn up,
it not appearing that the advice of the AlTembly was taken on each
of them, as is ufually pradlis'd in all free and lawful Councils.
Mathew Paris, on the year 1215-. fpeaks in thefe terms, Every
one being AfTembled in the place abovefaid, and each having ac-
cording to the cuftom of the General Councils, taken their place,
the Pope having firft made an Exhortatory Sermon, there was read
in full Council Sixty Articles; which were liked by fome, and dif^
liked by others.
Godfry zYsyev ol'it. Pantaliun zt Cologne, faith, There was no- , .
thing worth the remembrance done at this Council, only that the '
Eafiern Church fubmitted to the IVefiern, which before was never
known. Naucerlusimd Platina, in the Life of Innocent the ^d.
affirm the fame, ftar they mark, that feveral things were there
propos'd, but that nothing was clearly determin'd. And Kings
and Princes have no Reafon to allow of this Council, becaufe in
the Chap, of the faid Council , Power is given to the Pope to
deprive Princes and Lords of their Lands, and to give them to o-
thers.
Guy /eGm Archbifhop ofNarbonne, in the year ii68. did not
believe Tranfuhfiantiation for being at Row? ^ and difcovering his
K ^ mind
70 An Hiftorical Treatise of Tranfuhflantidtion.
mind to a certain Dodor, being return'd to Narhome, Pope Cle-
mefit the IV. wrote him a Letter, telling him that a certain Dodor
inform'd him, that dircourfing with him, he held that the Body of
Chrift was not efientially in the Sacrament, and nootherwifethan
as the thing fignified is in the Sign j and that he (aid alfo this Opi-
nion was common at Parts. This appears by the Regifter'd Ma-
nufcript of the Letters of Clement the IV. And to (hew that the
Arch Biftiop of Narhnne faid this Dodrine was very frequent at
Farts-, we find that two years after, that is to fay, in the year
1x70, which was in the year Sc. Lewis died Stephen Bifhop of
Parts, by advice of fbme Dodors in Divinity , condemned thofe
which held, that God cannot make an Accident to be without a
Subjed, becaufe it is of its Elfence to be adually in its Subjed.
i.ly, That the Accident without a Subjed, is not evident, unlefs it
be equivocal. 3^, That to make the Accident fubfift without its
Subjed, as we think it does in the Eucharift, is a thing impoffibie,
and implies a Contradidion. 4/^, That God cannot make the Ac-
cident be without its Subjed, neither that it fhould have feveral
Dimenfions. Which Maxims being inconfiftent wnhTranfubJlantia-
tion, doth plainly (hew, that even at that time. Men were divid-
ed on the Subjed of Tranfubfiantiation. One IVilltam , faith the
Fryer Walfingbam, in the Life of Richard the td, King of England,
on the year 1381. Preached at Leicefter on Palm-Sunday, That the
Sacrament of the Altar is real Bread after Confecration; and that the
Bi(hop of Lincoln going to punilh him for it, the People appearing
concern'd for him, made the Bi(hop not dare do any thing againft
him, which doth plainly (hew, that in that time the Dodrine of
Tranfubfiantiation had not taken any deep root in the minds of the
People. '
In Richard, z. ReginalPeacock Bi(hop of Chichefler in England, in the year 145-7,
jinno 12 2. Tranfubfiantiation, (eeing Baleus reports on the Credit
Tom.z. Ch.\<). of Thomas Gafccnius and Leland, that he h?'^ no found thoughts
touching the Eucharift, and that he alfertecThft Dodrine of JVtck-
W-
Now the Dodrine of JVickliff, as is related by this Yxxtv Walfngharn
Tho. Waldenf and Thomas Waldenfis, Was, That after Confccration by the Prieft in
tnEpift. a jjjg Mafs, there remains true Bread and Wtne, fuch as they were be-
fore; neverthelefs, faith fValftngham, the Lords and Nobles of the
In Rich. 2. Land favour'd JVtckhff-, which (hews plainly, that the belief of
Tranfubfiantiation was aot generally recpived.
Guy
An Hiftorkal Treatife of Tranfubflantiation. 71
G«7 of Chvigfiy, Dodlorin Divinity, of the Order of Carmelites]
and Reader of the Sacred Talace^ did not-hold Tranfubftantiation,
but held the Opinion of Ruyert de Duits, to wit, the Impanation;
and faid, That this Opinion was fo agreeable to him, that if he
were Popfi) he would eftablifli it. Thomas IValdenfis reports the 2.C/&.64J
fame thing, having receiv'd it from John of Varis. It's certain that
John of Paris teacheth fo in his Manufcript Treatife in the Library
of St. ViBor, having for its Title , Determinatio fratris Joannis de
Parijiis Pradicatoris de modo exipendi Corpus Chrijli in Sacramento
Altaris alio quam fitille quern tenet Ecclefia.
The fame John de Paris wrote the Treatife above mention'd,
about the year 1300. he was a Jacobin, and Dodor of the Sorbon ; '
he held that the EuchariftistheBodyofChrin:, zs Rupert de Duitst
and Guy of Cluvigny did, to wit, by Aflrnmption, Jefus Chrift ha-
ving taken the Bread into the Unity of his S'uppofitum, as he took the
human Nature into the Unity of his Perfon. And towards the
end of the Manufcript it is faid , That the faculty thought fit,
that the manner of explaining the Eucharift, by Ajjumption of the
Bread, or by Converfien, was a probable Opinion ; but that neither the
one nor the other was decided as a matter of Faith j and that whoe'ver
faid otherwife, did not fay well, and run the rifque of Excommuni-
cation. In prafentia Collegii Magtfirarum in Theologia diBum efif fays
the end of the Manufcript) utrumque modum ponendi Corpus Chrtfii
ejfe in Alt are tenet pro Opinioni probabili, & approbat utrumque per.—
- -Et per dicta SanBorum. Dicit tamen quod nullus efi determinatur
per Ecclefiam,&idcirco nullus caditfub fide, & fialiter dixijfet, minus
bene dixijfet, & qui aliter dicunt minus bene dicunt, & qui determi-
state ajjereret alteram pracife cadere fub fide incurreret fententiam, Ca-
mnis 'vel Anathematis. Thomas Waldenfis attributes this Opinion to-
John de Paris.
There is commonly found in the Library of the Francifcan Fri-
ers, a Book called the Poorh Reckoning, Writ by one, called De Goris,
a Doctor of Tholoufe, and Native of Arragon; he Dedicated his
Book to Alphonfus of Arragon htda-Pafho'^ofSarragoffa. Hecharg-
tt\\ John de Paris \N\th the Opinion of the Impanation , and doth
not condemn it. It is on the ^th Book of Sentences, DtH. 11. q.
The Continuator of William de Nangis, his Manufcript Chronicle
in the Library of St. German de Pres, that John de Paris is ftiled t * jy c •
Doctor of great Knowledg and Learning. * Trythemius and Ju'EecUjSf'
Quar. t le Mire, give him alfo the fame Epithets. ^ AuBuak
lob--
. J
72 An Historical Treatise of Tranfubflantiatioji.
lobfervci That in this Manufcript, John de Paris to confirm
bis Opinion, makes ufe of the Authority ofthe Mafierof the Sen-
tences, in 4fy& Sent. D'tft. 2i. (I take it to be Difi. ii. ) as if the
Mafter of the Sentences fhould there fay, That the Impanaticnh^
frobable Opinion. He alfo cites to the fame purpofe, Dowj!»«j Hc/i-
enfem^ &C. Super Corpus juris extra de fumma Trinit. & fide Ca^
thoL C, firmiter Oredmus , & de Celebratione MiJJarum, cap. cum
Mart a.
Albertus Magnus expounds the Eucharift by Tranfubfl ant iat ion font
he faith, falvo Melian judicio^ which {hews that he did not believe it
as ofFaith.
Durandus of St, Porcien taught, that the fubflance of Bread Re-
main'd, but that the form was chang'd.
In 4. difi. II. Durand\n the 4.Sent.dift. lo.q 13. faith, That in his time there
were Catholick Dodlors which taught, the Bread remain'd in the
Eucharift , and did prove it by the Confeffion which Berenger was
forc'd to make, affirming this opinion was not condemn'd.
Cornelius Bifhopof declared againft Tranfubfiantiation in
the Council of Trent; Canus Locor.Theol. 1. ix. c. ig.
Difp.6,s). SeB. Dominicus Bannes taught, that the Exiftence of Bread doth re-
A-Difp <). Se3. main, that fo the Accidents of Bread and FP'ine may remain by this
Exiftence. At lea/t Suarex. and Mairat attribute this opinion to
him.
To all which, if we add the Dodlors that we have mentioned in
our firft Part, that could not fpeak of Tranfubfiantiation but as of a
New Doiftrine, and which could not be proved by the Scriptures,
without intimating that they were not all Satisfied with it; we (hall
fee it plainly appears, that we cannot apply to the Doftrine oiTran-
fubfiantiationf the Rule of Fincentius Lminenjis, which is offer'd to
us by the Bilhops of France.
The CONCLUSION.
WHerefore the Bifhops are humbly defired, That they would
not continue to exercife Co much rigor and feverity againft
the Protefiants ofFrance,who having yielded farther than they well
could with a fafe Confcience, to obey the Kings Orders, yet can-
not in any wife refolve to make any profeifion of the Dodtrine of
Tranfubfiantiation, it appearing that they oppofe it only for Con-
fcience fake, and as being contrary to the very Rule otfered to them
by the Bifliops themfelves. if
An Hiftorical Treatife of Tranfubfantiation. 7^
If Auftin could fay, That thofe ought not to be efteemed Epift. 162.
Heretkki that with an honeft mind maintained the Errors of their
Anceftors, and are ready to relinquifh them when they are better
inform'd of the Truth ; how much greater Rcafcnis there to bear
with People who do fliew by the very confeflion of RomiJJ} Catho-
lick Doctors, That the Dodrine of Tranfubfiantiation is a new in-
vention, and by confeqtience, that it ought not to be impofed as
an Article of Faiths by the very Rule laid down by the Biftiops of
France.
No realbnable Perfon can find any queftion in matter of Religion
whereto this Rule of St. Aufiin's can be more juftly applied. For
if it be not obftrv'd in this controverfie of Tranfubftantiation^ there
will never be any thing found that it may be ufed in.
If then fuch Perfons are not Hereticks for feeking the Truth, and
that they think ^tis their duty to feek it; that they are of the judg-
ment of Catholick Dodlors, and that they obferve the Rule pre-
fcribed by the Biftiops; it is no way fafe to perfecute them to that
degree of violence, to make them believe that which is contrary to
the Rule which is laid down ; and therefore, what is faid by St.^«-
Jliu onFfalm 54. ftiould feriqufty be conlider'd, Plerumjuecum tibi
viderts OdiJJ'e inimicum^fratrum odifii, & nefcisL
FINIS.
ADDENDA.
THefe words in their place, are alfo to be added. Tie heavenly
Sacrament which truly reprefents theflefh ofjefus Chrifiy is called Glofs on
the Body of Chrifi., but improperly; and neverthelefs it is fo called after C«non hoc
its mannert not according to the truth of the thing., but by a fignificant
Myfery ; fo that the meaning is, 'tis called the Body ofjefus Chrifi,that Confecrat,^
is to fay, that the Body is thereby fgnified. And alfo the Text of the canfee'.z.
Canon taken out of St. Aufiin ; Sicut Cteleftis panis e^ui Chrifi caro 43.
efi, Juo modo vacatur Corpus Chrifi, cum re vera ft Sacr amentum Cor-
poris Chrifif iUius videlicet quod vifbikj palpabile^ mart ale, &c.
'Books lately printed for Richard Chifwell.
TH E Hiftory of the Reformation of tire Church ef EngU^i. By GILSERJ
BVRNET, D. D, in two Volumes. Folio.
The Moderation of the Church of EngUnd., in her Reformation, in avoiding all
undue Compliances, witl; Popry, and other forts of Fhanxticifm, &c. by TIMOfjiT
PVLLER, D. D. Odavo.
A DiCTertation concerning the Government of .the Aicieut Cjmch : more parti-
cularly of the Encroachments of the Bifhop Rome upon ether Sees. By
WILLIAM CAVEy'D.'D.Otlivo.
AnAnfwerto W.SerieanPs [Sure Footing in Chriftianlty ], concerning the
Ruleof Faith: WithfomeotherDifcourfes. By WILLIAM FALKNERB.D.c^".
A Vindication of the Orditutions of the Church ef England; in AnAver to a
Paper written by one of the Church of Rome, to prove tlie Nullity of our Orders.
By GILBERJC BVRNET,I>.D. OSlavo.
An Abridgment of theHifiory of the i^psrmation of the Church of England.
By GlLB. BVRNETi D. D. Otlaw^
A ^Uefticn of feveral Trafis and Difccurfes. written in the years -adygj
&c. by Gilbert Burnet. D. D. To which are added, (if A Letter wricr
^tento Dr. Burnet, giving an Account of Cardinal Poors fecret Powers. (2) The
Hiftory of the Percder^reafon, with a Vindication of the Proceedings th.ere-
upon. ( 3.3 An Impartial Confideration of the Five jefuits dying Speec^c^
who were Executed for the Plot, 1679. In Quarto. y
The, APOLOGY, of the Cfe«rc/> of England-, and an Epiftle to one
Scijdo, a Gentleman, concernirigthe Council of Trent., Written both in
Iflri#,.by the Right Reveretvd Father in God, JOHN JEWEL, Lord BifhopoC
Salisbury; Made Englifbhy a Pafon of Quality. To which is added. The Life
of the faid Bifhop: CoUefted and written by the fame Hand. Oblave.,
A LETTER writ by thelaft Aflerobly General of the Clergy of France to tlie
Proteftants, inviting them to return to their Communion. Together with the Me-
thods propofedby them for their Conviflion. Tranflated into Englifti, and Ex a-
med, by GILB. BVRNET, D.D. OSlavo.
^e Life of WILLIAM BEDEL, D.D. Bifhcip of Kilmori in Ireland. Togc-
thcr with Certain Letters which palled betwixt him and James Waddejworth ( a late
Pepfioner of the Holy Inquifition of Sevil) in Matters of Religion, concerning
the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. Ollavoi
' ^ V " ' The
'^oohs lately i>ymtei for Richard Chifwell,
The Decree made ac ROME the Second of Murch, \6i9. condemning fotne
Opinions of the othcvCafnifls. tluirto.
A Difcourfe concerning the Nccefficy of Reformation, with refpeftto theEr-
rors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome. Qjiitto. Firfl and Second Parts.
A Difcourfe concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown
Tongue. Qjcitto.
A Papifl trot Mifreprefented by Proteilants. Quarto.
An Expofition of the Dodrine of the Church of England, in the ieveral
Articles propofed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM, fm hb Expofition
of the DoHrine of the Catholicli Church. ] Quarto.
A Defence of the Expofition ohhe Dbtlrine of the CHURCH of ENGLAND,
agiinft tl'.e EXCEPTIONS of Monfieur dt MEAUX, late Bifhop of
Condom, znd his VINDICATOR. Quarto.
An Anfwer to THREE PAPERS lately printed, concerning the-An-
thority of the Catholii\_ Church in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of
the Church of England. Quarto.
A Vindication of the Aniwer to SOME LATE PAPERS concerning the
Unity and Authority of the Catholicl^ Church, and Reformation of the Church of
England. Quarto.
AnHillorical Treatife written by an AUTHOR of tlic Comrntoiion of tire
C HVRCHof ROME, touching TRANSVBSTANTIATION. Where-
in is made appear, That according to the Vr'iadpks o{^ THAT C HV RC H
Th's Doftrine cannot be an Article of Faith. Quarto. '11
A CATECHISM explaining the Dodrine and Praftrces of the Church of
Rome ■, with an Anfwer thereunto. By a Froteftm of tlie Church ^ Englmi
eUavo.
A Papift Reprefented and not Mifreprefented : Being an Anfwer to the Firft,
Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Secoitd Part of the [ P'pifh Rtpre-
fenter']-, and for a further Vindication of the [CATECHIS M, truly re-
prefenting the Dodrine and Pradices of the Clmeb of Rome. 1 Quarto. In 2.
Difcourfcs.
The lay-Chrifiian's Obligations to read the Holy Scriptures. QuOrto.
The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholic!^ Miffionaries. 24®.
The Protefiant's Companion; Or an Impartial Survey, and Comparifon of
<bc Proteftant Religion as by Law eflablifhcd , with the main Dotlrinrs of Po-
ptry. Wherein is fiiewn, that Popery is contrary to Scripture, Primitive Fa-
'totheEii
dPim. r
Place this bttwixt theFr^ftaaddie ^
"AeW
THE
CONTENTS-
INTRODUCTION.
The Method propolid by the AQiembly of the Clergy of
FrAtice to judge of Articles of Faith. T(tg. i
This Method admitted by Proteftants. .. ^
TrAnfubfiantiation to be Examined by it. ib.
PART I.
*^H AT feveral of the Doftors of the Church of Rome have
confcls'd that TranfithfiaHtiaticm.h no-ancient Doctrine. 3-
" Iiriovuis.irio,';'?..:
ibl
ib.
/
So Suarex^,
Scotus.
D'Alliaco.
C4rfi.fuf^' PI 3 "J
ErafmHS. ID.
, Alphonfus a
■ (!
Tonfialt Bilhop of Durham^
ib.
Ch. du. Moulin.
g J.Tribarne.
, Afonf. de Marca.
ib.
ib.
..
ib.
CI
-ilN. •
81
^ i<0 .1
PART II.,
.'A'.U.
^jpHAT the Anclemtsdidaot believe
• 'X ^ Proved
V - TThe Contents. 1 •
V *», vt C » '
Proved
In GENERAL.
^ Firfiy The P4^/?rtlietnfeIves confers, that TranfHyfiantiaUm
IS not exprefly mentioned not taught in Scripture. j
So, Scotui. lb.
Ockhamt V- - ib.
'-r uilphonfits de Cafiro. ib.
Gakriel Biel. lb."
Card. JCajetd^e. ib.
Sectndly, That Tra»fuhfiantUtio» comprehending infinite diiTi-
culties, we do not yet find that either the Jews or Gentiles have
objected any thing to the Chriftlans in their difputes againft it. ilf.
.. r O.ii
C Trypho. J>
Not s Celfas, ^ 4b.
^ jHlian- u
Who yet have traduced mofl: of the Myltcries of our
Religion. 7
- Which plainly_lhews thzt Tranfuhjlantiation was not then
known. ib.
In P ARTICULAR.
Tranfhbfiantiation was not believed by any of the Fathers of
the Church. This fhcwnin thofe of the feveral Ages,
CENT. !L
Jnftine Martyr.
Irtn&HS.
Clemens Alexandr.
TheodotHS.
CENT in.
•r.a
Terfaliian.
Origen.
Cyprian.
15
CENT.
IV.
^ 8
3
-
9
Enflathius.
Id
A®
Eufebins Cafarienfis*
ib.
ib.
Cyrillus Hierofol,
*7
r'
Macharius.
ib.
SlBaftl.
i8
EphremEdeffenus.
ib.
11
Epiphanm.
*9
J3
Greforms Nax,.
ib.
/
Grtgorius
The Contents'
Cre£orius l^yffcn.
S. Ambrofic'
Gaudentins.
S,Chryfofiont.
CENT. V.
S.Jer$me.
S. Anfline»
Theedoret.
Ar»t)bm Jan.
Proffer.
Hefychiusl
Procopius Gaz.eut.
Gelafms.
CENT. VI.
20
21
22
ib.
26
^7
37
38
ib.
39
ib.
40
pHlgentm. 41
Pphrem Abitioch. ib.
Facundus. ib.
Primafihs. 42
CENT. VII, Vin.
Jfidorus Hifpalenfis. 43
£eda. 44
Sednlius. ib.
Jo. Datnafcem/, ib.
Condi. ConfiMtinop. 45
AicuinHS. 46
Carolus M. 47
Offcittm Ambrofiannm. ib.
Ordo RomanHs. ib.
CENT. IX.
Theodorus StHdka, 48
Al^to. ib.
TheodHlphUs. 49
Rab/tnm,
Antalarius,
Walafridni Straba.
Pd'errtbald.
Trudegard^
Ratramne.
Jo. Erigena.
Prudentius.
Chriftian Drntmar.
Floras Diacoit.
CENT. X.
Jlferic., A. B. Cant.
Wolphinas. t,
Saxon How it.
Pulcuinus.
Herriger.
Monafi. Cluny.
Ratherius.
CENT. XI.
Auth. Life of S. Cenulphe.
Leutherkas.
Fulbertus.
Berno.
Bruno. ^
Gregory VII. P.
Theophyla^.
Nicetas PeHor/aus.
Chronken Malleac.
CENT. XII.
Honorm.
RupertuSf
Zonaras.
Amalariqus,
SI
Si
5+
ib,
•I'
lb.
56
S8
ib.
60
61
ib*
ib.
6z
ib.
ib.
63
64
ib.
ib.
6%
66
ib.
67
ib.
ib.
67
68
ib.
ib.
CENT.
The Cofltcnts.
CENT. XIII. &c.
Of the Council of Lateran.
That feveral after k did not believe TranfubfimiMrn.
(Suido le Grot. 69
Reginald Peacoc^. 70
Guido CIhv. 7*
Jo. of Paris. ib.
Albert. At. 7^
Durand. . ib.
Cornelius Bp., of Bitontc. ib.
Dominicus Bastnes%. ib.
C O N C L U S.
T9 the Clergy of France, thatthey ought not to frefs upon the Br A
t eft Ants the belief of T ranfubftantiation. 7,2
Books lately frinted for Richard'CIufvvelt
■fhers ar.d Cou}v:ils; aad tliat proved from Holy Writ, the Writings of the
Ancient Fathers, for feveral hundred Years, and tlie eonfdlicn of the moft
teamed Papifts thcmfclves. (iairto.
Mr. ChiUing-cvtrtWi Book called [ T/v Rtligien of Protejlants a fafs rviy tt
SjlvatioH^ made more generally uleful, by omitting Pcrfonal Contefts, but
inferring whatfoever concerns the Common Caife oj Protf/lj/tts, or defends
the Church of England. With an Addition of an Ufeful TalJe, and aHb of tome
genuine Pieces of tlie fame Author never before Printed, zdr^. about Traditions,
againft the Catholicifm and Infallibility of the Roman Church. And an Ao
count of the Arguments which moved him to turn Papifl, with his Confuta-
■tion of tlK faid Arguments, tluarto.
A Difcourfe of the Holy Eucharifl, in the two great points of the Real Preftnce
and the Adoration of the Heft. InAnfvvcr to the TwoDifcourfes lately printed
at Oxford on this Subjeft. To which is prefixed a large HiftoricaJ Preface rela-
ting to the fame Argument. Quarto.
The Pillar and Ground of Trudi. A Treatife (hewing that the Roman Church
felfly claims to be That Church, and the Pillar of Tuat Tiuth, mentioned by S.Panl
in his Firft Epidle to Tmothy, Chap. llf. Perf. i $. Quarto.
A Brief Difcourfe concerning tlie Notes of the Church, with fome rcfleftions
■on Cardinal Bellarmin's Fifteen Notes. Qjearta. whereof Ten are extant. The
reft will be Publilhed in their order.
An Examination of the Cardinal's Firft Note, concerning [[ The Name if
Catholicl^ 3.
His Second Note, f Antiquity
■ His Third Note, ^Duration'].
• His Fourth Note, f Amplitude or Multitude, and variety of Believers J.
His Fifth Note, fThe Succejfm of Bijhops'}.
■ His Sixth Note, f Agreement in Dolirine with the Primitive Church^.
—.-His Seventh Note, {Union ej the Members among thtmfelvts, and whk tht
Heady
Si—.-His Eighth Note, [San^itj of DoSrine"].
(the reft will be publifhed Weelfty in their Order ).
A Defence of the Confuter of BeUarmin^ Second Note of the Qnirch
{Antiqidty 3 agaitdl the Cavills of the Advifer. Qftarto.
The
Books txtety frinted for Richard ChilWelL
The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scriptures afTerccd.. In Anfwcr to the
ith, lib, 8tb, ^tbittdiotb Chapters of the f" Fa/j/fe Rryrtjisttr, Second Part
Two Difcourfo ; Of Purgatory and Prayers, for the Dead.
A Short Summary of the Principal Controverfies between the Cbmb of Ene-
t*a^ and the Church of Rome. Being a Vindication of feveral Proteftant Do-
fttines, in Anfwer to a late Paroplto intititled [_Pr«ttflaitcj dtftimt ef ScrU
^terhProtfiy
.if .
¥ IK 1 S.
f
/
SIX CONFER.RENGES
Concerning
trjie CnrbartS.
I
Novemb, 5. 1678.
MR.X PidPon Jefuit, .having . in Remarks ( publifhed
aciclared in bffcA .(in P.2%^0.') that the
Principles of Philofophy which contradidf the Dodtrine of Tranfub-
ftantiation are to be renounc'd, and that Chriliians have the fame
ground to believe Tranfub(iaHt&tidii% the Bleflcd Trinity, and de-
manding Hm great the Confnjion of Dr. T. will be at the Day of
Judgment., when he fiallfind that Tenet true : The faid Dr. 7Vff?7o»
the Publidier pf JSOO^ ^ does, fo far as concerns thefe Parti-
culars, refer Mr. Fulton to 1T \, and for the reft of his Remarks be will
in due time give a very juft Anfwer to them.
UTr<
CONFERENCES
CONCERNING
The Eucharift.
Wherein is (hewed,
That the Dodrine of Tranfubjlaniiation
overthrows the Proofs of Chrijiian
■ Religion.
1 Septemb. i >.
1687.
Imprimatur.' ^
Jo. B A T T E L Y.
LONDON:
Printed for EiCljarU CIjlCtDEUj at the Rofe and Crown
in St. PauPs Church-yard, MDCLXSVIE
The Contents
Of the Six Confermces concerning
the Eucharist.
CONFERENCE L
He Firfi Tmfy That Tranfuhflantiatkn alf-
foliudy defirojfs the certainty of our Senfesy
which is the Foundation of the ftrongefl Proofs
of Chrifianity,
C O N F. IL
7he Second 'Proo/, That Tranfuhfantiation difcreditinj^
the Tepimony of our Senfesydoes ahfolutely overthrow
the principal ^(eafons which confirm the Truth of
Qhrtflian ^ligm,
c o N F. nr.
lFl)erein are confirmed the two Proofs contained in th
two preceding Difcourfis,
y
A 1 C O N F.
The Contents
Of the Six Conferences concerning
the Eucharist.
CONFERENCE I.
THe Firfi ^mfy That Tranfuhjlantiatm ah-
jolutdy defirop the certainty of our Senfesy
which is the Foundation of the Jirongeji Proofs
of Chrifianity,
C O N F. IL
Jhe Second Proof, That Franfuhjlantiatm difcreditin^
the Tejlimony of our Senfesydoes abfolutely oyerthrow
the principal P^eafons which confirm the Truth of
Qhrifiian Peligton,
c o N F. nr.
■herein are confirmed the two Proofs contained mth
two preceding Difcourfes,
I
A 1 CONE.
The Contents^
c O N F. IV.
Jhe Third T^reof, Tl^at Tranfuhfiantiation efiahltjhes
Sceptkifm in its full perfe^ion • and efpecially de^^
prays the certainty of Demonpratm,
C O N F. V.
Wherein is pnally Jhew'd, That Tranfubpantiation
^ epablifhes Scepticifn k and ahfolutely deUroys the
certainty of Fiip Principles.
CON F. VI.
Wherein the Proofs contained in the foregoing Difcourfes
are defended'^ and the mpojsibility of ufing them
dgainU the 'To^rine of the Trinity is demonftrated.
-- • -
** T -r
SIX
( 5 )
f
SIX
CONFERENCES
Concerning the .
EUCHARIST-
I
■ ' "J' ' *
CONFERENCE 1.
That Tranfuhfiantiation ahfolutely deflroys the certainty
of our Senfesjwhich is the Foundation of the Jirongefi
Proofs of Chriflianity,
It's not many days fince I came to Mr. N.
and found him in his Study, having his Eyes
fix'don a Book ; witli the reading of which he
leem'd to be lb taken up, as made me think I
fhould do him wrong to interrupt him. In-
tending therefore to withdraw, without his
feeing me ; I could not do it without fbme fmall di-
fturbance, which made him turn his Head towards the
place where I was, and haftily arife towards me.
You fhall not be gone, faid he, for I prize your
Company at another rate than thus to lofe it. The'
loft, repFi'd I, would rather be mine; and-1 am afraid
kfr I fhould deprive you of the pleafure of fbme
delightful
The FifU Conference
delightful reading, as knowing, by experience, how
vexatious it is to be difturb'd at fuch a time.
What you fay, anfwered he (after he had made me
fit down ) is very true. I am not a little pleas'd with
reading good Books, and I doubt not, but this which
lies before me is of that number. But you have where-
with to make me amends for this Interruption, for I
doubt not, but before we part, you will increafe the
Pieafure which this reading afforded me 5 and approv-
ing this Book, as I dare lay you will, you'i not a little
confirm me in the good Opinion I have of it; and
make me read it henceforward with greater earneft-
,nefs.
Your efteem of the Book, repliM I, is enough to
gain my approbation. I am not wont to make Appeals
from your Judgment, having been always fb pleas'd in
following it,that 'tis now become a kindof Law, which
I never violate. But perhaps I never law this Book.
That can't be, anfiver'd he, this Book has been too
famous for you not to lee it, elpecially confidering it's
(i)p.Dan. fbme Years fince'twas publilh'd. In a word, 'tis the
Huetii demon- gook wluch the Iiigcnious MwHuet has writtento elja-
|gS blilh the Truth of Chriftian Religion (4^.
I do not repent, laid I, of my engagement to ap-
prove of it, for I have read it with great delight,
not to mention the Style, which is delicate, and want's
no Ornaments j I find it replenifh'd with judicious Ob-
lervations, and luch as lie out of the common Road,
full of great fenie and plainnels. In fhort, 'tis a Work
worthy its Author, who hold's a CQnfiderable Place
amongft Learned Men.
I have only one thing to lay againfl: the Book, and
that with regret, becauie I know you will not herein
agree with n>e- Let's hear it however, laid he; It is,
repli'd
mcernlng Trdnfuhjimtiation, 't
' J
repli'd I, That this Book was made by one of yoiif
Party. If that be all the fault, anfwer'd ne, I am much
miftaken if Mr. Huet ever correds it.
You may judg what you pleafe of it, replied I; my
Opinion is, That this is a capital Fault, and {]x)irs the
whole Work. For whereas this would have been an
excellent Piece, had it been wrote by a Prdtefimt;
coming from a Perfbn of your Communion, it lo^s
allitsF^orce and ConviQiion, and overthrows its own
Arguments; and fhould it fall into the hands of a
knowing Infidel, he could, with one word anfwer
it.
This is very furprifing, fays Mr. A/, and you muft
be a very great Bigot in your Religion , to offer
fiich a ftrange and incredible Paradox. Has your Be-
lief tlie priyiledg of making bad Arguments good
Ones? and is ours fb unhappy as to corrupt the befl
Things, and change Demonftrations into Sophifins,, as
oft as they pals through our hands ?
There may be, repii'd I, fbme Truth in what you:
now fay ; and I give an Inftance of this fi-om one of
your Authors (P) i who fhews, That the greatefl: part (J>) EdHcatm
of Senecuh Maxims are falfe and ridiculous in the ^
Writings of That Philofopher; whereas they would be
very proper and excellent in the Writings of a Chri"
fit AH.
The fame may I fay of Mr. Uuety and the- re/f of
your Authors, who undertake- this Subje^l The- beft:
Proofs become Parahgifms in their "^ritings, and 'tis v
by paffing over into ours,that they refume-their ftrength-;
and due efficacy.
And this is one of the Eflefts which your Trmfulf^
^■AMiation operates,, deftroying the. moft convincino-'
Arguments you can offer the Infidels,, and giving them'
an-
8 The Ftrfl Conference
an infallible means to defend themfelves, and right to
maintain, That if thelc Proofs be good, Tranjubjlm-
tUtion is not a part of the ChriJliM Religion^ or if
Tranfubfimtiation be "a part of tXiQ Chriftian Religiofty
thele Proofs be of no validity.
It's certain, if they be Men endued with fenfe,
they will lay hold of the firft of th'efe Propofitions;
In eflfeft it's apparent. That Mr. HaeRs Proofs are
valid, and good in thenilelves ; whereas 'tis not cer-
tain, That Tranflibftantiation is one of the Doffrines
which Chriftianity teaches, not to fay that it ought
to be taken for granted, that it is not one of them.
It is fb Arrange and olfenfive, and fo little agrees with
the whole Body of reveal'd Truths; either in general,or
particular, that a Man needs only the ufe of his Serifes,
free from all prejudices, to perceive. That this comes
not from the fame Spring, and that fhe Author of Chri-
flianity is a, -very dtfferent Perfon from the Author of
TTanfubfasitiation.
Such.InAdels then, that are difcerning Men, will
feparate what's offered to them jointly. They will
•embrace Chrijlimity, and rejefl Tranfubjlantiation
They will receive this Holy ReUgion^ as coming from
the Spirit of God, and put from them your Doftrine as
a humane Invention.
- However 'tis not long of you. That they caA: not
themfelves into the other aforementioned extremity :•
I mean, the perfaading themfelves that the Proofs of
the Chriftian Religion be invalid. Yet you are for
perfuading them, not only That TranfubArantiation is
one of the Doftrincs -which the Gofpel teaches, but
rnoreover one of its principal ones; one of the raoff
cifential Points of ChriAian Religion, and that which
can be leaft fpared. And confequently, if thefe InA-
' ■ ■ dels
concerning Tranfuhftanttation, ^
dels be fimple enough to believe this, and after fiich an
Error have any reaibn left, they will only make ule of
it to perfwade themfelves, That that Religion which
teaches fuch an incredible Dodrine, could not have
been revealed by the Spirit of Truth; and that the
Proofs which were made ule of to eftabliili the Divi-
nity of it, are of no validity.
I am fo ftrongly polfelfed with the belief of "trm-
fubfiantUtion, (laid Mr. N.) That I believe no Ob-
jedions in the World are capable to make me doubt
one minute of the truth of it. Yet I muft acknow-
ledg, 'twould be a terrible Temptation to me, could
you convince me of what you fay. It does lb highly
concern us, That the Proofs of Chriftianity be valid.
That there are few Things but what ought to be lacri-
fic'd to fo great 'an Intereft; and I know no greater
prejudice againft a Doflrine, than to fhew that it wea-
kens thele Proofs, and gives advantage to liich dange-
rous Adverfaries, as thole are, againft whom we ule
them. And therefore I muft ingenuoufly confefs to
you, That you cannot touch me in a more tender
place. But I muft affirm at the lanie time, you have
undertaken what you will never be able to prove :
That Tranfubftantiation overthrows the Arguments
of Mr. Huet, even thole which feem moft likely to
convert Unbelievers.
I do not doubt, replied I, but to make it plain to
you ; and I am willing you Ihould make no account of
my Arguments, if you your lelf do not find they car-
ry along with them the cleareft Evidence. But if
you plcale, let me hear firft, which are the Arguments
Mr. Huet has made ule of, for thole are they wluch be
in queftion between us.
B
The
The Firsl Conference
The Proofs, laid he, are certaia undeniable hiftori-
cal Matters of Faft ; and which are moreover of fuch
a nature, That they cannot be true, if Chriltian Re-
ligion be not of God ; and the Matters of FaQ: be tliefe,
Tiiat long before our Saviour's Time, the Jem had
certain Books which they efteem'd Sacred^ and which
they believed were written by Men infpired of God.
That thefe Books have come down to us without alte-
ration; and that we have them, fuch as they were be-
fore our Lord's Incarnation. Tliat they contain di-
vers Prophecies, which promife a Deliverer to the
Jewi^ Nation ; whom they mention under the name
of McJJiafy diftindlly denoting his Birth, his Adions,
his Death, and RefurreOiion ; and in general, the moffc
remarkable Paffages of his Life. That under the
Empire of Tiberius, there appeared in Judea a Man
called Jefus, who laid he was this MeJJias. That there
was feen in his Perfon whatever the Writings of the
Prophets had foretold fliould be oblervable in the Mef-
fias. That he moreover wrought feveral Miracles to
prove his Million. That having been crucified by the
Jews, he, after three days, rofe again, and was carried
up into Heaven. To which we may add, that after
his Afcenfion, his Apoftles proclaimed his Refurrecliou
throughout all the World, and confirmed it by various
and infinite Miracles. That this Teftimony which
they gave, drew on them a thouland cruel Perfecu-
tionsand engaged them into the neceflity of under-
going Poverty, Contempt, Imprilbnments, and the
moft cruel Punifhments the World could inflidb on
them; yet all this was not able to make them alter
their courle. That their Preaching perfwaded an in-
finite number of People, of all Nations, and efpecially
great numbers of the Jews* That the Church, which
they
hncmng Tranfubftantiatioju
tliey founded by this means, fuffered an uninterrupted
PerfecLition, for the fpace of 300 Years ; and yet daily
encreafed, and fpread it felf over the whole World.
'Tis true, that Mr. Huet has not infifted on the laft
of thefe Fads; but befides, that they be of the fame
Order as the preceding, I believe 'tis fit they fliould be
added, as being of great uie for the eflrablilhing of the
Truth of Chrijlian Religion. In a word, if both one
and the other be true, 'tis not poflible but the Chriftian
Faith muff come from God; and he that denies fb ne-
celfary a Coniequence may deny thecleai^ft Truths
which have hap'ned in the SVorld.
Thefe Fads being true, the Birth of Jefus Chrift,
his Adions, his Death, his Refurre^ion, his Afcenfwn,
and in general, all the particulars of his Life have
been foretold, feveral Ages before they have happened ;
and what is moft confiderable, they have been foretold,
not by one or two particular Perfbns, but by a long
Train, as I may fay, of Prophets, who have fucceeded
one another in feveral Ages, and who feem to have
been chiefly rais'd up for this purpofe : by Prophets, I
fay, in whom were to be feen all the Marks, which dc-
note Perfbns infpired of God.
If thefe Matters of Fad be true, our Saviour himfelf
has juftified his Million by a great number of Miracles,
all infinitely above the force of Nature, and circum-
ftanced in the likeliefl: manner in the World, to per-
fliade us they were tlie immediate Effeds of an Al-
mighty Power.
If thefe things be true, the Eternal God has railed
up his Son from the Grave, took him up into Heaven ;
and thereby declared, in an imqueftionable manner,
Tliat lie owned him, not only for his great Prophet, but
for iiis only Son j it not bciug to be fuppoied, he would
B 2 do
11
The Fir ft Conference
do all tliefe things in favour of one that had falfly
ufurp'd that Title. n i, n ,
If thefe Fads be true, Chrifiiamty has eftabhlh d it
felf in the World, in a manner wholly Divine ; and
which Ihewsjwith the grcateft evidence. That Hea,ve-a
has conccrn'd it felf in it; the Powers thereof alone be-
ingable to triumph over the Refiftances and Oppofiti-
ons of the Earth. So that I do not comprehend how a
Man can acknowledg all thefe things, and deny Chri-
ftian Religion to be of God.
You are in the right, repli'd I, but the difficulty, if
there be any, confiftsin eftablifliingtheTruthof thefe
things; How will you prove them ? For you know the
Jnjidels are not agreed in them. The Infidels, faid he,
do not deny all of them. They acknowledg feveral of
them,and which confequently there's no need of juftify-
ing. As to the reft, in which they will not agree with
us, it's no hard matter to eftablifh the Truth of them.
But what Proofs, faid I, muft one ufe for this .> Such
as are wont to be offered to prove thefe kind of
things, anfwered he. I know, all forts of Proofs, are
not proper to eftablifh all kind of truths. Abftra£fed
Verities, fuch as are thofe which Metaphjficks te^Lch us,
are not proved by the Senfes, nor by Authority, but by
Demonftrations. Whereas on the contrary. Matters of
Fa£I do not fhew themfelves, at leaft in this manner ;
but if they be prefent, we make People fee or touch
them,whom we would convince of the truth of them'j
and if they are paft, and at a diftance, we ufe the Te-
ftimony of thofe who have feen them, or certainly
known them.
Thus the Truths, which ferve for a Foundation to
the Proofs of the Chriftian Re!igion,confifiing in Fads,
and thofe paft and ancient enough; you plainly fee
hence.
mcernmg TranfuhJIanttatm. \
hence, we muft not expefl; to eftablifh them by Meta-
phyfical or Mathematical Demonftratiorts, nor by the
Depofitions of Senfe. We muft content our felves with
the Teftimony of thofe,who have feen them with their
own Eyes, and who could not be deceived themfelves,
nor have any defign of deceiving others.
Is this ftiificient ? repli'd I. A bare Teftimony of
Men ; can it produce any thing efte than a Humane
Faith ? And is Humane Faith a ftifiicient Foundation
for Divine Faith ? Is not Humane Faith a kind of Opi-
flion ? and can an Opinion uphold what the Scripture
calls (e) the Subfiance of things hoped for, and a demon- CO Heb,
(Iration of fuch as are not feen.
I am fiirpriz'd, laid he, that fb ftnall a thing fliould
flop you. When we confider, in the Teftimony recei-
ved, only the bare Authority of him that fpeaketh ;
when we attend to that alone, and the Faith which is
grounded thereon, has no other Foundation, than the
efteem we have for the Probity and Sincerity of the
Witneft ; I muft acknowledg to you, there's no more
in all this but an Humane Faith, Opinion, and Probabi-
lity : and I muft moreover acknowledg, that this is not
a fufiicient Foundation for Faith. But it oft
happens. That befides this Perfuafion which we have
of the Probity and Sincerity of the Witnels, or from
other Realbns which we have to believe his Veracity ;
even thefe Realbns may be lb ftrong, as to drive away
all Doubts, and infpire us with an entire certainty.
For Example, You and I have never been at Rome, we
cannot know there's a City bears that Name, but from
the Teftimony of thole that have feen it. Yet this
Teftimony is lo circumftanc'd, that a Man muft be a
Fool, or believe others are liich, to rejeCl it. In effefl,
there arc fo many People which allure us of it ; thofe
that
14 77;^ FirU Conference -
tliat affirm it, have (b little intereft to deceive us ; we
lee fb many things happen, which ffiew that all the
World is perfiiadedof it. That there are few Truths
we lefs doubt of than this. And this is that we call
Moral Certitude, which excludes all Doubt, and which
according to Mr. Huef, is no lefs than that of Metaphy-
fical, or Mathematical Demonftrations.
And this comes very near what one may fay of the
Tehimony of thole who witnefs the Matters of Faft
above mentioned. This Teftimony was not given by
one or two Perfbns, but by feveral, at divers times, and
in different places. All theie Witneffes may have been
perfeftly inftruftedin the Fabts which they atteft,feeing
• they might have feenthem with their own Eyes. They
had no worldly Intereft in faying what they did : It was,
on the contrary, much their intereft to conceal or deny
it. A thoufand fiich-like Circumftances do fhew, that
they fpake what they thought; all which added toge-
ther, will not permit a Man to doubt of the truth of
their Teftimony. So that we have fbmething more
than a bare Opinion, for we have a perfebt Certitude.
J3y what, I can perceive, faid I, you are not of the
Humour of a great number of your Divines, who feem
to delight themfelves in extenuating the force and
C£i)Durand.in cleameTs of thefeProofs. You know there are fome (dj
3 dirt. 24. ■ affirm, they are only probable. Others affure us (e),
Du'val That tlieir Evidence is not fb great, but that there are
in22.pag.41. other things which have as full conviction, and yet are
falfe. Some fay they be obfcure Reafons, and wl]ich
do not convince the Mind, that they conihrain not an
aifent; and therefore the Will mufl determine the
Mind, which theie Arguments leave at full liberty.
I do not only, faid lie to me, not approve all this, but
I do not think 'tis flilferable. Yoii are in the right, faid
f
concerning Tranfuhflantiation.
I,and I am glad to find you of this Opinion: Not but that
what your Divines affirm, gives me great advantage
againft your Proofs. But befides, that I can acquit my
felf witliout them; I am far from preferring fb fmall
anintereftjto that of the Glory of Chriflianity ; which
partly confifts in the force and validity of the Argu-
guments, which eftabliili the Divinity of it.
Let us then efteem thele Realbns more than proba-
hit; and as having that degree of evidence which be-
gets a moral Certainty, excluding all doubtfulneis ; and
which perfwadeth not only, that the Matter is as we
believe it, but moreover that it cannot be otherwife ;
and that 'tis morally impoffible it fhould not be. This
being fuppoled, do you believe thefe Proofs have the
higheft degree of this Evidence ?
I in elfeQ: fuppofe. That the moral Evidence confifts
not in an indivifible Point. It receives feveral degrees,
yea infinite ones; It a riles from the concourle of Cir-
cumftanccs which give weight to the Teftimony, on
which it is grounded : and as thele Circumftances may
be compared, and diverfified into a thouland different
Ihapes ; there may be in them a thoufand different
degrees of this Evidence. So that though it be moral-
ly evident, there be two Cities in Ita/jy,ont of which is
called Roffie,and the other Viterbe j yet we are more cer-.
tain of the exiftence of the firft, than of that of the le-
cond, becaule we have more Relations of the one than
of the other. It's morally evident, that Jlexandery
Cefar, and Henry IV have been, than that the firft
conquer'd Darius, and the fecond the Gauls, and that
the third diffipated the League. Yet we are more cer-
tain of the latter of thefe Faffs, than of tlte fecond ;
and of the fecond, more titan of the firft. Believe then,
that the Facls, whence are drawn the Proofs of Chri-
ftianity,^
16 The Firjl Conference
ftianity, are as evident, as that there is a City called
Rome.
Firfl: of ah, faid he to me, I think we are not ob-
liged to make the fame judgment of all thele Fafts,
fome of them being more evident than others ; and
coniequently one cannot fay of all of them, without
exception, that they are as unqueftionable as the Exh
Fence of Rome; but yet, I think, we may fay it of
fome of them.
Suppofing, faid I, one might fay it of all of them.
You will at leaft grant, that is as much as can be faid
of them; and that it is more evident, that whatever
you have offered is true, than it is. That there's in Ita-
ly a City known under the name of Rome.
This is, faid he, a thing which I am far from de-
nying, and which no Body ever did or will deny.
There is even one of our Divines who has faid the fame
^ many words fg); and I am perfi^'aded, that all
lo. Sea. 8. ' the reft would have faid the fame had they the occa-
Num. 60^ fion.
Eet me, faid I, offer you another Queftion, and
then I will conclude. Do you think that the higheft
degree of moral Evidence, is higher than the higheft
degree of the Evidence of Senfe ? Do you believe, for
Example, that 'tis more evident to you and I, that
there's a City called Rome^ than 'tis at prefent evident
to us that it's day ?
I am far from thinking fb, repli'd he: The moral
Evidence is grounded on the certainty of Senfe ; and
if our Senfes may deceive us, the moral Evidence is a
mere Chimera. How, for Example, can I know there
is fuch a Town called Rome, if thofe who have feen
it, andon whofeWord I rely, may be deceived them-
felves ?
It
concerning Tranfubftantiation,
It mufl: then be granted, That the moral Evidence
h never greater than that of Senle. I add, 'tis far Jefs;
the Reaion is, That if we will build on the Depofition
of a W itnels, we fhould not only be fure he knows
what he fays ; we fhould alio know, that he fays
what he thinks, and difguifes not his Sentiments.
Seeing then we are never fo fure of what others think,
as of what we think our felves fo we are never fb
certain that others have feen what they affirm, as we
are certain we fee what we behold.
It's then plain, That I am more affured of what I
do not know, but by the relation of my Senfes, than of
that which has the nigheft degree of moral Evidence.
But this is not all, for, I fay, but one half of what
may be alledg'd. The Example which you have made
ufe of, gives me occafion to add fbmething ftronger.
You ask me, if it be more evident there's a City called
Rome, than 'tis evident that it's now Day. You do
not confider. That I do not only know, by my own
Senfes, it is Day, but by thofe of others. For were I,
in fine, blind, yet I might know this with certainty,
I need only to be led to the Exchange, to Church, to
Dinner, &c. for this purpofe. And therefore I take it
for granted. That the blind Men about our Streets, are
as certain 'tis Day, as that there is fuch a place as Rome.
I believe then, That the Evidence which arifes from
the relations of Senfe, confidered alone, is not greater
than the moral Evidence, being impoflible to be lefs,
as I now proved ; I affirm, That in this Suppofition, to
demand whether 'tis more evident it is Day, than vdie-
ther there be fuch a City as Rome, is juff as if you
fliould ask, whether two be more than one. The Exi-
hence of Rome, as to us, has but one only Evidence,
and that a moral one : Whereas,/f is now Day, has two,
C the
The Firfi Conference j
the Moral Evidence, and the Evidence of Senfe: Each
of thefe two isat leaft equal to that of the Exiftence
of Ro?ne. It is at leaf!: then as much again evident it ;
is Day, as that there's a City called Rome.
Yet is it true, faid I, it's more evident the Eucha-
rift is Bread and Wine, than that it is Day : Only the
Senles of thofe who live, and are awake at prefent,
atteft the latter ; whereas the Senfes of all Men, who
live, or have lived, fince the planting of the Gofpel,
have affirm'dthe former. Allbur Senles do not atteft
it's now Day, only our Sight tells us fo, whereas all
our Senfes tell us. That the Eucharijl is Bread and
Wine. In effect, take a. coniecrated Hoft, takeconle-
fecrated Wine; Ask your Eyes what they are? Ask
your Nofe, your Palat, and your Hands; Ask them
ten thouland times the fame Queftion ; they will evor
anfwer you, what they have always anfwer'd thole
who have confulted them on this Matter. They will
tell you, 'tis Bread and Wine; In a word, the Senles
never attefted any thing in a more elear, exprellive,
and authentic manner, than what they depole on the
SubjeH of the Eucharijl. And if they deceive us here-
in; they are not to be believed in any thing whatever.
Grant we then the Proofs of Chrijtianity do
• higlieft degree of Moral Evidence, leeing the Tefti-
mony of our Senles circumftanc'd in the manner as that
is, which fhew's us the Eucharift to be Bread and Wine
hath at leaft twice as much evidence as that which has
the higheft degree of moral Evidence; it's beyond all
queftion that this Teftimony is twice again as evident
as the Proofs of
This is clear, and I doe not believe, you either will
or can deny it. Here then are three grand Conclufi-
ons, which I draw from this Principle.
The
concerning Tranfuhftantiation.
I'he firft, That if Trmfubfimtiation were one of
the Doftrins of Chrijiianity, as you pretend, Chriftian
Religion would be oppoled with greater firength than
Mr. Huet could bring forth to maintain it. In effeT,
did Tranfubfbantiation make a part of Chrijlian Religi-
on, one might oppofe againft it, whatever is offered
againft TrmfubJlantiatiOft.
I have now fhew'd you, ohe may xDppofe againft
TrayifubJbantUtiofi, all the evidence of Serife. One
might offer all this lame Evidence againft Chriflianity^
were it true that Chrijiiamty comprehended Tranfub-
fiantiation.
This is that which oppofes Chrijiiamty in your Prin-
ciples. Let's fee now, what Mr. do's to main-
tain it. He brings Arguments, which, as we have al-
ready obferv'd are only grounded on moral Evidence,
which is never half fo great as that of fenle. If then
two be more than one; it's clear. That granting
Tranfubftantiation to be one of the Chriftian Do-
ftrins,Chriftianity is attack'd with greater ftrength than
Mr. Huet can defend it with. It is clear, according
to this Suppolition, an Infidel will more ftrongly prove,
That Chriftian Religion is falle, than Mr. Huet can
prove it is true.
All which would never be, were Tranfubjlantiation
put out of the number of Chri(lianT)o^nns. By which
means, the Proofs of this Holy Religion would conferve
all their ftrength ; and the Infidels would have nothing
that's rational to oppofe againft them. Thefe Proofs
are molt folid in themfelevs, and capable of convincing
every reaibnable Body, who fearches the Truth, and is
difpofed to follow it through all parts where he finds
it. There's nothing but Tranfiibftantiation, which
weakens them.
C 2 Granting
2 0 Tl^e Brjl Conference
Granting Tranfubftantiation, thefe Proofs will be of
no validity: Take away this Dodrine, our Proofs
fubfift, and have their eftea. It do's not belong then
to your Doaors who hold Tranfubftantiationy to defend
Chriftianity. The beft Arguments will never be good
ones in their Mouths. Only we can propofe them
without weakning them. So that I told you nothing
but what you find true, when I affirmed a while ago,
That Mr. Htiei's Book, which would be an excellent
Work, were it writ by a Proteftant, is without con-
viaion, coming from a Man of your Party.
And this is, Sir, my firfi Conclufton.
The fecond follows, which is. That whereas an In-
fidfel, to whom was offered Mr. Huet*s Arguments,
without any mention of Tranfubftantiation, or who
fhould fuppofe that Chriftianity do's not oblige us to
believe it, would be irrational, lliould he not embrace a
Religion fb well grounded ; fo in like manner he would
fall in to as great a fault, and aa as much againft Rea-
Ibn; if fuppofing the contrary, and letting himfelf be
perfwadedjOne cannot be a Chriftian without believing
Tranfubfiantiationy he fhould receive both Tranfub-
ftantiation and Chrifiian Religion.
What I have now been faying to you, does neceffari-
ly draw along with it this Confequence. But to re-
mark more clearly the neceffity of it,, be pleafed to
' obferve. That what makes an Infidel a. Ghrifiimy are
the Reafbns which perfwade him. That the Chriftian
Religion was revealed by God. In effeft, that which
induces us to believe Things,, are the Reafons, good or
bad, which feem to us to uphold the Opinion which
we embrace. So that fliould one Perfuade ones felf of
any thing without Ground or Reafbn, that Man will
ad foolilhly and fottifhly, though the. thing it felf
fliould.
concerning Tranfubftantiation, 2 i
lliould be true. So the Infidel, who fliall make him-
lelf a Chriftian without Reafon, would apparently of-
fend againft good Senfe, And this is the general No-
tion of your Divines, which I need not alledg to you ;
for having read them, you mufl: needs remember
them.
A Man then never believes without Reafbn, if he
believes wifely and judicioufly : But it feldom hapning,
that the Reafbns are all on one fide, there being com-
monly fbmefor, and fbme againff ; you will not deny,
but every time when this happens, it's the duty of
a wife Man, and of fuch a one who will not be mif^
taken, to take the Ballance, if I may fb fpeak, and
exadly weigh thefe Reafons, to give the preference to
thofe which appear to him of greatefl: weight.
I do not know whether any Body ufes to do otherwife.
One may, I confefs, prefer Reafbns, which in truth
and reality, are, of lefs force than the contrary ones.
But this is, when a Man deceives himfelf, by taking
the weakeft Arguments for the ftrongefl:. For, in fine, non tenecS
I am perfuaded. That a Man convinced of the weakr homo credere
nefs of a Reafon, will never after value that as he do's
another, which appears ftronger to him ; feeing to ecjualicer ere-
yield to a Reafon, is to judgit ftronger than that which
a 22. QujEft. 10.
Art.i.ConcI.g.
Non eft pru-
dentis hominis alteram partem affcncirepra: altera, ft pari vel fere pari memento rationes
utrinque urgeant. Cenfeo ad hjcc neqj fieri omnino poffe, ut earn partem qnis approbet af-
fenfu fuG in quam nihil inclinat majoris ponderis, quam in adverfam. Rationis utrinq; pares
rationes funt nulls. Multo minus fieri poteft uc alteram partem quis approbet, ft in alteram
inclinet pondus majus. Eft. Dilucid. .Communis doftrins TheoL n. 22, & 23.
It's the fame with Reafons or Arguments, as 'tis
• with Weights; put two Weights-in a pair of Scales,
and if they be equal, the Scales fhall ftand at an equal
ballance ; if they be unequal, the Scale will imraedir
ately
oppofe
21 The Ftrjl Conference
atcly incline downwards, wherein is tlie greateft
weight. In the fame manner offer a rational Man Ar-
guments, which maintain an Opinion, and others
which oppofe it. If after all things well confidered, he
finds thefc Opinions of equal force, he' will encline to
neither fide. But for the fmalleft advantage, which
thole of one fide have over thofe of the other, the
Mind determines it lelf for the ftrongeff ; Or at leafi,
it do's not determine it lelf for the weakefi:; and it
is eveiy whit as impofiible it fliould do it, as 'tis im-
poffible a leffer Weight lliould weigh down a grea-
ter.
But whether this be lb, or not, you will at leafi al-
low me this. That it ought not to be, and that 'tis
contrary to good fe/^fe to determine ones felf in favour
of an Opinion, which we lee grounded on Reafons lels
firong than thole which oppofe it. And this is what
deM^D^fAuthors doacknowledg(h) ; and in effeifi, were
slaf.ri.42^.' it otherwile, one might innocently leave a good Reli-
gion, and take up a bad one; although we law the Re-
ligion we leave more firmly grounded than that we take
up. But this being ridiculous,it mufi be acknowledged,
that good Senle will not let a Man embrace an Opinion
which he lees is more firongly oppofed than main-
tained.
This bein^ granted. Sir, Let's fuppole an Infidel, to
whom is o&red Mr. Htieth Arguments ; if he be
wife, he will not yield to them, till he has feen whe-
ther there beany thing whicfi oppolesthele Arguments
which counterballances them, or dilfipates them. Ima-
gine we afterwards the Chrifiian Doflrine to be pro-
poked to hiny difcharged of TranfubftantintioN. 'Tis
clear, he will find nothing which Ihall counterpoife
thele Realbns. So that thele Realbns being good, and
nothing
concermng T^anfubjlantiation.
notWng being able to diminifh the fblidity of them, if
he be wife he will embrace them.
Let us on the contrary imagine, that by an Illufion,
of which we have feen a thoufand Examples, he is
made believe, That Tranfubftantiation is infeparable
from Chriflhnity. What will he do ? If he be rational,
he will take the Ballance, and weigh on one hand
Mr. jy«(?/-'s Arguments, and on the other, thofe which
combat Tranfubftantiation, and confequently Chridia-
nity, in the fuppofition he is in that they are infepara-
ble. If he holds the Ballance even, he will find. That
theReafbns which oppofe Tranfubftantiation, weigh
more than thole which favour Chriftianity; He will
find that the firft weigh two, and the fecond but one.
In efFe£t,the weight of Reafbns is their Evidence. The
Realbns which oppofe Tranfubftantiation, have all the
evidence of Senfe ; thole of Mr. Hiiet have only a mo-
ral Evidence, which at mofl: have but half of that of
Senfe. The firft then weigh as much again as the fe-
cond. This being lb, how can you expect the Infidel
Ihould give the preference to the fecond over the firft ,
and whom will you peiTwade, that if he does do it, he
will aft regularly.
Do you know what right Realbn will fuggeft to
him? That Tranfubftantiation is not one of the Do-
ftrines which Chriftianity teaches. He will lay it is
impolfible Mr. Huefs Realbns fhould be valid, if^Chri-
ftianity comprehends Tranfubftantiation ; and it muft
necelfarily be, either that this Doctrine has been added
to the ChriftianReligion,contrary to the intention of its
Founder, or that thefe Rcafons be falfe. Yet it's ap-
parent thele Realbns are not falfe, feeing they are evi-
dent; and that the more they are confidered, thegrea-
ter imprelfion they make. We muft tlien believe,
that
Tl:e Pirjl Conference.
that Tranflibftantiation which would deftroy them,
iliould it take place, is not one of the Chriftian Do-
ftrines. , "
He will confirm himfelf in this Opinion, by this ' J
Confideration, That the Author of Chrifl:ianity, who-
ever he was, having form'd his Religion, with a de- ®
fign to'make it be embraced by all Men; and being
able to make it very fit to be imiverlally received, by
not burdening it with Trdnfu^antiation, it is not to
be fiippoRd he introduced this Doctrine, which is likely
only to make it be rejected by judicious Men.
This will more eipeciaJly appear to him inconceiv- '
ableln refpe£t of God, whom he will acknowledg for
the true Author of this Holy Religion, if he well com-
prehends the force of Mr. Haet^s Reafons. So good
and wile a God, could not on one hand require Men
fliould embrace the Revelation he offered them 5 and
on the other, lay an invincible oppofition between this
Revelation, and the purelt notices of Reafbn, which
he himfelf had given them to be their Rule in all
Cafes. He could not on one hand oblige them to he
Chriftians, under pain of eternal damnation; and on
the other, fb order things that they could not be fuch,
without violating all the Maxims of goo^Senfcj and all
the Rules of Pru&nce.
And this is, Sir, what the Infidel will ^y if he be a
rational Perfbn. But if he has not under/landing
enough to perceive all this, yet at leaft he will fee, That
right Reafbn will not let him embrace the Chriftian
Religion, fuch as it Is offered him.
I add, in the ThirdfUce^ That not only he ought
not to embrace it, but that it is impoffible he fltould.
Which is eafy to be proved from the principles of your
own
concemng Tranfubftantiat'm,
own Divines. All of tliem hold ( / ), That the firft
Ad of Divine Faith, is always preceded by a Judg^
ment morally evident; which Ihew's, That what one
is going to believe, is worthy to be believed. They
affirm, That without this Judgment Faith can never be
fbrm'din the Soul. They lay, moreover. That tliis
Judgment is only grounded on what they call Reafons of
Belief or Motives of Credibility ; which are, at bot-
torn tlie Proofs of Chriftianity. They lay,That the Infi-
del weighing thefe Realbns, and finding them good
and folid ; he concludes, that the Dodrine which they
maintain ought to be received.
I now ask you, How the Infidel can form this inward
Judgment, and pronounce that Chriftian Religion de-
ferves to be received, in the time wherein he lees
that the Realbns which induce him to embrace it, are
oppoled by other Realbns, ftronger and clearer ? I de-
mand of you, if in cale this can be. Whether luch a
Judgment would not be apparently falfe ? For how in
effed, can one lay a thing is worthy to be believed,
when one has more realbn to think it falle than to be-
lieve it's true? Do we call luch a thing credible? Is't
not rather incredible ?
I might drive on thefe Confequences father ; I could
fhew you that Tranlubftantiation hath other Conle-
quences, which are no left vexatious; But this not ap-
pearing necelTary, I lhall content my felf at this time,
with asking you, Whether thele three Conlequences,
which I have taken from your Belief, are not very ter-
rible ? and whether it be not better to renounce the
Dodrine which draws them oafter it, than to admit
them ? Yet they be necelfary, and you mull receive
them, unleft you'l deny Ibme of the Prbpofitions which
you have granted me.
D Neither
*5
(J) Greg, dc
Val. Tom. 5.
Difp.i. QueH:.
i.Punft I.§.7.
Conintc dc
adib. fup.difp.
Idub. I.
Mirac. de fid.
difp.ii5.Sed.3
Goner, de fid.
di(p.r. art.8.
Rhod. defid.
queft,2.Sea.4.
§. 2.
i6 The FirH Conference
Neither will this much help you, becaule that in ef-
fe£l: whatever you have granted me is moft certain, and
when you would have this brought into queftipn,rie not
fear the making you grant it again, there being nothing
in ail this but what is highly evident.
What you now faid to meat length, anfwer'd Mr.A^.
is plaufible enough, and I muft confefs I did not believe
your Caufe could be pleaded lb ftrongly. And yet lam
perlwaded, that this is not fblid, and I hope to anRver
all you have laid, when I have thought more of it.
Pray let me fleep upon it, and I'le give you an account
to morrow morning of what has come into my mind.
I was far from denying lb reafbnablc a requeft; I on-
ly told him before I went away, That if this Proof ap-
pear'd to him ftronger, than thole we are wont to ufe
in this matter, this only arole from a certain Air of
Novelty,which might.be in the manner of propoling it;
and that in the main, the common Proofs are no lefs
convincing than thole ; and if they did not appear lb,
this only proceeded from our being inlenlibly accu-
Homed to believe them falle, there having been a thou-
land things invented to elude the force of them.
It being long fince, faid I, that they have been op-
poled againft you ; your DoQors therefore have left no
Stone unturn'd to lelfen the value of them. To this
end they have forg'd a thouland Diftinftions, Ibught a
thouland Subterfuges, and have wanted no Artifice nor
Colour to make them pals in the World. And there-
fore when we offer them againft you, we find you al-
ways ready to flight them. It would have been the
lame with what I juft now offer'd you, had you fore-
feen the courfe of my Objeftions; and you would have
taken care not to lay leveral things with which your
Books are full, and which fhould be henceforward left
out.
consemng Tranfuhflantiatm.
out, unleft you are minded to fliew the World how
you condemn your own Principles.
'I hereupon took my leave of him, and withdrew;
praying God, from the bottom of my Heart, to blefs
my Endeavours ; and fb to profper this Seed which was
fbwn, (as it were unawares ) that it might one day
bring forth Fruit to his Glory.
- CONFERENCE II.
Ihe Second ^roof^ That Tranfubflantiation difcrediting
the Teli'mony of our Senfes^does abfolutely olfcrthrow
the principal ^ajons which confirm the Truth of
Qhrifiian T(eligm.
WH E N I parted from Mr. N. there was no
mention made of the Place where we were
to meet; which made me believe (knowing
his obliging temper) he would come the next day to
me. But being unwilling he fhduld give hirafelf that
trouble, I was relblved to prevent him, by being with
him firft. He told me he was troubled he could not
be as diligent as I was; for immediately after I had
left him, a Bufinels came upon him of great Impor-
tance, which had employed his Thoughts to that very
time; but having ended that Aflfeir, he hoped he
fhould now have an opportunity of acquitting himfelf
of the Engagement lie was in.
D 2 Will
xS The Second Conference
Will you, faidi tohim, let me impart to you ano-
ther Thought, which has great conformity with that,
which was the Subjed of our Yefterday's Difcourfe.
By which means you may examine both thefe Argu-
ments at a time ; and |:)erhaps the one will hinder you ,
from ftopping at things,which will appear to you pro-
per to get rid of the other.
I am of your mind, laid he, but I defire you would
propofe this fkond Proof all at once. For, in fine,
there's oft more artifice, tlian fincerky, in difcovering
what one has to fay by pieces. He that anfwers, and
knows not where his Adverfary will lead him, takes
many times fruitlefs Precautions, and fometimes neg-
lefts neceflary Ones. He lets pafs certain things which
Ifrike deepdf, and amufes himfelf with others, which
are of noeffeft. And therefore I think it heft, That
the Refpondent fhould fee at once the Difficulty pro-
pofed to him, and know at firft what he is to take care
of; and therefore, I pray you, henceforward, to deal
in this manner with me.
What you fay would be neceffary, repli'd I, had
you an Adverfary who fought only to furprize, and
who more regarded Viftory than Truth. But, I muft
tell you plainly, this Artifice appears fb inconfiderable,
and unworthy of an honeft Man, efpecially of a Chri-
If ian, tJtat I cannot but be troubled at your fufpieion.
Pray therefore believe, this is not my intention; for if
I have followed, in our preceding Difcourfe, fiich a
method as you do not like, 'twas becaufe I thought
it the fitteft to lead thofe infenfibly to the Truth,
who are fartheft from it. You know, the greateff
Men among the Ancients have been of this Sentiment;
and that it was perticularly the Method of Socrates,
and his famous Difciple Plato, Yet feeing you will
k. have
concerning Tranfubflantiation.
have me take another courfe, I r^uce my fecond
Argument to three Profiofitions; 'all three being fb
evidently certain, that I cannot lee; how they can. be
overthrown.
The firft is; That if Trmfuhjtanttation takes place,
ourSenfes are deceived in taking for Bread and Wine
what is not fo.
The fecqnd is; That if our Senfes may be miftaken
in the Euchariji^ they may be as well miftaken in eve-
ry thing elle; fb that their Depofitions have nothing
certain.
The third is ; That if our Senfes may be miftaken
in the difcovery of their Objefls, be they what they
will. The Proofs of Chrijlian Religion are of no va^
lue.
The better to comprehend the Force of this Argu-
ment, I believe 'twill not be amifs to pais over it again,,
and carefully to examine its Propofttions.
The firft appears to me very evident; for I have al-
ways taken Error tobetheperfiiadingof a Man's jfelf^
That a thing is what it is not, or to judg tliat it is not
what it is. This being granted, it cannot be denied,
but that our Senfes do deceive us in the Eucharift, if
they attempt the perfwading us, That it is any other
thing than what it is.
Yet this they do, if Tranfubftantiation takes place :
For, in fine,, if this Doftrine were true, the Eucharift
would not be Bread and Wine, but our Saviour's
proper Body and Blood. And yet our Senfes atteft the
contrary ; they all unanimoufly fay, with one Voice,,
that it is not our Lx)rd's Body and Blood, but Bread
and Wine.,
'!: To
^9
'V c
' t
The Second Conference
To prove what I fay, Shew the Eucharifi to an In-
fidel, who has no knowledg of your Myftery, and ask
him what it is. He'l anfwer, without hefitation, 'tis
Bread and Wine. Ask a Child the fame queffion, he
will return you the fame anfwer. In fine, offer it to a
Brute, arid he will do what he is wont when ordinary
Bread and Wine is fet before him.
Now what is the common light to this Infidel, this
Child, and brute Beaft ? nothing elfe but that of Senfe:
whereupon it cannot be denied but our fenfes tell us,
that the Eucharift is Bread and Wine ; and it appears
impoffible to affirm, that it is not fo, without giving
the lye to thefe Faculties.
This will appear more cjearly, if you pleafe to con-
fider. That the Faculty which tells us that the Eucha-
rifi is Bread and Wine, is the fame which makes us dif^
cern other Objefts; and makes us fay of each of them,
This is fuch a thing.
Who will deny, that 'tis by means of the Senfes we
difcover what is prefent to us ? In effefl:, thofe who
have loft the ufe of their Senfes, do difcern nothing:
and thofe who are not abfblutely deprived of thefe Fa-
culties, yet have them weak'ned through defeQ: of the
Organs, are eafily miftaken. Lead a blind Man with-
in ibme paces of a Statue, and ask him, what that is
which ffands before him ? He will anfwer you, he
do's not know: offer the fame queftion to another that
is not quite blind, but yet has bad Eyes; He'l tel you
perhaps, 'tis a Man. Whereas on the contrary, a
Man, whofe fight is good, will tell you prefently, "'tis
a Statue. Is it not plain then. That 'tis the Sight
which difcerns this Objedf ? When then we fee the
Eucharift, and we touch and tafte it, we fay it's Bread
and Wine, it's clear we fay it from the relation of our.
t Eyes,
eo»cermft^ Tranfuh/lantiat'm, gt
Eyes, our Hands, and our Mouths. And confequent-
ly if it be found, that 'tis not Bread and Wine, it can-
not be denied but that 'tis our Senies which have chea-
ted, and deceived us.
It is not worth the while to fet upon the proving of
a thing which your Divines willingly grant. One
might produce fome hundred's of places in tlieir Works,
where they affirm what I (ky (a). They maintain,
that the Fathers {h) Iiavcftriflly charged their Peo-
pie not to truft their Senlesinthis occafion, extreamly W",chap.5.
blaming thole who fiiffer themfelves to be guided by
thefe Faculties, in a matter wherein according to cap, 24.
them we fhould follow no other Light than that of
Faith and Revelation.
They pretend nothing do's more enliance the merit
of this Faith, Than her raifmg her lelf above the Sen-
fes, and perTvading her felf of the contrary of what
thefe Faculties do witnefs to us. I doe not doubt,
Sir, but you have oblerv'd all this in the reading of
your Authors.
It's true, anfwer'd he, and I will not conteft with
you about this firll: Propofition ; But I will not grant
you thefecond. For, in fine, what neceffity is there,
that the Senfes deceiving us in this Objea:, they can-
not faithfully inftruQ; us in any other } Is it not very
likely, that this is a fingle Error,and without any confe-
quence? May tliey not deceive us in this occafion, and
in fome others, without extending this to all ? In ef-
fed, the greateft Lyars do fbmetimes tell true, and per-
haps there is not one amongft this fort of People, but
fpeaks more Truth than Lies. Why may we not then
lay the fame thing of our Senfes ?
You have not well comprehended my meaning, re-
repli'd I, for I did not fay, That if our Senfes be
deceived
jx The Second Conference
deceived in the Eucharift, they muft neceffarily be de-
ceived in every thing elfe. But only that th^ may be
fb, that the thing is not impolTible, and we fhall never
be certain of the contrary, unlels we know it by fome
other way. This is all, I lay, and I hope to Ihew
you in what follows, that I need no more.
In the mean time, my Propofition thus expreft, is
undenyable. Ineffed, he that deceives once, mayde-
ceive always ; and 'tis liiificient, a Witnefs be once de-
tefted of Falfity, to be lufpebled all his Life. Thus the
Senfes, according to you, making untrue reports on the
Eucharift, we may as well lufpeft them to do the fame
on other things.
This is clear; but to make it more unqueftionable,
be pleaied to confider. That if the Senles do once de-
ceive, their relation is no longer a certain Mark, and
an unqueftionable Proof of Truth : For how can we
look on that to be a certain Mark of Truth, which is
Ibmetimes joyn'd with Error ? And coniequently. To
have no other Foundation for ones Perwafions, than
the relations of our Senles, this would be to reft on un-
certain and doubtful Marks, and to expole ones lelf to
tlie greateft likelihood of being deceived.
To lay the lame thing in another manner, let me,
Sir, ask you. Whether the bare relation of our Senles,
without any other Succours, be a fulEcient Motive to
perliiade us what they atteft, or not? If it be, 'tis not
polftble our Senles can once deceive us; for if they
fhould, we fhould have a fufticient Motive to perfuade
us of .a thing which isfalle, which we muft be far from
laying. Tor were this lb, we fhould be bound to de-
ceive our lelves; and this Error would not only be ex-
culable, but necelTary; there would be an Obligation of
falling into it, and twould be, a fault, if. we did not.
But this is intollerably abfu'rd. Now
concerning Tranfuhflantiation.
NcAvif the Teftimony of our Senfo be not a fufil-
dent Foundation whereon to ground a fblid Porfwa-
fion; 'Tis plain there's no certainty in refting on their
Teftimony, and that 'tis imprudent to rely on them. So
thatwemuft lay one of theft two things; either that
the Senfts do never deceive, no not in the Eucharift ;
or if that they do deceive in the Eucharift, they may
always deceive, and that their report is never certain.
And ft) much the more, feeing there was never any
occafion, wherein one has more reaibn toperftvade ones
ftif. That our ftnfts do not deceive us, than in this ;
'Tis not only one of our ftnfts, which fhews us the Eu-
charift to be Bread and Wine ; as it hap{)ens in infinite
occafions, where the fingle teftimony of one of theft
Faculties, fufEces to make us ftrongly believe things.'
But all the Senfts, wherewith Nature has provided us ;
Not the Senfts of one or two particular Perfbns, as
yours or mine, but thoft of all Men in the World, not
excepting one. Theft Senfts make not their Reports
of a ftrange and foreign Matter, but of one of the
moft ordinary and familiar things they are converlant
about. So that if they may be deceived herein, they
may be deceiv'd in every thing elle ; for I know not in
what occafion they may be certain, if not in this.
I do in effeO: acknowledg, it Ibmtimes happens our
"Senfts do deceive us, whether through defeQ: of the
Organ, which is out of order, or through the failure of
the Medium^ which is not fimple and uniform, or by
reafon of the diftance, or difproportion of the Objeft.
But this hinders me not from faying, you cannot alledg
me any Example, which fhews us theft Faculties abuft
us in Circumftances, like thoft which are to be found
in the report they make of the Eucharift; and where-
in not only, none of thoft different Springs of our
E afore
54 The Second Conference
aforemention'd Errors have any place •, but wherein a
Man may ufe all imaginable precautions, toaffurehim-
felf, he is not miftaken. For, in fine, let not a Man
, content himlelf with the bare looking on and view-
ing the Symbols of this Sacrament, but ule all his
other Senles; and thofe of all the Men in the world ;
Let a Man apply himlelf thereto with all poffible atten-
tion, make all tryals and proofs which he can, yet ftill
will his Senles hold the fame Language,ever laying, 'tis
Bread and Wine : So that if they may deceive us in luch
an occafion as this, we have nothing left to oppole the
Academics, who have been at fuch pains to Ihew thefe
Faculties are not to be trufted.
In effeft, this Proof would be in a different manner
convincing, than that which thele Philolbphers were
wont to ule. They tell us, all Obje£ls appear yellow
to Ichterical People, and all Meats bitter to thole whole
Tongues are full of Bile; that a Stick half plung'din-
to the Water, leems either broken or crooked, though
it be ftreight and entire ; That a Iquare Spire appears
round to thole who look on it at a diftance. But 'tis
clear, all this proves nothing againft thole who grant.
That our Senles deceive us when the Organ is out of
4 order, when the Medium is not fimple, when the Obje£I:
is not placed at a juft diftance; and who only pretend
the report of thele Faculties is faithful, out of the cafe
mark'd by thele Exceptions, and Ibme others fuch like.
But if it were not in the Eucharift where 'tis clear,
one cannot apply either this Exception, or any other,
the caufe of thele Faculties would be ablblutely defpe-
rate, and we Ihould have nothing left to defend it.
Yet there muft be Ibmething that is weighty produ-
ced in its favour ; for were it otherwife, the Proofs of
Chriftian Religion would be of no folidity. And
this
am-
concerning Tranfubflantiation.
this is(asyoii fee) my third Propojition; and if I prove it
as ftrongly as I have proved the two former, I need add
nothing to the Condufion of my Argument, to make
you acknowledg what I juft now offered ; That your
Tranlubftantiation do's abfblutely overthrow our
ftrongeft Arguments againft Infidelity.
In the mean time, this Proportion is fb evi-
dent, that I don't believe there's a Difputant in the
World obftinate enough to contend it with me. Firft,
the Proofs of our Religion are drawn from the Matters
of Fad you mention'd Yefterday, and from the affu-
ranee which thole who delivered them to us,' had
of their reality. Thole that attefted them, knew them
only by the means of their Senles, not from Arguments
or Realbnings; for they law them with their own
Eyes; and by conlequence, if their Eyes, and other
Organs of their Senles might be therein deceived, they
had in proper Ipeaking no certainty of them; and
if they had no certainty, we are to blame in making
account of their Teftimony.
For example; We believe Jelus Chrift is rilen, be-
caufe the Apoftles have highly attefted this Matter of
Fad; and that we have juft occafion to believe they
were ftrongly perliiaded of the truth of what they
laid. But what perlwalion could they have of this, if
the Senles are not to be trufted ? And in effed ask them,
how they knew their Mafter is rilen ? They will only
alledg the teftimony of their Sehles. They will tell
you, their Eyes have leen him, their Ears nave heard
mmfpeak, their Hands have touched him. But if both
Eyes, Hands, yea and Ears, if all their Senles are de-
ceivers, who can alTure us they did not cheat the Apo-
ftles ? who will allure us that thele Holy Men have ef-
E 2 fei^ally
35
1
it
P
'l '
: 'if
if;
■I f'li'
,1! ''ill
I'l'lii
,1
j ■
i (
■'11
'1 ,
''
The Second Conference
feQJually leen, touch'd, and heard, what they imagin'd
they faw, touched, and heard ?
The fame, I fay, of the Proofs of the Jervijh Reli^-
gion, the truth of which is one of the principal Foun-
dations of the-Chriftian Faith. What is the ftrongelt
Proof of this Holy Religion ? Is it not that which is
taken from the Prodigy which Mofes fhew'd to the
"Jews when he brought it to them from God ? But what
certainty can there be of all thefe Prodigies, if the
Senlesof thofe who have been WitnefFes of them, may
have been deceived ? How could they perfuade them-
felves of the reality of them, had they only for a Foun^
dation of their Perfuafion, the uncertain report of
Ibme Faculties liable to infinite Errors and Delufions ?
Were they not very filly People, to expofe themfolves
to fo many dangers, on fo flight grounds ? And are
not we alfo very credulous, to build our Faith on the
Perfuafion which thele People had of thefe FaGis ?
This Faith, I fay, whereby we fleer our Lives, and on
which we advance fo many fine Hopes, and magnifi-^
cent Pretenfions ?
This is not ail; both one and the other of thefe Proofs,
do moreover fuppofe in another manner the certitude
of the Senfes; Which is. That 'tis only the Senfes
which inftru6l in theTeffimony which thefe Faculties
have given, whether to the Ancient jfw/, or the Apo-
files; and which both one and the other have given
to the Truth. For, in fine, how can we know that
neither- the Jews nor the Apoftles did atteft all thefe
Fa8:s, but by means of their Senfes ?' Imagine a Man
bereaved of all his five Senfesj or only of the two prin-
cipal ones. Sight and Hearing; fuppofe him at the
fame time both Deaf-and Blind how will you make
him
TO
iilK
concerning Tranfuhftantiation.
him underftand the fblidity of thefe Proofs ? You may
fpeak to him long enough of the Prophecies of the
Old Teftament, of our Saviour's and Mofes his Mira-
cles, and other things which eftablifh the Truth of
Chriftian Religiom This will be juftthefameas if
you difcourfed to a Stone.
It's only our Senles then, which make us receive
thefe Proofs. So that fhould we know, That thole of
the Jpofiles, and other WitnelTes of tlie Truth, could
not deceive them ; this wouidTignilV nothing to us,
fhould we have juft realbn to believe we might be de-
ceived by ours. By confequence, the certainty of
Senfe is doubly necelTary to eftablifh the fblidity of
the Proofs of Chriftianity ; and thele Proofs will be
two ways uncertain,, if . the report of our Senles be not
to be trufted;
See now. Sir, if there be any thing more true tlian
what I told you a while ago. That Tranfubftantiation
ablblutely deftroys thefe Proofs, and takes from them
all tlieir Validity. See whether in fuppoling' this Do-
ftrine, one may hinder Libertines ^r:om uling this ar-
guing: It^s contrary to good Senfe, to receive this Reve-
Ution rvhkh deflroys it fclf which overthrows its own
Foundations, which annuls and difcrediRs the means by
which it endeavours to eflablifh it Jelf and whofe Proofs
cannot be true^ without being, falfe;. nor afuredy without
being uncertain.
Fhis is what may be faid' of Chrijlianity] if it be true,
ft teaches things contrary to the relation of our Senfes. For,
in fne, Chrifiianity has hitherto ejlablifo d it felf, only on
the depoftions of thefe Faculties. Hereby it has met with
belief in the Minds of Men. If then one of its-Maximt
b4,, wemuji not trufi any of our Senfes; ifs evident and
nn*
The Second Conference
unqueflionabley we ntAj fay of it what we now affirmed.
It^s evident it is felf-contradiBoryy enjoining m on one
handy to believe the report of our SenfeSy when they in-
flruft us in what jhould induce m to receive it; and forbid-
dingus at the fame time to hearken to them in one of its
chifejl DoBrines. It overthrows its own Foundationsy fee-
ing it dejlroys the faithfulnefs of our Senfes, on which
the perfuafion which we have of its truth is grounded.
Hereby it annuls and dijcredits the means by which it en-
deavours to fet up it felf; and this is fo vifibky that we
need not undertake to jhew it. In a wordy its Proofs can-
not be truey without being falfe ; nor certaiuy without be-
ing uncertain. In effeciy if the Proofs of Chrifianity be
goody whatever it fay^s ts true, and if whatever it fays be
truCy thefe Proofs be nothing worthy feeing one of the things
which if affirms y is. That the report of our Senfes y whence
thefe Proofs be takeUy is uncertain.
Is it not true. Sir, That letting up Tranfubftantia-
tion, the Infidels w^ould, on very good grounds, ufe
this Arguing ? In particular, would they not have rea-
Ion to complain, that they are not fincerely dealt with,
feeing we pretend to convince them by the Depofitions
of "WitnefTes, which we do not produce, till we have
ih'ip'd them of all their Authority, and declared them
unfaithful, and deceivers ?
After this great Intereft, I fee nothing which is
worth contending for, and if our Faith lofes the means
of eftablifhing it felf in the World, as fhe do's lofe it in
iofing her Proofs: It's not worth the while to demon-
ftrate the other Confequences of your DoQ:rinc, nor
particularly the Difbrders which the uncertainty of
our Senfes once eifablifh'd, would infallibly bring forth
into the \yorld. They are both infinite apd inexplica-
ble,
t
m^s
concerning Tranfubjiantiatm. ^ ^
ble, becaufe that in efFed, our Senfes are almoft the
only Guides which we follow ; and their Fidelity is the
chief Fohridation of all the certainty we can have
therein. Your abftrafted Truths, which are pereeiv-
able only to the Underftanding, and which are fb- ufe-
ful in Sciences, are of little ufe in the Commerce of
the World, wherein Men apply themfelves to things
which be lingular, which are not known but by the
interpofition of the Senfes. So that to ruin the cer-
tainty of our Senfes, is to turn all into confufion, and
reduce Men to fuch a condition, that they lhall not
take a ftep without being troubled with fbme Scruple.
But as I have already obfervM, this is not the Point.
Tis fufficient I have fhew'd. That the fblidity of
. the Proofs which effablifli the Truth of Chriftian Re-
ligion, depends on the certainty of our Senfes; fb that
tranfubfiantUtion abfblutely deftroying this certainty,
invalidates thefe Proofs, and flops the Mouths of thofe
who undertake the Converfion of the Infidels. This
fingle Confequence is dreadful enough, and we need
not draw any other, to fhew the falfity of the Princi-
pie whence it flows.
It's better to pais to my third Proofj which is, to
fhew. That your Doftrine overthrows the certainty of
our Reafon, as well as that of our Senfes; and gives
fuch an eflablifliment to Scepticifm, as bereaves us of
all means of finding out the Truth.
And this is what I intend to make clear to you, if I
have not already tired your patience. I fhall hear you_
with all my Heart,anfwerM he; buti mull tellyou,That'
before I hear your third Argument, I fhould be very
glad to examine the two you have already offered me,
for I fee abundance of things which I might oppofe
againfl
«•
The Second Conference
againft what you have faM ; but they lying fbmething
obfcurely and confuledly in my Mind, I muft beg timo
of you to bring them into fome dearnels and order;
which as foon as I have done, I fhali not fail to wait on
you with an account of them.
I eafiiy conlented to what he de/ired, telling him, I
wiili'd every Body would as maturely examine thele
great Points before they determinM themlelves.I blam'd
the rafhnefs of thole, whole Eyes are dazPd with the
lirfl: glance of an Argument, whereby they fall into a
ridiculous lightnels, or an inlupportable oblfinacy.
Mr. N. fpake to the lame purpole; and our converla-
tion having for ibme time been on this Point, I took my
leave of him and departed.
CON-
V^ming Tranfubflamiation.
CONFERENCE HI.
Wherein are confirmed the two Troofs contained in the
two preceding Difcourfes,
TH E next Day Mr. N. took the pains to come
to me, and immediately told me, he had care-
fully appli'd himfelf to examine my Realbns,
and believed he had found a fblution of them. I have
obferved, laid he to me, that both your Propofitions de-
pend on the fame Suppofition, tovi^it, That Tranflib-
ftantiation is direffly contrary to the reports of our
Senf^; and that whereas this Dofhrine tells us the
Euchariji is no longer Bread nor Wine, but the proper
Body and Blood of our Saviour; our Senfes on the con-
trary tell us. That this Sacrament is not the Body and
Blood of our Saviour, but real Bread and Wine.
This has inclined me to think. That tho ourDi-
vines have not confidered your Proofs in the fame man-
ner you have propofed them, yet I might find in their
Writings wherewith to defend my felf, by what they
anfwer to the direftTeftimony of our Senfes, which
your Authors have always objeded. I have enquired
into what they have faid on this Subjeft,' and found five
different Solutions. Some of them have abfblutely de-
nied, without referve, that our Senfes have any cer-
tainty. _ Others acknowledg, that thefe Faculties do
not deceive us in the things comprehended in the order
F of
The Third Conferenct
of Nature; but they will not fuffer us to confult them
in Matters of Faith. Some allow them a certainty in
Matters of 'Faith, but fay, 'tis a certainty inferior to
that of Faith. Moft of them allure us, That the Sen-
fes do not perceive the.Subftance; fb that the Error
wherein one falls,. by peiTuading one's felf that the Eu-
charift is Bread and Wine, is not in the Senles, but in
our.Reafon. Others do, in fine,,aqknowledg that our
Senfes do well perceive the Subftance, but in an .indi-
red manner, and with great incertitude; fo that their
report is not certain, but in reference to the accidents.
I-am well alfured; the two firft Anfwers be falfe ; and
fhould I not ptherwife know, it, your, fecond Realbn
would not permit rne .to, doubt of it. For, in fine,
^vere our Senfes. without certainty, whether in general
or inoparticukr, in Matters of Faith, the Proofs; of
Chrifiim Religion woulc^be but mere delufions, as.you
fulReiently convinced me Yefterday.
The thitxi of-thele An{>vers,fuppo{es a Thing which
isfalle, to wit. That' a Faculty which has "certainty,
may ever have need of being CQrreded. It fuppofes
^another wliich is very doubtful, and: in "Wlpch our Di-
vines are not agreed, 'viz. That, Faith has more cer-
fainty than the .Teftimony of our Senfes. Moreover,
granting all thisj to be, tr.ue, I know not whether one
might make ufe of it againft your Reafons. You do
notfpeakof the certainty which a Man that-believes
already may have of the Truths pS Saivation, but only
of that which one might give an Infidel. But the
means to perfwade an Infidel, that the Senfes may de-
ceive, muft be by convincing him pf the Divinity of
our Rel.igion, which acculjbs the .Senfes of Infidelity.
And the way to convince him of the Divinity of this.
Religion, muft be by Reafons twhich fuppofe that tliefe
Faculties do not deceive u^. I
corlt&nin^ Tranfuhftdntiation,
1 do not then make any great reckoning of thefe three
Anfwers, and therefore I mall not oppole them againft
you. But 'tis not the fame with the two laft ; for if it
be true, that our Senfes readi not fb far as the Sub-
ftance, but perceive only the Accidents : all that theie
Faculties learn us of the Eucharifir, is, •Thatthis'^Sacra-
ment ftill retains the A-ccidents of Bread and Wine^
which is a true Notion, and contains nothing contrary
to our belief. Should we fay, moreover, with thofe who
mdte the fecond Anfwer, That our Senfes well per-
ceive the Subftance, but yet in a manner indired:, and
fubjed to Error and Deceit;; one may ti'uly fay. That
Tranfiibflantiation is contrary to the report of our
Senfes,-but not to thisdired and certain^report,whence
fprings •tliis firm perfwafion, called -Experimental
Knowledg. It will be only contmry to this indireO:
and uncertain Report, which can only eftablifli a tot-
tering Opinion, whidi is almoft as often falfe as
•true.
This being granted, you -cannot reeftablifh your
Proofs, unlefs you diftindly maintain thefe'three
things. J ■■
Eir-ft, That the Senfes do perteive the very 'SutyflartCe
it felf, either diredly or indiredly ; however,^ with
certainty. .
The fecond, That this'Ceftainty which our Senf^
giveus touching the Subftances, is greatenthan that of
the Fads, whence are drawn the Proofs of Chriilianity.
The third. That this Certainty is the ground of thcfe
Proofs-; and that they cannot fubfift, if our Senfes may
be deceived in the-'difcerning of thefe kind of Ob-
jeds. . ,
Twould be an eafy matter fob'me,^-fa'id I to him,
tOimaintain this aga-in'ft all oppofitiOni- • But othei^
i " F 2 (a) having
The Third Confefem
CO Sti thi (a) having already done it; and this Difcuffion being
SSLtS likely to et^age us into difficult Enquiries, and the j-,
^ force of my Arguments not depending tliereon,! there- ^
fore am willing to wave that difpute, and betake my ■
fHf to what is fo evident and undeniable, as I am liire
muft fatisfy you.
Will you not grant me, Sir, That we do every day
difcernone Subftance from another ? Will you not grant
me, for Example, that I now diftinguifh whatever is
in this Chamber, and that I can truly fay, This is a.
Tablef this is a Book, this is a Bed, this a Chair. I do
not fay there's certainty in thefe Judgments I make.
I do not determine which is the Faculty which makes
me do it. I only fay, I do do it. Can you deny me
this to be true, or fhall I fet about the proving of it ?
No, anfwer'dhe. A Man muft be void of Senfethat
requires it. Will you then in the fecond place deny me,,
purftied I, that I make this judgment by fbme of the
Faculties which God has given me ; I mean thofe Fa-
culties purely natural, which are common to all Men,,
and perform their Fund ions without any fiipernatural
affiftance, internal or external, without any external
Revelation, without any inward illumination of the
Spirit ?
I am far from denying it, anlwered he, and I am
perfwaded, there's no Catholick that queftions it.
This, laid I, is enough, and I need no more for the
liibfiftence of my Proofs.
And to convince you of what I fay, I fhall bring
them to this Head; I fhall retrench whatever you
diflike in them, and inftead of the Senfes which trou-
ble you, I fhall only Ipeak of that natural Faculty
which makes us diftinguifh one Subftance from ano-
ther. You'l fee they will keep all their ftrength, and
be
conceyniti^ Tranfuhflamlatlotu
be wholly Iheltred from your Diftindions.
I begin with the fecond; There being fbmeneceflity
for it. It confifted of thele three Propofitions.
1. If Trmfubftantiation has flacey our Senfes deceive
us in the refort they make of the Eucharifi.
2. If our Senfes deceive us in the refort which they make
of the Eucharift, they may as well deceive m in every thing
elfe.
If our Senfes may deceive us in every thingy the
Proofs of Chriftianity are of no folidity.
This is the lum or my Second Proof which I offered
you yefterday.
Now be pleas'd tooblervehow I further exprefs it.
1. If Tranfubftantiation has place,the natural Faculty
which God has given us, whereby to diftinguifh one
Subftance from another, this Faculty deceives us in the
notice it gives us of the Eucharifi.
2. If the natural Faculty whereby we diftinguifh one
Subftance from another, be miftaken on the Subjed of
the Eucharift, nothing hinders but that it may be the.
fame on other Subftances.
5. If the natural Faculty, whereby we difcern the
Subftances, has no certainty, the Proofs for Chriftian
Religion be of no weight.
You fee. Sir, that forming my Argument in this man-
ner, your Diftindions are befide the purpofe, and alto-
gether fruitlefs. Wherefore you cannot defend your
lelf but in denying fbme of the Propofitions of which
it confifts; but which of the three can you deny ? Not
thefirft, I iuppofe; For, inline, if Tranfubfraritiati-
on has place. The Sacrament of the Eucharift is not
Bread nor Wine, but our Saviour's proper Body andi
Blood. Yet the natural Faculty whereby we difcern
theSubftances'froraone^other, whatever that is, and-
what-
The TInrd Conference
whatever name we give it, this Faculty tells us, that
'tis not the Body and Blood of Chrifl:, but Bread and
Wine.
If you doubt of this; fhew this Sacrament to a Man
indued only with thole Faculties which Nature has gi-
yen us, and who has never received any fupernatural
alliftance, to a Jerv, or to a Mahometm or Pagan : Ask
him what it is, and you'l fee how little he will hefitate
to anfwer. you, it's Bread and Wine,
If you Bill doubt of this, defire a PrieB to mix a
coniecrated HoB amongB others unconfecrated; Em-
ploy then all your natural Faculties to diBinguifh that .
which is the Body of ChriB from the reB, which is
mere Bread ; You'l find all your care here to no purpole.
It's then certain, that the natural Faculty, whereby
we difcern iiubBances, aBirms plainly the EuchariB
to be Bread and Wine, and therefore deceives us, if
your Belief be true. Thus my firB P-ropofition labours
under no diBiculty. And the lecond is no dels certain
than the firB. For, in fine, if the natural Faculty,
whereby we diBinguifli one SubBance from another,
may take the Body of ChriB for Bread and Wine, there
will be no deceit, of which 'twill not be capable, there
being nothing in the World more difcernable, and fub-
jetB to lels miBakes, than an human Body on one hand,
and amorielof Bread, and Tome drops of Wine on the
other.
I have only then to prove my third Propofition,
which is in eft'eft the only one, which appears
to have need. Yet is it certain, I Biall have little
trouble to make you agree with me in it; It faith.
That the certainty with accompanies the Afts of the
natural Faculty, and makes us diBinguifli the SubBan-
ices ; Tliat this Certitude, I lay, is the Foundation of
the
cmcrnmg Tranful?/}a?itiatm.
the Proofs of Chriftianity, and that we cannot fblidfy
cftablifh the truth of this Holy Religion, if the Senfes
may deceive us in the reports they make of thefe kind
of Objefts.
I conceive nothing more certain than this Propofiti-
on. In effeO:, we agreed in our /r/ Conference, That
the Proofs of Chriftian Religion depends on the Truth
of certain Fads, which we never law, but which are
attefted to us by Perfons whole Teftimony ouglit not to
be liifpeded by us. Yet it will realbnably be lb, if
we be not in a capacity to difcern certainly particular
Subftances. And this will clearly appear, if we run
through die moft important of thefe Fads.
The moft confiderable, and the moft decifive, is
without difficulty, being our Saviour's Refurredion ;
for the whole depends hereon,. If this Fad be falfe, .
the Gofpel is but a mere Romance ; and if it be true, it
cannot be deni'd but God has declar'd himfelf hereby
in the moft authentic manner in the World,in favour of
our Holy Religion. And the Apoftles were chiefly -
fent to attcft the Truth of this Fad; and hence it is.
That they lb often feem to affed (as it were) the
title of Witnejfes of their Mafter's Refurreciion.
But 'tis very confiderable, That the Apoftles were
not prefent at Our Lord's Refurredion. He was not in
the Sepulchre when thefe holjf Men arrived there.;
and the^^ found only the Funeral Linen wherewith his
Body was wrapped. They knew not then our Saviour
was rifen, by feeing him come out of the Tomb,, and
as they beheld Liiiz;arm; but they gathered it from two
other Fads, of which they were certain, having ah
ready feen tliefirfb, and feeing then adually thefecond.
- The one was his Death, and the other his Life. They
were lure our Lord liad expired on the Crols; That his
Side..
The Tbir^ Conference
Side was pierced with a Spear, that they might be cer-
taiiiof his Death. They knew that he was buried, and
confequently could not have tlie leaft fufpicion that he
was not really dead. They faw him afterwards alive,
and walking, afting, and fpeaking, whence they con-
eluded in the cleareft manner in the World, and the
leaft liable to miftake, that he was effedually rifen.
It's then plain, that the Truth of Chrift's Refiir-
reffion depends on onp hand, in knowing whether he
died ; and on the other, whether he liv'd after his
Death. But what certainty can there be of either of
thefe two Fads, if there be none in the judgment we
make of Subftances ? Thele two Fads are equally con-
tefted. The denied heretofore thefirft, and
the MAhometms deny it to this day, both affirming,
'twas not our Saviour Chrift, but Simon the Cyrenian
that was crucified by the Jews. The Jews have ever
denied the fecond. They lay, it's very true, our Sa-
viour died on the Crofs, but that he never rofe again,
and that what the Apoftles related of it, was a mere
Fable.
If we may be deceived in thefe kind of Objeds,
what can we oppofe to either of thefe Enemies of the
Truth ? How mall we convince either the BafilidianSyOr
Mahometans., That it was jF<r/^,and not Simonwho expi-
red on the Crofs ? How.fhall we perfwade the Jews the
Apoftles were not deceived in imagining they faw him
alive and rifen? Will not both one and the other have
grounds to tell us we have no certainty for what we
affirm ? The Turks will tell us, That feeing we may
be fb eafily deceived in the difcerning of Subftances,
It's very likely'the Jews took Simon for Jefus Chrift.
The will anfwer,the Error was not theirs,but that
the Apoftles took fbme Spirit, or living Man, for their
f Mafter.
concerning Tranfuhflantiation.
Mafter. And as to us, we have nothing convincing
to oppofe againft one or the other.
And here, Sir, let me entreat you to confider the
imprudence of Bellarmine. Amongft other Reafbns,
he ufes to fhew the Senfes have no certainty, when the
Q^ftion is about difcerning the Subftances; he parti-
cularly cites (b) the Inftance of Mary Magdalen, who CO
took our Saviour rilen for the Gardiner. I fhall not
ftand to fhew here the weaknels of this Argument, nor
fay 'twas fcarceiy then light when Mary came into
the Garden where our Saviour was buri^.' Neither
fliall I ufe long Difcourfes to prove. That her trouble,
grief, or perhaps modefty, would not let her look di-
reftly on a Man whom flie did not know.
But that which I would entreat you to confider, is,
the ftroak which this Argument of BeUarmine might
give to the certainty of our Faith, were it as fblid as
he pretends it to be. It proves nothing, or it proves
one might take our Saviour rilen for another Man ; and
conlequently, that one might take another Man for
Jefus Chrift rilen; and fo when the Apoftles law our
Lord rifen,they were not allured'twas he; fb that having
no greater certainty than thele Holy Men, we have
reafbn to doubt of this great Miracle, which is the
principal prop of our Faith.
And thele are the natural Confequences of Bellarmine
Argument. I muft acknowledg there's no great reafon
to fear this fhould meet with belief in Mens Minds. In
effeO; you may, as long as you pleale, maintain, we may
be miftaken in the dilcerning of Subftances. You wiH
not find any Body that will be perfwaded of fb abfurd
a Paradox. All the W orld will believe their Sight; and
I am of Opinion, whatever you may fay. That you lit-
tie doubt but 'tis I tliat have the honour of converfing
G with
jiO The Third Conference
with you now; and I defire no other Judgbut your-
own Conlcience, would you pkafe to let itT}:)eak your
fenfe in this Matter. But though there be _no danger of
falling into BelUrmins Opinion in this Point, and ad--
mitting all the Confequences of the Principles which he
eftablifhes, yet is it plain 'tis not long of him we do
not do it, and hereby doubt of our Saviour's Refur-
region, as well as of a thouland other important Mat-
ters, were his Anfwers and Arguments as folid as he
would have him thought to be.
Moreover, what I now laid of our Saviour's Refiir-
redion, is applicable to all other Refurreftions which
have been wrought, either by our Lord himfelf, or his.
Apofbles. The truth of this Miracle, and the force of
the Proof drawn thence, depend on the knowing whe-
ther thofe who were feen alive, were really thofe who
were dead a. while before.. But the means of knowing
it is, whether any of our Faculties do precifely deter-
mine concerning Subftances, and whether it be an eafy
and common thing for them to be deceived ?
When our Lord cured the Man born blind, the Pha-
rifees who found themfelves fb perplexed with the
Proof which was drawji thence in favour of the Truth^
might eafily clear themfelves of it, by fuppofing your
Maxims. They needed only to have faid, That he whs
faiVy and vaunted of the recovery of his Sight, was not
the Perfon who was blind a while before, but rather an Im"
f oflor,whom our Saviour had fet up ; and though it feentd
to thofe who had known him, that he was the fame Perfon,
yet ^twas not to he believed, feeing our Senfes have not
);he leaft fhadow of certainty in the difcerning of particular
Subjlances. When our Saviour multiplied the Bread to
feed the multitude which followed him, we may doubt
of the Truth of this Miracle, if we may believe
what.
concerning Tranfabjlantlation,
tvbat this Multitude eat was not Bread; and we may
doubt that it was Bread, if we have not any Faculty to
make us diftinguifh one thing from another. When
our Lord walked on the Sea, he wrought, without
doubt, a fignal Miracle. But this Miracle fignifies
nothing, unlefs we be alTured it was on the Water, and
not on a Plain that our Saviour walked : of which we
may doubt, if w^e have not Faculties to dilcern cer-
tainly thele Objeds.
All the Miracles which have ierved only to transform
Subftances, may be called into queftion if your Opi-
nion be allowed. For if our Senles tell us nothing
certain touching Subftances ; how lliall we know there
was ever made any real change : And to what purpofe
was the changing of Mofes his Rod, to perfwade,
either this Prophet to accept of the Calling God
had offered him, or Pharaoh to let the Children of
Jfrae/go? Towhat purpole was the changing Of the
Waters of the River or JV^/e into Blood, or that of
Cam into Wine, if thofe whofaw all thefe ConverJfi-
ons, might doubt whether they were true, and whe-
ther they had any other place but in their abuled Fan-
cies ?
The Prophecies are alio another great fource of Proofs
to eftablifhtheTruthof Chriftian Religion. Yet 'tis
ceitain,that Prophecies prove nothing but by the confor-
mity which they have with the Events. But what cer-
tainty can we have of Events, if we may be deceived
in the difcerning of Subftances ? The Perfon of Jefus
Chrift, that of his Holy Mother, his Apoftles, his Crols,
his Sepulchre, the People whom he converted, the Sick
he healed, the Dead he railed up, and an hundred other
things which the Prophets foretold, were Subftances.
Whence it follows,if thofe who have feen all thele things
G 2 may
5 2. Tk 7bird Conference
may have been deceived, there remains to us no more
certainty touching the accomplifhment of the Ancient
Oracles: and this great Proof of the Divinity of Chri-
ftianity, which gives fuch Perplexity to the Infidels, and
fuch great Confolation to the Faithful, will be no more
of any weight.
I told you Yederday, that one of the ftrongeft Proofs
of Chriftian R.eligion, is the Truth of the J^mfh Re-
ligion ; and that all the Miracles which authorized the
Vocation of Mofes, do higlily eftablifli that of curSa-
viour Jelus Chrift. But is it not true, that almoft all
that God did to give credit and authority to this Pro-
phet, would have been fruitlefs, if thofc who were the
Speftators might been deceived in the Quelf ion of Sub-
fiances ?
The Author of the Dilcourfe touching the Proofs of
0Difc.&c. the Books of Mofes (c) affirms. That 'tis to attribute.
P_ag. 123. to all the People of the Jews, the greateft extravagancy
to believe they may have been deceived in theleMat-
ters. s clear, fays he, that we mujl frtfpofe all thefe
People mad and be fides themfelves, to [ay, they thought to
pafs through the Red Sea dry-Jhod, when ^twas no fuch mat~
ter ; in thinking they beheld a Mountain on fire, when they
[aw no fuch thing', That they fed on Manna, when they
had nothing but common Pood ; in believing their Cloaths
were not worn out, altho they were obliged oftentimes to
change themin their believing to Pave feen Mofes Jlrike
the Rock, whence flowed Water fufficient to fatisfy the
thirfl of fix hundred thoufand Men, when in truth there
was no fuch thing. ^
But it's plain all this might happen, altho this People.,
confifted only of wife and intelligent Perfbns ; if it be
true, there's no certainty in the diffinffion we make of
Subftances, feeing that the Sea, the Mountain of Sinai,
th©.
\
concerning Trajifubftantiation.
tBe Fire which covered it, the Manna, the Jews Gar-
ments, the Rock, and the Waters which flowed thence,
were fomething more than Accidents.
This Author cannot comprehend,there could be fo
general an Error, and that it could infedt fix hundred
thoufand Men capable of bearing Arms. But that
wherein one falls on the Subjefl: of the Eucharift, fup-
pofing this Sacrament not to be Bread and Wine,will be
more general, feeing 'twill be common to all Mankind
without exception.
It's then clear, Sir,that the Truth of the Fa6fs,wliich
eftablifii the Divinity of the Chriftian Religion,depends
on the Certitude,whereby we diftinguifii the Subftances
from one another. But this being granted, my fecond
Proof fubfifts and has its effefb ; if not in the lame form
I gave it Yefterday, yet at leaft in that I now give it. -
However this concerns me but little ; and provided I
obtain what I demand, I fiiall be willing it fhould be in
the manner you pleafe : whether it be the Senles, or the
rational Faculty, or what other Faculty you will, which
makes us diftinguifih the Subftances, all this is indiffe-
rent to me, provided you grant me. That 'tis the fame
Faculty which difcerns that which makes us become
Chriftians. This being granted, 'twill be undeniable,
that this Faculty cannot be accuftd of deceiving us in
what fhe tells us of the Eucharift, without taking from
it whatever it has of Certainty and Authority in the
Fa£bs which ferve for a Foundation to Faith.
Here's then my fecond Proof perfedly reeftablifli'd,
I fhall now do the fame thing for the frji. I drew it
hence. That the Certainty of the Senfes being incom-
parably greater than that we call Moral; fliould it be
granted that Tranfubftantiation was one oftheDcdrines
which Chriftianity obliges us to believe, theObjedions
which.
The Third Conference
which might be made againfl: this Holy Religion would
have more ftrength than the Proofs which elfablifh the
Divinity of it, becaule that in effe£b thefe Proofs have
only a moral Evidence; whereas the Objedlions which
may be "offered againft this Holy Religion, might have
the Evidence of all the Senfes, which clearly witnefs
againft Tranfubftantiation. You do not grant me this
laft Propofition; you affirm 'tis not the Senles,but Rea-
foil, which fays, the Eucharift is Bread and Wine, be-
caufe you pretend there's only tliis laft Faculty in a con-
dition to ffifcern the Subftances, and that fliould the
Senles give Ibme Indication, they would do it in a man-
ner equally doubtful and indireo:. I have already de-
dared my unwillingnefs to enter into all thefe Difcuf^
fions ; for whatever the Faculty is which makes us dif^
cern, whether the Subftances in general, or that of the
ffiucharift in particular, it's fufficient it is a natural Fa-
.culty .In this Suppofition I thus reeftablifh my frji Proof,
The certainty which accompanies the Fund/ons of the
natural Faculty, which makes us difcern one Subftance
_ from another, is greater than that we call Moral. If then
this Faculty tells Us the Eucharift is Bread and W ine, as
it muft be granted it does, one may offer againft Tran-
fubftantiation, and confequently againft Chriftianity,
allowing Tranfubftantiation to be one of its Dodriries 5
one may, I fay, offer againft it, a greater certitude than
that of the Proofs which eftablifn the Divinity of it,
whereby 'twill be more rational to rejed than embrace
it.
Tliis Confequence is neceffary, and whatever paft in
our firft Conference, does invincibly prove it. So that
I only need to eftablifh the Principle whence I draw it,
'VIZ,. That the certainty whereby we commonly difi
cern the Subftances from one another, is greater than
tliat
concerning Tranfuhpantlation.
that we call Moral. And this is all you can defire of
me ; and if I convince yon, I expe£l from your juftice
no further contentions about it.
It's then eafy to make you acknowledg this. Be plea-
fed then to confider, that when we are only morally
alTured of a thing, the certainty we have of it, is not
comparable to that which thofe have, on whole Tcfti-
mony it's believed. For Example, I am only morally
affured of Cefars Vi£lories, and Alexanders Conqueft.
But the Souldiers which ferv'd under theie two Cap-
tains, and were in their Armies, and lhared with them
in their Labours; thele Souldiers, I lay, w^ere far more
certain of them than I am, yea, more than the Hiftori-
ans themfelves to whom they related- them, and on
whole Teftimony I believe them.
I am only morally certain of the being of the Cities
o^Jerufalem, Rome, d-ndConJlantlno^le, having never
been in thole Places. But thole that have been,
and lived there, thole are far more certain of it than I
can be, becaule in elfeft they have feen thele Cities with<
their own eyes.
You gave me the Rcalbn of this inour firft Confe-
rence; tho indeed you made the Application of it to
the certainty of the Senfes. But it not being the Ap-
plication which makes the folidity of it, 'twill be ftillas
ifrong, whatever ule is made of it. You tell me we
know the things of which we have, that which we call
' a moral certainty, only becaufe they are atteffed to us by
Perlbns whom we have no caule to fufpeifl:, and who
tells us they have leen them with their own Eyes.
But tho thefe Perlbns be not in any fort fufpebfed by us,
we are far from being fo alTured of the . truth of their
Teftimony, as we are from the Reports of. our Senles.
it's impolfible for us to doubt we lee, what we do lee ;
hut it's not impolfible for us to doubt, whether others.
have.:
The Third Conference
have fcen what they tell us. We fee, in this refpc^b, the
bottom of our own Hearts, but we fee not all that paffes
in the Hearts of others. We have great Reafons to be-
lieve they do not deceive us j but theie Reaibns have not
the evidence which accorhpanies this inward fenfe of
our own Adions, which is commonly called Confcience.
You made me obferve, in the fecond place, that our
Senfes do not atteft to us the truth of things of which
wc have no other Certitude than that we call Moral;
whereas we may eafily have a Moral Certainty of rnoft
things which are attefted to us by our proper Senfes.
My Senfes, for example, do not inform me there's a Ci-
ty call'd Rome ; wherefore I have no other than a mo-
ral Certainty of it. But I do not only know by my own
Senfes, there is a City call'd Parts, I know it more-
over, by thofe of others, who fee, and have feen
it a thoufand times : lb that I have a double Certain-
ty of the being of this Town, the moral one, and
that of Senfe. By confequence, as two is more than
one; fb that Certainty which is merely Moral, is ne-
ceffarily inferior to that of the Senfes. Suppofe, we
now, they are not our Senfes, but fbme other Faculty,
which makes us immediatly difcern things; yet this
will not hinder us from faying ftill. That thofe who are
affured of the Exiftence of any thing, by the reports of
this Faculty, whatever it be, have greater certainty of
it, than thofe who know it only from the Teftimony of
thofe who have informed themfelves by themfelves,and
from the exercife of their own proper Faculties. So
that take it how we will, it is clear, that when we are
affured only morally of a thing, we are much lefs than
* thofe on the Teifimony of whom it is believed: Or to
fpeak better, it is plain, that the moral Certainty do's
■fiill fuppofe another greater in thole whole Authority is
its Prop and Foundation.
If
mcemng Tranfuhjlantiation.
If I then fhew you, one may have this kind of Cer-
titude term'd moral, touching Subftances, which are no
longer, or are now in diftant parts, and where we have
never been; but I do not fay enough, if I Ihew you
we may have the higheft degree of this kind of certain-
ty, fhall I not hereby convince you, That the moral
Certainty is always inferior to that which attends the
Funftions of the natural Faculty, which dilcovers to
us the difference of Subftances ? If I do this, Sir, will
you not be fatisfied ?
I ihall be fully fb, anfwered he ; and I promife you,
that if you prove it me clearly, I fhall not trouble my
felf nor you with a Reply.
I can eafily do it, laid I; For is it not true, that
when any one would make us conceive a moral Cer-
tainty in the higheft Point of its Perfeftion, the com-
moneft Examples which are produced, are thole of the
Exiftence of the City of Rome, to thole who have ne-
ver been there ; that of the Pope, Grand Signior,or Em-
peror, to thole that have never leen them ; and as to
the paft, that of Alexander the Great, Cefar, Pompeyy
and other Hero's of Antiquity. Scarcely any Author
that treats of this SujeQ;, but alledges one or the other
of thele Inftances: Yet the City of Rome is a Subftance,
or to fpeak more exadly, an heap of Subftances of fe-
veral kinds. Alexander^ Cafar, Pompey, and all the reft
of the ancient Hero's, were fomething more than Ac-
cidents. And confequently, had not God given us a
Faculty capable of dilcerning the Subftances with cer-
tainty, there would be.no alTurance from the Teftimony
ofthofe who have leen this; and inftead of a moral
Certainty,the greateft which can be imagin'd, we fhould
only have a flight Opinion, and without Foundation.
Is it not true. Sir, that we are morally alTured tliere
was heretofore at Rhodes a crcat CololTus of Brals;
li tliat
58 The Ihird Conference
that there was a ftately Temple at Ephepff,conihci'iited ta
Diana, and at Rome another dedicated to Jupiter ? Have
we not the like certainty ? that there are itill Pyramids
of Stone in Egypt of excefiive heights; that there's a
Mount in Sicily which vomits Fire ; that tliere are Ele-
phants in the Lions in Crocodiles in the
Nile? Yet this ColoiTus, thefe Temples, Pyramids,
Mountain, Lions and Crocodils, what are thefe but Sub-
ftances, whofe Exiftence is not known to us but by the
Teftimonyof thofe who have feenthem with their own
Eyes ; or, to fay nothing which may move you, who
perceived them by means of the Faculty which God has
given us to know thefe kind of Objefts ? But not to go.
fo far, I now fhew'd you, that the Truth of the Fafts,
whence are taken the Proofs which eflablifli the Divi-
nity of the Chriflian Religion, and even of the Jewifh,
• depends on the faithfulnels of the Report, which this
natural Faculty has made of ieveral Subftances; and that
if this Faculty may be herein miftaken, thefe Proofs are
in no wife convincing. It being then certain, that we.
are morally affured of the Truth of thefe Fads,, it can-
not be denied we have a moral Certainty of feveral
Subftances , and that thofe wlx) were inform'd of them
by themfelves, have a greater certainty than we.
Can you. Sir, now doubt, I have not made good my
word? Will you not grant me, that the difcerning of
Subftances, whatever the Faculty is whereby this is
done, is attended with a greater certainty than the mo-
ral one ? Thus this Faculty telling me the Eucharift is-
Bread and Wine, and telling it me with all the force
and conftancy it is able;is it not apparent there's a clear-
nefs in its Evidence far greater than that in the Proofs
of Chriftianity ? Do's not my Proof then return with--
its full ftrength and convidions ? May I not always fay
Thai
concerning Tranfuhftantiation]
That Tranfiibftantiation is oppofed with greater
ftrength of Argument, than the Chriftian Religion is
defended with ?
We are agreed, that the Proofs for Chriftianity have
only a moral Evidence ; and I now fliewed you, That
that which perfwades us the Eucharifl: is Bread and
Wine, is far more certain than what is morally fo.
Can you, after this, deny that there is not greater cer-
tainty in what combats Tranfiibftantiation, than in
what eftablifhes the Truth of Qhrifiim Religion ? Can
you deny that that which is more than fufBcient toefta-
blifli the Truth of Chriftian Religion, difcharged of
Tranfubftantiation, is too weak to maintain it, grant-
ing Tranfubftantiation to be one of the Doarines
which fhe requires to be believed ?
You fee then, Sir, the fruitleffnefs of your Anfwer ;
you fee it lets my two Proofs fubfift in their full
fbei^th; you fee, that whether it be the Senfes or
Reafon which make us know and difcern the Subftan-
ces, we have ftill caufe to believe the Eucharift is Bread
and Wine ; and that this Per Evafion cannot be rendred
doubtful and uncertain, without fhaking the whole
Foundation of Chriftianity, and without giving the
Infidels an infallible means of triumphing over this Ho-
ly Religion.
Mr. N. was about forming an Anfwer, when he was
hindred by the arrival of one of my Friends who came
from a long Voyage, and whole return was a furprize
to me ; I was much joyed to fee him. But Mr. N. to
whom he was a Stranger, took hence an occafion to be
one, without informing me of his thoughts on what
told him.
CON-
The Fourth Conference
CONFERENCE IV.
The Third Troof, That Tranfuhflantiation ejlahlifj^es
Sce^ticifm in its full ^erfefim • and ef^edally dc'
[Iroys the certainty of Vemonflration,
I Was very defirous to know what efFeft my lafl: con-
ferenceliad on Mr. N. I was moreover willing to
fliew him my third Proof: Whereupon I went to
his Houfe, where he received me with his ufual civili-
ty ; and our Difcourle having infenfibly led us to Mat-
ters of Religion, I took the liberty to ask him, Whe-
ther he had throughly confidered what had paft in our
foregoing Debates ?
He hereupon ingenuoufly acknowledg'd, He could
find no means to defend againfl: my Inftances the Anfwer
he had made me, nor how to offer me better. Yet he
added, he was fo perfwaded of the truth of his Belief,
That he would rather yield up to me Mr. Huet's Proofs,
than to imagin the whole Church could be deceived in
lb important a Matter as that of the Sacrament. In
effedl:, faid he to rne. What hurt can there be in fay-
ing, this Author has ill defended a good Caufe, and
made ufe of falfe realbnings for the maintaining of the
Truth ? What do you fay, S^ir ? faid I; you ask me,What
hurt there can be in what you fay? I affirm to you,
that nothing can be worfe. For, Sir, I would not have
youmiftakenjMr.jys^^-r's Proofs are not of his invention :
he only digeifed them into order, ftrengthened and illu-
ff rated them with curious Remarks and preffing Confi-
derations : and as to the main of them, he has taken
them out of Authors tliat have wrote on that Subjed
before.
concerning Tranfuhjlantktkn] 61
before him : and indeed he has alio commendably taken
them from the difcourfes of the Prophets, and the Son
of God himfelf, and his Apofirles.
Chrift liimfelf is the firif that has iifed thefe Proofs.
He feverai times aliedg'd the Predidions of the Pre-
phets ; and as oft did cite his Miracles. He ailedg'd
his Refurrecfion and thefe were-his ftrongetP Arms;
his greatefl Arguments. He made ufe of them to flop
the mouths of the Scribes and- Pharrfees, whom he
look'd upon as his profeft Enemies. He ufed them to
perfvvade the multitudes which follow'd him; and who
hereby in fbme fort fhewVi their readinefs to receive his . ^ . -
Dodrine. Beliez'c me (a) for my Works, faid he to* (i)johli''
them. And in another place (kj, The Works which 1 do, v-
hear tejlimony of me.
He ufed them to confirm the Faith of his Difciples,
and oppofes this alone to the Temptations which fhook
them, (c) 0 fools, and flow of heart, to believe all that
the Prophets have' fpoken. Ought not Chrifl to have fuf-
fered thefe things, and to enter into his Glory ? Then
feys St. Luke, beginning at Mofes and all the Prophets, he
expounded to them in all the Scriptures, the things concer-
ning himfelf. And when St. John the Baptifi fent to
him his Difciples to demand of him, wliether he was
the Mejjias ? he gave them for his full anfwer thefe
words, (d) Go and tell John what you fee and hear.
The Blind recover their fight, the Lame walk, the Lepers
are cleans'd, the Deaf hear, the Dead are rifen, and the
Gofpel is preached to the Poor.
I'hc Apoftles have herein imitated their Maffer as
well as in other things ; one of them declaring, at the
end of his Gofpel (e) Tliathe wrote the Miracles of
the Son of God, that we might believe that Jefus is the
the Chrifi, the Son of God; and that believing we might
have Life through his Na?ne. Tile Fathers have followed
tiiele-
The Fourth Conference
fthefe incomparable Guides. The modern Authors
have trod in their fteps. Ask me now, Sir, then no
more what hurt there is in faying, Mr. Huet^s Proofs
be of no weight. I dare fay they be not only valid,
but that he can not be a Chrijiian who naturally denies
them.
Your Anfwer is alio attended with this Vexation,
that 'tis equally injurious to the Wifdom of God, and
to the Memory of thofe who have hitherto embraced the '
Frofeffion of the Truth. For as to the firft, if the ac-
eomplifhment of the ancient Prophecies, the Miracles of
our Saviour and his Apoftles, do prove nothing. Where-
. fore did God take that care to perform them ? And whom
will you perfwade that he rais'd up fuch a long train of
Prophets, fb many times forced Nature, and overthrew
the ancienteft and firmeft of its Laws;and that he did all
this,I fay, for nothing, without any Neceffity, any Rca-
or Profit ? Is this the Charaffer of the Divine Wifdom,
which commonly arriving at the greatefi: Ends, by the
fmallefl: and moft contemptible Means in appearance,
jnuft needs be far from ufing fuch great ones,and letting
at work fuch Machins to do nothing ?
I fay,moreover,that your AnEver is injurious to an in-
finite number of Chrifiians. How many have there been
fince the Birth of Chriftianity who have embraced this
Holy Religion, by beingconvinc'dof its truth by proofs
of the fame nature of Mr. HueFs ? I mean, by the con-
fideration of the Prophecies of the Old and New Te-
ffament, and the Miracles of Chrift and his Apoftles.
If what you fay be true, they have been fimpleand foo-
lilh People,,who have yielded tofuclithings as they ought
to have defpifed. Their Faith was not a fblid Perfwa-
fion, but a fond Belief, more worthy of blame, than
praife ; and thus lightly believing, they have fliew'd
themfelves of the number of thofe mention'd by the Son
of Sirach. cito credit fit leves funt corde. And
coiKcrning Trayifuhftcintiation.
And furtherjif Miracles be of no value,why do you re-
quire them of us ? Why will you have our hrft Reformers
rejefted for this very Reafon? Why do you rejedb Peo-
pie, and rejeff them without hearing them, as they
think they ought to be; and that for this only reafon,
that they wanted an unneceffary thing, and a Proof
which concludes nothing ? Is not this, I appeal to your
felf, very ftrange ?
In a word. Sir, if Ml^////^'Ps Proofs be not good,where
fhall we find better ? What can we fay to the Inffdels^ to
bring them to the knowledg of the Truth? And with
what fuccefs fhall we labour for their converfion ?
We fhall not want Proofs, nor Means, faid Mr. N. we
fhall have the Proofsof Reafon, taken from the nature of
the Chriftian Doflrine it (elf, the Truth, Sublimity and
Purity of its Precepts ; and from the conformity it has
with the common notions which the corruption of our
Nature has left us, and fbme other fuch like Confidera^
tions, which do not depend on Arguments of Senfe.
Who has told you, Sir, replied I, that thefe kind of
Proofs are proper to convert all forts of Infidels, without
exception ? Can you deny what even thofe who would
make the beft of them, have exprefly remark'd (f), That cD
they are a little abftrafted,and require not only fbme ap-
plication of Mind, but moreover greater light and pene-
tration of thought than the Vulgar is commonly endued
with ? Yet we muff convert the Laplanders^ the wild
Jrijhf and Cannibals., which is to fay, brutifh People, and
fuch about whom it has been difputed in the Schools of
Spain, whether they have the ufe of Reafon, and whe?
ther they be of the fame kind with other Men. What
way then have you for the inftruding them ia
things which furpafsthe Capacity of our Tradefmen and
Peafants ? But what will you fay, if I fhew you, That
your I!ranfubflantiation4eftroys thefe kind of Proofs;
as
i-
n?e Fourth Conference
as v/ell as Mr. HueCs?^il\ you not grant mc after this,
that this is a very dangerous Doftrine, and that you
cannot foon enough retrench it from the number of
thofe Truths which are taught by Chriftianity ? Yet I
can eftablifh more than this; For I can HieWjthat your
Belief banifhes Certainty from the A£ts of Reafon, as
well as from thofe of Senfe. I can fhew you itfetsopen
a large Door to Pyrrhomfm, whereby it may abfolutely
reign in the World, there being nothing which can
be reafonably oppofed againft it.
You fee, Sir, 'tis impoffible to fay any thing of greater
force againft your Dcftrine. For Scepticifm, is the laft
and greateft irregularity, whereintoReafbn can throw
it felf *, All others appear to me flight in companion of
this. And fb much the rather, becaufe all others may
be cured ; whereas this is without remedy. In eftcft,
the Sceptics doubting of every thing,and agreeing in no-
thing, they give no hold to thofe whole who would
reduce them. So that 'tis impoffible to difpute re-
gularly with them. For as Motion cannot be made but
upon fomething that's immovable; fb a Difpute muft
turn on fomething which is indifputable. What way is
there then to difpute againft a Man who doubts of all;
and not only doubts, whether what you tell him be true,
but doubts moreover whether you do tell him of it;
whether he hears it, yea whether he doubts of it ? As
for my part, I regard all the reafbnings of thofe who un-
dertake to convince Sceptics^ as a perpetual begging of
the Queftion. For, in fine, 'tis impoffible to reafbii
againft them, without laying down Ibraething which
they will not grant; bccaufe that in effcbt, theic People
agreeing in nothing, and it being in the mean time im-
impoffible to reafbn, without laying down fbmething,
it's clear there's no reafbning againft them, without
granting what's in queftion, which is one of thegrea-
teft faults a Man that argues can fall into. It's
concerning Tranfuhjiantiationl
, It's then impoflible fairly to deny what I faid, when I
affirm'd, That Tranfuhjlantiation opens a door to Scenti-
cifm ; and puts men into a neceffity of denying every
thing. What I faid at firfl, is a fmall matter j that it
makes void Mr.Huet's proofs ; it fpares none, overthrow-
ing generally, and without exception, whatever eftabli-
llies the truth of Chriftian Religion. So that if I juflifi©
'IE this, as I am perfwaded I eafily can, I fhall be forry to
iG; * add any thing to the proof, which this alone furniflies
me with. In effedf thofe who lliall be capable of digeft-
ing this, may digefl every thing.
I believe "you are in the right, faid Mr. iV. and I do
acknowledg, if you can convince me Tranfulftantiation
draws along with it Scepticifm,you will make mefufpedb
it. In effcdt I conceive nothing more dangerous, nor at
the fame time fo ridiculous as Scepticifm ; and you can
never fpcak any thing too bad of it, w hich I will not fub-
fcribe to. But I do not much fear your proving what
you talk of.
And I for my part, faid I, do not doubt, but I lliall
do it. Shall I not do it, if I convince you, that in ad-
mitting Tranfuhjlantiation one is engaged not to rely
on any evidence, be it of what kind it will. For in fliort,
Sir, you know the w hole difpute with the Sceptics,
is to know. Whether there be any thing jcertain. The
Sceptics abiblutely deny this. We, as to our parts, af-
firm. That as there are things doubtful, and uncertain ;
fo there are fome we are fure of, and which one may and
ought to believe ; and when we be asked, what thofe
things be? we anfwer, they are precifely thofe which are
evident. Becaufe that in efFedf, according to us, the
evidence of a thing, is the foundation of its certainty,
and infallible mark of its truth. The Sceptics on the
contrary fay, that evidence and falfity have nothing in-
I confifterit,
fir w ^
■ •' m
'^5
i'i
lU > "1
it
The Fourth Conference
confident^ that they may be found together, and there-
fore to conclude a'thing to be true, becaufe of its being
evident, is ill reafoning, and an expofing of ones fclf to
inanifed danger of being deceiv'd.
So that the whole amounts to this, Whether one may,
or ought to rely on the evidence of a thing, as an in-
fallible mark of truth ? For if we cannot, the Sceptics
have reafon , and we can offer nothing againfl them.
And confequently, if I fliew you, that in granting Tran'
fuhjlantiation, there is no evidence of whatever rank it
may be, which does not confift very well with error and
falfity ; Now lhall I not hereby fliew you, that this Do-
(drine draws after it the whole train of Sceptical doubts ?
I fuppofe then a man mud be a perfecd Sceptic, or
none at all. For the mitigations which forae would intro-
duce, be abfolutely ridiculous. For in fine,we mud affure
our felves of whatever is evident, or allure our felves
of nothing, feeing we cannot afliire our felves of any
thing but on the account of its evidence. And con-
fequently , if evidence be the lawful ground of certi-
tude, we mud be fure of whatever is evident, and put
away all Sceptcifm without referve. On the contrary, if
the evidence of a thing be not fuflicientto produce a cer-
tainty of it, we can be fure of nothing; we mud be per-
feed Sceptics , and never believe or do any thing. So
that all thofe who are not perfed: and compleat Seep-
tics , are not Sceptics at all, feeing they part with the
fundamental maxim of their ridiculous Syibem.
I agree with you in all this, fays Mr. N. and will ac-
quit you of your promife, if you fliow me that Tran-
fuhflantiation feparates Evidence from Truth. This is no
hard matter to do, reply'd I, for in eded I know but
two forts of evidences, the one which drikes the fenfes,
the other Which is perceiv'd by the mind. I have iliew'd
you
t
concerning Tranfuhflantiation.
you that if Tranfulflantiatim takes place, tlie frril; is a
mofl; unfaithful Note of the Truth. I have fliew'd you,
that amongft this great multitude of things, which
ftrike the (enfes, there is not perhaps one which they
do more diftindily nerccive, than the msatter of the Eu-
charift. I have fiv ''d you, that 'tis an objed: which
fliewsit felf, not only to one or two of our fenfes,"as
mofl of thofe things do which make us apprehend them;
but generally and without exception, all thofe which
God has given us. I have Ihew'd you, That they all
unanimoufly do depofe, that 'tis Bread and Wine; and
that whatever precaution they ufe to hinder themfelves
from being deceived, they all find the fame thing, and
never change their language. This then being a thing
which you do believe to be falfe ; and in elFed: it cannot
be' true, if your Tranfuhflantiation be receiv'd, you fee
my only, task is to convince you. That according to
your Principles, this firfl kind of evidence may lead us
into error.
I am not agreed in that, reply'd he: For tho our
fenfes may deceive us in the Eucharift, they deceive us
only in refped of the fubftance therein contained; but
will make us faithful reports on the accidents. And you
know our Divines and Philofophers confine the certainty
of the fenfes to the bare accidents : By which means,
there lyes open a large field for thefe faculties to exercife
their fundions in, without running a risk of being
miftaken.
This field, faid I to him, is not fo vaft as it appears
to you. Your Authors, and efpecially Bellarmin *, do
not pretend the fenfes have certainty in refped of all
forts of accidents, without exception. They count two
different ranks, the one which are only perceiv'd by one
fenfe, as Colours by the Sight, Sounds by the Ear, Scents
I X ♦ by
The Fourth Conference
by the Smell, The others which are perceiv'd by more "
than one fenfe, asGreatnefs, Scituation, Figure, Motion.
They call the firft proper Ohjeth, and the fecond com-
man ones. They add, that the report of our fenies is not
certain, but only in refped: of their proper Objeds; but
as to tlie common ones, they may eafily be deceived.
Here's then the certainty of the Senfes reduced to half
the fize you gave it. But this is not all, for Bellarmin
flops not here. He moreover diflinguiflies the judgments
we may make on the proper Objeds of our Senfes in Ge-
nerals, and in Particulars. For example,when we fee a Co-
lour, we may fay firll in general of it. This is a colour^
net a fcent or favour. We may fay likewife in particular.
This is fuch a colour'tis white or red.^ not green or hlack.
He tells us the Senfes are not certain but in the firil of
thefe judgments, they often deceiving us in the fecond.
See, Sir, whereunto this Dodrine reduces the certainty
of the Senfes. For my part, I could like as well he fhould
take 'ernxjuite away. In effed Bellarmin takes from the
number of things of which the Senfes may give us fome
aflurance, firfl all fubflancesj in the fecond place, all
the accidents which are perceiv'd by more than one
Senfe ; in the third place, the particular defignation of
proper Objeds, and he leaves them no other certain
fundion than that of diilinguifhing the proper Objeds
of one fenfe from thofe of another Senfe, as Colour from
Scent, and the Smell from the Sound.
Yet it happens, that all the late Philofophers affirm,
That this fundion, to which alone Bellarmin grants
fome certainty, is the mofl uncertain \ or to fpeak b^etter,
the moll deceitful of all. They affirm. That that which
we perceive by the Senfes,is commonly but one and the
lame modusy to wit, the figure, which when it is brought
to the light, is call'd Colour j when it moves the Fibres
of
concerning Tran[uhftantiation.
of the Tongue, or Olfactory Nerves, is called Savour, or
Odor; and when 'tis felt by the Hand, it takes the name
of Roughnefs or Smoothnefs.
Joyn we now thefe two Opinions together,
that of BelUrmin , and that of thefe late Philolophers,
where fliall we be? and of what fliall we be certain? We
may now then doubt whether it be day, whether we
fit , whether you fee me, and I you. We may
doubt whether amongft this great number of things,
which inceflantly imploy us, and which are the ties and
foundations of Society , wliether Civil or Ecclefiaftic,
there be one fingle one which fubfifts elfewhere than in
our imagination.
But 'tis not neceflary to joyn Eellarmins opinion with
that of the Modern Philofophers^ to find therein the entire
ruin of Societies and Religion : The firft alone is more
than fufficient to work this difmal effedt. The certain-
ty he allows is fo fmall, and of fo little ufe, either for the
Chriftian or Religious life, or the Civil, or even for the
Natural and Animal one, that in lofing the certainty
w^hich we thought we had till now in the reft,it may be
faid we lofe all. What fignifies the diftinguifhing to us of
a Colour from an Odor,or Savour from a Sound.'^ And to
what ufe may all this ferve.' It more concerns us to diftin-
guilh three forts .of objeds, Perfons,Adtions,and Things,
underftanding by this laft word, all the fubftances which
are not endued with reafon and intelligence, as Meats,
Poyfons, Remedies, Habits, Arms,Working-tools, Plants,
Animals, and fuch like things.
Thefe are fuch things as moft concern us to know,
being things about which we are continually conver-
fant, and whereon depends, not only the prefervation
of life, and the commerce of Society, but what is more,
our everlafling Salvation.
Yet
l!, , ,
* ^ t-.
.'I!''''f
1
■^o The Fourth Conference
Yet according to BellarmiM,nothing of all this is certain.
We may be miilaken, in- every thing, feeing all this con-
fids either in fubflances, or in the common Objects of
our Senfes, or in proper Objects, of which we mud liave
a particular knowledgpvhich is to fay,in fo many things
as'tis impodiblc to be alfared of, if Bellarmin be to be
believed. What confufion, what a Chaos is this ^ We had
as good be all blind, deaf and dumb; we had as good
have had no Senfes, or that there were nothing out of us
which our Senfes could perceive.
But the truth of it is, Thefe are but meer whimfies,
which have no grounds. For provided we obferve the
precautions already mentioned,and which all Philofophers
agree in, our Senfes will never deceive us in any of thefe
kind of Objedfs,- we fliall find an unequal certainty eve-
ry where. Let us then judg in effeid by every thing
which fervcs for a foundation to the firmnefs of our per-
fwafions, by the inclination we have to conceive them,
by the conformity of our Sentiments with thofe of others,
and by the obfervations we have made on the truth of
what w^e think of them, and we fliall find a perfed: equa-
lity in the reports of our Senfes, on all thefe Objeds.
For to fpeak only now to the chief part of your An-
fwer, I firfl affirm, 'twill be as difficult for you to per-
fwade your felf, that what you hold in your hand, is not
a Glove, but a Stone, Apple, or Sword, as to think it
has no colour or fcent; altho, according to Bellarmin,
the firfl; of thefe judgments is mofl uncertain^ there being
only the fecond, wherein he will allow any certainty.
And I affirm,you doubt as little of the firfl:,as the fecond;
and that all the world makes the fame judgment with
you ; and in fine, that there are not more inftances to
be given, which fhew we be deceived in the difcerning
of fubflances, than in the general or particular judg-
ments
concerning Tranfubjlantiatmi.
rnents which are made of thofe qualities that are the pro-
per Objedls of our Senfes; fo that we muft grant there's
certainty in all thefe things,or in none of them,'whereby
'twill appear, that all thefe diflerent reftridtions which
have feem'd fo neceflary to Bellarmin , are very unnecef-
fary and ill appli'd. This is fo manifeft, that I need not in-
fift any longer on it, but pafs on to the feconcl kind of
evidence.
And this moreover is double : In effedt there be
certain things which are evident in themfelves, and 'tis
fufficientto comprehend them,and to know" the true hg-
nification of the terms they are wont to be exprefled by,
toperfwade our felves immediately of them without any
arguing. Their own proper light forces the moll obfti-
nate to receive them ; and tho perhaps a man may difac-
knowledg them in words, yet he lliall believe them in
his heart. Such are the firlb principles of Sciences, and
the reft of thofe certain Trutlis, in which all the world
agree, one and one are two .-That the whole is higher than
a part: That if we take equal numbers from equal numbers^
what remains will be even.
The other Truths are thofe, which being obfcure in
themfelves, andconfequently eafily denied when propofed
without proof, become evident, when it's fliewed they
have a neceflary and indiflbluble tye with thofe other
Truths I have already mention'd, and whereof 1 have
faid,That they, gain reception by their own luftre,which
is the natural and ordinary efled: of Dcmonflrarions.
I pretend, that Tranfubflantiation does equally over-
throw the certainty which arifes from this double evi-
dence ; and I hope to fliew you this my pretenfion is well
grounded. I begin at the evidence of the fecond rank,and
fhall make it appear, That 'tis not long of Tranfubflanti-
ation^ if all Demonftrations be not falfe ,• becaufe in effedt
there
^2 The Fourth Conference
-there are an infinite number of 'em which would become
fo, were this Do6frine true.
It's firft of all certain. That the nature and property
of things, is the vafl; Field of Demonflrations. This
kind of reafoning fets on the proving fometimes the Ef-
fence by the Properties, and fometimes the Properties
by the Eflence; and again fometimes an unknown or
contefled Property, by another which is more known
and unqueftionable This being granted, the only Foun-
dation of thefe three forts of Demonflrations, is the
Connedfion of Propertie's with one another, and of all
of 'em together with the Eflence. For might one fe-
parate all this, and the Eflence could be without the
Properties, or the Properties without the Eflence, or
each of thefe Properties without any one of the others,
there could be no Demonflration made on this Subjedf;
and the Reafonings which lhall be ufed to prove one of
thefe things by the other, would amount to no more
than probable Arguments, like thofe drawn from what
they call common Accidents. And therefore the Jefuits
* Conimb. in of Conimhre affirm *, That the Conncdtion of Properties
Anal objedi of Scienccs. They
quxft^Arn^ fay this Connedfion is indiflbluble, even in reference to
the power of God, and they prove it by this Reafon,
That if God could feparate thefe things. Science might
happen to be falfe; which appear'd to them abfurd and
contradidtory.
If then Tranfuhflantiation do's adfually feparate the
Properties from one another, and altogether from the
Eflence; if it grants fome of thefe Properties without
the others; if it grants fome one of 'em, or all of 'em
together without the Eflence; in fine, if it grants the
Eflence without the Properties; its clear, it faps the
Foundations of moR Demonflrations, and brings it to
concerning Tranfuhftantiation. 73
Woiiic pafs that nothing lhall be more eafie than to make great
. numbers of them , according to all the Forms and Con-
ditions which the Logkians do require; yet, which fliall
^ This be all Fallacies and Deceits.
stkEf- It'5 certain your belief makes this great reparation,
*s and your Dodtors themfelves do not deny it For ex- * .
wuct ample, it's commonly believ'd that the natural proper- difput.'i87.e.L
rem: ties of a Body are Extenfion, Divilion, Motion, Impe-n. iS-
nljfooii netration, taking up a place, ©c. All the Philofophers
rs tii Books are full of this kind of ftuffi And therefore the
knowledg of Phyfics, which ought chiefly to endeavour
one fe- at the dilcovery of the Properties of the Natural Body,
lot tk which is its Objedb , makes of this very thing, one cf
oce, or the confiderable of its Treatifes, and never fails to bring
otters, it after that of its Principles, which is the firfl:.
SiM; We believe 'tis the very eflence of Accidents, to be
e one of adtually in their Subjedf. You do not grant this; yet
no fflort you grant, if this be not the eflence of Accidents, yet
iiwh& 'tis at ieaft a Property of them: You believe it the Pro-
perties of Qiiantity, to be meafured, to be equal, and
■rties proportionable to the place it poflefles.
Iky Here are feveral Properties; yet, Sir, you feparate
ice to them all from their Subjecfis; and confequently from the
don, eflence whence they flow. Suppofingjas you do,the exifl;-
iglit ence of the Accidents of the Bread without a Subjedt,
and you maintain fomething that has extent, that is diviflble,
moveable, figured, impenetrable, and which poflefles a
fk place, and yet this mufl: not be Body all this while,
the Which is to fay, you flmll grant at once fix different
out Properties of a Natural Body, feparated from this Body,
eraand confequently ftom its eflence, which is yet the only
the' fpring from whepte they flow,
the Eflabliflung tide Body of Jefus Chrifl; in the Eucharifl;
tto after the manner of Spirits, you ftrip it of its divifibi-
pis . If lity.
74 \ The Fourth Covfertnce-
lity, its impenetrability, and its locality ; which is to
fay, you hereby affirm the Ellence to be feparated from
three of its mod Eliential Properties. Leaving to this
Body its(^ianrity, you feparate this Quantity jrom the
feveial Properties, which accompany it every, where
elfe, the divifibility, impenetrability, the aptitude to he
meafured, to poffiefs a place,
Suppoling the Accidents of Bread and Wine without
a SubjeA, you do moreover fuppofe the Eflence of thefe
kind of Beings, without the mod Edential of their Pro-
perties.
You will have ChridsBody in the Eucharidto retain
fome of the Properties of the Natural Body,as Quantity,
Figure, &c^ And lofe others, as Divifibility, Impenetra-
bility, the manner of being, circumfcriptively in a place,
^c. whicli is to fay, you feparate.die Properties from
one another. Hereby then you dedroy the connexion
of Properties between one another, and with their Ef-
fence j which as i laid jud now, is the foundation of mod
Demondrations. So that all thole which may be made
on this Principle, and which Ariflotle would have lookt
upon as convincing and unanfwerable proofs, are in our
hands but trivial Conjedbures, and bare Probabilities.
Will you have (befides this) Examples, which judific
this truth ?, Shall I give you Demondrations, which all
Philofophers, even your own, have ever refpecded as very
♦Juarez Met. foii^i ; which yet are but meer Sophifms granting
difp.i. n.4. "Tranfuhftantiation > Is it not true, that your Suarez *
proves there are Subdances, becaufe there are Accidents ?
There are Accidents^ fays he, there mud then be Sub-
dances. He fays this is a necellary confequence; and
Ihews it to be fo in the fequel by Confiderations which
perhaps I may hereafter mention. But what can be falfer
than this, if there can be Accidents without a Subjecd, as
your Tranfuhflantiation fuppofes ? AH
X
concerning Tranfubftantiation. 75
All.Philolbphers both Ancient and Modern, Arijlote-
Hans ^ Cartejians^^ intending to advance further,
and prove the exiftence of Matter,or Corporal Subftance, pe^rer Phyf'iib
propofe three things obfervable in nature. Thejfry?,that 5 cap 4.
there happens in it Accidental changes, that that which
was black becomes white, what was cold becomes hot ,-conimb. in,i.
and the fecond, that there happen Subhantial changes , Phyf cap?,
there being of wood made fire; that from a Seed
fprings up a Tree •, and the thirds That all this is done Qiiseft.i.Petit
by Natural Agents, whofe forces are limited. raref. &
Whence they conclude, There muft be necefiarily pohauz^PM^
fome matter which is the Subject of all thefe feveral part i. cap6.
changes, and on which the Natural caufes may adl. They
pretend this proof is demonflrative, and that nothing
can be offered againff it. But all this having place in the
Eucharift, it's clear there muff; be faid one of thefe two
things, Either that this proof is not good, or that the
Subftance of the Bread and Wine remains in the Sacra-
ment.
The Cartejians pretend 4;o demonffrate the Immorta-
lity of the Soul, by ffiewing it to be diffindt from the
Body; and they imagine to prove this diftindfion by fay-
ing that Thought, which is a modification of the Soul, '
is no Material thing. Which they afterwards prove by
this reafon, That one may deny Thought whatever ap-
pertains to the Body, as to be long, large and deep, to
be of fuch and fuch a figure, to be. divifible, ^c. yet
without deffroying for this the notion we have of
Thought.
But can we not deny all this of the Body of Chriff:
in the Eucharift, though it be Material, and not a Spi-
rit ? Here's then another deceitful Demonftration if your
Tranfuhflantiation has place.
Thefe
7 6 The Fourth Conference
Thefe Phllofophers make great reckoning of a proof
which they ufe againft the Vacuum of the Epicureans .•
They affirm that to fuppofe a Vacuum^ is to contradid:
ones felf, becaufe fay they, that a Vacuum^ if there be
one, inuft be extenfive in length, largenefs and depth.
But fuppofing it, this would be a Body; for a Body ac-
cording to them, is nothing eife, but that which is ex-
tended in length, largenefs and depth. So that were it a
Body, 'twould not be a Vacuum. To fuppofe then ^ Va-
cuum^ is to contradid ones own Suppofition. The Carte-
fians affirm nothing can oppofe this proof. Yet is it falfe,
if tranfulsiantiation be true. For there is, according to
you,' in the Eucharift fomething extenfive, fomething
that is long, large and deep, and yet not a Body.
The Peripatetics^ fays Mr. N. admit not of this proof,
and it does not oppofe the manner in which the Cartefi-
ans explain Tranfuhflantiatien ; for you know they will
not grant. That the Accidents of Bread and Wine fub-
fift without a Subjed.
This is true, reply'd I to him. But firft the exiftence of
Accidents without a Subjed, is however oppofed by a
proof, which the Cartefians reiped as demonflrative. And
then the manner in which the Cartefians explain what
you fay God does in the Eucharift, ruins the moll part
of their Phyfical Demonftrations j as others have obfer-
♦See theTrea- vcd * before me.
Thorif 'of tT" cannot deny but this Dodrine overthrows
Senfesf ° ^ certainty of Demonllrations. But this ought not
much to furprize you, feeing your Belief overthrows the
chiefeft and moft unqueftionable of all Principles.
I was about proving this, when I was hindred by a Met-
fage from a Gentleman. I defired Mr. N. to permit me to
write an Anfwer to it, who yielding to my requeft, our
converfation was by this means interrupted for fonric ffiort
time.. CON-
concerning Tranfubjiantiation,
77
CONFERENCE V.
Wherein is finally fherp'c/. That Tranfuhjian-
tiation eftahlifjes Scepticifm 5 anc/ ahfo-
lately dejlroys the certainty of firjl Prin-
ciples^
AS foon as I had ended my Anfwer, I rejoyn'd Mr. N.
and reafliimed our former Difcourfe. You have
not forgotten where we left off, faid I to him prefent-
ly. I had undertook to fliew you, That Tranfubftan-
tiation eftablilhes Scepticifm at its full length ; and ab-
folutely overthrows the certainty of our Notices. I
have Ihew'd it in refpedt of thofe whicli arife from our
fenfes. I afterwards juftified .it on the fubjed: of De-
monftrations; fo that I have only now to Ihew you,
That this Dodrine does not fpare the cleareft and mofi
unqueflionable of all the Principles. I lhall now prove
to you, That if your Belief takes place, the moft cer-
tain of thefe Maxims will be found falfe; and confe-
quently the reft, which depend thereon, and which at
moft have not more evidence than this firft, will be
doubtful and uncertain.
This furprifes you without doubt, and you imagine
I undertake a ftrange task. Yet I hope eafily to acquit
my felf of it. Only inform me which of thofe great
Truths you may make moft account of.
This has been a matter of fome conteft, replied he
to me; I was taught in the Colledge, that the firft and
tlie
I;!'
^
The Fifth Conference
the moft certain of all the Principles is this great Maxim,
That it is impoffible the fame thing can be^ and cannot be :
Or to exprefs it in another manner, That it is impoffible
for two contradi^ory Propofitions to he true at the fame
time. I have been always told this is the firfl flep our
mind takes in the fearch of Truth, and at the fame time
the lafl thing we find when we fearch after the foundati-
ons of ourPerfwafions.
» See the Art Yet the Cartcfians do not grant this * they are a-
of Thinking, indeed that this Maxim is certain and unquefiion-
able; for who dares deny it? But they affirm 'tis of no
' great ufc, and however, not the firfi; of all Principles.
."They prefer this other Maxim before it: One may affirm
■ of each things whatever is contain d in the diflintl Idea we
have of it.
For my part, I think it an eafy thing to agree them.
The Cartefians Principle is undoubtedly the firfi; of Af-
firmatives, and the fittefi to prove Pofitive Truths.
But that of the Schools is the firfi of the Negatives,
and the propereft to defiroy Errors and Falfity.
I am eafily of your mind, replied I. But I mufi add.
That Tranfuhdantiation do's abfolutely overthrow both
one and the other of thefe two Axioms; as well as a
great many others, whofe certainty is very near that of
-theirs. Which I fliall now prove to you, beginning at
the Principle of the Cartefians^ on which I ihall not long
infift. Mr. Rohaut fliews in the beginning of his Trea»
♦ Roh. Phyf. tile of Phyfics That 'tis impoflible to conceive di-
P"*-i-chap.7.fiindtly matter, without conceiving 'tis extended in
length, largenels and depth, that it is figured, and im-
penetrable. I relate not his Words to you; you may
read them in his Chapter of Matter.
Yet you do not believe our Saviours Body is impene-
trable in the Eacharijl. You believe 'tis there after the
manner
concerning Tranfubfiantiation. 79
ttianner of Spirits^ totumintoto^ ^ totum ht qualihet
parte. For thus has the Council of Trent defined it. As
to Figure, I do not know how it can be given to a
Body, whofc parts are penetrable, and enter into one
another. In fine, I do not underftand how length can
be attributed to it, or largenefs, or depth ; tor v^'hat
wou'd be the length, largenefs and depth, which wou'd
be in it ? Will it be what it has in its natural Eflate ?
Our Senfes attefl fufficiently the contrary. Will it be
that of Bread and Wine ? This cannot be; For were this
lb, the Body of Chrilt might be divided into two halfs,
into three thirds, into four parts, ^c. feeing all thefe
Divifions may be made of the Hoft.
Here's then three things which are clearly compre-
bended in the Idea a man has of a Body, and which
yet one cannot affirm of that of Jefus Chrift. And con-
lequently, here are three Proofs of the falfity of the
Cartefuns great Principle. Here's liow a fourth., Thefe
Philofbphers will not deny that that which makes the '
Efience of each thing, is comprehended in the diftindt
Idea, which one has of that thing j and that the thing
is comprehended in the diftindl Idea which we have
of that which makes its Eflence. For example, if ex-
tenfion be the Eflence of Matter, as they pretend; they
will acknowledg, that Extenfion is comprifed in the
Idea of Matter , and the Matter in the Idea of the Ex-
tenfion; and thus, as one may affirm of Matter, that
it is Extenfive j fo one may affirm of that which is Ex-
tenfive , that it is Matter. They will as little deny,
that the Mafs, or Colledlion of Modufles, is not that
which makes the particular Eflence of every thing; for
every Body knows the Averflon they have to fubftantial
Forms,fo much mention'd in the Colledg.By ccnfequence,
twill be equally impoflible to form to ones felf a diftindl
Hea -
TJje Fifth Conference -
Idea of Bread and Wine, without bringing in all the
Modufles of thefe two Subftances, and diftindtly con-'
ceiving the Mafs of thefe Modufles, without conceiving
the Bread and Wine. See now, Sir^ if according to the
Maxims of the Cartefians you dare affirm , there's
Bread and Wine in the Eucharifi, as you fay, there's
that which makes the Eflence of Bread and Wine.
Being not well verfed in the new Philofophy, faies
Mr. N. I ffiall not undertake to anfwer what you now
of^red me. But fliall referve my reply till you under-
take to ffiew me our belief deftroys the Principle of
the Schools, which tell us, That two contradidtory
Propofitions cannot be true. And I am even impatient
to fee how you will prove this.
I will eafily ffiew you, faid I, That this Dodtrine in-
eludes a great number of Contradidlions; and confe-
quently of neceffity either this Dodtrine muft be falfe,
or the contradidtory Propofitions may be true. It's cer-
tain, if I undertake to ffiew you by Arguments, that
your belief is contradidlory, I fliall (^I imagine} be en-
gaged in great contefls with you.
We mufl: run over all the knotty Queflions of the
Schools, and examine their nicefl Diftincftions. And
this is as little pleafant to me, as I believe 'tis to you.
But I have another lels tirefome way than this firfl;
Which is to ffiew you, 5/r, That your Dodfors agree,
'tis contradidfory to fay divers things, which are the
neceflary confequences of your belief, which they eafi-
ly grant every time they think not of Tranfuhfiantia-
tion, and when the Idea of this Dodrine, which com-
monly confounds their Senfes, leaves them fome liberty
of judging of things according to the light of nature.
Behold here an example of what I fay.
TranfuhJlaMtiathfiy
concerning Tra?ifnbJiantiationl
tranfuhflantiation, according^ to the common Senti-
ment of the Schools, do's neceflkily imply the Exigence
of Accidents without a Subjedf. I affirm, That this
very thing is a pure Contradidtion, and here's the man-
ner how I ihew it. You will allow me, it's a Contra-
didfion to affirm, That an Accident is not an Accident.
'Tis your Suarez, who teaches it in fo many words, If
the Accident * , fays he , has no Suijecl, '/« not an Acci- * Si
dent^ hut a Suhflance. You do not rightly comprehend
this Author's meaning, fays Mr. N. 1 he Ellence of the
Accident do's not confift to be adtually in a Subjedb,
but only to may he therein^ to he proper to this. 'Tis
this Difpofition, and this Aptitude, which makes the
Eflence of the Accident, and which never leaves it,
and this is whatever Suarez, meant in the pailage
you have cited.
You deceive your felf, reply'd I, Suarez fenfe is. That
Accidents will be Subftances, if they be not adfually in
fome Subjedt. To behold more diftindfly this truth, ob-
ferve if you pleafe, that he does not fay this, but to prove
there are Subftances, for thus he fpeaks : He fays,
it cannot be denied but there are Accidents, feeing this
is a thing which the Senfes atteft. Whence he concludes,
there are Subftances, becaufe if there were not Subftan-
ces, the Accidents would be without a Subjedt, and if
they Jiad no Subjedt, they would not be Accidents but
Subftances.
Had this Jefuit the Thought you impute to him, his
Argument would be reduced to this j there are Acci-
dents : the Accidents are proper to have Suhjeds : Thefe
Suhjeds mufl he Suhflances: then there are Suhflances.
But firft if Suarez meant this, 'tis ftrange he did not fay
it. He has fpokcn enough in his Life, not to be to feek
to exprefs his Thoughts, and not to ufe fuch uncouth
ways as thefe would be. L More-
§2 The Fifth Conference
Moreover in attributing to him this fenfe, you make
him make a ridiculous Argument. For in fine, what will
this confequence be ? Accidents are proper to exijl in Suh-
Suhfiances : There are then Suhflances. This is juft as if I
fliould fay, The Fire is proper to welt Ice : Therefore
where ever there is Fire^ there mufl neceffarily he Ice. Wa-
ter is proper to quench Fire : Where ever then, there is
Water., there is alfo Fire.
This may fuffice on the Subject of your firfl Contra-
didtion : The fecond is a little more palpable : It con-
fifts in yopr making the Body of Chrift to be-in feveral
places at once, without lofing its Unity. For in fine, if
it be in feveral places at once, it's feparate from its felf,•
and if it be feparate from it felf, 'tis no longer one only
Body. All Philofophers agree there's no certainer mark
of a real diflind:ion,than feparation, efpecially that which
they call mutual, and which they lay confilfs in feparate
things, fubfifting each >apart after the Separation. The
* Suar. Met. mutual feparation of two Extreams, faith Suarez, * is an
voce"dift1n fgn they he really diflinguifht: El few here he fays
aio. this is the principal fign f. He alfo affirms,it matters not
t Idem Met. to know. Whether the feparation be made naturally, or
fupernaturaliy; and that all one can fay of it, is, That
when the feparation is made naturally, the dillincf ion is
more vifibly and apparently known, than when God
does does it by Miracle. Yet he affirms it to be then no
lefs real.
And of this he gives us a confidcrable example : He
■fays if We confult only'natural reafon, we lhall be apt to
- doubt whether Quantityhe dift'irTc^ froim^atter, becaufe
in efTed: thefe two things do never fubfift without one
another in the order of Nature.
But he adds, Tliat the Myflery of the EuchariH does
not permit us to doubt of their diftindion, feeing that
Quantity
C07iceYning Trafifubflantiation.
Quantity does therein MiraculouHy fubfifl; without
Matter.
On this fame Principle Suarez^ and all your other
Do(5tors affirm it impoffible that the Modufes ffiould fub-
fift without the things Modijide., no, not by an eflcd:
of Infinite power; becaufe, fay they, there being no real
diftindtion between the Modus and the thing Modifide^
it's impoffible the Modus ffiould fubfift without the thing
Mod'tfide.
There cannot then be a real feparation between that
which is not really diflind ,• and to fuppofe fuch a fepa-
ration, is a manifeft contradidtion. Yet your belief fup-
pofes this. It fuppoles the Body of Jefus Chrift in feveral
places at a time, I mean in feveral feparate places ; which
have no contiguity between them, but are dillinguiffied
by confiderable fpaces, and by a great number of Bodies
which lye between them. Let's imagine three Confecra-
ted Hofls, ortfe here, the other in China^ and the third in
America. The Body of Chrift is in all thefe three places,
and at the fame time in Heaven. It's perfedily entire in
each of thefe four places. It's then feparate and far di.
flant from it felf.
Pray tell me. Sir, is not this fair reafoniog, to fay. The
hody and the foul of a child of God are two dijlin^ Suh-
Hances ifor after death the hody remains in the Sepulchre,
and the foul goes to Heaven ?
This is what cannot be denied: But if this reafoning
be good,why in the fame manner is not this other,which
is fo like it, alfo good ? The hody of Jefus Chrifl is really
diflinli from the fuhjtance which is between the PrieHs
hands, for the one is in Heaven, the other on Earth. What
difference can there be between thefe two reafonings,
M'hich ffiall make the firft good, and not the latter ?
But
84
The Fifth Conference
But here's an inhance which I think comes nearer'
yet; you know the Father's Argument againft the Pagans.
There were Pagans who imagin'd their gods dwelt pro-
perly and really in the Statues Confecrated to them. And
there being not one of thefe gods to whom they did not
Confecrate a great number of thefe Reprefentations in
feveral parts of the World, hence it manifeltly follovv'd,
That they were in feveral places at a time : And the Fa-
* thers treated this as contradictory and ridiculous. They
maintain'd that each of thefe gods could not be but in
one place at a time,becaufe if he were in feveral, he mufl
of necelTity be divided, or multiply'd : Each of thefe
Statues mufl: contain but a fmall bit of this god, or elfe
there mufl be as many gods, as many Jupiters^ as many
Mercuries^ as many Vnlcans^ as there were Statues Confe-
crated to thefe falfe Divinities.
♦Arnob.adver. precifelj Amohius his Argument in a
pa^g.T^. Edit, tnofl excellent pal^ge which I Tranflated ihis Morning
Prior. to read to you. I thereupon drew a Paper out of my
Pocket, in which were thefe following words : the Gods
dwell in their Reprefentations : But do they dwell there in
fuch a manner^ that each of them is entire in each Statue ?
Or are they th^re divided and hy parts ? Certainly neither
one and the fame God can he at the fame time in feveral
Statues^ neither can he he cut into parts hy divifion. Sup-
pofe we in effeht there are in the world ten thoufand Repre-
fentations of Vulcan, can this God he (^as I have already
faidi) in thefe ten thoufand places at a time ? I do not he-
lieve it. Why not ? Becaufe that which of its own nature
is fingular., cannot multiply it felf in cqnferving its fimpli-
city and unity., much lefi if what you he lieve he true. That
the Gods have a humane fhape. For neither the hand fepa-
rated from the head, nor the foot divided from the reft of
' tioe hody, does make the whole perfon: for you muH not fay
the
concer7iing Tra7i[uhfiantiatio7t.
the parts have the fame effehi as the whole, feeing the whole
cannot fuhfiH hut hy the union of its parts. Now if it he faid
that this God is wholly entire in each Statue, the truth lofes
all its strength, feeing ids fupp fed the fame thing may he
every where at the fame time. Or elfe it muH he faid. That
ench God feparates himfelf in fuch a manner from himfelf,
that he is at the fame time himfelf and another, not that he
is feparated, hut in fuch a manner that he is at the fame time
the fame, and another quite different. This then heing ahhor-
rent to nature,we muH fa7 one or the other ofthefe two things.
Either that there's an infinity ofY\iXcdins,ifwe will have this
God to refide in all the Statues which reprefent him; or that
he is not in one of them, feeing his nature will not fuffer him
to he divided.
Is it not true, Sir, purfued I, that I can bring the fame
Argument againfl you ? I need only change one word in
Arnohius, and inftead of Vulcan, fay the Body of Jefus
Chriji. The Body of Chrift, I may fay, exifts according
to you, in tlie Eucharift. But does it exifl tlierein in fuch
a manner that 'tis entire in each Confecrated Hoft ? or is
it therein divided and in parts ? Certainly neither on#
and the fameBody can be at the fame time in feveralHofls,
neither can it be divided into parts. Suppofe in effedt
there be in the world ten thoufand Confcrated Hods,
can, as F have already obferv'd, one and the fame Body
be in thefe ten thoufand places at a time ? I do not be-
lieve it. Why not ? Becaufe that which of its own na-
ture is fingular,cannot be multiplied in conferving its fim-
plicity and unity, and fo much the lefs in this occafion,
becaufe the queftion is touching a Body lilte ours. For
neither the Hand feparated from the Head, nor the Foot
divided from the reft of the Body, does make the whole
Perfon. Now if it be faid the Body is quite entire in each
of thefe Hofts, the Truth lofes all its force , feeing we
fuppofe
^6 The Fifth Conference
fuppofe the fame thing may be in all places at the
fame time. Or elfe you rnufl fay, That this Bo-
cly feparates it felf in fuch a manner from it felf, that it
is at the fame time the fame, and another quite difTe-
rent. This then being abhorrent to nature, you muO:
fay one or the other of thefe two things, Either that
there's an infinity of ChriflsBody, if you will have this
Sacred Body refident in all the Confecrated Hofts ,• or
elfe that it is not one, feeing Nature fuflers it not to be
divided into feveral.
You fee, Sir, I only copy out Arnohous^ and faithfully
Cite his Words. Yet this is not the only Father who
has argued in this manner. St Auflin imitated liim in
his time; and what is moft confiderable, he makes the
whole application of it to the Body of Jefus ChriH.
You know the Manichees believd our Saviour was at
the fame time on the Crofs, in the Sun and in the
Moon, which they ridiculoufly term'd his Ships. St. Au-^
flin affirms to them, that this is impoffible; and thefe
♦ Aug. contr. are his Words, * Tell us^ I pray you^ how many ChriBs
Fauft. lib. 26,^^^ helkve there are } He whom the Earth brought forth
after he was conceived by the Holy Spirit^ and which not
only hayigs on every Tree^ but is moreover fixed to every
Herb ; does he differ from the other^ whom the Jews Cru-
cified under Pontius Pilate, and from this third, who is
Jlretched out in the Moon and in the Sun ? Or, is it the
fame Saviour fx'd on the Trees by one part of him, and
free in the reji , to come to the aJftBance of that which is
fixed ? If it be this laB, he that fuffered according to you
under Pontius Pilate; how, in the firfl place, could he en-
dure this kiud of Death, hdving no fle(h, as you pretend ?
And then again, to whom did he leave thefe. (hips, to
come and undergo thofe pains which none but Bodies were
■ capable ojA In effetl he could not endure thofe things in
reference
concerning Tranfubftantiation. 87
reference to his fpiritual Prefence; and according to the
corporal one he could net he at the fame time in the Sun^ and
in the Mocn^ and on the Crofs. m
He could not, fays St. AuHin! but why could he not ?
Is it more diHicult for a Body to be at the fame time
on the Crofs, in the Moon, and in the Sun, than in
Heaven, and an infinite number of places on the Earth ?
Of necejfity (faid he in another place} f the body of Jefus t Aug in Joan..
Chrifl rifen mujl he in one only place. But u hy mull it nu^ciamr'^'^*'
be fo? and why may he not be in fevcral places at a
time, if he be there in effed:, as your Creed bears ?
The moft famous among the Fathers have ufed tlie
fame Arguments againfl: the Macedonians. Thcfe He-
reticks affirmed the Holy Spirit to be but a Creature,
of a like nature to that of Angels. The Holy Fathers
to refute them, alledge. That an Angel cannot be in fe-
veral places at a time ; whereas the Holy Spirit v as in
the fame time in feveral places extream diftant from
one another, feeing he never forfook the ApoflJes, al-
though for the Preaching of the Gofpel they were'dif-
perfed over all the Earth. Thus does St. Athanafius argue,
or one under his name in the difpute he is faid to have {a) Apud. a-
againft Arius., (ji) Didymus of Alexandria^ (f) St. Bafil.,
(c} St. Greg. Naz. (r/} St. Amhrojfe, Pafcajius Dea-
con of Pome, (/} Anaftafius Sinait, (gj Rupert, Qi) and (J Bafii de
others, very ill, as you fee, were it not fuppofed im-
poflible for tlie fame Body to be in feveral Places at a 3.7.
time. Were not this held then for undeniable, theyWAmb.de
would without doubt have been anfvi ered,' That there's
no more difficulty in fuppofing a Spirit in feveral Places, (/; Paic.Rom.
than a material Body, as that of our Saviour was. But S/*. s.iib.i.
in effed it appears the Fathers have ever believed this A^ft. sin,
could nor be, leeing hereby he refuted the exravagant )ib.i.dedogm.
Opinions of both Hereticks and Pagans. (ijaupub 10. ■
More- cap. 22.
The Fifth Conference
Moreover your great evafion, wliich confifls in di-
flinguifliing what may naturally be, and what may ha]>
pen by an effccft of the Almighty Power of God; this
eyafion, I fay, will not fervc in this occafion ; for, in
fine, the Qgeftion was not in thefe Difputes, what might
or what might not naturally be, but what might abfo-
lutely be. The Pagans did not pretend, That by means ■
of natural Caufes the Gods were placed in Statues con-
fecrated to them. The Mankhees did not fubjed: our Sa-
viour to the Laws of Nature. The Macedonians did not ■
believe the Holy Spirit was lent by fome created Caule.
All thefe People made the Divine Power intervene in
thefe occafions ; and confequently the Fathers affirming
that what thefe extravagant People faid was impoffible,
they meant'twas fo in allfenfes, and that'twas a mere
contradiction.
It appears then from all I have now faid. That accord-
ing to the trueft and belt Reafon, according to your
own Authors, and according to the Fathers, it's a pure
contradiction to fuppofe Chrifts Body in feveral places
at a time. But the contradiction will be (till more ma-
nifeft, if we add. That fuppofing this Divine Body in
feveral places, one may lay of it things direCtly oppo-
fite to one another. Confidering it fuch as it is in
Heaven, you believe it has its three dimenfions, each
of which you believe may be meafured, and compared
with thofe of other Bodies, which are greater or lefler.
You believe it has its parts one out of another. That
it poflelles a place, whofe parts anfwer thofe of this fa-
cred Body , That he is therein vifible and palpable,
aCts, &c. You fay the direClr contrary of this fame Bo-
dy, fuch as you fuppofe it in the Eucharift. You be-
iieve it there exifts after the manner of Spirits, that it
is therein reduced to one point, that it has its parts one
concerning Tranfub/lantiation\
in another, that 'tis therein invifible, and without adi-
on. You alfo believe, that to confider it only as 'tis in
the Eucharift, it's removed out of one place, and let to
reft in another; here he is lifted up, and there he is let
down. Are not thefe. Sir, fo many contradid:ions Is
not this to aftirm and deny the fame thing of the fame
Subjed: in relation to the fame parts and time ? and
what do you call contradicftory, if this be not fo ?
A Body in two places, fays Mr. N. is equivalent to
two Bodies, and one may fay of it the moft oppofite
things, without contradidion. I muft acknowledge
one cannot do it, when we fpeak of a Body exifting
only in one place. But when we fpeak of a Body, or
generally of a Subjed:, which exifts in diverfe places at
a time, there's no contradidion in affirming and deny-
ing the fame things of it. This is no new anfwer, and I
fuppofe you have read it in our Authors.
Your Authors, I confefs have madeufeof it, tepli'd
I, but I affirm their anfwer was infincere, it being not
what they thought, but what the intereft of their caufe
required. And for a proof of what I fay, is it not true.
That when the Queftion was of things wherein they
were not interefted, and which they regarded as abfo-
lutely independent from the Eucharift, they have not
ftuck to maintain 'twas a contradidion to fay things
oppofite of a Body in two places ?
For example, becaufe it's held among you, that Chrifts
Body is not circumfcriptively^ that is to fay after the
manner of Bodies, in fuch a manner that each of its parts
anfwers to that of the place which it poflefles, becaufe,fay
I, 'tis believ'd that the Body of Jefus Chrifl is not in
this manner but in Heaven, and that 'tis fuppofed in the
Eucharift only SacrameMtallj^ which is to fay after the
manner of Spirits, totum in toto ^ totum in qualihet par-
M te \
The Fifth Conference
te; The Thomijls * have imagined, That it mattered
not, as to the Eucharift, to know whether a Body may
be clrcumfcriptively in two places. They thought they
might freely explain themfelves on this Quelbion, with-
cut fearing the judgment they might make of it, fliould
prove of dangerous Confequence to the Dodbrine of the
Real Prefence. Being in this manner withheld by no
confideration, and applying themfelves to nothing but
what appeared to them to be true, they pronounced it
impoffible for one Body to be circumfcriptively in two
places; and their ftrongeft reafon is, that hereby it
might happen, that this Body might be in motion in one
of thefe places, and at reft in another; here it might be
cold, and there hot, and fo of the reft.
It's according to them a pure contradidbion to fay.
That a Body which ftiall be circumfcriptively in two
places, ftiall be at the fame time at reft and in motion; ^
but if this be a contradidbion, why is it not as confide-
rable a one to fay thefe fame things of a Bojdy which
is Sacramentally in two places, or Sacramentally in one,
and circumfcriptively in the other ? For in fine, are not
reft and motion as oppofite, and inconfiftent when the
Bodies which they affedt are Sacramentally in two pla-
ces, as when they be therein circumfcriptively ? More-
over, what I fay of reft and motion, I mean it- of all
the other oppofitions which I denoted to you a while ago.
And this is what the Jefuits have feen, and vi hrch has
made them abandon the opinion of the Thomifls.ThQy per-
ceiv'd it impoftible to maintain, That the Body of Chrift
is Sacramentally in feveral places at a time, if he be not
there circumfcriptively. They perceiv'd one or the other
of thefe things muft neceftarily be faid, Either that a Body
cannot be facramentally, nor circumfcriptively in two
places,or that it may be there equally either in one or the
other
concerning Tranfuhjlantiation,
other of tliefe two manners. They were forced to take one
of thefe fides. Had they been at liberty,they would have
taken the firft. But in taking it, they mull: lliock tran-
fubfiantiation, which they would by no means difcre-
dit. They have therefore taken hold of the fecond,
and affirmed, That a Body may be, both Sacramental-
ly and Circumfcriptively in two places.
For a proof of what I have faid, in reference to thefe
Peoples intereh in the Quehion, be pleas'd to confider
in what manner thefe fame Jefuits have decided a Que-
ftion very like the former, but on a matter w hich does
not feem to have any relation to the Eucharifi. Some
followers of Arijiotky both Greeks and Arabians^ have
heretofore entertained a very fooliffi and ridiculous O-
pinion. They affirm'd 'tis not true, That every man
has a reafonable Soul particular to himfelf,- that there's
but one for all, which is in all Bodies, without lofing
its unity, and without being any where than in thefe
Bodies ; jufl as you will have the Body of Jefus Chrift
exifl in the Eucharifi, without multiplying it felf, and
without being elfewhere, excepting in Heaven. The
Jefuits undertaking to decide this Queflion, and
forgetting the Eucharifi, as in effecT 'twas troublefome
to remember it, have therefore pofitively afferted, That
the Opinion of thefe Philofophers is infupportable. Ha-
ving particularly affirmed that it implies a manifefl
contradidlion, becaufe 'twould happen hereupon. That
the fame Soul fliould be at the fame time knowing and
ignorant, good and bad, happy and unhappy ; there
being none of thefe qualities which agree not with fe-
veral men, and confequently with the fame Soul, if it
be true there is but one for all men.
They are without doubt much in the right; but if
a Soul in two places, which is united to two feveral
M z . Bodies,
The l^ifth Confere7tce
Bodies, cannot be at the fame time knowing and igno-
rant, good and bad, happy and unhappy, w ithout a
contradidiion ; I would then know how one and the
fame Body can be, without contradidtion, in motion
and at reft, cold and hot, divifiblc and indivifible in
two feveral places. It is clear that one of thefe things
is no lefs impoftible nor lefs contraduftory than the o-
ther. And confequently it's plain that wdien your Do-
(ftors affirm there's no contradiction in faying, That
the fame Body in two places may be at the fame
time at reft and in motion, they do not fpeak according
to their Confcience, but according to the intereft of the
Caufe which they have taken upon them to defend.
I Ihould never have done, fliould I undertake to par-
ticularize all the other contradictions which your Do-
d:rine contains. Thofe which I have already denoted,
are fufficient to lliew you, it abfolutely deftroys this
great principle. That the fame thing cannot at the fame
time be, and not be. I pafs on then to another Maxim,
which is no lefs evident than that, which is, That the
whole is greater than a part. Your Tranfuhflantiation does
plainly be-ly either this Maxim, or that which fays. The
thing contained is never greater than that which contains it.
To make this more apparent, we muft obferve there are
two different opinions in your Schools touching the ex-
tenfion of Chrifts Body in the Eucharift. Moft hold that
it retains it. Others, that it lofes it. The Catechifm of
the Council of Trent feems to uphold the latter of thefe
opinions. And this is what it fays, Let the Curates take
de care to teach^ That Jefiis Chrifl is not in the Sacrament., as
in a places for the place is as the things ^ in as much'as
they have greatnefs ; and we do not fay our Lord is in the
Sacrament., as being little nr great., not refpelling the quan-
iity, but the fubjlance. For the fubflance of Bread is chan-
concerning Tranfubjlantiation.
ged into the fuhfiance of Jefus Chrifl^ not into its greatnefs
or quantity.
However if this Sentiment be granted, it's certain,
That the whole is not greater than its part: Seeing neither .
the whole nor its parts have any greatnefs. If on the
contrary you follow the firfl; opinion, you overthrow
this other Principle, 'that the thing contained is never
greater than that which contains it. In cfled: Chrifts Body,
which according to this opinion, has in the Eucharill
all the extenfion which it has in its natural Bate, will be
contained in a fpace incomparably fmaller than it is,
there being no fpace fo fmall, wherein one may not put
fome crumb of the Hoft, or Ipme drop of the Gonfecra-
ted Wine , and confequently all the Body of Jefus
Chrift.
This is moreover a Maxim which Philofophers and
Divines do equally acknowledg for granted. That no-
thing produces its felf: That nothing has relation to its'
[elf. Hereby chiefly the Fathers were wont to oppofo
the extravagancy of SahelTnts^ who acknowledg'd in the
Divinity only one Perfon under three feveral Names,
and who was at the fame time. Father., Son, and Ho^
GhoH. They clofed his mouth with this Anfwer, That
the Father begetting the Son, and the Holy Spirit pro-
ceeding from both thefe two Perfons, hereby thefe three
have fuch Relations as muft diftinguifli them, and con-
fequently will not fufFer thefe to be one and the fame
Perfon.
Yet is it true, That as in your Hypothecs the Body
of Jefus Chrift produces it felf, fo it has a relation to it
felfi like thofe which diflinguifli the Perfons in the Tri-
nity. In effed you hold. That the Tranjuhfiantiation is
the work of Jefus Chrift •, and what's more particular,,
you believe it to be the work of Jefus Chrift Man. You
believe
^4 Fifth Conference
believe that the Confecration is a Prieftly a(ft of our Sa-
viour, who immolates himfeif by the Miniftry of the
Prieft, reducing himfeif into a Hate of death under the
LSST'cT"''' of Bread and Wine % you believe f that Jefus Chrift
t Sc'rMem.^' IS a Prieft only as Man. So that he as Man changing
deincom.difp. the Bread into his Body, one may fay his Humane Na-
I. Sedt.a. , liis proper work: That it creates it felf, produces
it felf, and confequently tiiat there's a real Relation be-
* tween Jefus Chrift Man, and Jefus Chrift Man, between
Jefus Chrift Prieft, or Sacrificer, and jefus Chrift Sacri-
ficed; between Jefus Chrift producing, and Jefus Chrift
produced.
I fuppofe in effecft, that if Tranfuhflantiation be gran-
ted, it would be a real production of the Body of Jefus
Chrift. For befides, that your moft famous Divines ac-
knowledg it, w^e know it eftential to all changes to have
two different Terms, one of which is deftroy'd, and the
other produced ; and you'l agree with me herein, if you
run over all the changes remarkt hitherto, whether Sub-
ftantial or Accidental, Natural or Supernatural. You'l
fee there's always an Accident, if the change be acci-
dental; or a Subftance, if it be fubftantial, which cea-
fes to exift; and another Accident, or another Subftance,
which begins to exift, and takes the place of the Acci-
dent, or Subftance, which is deftroy'd. And confequent-
ly, if the Bread were chang'd into the Body of Jefus
Chrift,the Body of Chrift muft neceflarily be produced by
this change. And as it would be produced by it felf, it
would have a real relation to its felf, contrary to that
» Maxim, which implies. That nothing produces it felf:
and. That nothing relates to its felf.
In fine, Sir, this is a conftant Maxim, and ever fup-
pos'd, tho it be never expreft. That whatever has all the
fenfible marks of a thing, is that thing; That having
the
concerning Tranfubftantiation.
the eflence of it, it ought to bear its name. Hereon de-
pcnds the certainty of difcerning, whether of Tingle
things or Species. For in fine,our judgments cannot pierce,
into the bottom of things, or difcover their ellence by
this fort of knowledg call d intuitive in the Schools.' We
only know them by the help of thefenfible marks which
diftinguifli them. So that to overthrow this Maxim, is to
render the difcerning of things abfoiutely impoffibie, or
at leafi; doubtful and uncertain.
And yet this is the effedt of Tranfuhflantiation: It pla-
ces the Body of Chrift in the Eucharift under the fenfible
marks of Bread and Wine, where there's none of thefe
twoSubftances ; and you believe our Lords Body exifts
in a place where it has none of the marks which are wont
to make it known, and to diflinguiili it from the reft of
things.
This, Sir, may fuftice to fhew you, That Tranfuhjlan-
tiation abfoiutely overthrows the certitude of our Noti-
ces. I believe you perceive. That if it fubfifts, the firft
Principles be falfe, Demonftrations themfelves deceive
us, our Senfes are fubjedb to a thoufand delufions; and
in a word, we ought to doubt of whatever we have hi-
therto held for moft certain, and we have nothing elfe to
do but to plunge our felves into Scepticifm, which I rec-
kon to be the moft deplorable condition in the world,
feeing 'tis the total annihilation of our reafon.
Mr. Nl was about anfwering me, but was hindred by
the coming in of one of his Friends, who had bufinefs
with him. We having been a great while together, I laid
hold on this occafion, to take my leave of him.
CON-
The Sixth Conference
CONFERENCE VI.
Wherein the Proofs contained in the foregoing
Difconrfes are defended., and the impofji-
hility cfufing them againji the Dodrine of
the Trinity, is Demon fir ate d. ^
After this laft Converfatlon, there pafl feme days
before I faw Mr. N. again. He came not to me, and
1 was unwilling to force a vifit on him; but having at
length by good hap met with him alone in his ufual
Walks, I joyn'd my ielf to him. We fell at firft into feve-
ral Difcourfes, and at length on Matters of Religion ;
when I made bold to ask him. Whether he had thought
on what had pafl: in our former Conferences ?
He anfwer'd. That he had in truth ruminated thereon
after I had left him, but he was refolved to diflurb him-
felf no more with thofe Matters. For to what purpofe,
faid he, unlefl to fliake a mans faith, and difcompofe his
mind ? For I am fo perfwaded of the truth of tranfuhfian-
tiation, and I find it has fuch flrong tyes with the Princi-
pies of Chriflianity, that I do not at all doubt but it makes
up a part of this holy Religion. So that your reafons ten-
ding only to fliew me, that if Tranfuhftantiation be a Do-
a:rine of Chriflianity, we are to blame in being Chrifli-
ans. I not doubting of the Jirfi, mufl infenfibly doubt of
the fecoHci. Wherefore I had rather once for all to banifh
thefe thoughts out of my head, and remain in the flate
wherein 1 have hitherto lived, than to run the risk of
' ' turning
/
concernhig Trdnfuhfla7itiation.
turning Lilertin, which is the thing in the world I moft
hate.
In elfedr, continued he without giving me time to an-
fwer ,• If your way of arguing be good, I could make ufe
of it againft the Myftery of the Trinity,and eafiiy dired:
your proofs againll; this Capital Truth, and that with the
fame fuccefs as you have done againft Tranfulfiantiation :
Take,for example, the moft fpecious Objedion of the Ar-
rians and Socinians. They affirm this great Myftery abfo-
lutely ruins one-of the moft certain Principles of Scien-
ces. What we believe, reduces it felf to two Heads: Firj}^
That the Perfons of the Trinity are really diftind from
one another : the Father is not the Son , and the Holy
, Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. The other. That
neither of thefe Perfons is really diftinguilht from the
Divine Eftence which they poftefs: That the Father is
God, the Son God, and the Holy GhoftGod ; and what
is more. That the Father, Son and Holy Ghoft are but
one God, pofteffing only one Divinity ,• fo that the Divi-
nity of the Father is tJie fame with that of the Son ,• and
that of the Father and the Son is not different from that
of the Holy Ghoft.
Pray,Sir,now inform me how to accord all this with the ,
principle which paftes for unqueftionable in Metapiiyftcs.,
to w^t. That if two Subjeds be not diftind from a third,
they cannot be diftinguilht between themfelves.'^How can
this principle fubfift, if it be true, that the Divine Per-
fons, which are moft diftind in themfelves, are not at all
from the Eflence, which is common to them 7 what can
you lay in this Deraonftration, When two Sahjetls do not
really differ from a third^ They differ not really fr m one
another. The Perfons of the trinity differ not really f >-om
the Divine Effence which they poffefs. then thiy differ not
reiilly from one another.
N You
The Sixth Conference
You will grant me, that this is a Phyfical Demom
flration, and otherwife evident than thofe call'd Moral,
May I not then apply to the Trinity, the/r/? proof yow
have ufed againft Tranfuhflantiation^ and fay. That if
this My fiery made part of the Chriflian Religion , the
Objedions the Infidels bring to oppofe it, would have
more force than the proofs wliich eflablifh the Divinity
of it, feeing thefe proofs have only a Moral evidence,
and the Objedions which might be brought againft
them, have all the evidence term'd Phyfical.
I fay the fame thing of your fecond proof. I need on-^
ly change therein two words, and inflead of Senfe and
Tranfuhjiantiation^ fay Reafon and the Trinity. I need
only fay. If the My fiery of the Trinity be true, our
Reafon deceives us in the judgment fhe makes of it, in
thinking to fee clearly and diflindly, That the perfons-
of the Divinity are not different from one another : If
our Reafon deceives us in this, it may as well deceive us
in all other things j if it may deceive us in all things,
the proofs of Chriflianity are of no validity.
Even your third proof cannot efcape the being ap-
pli'd to the Myilery of the Trinity. In effed its obfer-
vable. That the Maxim I now alledg'd to you, is not
only a Metaphyfical principle, but the foundation of all
aflirmatory Syllogifms , which prove one cannot, joyn
two terms by the affirmation, but by fhewing one may
joyn them both to a third,term'd a mean.^y confequence,
if this Maxim be falfe, as it mufl of necefiity be, if the
Myflery of the Trinity be true,we mufl no longer think,
of arguing, but yield up the certainty of this fort of
knowledg to the Sceptics.
And here's. Sir, the natural ufe of your Method, if it
be follow'd ; we mufl retrench from our Religion what-
ever our reafon w:ill not fuffcr, and as foon as ever fhe
fhall
concerning Tranfuhflantiation.
/Iiall fee any oppofition to arife between her Maxims,
and our Myfteries, we have no other party to betake
our felves to, but that of difowning thefe Myfteries, and
rejed:ing them as fo many Errors. Thus Faith fliah de-
pend on our Caprkio, and we lliall henceforward believe,
not what it ihallpleafe God to reveal to us, but wl>atever
it lhall pleafe us to imagin. Would you have me to take
this courle, or to become an Arian or Sociman > and do
you think we ought to yield up every Article of our
Faith as foon as ever we fhall find any repugnance in
them to the deceitful Maxims of our wretched reafon,
which oftner ferves to lead us out, than in the way,- and
to blind us, than to enlighten us ?
Far am I, repli'd I, from this ; and tho I am per-
fwaded of the innocency of my Method, I fliould be the
firft to condemn it, did 1 believe 'twould produce fuch
pernicious effedis. But its certainly an offering of great
violence, to make it ferve for the drawing from it fuch
dangerous Conclufions. Pray letmejufiifieit, and for this
purpofe, give me your attention for fome minutes.
Its, firft, very ftrange you Ihould rejedl Arguments
wherein you cannot remark the lead defedt. They confift
of fiindry Propofitions, amongft which there's not one,
but what is not only true, but moreover evident. More-
over they be ftridlly allfd, and their Conclufions are
drawn in the moft natural manner in the w^orld. Ought
they then to be rejected on vain fufpicions, and uncertain
apprehenfions ? Is not this proceeding injurious to faith ?
For what would Ihe be, might her Dc^rines be combated
by Reafons,which fuffer no reply,and from which there's
no defence,but by faying, We wont examine them ? Is not
this formally to accufe her. That fiie will not endure the
light > Should all the world follow your example, what
N 2 fiiaM
The Sixth Conference
fhill - we anfwcr to the Libertins of the Age ? how would
they triumph over our Religion ?
Moreover, let me entreat you to confider,there's great
difTercnce between your two firfl; proofs, and my two
firil; yours are drawn from Reafon, and mine from Senfe.
You lay 'tis evident to Reafon, there are three Eflences
in the Trinity, or that there's only one Perfon, Where-
as 1 fay it's evident, not only to Reafon, but to Senfe,
That the Eucharifl is Bread and Wine.
What matter is it, faid Mr. iV. that the Evidence
which 3 0U oppofe to that of the Proofs of ChriRianity,
is that which is perceiv'd by Reafon , or that which
flrikes tlie Senfes, feeing the firft is no lefs than the fe~
cond ^ or, to fpeak better, feeing that is far greater than
this >
It's of great concern, anfwer'd I, and that on divers
accounts. Firil, becaufe the Suppofition you make is not
certain. You fuppofe, That the certainty of the acfts of
reafon, fuch as that is which fprings from Demonflrati-
on , is greater than that which arifes from the report
of the Senfes. I confefs this is the Cartefians opinion. But
you know the Gajfendifis hold the contrary. Thefe laft,
which are certainly not to be contemn'd, hold there's no
greater certainty than that of the Senfes. They tell us,
They are the Senfes w^hich perfwade us of the truth of the
firft Principles, and that we know not, for example. The
whole is greater than a part^ but by obferving in all the
Objed:s which have flruck our Senfes, that the part was
always leRer than the whole.
They are not only the Gajfendifis., which are of this
opinionj The Vulgar,5nd generally all thofe who are not
Philofophers, are herein of their opinion; and if you will
have them comprehend there are certain things of which
they ought to be more llrongly perfwaded than of what
they
concerning Tranfnbftantiation. loi
they fee, they will prefently believe you are not in earnefl
with them. This appears confiderable to me j for you
know neither Faith nor Salvation are the portion only of
Philofophers j the ordinary people having as grea^t a right
to them as the moft Learned : So tliat my Proofs have
this advantage, That they be convincing according to
the Hypothefis of all the world,* whereas yours fuppofe
things which few know, and concerning which allthofe
who are capacitated to judg, are not agreed.
Efpecially the firft of yours fuppofes a thing which
Mr. Huet oppofes'with all his flrength, That Phyfical *Huetn.De-
Demonflrations have greater evidence and certitude than
Moral ones. He affirms on the contrary,That Moral De-
monflrations are the moft convincing of "all ; and that-
neither Phyhcs nor Metaphyfics, nor Geometry, has
one to be parallel'd with them, whether in general with
thofe which perfwade us of moft matters of facft, or in
particular with thofe which he makes ufe of to eftablifli
the truth of Chriftian Religion. He hereupon fufficieht-
ly enlarges himfeif, and I doubt not but you have re-
markt that place as well as L
I may then deny your Suppofition,. which if I ffiould,
I ffiall have very able perfons for my Abettors. But I'le
grant what you fay to be true, and fuppofe all the world
of your opinion; I know another way to folve your Ob-
jedbion, which is. Sir, That Ihould I agree witli you,That
confidering things in general, the evidence of Reafon is
greater than, that which offers it felf to the Senfes, this-
will not hinder me from maintaining, That in particu-
larifing things, we ihall find incomparably fewer things '
evident to Reafon, than of fuch as are perceived by the
Senfes. In effed:, how few are the Truths which are perr tain againft
ceiv'd by reafon alone *, wffierein not only the Sceptics, Seeptici
but the Dogmatifts do agree.> Scarcely is there one which
has not been debated Pro & Con. It's
'1:02
The Sixth Conference
It's not the fame of thofe which are perceiv'd by the
Senfes. For excepting the Sceptics, whom you cannot
bring in againft the Senfes, feeing they are as bad friends
toReafon ; Scarce will you find one who will not allow
what the Senfes difcover to us, at leafl in grofs and po-
pular Objeds, if I may fay fo, and which are the only
ones we now fpeak of. Confult all the Seds of the Phi-
lofophers, ail the people in the Univerfe, to know whe-
ther it be now day, or whether an Horfe be greater than
an Afit; you will find, I do not fay, not a Sed or Na-
tion, but not any one particular perfon that denies
this.
The light ^f Senfe has moreover this advantage over
that of Reafon, that it's lefs liable to be difordered by
prejudices. Prejudices make people doubt who are ftrong-
ly pofiefled by them, of Truths, which a free Reafon,
and a difengaged mind clearly perceives. What is there,
for example, which my reafon perceives more diflindly
than the impoffibility of a Body's being in two places
without divifion ? Yet your Reafon imagines to fee the
contrary. Whence comes this, but from the prejudice
wherewith one of us is poflds'd ?
But 'tis not the fame with the Senfes. There's no pre-
judice which hinders them from feeing Objeds, fuch as
they are, which we mufl always underlfand of the moft
apparent and groflefl Objeds.
T/:;ere are two forts of clearnefs^ fays an Author much
Lawful Pre- efleem'd among you the one fo lively and piercings that
judicei, chap, jp^ impojftble for men not to fee it; and which is fuch as can*
not he darkned hy any cloud of Prejudices or Paffions., where-
ly it fhews it fe If uniformly to ailment of this kind^ adds
he, are things expofed to the Senfes.
In a wordj It's a thoufand times eafier to deceive our
Heafon than our Senfes. There's no truth fo certain,
which
concerning Tranfubftantiation,
which a Sophifter will not render doubtful by his Sub-
tilties and Artifices. Even the moft learned People are
fometimes deceived, and we have leen but too many
Examples of this in all Ages, But deceive my Senfes if
you can, on Objeds as familiar, as thofe we now fpake
of. Go and inform any one, That the food he com-
monly ufes, is not Bread and Beer.
The evidence of Senfe, then, has great advantages over
that which is perceiv'd only by Reaibn j whence appears
the Pofiibility of my Proofs being good, and your tu o firfi;
objedlions being notfo. Nay,the thing is not only pofTible,
but true, and I hope to convince you of it with little trou-
ble. Whatever you have hitherto faid to me, turns on thefe
two Suppofitions. Thefirll, ThatReafon fees evidently
on one hand, the truth of this maxim of the Philofo-
phers, That when two Suhje^is he not d'tflinEl from a
third, they are not fo from one another. The fecond
That there s more evidence in this , than there is in the
Reafons which efiahlijh the Truth of Chrijiian Reli-
gion.
But, I firfi affirm to you. It's impoffible thefe two
Suppofitions can be true. And if they were, the Arians
and Socinians wou'd have good grounds to deny the My-
fiery of the Trinity. For firfi, if our Reafon evidently
faw the Truth of the Maxim you bring againft me,
we mufi neceflarily fay one of thefe two things j Either
that in efied, this Maxim is true, or that Evidence is
not a certain mark of Truth. Here's no medium.
You mufi of necefiity take one of thefe fides. The
fecond differs in nothing from Scepticifm; you mufi there-
fore take the firfi. It mufi be faid, that according to
you the Maxim of the Philofopiiers is true.
That's my thought, fays Mr. N. Are you of the fame
mind, repli'd I, on the fubjedl of the Oppofition, wliich
you
104 The Sixth Conference
you think you 'evidently fee between this Maxim, and
the Myftery of the Trinity ? Do you think this to be ^ ^
a true and real Oppofition ? Or do you believe it to be .g
falfe, altho you evidently fee it?
Should I lay it's falfe, anfwer'd he, you wou'd make
me the fame Objed:ion you have already made,- you
will tell me there may be error, in things moll evident,
feeing I might evidently fee Oppofition where there is
none; and that thus Evidence wou'd not be the mark of
Truth; and confequently. That the Sceptics wou'd have
Reafon to doubt of every thing. To avoid fuch dangerous
Extremities, I had rather tell you, that this Oppofition is
as true, as 'tis evident.
You believe, then faid I to him, that effedlively, and
in the Truth of the thing, the Myllery of the trinity
is diredlly againll an unquellionable Maxim.- You be-
lieve there's a real Contradidlion between thefe two
things, and that 'tis impoflible to make them agree.
This is certainly true, anfwer'd he. Then faid I, the
Sceptics mull have good grounds, feeing Contradidlion
is not the note of Falfity. What is there more unque-
llionable than this Maxim, That if a Propofition be true,
that which contradidls it mull necellarily be falfe Is
not this the Foundation of certainty.-^ You now, fee Sir,
on what precipices you call your felves, and what are
the unavoidable Confequences of your Suppofitions.
Hence you fee the neceflity of acknowledging there are
fome falfe; and that in elfedl, if the Philofophers Maxim
be true, it's not contrary to the Myftery of the Tri-
nity; or if there be any Oppofition between this My-
llery and this Maxim, we mull not conclude the Maxim
to be falfe, feeing it's impoflible the Myllery Ihou'd be
fo.
• But
concerning Tranfubflantiatlon,
But this is not all, I wifli you wou'-d explain your
fclf, on Mr. Huets Sentiment, I lately mention'd to you :
Which Demonftrations do you believe moft certain,
Phyfical, or Moral ones ? Or to fpeak more precifeiy,
wherein think you lies moft certainty and evidence, in
the Demonftration you brought againft me, in the name
of the Socinians and Arians^ or in thofe Mr. Huet makes
ufe of to prove the Truth of the Chriftian Religion ^
Take which fide you will, you cannot efcape me.
If you fay the advantage lies on the fide of Mr. Huets
Proofs, you deliver up to me your Objedtion. In this
Suppofition right Reafon will have us believe the Trini-
ty, notwithftanding the difficulties therein; feeing no-
thing's more conformable to her Maxims, than always
to prefer that which is more evident, before that which
is left.
But if you fay on the contrary. That the Arians and
Socmians Objedtion, has more ftrength than Mr. Huets
Proofs: You hereby acknowledg. That theDodtrineof
the Trinity is contrary to good Sence, and ought there-
fore to be reje^ed, whether by retrenching of it from the
number of the Docftrines which Chriftianity teaches,
foppofing it can be feparated from it, or by rejecfting the
whole of Chriftianity, fuppofing this Dod:rine be infe-
parable from the reft.
In eftedt, were thefe Proofs, and this Objedion of an
'equal force, they wou'd bring the mind into fufpence,
whence right Reafon cou'd not draw it out. She wou'd
not know on which fide to determine her felf; and
finding at bottom of this Religion, things which will
appear to her evidently falfe. She wou'd carry us as lur
off from it, as She wou'd bring us near it, in making
us comprehend the force of the Proofs which autho-
rize it.
O Moreover
io6 The Sixth Conference-
Moreover, making two contrary Judgments on the .
Subjedl of Religion, one that it is true, becaufe the
Proofs produced in its favour are good ; the other that
it is faife, becaufe it teaches Abfurdities; She muft
therefore be deceived in the one or the other of thefe
Judgments, and thus neither the one nor the other of
thefe wou'd be certain.
How wou'd it be then, fuppofing all the advantage lay
on one fide, as it wou'd plainly, if what might be offer.-
ed againft Chriftianity, has more evidence and certain-
X ty, than what is ufed to eftablilh the Divinity of it ?
where fliall we find that in this Suppofition, we muff:
prefer what is lefs certain, before what is more ? And
who thinks, if a man does this, he deferves to be eternally
miferable.^
How then, fays Mr. N". Shall Reafon prefcribe us
what we are to believe ? Shall Ihe become the Rule, yea,
and Judg of our Faith ? And do we not know that the
truths of Chriftianity are infinitely above the Compre-
henfion of human Reafon.
You confound abundance of things, which you fliou'd
diftinguilh, repli'd 1. Firft, there's a great deal of diffe-
rence between difcovering to us what we muft believe,
as revealed of God ; and what we muft rejed:,- as invent-
ed by Men. The firft of thefe Duties contains two
parts. In efFed, One may make two forts of enquiry
after what one is to believe. Firft, In examining the
Dodrine offered us, and comparing it with the Maxims
of Reafon, juft as we do when we wou'd determine our
fclves en a queftion of Philofophy. The fecond in exa-
mining purely whether this Dodrine has been revealed
by God, either by enquiring wherher it makes a part
of a Religion fuppofed Divine ; or by enquiring whe-
ther the Religion, of which we do not doubt but this
Do-
concerning Tranfubflantiation. voy
Dodtrine makes up a part, has been revealed of God.
It's certain, it cannot be expedted from Reafon to en-
■ quire, in this firft manner, what we ought to believe ;
snd this for two Confiderations. F'trfl^ whatever attempts
flie may make, llie will never get the maftery.the clear- ^
eft wit, and moft piercing judgment, not being in a ca-
pacity of raifing it felf, of it felf, to the difcovery C>f
thefe fublime Truths which Faith comprehends. And
iliou'd Reafon difcover fome one, the perfwafion flie
could give of it, would not be a Divine Faith. It
would be perhaps a Science, an Opinion, according as
the proofs whereon this is grounded arc probable or de-
monftrative. But this wou'd never be a Divine Faith ;
' it being not poffible for Divine Faith to have any other
foundation than the authority of God.
When we wou'd know whether a Dodbrine makes part
of a Religion of whofe Divinity we are other wife fatis-
£ed; as when we wou'd enquire whether Chriftianity
teaches tranfuhflantiation^ or the Real Prefence; this is
certainly to be examin'd by Reafon. For how can we
know this, if we have loft our Reafon Yet in this en-
quiry llie does not fo much keep the quality of a Rule,
as that of an Organ; I would fay, we make this enquiry
by means of this faculty call'd Reafon, yet this faculty
docs not then confult its own proper light, and does not
compare the Dodtrine offered with its Notions. She on-
ly compares it with the Rule which God has given her,
the Scripture alone according to us, and the Scripture,
Tradition and Councils,according to you.
It's not the fame when the queftion is to know whe-
ther a Religion be Divine ; for example, when one deli-
berates whether one lhall be a Chriftian, Faga/i or Maho-
met an. In this enquiry, Reafon alone muft Ix our guide,
and the belt method it can take, is to examine which of
O ^ thefe
io8 The Sixth Conference
thefe difTerent Religions which challenges our perference,
has the moll vifible Characters of Divinity ; which is it
which appears moft likely to have been revealed from
God, and which on the,contrary is that which we have
caufe to think is a humane invention.
As to the rejecting of a DoCtrine, we have feveral dif-
ferent means. If it be not conformable to the Rule, we
ought not to receive it, we ought to refufe believing it
w ith a Divine Faith. If it be contrary to the Rule, we
ought to do more, we ought pofitively to -rcjeCt it, and
believe it to be falfe. In a word, if our Scnfes orReafon
exprefly atteft this DoCtrine is not true, \ye ought to
perfw ade our felves, not only that it is not true, but that
it has never been revealed of God.
This lafl: duty draws its Original from twmdiffere nt
fprings: The/rfi is the force of this great Maxim, which
is the foundation of Divine Faith, to wit. That whatever
God has faid is true. Hence properly comes the obligat-
on which we have to believe whatever God has revea-
. ed to us. In efled:, why fliould we not believe it, feeing
its equally impoffible that God Ihou'd be deceiv'd him-
felf, judging things to be w hat they are not, as that he
Riou'd deceive others, by telling them they be not, what
he knows they are ?
And this is the true foundation of Divine Faith, and
the original of that right which our Reafon has, not to
believe what is evidently falfe. Divine Faith does thus
Reafon : Whatever God has reveaVd is true^ God has re-
veatd fuch and fuch a Do^rine : Then this or that Dctirine
IS true. Reafon fays for her part : Whatever God has re-
vealed is true. Such or fuch a DoSirine is not true: There-
fore 'tvoas not revealed hy God.
Shou'd it happen,as you fuppofe, that God lliou'd re-
veal a DoCtrine which appeared plainly falfe to Reafon,
t we
concerning Trajifuhflantidtion.
we fliou'd find our felves in a dreadful difficulty, or ra^
ther in the condition which Divines call a fiate of per-
plex-ity^ and which wou'd bring along with it, fhou'd it
ever happen, an abfolute impoflibility of knowing what
we ought to do. On one hand,we fliould be bound to be-
lieve this Dodfrine, on the fuppofition God had reveal-
ed it; and- on the other, we fliou'd perfwade our felves,
that God would not have revealed it, becaufe it appears-
evidently falfe, and confequently is not to be believed.
So that were it only to hinder this from hapning, wc
fliou'd believe that God never reveals any thing which is
apparently falfe to Reafcn, at leafi; to Reafon rcdifi'd,
and which ufes all necefiary precautions not to be de-
ceiv'd, for 'tis of that alone whereof I fpeak.
Moreover, were it poffible for God to reveal a Do-
d:rine evidently falfe, evidence would be no longer the
infallible note of Truth ; feeing in this fuppofition the
evidence wou'd accompany this ad: of our Reafon,which
wou'd judg this Dodrine to be falfe, and which wou'd
be falfe it felf, feeing this Dodrine being reveal'd of
God,wou'd hereby be necefiarily true. So that we ought
no longer to reckon on the evidence of things; and the
Sceptics wou'd have Reafon to doubt of every riling.
You fee then. Sir, That this right of our Reafon has
moft folid foundations. And it is certain that it has been
ever acknowledged j and that all forts of Authors both
Ancient and Modern have always believed they might
juftly conclude a Dodrine was not revealed from God,
when they faw it contrary to the purefi: notices of Rea-
fon. And thus on one hand the Fathers have done, who
wrote againfl: the Pagans and Hereticks; and on the
other, all Authors of your Communion, who have Trea-
ted on the Controverfies which feparates us.
For
10^
HI
i|:'.r ll':
I !
- <■ I .
. 11 o The Six^h Conference
For as to the Firfl^ did not Juft'm Martyr^ Terfulltm,
Minutius Felix, Fheophiltts of Anticeh, Origen, Arnohius,
La^antius, St. Auguflm, St: Cyril, and a great many
others, oppofe Paganifm with the abfurdities and extra-
vagancies of its myfteries ? Did not the fame Fathers 1
writing againft Hereticks, ufe this very argument ; af-
Arming the Chimeras and extravagancies which thefe
people beiiev'd, cou'd in no fort come from God, being
apparently falfe and contrary to all the lights of Reafon ?
Have not, in fine, all your Authors who write againft us,
followed the fame method, tho with different fuccefs .•>
See Bellarmin , Gregory de Vdetitia, Richlieu, the Au-
thor of Prejudices, and generally all your Controvertifts.
There's not one of them but has pretended to fhew our
Dod:rine is not of God^ becaufe of the abfurdities there-
in contained.
All thefe Authors argue on two Principles ,♦ The one.
That God has revealed nothing which is falfe; The other.
That whatever is contrary to Reafon , is thereby con-
trary to Truth. Take away which of thefe Principles
you will, and all the Arguments of thefe Writers will be
meer Sophifms.
St. Augujtin proceeds fartherHe fays we ought to
forfake the Communion of the Orthodox Qiurch, and
pafs over into that of the Hereticks, and defpife whatever
you refped: as the foundations of your Faith, cou'd it be
made appear, the moft dangerous Hereticks, fuch as were
Aug. cont. then the Manichees, taught the Truth * ,• and this is what
'■■Epift. fund. i|.^g teaches us in this famous paflage, which your Dccftors
have ever in their mouths, and wherein he declares that
feveral things retain him in the bofom of the Cathdiek
Church, The confent of all people,The authority groun-
ded on Miracles, and confirm'd by Antiquity, Succcffion,
and even the name of Catholiek.
You
concerning Tranfuhfiantiation.
YouaiErmthefe are the props and foundations of the
true Faith; and I will not now fet on Hiewing you the
contrary. We may do this another time if you think fit-
ting. At prefent I am willing to fuppofe what you fay.
I pray then confider wiiat Saint AuQufltn adds .• A-
mon^ you^ fays he, ivhere I fee nothing Tike this, we hear
nothing on all hands but promifes of Truth; and I confefs,
adds he, That could you Jhew it me fo clearly, that I could
not doubt of it, I muft prefer it before whatever withholds
me in the Catholick Church. You fee here how St. Augu-^
flin acknowledges , That the evidence which excludes
doubtings, is to be preferred before the motives of Faith.
He does not fay, that if the Manichees had this evidence
on their fide, we Ihou'd defpife it, and offer againft it the
certainty of Faith, as you pretend. He fays the contra-
ry. He fays we fliou'd yield; and that which hinder'd
him from doing it, was, That whatever the Manichees
faid. They had not this evidence which they vaunted
of; That they promifed great matters, but cou'd not
ihew them. Bellarmin does fomething like this : * He ♦
reckons amongft the Notes of the Church, the holinefs t
of its Do(2:rine ; and makes this holinefs confifl in her '
teaching nothing which is falfe, and impofing nothing
which is unjuft; and will have us judg of this by the
lights of Reafon. He afterwards makes the application
of this to the Pagans, Jews, Mahometans, ancient Here-
ticks, and laftly to us. He Ihews as to the firft. That
they have taught things abfurd and abominable; and
attempting afterwards to Ihew this on our SubjeA, he
thence concludes, none of thefe Societies is the true-'
Church.
By this way of difputing, he plainly fubjedh your
Church to this examination, and tacitly implies fhe may
be rejeded, provided fhe can be convinced of all which-
hCA.
The Sixth Conference
he accufes the others. For befides, that he cannot take it
ill, That the Infidels and Hereticks ihould treat him in
the fame manner as he ufes them ,• befides this, his grea-
teft pretenfion is. That the Church mull be known by
his marks: feeing then one of his marks is, That /he tea-
ches nothing which is falfe, he hereby confents to the
rejection of your Church, if it can be fliew'd from Rea-
foil, That fhe teaches things falfe and abfurd.
It cannot be deny'd hrsX Be liar mine has had fome Rea'
fon to deal thus: For 'twou'd certainly be a great fcandal
to the Faithful, and much more to Infidels, cou'd it be
clearly and plainly fhew'd. That Chriflian Religion tea-
ches things dire(9:ly contrary to Reafon. In effeS, feeing
we embrace this Religion only on the account of the
proofs which authorize it, and of whofe goodnefs we
cannot judg but by Reafon, fliou'd this Reafon meet with
things evidently falfe in this Religion, flie wou'd liereby
carry us off as far from it, as flie cou'd bring us near it,
by making us comprehend thefe proofs. Moreover, ma-
king tv\ o contrary judgments on the fubjedf of Religion,
the one, That it is true, becaufe the proofs which autho-
rize it are good^the other that it is falfe, becaufe it teaches
things ablurd, fhe mufl of neceffity be deceived in the
one or the other, and fo neither is certain, ,
The Author of the Art of Thinking was not of this
mind, fays Mr. N. It's certain^ fays he That Divine
Faith fhould have more force on our minds^ than our own
Reafon; and this from Reafon it felf; which /hews us we
fhould always prefer what is more certain, to what is lefs :
It heing more certain that what God fays is true^ than
what our Reafon perfwades us^ hecaufe 'tis more impo/fible
God fhou'd deceive uSy than our Reafon.
All this, faid I, appears to me falfe and ill digefted,
and 'tis eafie to obferve herein fuch a flight of hand as
■ fhews
. . concerning Tranfubfta7ttiationi
ihews little love to truth. To fee this more diftincfbly, be
pleas'd to confider, That the certainty of every a(^ of
Faith dei:>ends on the perfwafion which we have of two
Truths, which are in fome fort their props and foundati-
ens; The That whatever God attefts, is true: The
fecond^ That God has attefled the Dod:rine which we
believe. You fee, that if we doubt of either of thefe tvi'o
Truths, it's impolTible our Faith can be firm: To wdiat
purpofe is it to know that God does not lye, if we doubt
God has not faid a thing ? And granting he has faid fome-
thing, if we doubt he has faid in particular what's pro-
pofed to us to believe. And further, what ^nifies it for
us to know, That God has reveafd what's offer'd us, if we
doubt whether all which God fays, be true ?
It's then equally neceflary to know thefe two Truths,
but they be not always equally evident. Thefirfi is ever
incomparably more than the [econd. It's always highly
evident. That whatever God fays, is true, and therefore
no body differs about it, no not the Athieffs. For tho
the Atheiffs hold there's no God, yet they acknow ledg
if there were one, he would never fpeak any thing but
what is true. But it's commonly far Iefsevident,That God
has reveal'd wliat he has in effedt reveal'd:Whence it hap-
pens men are fo divided about the things which are pre-
tended to be revealed from God. Yet this Author fays
nothing of this /fccW perfwafion : He fpeaks only of the
firfl. He conceals the weak fide,and Ihews only the flron-
geff. Ids certainer^ fays he, that what God fays, is true.,
than what our Reafon perfwades us. Be it fo. But is it cer-
tainer that God has revealed fuch and fuch ^ Dod:rine,
than 'tis certain one and two are three,and that if I think,
1 am ? This he will not fay. Yet if he does not fay it,
he mufl acknowledg he has illreafoned. For if what Rea-
fbn favs be more certain, than it's certain God has re-
P veafd
The Sixth Conference
veal'd the Dod:rine of which one is perfwaded, he fliall"
have far lefs certainty of the Truth of this Dodtrine,
than of what Reafon fees diftindtly.
But let us flop a while at what this Author has chofen,
and which he has made his ftrong hold. It's certainer,
fays he. That what God fays is. true^ than what our Reafon
perfwades us. He makes Reafon to fay this, and confe-
quently his fenfe is, that this adt of Reafon which per-
I'wades us, That what God fays, is true, is more certain,
than what our Reafon perfwades us. But what does he
mean ? Does he mean that this adt is more certain than
any adt of Reafon whatever ? If this be fo, he contra-.
diAs himfelf. For this very adb being an of Reafon,
if it has more certainty than any act of Reafon, 'twill be
more certain than it felf.
Does he mean that this adt is the certainefl of all, and
that there's no other which equals the certainty of this?
If this be his fenfe, 'tis eafie to fhew him his miflake :
Firfi, is this adt more certain than that which perfwades
us of the exiftence of God ? Let him fay which he will,
he cannot efcape me. For to what purpofe is it to know.
That Truth is eflential to God, fuppofing he exifls, if it.
l:>e lefs certain that he does exift ? If on the contrary,
thefe two adts be equally certain, and if the adtual exift-
encebe as clearly comprehended in the Idea we have of
God, as the unqueflionable truth of what he attefls ;
the perfwafion we have of this fecond Truth, is not the
certainefl of all thofe perceived by Reafon, feeing the
perfwafion of Gods exiftence is no lefs certain.
Is it mare certain. That whatever God fays is true,
than it's certain. That nothing of what appears to us is
falfe ? This no man will fay, feeing we judg, neither
that God exifts, nor that whatever he fays is true, nor
that we can affirm of each thing,whatever is contain'd in
tla&
^concerning Tranfubftantmtic^.
the diftind Idea we have of it,but becaufe all this appears
evident. So that here we have a third perfwafionjwhich
is no lefs certain than that which we were to think to be
the mofl; infallible.
But fays this Author, God is more uncapahle of decei-
•vmg us, than cur Reaf.n is of heing deceived. I.grant it.
But how do'we know this,but by our Reafon? and con-
fequently we have only a certitude of Reafon, and we
are not more certain ot it, than that we are certain,
That our Reafon does not deceive us , whether in this,
or other things, which be as evident as this.
This little fubtilty might pafs, did we not fear being
miflaken in matters of Faith, without accufing even
God himfelf of deceiving us. But a man mull be a fool
that has fucli an irrational thought: When we do doubt
of matters of Faith, this doubt does never tend to per-
fwade us, God has deceiv'd us in revealing to us what
is hard to be believ'd, but rather perfwades us we are mi-
flaken, in taking that for a Divine Revelation, which is
only a Dodfrine of men. So thofe who doubt, do never
compare the.certitude of their Reafon with the certainty
of Gods Teftimony. Neither have they ever the leafl
temptation to imagin the firfb greater than the fecond.
But they always compare this a& of their Reafon,which
has perfwaded them God has revealed to 'em what ap-
pears to them incredible,with this other ad: of their Rea-
Ion, whicii makes them find incredible what they be-
liev'd God had revealed to them. And therefore we may
ceafe to believe without imagining God has deceiv'd us,
or that our Reafon is more incapable of being deceiv'd,
than God of deceiving us. And confequently from Gods
being more incapable of deceiving us, than our Reafon
of being deceiv'd, does in no wife follow, That Faith
has greater certainty than Reafon,
P X , Let
ii(3 The Sixth Conference
Let this Author then pardon me if I fay, 'Twou'd be
a grievous fcandal to Infidels, were it fo, That Chriflian
Religion taught things diredtly contrary to Reafon, and
which fliou'd appear fuch, not at firfl fight, but on ma-
ture deliberation, after all poffibie care to prevent being
deceived, and after long and ferious reflexions, which
will not at all permit doubtings of the matter's being
what it appears.
, But it is alfo-true, Chriftian Religion has not a Do-
(Rrine, which is in this fort contrary to the lights of Rea-
fon; and this cannot be denied without con trad idting
ail your School-Divines. For if it be true, Chriftia-
nity teaches things contrary to Reafon, what will become
of what Cardinal Rkhlieu^ and the Author of the Art of
thod^BoolTi" fi^y • Tlie firR affirms (ji)^ That natural light
ch. /. deceives no body ; and the other fays (ff That things ex-
(b) Art of confidedd; what we fee evidently^ and from Reafon,
part"4 "di',11. from the faithful report of our Senfes,is never contrary
(c) Vafi-'m I. to what is taught us by Divine Faith.
What will become of what all-your Divines fay (d).
Torn. 3"difp. That the My fiery of the Trinity is far above Rea fon, but
I qu^ft. X not contrary to it ? Wou'd it not be contrary to Reafon,.
M^de^Not being true, it fliou'd appear to it evidently falfe ^
Eccief. cap.' What will you think of what thefe fame Divines teach
fidvfafter your Angelical Dodtor (df), That 'tis impoffibleto
Sedl.' make Demonflrationsagainfl the Truths of Salvation. As
(d) lU. Aqu. Faith, fays he, is grounded on infallible Truth, and it be-
impoffible to Jhew that which is contrary to Truth fo it
is clear that the proofs made ufe of againft Faith, are not
Oemonjlrations, but Objebbions which are folvible,
(f^Cajetin i What wiU become of what pafles for unqueRionable
gTafq^n^x in youT Schools (i) > That one may Demonftratively
difp,'!! cap.x
& 3. Valent. ubi feq Conint. de act. fup. difp. ii. dub. ii. Rhod. Tom. i difp. 6 quaeft. i..
Sect. 3. Mart, defid.difp, 5 Se^l. 4.
"I pi^ove.
concerning Tranfiihftantiation.
prove, not in truth, That the Myftery of the Trinity,
and all the others are true, nor yet whatever is oppofed
againft them is falfe, but that all the Objedrions brought
againft them include fome Propofitiorr which is not evi-
dent, and which confequently may be deni'd. Is not this
to fay our Reafon cannot prove demorrftratively the fal-
fity of our Myfteries ? Does not this abfoiutely over-
throw your Objedbion ^
You will have the Arians and Socinians Objections
to pals for a convincing Demonftration. Yet your Di-
vines affirm it's impoffible to make Demonllrations a-
gainfl: the Truths of Faith. You fay 'tis impoffible to
anfwer any thing to this. But your. Divines affirm to
you. That this Objection, and the reft like it, do ne-
ceflarily include fomething which may be deni'd, and
is not evident. They pafs further.
They fay one may demonftrate this very thing :
Wliich is to fay,one may demonftrate, That it is not poft
fible to offer Demonllrations againft u".
Which is what we may eafily juftifie by another conft-
deration. Which is, to the end an Argument may pafs
for Demonftrative, every term about it muft be per-
fectly undefftood, whereby there may arife a clear and
diftinct Idea in the mind of what it exprelleth. And
therefore Geometricians ufe fuch clear terms in their De*
monftrations, that it is impoffible but they muft be un-
derftood ; or if any one offers it felf clouded with the-
leaft obfcurity, they immediately carefully explain it.
And therefore they make no Demonftration but what is
preceded by a great number of Definitions which explain*
the terms. But how can this be in a Myftery fo little*
known as that of the Trinity ?
For who can pretend to have diftincft Idea's, either of
the Divine Effence, and its Unity, or of the Perfons^
wliich poftefs it, and of their diftincftion ? When^
ii 8 The Sixth Conference
" Aug As Wheft we are askt^ fays St. Auguftin'^^ what the three
extream Jhallow , and
c-amot exprefs it Jelf . Tet it is faid there are Three Per-
fons, not as if we cou^d define''em ^ hut we rather fay fo^ that
Idem. lib. 7. i^e may nor fay nothing. And in another place When
4. Vir demanded of us what the Three are., we Jet our fehves on
feeking feme general or particular term, hecaufe the excel-
. lency of Divine things is heyond the flrength of our expref-
Jions. For there's more truth in what we think, than in what
we Jay of God, and more in reality than in thought. I fay
the fame thing of other terms ufed on this great Sub-
jedf. They raile in our minds only confufed and muddy
Ideas. How then will thefe afford us Demonflrations ?
What do you anfwer then diredfiy to my Objedfion?
fays Mr. N". What do you your felt anfwer ? reply'd I.
'For in fine, confidering what I have faid, you fee our
interell is the fame. In effed: it mull: be faid we have no
rational Argument to offer againft the Arians or Socini-
ans. This lad refuge feems to mc intollerable, and I fliou'd
as foon fay they have tlie Reafon on their fide, and we
are poffefs'd with abfurd prejudices.
We muff then fay thefe peoples Objedions may "be
folidly anfwer'd •, and do you think. Sir, none of your
Divines, not to fpeak now of ours, have not done it ?
Were this the cafe, this truth muff: have been very un-
fortunate to have met with no Defender, for fo many
ages, able to repel the attacks of its adverfaries ? More-
over, I do not fee how you can extol fo much as you
commonly do, the learning, wifdom.yea and Infallibility
of your Church , feeing it feems Ihe has nothing but
blind Anfwers, and vain Tergiverfations to refute thefe
Erroneous pcrfons Objedions.
For my part, I am of a very different opinion, and be-
lieve your Schoolmen have folidly anfwer'd thisObjedi-
on.
fi
concerning Tranfnbjiantiation.
on. Firfl^ you know, That feveral of 'em have cTeni'd this
Philofophical Maxim; which implies, That two Subjects
cannot be diflinguiiht from one another, when they arc
notfo by a third. You know there arefe\'eral confidera--
ble inftances offer'd, as is that of length, largenefs and
depth, which are very different from one another, altho
they all differ not from extenfion.
Whereunto we may add that of the are
not diftind: from the things they modify^ altho diflin-
guifh'd from one another. As for inffance, when [ fhut-
rhy hand, I give it a quite different manner of being,
from that it has, when open, and flretched out. Of ne-
ceflity thefe two manners of being, muft be different
from one another, feeing it's not only eafie to feparate
them, and to make 'em fubfifl one without another, but
it's impoffible to make'em fubfifl together, being oppo*
fite and inconfiffent. Yet 'tis commonly held. That the
Modiiffes be not really diflinguifhablc from the things
they modijie.
I fay the fame thing of the adions of the Soul,' there
are fome of'em inconfiflent. For example, to judg a
proportion is true, and to judg that it's falfe : To will
and not to will the fame Objed : To love and hate the
fame perfon. The fame foul does this at feveral times..
And Gonfequently does very different ads. Yet thefe-
ads,tho different from one another, do not really differ
from the Tub fiance of the foul, but are only mere mo-
difications of it.
One may then deny your Maxim, or reflrain it, and.'
bring exceptions againfl it. You know your Divines .
have made feveral, and fhew'd. That either of 'em fe-
cures the Myflery before us. I fuppofe you do not exped
I fliou'd recite them, feeing you may find 'em in Father
Vincent's Logick, m George PdjodesTh^olo^^w,^ in feve-
ral other of your Authors.. Were -
1^0 The Sixth Conference
Were there not any thing in all this which fatisfy'd
me, I lliou'd not be much perplex'd about it: I Ihou'd
content my felf with what I now told you, That all the
Objedions which can ht made againfc the Myflery of
the Trinity,'Confift of feveral improper and obfcure
terms, and fuch as are incapable of caufing diftind Idea's
of what is pretended to be fignifi'd by 'em. To Ihew
then. That this Dodrine does not include Contradidi-
ens, as you wou'd infinuate by the Objedion I examin ;
confider the main or bottom of this great Myflery, what
makes for, and againfl it j we Ihou'd concewe in a juft
and precife manner-what's therein inconfiflent, and fee
clearly thefe inconfiflencies and oppcfitions. But we be-
ing far from fuch a knowledg of this gre-at Truth,it's then
clear,no one can fhew it includes any thing contradidory.
But it's not the fame with Tranfuhfiantiaticn. What you
fey of that, includes a great number of palpable and ma-
nifeft Contradidions, and Uiocks diredly all the notices
of Senfe and Reafon. So that you cannot make too much'
hail to retrench it from the body of Chriflian Religion,
and remove it out of a place which it fo ill fupplies.'
A body wou'd think, anfwer'd he, to hear you fpeak,
That we might form Chriflian Religion to our minds,
and as foon as a Dodrine is not to our fancy,we may put it
our of our Creed. This without doubt wou'd be very a-
greeable. But, Sir, in excluding Tranfuhfiantiaticn from
the number of the Articles of Faith,will you thereby blot
it out of Holy Writ,wherein the Divine Spirit has inferted
it in fuch clear and full terms.^You know Heaven & Earth
fliall fooner pafsaway than the leafl iota of this holy Word.
Never fcar,repli'd I,my blotting itout.It never was there.
And this I wou'd now rnake apparent to you,did I not fear
we have walkt and talk"d fo long, that both your legs and
cars are tired.
FINIS.
!Books lately printed far Richard Chifwelf.
f
ACWcraition concerning the Government of the AncU?u Church: more par-
ticularly of the Encroachments of the Bifhops oj Rouie upon other Seis.
By WILLIAM CAyEyD.D. OSazs.
An Anfwer to Mr. Serjeasfs [Sure Footing in Chriftianity 3 concerning the
Rule of Faith: With fome other Difcourles. By WILLIAM FALKNER, D.D. 49.
A Vindication of the Ordinations of the Church of England; in Anfwer to a Pa-
fer written by one of the Church of Romt, to prove the Nullfty of our Orders. By
GILBERT ^RNET, D. D. Oaave.
An Abridgment of the Hifiory of the Reformation of the Church of England,
1 By GILB. BVRR'ET, D. D. OUavo.
The APOLOGY (5f die Church cf England ; and an Epiftle to one Signior
Scipio, a Vmtian Gentleman, concerning the Council of Trent. Written both in
Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, JOHN JEWEL Lord Bifhop of Sa-
lisbury : Made Englilh by a Pcrfon of Quality. To which is added. The Life of
the faid Bilhop: CoUeaed and written by the fame Hand. OUavo.
The Life of WILLIAM BEDEL, D.D. Bilhop of Kilmore in Ireland. Toge-
ther with CrrtawLrftrrr which paffed betwixt hirn and James Waddefworth [a late
Penfioner of the Holy Inquifition of SevilJ in Matter of Religion, concerning
the General Motives to the Roman Obedience. 0£lavo.
The Decree made at ROME the Second of 1579. condemning fome
Opinions of the Jefuits, and other Cafuijts. Q^axto.
A Difcourfe concerning the Neceflity of Reformation, withrefpeft to theEr-
rors and Corruptions of tire Church of Rohie. Quarto. Firlf and Second Parts.
A Difcourfe concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown
Tongue, {faarte.
A Papill not Mifiwrefented by Proteflants. Being a Reply to the ReHcifHoriS
upon the Anfwer to [ A Papifl Mifreprefented and Reprefented 1. Quarto.
An Expofition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the feveral Articles
propofed'by the lace BISHOP ol CO ND OM, [in his Expofition of the Do-
(flrineof the Catholic^ Church 2- Quarto.
A Defence of the Expofition of the Doftrine of the Church of England-, againl
tire Exceptions of Monfieur de M'a:r-,\z.te Bilhop of Condom, and Iris Vindicator. 49.
A C AT EC HIS M explaining the Doflrine and PraAices of the Chmch of
Rome, with an Anfwer thereunto. By a Fi'^e-eftant ol the Church oj England. So.
A Papift Reprefented and not Mifreprefented, beii^ an Anfwer to the Kirft, Se-
cond. Fifth and^ixth Sheets of the Second Part of the hPapifr Mifreprefented
and Reprefented 3; and for a further Vindication ot the C ATE C HIS .if, truly,
ryn-efenting tire DciSrines and Practices of the Chmh of Rome. Qnarto.
' The Lay-Chriflixn's Obligation to read the Holy Scriprares. Quarto.
The Flain Man's Reply to the Catholicl^ MiJp.oHartes. 240.
An Anfwer to THREE P F £ A. S lately printed, concerning tire Autho-
rity of the Catloolich church in Matters of Faith, and the Refornution of die
Church oj England. Qurrto.
A Vindication of the Anfwer to THREE PAPERi> ct-.r.cerning tire
Unity and Authority of the Catholitlt, Clx'Th, and the Reformation of drc Clurcb oj
England. Quario.
B O O K S lately Printed for Richard Chifwett.
TH E Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Trcatife fhcwing that the R»mm Cimth
falfly claims to be That Church, and the Pillar of That Tntb mentioned by S. FmI
in liis firfl Epifllc lolimolhy, Cha^. 3. Verf. 1 $. 4®.
The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture Aflcrted. 4®.
A Sliort Summary of the principal Controverfies between the Church of Ettihatd
and the Church of Rome ■, being a Vindication of feveral Proteftant Doftrines, in An-
fwer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled, [Priuftuncy dejiituteoj Serif tm Proofs.'] 4°.
Two Difcourfes; Of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead.
An Anfwer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled, [The Judgment and Doilrine of the
Clergy of the Church of England concerning one Special Branch of the King's Prero-
gative, viz. In diffinjing rvith the Penal Laws.] 4 .
The Notes of the Gimch, as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmin, examined and con-
futed. 4°.
Prefaration for Death: Being a Letter fent to a youflg Gentlewoman in Fraitce, in a
dangerous Diflemper of wliich (he died.
The Difference between the Chierch of England and the Church of Rome, in oppofi-
tion to a late Book, Intituled, An Agreement between the Church of England and Church
of Rome.
A PRIVATE PRAYER to be nfcd in Difficult Times.
A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London, Seft.ig, idSy,
between A. Pulton, Jefuit, and Tho. Tennifon, D. D. as alfo of that which led to it,
and followed after it. 4".
The Vindication of A. Creffener, Schoolmafter in Long-Acre, from the Afperfions of
A. Fulton, Jefuit, Schoolmaffer in the Savoy, together with fome Account of his
Difcourfe with Mr. Meredith.
A Difcourfe (hewing that Proteftants arc on the faferSide, notwithftanding the nn-
cliaricable Judgment of their Adverfaries; and that theh Religion is the fiireft Way to
Heaven. 4".
Six Conferences concerning the £«d)ari|?, wherein is (hewed, that the Dodrine oft
Iranfubflantiationoycrthsovisthe Proofs of Chriffian Religion.
A Difcourfe concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Dndion •, with an
account of die Occahons and Beginnings ofit in the Weflem Church. In Three Parts.
With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bilhop of Condom.
A BRIEF
DECLARATI ON
O F T H E
LORDS SUPPER
WRITTEN BY
pr « - -...t'
BISHOP R I D.L E r:
Imprimatur,
Liber cui Titulus, [ A Brief Beclaratiori
of the Lord's Supper, See, J
Gu//. Needham RR. in Chrifto
7- p, ac D. D. Wilhelmo Ar-
chiep. Cant, a Sacr. Dom.
^ brief
DECLARATION
O F T H E
£0^1)0 ^nppet,
WRITTEN
By Dt.NICHOLAS RIDLET,
BIfhop of LONDON',
During his Imprisonment.
With feme other Determinations and Difputations con-
cerning the fame Argument, by the fame Author.
To which is Annexed
An Extradt of feveral Pallages to the fame Purpofe , I
out of a Book, Intituled ,■ DI ALL AC Tic 0 N,
written by Dr. JOHN POTNET, Bifliop of
WiMcheJier in the Reigns of E.6. and Q^Marj.
LONDON:
Printed for , at the Rofe and Crown in
St. Pads Church-jarl^mbCLXXXVIII.
i
A BRIEF
DECLARATION
OF THE
puppet,
WRITTEN
ByDi.NICHOLAS RIDLET,
Bifhop of LONDON,
During his Imprisonment.
With feme other Determinations and Difputations con-
cerning the fame Argument, by the fame Author.
IMPRIMATUR,
Liber cui. Titulus, [ A Brief Declaration of the Lords
Supper, &c.]
GVIL. NEED HAM, R. R. in Chrifto
7* P-ac D.D.tFilhelmo Archkv.Cant.^ Sa.ci.
'688. Domeft.
if
>
LONDON:
Printed for IRtCv at tlie Rofe and Crown in
- St. Pauh Churchyard, M DCTXXXViTL
.ry^r. ■
• -
r ;.. I. B"
irMi
.-■; i
• ''O
E
1 c> ■ -■:
ii 't' -i
?i ifv .;.4 n-t- ; '
. . '1 . ?, ifv n-t- ; '
v:-! '*-a ' '*'"•
.i A
T
U
k
h
K-
» f » '
yj
/flfjiful.
s";; 'till,
v-Or . '
i:;®? ^'l'
.V.-'O O'.l 1o qtMilifFV
ffliextiw
: -. ;f( o* fill
•••■('•■
, L . i ' X- I ' ■-
.r- I'ffni!) ':;■-
' 3 >.'Un':'5'J
t'wiyw
. ■ V T ■ ' Si' f t ' i '• ~ ,
t !• -'I • . ' A i ■ ''i' if
jr- 'S- ' V v,=:\M. t:v^a ] ,V;;II;J;T..':/D ^
OTteij
r ./J "\i<\<vM<>^ ■
THE
PREFACE.
The Do^rheof Tranfubftantiation mamtained
hy our Adverfaries of the Church of Rome, is
fo grofsi and highly repugnant to the firfl prin-
ciples ofreafon, akd univerfal fenfe of mankind^
that dire^ly to defend it muld he no lefs impoffihle than
unfuccefsful. Artifices therefore were neceffarily to he in-
vented^ which might palliate the deformity of fo monflrous
an Opinion ; and dinjert inquifttite perfons from a direct ex-
amination of it^ hy amufing them with confident affertions
and extraneous Controverfies. Among thefe, the difference
of Opinion between the firfl Reformers and prefent Divines
of the Church of England hath of late heen propofed and
urged with the greatefl vehemency; as if the firfl Refor-
mers had believedfomewhat equivalent to Tranfubftantia-
tion; and our prefent Divines^ hy afferting no other than a
fgurative Prejence of the material Body of Chrifl^ had de-
generated from the belief of their Forefathers.
We might juflly admire the unreafonahle confidence of
thofe men, who are not afhamed to propofe fo manifefl and
■ grofs afalfhood, and efleem it the highefl folly if we did
not remember that it is taken up to defend a defperate Caufe,
which admits no better Remedies. Can any Man in his
right wits believe that fo many hundred Martyrs fhould
fffer death, and fpend their blood for fo inconfiderable a
nicety, as was the difference between them and their Perfe-
cutors in the Dolirine of the Eucharift, if thefe late Repre-
fenters may be believed > That both Parties (hould difpute
A z fo
The P R E F A C E.
fo earneflly and vehemently again]} each other, and yet a f-
ter all agree in the main ? 7 hat the Romilh BiP^ops Jhould
treat the Reformers as Hereticksfor denying Tranfubflan-
tiation ; and the Reformers lay down their lives rather than
acknowledge it; and yet neither the fir ft to have defined it
to he true, nor the laft believed it to he falfe ? Such crude
Tofitions can fnd no entertainment, hut in a mind already
fitted to receive Tranfubftantiation it felf, that is, devoid
of Senfe and Reafon.
If we enquire the Reafons^ and Arguments, wherewith
our Adverfaries maintain fuCk. incredible and extravagant
affertions, we jhall find them to he no other than thefe. That
the firjl Reformers taught and ajferted a Real Prefence of
the Body and Blood of Chrijl in the Sacrament; That they
maintained the Body and Blood to he verily and indeed tar
ken and received hy the faithful Communicants ; That they
frequently affirmed the natural and fuhflantial Body of
Chrijl, that very Body which was taken hy him of the Ttr-
gin Mary, to he prejent in the Sacrament. Thefe very
exprejfions are at this day ufed hy the Divines of tie
Church of England ; whom yet our Adverfaries pretend to
have departed from the helief of their Forefathers in this
matter: So that if they prove the firft Reformers to have
believed a material prefence of Chrifs Body, they will
prove cur Prefent Divines to believe the fame. For the
whole Controverfy will come to this iffue. Whether they he-
lieved any material Prefence of ChrifPs Body, or any part
of it, either hy converfion, fuhjlituticn, or union ? If they
pofitively difowned this, as mop certainly, they did •, then
whatfoever expreffions they might ufe, they could believe
no other than a figurative Prefence of Chrif's Body properly
fo called', which our Adverfaries now traduce under the
name <?/Zuinglianifm. And, indeed, if we give them
have to explain themfelves, they tell us, That in Juch ex-
* prejfions
The PREFACE.
piejfions they nfe the terms of Real Prelencc, Nature and
Subftarice, as Philofophers, hut as Divines'; and that hy
denying the Euchar'ift to he a figure only, or a naked figure,
they mean no more, than that it is a true and real commu-
nication of the virtues and benefits of his Body, not only a
nteer figurat'ive commemoration of them, which is the true
notion of Zuinglianifm.*
To prove this, and vindicate the honour of the firft Rc'
formers and modern Divines of our Church, and demon-
fir ate the intire conformity of the belief of both; it is
thought convenient to caufe fome one Treatife of the firfl
Reformers concerning this Subjebi-to be Reprinted, that fo
every one might judge for himfelf, whether the pretenfions
of our Adverfaries be indeed true and jufi; or rather the
Prefent is intirely conformable to the precedent Doblrine of
the Church of England. To this end, among all the JVri-
tings of the firfl Reformers, this Treatife of Bijhop Ridley,
which we here pubUfh, will conduce mofl, by reafon of the
great and eminent Authority of the Author, which was fo
highly confiderable beyond that of any other Reformer, that
he may jufily be ejleemed the Standard of the DoRlrine of
the Church of England at that time. Not only the affu^
ranee of his great learning and em'inent flation in the Church,
renders this probable ; but that great part which he had
in managing the Affairs of the Reformation, and the epc-
traordinary deference paid to his Authority, and trufl re-
pofed in him by all Convocations, and the whole body of the
Reformers, fiemonfirate it. None can reajonably he put in
competition tviih him, except Archbifhop Cranmer ,* and he
alfo in his difputation at Oxford profeffed, that he recei-
vedhis Opinion concerning the Eucliarift from B'lfhop Rid-
ley. This the Romilli Clergy were fo fenjtble of in the t'lme
of Queen Mary, that by a plaufible calumny they endea-
vmred to perfuade the World, that the private opinion of.
Ridley
425
The PREFACE.
Ridley was the only foundation of the Do^rtne of the Refor-
FoxV Many- med Church of England : For 15rooks Bifhop of GloceRer,
rd.^ Vol. 3. p. Maries Commiffioner^ difputing againfl him in the
puhlick Schools at Oxford, ufed this among other Argw
mentSy What a weak and feeble (lay in Religion is this,
I pray you ? Latimer leaneth to Cranmer^ Cranmer to
Ridley, and Ridley to the fingularity of his own Wit:
So that if you can overthrow the Angularity of Rid-
leys Wit, then muft needs the Religion of Cranmer
and Latimer fall alio. To which I may add the words
of Dr. Fecknam, Ahhot of Weflminfter, in his Speech
in Parliament, Primo Elizabethte, made in defence of
the Church of Rome, which 1 have feen in Manufcript.
Dr. Ridley, the notablefh learned of that Opinion in this
Realm, did fet forth at Paul's Crofs the real prefence of
ChriR's Body in the Sacrament, with thefe words,
which I heard,-flaying then prefent; how that the De-
vil did believe the Sacrament of God was able to make
of Stones Bread : And we Englifh people, we do con-
fefs that Chrifl was the very Son of God, and yet will
not believe that of Bread he made his very Body Flefh
and Blood; wherefore we are worfe than the Devil:
fince that our Saviour by exprefs words did more plain'
ly affirm the fame, when at his laft Supper he took
Bread, and faid unto his Difciples ; Take ye, eat, this is
my Body, ivhich fhall he given for you. And fhortly after,
the faid Mr. Dodlor Ridley notwithflanding this mofl
plain and open Speech at Paul's Crofs, did deny the
fame.
Whether Fecknam hath truly reprefented the words of
Ridley, is uncertain. But from the lafl words of this paf-
fage it is manifefl, that feme, even in that time, taking oc-
cafion from this Sermon, had charged Bifhop Ridley witJo af
ferting a Material Prefence of Chrifl's Body in the Sacra-
rnent;
The PREFACE.
went: and that he conjlantly denied himfelf to have meant
or intended tiny fuch prefence. In this therefore, and fuch
like exprejftons, he intended only (as himfelf ajfuresus^
to oppofe thofe, who fo lightly efleemed the Sacrament, ibid. vol. 3.
as to make of it but a figure. For that but maketh it
a bare fign, without any more profit. But to clear his in-
tent ion in this matter from all remaining fufpicion of any
kind of Material Prefence, I will annex a larger explica-
tion of it in his own words, in his lafl examination before
the Queens Commijfioners, September'30.'
In like fort, as touching the Sermon, which I made
at Pauls Crofs, you lliall underftand, that there were at
Pauls, and divers other places, fixed railing Bills againfl;
the Sacrament, terming it Jack of the Box, the Sacra-
ment of the Halter, Round Robbin, with fuchlike un-
feemly terms. For which caufes, I, to rebuke the unreve-
rend behaviour of certain evil difpofed perfons. Preach-
ed as reverendly of that Matter, as I might, declaring
what efiimation and reverence ought to be given to it ,•
what danger enfued the mif-handling thereof^ affirming
in that Sacrament to be truly and verily the Body and
Blood of Chrifl, effedbually by Grace and Spirit. Which
words the unlearned underftanding not, fuppofed that I
had meant of the grofs and carnal being, which the Ro-
mifli Decrees fet forth, That a Body having life and mo-
tion, fliould be indeed under the ffiapes of Bread and
Wine.
This Treatife was written ly Bifhop Ridley during his
tmprifonment, a little before his death, and feveral Copies
of it difperfed abroad; of which, fome being carried be-
yond Sea, Dr. Grindall, and other Englifh Exiles, concei-
ved a great defire of caujlng it to 'be tranjlated into Latin, ibid. p. 374.
and Printing it. The Bifhop hearing of this, defired that
by all means they would lay ajfde their refolution, till they
fhould
I'if
.The PREFACE;
Jhould fee how God would difpofe of him. Accordingly it
was omitted till his death. Immediately after his Martyr-
dom it was Tranflated into elegant Latin, hut in a Vara-
phraflical way., and Printed at Geneva 1556. in
The Englifl} Copy was Printed at London i^S6. szs. which
we have now caufedto he faithfully Reprinted; adding to it
out of Mr. Fox'i- Martyrology, divers Speeches., Difpu-
tations and Determinations upon the fame fuhjeii, which
might farther illuflrate and confirm his Opinion.
Laftly, Becaufe the late Bifhop of Oxford, in his lajl
Treatife, difputing of the ancient Opinion of the Reformed
Church of England concerning the Eucharifl, and as his
Caufe required it., maintaining the fame affertion without
Adverfaries, That fome material fort of Prefence was then
believed ; doth mightily urge the_ Authority of the Learn-
fDr. Poynet, Biflpop of Winchefter, at that time propo-
fed in his Diallefticon ; and lecaufe that Book is not in
Englifh, I have fele^ed and annexed feveral paffages out
of it, which may demonjlrate what was indeed his notion of
the Real Prefence ; That he denied all manner of Materi-
al Prefence, and perfeMy agreeth with Ridley in explain-
ing the nature of it: And confequently, that he is fouly
either Mifreprejented or Mifiaken hy the Bifhop of Ox-
ford.
A
A B R E E F
ECLARATION
O F T H E
^upper
WRITTEN
I
By the finguler Learned Man, and mofte conftant
Martyr of Chrifte,
NICHOLAS RID LET,
nihopoi LONDON,
Prifoner in Oxford ^ a little before he fuffered Death for the
true teftimonye of JESUS CHRISTE.
ROM. VIII.
For thy fake are "we killed all day long,, and are counted as fheep apoynted
to be Jlain,
NeuertheleJJ'e^ in all thefe thinges we ouercome through him that loue vs.
Printed at LONDON, i58<?.
And Reprinted for 1688.
-^■=u ■' .'•in
> "v " i
1 a a . A
V -. -fc. ■
1^
■ ■ -v ■" - ■:.'>nJ5-.«^; ■■• ■ -^c'-?:;,
-;• • ; .'• T'^ >v^-''r *" 'i ' ■"
'V
V«i
■ Vf"v
"r
•U!"^
A' ,■' •:--^i i
"■ 'i>*
-i
V' 'd T T- r H - vi' -;■
fjr;.v , t .' y. :;j
\ -rU
C-
' ,y .) ia^ViiLiv-
'V) '
%'~ 5=^,
Jl ■ -i-
- >'
9^'-' . -S* »-
t \-
ri
■ T- % A iO o-artiHl v -.' •"'■■ ^
:. ^->•:^l{^r ot\ 'iwbti qUjU s..
, "■"■ja-raiHviC) au2«r w-^KSf ■ ■:»»
-; _ .: - .nr/; .^bQ..)3 ■; ■ ^
-Xvi Vtf V^V ■ .
\ I ^ . «• • ■ r, _. r^^v.\ :'l
ii'i)
y'
'"P
i jiif !
"9 V ■ -r- 5"^
_i.
M%li-
^>,.v-*./■ -i-v'" v-
VNderftand good (Reader) that this great
Clark and blefled Martyr , Bifliop Nicholas
Ridley, fought not by fettinge foorth any no-
table peece of learned woork, the vaine glo-
ry of the World, nor temporall freendfliip of men, for
his prefent aduancement, much lelle he hunted heer-
by for Bilhopricks and Benefices, as al his aduerfaries,
the enemies of Chrifts Trueth and Ordinance com-
monly doo : but hauing confideration of the great
charge of Soules committed vnto him, and of the ac-
count thereof, which the luftice of God would require
at his handes, intending therwithal to be found biam-
les in the great daye of the Lord, feeing he was put a
parte to defende the Gofpell: He not only forfook
Landes, Goodes, World, Freends, and himfelfe with
all, and teftified the Trueth fpecified in this Book by
his learned mouth, in the open prefence of the World:
but alfo to leaue a fure Monument and Loue Token
vnto his Flocke, hee hath regiftred it by his owne Pen
in this forme enfuinge, and fealed it vp with his Blood.
Forafmuch then as he hath proued himfelfe no vain
difputer , no wethercocke, nor-hipocrite, feeing hee
A ^ hath
'■■m
hath willinglye giuen his life for the Trueth, and in
as much alfo as his loue and mofle conftant chriften
Confcience fpeakethvntb thee C gentle Reader ) I be-, |
feech thee for Clirifts fake and thine owne, lend him :
thine indifferent'hart and pacient hearing. - ;
mm
U i
A. ' kto
A BREEFE
DECLARATION
OF THE
Lordes Supper.
Many twngs confoutibe a tocahe ttiBnio?p: a feto
places toel Ixietgbei) ana percetueD, UgtJren tlje bn-
oerflanotng. Eruett) ts tbere to be fearcbed, tobere
tt tfi certain to be bad, tb^ugb <J5cd dootb fpcabe rbe
truetb bp man, pet tn mans tocDid, tobtcb ©od batb
not reueafed to be bta, a man map doubt toftbout mtOruft tn
<5od. Cbgiffe is tbs truerb of <iPod reuealed bnto man from ^ea-
•tienbpCSoci bfmfetf, and tberefo?etnbts toco^d tb^ truetb t« to
be founde, tobtcb ts to be embraced of al tbat be bts» Cb?tfi
biddetb bs aibe, and roe Q)aU baue: fearcb and toe IbaU finde t
bnccbe, and tt tball be opened imto bs. 2Lberefo?e our ^eauen- jfje bieffed
IPiFatber, tbeautbcg and foumatn of al truetb, tbe btitrcmles Martirswaiec
^ea of al bnderftandlng, fend doton toe befcecb tbee, tbp boip
fpirtt into our barts, and Ugbten cur btiderftandint tottb tbe
beames oftbP beauenip grace» tsaaeasd tb^tbts, SDmerctfuM
ifatber, not tn refpect of cur deferts, bur fo? rbp dare ^oiine our
^utcur 3fefufi Cb?tQB fa^e. I^bon hnotoeft, © beauenlr 5Fatber-»
tbat tbe controuerfie about tbe sacrament of tbe bltfled be dp and
blood of tbp bar g>onne cur ^autour 3Iefu Cb?tOe, batb troubled
not of late onlpe tbe Cbnrcbe of England, Praunce, Gcrmanie, and
italye, but alfo manp pars agoe. itbe,fault to ouro (no ocut)
tberfo?e, fog toe babe deferued tbP plague. But (2D JLcgd) be
metctful!, and relaue cur mtlerte tottb Come Ugbte of grace.
2Lbcu bnotoeft (SDIbogd) boto tbts totcBed tocgld roUetb bp and
doton, andraJetbtoandfro, andcaretbnottebat tbptotll ts, fa.
It tnap abide tn toealtb- ttuetb baue toealtbej tobo are Co
* Qoiite.
"X A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
ftcute tobefcnoc tbctrnetlj, as thep? iSiit tf Cb^tRescrPffe 6e
latocn frupiti^ bars, tbeu tb^P banilb atnap RratgbL aBmare
before tbelier. SSut tbefs are ncttbep, © l^eauenlp JFarber,
fo? tobome jd tuabe tup tnofte moane, but fo? tbafe flllp ones, S)
Note. ILiv'O, bob-cb bane a jeale bnto rba J tbofe 31 mean, tobtcb baolb
an!5':o{IbtaKnebjrbpaitl, anbpst arelerteb, bcDpn bacfee, anb
bltnbeOop rbe fubttlrtes of s>atbanan£) bis mtntfters, tbe toicft-
cbnescf rbtsto-'etcbrOtno^loe, ana tbe fmfull JuftsanoafFecttons
of tbe fletb* Silas ILc?i), rbcii hnsuoeft tbat lae bK cf cur felues
but tteib- tobcrctn tbere bbaelletb nctbinfi tbat ts fja"!b» tben
ts trpcffible toyman toittcttc Wse (C'Logo) tobnberSanb tbp
rruetb tnOecb.' Can tbe uatura:t manprrcetiie tbe toil of (ScOf
(J© iLo?b) to bobotn tbou stueR a ^eale of tbee, gtue tbem alfo
(loe bcfeccb tfeK) tbe hnatolebge of tbp bletfjb lotU puffer not
tbcm (SDlLojiJ) bttnbfcip to be leb fo? to Rrtiie agatntt tbK; as
tbou btooeft tbofe (atas) tobttb cructft 0 tfetne coan &onne, fog-
gnie ibem (iDlLo^D) fi? rbp oecre sscnites fabe, fojtbep bnoto
not tobat tbep oto. Cbep boo ibtnb (a^as, C) 3Lo2b; fo^ lacb of
hnotoleoge, tbat tbop boo bnto tb^gocoferutce euentDbenagainll
tbK tbsp bo) moRe ejtremeipe rage. ISemember, £DILo?b, (tue
befeecbtbet) fo^ tubome tbp i^artpj Stephen btbpgape, anbtobome
tbpne bolp apoRL Paule btb (o truelpe anb earneRlpe loite: tbat
to? ibetr faluarton, l)$e baiRjeb blmfelt accuri'eb fo? tbem. 3Se-
member (2D beaiienip iFatber; tbe p^aper cf tbP bare ^onne, our
^autour Cb^tRe bpcn tbe crcflfe, toben be fatbe bnto tt»» OF^-
ther forgiue thenij they know not whac they doc. S^ttb ttjts fOi-
giuenes, O gcob iLoib, gtue me, 3 befacb tbK, tbP grace, fa
bar bretflp to fet foo?tb tbe faptngs of tbp ^onne our ^autour
Cb?tRe, anb of bis CuangeltRes, anb of btsSlpcftles, tbat tn
tbte afojefatb controuerfie, tbe Ugbte of tbe truttb, bp tbe Ian-
tern of tbp ujouzb, map Ibtne bnto all tbem tbat lone tba.
£i)t tbeJlOt'bs laR Ripper boo fpeab etp^eOpe tbe CuangelfRs,
Mathew, Mirk, aubLuke: but uoiie mote piainelpe nc^rao^efuflp
btclaretb ibe fame, tben ooctb Paule, partelp tn tbe tentb
Chapter, but fpecialip tn tbe xj. chapter of fcis firReptfile to tbe
Corinthians. ^S Mathew aub Mark boo agree lllUCb tnb)00|bes, fo
boa UHebitfe Luke anb Paule. But all tit j. HO bcubte, as tbep
toere all taugbt tn one fcboole, anb tnfptreb caitb one fptrtr, fo
raugbt tbep at one tructl> Cob grant bs to bnberftanbe tt boeU
Amen.
Mathew fettetb foo?tb Cb^tRes &upper thus.
When euen was come, he fat down with the xi). &c. As they did eat.
Math. 2tf, Jefustook bread and gave thankes, brake it, and gave it to the difci-
pies, and faide: Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup
and
iiii
jifflO
jiitoi
syfli
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
andgaui thankes, gauc it to them, faying. Drink ye a] of this: for
this IS my bloo.i of the newe teRament that is Ihed for many for ihe re-
miflionof finnes, I fay vato you, I will not drink henceforth of this
fnit of thevinetree, untill thatdaye, when I fhall drin't that newe in
ray fathers kingdome. And when they had fayed grace they went our.
Markfpefii'erhfr tbns.
AHdastheyeate, Jefus took bread, bleffed, and brake, and ^aue to
them and faied, tiVe, eat.this is my body. And toos the cup gaue thankes,
and gaue it to them, and they all drank of it. And ne fiid vnto them
This is my bloud of the new teflamenc, which is llifd for miny. Verily
I faye vnto you, I wil drink no more of the fruit of the vine, vntill that
day, that I drink that newr, in the kingdome of God.
J^esreMathew anhM'rk j)oo agree tjct nnlpin the tmrtcr^ hut
alfo almcfte fnllp in the fo^ms at' ?ai Mithew, gaue
thanke£» Mark hath erne tooc?Ds. iisieficD? iuhtcb rti,'niiLrh ta
this place al rue. SnO toheiC Mathewiatrh, Drmky; aUf this,
Markfatthj they al drank of it. ClUO Uiher? M.ithew fatthS:, of this
fruit of the vine; Mark ieaueth OUr tl;C tOOe^G this, ailO faitb, of
the fruit of the vine.
i^otDlctiJsfeeliketbtre, tobat agrKineni (infc?Uie£ftooojbi6)
is bettoKPC tuke anb Paule.
LuketDjifftbtbliP,
He took bread, gaue thankes, brake it and gaue it to them, fating; Luke
this is my body which is giuen for you, thisdoo in remembrance of me.
Likewife alfo when they had fupped, he took the Cup, faying, this Cup
istheneweTeftamentin my bloud, which is fhedde for you.
0?tnr Paule retferbfpo|tb the lLo?&s Supper thus.
The Lord lefus, the fame night, in the which he was betraied, took j Cor
Bread, and gaue thankes and brake, and faide, take, eate, this is my
body which is broken for you. This doo in remembrance of me. Af er
the fame maner he took the Cup, when fupper was doon, faying, this
Cup is the new teftament in my bloud. This doo as often as yee (hall
drink it in remembrance of me. For ar often as ye Ihill eate this
breade, and drinke this cup, ye (hall (hewe the Lords deathe, vntill
he come.
^ecre faitb, toblcb ts g'ven •, Paule fattb, tobfcb
tfi broken. QnOaC Luke aOGCtb tO the tBOCgOCfi rf Paule fpcftcnof
tbc Cup tebicb tc fljto fo? ptu, fo Ube-ntfe Paule anoetb rn tbe
tDOD?03 tbf IfCf, this doo, as often as yee fhall drinke it, in remem-
brance of me. jtbc rt'ft iPac folLbJCtl: til Paule, both (b«re and
tntbc teiitb Chapter, pertetnerb unto tl;c ngbt life of tbe iLoida
Supper.
2LbuB tbf CuangeUftefi and §>.Paule bau? rebearfeo tbe Iboc^ob
anCi iDoo^be of Cbjtffej toberebp be oio mattute and o^oatne tbts
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
f)olp Sacrament of bis bobpe an;) blocD to be a perpetuall remem-
b>ance bnro blfi commtns agalne of bim felfe, 31 fap tbaf tsof
bis boDp gtuen fo? bs, anO of bis blooD Ibeb fo? tfie remlfflon of
finnes.lBiit tbls remenib?ance toblcb Istbus o?i)aln0O,astbeau-
tbo? thereof Is Ctelfle, bctbe (S iCiano^^an, fo b? tbe aimlabtpe
pctoer of €300, It far pafTetb al blnoes of rememb?an:e0, tbat an?
other man is able to mahe either of btm felfe, c?of anp otbec
tblnge. iFo? bobofoeber receioctq tbls bolp Sacrament rbus o?-
Oelneoln remembrance of Cb,ifle, be recelnetb tberioltb eltbec
Oratb 0? life. 3In tbls (3! truti; toe ooo al agrK, ifo? S. Paule
falrbcf tbe gcOlpreceluersln tbe tenth Chapter of ble firfl: dBpt-
file bnrotbe Corinthians, The Cup of blelfinge, which we bkfTe, is it
not the peitaking or felowlhip of Chriftes bloud? 9[nO alfO faltbe^
the Breade which wee break fanO mcanetbat the 5Lo?0S Stabler Is
it not the partaking or felowfhip of Chr.lls body P Spoilt tbe partablng
Of CbrlQes boOpanOof btsblooO hnto tbefaltbfull anOgoOlp, is
tbeparrafelng og fclobolblp of life ano Inimortalltle. SlnOagalne
of tbebao ano bngoOlpreceluerB,.& Paule asplalnlp faitb tbus.'
He that eatcthof this bread, and drinketh of this cup vnworthily, is
gilty of the body and bloud of the Lord.
£D bob) neceffarp then It is. If toe Icne life, anb Ibotilb efcbne
beatbe, to trpe anb etamlne cur felues, before toe eateof tbls
breab, anb b?lnlt of this cup, for els afloreblp, be that eatetb anb
brlnhetb thereof bntocrtbtlpe, eatetb anb bglnhetb bis oton bamna»
tlon, becaufe beeSeemetbncttbeLorbsbobp, tbat Is, bereuer^
encetb not tbeJLoroes bobpetoltb the bcnonr that Is bne bnto
blm»
anb that toblcb toas falbe, tbat toitb the recette of tbe boipe
Sacrament of tbeblelTebbobpanbbloubof Cb?tfte ts receluebof
eberp one, goob anb bab, either life or beatb f It Is net menr, that
tbep toblcbe are beab before Cob, mapbeerbpreceltie life J or the
llulnge before Cob, can beerbp recetue beatb*
iFor as none ts meete to recetue naiurall focb, toberbp the natii*
ral life ts nourtlteb, eicept be be borne anb Hue before; fo no man
can Leb (op the recelt of tbls bolp Sacrament) of the foob of eter*
nail life, ejceptbeberegeneratcbanbborneof tIScbbefore. anb
on the other ftbe, no man-beer receluetb bamnatlcn toblcbe ts not
beab before* abus betbertoo tolrbcut al bsubt, C5cb ts mp toltnefle
3fape fofar as 31 boo bnotoe, there Is no controuerrie amongc
tbemttatbelearneb* In the Cbufcbe of England (concernlngetbe
matter ot this Sacrament) but al boo agree, tobctbcf tbep be neto
oroibe, anb to fpeab plain, anbasfomeof them boo obtouflpcal
either other, tobetber tbep be j^roteaantes, l^aplfts, J^batlfies o?
<I5orpellers* anb as all boo agree bit jjertoo, tntb^aforefaib^o-
ctrtne:
Ctf^k -2. Uk-r*
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. 9
ndtoto biffetnble toith CfoD, of tobom affureblp 31 loohe anb bope
bp Cb?tfte to bane euerlafllng Itfe ? ^ging tbar fuel) charge anb
banger botbe befoje (pjb anb man, boo compaiTe niee in rounb
about on euerp fibe: tberfo?e (Bob totlltng 31 toil! franhip anb
fteelpebtter mpmtnbe, anb tbongbe mpbobpe be captiue, pet
mp tung anb mppenas long ao 31 map ijan frelpfet fo?tb^ tbat
tobicb bnbubteblpe 31 am perftoabeb to be tbe truetb of ®obes
asaocjbe. 2nb pet 31 totfl bo it bnber tbio p^oteRation, call me
J^^otcftant tobo luftetb, 3 paffe not tberof. ^^p p^ateftation
SiallbetbufiJ tbatmpminbeisanbeuer ®albe (©obtotllinge)
to fet foojtb flncerelpe tbe true fence anb meanlnge (to tbe befte
of mp biiberrtanblna) of (Booeo moft bolp tooo^be, anb not to
becUnefromtbefame, either fog feare of tooglblp banger, ogels
fog bope of gaine*
3 boo pgotefte alfo bue cbebience s fubmittton of mp iubgemente
tn tbis mp toglting, anb in all otber mine affairs bnro tbofe of
Cbgtfts Cburcb, tobicb be trulp learneb in (Bobs bolp l!iJKoo, b, ga-
tbereb inCbgtfrfi i^ame anbgulbeb bp bis Spirit, after tbis
pgoteftation, 3 boo plainelp affirme anb fap, tbat tbe teconb Anfwere to
queftion anbpgtncipall poHit, 3 am perfooabeb to be tbe berp ttiie thecheefque
meaning anb fence of (Bobs bolp tamoogb: tbat is, tbat tbe natu« gion
rail fubftance of bgeab anb tofnc is tbe true materiall fubftance of
tbe bolp sacrament of tbe bleffebbobpanb bloobof our^autouf
Cbgifte: anb tbe places of Scripture toberupon tbls mp faitb
tsgrounbeb, betbefe, both concerning tbe Sacrament of tbe bo>
bpanbalfotbebloub.
IFirfte let bs repete tbe beginntnge of tbe inftirution of tbe
3Logbs Supper toberin all tbe tbgee (Buangelifts, anb Paule af»
mofttn tooogbs boo aaree, faptna tbat lefus took bread, gaue thanks, .1.
■brake, and gaue it to the Difciples fayinge: Take, eate, this is my bodye.
I^eer it appearetb pialnlp, tbat Cbgifte calietb berp bgeab
bobp* 3F02 tbat tobicb be toofe, toas berp bgeab. 3n tbis all men
boo agree. Slnb tbat tobicb be toob, after be bab;giuen tbanbes,
be bgabe: anb tbat tobicb be tooh anb bgahe, be gaue to bis bifCi*
pies; anbtbat tobicb be tooh, bgahe, anb gaue to bi£ difciples
befaibe bimfelftofit? ihiaismy body. i ^0 it.appearetb plaitie-
l;e tbat Cbgift calleb berp bgeab bia bobp. l&ut jberp b^ab cahot
be bis bobpe in berp fubftance tberof; tberfoge it muft neebsl^ue
an otber meaninge. tta^btcbmeantnge appearetb plainelpetobat
it is, bp tbe ne;t fentence tbat follotoetb itnmebiatlP} botb tn i<uhe
anbinPauie. lanb tbat is tbis.
Doo this in remembrance of me, Wber>bpon it (eeuietb bntO tne
to be euioent, tbat Cbgifte bib talte bgeab, anb calleb it bis bobpe,
fog tbat be tooulbtberbpinftitute a perpetuall remembgaQte of
"•bis
lO
Mar.
Antho.
Coaflaa-
Gardeaar«
t. xo.
The fccond
rcafoa.
A Declaration of the Lords Supper,
tts bchp: fpgciallpe of tl)e finguler bcneftte of our rromufotij.
tuhlcb he tonilo then j3;r cure an6 ptirchafe btuo bo bp bts bobpe bp-
on the CrLfle. But b?eaCi reratntng fttU bis otone berp natuinU
fubfraticea map be thus bp graces (aiio tn a facramental (igntftca-
ttv.n) bis boOpt toberaseistbeberpo^pabtobicbbe toch, bgalte,
anbgaue tbeni, coulonat beaiiptolfe btc naturallbobpe. 5Foj
tbar toere coufuflon of fubftancec, aiib tbcrfcge tbe berp toeo?cies
cf Cb^trte lopuee tpttb tbe nejt fentence fclloiutug- botb enfo?cetb
bstocjifcffe tbe berpe b?eab, to rematne fttll, aubaifo npeiietb
buto bs, boto tbat b?eao mape be anci (c tbuB bp bts beutne potoer
btfi baop, tpbtcb boas gtuen fo? bs. But beere 3 remember 3
baue reb tn fonie toitrers of tbe conrrarpe optutou, babtcb Cb?lfte
oto rabe, be bjahe. iFoz fap tbep, after bts tabtag, be bleffeb it as
Mark bootb fpcas. 2110 up btfi blelTtug, be cbangeb tbe natural
fubftancetf tbe b?ea{) into tbe natural fubfiance of biaboopt aiio
fo altbougb be toob tbe b^'cao, aiib bleffeb it, pet bccaufe in bletTma
be cbangeb tbe fubftance of it, be b^ab? not tbe b?eabe, tobtcp
tben bias not tbere, bur onlp tbe foeme tberof.
tHnto tbiaobteaton 3 baue rtoo plain aufooerS) borb grounbeb
bpju (SoOstDoo^b. 2Lbe aue 3 roil beer rebearfe, tbe otber an-
rroer3totl ottFer, buttl 3 ipeabof tbe ^acramentof tbe blood.
#tne anfroere beer is raften out of tbe piaine rooogds of Paule
VsbtcbOoofb itianifeftlp rcnfound tbia fantaftical inuention, ftrfc
inuented roeen) of ^ope innocentius, and after confirmed bp tbe
fubtile fopbifter Duns, anolarelpreneroednotoiHourdaies, toirb
an eloquent ftile and mucb tineneffe of roit. But tobar can craftp
inuention:, fubttUpe in fopbtfmesi eloquence eg fineneffeof toit
pgeiiaile egainfttbe bnfaiUbie tasaaogde of dSod i isabat neede tee
to ftriiie and contend robat tbinge toe bgeah, fo? Paulc faictb,
fpeabtng bndoubtedtp of tbeiLogds Cable: The bread (fatetbbe)
which we break, is it not the partaking or felowlhip of the Lords
body?
laaberupon it felloteetb, tbat after tbe tbanbs giwing it is
bgeaci robicb roe bgeah. and boro cfren in rbe Afts of the ApoiHes
is tbe Hogds i&upper flgntfted bp bzeatting of bgead i They did per-
feucr ( fattb Luke ) in the Apoftles D^rine, Communion, and
breaking of bread. And they brake breade in cuery houfe.
andasain in an orber place tuben tbep roereccme tcgetber to
bgeabe b?ead, ^fc, Paule robicb fettetbfocitb mofiefuUp in bis
togltinge borb tbe ooartne and tbe rigbt bfe of tbe ilojds Supper,
and fbe giiacraiHentail eating and dginWngeof <tb?tttsbodp and
blocd, caileibufiunimesbgtad, bgead, bgead, bgead, bjead.
Cbe facranientall bgead is tbe mifltcall bodp, and fo tt is called
in ^crtpturCa i Cor.io. as it is called tbe naturall bodv of 4Lb?ifie.
But
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. 11.
»ut mlOicall boDp is tbe congregation of Cb?ll!fans.
J^otouomanboaseuerfofoni), astofap, tbar tbatfacratnenrall
bjeaCte is tranfubSamtareb anb cbangeo into the fnbRance of tbe
congregatione. ®iaberfa?e no man fboulbe libetoife rbtnb , o?
rape, tbat tbe b?eabe fs tranfubftanriateoanbcbangeo into tbe
naturail fubftance cf Cbnftes bumaine nature.
IBut mp rainbe is not bare to m^ite oobat map be gatbereb out
of Scriptures fo? tbis purpofe, but onelp toncte beer bjecfip,
tbofe tobtcb feem bnto me, to be tbe mcft platne places. SLberfo^e
contenteb to baue fpchen tbus mucbe of tbe Sscramentall b.'esb: ^
atelUnoioefpeabeaUtfieof rbelLojbscup. . ,
anb tbiB Iball be mp tbirb Qlrgument grounbeb boon Cbjities The third
otone tooogbes. Cbe naturalflibflancecf tbefacramenralHSiatne Argumeat.
remainetbftill, anbistbemareriat fubftance of tbe Sacrament
of tbe bUobof Cb?tfte: Cberfo?e it is lihecoifefo in tbe facta-
menrall JiB?eab.
Sbnototbat be tbat is of acontrarpecpinton, totll benpetbe
' fo2mer parte of mine argument, ©ut 31 toil p^ooue it tbus bp
tbe plaine tooc?bs of Cb^ifte btmfelfe, brtb inMathewe anb in
Marke. Cb^iftesteoo^besaretbefe J afrtr tbetoocgbesfaibebpon
tbe cup.' I faye vnto you, faitb CbZifte-> I will not drinke hence-
foorthe of this fruite of the vine tree, vntill I ihall drink that new in my
fatherskingdome. t^eere note boto Cb?tfte calletb plaini? bis cup
tbe fruit of the bine tree. tbe fruit of tbe bine is berp natu.
ral totne. lliaiberfo?e tbe naturall fubftance of tbetoiue boctbe
remaine ftil in tbe Sacrament of Cb^tftes ffilocb.
anbbeerinrpeahtng of tbe Lo?bB Cup : itcommetb bntomp
remembrance tbe banitie of innocemius bis fantafticall inuention,
tobiib bp Panics tororbes 31 Oib confute before, anobaroio promtfe
fomtobat more to fpeabe, anb tbat is this: if tbis EranrubOau-
tiattone be mabe bp tbts tooerbe, liBleffeb, in Mark faibbpontbe
breabe, as innocentius tbat i^ope bib fape: tben furelp feeing tbat
totorb is not faibe of Cbrifte neither in anp of tbe OEuanaeliftes
nor in S' Panic bpcn tbe cup: Cbere is no a^ranfubOantiatione
of ibe HKHtne at al'. JFor tobere tbe caufe btotb fatle, tbere can-
not folloto tbe efFea. ©ut tbe Cacrameiual ©reab anb tbe facra-
mental uaine boo botb remain in tbeir natural! fubftance aUHe,
anb if tbe one be not cbangeb, as of tbe facramentaiiSiiatne it
appearetbeuibentlpt tben tbere is no fucb CranCubftanttatione
innotber of tbembotb.
an rbat trutt anb aiftrme tbis change of the fubftance of breabe The Papiffs
ano totne into tbe fubftance of Cbrtfles ©ebpe anb Bloob calleb affirmc they
iLranfubftantiaticn t b© alfo fap this change to be mabe bp a cer- wot not what
tame forme of prefctipte to®roes, anb none other. But tnbat
tbep
II A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
tftepbe ttJatmahe tfcectjange, eitljerof tjecne, of tfte otber J
buDoiibtetlpe euen theptbat ocoto^tte tnofle finelpe tntb^feour
oatea, almoR ccnfeffe platnelp, tbat tbep can not tel. iFozal-
tbougbe tbep graimt to certalne of tbe olOe autbo?s, as Chnfoftom,
Gasdener to anD Ambrofe:tba t tbefe tOOO^bsThis is my body.atS t\}t toCOJbS Of COU-
the 48. Ob-fecrattonOftbe^ac»amcntcftbcboijpe:pctraptbep,tbcrctooo^Ofi
jedlion. niap tocl be fo calicbjbecaufe tbep boo afTute bs of tbe confecratlon
tbcrof, tabetber it be boonbefo?e tbefe tooogbs be fpcften og no.
But as fo? tbls tbetr bcubte, concerning tbe sacrament of tbe
bcbpe, aietitpalTe. ILctbs nolo contiber tbe tooo?bstDbicb per-
tain to tbe Cup. Cbta is firft euibent, tbar as Mathewe mucb a-
greeetb toitbMark, anb libetolfeLuke toltb Pauls mucbe agraetb
baretntn fo?meofU)oo?beB,fotntbefamefo?me oftooogbesinMa-
thew anb Mark is btuers from tbat tobtcb to in t-uke anb Paule: tjje
olbeautbo?s boomoOe rebearfetbe fo?me of tpoogbes in Mathewe
anb Marke: becaufe 3[ baeene tbep fameb to tbem nioQe clare. But
bar atooulbebnotoe, tobetberit is crebiblp 0? no, tbat Luke anb
Paule, toben tbep celeb?ateb tbe iLD?bes Supper toitb tbeir congre-
garions, tbat tbep bib not not bfe tbe fame fo?me of tDoo?bs (at tbe
iLo?bB Eable) tobtcb tbep to?ote5 Luke tn bis Ccfpcll, aub Paule in
bis Cptftle. flDf Luke, becaufe be teas a ^bifttion, tobetber fome
tolll graunt, tbat be migbt be a 3^?afle 0? no, anb toas able to re-
ceiue tbe o?ber of p?aQboob, tobtcb (tbep fap) is glucn bp tbe ber-
tue of tbefe tooo?bes faibe bp tbe Bi®ap;Take thou authoritye to Sa-
criiice for the quick and the deade. 3 can not tell, but if tbep iboulbe
Peter and be fo flratgbt bpon Luke either fo? bis crafre, 0? els fo? lacb of fucfee
Paule had no potoer gtuen btm bp bertue of tbe afo?eCaib tooo?bs: tben 31 toKnea
fuch preeft- botb P^ter anb Paule are in banger to be bepofeb of tbeir p?ee(tboob,
hood as the fo? tbe craft either Of iFiftiinge, tobicb toas peters; D?raabtngcf
Papifts haue. SLentes, tobicb toasPauies, toete nio?e bile, tbentbe fcienceof
i^biftche.
' anb as fr? tbefe facramentall tDDO?bs of tbe o?ber of i0?aQbocb,
to baue autbo?ttte to facriSce botb fo? tbe quiche anb tbe beabe, 31
toKne Peter anb Paule (if tbep toere botb a liue) toere not able to
p?aoue, tbat euer Cb?t(icgauetbem fucbautbo?irie, o?euerfatb
anp fucb lnoD?bes bnto tbem. But 31 toill let Luke gee, anb becaufe
Paule fpeahetb mo?e fo? btmfelfe: 31 toill rebearfe bis £ooo?bB: That
(faitb Paule) whiche I receiued of the Lord, I gaue vnto you. For the
Lorde jefus, &c. anb fo be fettetb foo?tb tbe uabole inftitution anb
rigbt bfe of tbe l.o?bes Supper, ^oto fKtng tbat p* Paule beer
faitb, tbat tobtcbe be recctutb of tbe iLo?b,be bab gtuen tbemjanb
tbat tobtcbe be batb receiueb anb gtuen tbembetwe bptooo?bof
moutbJ notobe rebcarfetb anbto?{tetb tbe fame tn bis Cptnie,ts
it crebiblpe tbat Paule toouloe neuer bfe tbia fo?nie of tooo?OS5 bpon
t tbe
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. ^
ttrlne: foall ftoocictena, abljo?re anb conbe/nne tbe tofcbea {j?-
refie of MeflTalonians tofjicb be calleb Eutichets, tobtcb
falbe tljat tbe balp Sacrament can nehbcr boo no soob no? barme.
3U bo alfo conbenme tbofe totcbeb SlnabapttOea, tobicbput no
bttrerence berboeen tbe iLojbs Dable anb tbe ILogba meat, anb
tbelr otone* anb becaufe cbarttp tooulb, tbat t39e (boulb, (tf it
be potftble, anb fo far as tne map toitb tbe faucgarbe of goob con-
rctence, anb maintenance of tbe truetW agree toitb all men:
tberfo?e me tbinbes it is net cbaritabipe boon to burtben anp man
reitbcrnetoe ogolbe, astbep calltbem) further, tbenfucb boo
beclare tbemfelues, tobiiTent from tbat toe are perftoabeb to be
fruetto 0? P2efenb tbertoo to be controuerfles, tebere as none
fucb are in beeb: anb fo to multiplp tbe bebate. tbe tobtcb tbe
mo?e it botb tncreafe, tbe further it botb bepart from tbe bnitie,
tbat tbe true €b?tOian Ibouib befire.
anb again tbie is true, tbattruetb notber neebetb no? toil be What it is to
maintaineb toitb lies. 3It is alfo a true pgouerb,That it is euen finne lye.
to lye vpon theDsuil. ifo? tbougb bp tbP Ipe tbCU boott neuer fo The flaunde-
mucb fpcab againo tbe 3Deuil, pet in tbat tbou liell in beeb tboti reus lyes of
tooo?l5Cft tbe^DeutJs tooo?lte, tbou booftbim feruice, anb tafeeft thePapifts.
tbe SDeuils part, igoto tobetber tben tbep boo gcblfe anb cbari*
tablpe, tobtcb either bp their j^en in tll2a?tting, o? bp their
laaoojbes in j^?eacbtng, boo beare the fimple people in banb,
that tbofe tobtcb thus boo teach anb beleue, boo go about to mabe
the bcfpe sacrament (bjbetueb bp Cbgtfle btmfelfe; a thing no
better then a peece of common B?eab: o? tbat boo fape, that fucb
boo mabe the bolpe sacrament of the blelTeb bcbpe anb btocbof
Ctotbe, nothing els but a bare figne o? a bgure* to rep?erent
Cb?tOe none otbettoife, then the 3lupe bulbe botb repgefent the
Mine in a £auern, o? as a bile perron goggtcuQpe apparaileo,
mape repgefent a iftingo? a i^gincetn a piape. aiasletmen
leauelptng, anb fpeafetruetb ebcrpeone, notonlpto bieneigb'
bour: but alfo of bto neigbboure, fo? toee are members one of
an other faith ^aint Paule. 3J)e ccnttouerrie (no Doubt) tobtcb
at this bape troubletb the Church rtobertnanp mean leartteb
man, eirbet oloe o? netoe, boctb ftanb in) is not, tobetber tbe
bolp sacrament of tbe bobp anb bloob of Cbgtfie, is no better
tben a peece of common b?eabe o? no: o? tobetber the Logbs JLa-
ble is no mo?e to be regarbeb, then tbe Hable of anp eartbip man
0? no: 0? tobetber it is but a bare figne o? figure of Cbgtfie anb
nothing elfe o? no. ipo? all bo graunt, that Paules uaoogoes
boo require, that tbebgeab tobtcb toe b?eab, is the pattabingcf
tbe bobp of Cb2tfie, anoatfo bou graunte btm tbat eatetbof that
b?eab, c? bztnbetb of that cup biioooogtbelp, to be gUtpof the
us ilo?os
1^-
r
i-'l
H
: l?i
'' • li
« ^
I-
I , • '
' ■' .1 ,: "
, r :i!
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
Deatfj, ac!&to eare arO o^ne OamnaHon,
caufe be eOeemetb not tbe ILojdb bebp. boo eratmr, jbat
tbefe tBOP?bB of &,Paule, rtobenbc fattb: Ifweeate, itaduanta-
geth vs nothing: or if wee 'eate not, wee want nothing therby ;
«7i. • u "ft rpohen of tbe ILozbs JLable, but of otbtr common mcara.
wnenn me tben betbertopet, toe all agree, tsut nobjlet bsfee,
controuerfic tob^rin tb^ btffentton botb Ranb. Ebe hnberRanblng cf tt,
confifteth. toberin It cbeeflpe (lanbetb» ts a Rep to tbe true frarcbtiig
foojtbe of tbe truetfa. ifo? tobo can Teebe bjell a remebpe, tf be
hnotoe not befoze tbe btfeafe i 3It ts nettber to bebpnieb noz off-
feniblcb, tbat in tbe matter of tbis &acrament tbere be btuers
popmeB, toberin men fcotmteb to be learneb) cannot agree, ae,
babetber tberebeanpCranfLbRanttaricnoftbefajeab, o? no: anp
cozporall anb carnall pzefence ofCbztRes fubRance, o? nr. jKHbe-
tber 8bo?atton (bue cnip bnto dSob) is to be bocubnto tbe ^acra-
mentozno? anb tobetber CbriRes bobpe be tbere offerebtnbreb
bnto tbe beauenlp J^atber, bp tbei^zeefleo? no? anb tobetbet
tbe eutll manrecetuetbtbe naturali bcbpof CbztRe o? no. ^et
neuertbeies afiinaman btfeafebinbiuerapartes, commonlp tbe
cztginallcaufe of fucb btuers bifearefitobicb is fpzebabzoab in tbe
bebp^ boo come from one cbeefe member, as from tbe Romacbe,
0? from tbe beab, euen fo all Rue afozefatb boocbitflpbange bpon
tbtficne qufRton, toblcbis. What is the matter of the Sacrament ?
tobetber is it tbe naturali fubRance of bzeab, o? rbe narurall fut-
flance of Cbztfls otnne bobp? SLbe truetb of tbis guefttcn trtielpe
trteb out anb agreeb bpon, no boubtRjatlceafetbecomrouerfietn
all tbe reR. iFoz If it be CbzlRes clone natural bcbp, bo?n of tbe
^Htrgtnf ibenaffuteblpe (feeing tbat all learnebmen in England
Co far as 31 Hnotoe, botbc netoe anb olbe, graunt tbcte to be but
one fubRance, tbcn3Ifap, tbcp niufl neebs graunt aranfubflan.
tiation: tbat t«, a change of tbe fubRance of b?eabe, tmo tbe
fubRance of Cb?tRefi bobpe. 2^ben alfo tbep muR necbs graunt
tbe carnal anb co?poral pzcfence of CbitRes bobp. aben muft
tbe Sacrament be abogreb toitb rbe bcnout bue to dTbtifle btm
felfe, foz tbe bnltie of tbe ttootiatures tn one perfcn. Cben if
tbe 3^?eefl bo offer tbe Sacrament, be bcotb ctfer inbeeb CbztRe
btm felf. Slnb finallp tbe murtbercr, tbe abucutercr, o? tofcfteb
man recetutnge tbe Sacrament, muRe neeoes tben recetue alfb
tbe naturali fUbflance of CbilRes otone blefl'eb bobf e, bctbe fle^e
anbbloob.
^otoontbe otberfibe, tf after tbe truetb ftal be truelp trfcb
out, it fba'I be fcunb, tbat tbe fubRance of bjeaoe is tbe natural!
fubRance of tbe sacrament, altbougb fc? tbe change of tbe bie,
office anb Otanitte of tbe bgeab, tbebzeab inoeeo^acramentallp
* ts
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
{fi cbangel) intorbe b .breof ae tljetoatcriniiffapttfnie
te facramenrair? cbangeo tnro fountatn? of rogeneratton, anb
per rtsenatural fubfrance cbercf rematnerb al one-jastoac bcfp?e:
if 3Ifapetf;etniefoluctoncf tbat fb^tnerqueftton (tuberuponall
tb2ferontroufrO?fi boo bang) be, tbar tbe natural fiifcfrance of
b2^fb"» is tbe marerlall fubrtancein tbe Sacrament of Cb^tftes
bleffcb babp: tben mtift It neeoes fellato? of tbe former p?opoflitton
fconfefleb ofaltbatbe namebto belearneb, fofar as 31 b3o bnobje,
in England) tobtcbc ts tbat tbere is bnt one matertall fubftauce in
tbe Sacrament of tbe bob?, aiib one onlp Itbetotfe in tbe ^aera-
nientof tbe bloab, tbat tbere ts no fucb tbinge tnbeebe anb in
truetbe, as tbfP call CrantUbftantiatton t fo? tbe fubrtaiice of
b^cab remainetb fttl in tbe J&acratnent of tbebtbp, tben alfotbe
narural! fubftanceof Cb?tfrec bumain nature, toblcb betooft of
tbe Oairgin wary is in i^eauen,tobere it reignetb noto in gio^p,anb
nor beer inclofeb bnber tbe fo?mc of b^eab, tben tbe goblp bonour,
tobicb is onelp oue bntotSjo tbe creator, map not be boonbnto
tbe creature toitbout ibolarrpe anb facrtlege, is not to be boon bU'
to tbe fcoipe Sacrament.
Cben alfo tbe totcbeb, 31 mean tbe impenitent murtberrer, ab-
ucurrrer, o? tucbe Itbe, boo not recetuetbenaturafl fubflanceof
tbe bU flt'b bubp anb bloob cf Cb?lfre. iftnaflp, tben bootb it fol-
looae, tbat Cb?iftesbleff?bbobp anb bloob, toblcb toas once cmlpe
cfFerebanb fteb bpon tbe Crcffe, beinge auapiable fog tbe finnes
of afl tbe tobole tooglb. Is offereb bp no mcge, in ibe narurall fub-
fraiice tberof, norber faptbej^geeft, nog anp otber tbtng* li5ut
beer befcge toee go anp further to fearcb in tbts matter, anb to
toabe Casittoere) to fearcb anb trpe out Cos toe map) tbetruetb
beerof in rbc Scripture, it (ball boo toe!! bp tbe toap to bnoto tobe-
tber rbep tbat tbus niahe anftoere anb foluctcne bnto tbe fogmer
pgtnctpall queftton, boo rabe atoap ftmplp ano abfolutelp tbe pge-
fence of Cbgtfresbobpeanbbloob, from tbe Sacrament ogbetneb
bp Cbgtfre, ano bulpe mintfrreb accogbtng to blsbolp cgbtnance
anb infritution of tbe fame. tlHnOoubteblp tbep boo benp tbat
btterlpe, eltber foto fape, og fo tomeane. ^^eerof if anp man
boo og toil! boubt, tbe boohes toblcb are toglrren alreabp in tbte
matter of tbem, tbat tbns boo anftoere, toil! mabe tbe matter
plaine.
i^oto tben toll! pourape,tobatbtnbeofpgefencebao tbep graunt,
anb tobat boo tbep benpe i iBgeeflpe tbep benp tbe pgefence of
Cbgttts bobp in tbe natural! fubftancc of bisbumain anb aflumpt
nature, anb graunt tbe pgefeuce of tbe fame bp grace: tbar is,
tbep atFtrme anb fape, tbat tbe fubQance of tbe natural! bobpe
anb bloob of Cb?t(le is onlp remaining inipeaben, anb fo fball
115 2 be
8 A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
be bnto tbe latter bare, toben be IbaU come agatne In gIo?pe5
(accompanteb battb tbe SitigelBof l^eaiictt) to tuoge both rbe
Qutche anb tbe beabe* 2nb tbat tbe fame tiatural fubflatice of
tbe bfrp bcbp attbbloobof Cbjlfie, becaufe tt to bntteb bnto tbe
beutne nature in Cb^tite tbe feccnb perfonof tbe a:rinitle. a:ber«
fo?e itbatb not cnelpUfeinttfelfes butts alfoable togliieanb
bootb gtue Ufe bnto to manp as be o? Ibal be partabers tberof, tbat
is, ibatto all tbat boo beleeiie on bis name, toblcbarenotbo^ne
of blocb (as ^ lohn fattb) o? of tbe tcti of tbe fietbe, c? of tbe
tolll 0^ man, but are bojne of (Cob: tbougb tbe felf^fame fub^
fiance abtbe fiilUn ipeauen, anbtbep feg tbe rime of tbetr ptl.
grtmagebtoelbeerbponCEartbJ bp grace 31 fap, tbat is, bp tbe
itfemenclcnebtnioha anbtbe properties of tbe fame, meetefo?
our pilgrimage beer bpon eartb? tbe fame bcbp of Cbrifie is beere
Prefent toitb bs. CBiien as for ejample, tore fape, tbe fame &unne
(tcibtcbinfubftance)neuer remouetbbie place out of tbe ^eauens,
is pet prefent beer bp bis beams, ligbt anb naturall infiuence,
lobere it Ibinetb bpon tbe eartb* iFor (C;bs SSaoorb anb bis &a-
cramentsbe (asittoeretbebeamsof Cbtifi) tobicb is sol iufii-
tiae, tbe ^unne gf rigbteoufnes*
_ Cbus bad tbou bearb, of tobat fort or feet foeuer tbou be,
boberinbDotbtlanb tbe prtncipallftateanbcbeef popnteof ail tbe
controuerfies, tobicb boo propcrip pertain bnto tbe nature of tbis
^acranientf 2s for tbe bfe tberof 31 graunt ibere be manp otber
tbinges, toberof beer 31 baue fpoben nof bing at all. 2nb notoe
leaOe tbou iuflelp migbteft complain, anb fap, tbat 31 baue in
openinge of tbis matter boon notbtns els, but biggeb a pitte,
anb baue not Ibut it bp again: or broben a gap, anb baue not
mabe it bp again: or openeb tbe boobe, anb baue not rtc«
febit again: or els to call me tobat tbou litteft, as neuteral! btf-
fembler, or tobat foeuer els tbpluftano learning fijail Ceruetbee
to name me tooorffe: a^berfore beer noto a toil (bp (Cobs grace 3
nor onlp fijortlp^ but fo cleereip anb platnlp as a can mabe tbee to
bnotoe, tobetber of tbe aforefaib ttoo anfooers to tbe former prin-
cipall ftateanb cbeef popnt booth libe mebeft: pea anb alfoa
toill bolbeall tbofe accurfeb, tobicbeintbis matter tbat noto fo
troubletb tbe (tturcb of Cbrift baue of ®cb receiueb tbe bepeof
bnotolebge, anb pet go about to fimt up tbeboores fo tbat t^p
tbemfeiues toil not enter in nor firifer otber tbat tooulbe. 2nb
as for mine otone parte, a conllber but of late tobat charge anb
cure of foule batb bin committeb bnto me, toberof ®ob bnotoetb,
boto foon'a Ibal be calleb to giue accounte: anb alfo noto in ttoa
toorlbe tobat perill anb banger of tbe latoes concerning n»p life a
am noto in at tbis wefent timet «Qtbat foHp toer e it tben for me,
noto
Cook Q'm ^
%i 'tA lo-ti-iz ^
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. 13
tlje !Lf?f)e cup, totfcl; (as !;e faitlobe rcceaueb of tbe JLrjb, tbst be
taa ituEii t!;em before,ariO uoid rebf arfetb tn bifi €ptftle i J truft
III man iafarfreniaJ reaf n, butbe lod arsunt mc, tbat^tats
»Jiof itbtipfotc be.
Ji3j.o tbeii, if pcugrarnf mee, tbat PaulcijiD b-'efbefn^mecf
iwiiba, tPb!Cb be to^iteifcJ Her bs iben retearfe anO ccnfiCitr
Paules liavCir. boh.'cb be fati-b, CEbdii fpahe fbnsbpcn fbe Ciippe»
This Cup is the New Ttft.ment inmyblcod, this doo; asofteiias ye
ilwll diinl^ei: ia the remembrance of me.
31 iacu'Oe bnc'ae, toberbir rpat Cb^lOfi bJtr^Dfl fpobcn bpcn
ti.ecupIncremtaenifgbiPintocr^b, 301)8*tflfeauaMinfjgtiifica'
it. n fo afi iiiienn fi. cuiiOfi ate 110, f nD purpcfef, fas all tur #ar-
liaitif IK men Ooo fpeah) as tl;ep boere fpcben bpcn tbe bgeaoe. 3[f
ti tfi be BraimteO.Tbjbicb rbtnae 3! rbinb nu man can benj: rbt n fur-
tl;er3freafcnibns. 10ut rbe tnos^Oe (is) intbetDoo^ba rpchtn bp-
untbe itojbfi bjcabe boottmiabteipfigntfie (fapibcf) tbe change
of tbefuDftancecf tbat hstbicbScetb before it intotbc fubOance cf
tyat babtcbfcUotoetb after, tbat la, cf tbe futflance ot b?eab into
(be {iibHance cf Cbltftefi bcope, iwben Cb?tlle faitb > This is my bo-
dy. jigoto tben if Cb^tfis tDoo?ba tobtcb are fpohi n bpon tbe cup,
bubicbPaule ttere rebearfetb be of tbe fame mtgbi anb potoer,
botb in l»co?htng anb flgiUfptng: tben mud tbia b3oo?b (is)
toben CbgtRe fattbe J This Cup is the new Ttftament, &c. ttrne
tpe fubflanceof tbe cup into tbe fubftaiue of tbe neou tcflament*
anb if ibou toilc tape, tbat tbia tooot'be (is) notber maSeib
nog figmfietb anp fucb change of tbe cup, aitbougb it be fatb
of Cb^lfie, tbat tbie cup is tbe neto teftament^ pet Cbgtd ment
no fucb change ac tbat. j^arrpfir, euenfofape3I. tobtnCbgtfte
fatbof tbebgeab, tobicb bK toob, anb after tbanbagiuen, bgahe,
anb gaue tbetn, raping: Take, cat, this is my body, be rnetK no
inoge anp fucb change of the fubftance of bgeaae into tbe fubeance
of bis naturall baop, tben be ment of the change anb tranfub-
flaniiatioii of tbe cup into tbe fubdance cf tbe neine il efiament.
9[nb if tbcu totlt fape tbat tbe tocogb (Cup) bar in CbgtPs
tooogbs bcorb net fignifietbe Cup it ult, but ite ®aaine og tbing «,.ii ,i,-
ctnreineb in tbe cup, bp a figure calleb Metonymia.fog tbat CbglQfi a
looogbes fo ment, anb rnufte nabs be tafeen: tbonfaift berp icel.
liSut 31 p?ap tba bp tbe toap, bxr note ttoo tbiugs, irin't tbat
tbia tooogoe-j is. batb no fucbe ftrengtb eg figntticattcn in tbe
Jlcgbea tDoogbs, to mabe og to fignlfte anp tranfubftanciaticn.
&eccnblp, tbat tbeiLcgbs toocgba teberbp be inftitureb tbe 0a-
crament of bisblocb: bebfetb a figuratlue fpeacl;. i^ocobatne
tbm ia it, tbat feme fo earneftlp boo fap, as it Uiere an in-
falUole rule, tbat in bcarine anb in tbe inrtitiition of the ^3cra=
nienta, Cbgifte bfeb no figiirs, but all bia toocgOes fire to be
C fttatH'
14 A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
ftralneOto ttflr P?oper ftgnfficartcns i totcn as ti^r tofjat foetier
tt)oii fatSft boas In tbe ciip^nctber tbatno? tb^ cup it feir^tahtng eue«
rpebocij^etnbtspioperfigntfiicatton, teas tfjc netotenamentjtiut
in bnSctfianCitng tbat bobtcb toac in tbc cup bp tbc cup tbat te a *
guratliic fpeacte : pea anb alfo tbcucanft not bertfic o? truip fap
cf tbat tpbetber tbou faieft it teas toine o? Cb?tfrs blcub, to be tbe
netoteftanient toitbout a figure alfo.SDbus in cue fentence fpcfeen
of Cb?tfte, in tbe ir.rtitutton cf tbe S)acrament cf bta blciio,
tbe figure niiifr belp bs ttoife. bntrtie it tp, tbat fonie boo
b3?ire, tbatCl>?lfte bfetb no figure in tbe bearineof faitb, no?
in tbe Inrtitution cf bis facramentp* HSut feme fapi if toe IbaU
tbufisbmit figures in bcctrine: tbeu (bail all tbe articles ef our
faiib, bp figures anb aUeBo?tes Ibo^tlpbe fransfc?n!eb anb bn-
, , Icfeb, 31 fap it is lihe fault, anb euen tbe fame, to benpe tbe figure,
Aug. Qc doc. (jje place fo requiretbe to be unberlfanbeb, as bainip to
chnftiina. itafi ;uratiue fpeacb, tobicb is to be bnberftanbeb in bis
h. 3. ca. i(?. proper fignification*
SL\}^ rules toberbp tbe fpKCl) {slnKiteen,tobenitisrigiJratiue,5
toberbp it is neiie. Auguftine in bis bOObe« De doftrina Chriftiaoa,
giuetbbiuers learneb Uffous, berp neceffarp to be bnotoenof tbe
(tubents in <!Dobs toor?be. £iDf tbe tobicb, cue 35 toil rebearfe, tobicb
is tbis • If (faitb be) the fcripture dooth feeme to conimaund a thing,
which is wictced or vhgodly, or to forbid a thing that charitie doth re-
quire; then know, faitb be, that the fpeach is figuratiue. 'Slnb fO? ejt-"
ample, be feingetftc tbe raping of Cb?ifte, in tbe b;. chapter of
Gardiner in lohn.Except ye eate of the-fleflie of the foiine ofman,and drinke his blood:
his acfwers "o' baue life in you.It feemeth to comm:>und a wicked or anvngod-
to the i6i- & h thing, wherfore it is a figuratiue fpeech,coramaunding to haue Comma-
ii6, obiecti- nion and felowlhip with Chrills paiTion, and deuoutly and holfomly to lay
vp in memory, that his fletb was crucified and wounded for vs.
Sfnbbtor 3ican nctbutniaruail atToniemen, furelp ofmucbej^
ccllent fintmffe'of tolt, anb of great eloquence, tbot are not
Ibanieb to to?ite anb fape, tbat tbta afojefaibe raping of Cb?itle is
after Augufline a figuratiue fpeacbe tnbabe t botobeitnotbnto
tbe learneb, hut to tbe bipcarneb. Dare let anp man tbat but in«
blff. rcntlp bnberfianoetb tbe Latin ttngue, reabetbe place in
Auftine: aiib if pe petceiuenot clarlp Auguifins tooo^Os, anb
nitne tobeccntrarpe, letnieabibetberof tbe rebufte,
2Lbis lelToii of Augufline 31 baue tberfc2e tbe ratber fet f002tbe,
becaufe it teacberb bs to bnberfianb tbat place in lohn figuratiue =>
Ip.Cuen fo futelp tbe fame leffcn toitb tbe ejainple cf Auguftins
eypcfiticnstberof, teacbetb bs not cnlpe bp tbe fame, to bnber»
flanbCb2taesteco«bes intbejlnmtutioncf tbe g)acranient botb
of bts b.bp anb of bis blocb figuratitielp, but alfo tbe berp tretoe
meaiiing anb biiOerfiauotngecttbefame»ift^2tfto ccnmiaunbeto
^ eate
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
If
eate ttj? fieflieoF tbeLnnecf man ano toOgfnhebFjsbloo&e, fttm»
ett) to ccmmaun?J an tnconuenteiiie aui an bngcOftnes,?/ ts euen Da
tf tt be bnberftanoei) aa rbe a)3O?0s boo ftanbe tn tbetr p^o«
per ligntficattcn: ano tberfoje mtin oe bnberRanbeb flguratluelpe
anb fptrttuallp, as Auguffine oootb soblp anb learneblp inter-
p?ete tbem: tben fnrelp Cb?tfie commaunOtns inbifi lafi Supper
to eat bis bobp aub b?inf?e bis bloobe,fameb to commaunb in founb
of tooo?bes as grate anb eucn tbe fame iiiconuenieuce anb bngob-
IpuelTe, as bib bifi toocgoes in tbe bj. of lohn : anb tberfo?e
miia euen bp tbe fame reafon, be lihebjife btiberflanbeb anb ejr-
pounbeb figiiratiuelp anb fpirituailp, as &.Auguftine bib tbe otber:
iCabeninto tbat etpofitton of 5>. Auguftine map feeme to be tbe
moie meete, fo^ tbatCb^iflein btefupper, to tbe commaunbe-
ment of earing anb b?inhinge of bis faobp anb blocba abbetb J Doo
this ia remembrance of me. taaabtCb toOOgbS futelpe Soere tbe feepe
tbat openeb anb reuealeb tbe fpitituaJI anb goblpe ejcpofition bnro
^aint Auguftine.
iBut 31 baue tarieb longer in fettinge foogtb tbe fo?me of The Lords
Cb?tRes toooiba bpon tba 3l£i2bes cup, to?ttten bp Panic anb Luke cup as the
tben 31 bib intenb to boo» g!nb pet in fpeabtng of tb& fo?nie of Preefts fay
Cbjlftfi tBoo?bs, fpoben bpon bis cup,commetb noia to mp remem-
b2ance tbe fo?me of b)oo?bs bfeb in tbe Hatin #a(re, bpon tbe
ILo^bs cup. UKberof 31 bo not a little meruatle, tobat Iboulb be tbe
caufe, feeing tbe Jlattn ^paffe agraetbtoitb tbe CEuangelifls ana
Panie, in tbe fo?me of tooogbs faib bpon tbe b?eab tobp in tbe
tDOo?oes fatbe bpon tbe lLo?bes cup, it bifferetb from tbem all, pea
anb abbetb to tbe hooo^bes of Cb?ifle fpofeen bpon tbe cup tbefe
tooojbs, Mifterium fidei, tbat ts, tbe mtfterte of taitbe, bjbtcbe are
not reb to be attributeb bnto tbe S>acrament of Cbitftes bIoob,no-
tber in tbe CEuangelifls, no? in Pauie, no? fo far as 3f ftnoto in anp
otber place of bolpe Scripture, pea anb tf it map baue feme goob
ejpofittone,pet tobp tt Iboulb not be as toel abbeb bnto tbe toooibes
of Cb?trt bpon bis B?eab, as bpon bis Cup, futelpe 3! boo not fie
tbe mtfterie. anb becaufe 31 fa in tbe bfe of tbe JLattn tbe
^acramenteof tbe bloobabufeb,tobcntt tsbenpeb bnto tbelape
people, cleane contrarpe bnto <Cobs mofte certain tooo^be: fc?
tobPj ^ Ooo befacb tba, iboulb tbe sacrament of Cb?trts bloob be
benieb bnto tbe lap Cb?ifttan mo?e tben to tbe j^?eefte i gDib not
Cb?tffe Ibeb bta bloob afmel fo? tbe lap gcblpe man,as fo? tbe gcb-
Ipe ^?eefte i If tbou toilt Tape, pes tbat be bib fo. liffut tbe ^acra«
nientof tbe bloob is not to be recetueb hoitbout tbe cffetinge bp
anb facrtiictijge tberof bnta (Cob tbe iFatber, bo:be fo? tbeqiiicbe
anb fo? tbe beab t anb no man map mabe oblation of Cb?tfts blocb
bnto Cib but a j0?eeft,anb tberfo?e tbe is?eeft alone,anbtbat but
tn bis cnlp, map receiue tbe Sacrament of tbe bloob. anb
call poll tbtSi> ^j'atfters, Myftenum fidei ? c i aias.
■i *^1
i
16 A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
2'as, alas, 3 fcare me, ttls ifi befl.?e 0oCi, Miftcrium iniquitari*,
tbe mlfterre cf ttiiq:ittte, fnct> ae Paule fp. aHerbct. in bra C2-
iThef 2, ptftle to rbe Theffalonians. a:bel.O?0 be mercltull bntfilifit and
Praier tietT, bfi, llgbteti !)te countenance bp :n bo, and be merctfijll bnro
Pfal. 67. \3B. Oat boe map bnom tbP bjape bpon eart be, and anmnge all
people rbP faluarton.
The Miffe fa- Slble MuCie of tbiatton frandetb bpon SLtanfnbfranrtatfon bta,
crifice iniuri- coo'iii gcrmaine, and tbev dno groto borbbpon one ground, a be
oustoChriils Lr.?d toeede it tut of bts?ii«tntar£ie lbo?tlpe, if if be bis bUffed
paflioa ' and pleafure, tbat bitter rcor. 2Lo fpeafie of tbifi oblatione,
^ botoe inncfce is it tntuctouB bntc Cb?trf es paffion t
^dtof it can not, bnttottbbigbebla'pbemp andbatnousarro-
gairp, and inrcllerabiep^tde, be claimed cF anpman,ctber tben
of Cb'tfre bimfelfe J baVs miicbe and bob) plain! Ir repugnerb bm
ta tbe manlfeft baoojda, the true fence and meaning of bolp ^bcrlp-
ture In manp places, efpeclallp in tbe CEptfi le to tbe Hebrewes: tbe
matter It Is fo long, andotberbaueba^ittenin It at large, tbat
mp minde is noiee, not to Intreate tberoF anp fnrtber.
iFo? cnlpin tbls nmfcribllng, 3 Intend to fearcbout and fet
foogtbe bp tbe Scriptures (according to (©.drs gracious gttte of
mp pco?e bnotoledge) tobetbw tbe true fence and meanlngeoF
Cbt'iffCfi b(ioc?dcs in tbe tnftitutlon of bts bcipe fuppcr, djore-
cutre anp S^ranfubflantlatlcn.) as tbep cal It t o? tbat tbe berp fut-
nance of b2cade and balne doo remalne ftlll in tbe JLo?dCB Supper
and be tbe materiail fubflance of tbe bolp Sacramente of Cb^iffe
our Sauiours blelTed bodpe and bio:de. |0et tbere remainetbone
Gardener in Quidditi of Duns in tbis matter, tbe foblcbe bccaufc fome
the anfwere tbat to^ite nofio doo feeme to Ube it fo baell tbat tbep babe dripped
to theiy ob-btmoutcf Dunces dudp anddatfee tetmes, andpgtcHed btm and
icdiion. painted blni in frelbecoloutes Of an elf quentfliie; anomaptbct'
fo?e deceaue tbe moge, ejcepte tbe errour be tnarelpe efcbeteed.
Duns faltb in tbtfe tooogds of Cbgtde, This is my bodye, tblS pgr-
noione demonftratiue, meaning tbe moogde (This) it pe iptfl hnoioe
babat it dcotb ft^boe eg demonftrate,tob^tber the ogead tbarCbgtft
tocfi eg no: be anfmeretb no, but cuelp one tbmg in fubdance tr
paintetbe, toberof tbe nature og name itdootbe not tcil, but lea-
uetb tbat to be determined and told bp tbat bobtcbfcllotcerb tbe
booogd isj tbat is bp Praedicatum, as tbe Cogicifin dootb rpeahe : and
tb^rfcge be calletb tbis pgonotone demcndtatiue. (This; indiuiduum
vagum, tbat is, a matidging pgoper name, mberbptoe niappopnte
t ut and fbetoe anpe one tbtng in fubflance, tobar tbinge foeuer it
be. afbat tbifi imagination is balne and bntruelp applped bnto
tbefe toaogdes of Cbgtfle, This is my bodye: it map appeare plalnelp
in tbe bjoozdes of Luke and Paule fatd bpon tbe cup,conferred toitb
tbe fdgme bf baoogds fpoften bpou tbe cup inWathewc andWarke.
S^H
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
17
JFo? aSbPCntbebjeaacitlfifalDOf all. Thishmybodye: foofMi-
thewanOMark, ir t£fatOC bpontbe Cup J This is my blood, afxutf
in rbc toaojOa, 2LbtB ts ni? b Dp, tbiJ idoo^dc C This) be as Duns
calletbtt, a toatiD?tnae name tiappapme anotbe ue foo^rbanp
cne tbtng, tobereof tbe name anfi nahire tr Onotbe tnt fell: lo
mufte if be Ithe nife tii tbofe moo^Des cf Mathewe ano wiarke bpon
the 31o?DB cup This is my bloode, llgut til t be iDOO^Des of Mathewe anD
Marke, tr figutfietb ano popnretb our tbe fame tbat tr Doctb tn rbe
3Lo?Db tDoc?Ofi bpon rbe cup tiiLuke aiiD PauJe, tobere tr ts fatD :
This cup is the new teftaraent in my blood, &c. jSLbCrefoge tu Mathewe
anD Marke tbe p?cnotiin Dcmontirartue Obis) Dcotbe nor toanoer to
P'jpnte onelpe one tblng tn fubrtance, not Ibebotnge Cobat trts,
but tetierbe tt platnelpe tobat tr tfi, no leffe tn Mathewe auD Marke
bnto tbeepe tbents Docn tnLuke auDPaule, bppurrtng toorbtB
tooojD (cup) bcorb bata rbe epe, aiiD bnto tbe care, jfo? tahtng tbe
cup ano Demonttratlng 0^ (beiotng it bntobtBDtfclpleB, bP rbts
p^oncbone Demonarattue, (this) anD faptng bnto rbem, Drink ye all
of this: tr toafi tben aft one to tape. This is my blood, as to fape:
This cup is my blood, meantnge bp tbe cup as tbe nature of tbe
fpeacb DGOtb require t rbe tbtnge cantetneD tn rbe cup. &o ittsetntfe
batrbout al Doubt, bjben Cb^tfte baD ralien b|eaDe, gtuen tbanbB,
anD b?oben tr, anD gtufng tr to bts DtfctpleB, fatD, Take: anD fo De-
nionftrartng anD Hjetntng tbat b?eaD tobtcb bee baD tn btfi batiDea,
to rape tben. This is my body: anD to baue fatDe, This bread is my
body.
as it toere aft one, f f a man lacfttnge a iftntfe, anD going to bts
SDtGf rfi,boculD fap bnro an orber,bt)bom be faoo to baue ttoo bntues.
^tr 31 P^ape pou lenD mee tbe one of paur bntueB. maaere it not
nob) all one to ancmere btm, Mr, bolDe 31 coin lenDe pou tbta to
eat pour mear, but not to open ©tfters totrbaU: atiD bolDe, 31 mil
lenD pou tbtB iftnlfe to eare pour meat but not to open fflipOerfi.
SLbtB fimtltruDe leruetb but fo? rbts purpofe, to Declare rbe nature
cf fpeacb bottba!!, habere as rbe tbtnge tbat to ocm .iifirateD anD
ftetoeD, tseutDenrlp percttueD, anD openlp bnotocn to rbe epe.
Ii8mt€i gaoDlLc?o, tobaratoonDerfult tbtngts tf to fee, boto
feme men Doalabour tateacb, tobar ts DemonftrateD anDlbeioeo
bp tbe p?onottrne oemonflrartue (this)ir, Cb?t(leB b)co?DeB tobeu be
fatetbs This is my bodv: This is my blood: boto tbep labour (3I fape; to
teacbe, tobat tbat (This) toas tben triDeeDe, bobcn Cb?ttte ipahe in Card, to the
tbe beginning of tbe fenrence tbe too ?De (This; Defo?e be baD p?c-130. obiefti-
nounceD rbe refle of tbe tooo?Ds, tbat folotoeD tn tbe fame fen- on.
tence t fo tbat tbetr Doctrine mape agree tottb tbetr Eraniubftan- God makers
ttaiionJ toblcb tnDeeD tB tbe berpe tounDarton, toberetnal rbeir agree not
erroiUcuB Doctrine Doctb ftanDe, anD beere tbe l,ranfubftanrta« mong them,
toura D60 not agree amonge tbem felueb:, no mQ?e tbrn tb^P Doo tn felues.
* tbe
Js I'.-'
i! a
'I i
x8 A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
tbe toco?Ds h)btc!) to20ugbt tbe 2iranfiibffanrtatt^n, toften
Otb firft infttture i}iB sacrament: cobertn innocencius a liStJbop of
Rome of tbe latter Dates, and Duns (as tea.. norei) befo?e) bo attrt-
bute tbe tooorhetinto ttieb)OD?b (Bmedixit) B:eireo: but tbe reft
fO?tbe ntofte parte, to Hoc eft corpus meum. This is my body,&c. Duns
tberefc?e tottb bts fette, becaufe be puttttb tbe coauge betoge muft
tieebsfapi tbat tbts, tobfnCb?tfte fpahe trin tbe begtnntngof
tbe fcntence, toas tii beeb Cb^tftes bobp* JFo? tn tbe change, tbe
fiibftance of b?eabbtb Depart') anb tbe change toas nobj boon in
Benedixit (fattb be) that i»ent befo?e t ano therefore after bttn anb
bts tbat (this) isas then inoeeb Chgiftes bobp, tbougb the bjoogb
btb not import fo nuicbe bur cnelp one tbtnge tn fubftancer
boblcbe fubftance after Duns (tbe b^eabe betnge gone) rnuft
neebs be tbe fubftance of Cbjtfts bobp. ii5ut tbep tbar put
tbeit SDranCiibftanttattcn to be to?ougbt bp tbefe tD002bes of
Cb?tfte. Thisismybodye: anbooofap, tbattobeii tbe tobole fen-
tence toas ftntfbeo tben tbts change toao perfecteb anb nut befoie:
tbep can notfap, but pet Cbjtftes (this^ tntbe begtnntngof tbe
fentence before tbe otber tooogos toere futlp P2anounceb,bjas bjeab
in beeb. Ji5ut as pet tbe change toas not boon, anb folong tbe
b?eab muft neebs remain, anb fo longe tottb the untuerfall content
of at tranfubftantiatours, the narurall fuhCtance of Cb^trtes bo-
bp can not come: anbtberefo?e mufttbetr (this) ofnecetTttpebe-
monftrate anb ftjetoe tbe fubftance, bjbtcb toas as pet tn tbe P2o-
nounctng of the tirft bjoojo this bp CbAfte, but b?eab. U3ut boto
can tbep mahe anb bertfie Cbitfto booo^bs to be true, bemonfrra.
ttngtbe fubftance tohtcb in tl;cbemenriratton is but bjeab, anb
rap thereof. This is my body, that ts, as tbep fape the natural fub-
france of Cb?tfts bcop t ejcept tbep tooiilb fap, tbat the berbe, is,
flgntftetb, is mide, oz, is changed into. ^110 fo then if the fame
berbe, is, be of tbe fame effea in Cbzifts tooozbs fpoheu upon the
cup, anb rehearfeb bp Luke anb Paule: the cup oz the totue tn the
Cup mufte bee mabe oz turneb into the netoe Sieltamente, as toas
beclareb befoze.
^ . 2Lbere be fame among the Sfranfuhftanttatours, tohtch toalHe
Gardener a fg totUlpe aub fo toarclp bettoeen thefettoo afozefatb opinions,
ncucraii or gHototng them both, anb bolbtng platnelpe nother of them bothe,
lick ot both thiuha thep map be calleb Neutrals, ambobejtters, cz
fides. fiicpe as can toift on both fibes. Chep plap on both partes.
ifoz totih the later, rljep o© allcto the boctrtne of the latl fillable,
tohtch ts that Cranrubftantiattcne ts boonebp mtracle tnantm
ftanrjat the fcimb ef the laft fpllabte (um) tn tbts fenrence. Hoc eft
corpus meum. aub the? boo allotoe alfo Duns his fantatttcall tma»
gtnarton of individium vagum, toat bemcnOrateth as he reached tn
Chztfles tooczbs, one thing In ftibftance, then being (after his
wtnbe) the fubftance of the hobp of ChztOe. SI nier-
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
a merbatlctic tttnge^ ftotoone ttiatrcan agra toith botf; tWe
ttoo, tljep being fo contrarp tbe one to tbe otber* jfo? tbe one
faitbea tbe toooioe this^ ijenicnaratetb tbe fubOance of bgeao: anb
tbe otber fattb no not ft, tbe b?e6b to gone^ anb it bemcnOraterb
a fiibflance bobtcbe is Cb?t(ieo bobp.
aufte faitb tbis tbirb man, pa bnberfianb notbing at all.
2Lbep agree baell inougb in tbe cbaf popnte, tobtcbe is tbe grounb
of all: tbatis, botbbotb agraanb beare loitneo, tbat tbereis
aLranfubftantiation. 2Lbepoo agratnOab tntbat coucluflon: 31
graunt. Btst tbeir p^'ccrfTe anb boilrine tberot boo etien aftocU
agra togeatber: aa bib tbe falfe toirnea befcgi? Annas 9 Caiphas a-
gainft Cb^iff: o? tbe tfto toicbcb 3?t:bgeB againft Sufanna. jfo?
againfre Cb?ifte tbe falfe toitnefiVa bib agra no bonbt ro fpeab all
againfte bini. SlnbtbelctcbebifJOgee to re ooib agraeb to con--
bemne piDzc Sufanna: but in etaminaticn of tbetr tottne(Tea, tbep
bilTentcb fo far tbatal toaa founb falfe that tfcep toent abcur, botb
tbat toberin tbep agrarb, anb alfo tbofe tbingea, tobtcl; tbep
b?ougbt fo? tbeir p?oofea»
2Lbus nuicbe baue 31 fpcben, in fearcbinge out a folucicne fo?
tbts p?incipall quertton, tobicb toas, tobat ia tbe matertall fub-
ftance of tbe bolpe gjacraniente in tbe l.o?ba flipper ? jpoto leaft
31 lliDulb feem to fat bp mine otone conceite, nio?e tben ie mat:
o?leffrto regard tbe bcdrine of tbe clb eccIeliafticaU to?itera-,
tben iacoRtienient for a man of nip podge learning anb fimple toit
fo? to boo. 2nb becaufe, alfo 2 am inbab perftoabeb, tbat tbe clbe
ecclefiaftical to?itera unberftoob tbe true meaning of Cb?trt in
tbts matter; anb babe botb to trulp anb foplainlp ret it foo?tb in
certain placee of tbeif togttingee, tbat no man tobicbe iotllboucb-
fafe to reabe tbem, anb toitbotit pgetubice of a cogrupt iubgement
toiU inbifFerentlp toeigb tbeRi^ 3 confter tbeir minbea none otber-
totfe tben tbep declare tbemfelfcea to babe meiite: 3 am perftoa-
bed (2 fap) tbat in reading of tbem tbus no man can be tgnogant
in tbts matter, but be tbat toil Ibut iipbisoton eiea, anb blind-
falb btnifelf. tssaben 2 fpeabe of CEcclefiaftical to?itere, 2 niean
of fticb aa toere befo?e tbe toicbeb bfurpaticn of tbe fee of Rome
toaa grotoen fo unmeafurablp great, tbatnotonlp toitb tiranni-
cal potoer, but alfo toitb ccgrupt bocttiiiei, it began to fubuert
Cbgtftea gofpell, anb to turne tbe ftate, tbat Cbgitle anb bifi ape*
Kleafetintbe CTburcb, bplibe boton. iFo? tbecaufee afbgefatbe,
2toin rebcari'e certain of tbeir fapinga: anb pet becaufe 2 tabe
tbem but fo? toitneffes anb efpounberaoftbiabcarineanbnot aa
tbe autboga of tbe fame, anb alfo fog tbat ncto 2 toil not be tebi-
cus 2 toill rebearfe but fetoe, tbat ia tbga olbe togitera of tbe
■®rafte Cbwteb, anb-'otber tbgee of tbe iLatin Cbuicb? tobicb bo
feem unto me to be tn tbi« matter moU platne.
SLbe
(9
Gard- to the
4. obiectiou.
God makers
agree again't
the trutth.
Note.
The confent
of the olde
authors.
lo A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
CbC 5liltb'^?0 are Origen, Chrifoftome atll Theodoret. 8Dt)?
ILaitri, are Tcrtulliane, Augiifline atto Gehfius. 31 Hiioa) tbfre caw
be n;rtiiiae fp Henfo pialiiip, but tbe crafip tplt furuilbeb tntrb
el. quince can DarHen it, anonocea it quite frtm tbc true mean-
ing tea ccntrarpfence* Slno 31 bnccu alfo tbat eltquence, craft,
and ftmncfi of tcit batb s^ne abcut te bleare tnens eie^, anCi to
ftop tbeir eares in tile afozenameO tD^'iters, tbat nien ibculbe tia»
tber beare uo^ fee, lebat tbcfe 9iitbr^c botbe cu^'ite aiiD teacbe fo
pratnelp, tbat ejcepte ineti (boiiloe be niaOe bJfb Oarbe blinoeaub
cu afe t tbep can net but of necefftiie, if ib^P vtb teaOe ano toap
tbem tnOtfFerenrip, borb beare anCi fee tubat ttep Oao nieane loben
el qjence,craftr>an£f ftneiufft of toit babe ban ali tbat tbep can*
J?.ix>tetu£ beare rbec!Oe bJt'itvrocf tbe 35^eehe Cburet*
Orietin Ori^ene, iutiicb Ub: 0 aitutit i ifo. pares agoe J a man fu? tbe tr*
celiencF of bis leamtnge fo bigbipe eileemeo in Cyjtfles Cbnrcb,
Eccle Hift be boas CuimreO ano itiogeo tbe itngniar teacber in bis time cf
Li 6 Ca ? Cbf'ttisreligion, tbcconf.unDerif bereftes, tbefcboolniaiOertif
manpgoblpiriarters, ano aiuptnerof I'Lbe mi teries in fcrtp-
ture. I^e tD?lting upon tbe rb chapter cf^atntMathewes gofpell,
faietb I bus* But if any thing enter into the mouth it goeth away in to the
belly, and is auoided into the draught: Yea and that meat whiche is
fanctified by the woord of God and praier, concerning the matter thereof,
it goeth away into the belly, and is auoided into the druughte. But for tbe
praier which is aided vnto it, for the proportion of the faith, it is made
profitable, makinge the minde able to perceive and fee that which is pro-
fitablc. For it is not the immateriall fubftance of breade, but the woord
which is fpoken vpon it, thitis profitable to the man that eatethit not
vnwoorthely. And this I mean of the Typical and Simbolical, tbStiS}
^acramenrall bodye. Oub far gfetb^baoojOsoiOrigene, tobsre
it IS platne, fiirftc rb^t Origene fpeahtngbeer of fbe facramrntof
tbs (logos fupper as tbe laiic tooigbiS bcoplatnelp ftgntfic, bcotb
ineane anb teacbe, tbat tbe material fudftancc tberof ts receiueb,
oigefteb, anb auotOeb, as tbe material fubltance of otber bgeab
anb meats ts, lobtcb coulbe not be, if tbe re ojere nomateriall fub*
ftance of bgeabatall, as tbe fantaSiciU opinion of Ilcanfubftan-
tiationbm® put. 3IrtBatooglbtoofeetbe anfmereoftbej^apiftes
The papifls la tbts place of Origen, in tbe blfputatiins mbicb toere in tbis
obieaion a- matter tu ibe l^ariiamente boufe, anb in botb ibe bntuerfities of
gainft Ori- Cambridge anb Oxforde, tbep tbat befenbeb £ranfUbCtantiattoti
gene. - fatb, tbat tbiS parte of Origen toas but fet fogtb d l^te hp Erafinus,
anb f beretoge is to be fufpecteb* Ii5ut booa batne this tbetr anfioere
is, it appearetb plainlp* iFog fo mape all rbe 8(cb olbe auibogs,
Sobieblaptniloe lib:arie9f, anbare fttfcogrbof laie, be Up tbifi
An other ob- reafon reh JCteb, as Clement Alexandrinus, Theodoreius, lullinus, Ec-
iedtion. ckllallica hiftoria, Nicephori, aub Otber lUCb* Sill Ctbet aiUtoete tbep
HO
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. ^ r
{ifit), faptns ttjat Origen tfi ncteO to feaue erre6 in feme popntes^
aiib therfoje fah&etfi not tote gtuentn ttfsmatter tnto tim*
iBtit ttts anftoer toell toatgtet Ocott mtntfter aooO matter to tte
cleere confutarton of it felfe. iFc? tnoeet toe graunte, ttat t«
feme popntc Origen oto erre. UStit tbofe etrours are gaitereo out
ant notet tott of lerome anO Epiphanius, fo ttat tt® U)OD?fees
(ttofe errours ejteeptct) are note fo muct tte mo2e of auttorttte,
ttat fucte great learned men toot patns to tate outof ttm,totat-
foeber tt^P ttougtte tn tint to be tojiften amis. liBut as concern'
inge ttlfi matter of tte iLogOs Supper, notter ttep no? pet euer
anp ott^t anclente auttog 010 euer Cap, ttat Ongen oto erre.
becaufe ttefe ttoo anftoers tabe teene of late fo confuteO Gardener to
ano confounoeo, ttat it Is baell percetueO, ttattteptotll tateno the i6$
place t tterfoge feme tottcte taue togltten fince ttat time, taue
foggeO ttoo otter anftoers, euen of tte fame mouloe. ate fog-
mer totereof ts, ttat Origen in ttls place fpafee not of tte &acra«
mente of bgeao o? totne of tte ILogos table, but of an otter mlRt-
call meat t of tte totlct Auguftine mabett mention to be gt-
uen bnto toem, ttat teere taugtt tte fattte^ befoge ttep toere
baptlfeO. lifiiut Origens otone tooogOes tn ttoo fentences befoge re»
tearfeo being put tegltter, pgooue ttls anfteere bntrue» iFog te
fattts ttat te meanett of ttat figuratltie anO mtotcall boope,
totlct pgofitett ttem, ttat Ooo recetue It tooogtttlpe, alluoinge fo
platnelpe bnto Paules tooogOsfpcbenof tte ILogOs Supper? ttat
It ts a ftame fog anp learneO man once to open tts ilioutt to tte
contrarpe. ano ttat tgeaOe totlct S». Auguftinipeabett of, tecan
not pgoue ttat anp fucte tttng toas bfeb tn origens time, ^ea and
ttougt ttat coulbe tee pgoued, pet toas ttere neuer tgeaoe tn anp
time called a facramentanbcdp,fautngtteracramentaHtgeadof
tte itogds tables tobtcb ts called of Origen tbe tpptcall and fpmbc-
Ileal! boDp of Cbgtfie.
ILte ftcond of tte ttoo neto found anftoers, ts pet moRe mon- Gardener io
Rrous of al otter, totlct ts tttS. But let vs graunt ( fap ttep ) that the fame
iDgtgen fpake of the Lordes Supper, and by the matter therof was vn- place. ^
derftanded the materiall fubftance of bread and wine : totat tten fap
ttep i For thoughe the materiall fubftance was once gone and departed
by realbn of Tranfubftantiation, whils the formes of the bread and the
wine did remaine, yet now it is no inconuenience tofaye, that as the
material fubftance did departe at the entring in of Chriftes body vnder
th'aforefaid formes, fo whan the faid formes be deftroyed anddoo not
remaine, then commeth again the fubftance of bread and wine.
And this, fap ttCP, is very meet in this mifterye, that that which
began with the miracle, lhall ende in a miracle.
3[f 31 nor reo tbts fantafie I booulo fcarcelpe baue beleueb,
tiiat anp Icarnco man cuer touu b baue fet fcogtb fucb a fooURie
fan-.
21 A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
fantafiet h)bic|> not onelpe lachctb al groiini), eltljer of ®oJjb
b300?t>, reafcn, o? ofanp ancient tojiter, but alfo U clean contrarp
to tfte common rules of fcboole blutnitie t mbtcl) is, tbat no mtra-
cle is to be afftrmeb anb put tottbcut neceffttie. anb altbougfj fo?
tbeir fogmer mlracle,to!)lcb is tbetr CrantUbftantiatton,tbcp baue
fome colour, tbougb it be but batne,faFing it isbocne bp tbe potoer
anb bertue of tbefe tooogbs of CbglGe, This is my body: nt to matte
rbts fcconbe miracle of returntngc tbe material! fubGance againe
tfiep batie no colour at al» £D? els 31 pgap tb^m Qieba roe, bp tobat
tocogbs of CbglGe is tba feconb miracle togougbt*
aLbuB pe map Ck, tbat tbe Geigbts anb Ibifts tobicb crafre anb
toitte canintienre totogeGe tbe true fence of origen cannot tahe
place. But note let bs beare an otber place of origea, anb fo toe
toil letbim go.
Origsnin tbe eleuen pomile Super Leuiticumfaltb: that there is
alfo euen in the foure Gofpells, and not onelye in the olde Teftament, a
letter (mcaninge a Utterall fence) whiche killethe. For if thou followe
(fattbbe) the letter in thatiayinge.- Excepte yeeate thefleiheof the
Sonne of Man, and drink his blood> &c.
This letter dooth kill, jf in tbat place tbe letter bootb bih tober-
in iB comraaunbeb tbe eating of CbglGes fie® i tben Girelpe in
tbofe tooogbeB of CbgiGe-* toberein CbgiGe commaunbetb ba to
eate biB bobp, tbe literall fence tbcrof itbetoife boorb bil. iFog it ifi
noleGe crime but euen tbe fame anb all one in tbe literati fence^
to eate CbgiGes bobpe, anb to eate CbgiOes Ge®e. ®sberefoge if
tbe one boo bill, ejrcepte it be bnberitanbeb Gguratiueipe anb fpi-
rituallpe: tbtn tbe otber fureipe btotbe bill Itbetoife. But tbat to
eate Cb?ifiw fle®e bootb bill fo bnberGanbeb, Origen affirmetb
plainlp tn bis tooogbea aboue rebearfeb t t^bcrefoge it cannot be
tunip benieb, but to eate CbgiGea bobpe literallp bnberGanbeb>
wuiG neebs after bim bill Ubetoife.
2Lbe anttoere tbat iB mabe to tbiB place of Origen of tbe l^apiGs,
is to ftoU®, tbat it betoraietb it felf, toitbout anp further confuta-
Lib. 3.ca. u. tion. 3lt ts tbe fame, tbat tbep mabe to a place of ^.Auguftin tn
lltBbOObDedoArinaeChriiiiana: tMbereaB^.Auguftincfpeabetbitt
effette tbs fame tbinge tbat Origcn bootb bar. Cbe j^a^iftB an-
ftoeristblst Co tbe carnal man tbe literal fence is burtfulf. Out
not to to tbe fpiritualU Sis tbougb to OnberGanbe tbat in bis pgo-
per fence, hjbicb ougbt to be taben ftguratiuelp, toere to tbe car.
nail man a bangerous perill t but to tbe ft}irituali man none at all.
chrifoGome. to chnfoCome, tobom 31 bginge fog tbe feconb togiter in tbe
(Sretb Cburcb, fpe fpealing againG tbe unbolp bGnge of mans
bobp, tobicb after &.Pauiecugbt tobebeptpureaubbolp, as tbe
In oprre itn- berp temple Of tbc ^olp CDboG, faitb tbufi: If it be a fault (fatrb be}
perfeft. ho. 9. to tranflatc the Iwly veffels, in the which is contdned not t^ crewe bo^e
in Matthe, . oF
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. 2, ^
of Chrifte, but the miftery of the body, to private vfes, how much more
offence is it to abufe and defile the veflels of our body ?
SLtjefe be tbe tDoo20es of chrifoilomc, ®ut 31 trotoe that bar
man? fotole Iblfto are beutfeo, to defeat tbte Place# 2Lbe autbo?
fattb i one is fufpected. 3[ atifloere: but in this place neuer fault
toaa found toltb btm, bntotbefe our dates# andtobetbcr tbisau-
tbo? boas lohn Chrifoftomc btm felfe tbe arcbbtlbop of Conftantinople
oi no, tbat ts not tbe matter# iFo? of all tt ts graunteo# tbat be
toas a to^tter of tbat age, and a man of great learntnge: fo tbat
tt ts mantfed, tbat tbts tobtcb be togttetb baas tbe recetued optnt-
on of learned mentnbts dates#
jSD; els bndoubtedlp tn fucb a matter bis faptnge Qioulde baue Girdener to
bin impugned of fome tbat boi?ote tn bis time, o? neere bnto tbe the ob-
fame# Nay (fattbanother) if thisfolucioawil notferue: wemiye ieftion;
faye that CbjtfoHome did not fpeak of the vefltls of the Lordes cup, or
fuche as were theo vfed at the Lordes table, but of the reflels vfed iu the
Temple in the olde lawe.
abts anfbaer hail lerue no moge tben tbe otber. J'o? barechri-
foftom fpeaftetb of fucb beffells, babertn baas tbat babtcbe toas cal-
led tbe bodp of Cb2tfte, ahhoughe it was not the true body (fattb be)
of Chrifte, but the mifterye of Chriftes bodye. Of tbe beflels of
tbeolde latoe tbe bajtters doobfeno fucb manner of pbgafe: fo^
tbetr facrtfices tnere not called Cbitdes bodp# ifo? tben Cbrtft
toas not but tn tbadotos and figures, and not bp tbe Sacrament of
bis bodp reueated# Eraimus, tobtcb baas a man tbat coulde bnder-
(fande tbe tooo^des and fence of tbe ba^tters, altbougb bee toould
not be fane to fpeab agatnft tbts errour of Cranfubftantiatione,
becaufe be durfte not: pet tn tbts time declaretb platnlp tbat tbts
faptnge of tbebajtter is none otbertotfe to be undcrftandedi
Yet can I (fattbe tbe tbtrd j^aplft) ftnde out a fine and fubtil foluci- Gardener in
on for this place, and graunt all that yet is faide, both allowinge heere the the fame
writer, and alfo that he raentdf the veflels of the hordes Table. For place.
( fattb be ) rbe body of Chrifte is not contcined in them, at the Lordes
Table, as in a place, but as in a mifterye; 31s not tbts a p^tttp Ibtfte,
and a mtfttcall folutton,* But bp tbe fame folutton tben Cbatfts
bodpe tsnot tn tbe ILo^des a:able, nogtn tbei^reeftecbandes,
nor tn tbe ptjre, and fo ts bee beers no tobere# ipo? tbep bjtU not
fape, tbat be ts either beere o? tberc, as tn a place#
aCbtsanfooerepleafetbJotoelftbemahcr, tbatbebimfelf (af-
terbebad platd tottbit •tittle tobtle andlbetoed the finenelTe of
bts bjtt and eloquence therein) ts content to gtue tt cuer and fave;
but it is not to be thought that CbStfsftome would fpeak after this fine-
neffe or fubtiltic: and tberfo^e be returnetb agatne bnto the ftcond
anftoere fo? bts ftoote anher,tobtcb ts tiifftclentlp confuted befo?e»
anotb^rtoojteplaceof chrifoftomej hj^^cb rtf anp
^ 2 inotf»
H
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
ieilion.
tntiifTerencp map be beard) in plaine termes fettetb foo2tb tbe
truetb of tbtc matter.
Before the bread (faith Cb?tfOftcme ad Cefarmm monachum) be ha-
lowed, we call it bread, but the grace of God fandlifying it by the meanes
of the preefle it is deliuered now from the name of bread, and efteemed
woorthy to be called Chrifts body, although the nature of bread tarry in
it fiill.
Gardener to 2Lbefe be Ghrifofioms tooo?d«: hoberln 3! pjape pou, tobat can be
thf nh fata r? tboiiabte mo^e plaine agatnfr tbts errotir of SLraiifubrtan-
* ' tiaticnj tben to declare^ tfcat tbe b?eade abtdeib fo Bill i and ret
to tbia faplatne a place, fome are not albamed tbna Ibamefulip
to elude it, faptna ; we graunt that nature of bread remaineth ftil thus,
for that it may be feene, felte, andtafted, and yet the corporal fubftance
of the bread therfore is gone, leafte two bodies fhoulde be confufed to-
gether, and Chrifte fhoulde be thought impanate.
tiKillbat contrarietie and falfebood is in tbis anfloere, tbe fimple
man map eafilp perceiue. 3fs not tbifi a plain ccntrarietpe to
firaunt tbat tbe nature of bgead reniainetb fo Bill, tbat it map be
fane, felte, and tafled; and pet to fape, tbe co^po^ail fubftance is
gon, to auoid abfurditp of CbJtRfi inipanation ? and tobat mani-
fed falfljood is tbtfij to Cape o^ mean, tbat if tbe b^eade Ibauld re«
main Bill, tben mufl follotoe tbe inconuenience of inipanation i
as tbcusb tbe berp bgeade coulde not be a Sacrament of Cb?tBs
bodp (as loater is of bapttfme) ejcepte Cb?tfte Uoulde bnite tbe
nature of b?eade to bis nature in bnitieof perfone, and maHe of
tbeb?ead, (Pod.
j^obo let bs beare Theodoretns, bobicb is tbe laB of tbe tb^a ®rah
ambOZS. Ipe bozitetb in bis dialogue Contra Eutichen, tbiis. He
that calleth his naturall body, corn and breade; and alfo named himfelf
Dial. I. a Vine tree; cucn he the fame hath honoured the Symboles (ipat iS tbe
facramental fignes) with the names of his body and blood, not chan-
ging indeed the nature it felfe, but adding grace vnto the nature.
tiHHbat can be mo^e plainlp faide, tben ®iB, ibat tbis olde toziter
fatetb. That although the Sacraments beare the name of.the body and
blood of Chriffe, yet is not their nature changed, butabidethflill. And
where is then the Papifts Tranfubftantiation ?
Etc fame toztter to tbe fecond dialogue of tbefametDOogbea'
gatnfte tb'afozeretde beretiquc Eutyches, tojitetb pet niozc plainlp
againft tbis errour of EranfubBantiation, if anp tbing can be
faide to be moje plaine. ifo? bee maiygb tbe beretifie to fpeahe
tbusagafnfle bimtbatdefendetbtbe trnedcartne, tobombecalm
letb Crthodoxus.
As the Sacramentes of the bodye and bloode of our Lorde are one
thinge before the inuocation, and after the inuocation they be changed,
and are made another; fo likewifc the Lordes bedy (fatrpe Ipe bere-
tifee)
Theodoret;
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. 25-
) is after the aflumption oraflentioii intoheauen, turned intothe
fubftance of God: {jerettKe meatjinge tfterebp, ttjat
after his aftentton, rematneth uo tno2e a man.
2Lo thts Orthodoxus anftDereth thusanb faith to the heretlfte:
Thou art taken (faith he) in thine ownefnare. For thofe mifticall Sym-
bols or Sacraments after the fanctification doo not goe out of theire
owne nature, but they tarrye and abide ftil in their fubftance, figure, and
fliape, yea and are fenfibly feene and groped to be the fame they were be-
fore, &c.
at thefe booths the papllies hco nartle: anh to rape the trueth,
there tooo?hes be fo plalne, fo full, anb fo cleere, that tbep can not
tell tohat to fap, but pet thep toll not ceate to go about to plap the
cuttless and to cafle their colours cuer them, that the trueth
tohlch Is fo plalnlp told, ihculO net haue place.
ahls autho? to?0te rrap thep) befo2e the determination of the
Churche. astoho toould fap, tehatfoeber that tofched man inno-
centius the Pope of Rome hutetmlned In his ccngregatlones tolth
his monbs and frlers,i h8> ntufl be (fcg fo Duns faith) holoen fo? an
article, and of thefulOance of cur faith. &cme doo charge this n
authc? that he toasfuipected robe a Neftorian, tohlch thing In Cal-
cedon Counfalle toas trped and p?®ued to bt falfe. But the fouled ^
ftlft of al, and pet the bed that thep can finde In thlsraatter,tohen
none other toll! fertie: Is to fap, that Theodoret bnderdandeth hp
the to«>?d (tubdance) accidents, and not fubdance Indtod.
ahls Sfiofe is llftea glofe of alatoper, bpon a decree, the tejct
tohereofbeginnlng thus: Statmmus, that is. We decree, Cheglofe
of the llatoper there (after manp other p?lttp Ihlfts there fet f(o?th)
tohlch he thlnheth totu not toell rerue to his purpofe, and therfo?e
at the lade to cieere the matter, he faith thus t after the mlnde of
oneiLatoper. Vel die Cfalth hf) Statuimus id eft, abrogamus, that Is J DiftIne.Ca.4,.
or expound we doo decree, that is, we abrogate or difanul, 3fs not thlS Statuimus.
a ga olpe, and to(ti?thP£ elofe *, toho tolU not Cape, but he Is toco?,
thpe in the latoe, to be retelned of counfalle, that can glofe fo toelf,
aijd finde in a matter of dlfflcultte,fuch fine tolfts?and pet this is
the latoe, 0? at lead th^ Slofe of the latoe. and therfo?e boho can
tell, tohat periil a man maplncurre tofpeah agatnd Itetcepthe
toerea latoper indeed? tohtchecanheephlmfelf outof theb?iers
tohat toltide foeuer blotoe.
thcrtto f e hsf^ hearde thgtotojlters of the (Crabc Church,
nor all tohat thep d® rape: fo? that toerea labour too greate fo?ta
gather, and too tedious fo? the JSeader; But one 0? ttoo places of
euerp one, the tohlch bote plain, hoto ful, and hoto cieere tbep he
agalnde the errour of aranfubflanttatlon, 31 refer It to the tuoge*
tnent of the tndlffttent IReaoer*
and
2,<S A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
SlnlJ no^ 33 tollltfeeUitfe reljearfe tt)e faplnas of otter t!)?a olO
anttcnt to^tterc ot tte ilatin Cturct, ano fo niahe an eno.
TertuUian 31 l>^Stn iDttt Tcrtullian,totom Ciprian tte tolp mar»
tp? fo ttgtlp efleemeD, ttat totenfoeuer be tooulo baue bta boob, be
toaa toonre to rape: ^tue bs naoo tbe e^aifie r.
atts olOe to^tter tu fourtbe boobe agatnft Martian the bere-
ttbe, fattb tbuo 5 lefos niade the bread, which he tooke, and diftributed
to his difciples, his body, faying: This is my body. That is to lay (fattb
Tertollian) a figure of my body.
3[n tblfi place tt t« platne, tbat after Tertyliians ejrpcfitlon,
€b?tne menre not bp caiitnge tbe b?eaoe bto boOpe, anci tbe totne
btfi blooO,tbat ettber tbe d^eabe doaa tbe naturaU boope,c; tbe totne
bts natural blooo, but be called tbem bte boope and blood, becaufe
be toould tnditute tbem to be bnto bo ^acramentes: tbat ts bolpe
tobens and flgnesof bta bodpe and of bla blood: tbat bp tbem re-
membjtng and flrmlp belieulng tbe benefites p;ccured to uo bp bts
bodp,b)blcb toaa tojne and cructbed fo; bs, and of bla blood,ODbicb
toas Ibed fo; ba bpon tbe crofle: and Co totrb tbanba receiulng tbefe
bolp ^acramentea,acco;dtn8 to Cbjiflea tnnttutfcn, mtgbt bp tbe
fame be (ptrltuallp nourtlbed and fed to tbe tncreafe of all god-
lines in bs beere in our pilgrimage and iournep toberein toe malbe
bnto euerlaSing life.
2bisb)as bndoubtedlpe Cb;tQe our ^auiours mind, andtbis
Ifi TcrtuUians eypofition.
Gardener to twangling tbat tbe S^apIRs doo mabe to elude tbis fapinge
the 16. obie- Tertullun, ip fo far out of frame, tbat it euen foerietb me to
Afion tblnb on it»
TertuUian togitetb beete (fap tbep) as none batb Uoon bitbertoo
before bim.
a.bis raping is too too mantfefie falfe: fo; Origene, Htlarye,
Ambrofe, BafiU, Grigorie, Naaianzeae, ^aint Auguftine, and Otbet old
autbo;s, Itbetoife doo call tbe facrament, a figure of Cb;iQes be-
dpe» and tobere tbep fap, tbat TertuUian tD;ote tbiSj toten be toas
tn a beate of dirputatione b^tb an beretibe,couering bp all means
to ouertb;ob3 bis aduerfarpe* as tobo fape, be toculd not tabe
beed, tobat be did Tap, and fpeciallp tobat be toould fii;ite in fo bigb
a matter fo tbat be migbt baue tbe better band of bia aduerfarpe*
3!£ tbis credible to be true in anp godip totfe man i 3^otD mucbe
lelTe tben is it tDoo;tbpe to betbougbt o; credited in a man of fo
great a ttiit, learning, and ejcellencp as TertuUian is txio;tbtlp
eOeemed euer to baue been i
Ltbetoire tbis autbo; in bis firft faoobe againUe tbe fame bere-
tthe Martion, tp;ttetb tbus S God did not reiect bread, which is his
treature; for by it he hath made a reprefcntation of his body.
A Declaration of the Lords Supper. ^7
i^otD 31 prape pcu, toljat te tWB to ftp tjjat €f)?ine batt) mabe a
rap?eftmattcn (bpb?eab) cfhftboop, buttbatCMatjabtnaUu-
tab anb 02belneb b?eab to be a Sacrament, fo? to rep^efeni unto bs
blfi bcbp i ^oto babetber tb^ rep^efenratione of one tbing bp an
otber, requtretb tbe cojpo^al pjefence of tbe tbtnge tobicb is ft re-
P2erentcb o? no : euerpe man tbat batb bnberflanblng, is able in
tbispopnte rtbe matter is focleere of tt felfe) to be a fufFtctent
tubge.
abe feccnb boctour anb baziter of tbe JLatin Cbiircbe, tobofe Au^uftinc.
faptngeB a pgomtfeb to ret foo^tb,tB ^.Auguftine: of tobafe learning
anb efltmation, 31 neeoe not to fpeaae. iFc? all tbe Cburcb of
CbiiOe botb batb anb euer batb bab btm fo? a man of mofle Ongu-
ler learning, toitte, anb btlligcnce,botb in letting foojtb tbe true
boctrine of Cb^iSes religion, anb alfo in tbe befence of tbe fame
againSe beretibee,
SLbtfi autbo? as be batb tezitten mode plenteouflp in otber mat-
ters of our faitb t ft Uhetoife in tbis argumente bee batb tojitten
at large in manp of bia tooogbeB, fo plainlp agatnft tbis errour of
a^ranfubftantiation, tbat tbe i^aptds loue leadetobeare of bim
of all otber toiiters, partelp fo; bia autbo;itie, anb partelp becaufe
be openetb tbe matter mo;e fullp, tben anp otber bootb*
^berfo;e Sboillrebearre mo;e placeaof bim tben beertofo;e 31
baue boon of tbe otber, 0nb drd, ftbat can be mo;e plaine tben
tbat tobicb be to;ttetb bpon tbe S9. j^falme, fpeafting of tbe ^acra-
ment of tbe Eojba bobp anb bloob: anb rebeardnge (aa it tomj,
€bfijies tDoo;ba to bia llDifctplea after tbia manner*
It isnotthis bodye, whicheyedoo fee, that ye fliall eate, nother fhall
ye drinke this blood, which the Souldiers that cruciheme, lhall fpinor
Ihed,
I doo commend vnto you a mifterye or a Sacrament, which fpiritually,
vndeiftanded, fliall give you life.
J^oft if Cb;tde bab no mo;e naturall anb co;po;all bobiea, but
tbat one toblcb tbep tben p;erentlp botb bcarb anb fafte, no; otber
natural bloob, but tbat ftbtcb toaa in tbe fame bobp,anb tbe bobicb
tbeftulbietabib aftertoarb cruellp Ibeb bpon tbe erode:, anb no-
tber tbia bobpe no; tbia bloobe bciaa (bp tbia beclaration of au.-
gudine) either to be eaten 0; b;un!sen, but tbe miderie thereof fpi-
ritualip to be bnberdanbeb: tben 31 conclube (if tbia.faping anb
ejpoBtionof g>.Auguflineb8 ttue, tbat tbe miderp tobicb tbeoi-
fciplea Iboulb eate, ooaa not tbe naturait bobp of Cb;id, but a mi*
derp of tbe fame fpirituallp to be unberdanbeb.
ifo; aa ^* Auguftine faitbe in bia lo. boob Contra Faufium. Ca. 21;
Chriftcs flelli and blood was in the olde Tcftament promifed by fimili-
tndes and ^gnes of their I'acnfices, and was exhibited indeed and in trueth
vpon the crofle, but the fai^ U 9[ remem-
kranec vpon ault??- '" " ^ ' "" "'
1' !
li
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
ana tn t)l0 booft, De fide ad Petrutn. Ca. 19. be fattbe, tbat in thefc
facrifices, mrantng nf rfte tlaela®, kisfiguratiuely fignified, what was
then tobe giuen: but in this facrifice it is euiientlyc fignified what is alrea-
dy giuen (biiDerRanoing tn rbe srrtflce ijP' n tbe aulter) the remem-
brance and thanks gluing for the flefhe, which he offered for \s, and for
the bloode which he fhed for vs vpon thecroiie; a^tn plaC^
ano eiitoentlp tr mai' appeare»
gfn other emoemanb deer place tuber tn it appearetb^ tbat bp
tbe Sacramental b^eab, tobtcb Cb?ttte called bta boOpe, be ment a
figure of btfi btOp. as boon tbe 3 i^falme, tobere Auguftinc
fpeaberb tbta tn plain rermes*
Chrifte did admit ludas vnto the feafte, in the which he ccratnended
vnto his difciples the figure of his body.
abtfi toafi Cb?tneB lafle Supper befc^e bta pafftona tPbertn be
btb C20etne tbe facrament of bta bobp^as all learned men do agree*
Auguftine alfo tn btfi ^3 CBpttlle to Bonifacius teacbetbs boto
Sacraments doo beare tbe names of tbe tbtnges tubeteof tbep be
sacraments, botbtniSaprtime, and tn tbe iLo?ds table, euenas
toe call etierp good frtdap, tbe dap of Cb^tfles paffton: and euerp
Caller dape, tbe dape of Cb^tlles refurreaton: tobentn berp deed
tbere tbss but one dap bjbertn be fuffred, and but one dap
tDbetln be rofe.Slnd tobp doo boe tben cat! tbem fo,tbbicb are not fa
tndeede, but becaufe tbep are tn Itbe time and courfe of tbe peere,
as tbofe daps mere, tobertn tbofe tbtnges mere doone t
Was chrifte, Cattbe faint B Auguftine, oflered anymore but once?
And he offered himfelf. And yet in a Sacramente or reprefentation not
onelye eueryc folemne feaft of Eafter, but alfo every daye to the People
he is offered: fo that he dooth not lye that faith; he is euery day offered.
For if Sacraments had not fome fimilitude or likenes of thofe things,
whereof they be Sacramehts^they coulde in no wife be Sacraments: and for
their fimilitudes or likenes; commonly they have the names of the things,
whereof they be Sacraments. Therefore as after a certaine manner of
fpeech, the Sacrament of Chrifts body, is Chrifls bodyj the Sacramente of
Chriftes blood,is Chrifls bloodejfo likewife the Sacrament of faith is faith.
after tbtfi maner of fpeacb, as S^ Auguftine teacbctb tn bts que-
fltcnes Super Lemticum and Contra Adimantum, it tS fatd tn fCtip^
tUte, cbat vij. eares oi corne be vip yeeres, feuen Kine be feaven yeercs,
and the rock was Chrifte: and blood is the foule, tbe tobtCb tail Taping
(fattb ^alnt Auguftine) in bis boche Contra Adimantum is bnder«
flandcd to bee fpoKen bp a figne og (igure.
Contra Maxi- For the Lord himfelfe did not flicke to faye. a:bis is mp bOdP, when
minum. Li. hec gaue the figne of his body. For we muft not conlider in Sacramentes,
faitbc Auguftine in an otber place, what they be 3 but what they
doo lignifie, or they be ligns of things, beinge one thing in themfelyes,
and yet fignifying an nothcr thing.
irog
Queftion y?.
Cap. 13.
Ca. ai.
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
ifoz the heauenly bread Cfaltb be) fpeahinge Of tbe sacramentall
b?eaOe by fome maner of fptach is called Chrilles body, wken in very
deed it is the facramente of his body, &c.
®abat can be mo2e platne, og tnoze cleerip fpchen, tben are
tbefe places of Auguftine before rebearfeb. If men toere not ob-
Qtnatelp bent to matntatne an bntruetb* anb to recetue notblnge
tobatCceuer bootb fet it foo^tbe* Pet one place moje of Augu-
iline toil 31 aileage, tobicb is berp cleare to tbis ptirpofe, tbat
Cb^tOes naturail bobp is in beauen, anb net beer coipcjailp in
tbe sacrament, anb fo let btm beparte*
Jnbisyo. treatice, tobicbe betojitetb faponioho, be teacbetb
plainip anb cleerip boto Cb2i(te being botb <5ob anb man, te botb
beer, after a certaine maner, anb pet in beauen, anb not beere
in bis naturail bobp anb rubfiance, tobicb be toob of tbe bleifeb
birgin Mary: fpeaWng tbtis of Cb^tfte anb faptnge: By his deuine
Maieftie, by his prouidence and by his vnfpeakeable and inuincible grace
that is fulfilled which he fpake : Beholde, I am with you vnto the ende
of the Worldc; But as concerning his flefli which hee took in his incar-
natione, as touchingc that whiche was borne of the Virgine as concern-
inge that whiche was apprehended by the lewes and crucified vpon a tree»
and taken down from the crofle, lapped in linnen clothes, and buried,
and rofe againe, and appeared after his refurrection, as concerninge the
fleihe, he faid ; ye (hall not eyer haue me with you. Why fo? For as
concerning his fleflie, he was conuerfant with hit Difciples xl. daies, and
they accompanying,feeing and not following him,he wentvp into heaven,
and is not heere.By the prefence of his deuine maieftie he did not departe;
as concerninge the prefence of his deuine maieftie, we have Chrifte ever
with us i but as concerninge the prefence of his flefh, he faid truely to his
difciples; ye (hall not ever have me with you. For as concerninge the
prefence of his flefhe, the Church had him but a few daies; nowe it
holderfi him by Faith, though it fe him not.
Cbus mucb Auguftine fpeahetb repeating one tbing fo often t
anb all to beclare anb teacb, boto toe ^oulb bnoerflanb tbe maiier
of Cb?tfles betnge beere tottb ba: tobicbe is bp bis grace, bP bis
P2obibencc,anb bp bis beutne nature, anb boto be is abfent bp bis
naturail bobpe tobicbe toas bo2n of tbe birgin «^ar?,bteb,^s rofe fo?
us, anb is aifenbtb into beauen, a tbere fittetb, as in tbe articlea
of our faitb on tbe rtgbt banb of <®ob, anb tbence (anb from none
otber place faitb Auguftine) be Iball come on tbe latter oape, to
iubge tbe quicb anb tbe beab»at tbe tobicb bape tbe rigbteous Iball
tben lift uptbeirbeab£i,anbtbeligbtof(15cbJBtruetb ibalfo Ibtne:
tbatfallboob anb errourettiall be puttnto perpetuall confufion:
rigbteoufnec Iball baue tbe bpper banb, anb truetb tbat bape ibali
beare atoape tbe bictojpe, all tb* enemies tbercf quite ouer-
rteotoen, to be troben bnber foot fo? euermo?e.
* (SB fiD ILo?b,
^5
lie-:!
' |t
30
Gelalius.
loh. i7i
A Declaration of the Lords Supper.
W JLo?o, 3! befeecb tbee batten tbtfi bap, tben fljalt tbou
begl02tfiebtDirt)tl)^ 8lo?p due unto tbP ftolpname, anb untotbp
beuine mateflp t anb toe (bal fing unto thee. In all lop, anb fellct*
tie, laubp anb p?atle fo? eiier nic2e» Amei»
tioto tooulb 31 niahe an enb» ifo? me tblnSa, Auguftine
is in tbis matter fo full anb plaine, anb of tbat autbo^itpe, tbat it
fljoulb not necb after tbie bis beclaraticn, being fo ftrmelpe
grcimbeb bptn (Bobs tooo?be, anb fo toell agreetnge toitb tbe otbet
ancient Stutbogs, fobbing info? tbe confirmation of tbib matter
anp meet anb pet 31 fatbe, 33 toDulb alleage tb?toof tbe Latin
Cburcb, to tefiifie tbe tructbe in tbiecaufe. igotee therefore tbe
latteof alllbalbeGelafius, tobicbe toas a Bilbop of Rome, but one
tbat toas Btlbop of tbat ^ee befo?e tbetetcbebbfurpation anb ti^
rannp tbcrcf fp?eb anb burft out ab?oabe into al tbe too?Ib. ifij?
tbifi man toas befo?e BoHifacius, pea anb Grigorye tbe firtte: in
tobofe bates botbe corruption of bottrine anb tirannicall bfurpa=
tlon bib cbeeftpe grotoe, anb bab tbe bpper banb.
GelafmstnanCEptftleof tbe ttoo natures of Cb?ifte, Contra Eu-
tichen, to?ttetb tbOS t The Sacramfnts of the body and blood of
Chrifte, which we receiue^are godly things wherby and by the fame wee
are made partakers of the deuine nature,^ and yet neuerthelelTe the fub~
fiance or nature of the bread and wine dooth not departe nor goe away.
iSote tbefe tooorbs 31 befKCbepcu, anbconfiber, tobetber attp
tbtng can be more plainelp fpohen, then tbefe tooorbes be againft
tbeerrourof Eraufubftantiatione, tebtcblBtbegroimbanbbit-
ter itPt, toberupon fpringe aU tbe horrible errours before re«
bearfeb.
liEberfore feing tbat tbe falftoob bootbappeare fo manifeftlpc,
anbbpfo manp toalesfoplatnlp, foclKrlpanbfo fiillpe, tbat no
man neebetb to be bccetueb, but be tbat totU not fa, or totu not bn-
berftanbe: let bs ai tbat baoloue tbetruetb:> embrace it, anb
forfahe tbe fallboob» 3For be tbat loueib tbe truetb, is of (Bob t
anb tbe lacb of tbe loue tberof is tbe caufe tobp (Bob fufferetb men
to fall into errours, anb topertlb tberint pea anb as^»Pauie
laletb, tobp be fcnbetbbmo tbemilliifions, tbat tbep beleue ipes,
bnto tbeir oton conbenmationt bCcaufe (faitbe he) tbep loueb
nor the truerto SLbts truetbno boubte is (Bobs tooorb. ifo? Cbriftc
btm felffaitb bnto bis father; Thy woord is trueth, M,he loue anb
Ugbt toberof almigbrp (Bob our beauenip father slue be, anb lights
en it in our harts bp bis bolp fpirit tbroufib Mus Cb2tfte our
LorOe, Amefl.
Vincit Veritas.
ilr.
xMr.
31
Mr. FOX id Volume of Ads and Monu-
ments, Edit. London^ 1^84.
Lib. 9. pag. 106. The Difputation held at Cambridge le-
fore the Kings Commijfioners, June zo. 15-49. wherein
Bijhop Ridley moderated.
GLin. Well, yetonceagain to you, thus. The very trueBo- P. ic(?.
dy.of Chrift is to be honoured, but the fame very true Bo-
dy is in the Sacrament: Ergo^ the Body of Chritl in the Sacra-
ment, is to be honoured.
Rochefi. Wellbeloved Friends and Brethren in our Saviour
Chrirt, you mufi: underftand that this Difputation, with other
that (hall be after this, are appointed to fearch for the plain
truth of the Holy Scriptures in thefe matters of Religion, which
of a long Seafon have been hidden from us by the talfe Glolfes
of the Church of Rome., and now in our days muif be revealed
to us Englilhmen through the great Mercy of God principally;
and fecondarily, through the moft gentle Clemency of our natu-
ral Sovereign Lord the Kings Majefty, whom the living Lord
long preferve to reign over us in Health, Wealth and Godlinefs,
to the maintenance of Gods holy Word, and to the extirpation of
all blind Glolfes of Men,that go about to fubvert the Truth. Be-
caufe therefore, that I am one that doth love the Truth, and have
profelfed the fame amongft you 5 therefore I fay, becaufe of con-
ferring ray mind with yours, 1 will here gladly declare what I
think in this point now in Contrpverfy. Not becaufe this war-
fhipful Dodror hath any need of my help in diffolving of Argu-
ments propofed againll him; for as me feemeth, he hath anfwered
hitherto very well, and Clerkly, according to the Truth of Gods
Word. But pow to.the purpofe, I do grant unto you (Mr. Op-
ponent) that the old Ancient Fathers do record and witnefs a c^r-
tain Honour and Adoration to be due unto Chrilis Body, but
they fpeak not of it in the Sacrament, but of it in Heaven, at
the right hand of the Father, as holy Chryf.ijiome faith, Honour
iT ^ 1
thou it, and then eat it ■
but that Honour may not be given to
E 2 the
1^1
31 - A Difputation in Cambridge
the outward fign, but to the Body of Chrift it felf In Heaven.
For that Body is there only in a fign virtually, by Grace, in
the exhibition of it in Spirit, Effed and Faith, to the worthy
receiver of it. For we receive virtually only Chrills Body in
the Sacrament.
Glin. How then (if it pleafe your good Lordihip) doth Baptifm
differ from this Sacrament? For in that we receive Chrift alfo by
Grace, and virtually.
Eocheji. Chrift is prefent after another fort in Baptifm, than in
this Sacrament; for in that he purgeth and waftieth the Infant
from all kind of Sin, but here he doth feed fpiritually the receiver
in Faith with all the merits of his blelfed Death and Paflion;
and yet he is in Heaven ftill really and fubftantially. As for
Example, The Kings Majefty , our Lord and Matter, is but in
one place, wherefoever that this Royal Perfon is abiding for the
time, and yet his mighty Power and Authority is every where
in his Realms and Dominions: So Chritts real Perfon is only in
Heaven fubttantially placed, but his might is in all things created
cffedually. For Chritts Flefh may be underftood for the Power,
or inward Might of his Flefh.
Glin, If it pleafe your Fatherhood, St. Ambrofe, and St. Augujline
do fay. That before the Confecration, it is but very Bread, and
after the Confecration, it is called the very Body of Chrift.
Maderv. Indeed it is the very Body of Chrift Sacramentally af-
ter the Confecration, whereas before it is nothing but common
Bread ; and yet, after that, it is the Lords Bread; and thus mutt
St. Amhrofe^ and St. Augujiine be underftood.
Glin. The Bread after Confecration doth feed the Soul, Ergo^
The fubftance of common Bread doth not remain. The Argu-
ment is good, for St. Ambrofe^ T)e Sacramentis, faith thus. After
the Confecration there is not the thing that Nature did form,
but that which the blefling doth confecrate. And if the Bene-
ditftion of the Prophet Elias did turn the nature of Water; how
much more then doth the Benedidion of Chrift here, both God
and Man ?
Maderv. That Book of St. Amhrofe is Vufpeded to be none of
bis Works.
Rochefl. So all the Fathers fay.
Glin. I do marvel at that, for St. Auguflin in his Book of Re-
Iradations maketh plain, that that was his own very Work.
Rocbefi.
ahout the Sacrament.
Kochefi. He fpeaketh indeed of fuch a Book fo intituled, to
St. Ambrofe^ but yet we do lack the fame Book indeed.
Glin. \\ ell, let it then pafs to other mens Judgments. What
then fay you, to holy St. C^frian 1200 years paft? Who faith.
That thie Bread which out L.ord gave to his Difciples, was not
changed in form or quality, but in very nature, and by the A I-
mighty word was made Flelh.
Maderc. I do anfwer thus. That this word Flefh may be taken
two ways, either for the fubftance it felf, or elfe for a' natural
property of a flefhly thing. So that Cyprian there did mean of a
natural Property, and not of flelhly Subllance. And contrariwife
in the Rod of Aaron, where both the Subllance, and alfo the-
Property was changed.
Glin. Holy St. Ambrofe faith, The Body there made by the
mighty Power of Gods word, is the Body of the Virgin Ma,y.
Kochefi. That is to fay. That by the Word of God, the thing
hath a Being, that it had not before, and we do confecrate the
Body, that we may receive the Grace and Power of the Body of
Chrift in Heaven, by this Sacramental Body.
Glin. By your Patience fmy Lord) if it be a Body of the Vir-
gin fas St. Ambrofe faith) which we do confecrate as Minifters by
Gods holy Word, then mufl it needs be more than a Sacramental,
or Spiritual Body, yea, a very Body of Chrift indeed i yea, the fame
that is ftill in Heaven, without all moving from place to place,un-
fpeakably, and far pafling our natural Reafon, which is in this
Myftery fo captivate, that it cannot conceive how it is there,
without a lively Faith to Gods word. But let this pafs. You
do grant that this Bread doth quicken or give Life, which if it do,
then it is not a natural Bread , but a fuper-fubftantial Bread.
Tioch^. So doth the effedtual and lively Word of God, which
for that it nourifheth the Soul, it doth give Life i for the Di-
vine Elfence infufeth it felf unfpeakably into the faithful Receiver,
of the Sacrament.
Glin. How then fay you to holy Damafcene, a Greei^Author,
who as one fritenius faith, flourilhed one thoufand years paft; he
faith thus, The Body that is of the holy Virgin Mary is joyned to
the Divinity after the Confecration in verity; and indeed, not fo
as the Body once aifumpted into Heaven, and fitting on the Fa-
thers right Hand, doth remove from thence and cometh dbwn
at the Confecration time, but that the fame Bread and Wine
are.
34
A Difputation In Cambridge
are fubftantially tranfumpted into the very Body and Blood of
cur Lord JefusChrift. If (faith he) thou doli not know the man-
ner how it is brought to pals, let it be enough to thee to believe
that it is done by the Operation of the Holy Ghoft; and we do
know no more, but that the living Word of God is working, and
Almighty, but the very manner how, L infcrutable to us j and no
great marvel, faith he, for we cannot well exprefs how the ma-
terial Bread, Wine or Water are tranfumpted naturally into the
fame Body and Blood of the Receiver,and be become another Body
than they were before. So faith this great Ancient Clerkj alfo this
Shew-bread with Wine and Water, are changed by the coming of
the Holy Ghoft, into Chrifts Body and Blood, and they be not two
Bodies there, but very one (of Chrift) and the fame.,
Rocheji. Firft, I deny (Mafter Dodor) that Damafcene was one
thoufand years pad: Secondarily,I fay,That he is not to be hoi-
den as an Ancient Father, for that he maintaineth in his Works,
evil and damnable Dodrine, as' the worlhipping of Images and
fuch like. Thirdly, I fay, That indeed God by his holy Spirit, is
the worker of that which is done in the Sacrament. Alfo I grant,
that there is a Mutation of the common Bread and Wine fpiritu-
ally into the Lords Bread and Wine, by the fandifying of them in
the Lords Word.But I deny that there is any Mutation of the Sub-
dances ; for there is no other change there indeed, than there is
in us, which when we do receive the Sacrament worthily, then
are we changed into Chrifts Body, Bones and Blood, not in na-
ture, but fpiritually, and by Grace", much like as Ifaiah faw the
burning Coal, even fo we fee not there the very iimple Bread, as
it was before the Confccration •, for an Union cannot be but of
two very things.Wherefore,if we be joyned to Chrift receiving the
Sacrament, then there is no Adnihilationof Bread, which is when
it is reduced to nothing, as it is in your feigned Tranfublfan-
fiat ion.
Gliii. So I perceive you would have me to grant that the Sa-
crament is but a Figure, which Tlmphylatms doth deny.
Rocheji. You fay Truth, he denieth it indeed to be a Figure",
but he meancth, that it is not only a Figure.
Glin. Whereas St.Pi?.'// faith, Fhat we being many, are one
Bread, he fpeaketh not, nor meancth one material Bread, as you
do here, Errn,hc fpeaketh of heavenly Bread. And holy Chryfo{hme
upon Matthiw faith, That the Pafchal Lai"nb was a Figure, but
the
ahout the Sacrament.
the Myftery is the verity. For the Difciples would not have been
offended to have drunk a figure of ChrilVs Blood, being well ac-
cuflomed to figures. For Chrilt did not inlfitute a figure
for a figure, but the clear verity inffead of the figure, as St. John
faith, Grace and Verity was given by Chrift. Doft thou fee
Bread ? C faith Chryfyiome ) doth if avoid or pafs as other meats
do which we receive ? God forbid. Ergp., &c.
Maderp. That ancient Clerk Origcn., upon the r5th o(St.Mjtth.
faith thus-. As touching that which is material in the Sacrament,
it defcendeth and iffuethout as other nutriments do; but as con-
cerning that which is celeftial, it doth not fo.
Clin. Chryfoft. Homily 83. upon Matthevp faith, That we can-
not be deceived of CFrifi's Word, but our natural Senfes maybe
deceived in this point, very foon and eafily ; his faid words can-
not be falfe, but our fenfes be many times beguiled of their
judgments. Becaufe therefore that Chrift faid, Ibis is my body.,
let us not at any hand doubt (faith he) but let us believe it, and
well perceive it with flie eyes of our underftanding. And with-
in a little after in that place he faith thus. It was not enough that
he was become man, and afterwards was fcourged for us, but
alfb he did reduce and bring us to be as one body with him, not
through Faith only, but in very deed alfo he maketh us his Body.
And after that he faith, that thefe works are not of mans power.
But the fame things that he wrought in his laft Supper, he now
worketh alfo by his Precept to his right Minifters, and we do oc-
cupy the place of the fame Minifters, but he it is that doth fan(ffify
and tranfumpt the creatures, he performeth ftill the fame.
Kochefi. Mr. Do(Sor, you muft underftand, that in that place
St. Chryfoflome fheweth us that Chrift delivered to us nofenfible
thing at his laft Supper.
Glin. Honourable Sir, by your patience I grant that he gave to
his Difciples no fcnfible thing infubftance, but a thing infenfible,
his own precious Body and Blood, under the only kinds of Crea-
tures. And truly, as it feemeth, 7'heophyladus beft knew the
meaning of Chryfoftome, becaufe all Authors accept him as a faith-
ful Interpreter of him. And he hath thefe fame plain words
Tranfeleraented and Transformed. Alfo "TheophyladMs Alexandri-
mis ftiper Marcum, Cyrillus, and St. Augujiine faith. That before
the confecration it is bread, but afterwards it is Chrifts very Bo-
dy. In like manner St. Augujiine upon the 3 3d Pfaltn faith, That
+ m
J 5 A Difputation in Cambridge
ill the laft Supper Chrift did bear himfelf in his own hands.
Now every man may bear the rigure of his body in his own
hands, but St. Augujitn faith it there for a Miracle. Irenxus in '
his Hfth Book is of the fame mind. And St. Juliin faith, I do lents^,
remember my words, &c. The Law and Figures were by Mofest
but the verity and Body came by Chrid. fcdiiwts
Roche(i. Well, fay what you lift, it is but a figurative Tpeech, fciiieotM
like to this, If you will receive and underftand, he is Elm, for
a property, but indeed he was not Elias, but John the Baptift.
And fo in this place Clirift calleth it his Body, when it was very
Bread. But better than the common Bread , becaule it was
fandtified by the Word of Chrift. t5ff£<ioc(
P. I op. I will prove it by another means. Chrift did fuifer
his moft glorious paflion for us really and fubftantially i Ergo, He
is alfo in the Sacrament fubftantially. The Argument is good, fefikii
becaufe that it is the lame here that was there crucified for us j
howbeit hereinvilibly, indeed fpiritually and facramentally, but
there vifibly, and after a mortal and moft bloody manner.
Kocbeji, Mr. Langdale, your Argument doth well conclude,
in cafe that his Body were here in the Sacrament after fuch a fort
- as it was when it was betrayed : But that is not fo s for he was
betrayed and crucified in his natural body fubftantially and really
in very deed j but in the Sacrament he is not fo, but Ipiritually
and figuratively only. liM.
Langd. By your good Lordlhips favour that is not fo, for he tkprafa
is there not figuratively, but verily and indeed by the power of
his mighty Word, yea even his very own natural body under the JiDttc
Sacrament duly performed by the lawffil Minifter. tkC
Madew, Ofaynotfo, for you fpeak blafphemy.
Langd. No, no Mr. Dodor, God forbid that either I or any Ttit
man elfe, ihould be noted of blafphemy, faying nothing but Dlpa
the very plain truth, as in my Confcience and Learning.! do no leG. feeni
Rocheft. O Mx. Langdale, I wis it beccmeth you not here to ajji
have fuch words. ^
Langd. If it like your good Lordftiip, I gave not the firft occa- tour
fionof them, but only did refute that which I was unjuftly bur-» ine
thened withall, as reafon doth require, and it grieved me to hear loth
it. He faith, if it plcafe your Lordihip, that there is a mutation
or change of the Bread after itisConiecrated 5 which if it be lb, ^
as I grant no lefs, then I would require of him, whether it be
changed
ahout the Sacrament. ^7
changed in the Subftance or in the Accidents, or elfe in both, or
in nothing ? No man can juftly fay, that there is a change ii:to
nothing. And all ancient Fathers do agree , that the fame acci-
dents are there Hill after, that were before ; nor doth any Do-
6tor fay, That there is any mutation both of the Subftance and
Accidents alfo i Ergo^ The Subftance of Bread is changed into
fome other thing that is there really prcfent under the forms of
Bread and Wine, which by Chrifts words muft needs be his own
Bleifed Body. '
Rochefi. Sir, you are deceived greatly, for there is no change
cither of the Subftances, or of the Accidents ; but in very deed
there do come unto the Bread other Accidents, infomuch that
whereas the Bread and Wine were not fandrified before,nor holy,
yet afterwards they be iandrified, and fo do receive then another
fort or kind of vertue which they had not before.
Roche(l. Chrift dwelleth in us by Faith, and by Faith we re- Pag. 118.
ceive Chrift both God and Man, both in Spirit and flefti; that
is,this Sacramental eating is the mean and way whereby we attain
to the Spiritual eating, and indeed for the ftrengthening of us to
the eating of this Spiritual food was this Sacrament Ordained.
And thefe words, ihk is my Body, are meant thus. By Grace it
is my true Body, but not my fleftily Body, as fome of you fup-
pofe.
Roche(i. 1 acknowledg not his real Subftance to be there, but Pag. 119.
the property of his Subftance.
"The Dettrmination of T>r. Nicholas Ridley Bijhop ^Rochefter upon Pag- *20.
the Conclufions above prefixed.
There hath been an ancient cuftom amongft you, that after
Difputations had in your common Schools,there (hould be fome
determination made of the matters fo difputed and debated, efpe-
cially touching Chriftian Religion. Becaufe therefore it hath fee-
med good unto thefe worlhipful Affiftants joyned with me in
Commiffion from the Kings Majefty, that I ihould perform the
fame at this time •, I will by your favourable patience declare
both what I do think and believe my felf, and what alio other
ought to think of the famc.Which thing I would that afterward
ye did with diligence weigh and ponder every man at heme ie-
verally by himfelf.
F The
J
•I , • ■ -
38 A Difputation in Cambridge
The principal Grounds, or rather Head-fprings of this matter
are ipecially rive.
"The firji is the Authority, Majefly and Verity of Holy Scripture,
fhe fecond is the moft certain "Teftimonies of the Ancient Catholick^Fa'
thers, rpho after my judgment do fufficiently declare this matter,
fhe third is the definition of a Sacrament.
"the fourth is the abominable Herefie of Eutiches' that may enfue of
7ranfuhftantiatio>h • •
The fifth is the mol} fure belief of the Article of our Faith, He alcen-
ded into Heav<;n.
The Fhft Ground.
This Tranfubftantiation is clean againft the words of the Scri-
pture, and confent of the ancient Catholick Fathers. The Scri-
pture faith, I will not drin\ hereafter of this fruit of the Vine, See.
Now the firuit of this Vine is Wine. And it is manifeft that
Chrift {pake thefe words after the Supper was finifhed, as it ap-
peareth both in Matthew, Marf, and-alfo in Luk^, if they be well
underftood. There be not many places of Scripture that do con-
rirm this thing, neither is it greatly material: for it is enough
if there be any one plain teftimonyfor the fame. Neither ought
it to be meafured by the number of Scriptures , but by the Au-
thority, and by the verity of the fame. And the Majefty of this
verity is as ample in one ftiort fentence of the Scripture, as in
a ihoufand.
Moreover, Chrift took Bread, he gave Bread. In the A&s,
Luh^ calleth it Bread. So Faul calleth it Bread after the Sandlifi-
cation. Both of them fpeak of breaking, which belongeth to the
Subriance of Bread, and in no wife to Chrift's Body, for the
Scripture faith, Te fihall not break^a bone of him. Chrifc faith, T>o ye
this in my remembrance. And again, As often as ye (hall drin\ of this
Cup, do it in rememberance of me. And our Saviour Clirirt in' the
lixth of Jofo, fpeaking againft the , faith. Labour for
the meat that perijheth not. And when they asked, JVhat Jhall we do
that we may wor\the workp of God ? He anfwered them thits. This
is the work^of God, that ye believe in him whom he hath feiit. You fee
bow he exhorteth them to faith , For Faith is that work^ of God.
Aga.m,This is that Bread which came down from Heaven. But Chrifts
Body came not down from Heaven. Moreover, He that eateth
my flefh and drink^th my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. My flejh
(faith he^ is meat indeed, and my blood is drinkjndeed. When they
heard
about the Sacrament.
hfard this, they were offended. And whil'ft they were offended,
he faid unto them, What if ye Jhall fee the Son of Man afcend up
vehere he rvas before? Whereby he went about to draw them from
the grofs and carnal eating, fhis Body, faith he, Jhall aj'cend up
into Heaven, meaning altogether, zsSt.Augufline fzith. It h tlx
Spirit that quickpeth, the Flejb profiteth nothing. I he tpords that I
fpeakytntoyou,are Spirit andLife,znd muftbe fpiritually underfiood.
Thefe be the Reafons which perfwade me to incline to this Sen-
tence and Judgment.
fhe Second Grounds
Now my Second Ground againfl this franfubjiantiation , are the
Ancient Fathers a Thoufand Years part. And lb far off is it,
that they do confirm this Opinion of franfubjiantiation, that plain
they feem to me, both to think and to fpeak the contrary.
Vionyfm^ in many places, calleth it Bread. The places are fo
manifeft and plain, that it needeth not to recite them.
Ignatius to the Philadelphians faith, I befeech you. Brethren, cleave
faji unto one Faith, and to one kind of Preaching , tfing together one
manner of Thanksgiving i For the Flejh of the Lord Jefus is one, and
his Blood is one rrhich tvas Jhed for us : There is alfo one Bread broken
for us, and one Cup of the whole Church.
Iren£us writeth thus : Even as the Bread that cometh of the
Earth, receiving God's Vocation, is now no more common Bread, but Sa-
cramental Bread, confijiing of two Natures, Earthly and Heavenly;
even fo our Bodies receiving the Eucharifi, are now no more corruptible,
having hope of the KefurreUion.
Tertullian is very plain, for he calleth it a Figure of bis Body, 8cc.
Chryfojhme writeth to Cxfarius the Monk, albeit he be not re-
ceived of diverfe, yet will I read the place, to faflen it more
deeply in your minds •, for it feemeth to fhew plainly the fub-
fiance of Bread to remain. The words are thefe:
Before the Bread is fanHified, we name it Bread : but by the grace
of God faniiifying the fame, through the Minijlry of the Prieji , it is
delivered from the Name of Bread, and is counted worthy to bear the
Name of the Lord's Body, although the very fubjiance of Bread not-
withjianding do jiill remain therein, and now is taken not to be two Bo-
"dies, but one Body of the Son, dec.
Cyprian faith. Bread is made of many Grains. And is that no-
tural Bread, and made of Wheat ? Tea, it is fo indeed.
The Book of Theodora in Greek, was lately printed at F^ome,
F 2 which
4*^ A Difputation in Cambridge
which if it had not been his, it (hould not have been fet forth
there, efpecially feeing it is dired:ly againll: Tranfubliantiation:
For he faith plainly, "That Bread llill rcmaincth after theSandif cation.
Gelafm alfo is very plain in this manner : 'The Sacranfent (faith
he ) which we receive of the Body and Blood of Chrijf is a Divine
Matter: By reafon whereof we are made parta^rs by the fame of the
Divine Nature, and yet it ceafth not ftill to be the jubjiance of Bread
and Wine. And certes, the reprefentation and fmilitude of the Body
and Blood of Chri(i be celebrated in the action of the Mylieries-, 8cc. Af-
ter this, he recited certain places out of Augujiine and C)'/'i/,which
were not noted.
Ifichim alfo, confelfeth that it is Bread.
Alfo the Judgment of Bertram in this matter is very plain and
manifclt: And thus much for the Second Ground.
7he Third Ground.
The Third Ground is the Nature of the Sacrament,which con-
fillethof Three Things i that is, Vnity, Nutrition:, and Converfinn.
hst.o\xc\\m^Viiity,Cyprian thus writeth : Even as of many Grains
is made one Bread, fo are we one myfiical Body of Chriji. Wherefore
Bread muft ftill needs remain, or elfe we deftroy the Nature of a
Sacrament.
Alfo they that take away Nutrition, which cometh by Bread, -
do take away likewife the Nature of a Sacrament: For as the
Body of Chrift nouriftreth the Soul, even fo doth Bread likewife
nourifti the Body of Man. Therefore they that take away the
Grains, or the Union of the Grains in the Bread, and deny the
Nutrition, or Subftance thereof, in my judgment are Sacramen-
taries : For they take away the Similitude between the Bread,and
the Body of Chrift ; for they which affirm Tranfubjiantiation, are
indeed right Sacramentaries and Capernaites.
As touching Converfwnfthdit like as the Bread which we receive
is turned into our Subftance,fo are we turned into Chrift's Body}
Ixahanus and Chryfojiome areWitneffies fufficient.
The Fourth Ground.
They who fay,That Cffirift is carnally prefentin theEucharifi,
do take from him the Verity of Man's Nature. Eutiches granted
the Divine Nature in Chrift, but his Humane Nature he denied.
So they that defend Trarfubjlantiation, afcrite that to the Humane
Nature, which oncly belongeth to the Divine Nature.
■f The
ahout the Sacrament.
'the Fifth Gromd.
The Fifth Ground is the certain perfwafion of this Article of
Faith, He afcended into Heave)!, and fitteth at the Kight Hand, 8cc.
Augufme faith, the Lord is above, even to the end of the Wwld j
but yet the verity of the Lord is here alfo. For his Body tvherein he rofe
again mufi needs be in one place, but his verity is fpread abroad every
rvhere, Alfo in another place he faith, Let the godly alfo receive
that Sacrament, but let them )iot be careful ffpeaking there of the pre-
fence of his Body.} For as touching his Majejiy, his Providence, his in-
vifible and unfpeak^ble Grace, thefe words are fulfilled which he fpah^, I
am with you to the end of the World. But according to the flefh tvhich
he took^ upon him, according to that which was born of the Virgin, was
apprehended of the Jews, wm fafined to a tree, tak^n down again from
the Crojs, lapped in Linnen Cloths, WifS buried and rofe again, and ap-
feared after his Kefurredion, fo ye Jhal! not have me always with you 5
and why? becaufe, that as concerning his Flejh, he was converfant with
his Hifciples forty days, atid they accompanying him, feeing him, but not
following him, he went tip into Heaven, and is not' here, for he fitteth at
the right hand of his Father •, and yet be is here, becaufe he is not de-
parted hence, as concerning the prefence of his Divine Majejiy.
Mark and coniider well what St. Augujiine faith, he is afcended
into Heaven, and is not here, faith he. Believe not them therefore which
fay that he is Ixrc fiill in the Earth.
Moreover, Doubt not ( faith the fame Auguftine, but that Jefus
Chrift, as concerning the nature of his Manhood, is. there from whetice he
/haU come. And remember well and believe the Profejfion of a Clmjiian
man, that be arofe from death, afcended into Heaven, and fitteth at the
Eight hand of his Father, and from that Place and none other (not from,
the Altars) pall he come to judge the quicksand the dead, and he pall
come, as the Angel faid, as he was feen to go into Heaventhat is to fay,
in the fame form and fubfiance, unto the which he gave immortality, hut
changed not Nature. After this form (emaning his Humane NatureJ
we may not thhih^that it is every-where.. And in the fame Epiltle he
faith, "fak^ array from the Bodies limitation of places, and they pall be
no-where; and becaufe they are no-where, they (hall not be at all.
Vigilius faith, If the Word and the Flep be both of one nature, feeing
that the Word is every-where, why then is not the Flep alfo every-where ?
For when it was in Earth, then verily it was not in Heaven; and now when
it it in Heaven, it is not furely in Earth. And it is fo certain that it is
not
4z A Difputation in Cambridge
not in Earthy that as concerning the fame, roe loo\for him from Heaven j
jvhom as concerning the Word, tve believe to be rvith us in Earth.
Alfo the fame Vigilius faith. Which things, feeing they be fo, the
courfe of the Scripture muji be fearched of us, and manyTefiimonies mttft
be gathered, to jhevp plainly what a wick^dnefs and facriledg it is to re-
fer thofe things to the property of the Divine Nature, which do only be-
long to the nature of the Flejh ; and contrariwife, to apply thofe things
to the nature of the Flejh, which do properly belong to ahe Divine Nature.
Which thing the Dranjubflantiators do, whilft they affirm Chrifi's
Body not to be contained in anyone place, and afcribethat to his
Humanity, which properly belongeth to his Divinity, as they do
who will have Chrifl's Body to be in no one certain place limited.
Now in the latter Concluiion concerning the Sacrifice, becaufe
it dependeth upon the firit, I will in few words declare what I
think. For if we did once agree in that, the whole Con troverfie
in the other would foon be at an end. Two things there be which
do perfwade me that this Conclufion is true i that is, certain places
of the Scripture, and alfo certain Teftimonics of the Fathers. Saint
Paul faith Hebrews the pth, Chriji being become an High Prieji of
good things to come, by a greater and more perfeU fabernacle not made
with hands, that is, not of this building, neither by the Blood of Goats
and Calves, but by his own Blood, entred once into the Holy Place, and
obtained for us eternal Redemption, 8cc. And now in the end of the
World he hath appeared once to put away ftn by the facrifice of himfelf.
And again, Chri^ was once offered to tal^ aryay the fxns of many.
Moreover he faith, With one offering hath he made perfeh for ever thofe
that are fan&ified. Thefe Scriptures do perfwade me to believe
that there is no other oblation of Chrift ( albeit 1 am not igno-
rant there are many Sacrifices) but that which was once made up-
©n the Crofs.
The Teftimonies of the Ancient Fathers, which confirm the
fame, are out of Augujiine ad Bonif. Epiji. 23. Again, in his Book
of 43 Queftions, in the 41ft Queftion. Alfo in his 20th Book
againft Faufius the Manichee, C4iap. 21. And in the fame Book a-
gainft the faid Chap. 28. thus he writeth; NowtheChri-
jiians a memorial of the Sacrifice pafi, with a holy Oblation and par-
ticipation of the Body and Blood of Chriji.
Fulgentius, in his Book De fide, calleth the fame Oblation a
Commemoration. And thefe things are fufficient for this time
ior a Scholaftical Determination of thefe matters.
VOL.
i
1^
VOL. m.
Bijht)p RidleyV Anftver to the Three Tropofitions propofed to him in the
Vifputntion at Oxfoidy April 12. 1554.
I Received of you the other day, Right Worfhipful Mr. Prolo-
cHtor^ and ye my Reverend Mafters, Commiffioners from the
Queens Majefty and her Honourable Council, Three Propoliti-
ons j whereunto ye commanded me to prepare againft this day,
what I thought good to anfwer concerning the fame.
Now whilft I weighed with my felf, how great a charge of
the Lord's Flock was of late committed unto me, for the which
I muft once render an account to my Lord God, ( and that how
foon, he knoweth ) and that moreover, by the Commandment
of the Apoftle Peter, I ought to be ready alway to give a Rea-
fon of the Hope that is in me, with Meeknefs and Reverence
unto every one that "Ihall demand the fame. Befides this, con-
fidering my Duty to the Church of Chrid, and to your Wor-
flnps, being Commillioners by Publick Authority , I determined
with my felf to obey your Commandment, and fo openly to
declare unto you my mind touching the forefaid Propofitions;
ai>d albeit plainly to confefs unto you the Truth in thefe things
which ye now demand of me. I have thought otherwife in
times pad, than now 1 do, yet ( God I call to record unto my
Soul, i lye not ) I have not altered my Judgment, as now it is,
either by condraint of any Man or Laws ; either for the dread
of any dangers of this World i either for any hope of Commo-
dity i but only for the love of the Truth revealed unto me by
tl\e Grace of God ( as I am undoubtedly perfwaded 3 in his
holy Word, and in the reading of the Ancient Fathers.
Thefe things I do rather recite at this prefent, becaufe it may
happen to fome of you hereafter, as in times pad it hath done,
tome : I mjean, if ye think otherwife of the matters propound-
ed in thefe Propoiltions than I now do, God may open themurr-
to you in time to come.
But howfoever it fhall be, I will in few words^do that which
I think ye. all look I fhould do 5 that is, as plainly as I can, I
will declare my Judgment herein. Howbeit of this I would
ye were not ignorant, that I will not indeed wittingly and wil-
lingly.
Bifhop Ridley'i" Anfwer to the Three Propofitions.
lingly fpeak in any Point againft Gods Word, or diffent in any
one jot from the fame, or from the Rules of Faith, or Chriftian
Religion •, which Rules that fame moit Sacred word of God
prcfcribeth to the Church of Chrift, whereunto I now, and for
ever fubmit my felf and all my doings. And becaufe the mat-
ter I have now taken in hand is weighty; and ye all well know
how unready I am to handle it accordingly, as well for lack of
time, as alfo lack of Books 5 therefore here I proteft, that I will
publickly this day require of you, that it may be lawful for mc
concerning all mine Anfwers, Explications, and Confirmations,
to add ordiminiih whatfoever (hail feera hereafter more conve-
nient and meet for the purpofe, through more found Judgment,
better Deliberation, and more exadr Trial of every particular
Thing. Having now by the way of Preface and Proteftation
fpoken thefe few words, I will come to the Anfwer of the
Propofitions propounded unto me, and fo to the moft brief Ex-
plication and Confirmation of mine Anfwers.
Wejlon. Reverend Mr. Do3:or, concerning the lack of Books,
there is no caufe why you fhould complain; What Books foever
you will name, you (hall have them j and as concerning the
Judgment of your Anfwers to be had of your felf with further
deliberation, it lhall, I fay, be lawful for you until Sunday next to
add unto them what you fhall think goi^ your felf. My mind is,
that wc lliould ufe (hort Arguments, lelt we fhould make an in-
finite procefs of the thing.
Ridley. There is another thing befides, which I would gladly
obtain at your hands; I perceive that you have Writers and
Notaries here prefent. By all likelihood our Difputations fhall be
publillied; I befeech you for Gods fake let me have liberty to fpeak
my mind freely, and without interruption, not becaufe I have
determined to protratS the time with a folemn Preface, but left
it may appear that fome be not fatisfied. God wot I am no Ora-
tor, nor have I learned Rhetorick to fet Colours on the matter.
Welhn. Among this whole Company, it fhall be permitted you
to take two for your part.
Rid. I will chufe two, if there were any here with whom I
were acquainted.
JViJion. Here are two which Mr. CwwwTCT'had yefterday j take
them if it pleafe you.
Rid. I am content with them, I truft they are honeft men.
The
BiJhjp Ridley J Aufwer to the Three Propofitions.
The Firft Propofition.
In the Sacrament of the Altar^ by the virtue of God's Word, fpol^en of
the Priefi.) the Natural Body of Chriji, horn of the Virgin Mary, and
Ins Natural Blood is Really Prefent under the Forms of Bread and Wine.
The Anftver of N, Ridley.
In matters appertaining to God we may not fpeak according
to the fenfe of Man, nor of the World. Therefore this Propofi-
tion or Conclufion is framed after another manner of Phrafe or
kind of Speech than the Scripture ufeth. Again it is very obfcure
and dark by means of fundry words of doubtful iignihcation.
And being taken in the fenfe which the Schoolmen teach, and
at this time the Church of Rome doth defend, it is falfe and er-
roneous, and plain contrary to the Do(3:rine which is according
to Godlinels.
The Explication.
How far the diverfity and newnefsof the Phrafe in all this firft
Propofition, is from the Phrafe of the Holy Scripture, and that
in every part almoft, it is lb plamand evident to any that is but
meanly exercifed in Holy Writ, that I need not now f efpecially
in this Company of Learned Men ) to fpend any time therein,
except the fame ftiall be required of me hereafter.
Firft, There is a double fenfe in thefe words (by virtue of Gods
Word) for it is doubtful what word of God this is ; whether it
be that which is read in the Evangelifts, or in St.Paul, or any
other. And if it be that which is in the Evangelifts, or in St. Paul,
what that is. If it be in none of them, then how it may be known
to be God's Word, and of fuch virtue that it ftiould be able to
work fo great a matter. -
Again, There is a doubt of theie words ( of the Prieji ) whe-
ther no man may be called a Prieft, but he who hath Authority
to make a Propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead v and
how it may be proved that this Authority was committed of
God to any man, but to Chrift alone.
It islikewife doubted after what Order the Sacrificing Prieft
Ihall be,whether after theOrder of Aarm,ox elfe after theOrder of
Melchifedech for as far as I know, the Holy Scripture doth ah
low no more.
Wefon. Let this be fufficient.
Rid. If we lack time at this prefent, there is time enough
hereafter.
Wefon. Thefe are but evafionsor flatting holes» you confume
the time in vain, G Rid*
Bifhop RidleyAnftver to the "three Tropofitions.
Kid. I cannot ftart from you, I am captive and bound.
Wefton. Falltoit, my Mafkrs.
Smith. That which you have fpoken may fuffice at this prefent.
Kid. Let me alone, I pray you, for I have not much to (ay
behind.
W(fl. Go forward.
Kid. Moreover, there is ambiguity in this word whe-
ther it be taken as the Logicians term it tranfcendenter^ that is, moft
generally, and fo it may (ignifie any manner of thing, which be-
longeth to the Body of Chrift by any means; after which fort
wealfo grant Chrift's Body to be really in the Sacrament of the
Lord's Supper, (as in Difputation, if occafion be given, Ihall be
declared J or whether it betaken to (ignifie the very fame thing,
having Body, Life, and Soul, which was alTumed and taken of
the Word of God, into the Unity of Perfon. In which fenfe,
(ith the Body of Chrifi is really in Heaven, becaufe of the true
manner of his Body, it may not be (aid to be here in the earth.
There is yet a further doubtfulnefs in thcfe words mder the forms
of Bread and Wine^ whether the forms be there taken to (ignifie
the only accidental and outward (liews of Bread and Wine; or
therewithal the fubftantial Natures thereof, which are to be feeii
by their qualities, and perceived by exterior fcnfes.
Now the Error and Falfcnefsof thePropolition after the fen(e
of the Koman Church and Schoolmen, may hereby appear, in that
they affirm the Bread to be Tranfubllantiated, and changed to
the Flefh alTumed of the Word of God ; and that, as they fay,
by virtue of the Word, which they have devifed by a certain
number of words, and cannot be found in any of theEvangelirts,
or inS Kaul; and fo they gather that Chrift's Body is really con-
tained in the Sacrament of the Altar: Which Pofition is ground-
ed upon the Foundation of the Tranfubftantiation ; which
Foundation is monlirous, againfi Reafon, and deftroyeth the
Analogy or Proportion of the Sacraments ; and therefore this
Propofition alfo, which is built upon this rotten Foundation, is
falfe, erroneous, and to be counted as a deteftable Here(ie of the
Sacramentaries.
Wefon. We lofe time. Kidley. You (hall have time enough.
Weft. Fall to reafoning. You (hall have fome other day for
this matter. Kid^ I have no more to fay concerning my Expli-
cation. If you will give me leave, and let me alone, I will but
fpeak a word or two for my contirmation.
W;Jlan.
Bifhop Ridley J Anfwer to the Three Fropofitions.
■ Wefiotii Go to, fay on.
The Confirmation of the aforcfaid Anfmr.
There ought no Dodrine to be eftabli(hed in the Church of
God, which diflenteth from the Word of God, from the Rule
of Faith, ^nd draweth with it many abfurdities that cannot bo
avoided.
But this Dodrine of the firft Propofition is fuch.
Frgo^ It ought not to be eftabliflied and maintained in the
Church of God.
The Major or firft part of my Argument is plain, and the Mi-
nor or fecond part is proved thus.
The Dodrine maintaineth a real, corporal, and carnal pre-
fence of Chrift's Flefti, aflumed and taken of the Word, to be in
the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and that not by virtue and
Grace only, but alfo by the whole Eflence and Subrtance of the
Body and Flefti of Chrift.
But fuch a prefence difagreeth from God's Word, from the
Rule of Faith, and cannot but draw with it many abfurdities.
Ergo^ The fecond part is true.
The firft part of this Argument is manifeft,and the fecond may
yet futher be confirmed thus.
fE'ejion. Thus you confume time, which might be better be-
ftowed on other matters. Mr. Opponent^ I pray you, to your Ar-
guments.*
Smith.l will here reafon with you uponTranfuli(iantiation^v/hkh.
you fay is contrary to the Rule and Analogy of Faith. The con-
trary whereof I prove by the Scriptures and the Dodors. But
before I enter Argumentation with you, I demand firft, whether
in the fixth Chapter of John there be any mention made of the
Sacrament, or of the Real Prefence of Chrift in the Sacrament ?
BJd. It is againft reafon that I fhould be impeached to profc-
cute that which I have to fpeak in this Airembly,being not fo long,
but that it may be comprehended in few words.
Weji' Let him read on.
Kid- Firft of all, this Prefence is contrary to many places of
the holy Scripture. Secondly, It varieth from the Articles of
the Faith. Thirdly, It deftroyeth and taketh away the Inftitu-
tion of the Lord's Supper. Fourthly, It maketh precious t! ings
common to prophane and ungodly perfons 5 for it cafteth that
which is holy unto Dogs, and pearls unto Swine. Fifthly, It
forceth men to maintain many Monftrous Miracles without ne-
G 2 cellity
Bijhop Ridley'^ Anfvoer to the Three Proportions.
ccflfity and Authority jof God's Word. Sixthly, It giveth occafion
to the Hereticks which erred concerning the two Natures in
Clirift, to defend their Herefies thereby. Seventhly,lt falfirteth the
fayings of the Godly Fathersjit falfitieth alfo the Catholick Faith
of the Church which the Apoftles taught,the Martyrs confirmed,
and the Faithful (as one of the Fathers faith) do retain and keep
until this day. Wherefore the 2d part of mine Argument is true.
The Probation of the Antecedent or former fart of this Argument^ by
the Parts thereof.
1. This carnal Prefence is contrary to the Word of God, as
appeareth, Joh 16. I tell you the truth. It is profitable to you that I
go array., fur if 1 go not array., the Comforter Jhall not come unto you.
AtT. 3. IFhom the Heavens mufi receive until the time ofrefioring of all
things rrhich God hath fpoken. Mat. 9. The Children of the Bride-
groom cannot mourn fo long as the Bridegroom is rrith them. But now
is the time of mourning. Joh. 16. But I rrill fee you again, and
your hearts fhall rejoice. Joh. 14. I rrill come again and tak^you to
my felf. Mat. 2\. If they (hall fay unto you. Behold here is Chrifi,
or there is Chriji, believe them not, &c.
2. It varieth from the Articles of the Faith, He afcended into
Heaven, andfitteth. on the right hand of God the Father, from rrhence
fand not from any other place, faith St. Augufiine) he Jhall come
to judg both the quicksand the dead.
3.It deflroyeth and taketh away thelnftitution of the Lord's Sup-
per, which was commanded only to be ufed and continued until
the Lord himfelf Ihould come. If therefore he be really prefent
in the body of his flefh, then muft the Supper ceafe : For a re-
membralice is not of a thing prefent, but of a thing part and ab-
fent. And there is a difference between Remembrance and Pre-
fence, and (as one of the Fathers faith) A Figure is in vain where
the thing figured is prefent.
It maketh precious things common to prophane and ungodly
Perfons, and conflraineth men to confefs many abfurdities. For it
affirmeth,that Whoremongers and Murtherers,yea,and ( as Lome
of them hold opinion) that Mice, Rats and Dogs alfo may receive
the very real and corporal Body of the Lord, wherein the fulnefs
of the Spirit of Light and Grace dwelleth ; contrary to the mani-
feft words of Chrift in fix Places and Sentences of the 6th. Chap-
ter of St. John.
4. It confirmeth alfo and maintaineth thatbeaftly kind of Cru-
elty of the Anthropophagi, that isjthe Devourcrs of Man's Fkfh; for
it
Bifhop Ridley'j Anfwer to the three Propofitions. 49
it is a more cruel thing to devour a quick Man, than to flay him.
Fie. He requireth time to fpeak Blafphemies. Leave your Blafl-
phemies.
Kid. I had little thought to have had fuch reproachful words
at your hands.
JP'efi. All is quiet. Go to your Arguments Mr.Dodior.
Kid. I have not many things more to fay.
Weft. You utter Blafphemies with a moft impudent face; leave
off (1 fay) and get you to the Argument.
Kid. 5. It forcethmen to maintain many monftrous Miracles,
without any neceflity and authority of God's Word. For at the
coming of this prefence of the Body and Flefli of Chrift, they
thruft away the Subftance of Bread, and affhrm that the Accidents
remain without any Subjed, and inflead thereof they place Chrift's
Body without his qualities,and the true manner of a Body. And
if the Sacrament be referved fo long until it mould, and Worms
breed, fome fay that the Subftance of Bread miraculoufly re-
turneth again, and fome deny it. Other fome affirm,that the real
Body of Chrift goeth down into the Stomach of the Receivers,
and doth there abide fo long only as they ftiall continue to be goodi
but another fort hold that the Body of Chrift is carried into Hea-
ven, fo foon as the forms of Bread be bruifed with the Teeth. O
Works of Miracles ! Truly, and moft truly,! fee that fulfilled in
thefe Men, whereof St. Paul prophefied, 2 Thejf. 2. Beeaufe they
have not received the love of the truth, that they might be faved, God
(haU fend them jhrong Delufions, that thy jhould believe a Lye, and be
all damned which have not believed the truth. This grofs Prefence
hath brought forth that fond phantaiie of Concomitance, whereby
is broken at this day and abrogated the Commandment of the
Lord for diftributing of the Lord's Cup to the Laity.
6, It giveth occaiionto Hereticks to maintain and defend their
Errors; as to Marcion, who faid that Chrift had but a Phantafti-
cal Body i and to Eutiches, who wickedly confounded the two
Natures in Chrift.
7. Finally,It falfifieth the Sayings of the Godly Fathers,and the
Catholick Faith of the Church, which Vigilius, a Martyr and grave
Writer, faith, was taught of the Apoftles, confirmed with the
Blo^ of Martyrs, and was continually maintained by the Faith-
ful until his time. By the Sayings of the Fathers, I mean of Ju-
flin, Irenaus, tertuVian, Origen, Eufebius, Emifenus, Athanafm, Cyril,
Efifhanius, Hkrome,Chryfoftotm, Auguftine, Vigilius, Fulgentius, Ber—
tram.
Bifhop Ridley'j Anfwer to the three Tropojitions.
tratn^ and others raoft ancient Fathers. All thofe places, as I am fure
I have read, making for my purpofe; fo am 1 well affured that
I could (hew the fame, if I might have the ufe of mine own Books,
which I will take to me to do, even upon the peril of my life,
and lofs of all that I may lofe in this World.
But now fmy Brethren) think not becanfe I difallow that Pre-
fence which the riril Propolition maintaineth (as a Prefence which
I take to be forged, Phantaftical, and bcfiJes the Authority of
God's Word, perniciouHy brought into the Church by the Koma-
ntji's) that I therefore go about to take away the true Prefence of
Chrih's Body in his Supper rightly and duly adminiftred, which is
grounded upon the Word of God, and made tnore plain by the
Commentaries of the Faithful Fathers. They that think fo of
me, the Lord knoweth how far they are deceived i and to make
the fame evident unto you, I will in few words declare what true
Prefence of ChritVs Body in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper I
hold and affirm, with the Word of God and the Ancient Fathers.
I fay and confefs with the Evangelift L«fee, and the Apoftle ?aut^
that the Bread on the which thanks are given,is the Body of Chrift,
in the remembrance of him and his Death, to be fet forth perpe-
tually of the Faithful until his coming.
I fay and confefs the Bread which we break,to be the Commu-
nion and partaking of ChrifPs Body, with the Ancient and the
Faithful Fathers.
I fay and believe that there is not only a fignification of Chrift's
Body let forth by the Sacrament, but alfo that therewith is given
to the Godly and Faithful the Grace of Chrift's Body, that is, the
food of Life and Inimortality. And this I hold with Cyprian.
I fay alfo with St. Aitgujiine-y that we eat Life, and we drink
Life} with Emifene, that we feel the Lord to be prefent in Grace >
with Athanafiuf^ that we receive Celeftial Food that comethirom
above; the propriety of natural Communion, with Hilary; the na-
ture of FIefh,and Benedidtion which giveth life in Bread and Wine,
with Cyril; and with the fame Cyril^ the virtue of the very Flefti
of Chrift, Life and Grace of his Body, the property of the only
begotten, that is to fay Life, as he himfelf in plain words ex-
pounded it.
I confefs alfo with Bafil^ that wc receive the myftical Advent
and coming of Chrift, Grace and Virtue of his very Nature ;
the Sacrament of his very Flefh, with Ambrofe; the Body by
Grace, with Epiphanius j Spiritual Flefti, but not that which was
crucified.
Bifhop Ridley J Anfwer to the Three Tropofitions.
crucified, with Hierom; Grace flowing into a Sacrifice, and the
Grace of the Spirit, with Chryfoftom ; Grace and invifible Verl-
ty, Grace and Society of the Members of Chrift's Body, with
Au^Hjline.
Finally, with Bertram, ( who was the laft of all thefe ) I
confefs that Chrifl's Body is in the Sacrament in this refpe^ j
namely, as he writeth, Becaufe there is in it the Spirit of Chrift,
that is, the power of the Word of God, which not only feedeth
the Soul, but alio cleanfeth it. But of thefe I fuppofe it may
appear unto all men how far we arc from that Opinion,
whereof fome go about falfly to flander us to the world, faying,
we teach that the Godly and Faithful Ihould receive nothing elfe
at the Lord's Table, but a Figure of the Body of Chrifl.
The Second Propofition.
After the Canfecration^ there remaineth no Sub^ance of Bread and
Wine.) neither any other Subjlance, than the Subjiance of God and Man,
The Anfrver.
The fecond Conclufion is manifeftly falfe, diredly againft the
Word of God, the Nature of the Sacrament, and the moft evi-
dent Teflimonies of the godly Fathers; and it is the rotten
Foundation of the other two Conclufions propounded by you,
both of the firft, and alfo of the third. I will not therefore now
tarry upon any further Explication of this Anfwer, being con-
tented with that which is already added afore to the Anfwer of
the firft Propofition.
The Ftrji Argument for the Confirmation of this Anfvper,
It is very plain by the Word of God , that Chrift did give
Bread unto his Difciples, and called it his Body.
But the Subftance of Bread is another mariner of Subftance,
than is the Subftance of Chrift's Body, God and Man.
Therefore the Conclufion is falfe.
The fecond part of mine Argument is plain, and the firft is
proved thus.
The Second Argument.
That which Chrift did take , on the which he gave Thanks,
and the which he brake,he gave to his Difciples, and called
it his Body.
But-he took Bread, gave Thanks on Bread, and brake Bread. ti-
ErgO) The firft part is true.
And it is confirmed with the Authorities of the Fathers, Ire- fi,
nttusy TertuBan^ Or gen., Cyprian, Epiphanius,Hierom, Augufiine, Theo-
t doret.
52'
'vi
'V:
I. .
!•
!
I'
Ba-
ro-
eo>
Ba-
ro-
■to.
Bifhop Ridley'j Anfwer to the Three Tropofitions.
dorett Cyril., Kahanus and Bede ; whofe places I will take upon
me to (hew moft manifeft in this behalf, it I may be fuffered to
have my Books, as ray requeft is.
Bread is the Body of Chrift. Ergo. It is Bread. * ►
'the Third Argument.
As the Bread of the Lord's Table is Chrift's natural Body, fo
it is his myftical Body.
But it is not Chrift's myftical Body by Tranfubftantiation.
Ergo, It is not his natural Body-by Tranfubftantiation.
The fecond part of my Argument is plain, and the Hrft is pro-
ved thus : As Chrift, who is the Verity, fpake of the Bread,
This is my Body vphich JhaH be betrayed for you i fpeaking there of
his natural Body : even fo St. ?aul, moved with the fame Spirit
of Truth, faid, tVe, though -we he many, yet are vae aU one Bread and
one Body, which be partakers of one Bread.
The Fourth Argument.
We may no more believe Bread to be Tranfubftantiate
the Body of Chrift, than the Wine into his Blood.
But the Wine is not Tranfubftantiate into his Blood :
Ergo, Neither is that Bread therefore Tranfubftantiate
, his Body.
The firft part of this Argument is manifeft , and the fecond
part is proved out of the Authority of God's Word in Matthew
and Marh^, I will not drinks of the fruit of the Vine, &c. Now the
fruit of the Vine was Wine which Chrift drank, and gave to his
Difciples to drink. With this Sentence agreeth plainly the place
of -Chryfofiome on the 2oth Chapter of Matthew, as Cyprian doth
alio, arErniing, That thae is no Blood, if Wine be not in the
Cup.
The Fifth Argument.
The words of Chrift fpoken upon the Cup, and upon the
Bread, have like effedit and working.
But the words ipoken upon the Cup have not virtue to Tran-
fubftantiate.
Ergo, It followeththat the words fpoken upon the Bread have
no fuch virtue.
The fecond part of the Argument is proved; becaufe they
would then Tranfubftantiate the Cup,or that which is in the Cup,
into the New Teftament. But neither of thefe things can be
done, and very abfurdit is to cpnfe^ the fame.
into
into
The
Bijhop Ridley'j Anfwer to the "Three Tropojitions.
The Sixth Argument,
The Circumftances of the Scripture, the Analogy and proportion of
the Sacraments, and the Teftimony of the faithful Fathers, ought to
rule us in taking the meaning of the Holy Scripture touching theSa-
crament.
But the Words of the Lord's Supper, the Circumftances of the
Scripture, the Analogy of the Sacraments, and the Sayings of the
Fathers, do raoft effe^ually and plainly prove a figurative fpeech in
the words of the Lord's Supper.
Ergo^ A figurative fenfe and meaning is fpecially to be received in
thefe words, This is my Body.
The Circumftances of the Scripture, Do this in remembrance of me.
As oft. - ye (hall eat of this Bread, and drink^of this Cup, ye fhaU (hen?
forth the Lord's death. Let a man prove himfelf, and fo eat of this bread,
and drinkyf this cup. -They came together to breaks Bread; and they continued
in breaking of Bread. The Bread rvhich xve breaks, 5cc. For we being tnany,
are all one Bread and one Body, dec.
The Analogy of the Sacraments is neceflary; for if the Sacraments
had not fome fimilitude,or likenefs of the things whereof they beSa-
craments, they could in no wife be Sacraments. And this fimilitude
in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is taken three manner of ways.
1. The firft confifteth in nourilhing, as you (hall read in Rabanus,
Cyprian, Aufin, Irensius, and moft plainly m Ifidore out of Bertram.
2. The fecond in the uniting and joynhig of many into one,as Cp'
prian teacheth.
3. The third is a fimilitude of ,unlike things: Where, like as the
Bread is turned into one Body ; fo we by the right ufe of this Sacra-
ment, are turned through Faith into the Body of Chrift.
The fayings of the Fathers declare it to be a figurative fpeech, as it
appeareth in Origen, Tertullian, Chryfofiom in opere imperfeClo, AugujHn,
Ambrofe, Bafil, ^egory Nazianzen, and moft plainly of all, in
Bertram. Moreover the fayings and places of all the Fathers, whole
names I have before recited againft the affertion of the firft Propofi-
tion,do quite over throw Tranfubftantiation. But of all moft evidently
and plainly, Iren^us, Origen, Cyprian, Chryfo(tom to Cafarius ihs. Monk,
Augujiine againft Adamantus, Gelaftus, Cyril, Epiphanius, Chryfojiom a-
gain on the 20th of Matth. Rabanus, Damafcene and Bertram.
Here, Right Worlhipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the reft of the Com-
miflioners, it may pleafe you to underftand, that 1 do not lean to thefe
things only, which I have written in my former Anfwers and Con-
firmations, but that I have alfo for the proof of that I have fpoken,
H what-
54 Bfjhop RidleyV Anfwer to the Three Tropofitions.
whatfoever Bertram, a man Learned,of found and upright Judgment,
and ever counted a Catholick for thefe Seven hundred years, until
this our age, hath written. HisTreatife, whofoever fhall read and
weigh, confidering thetime of the Writer, his Learning, Godlinefs :ilie2&'
of life, the Allegations of the Ancient Fathers, and his manifoldand flow t
molt grounded Arguments, I cannot (doubtlefs) but much marvel,
if he have any fear of God at all, how he can with good Confcience
fpeak-againli him in this matter of the Sacrament. This Bfrtww was moftl
the firfi that pulled me by the Ear, and that hrft brought m.e from the
cornmonError of theKomiJh Church, and caufed me tofearch more
diligently and exatSly both the Scriptures and the Writings of the
old Eccleliallical Fathers in this matter. And this I proteft before the jisim
lace of God, who knoweth that 1 lye not in the things I now fpeak.
The Third Propoiition. idead;'
1/2 the Mjfs is the lively Sacrifice of the Churchy propitiahle and available .jutoni
for the fins as xvellof quick, as of the dead. '^uj
The Anftver to this Fropoftion.
I anfwer to this third Propofition as I did to the firft. And more- jjfioii
over I fay, that being taken in fuch fenfe as the words feem to im-
port, it is not only erroneous, but withal fo much to the deroga-
tion and defacing of the Death and PaiLion of Chrift, that 1 judge
it may and ought moft worthily to be counted wicked and blafphe- a,
mous againft the moft precious Blood of our Saviour Chrift. iddu
The Explication.- '
Concerning the Romijh Mafs which is ufed at this day, or the lively ^
Sacrifice thereof propitiatory and available for the fins of the quick
and the dead, the Holy Scripture hath not fo much as one fyllable.
There is ambiguity alfo in the name of Mafs; what it fignilieth,
and whether at this day there beany fuch indeed as the Ancient Fa- ■
thers ufed; feeing that now there be neither Catecumeni nor Pcen. tentes j
to be fent away.
Again, touching thefe words (The lively Saerifce of the Church)Thero
is doubt wlxether they are to be underftood Figuratively and Sacra- ^
mentally, for the Sacrament of the lively Sacrifice (after which fort
we deny it not to be in the Lord's Supper ) or properly and without
any figure; of the which manner there was but one only Sacrifice,
and that once offered, namely upon the Altar of the Crofs.
Moreover, in thefe words (as well asf it may be doubted whether
they be fpoken in mockage as men are wont to fay in fport, of a fool-
iih and ignorant perfon, that he is apt as well in conditions as in
knowledg, being apt indeed in neither of them both.
' There
B 'ljhop RidleyAtifwer to the Three Propojitions.
There is alfoadoubt in the word whether itfignifyhere
that which taketh away fin, or that which may be made available
for the taking away of fin \ That is to fay, whether it is to be taken
in the adtive or in the pafiive fignification.
Now the falfncfs of the Propofition, after the meaning of the
Schoolmen and the Romifh Church, and Impiety in that fenfe which
the words feem to import, is this; that they leaning to the founda-
tion of their fond Tranfubftantiation, would make the quick and
lively body of Chrift's Flefh { united and knit to the Divinity_) to
lye hid under the accidents, and outward (hews of Bread and Wine.
Which is very falfe, as I have faid before ; and they building upon
this foundation, do hold that the fame Body is offered unto God, by
the Prieil in his dayly Mailings, to put away the fins of the quick and
the deadjwhereas by the Apoftle to the Hebrevos it is evident that there
is but one Oblation, and one true and lively Sacrifice of the Church
offered upon the Altar of the Crofs, which was, is, and lhall be for
ever the propitiation for the fins of the wholeWorld:and where there is
Remiifion of the lame , there is, faith the Apoftle, no more offering
for fin.
Argummts confirmmg his Anfwer.
No Sacrifice ought to be done, but where the Prieft is meet to offer
the fame.
All other Priefts be unmeet to offer Sacrifice for fin,but Chrift alone.
Erg(?,No other Priefts ought to Sacrifice for fin but Chrift alone.
'Phe fecond part of my Argument is thus proved.
No honour in God's Church ought to be taken where a man is not
called as Aaron.
It is a great honour in God's Church to Sacrifice for Sin :
Ergo.No man ought to Sacrifice for Sin,but only they who are called.
But only Chrift is called to that honour.
Ergo, No other Prieft but Chrift ought "to Sacrifice for Sin.
That no man is called to this degree of Honour but Chrift alone, it
is evident;For there are but two only Orders of Priefthood allowed in
the Word of God: Namely, the Order of Aaron^ and the Order of Md-
chifedech. But now the Order of Aaron is come to an end, by reafon
that it was unprofitable, and weak j and of the Order of Melchife-
dech there is but one Prieft alone, even Chrift the Lord, who hath a
Priefthood that cannot pafs to any other.
An Argument.
That thing is in vain, and to no cffed, where no neceflity is
wherefore it is done.
Ha To
^6 Bifbop RidleyV Anfwer to the Three Propojitions.
TO' To offer up anyiuore Sacrifice Propitiatory for the quick and the
dead, there is no neceflity, lor Chrifi our Saviour did that fully
and perfedfly once for all.
#). To do the fame in the Mafs, it is in vain.
Another Argument.
Fe- After that Eternal Redemption is found and obtained, there need-
eth no more daily offering for the fame.
ri' But Chrift corning an high Bifhop, &c. found and obtained for us
Eternal Redemption.
0, Pygo-, There needeth now no more daily Oblation for the Sins of
the quick and the dead.
Another Argument,
Co- All remiflion of Sins cometh only by fhedding of Blood.
mef- In the Mafs there is no fhedding of Blood.
tres, Prgo-, I" the Mafs there is no Remillion of Sins, and fo it follow-
eth alfo that there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice.
Another Argument,
In the Mafs the Paflion of Chrift is not in verity, but in a Myftery
reprefenting the fame i yea even there where the Lord's Supper is
duly miniftred. But where Chrift fuffereth not, there is he not of-
fered in verity: For the Apoftle faith. Not that he might offer up him-
felf oftentimes, (for then mujihe have fuffered oftentimes ftnce the beginning of
the TVorld^J Now where Chrift is not offered, there is no Propitia-
tory Sacrifice.
Ergo, In the Mafs there is no Propitiatory Sacrifice. For Chrifi ap-
peared once in the latter end of the World to put fin to flight by the offering up
ofhimfelf. And as it is appointed to all men that th^ (hall once dye, and then
cometh the Judgment : even fo Chrifi rvas once offered to tak^ array the Sins
of many. And unto them that look^for him, fhall he appear again mthout fin
unto falvation.
Another Argument,
Da- Where there is any Sacrifice that can make the comers thereunto
perfe6t, there ought men to ceafe from offering any more Ex- ,
piatory and Propitiatory Sacrifices.
n- But in the New Teftament there is one only Sacrifice now already
long fince offered, which is able to make the comers thereunto
perfedi for ever.
i. In the New Teftament they ought to ceafe from offering
any more Propitiatory Sacrifice.
Sentences of the Scripture tending to the fame end and purpofe, out (f
vphich alfo may be gathered other manifefi Arguments for more confirmation
thereof, f By
Btjhop RidleyV Anfaer to the Three Propojitions, 5-7
'By the rrhich rvill (faith the Apoftle) xve are fanSiped by the ojfe- Heb lo.
ring up of the Body of Jefuf Chriji once for all. A.nd in the fame place \
But this man, after that he had offered one Sacrifice for fin^ fitteth for ever
at the Right hand of God-, &c. For n'ith one Offering hath he made perfeB
for ever them that are fandified^ and by himfelf hath he purged our Sins. I
befeech you to mark thefe words fby himfelf:) the which well weigh-
ed, will without doubt ceafe all controverfie. The Apoftle plainly
denieth any other Sacrifice to remain for him that treaderh under his
feet the Blood of the Tertament, by the which he was made holy.
Chrift will not be crucified again, he will not his death to be had in
derifion.
He hath reconciled us intheBody of his Flejh. Mark, I beleech you, he Col. i,
faith not in the Myftcry of his Body ; but in the Body of his Flejh.
If any man fin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jefus Chriji the i John 2.
Righteous i and he is the Propitiation for our Sins} not for ours only., but
for the Sins of the whole World.
I know that all thefe places of the Scripture are avoided by two
mariner of fubtil fhifts : The one is, by the diltindion of the bloody
and unbloody Sacrifice; as tho our unbloody Sacrifice of the Church
were any other than the Sacrifice of Praife and Thankfgiving, than a
commemoration, a fhewing forth, and a Sacramental Reprefentation
of that one only bloody Sacrifice, offered up once for all.
The other is by depraving and wrefling the Sayings of the An-
cient Fathers unto fuch a flrange kind of fenfe, as the Fathers them-
felves indeed never meant. For what the meaning of the Fathers was,
is evident by that which St. Augufiine writeth in his Epiffle to Boniface,
and in the 83 d Chapter of his Ninth Bock againft Faujius the Manichee,
befides many other Places •, likewife by Eufebius Emiffenus, Cyprian,
Chryfojiom, Fulgentius, Bertram, and others, who do wholly concord
and agree together in this unity in the Lord, that the Redemption,
once made in Verity for the Salvation of Man, continueth in full ef-
fed for ever, and worketh without ceafing unto the end of the
World; That the Sacrifice once offered cannot be confumcd •, That the
Lord's Death and Paffion is as effedual, the vertue of that Blood once
flied, as frelh at this day, for the wafhing away of fins, as it was
even the fame day that it flowed out of the bleffed Side of our Sa-
viour : And finally, that the whole fubftance of our Sacrifice, which
is frequented of the Church in the Lord'fe Supper, confilleth in Prayers,
Praife,and giving of Thanks,and in reroembring, and in Ihewing forth
of that Sacrifice once offered upon the Altar of the Crofs 5 that the
fame might continually be had in reverence by Myffery, which
once
fS Bijhop RidleyAnfwer to the Three Tropcfit'ions.
once only, and no more, was offered for the Price of our Re-
demption.
Thefe are the things (right worfhipful Mr. Prolocutor, and ye the
reft of the Commiftioners ^ which I could prefently prepare to the
anfwering of your three forefaid Prophefies, being deftitute of all
help in this ftiortnefs of time, fudden warning, and want of Books.
Wherefore I appeal to my firftProteftation, moft humbly deliring
the help of the fame ( as much as may be J to be granted unto me.
And becaufe ye have lately given moft unjuft and cruel Sentence a-
gainft me, I do here appeal (fo far forth as I may) to a more indif-
ferent and juft cenfure and judgment of forae other Superior, Com-
petent and Lawful Judge, and that according to the approved ftate
of the Church of England. Howbeit, I confefs, I am ignorant what
that is at this prefent, through the trouble and alteration of the ftate
of the Pcealm. But if this Appeal miay not be granted to me upon
Earth, then do I fly (even as to my only Refuge and alone Haven of
Health) to the Sentence of the Eternal Judge, that is,of the Almighty
God, to whofe moft merciful Juftice towards us, and moft juft Mer-
cifulnefs, I do wholly commit my felf, and all my Caufe, nothing at
all defpairingof the Defence of my Advocate and alone Saviour Jefus
Chrift, to whom with the Everlafting Father, and the Holy Spirit,
the Sandtifier of us all, be now and for ever all Honour and Glory.
Amen.
P. 5 6. Kidley. Of Chrift's Real Prefencc there may be a double under-
ftanding; If you take the Real Prefence of Chrift according to the
Real and Corporal Subftance which he took of the Virgin, that Pre-
fence being in Heaven, cannot be on the Earth alfo. But if you mean
a Real Prefence, fecundum rem aliquam qH£ ad Corpus ChrifH pertinet:
i.e. according to fomething that appertaineth to Chrift's Body, certes
the Afcenfionand abiding in Heaven are no let at all to that Prefencc.
Wherefore Chrift's Body after that fort is here prefent to us in the
Lord's Supper, by Grace, I fay, as Epiphanius fpeaketh it.
P. do. I grant the Bread to be converted and turned into the Flefliof
Chrift, but not by Tranfubftantiation, but by a Sacramental Con-
verlion or turning. It is Transformed, faith ThenphylM in the fame
place, by a Myftical Benedi<ft:ion, and by the acceilion or coming of
the Holy Ghoft unto the Flelh of Chrift. He laith not, by expullion,
or driving away the Subftance of Bread, and by fubftitutingor put-
ting in its place the Corporal Subftance of Chrift's Fleih. And
where he faith. It is not a Figure of the Body, we fhould unierftand
that faying, ashehimfelf do.th elicvvhcre add one, that is, it is no
naked
/
Bijhop Ridley'j Anfiver to the Three Propofitions.
naked or bare Figure only. ForChriftis prefent in his Myfteries; nei—
thcr at any time, as Cyprhii Taithj doth the Divine Majeliy abfent him-
felf from the Divine Myfteries.
And I alfo vvorlhip Chrift in the Sacrament , but not becaufe Si.
he is included in the Sacrament: Like as I worlhip Chrilt alio
in the Scriptures, not becaufe he is really included in them. Notwith-
ftanding, 1 fay, that the Body of Chrill is prefent in the Sacrament,
butyetSacramentally and Spiritually, according to his Grace giving
Life, and in that refpcdf really, that is according to his Benedit^ion,
giving Life.
Furthermore, I acknowledggladly the true-Body of Chrift to be
in the Lord's Supper in fuch fort as the Church of Chrilf ( which is
the Spoufe of Chrilt, and is taught of the Holy Ghoft, and guided
by God's Wordj doth acknowledg the fame. But the true Church of
Chrift doth acknowledg a Prefence of Chrift's Body in the Lord's
Supper, to be communicated to the Godly by Grace, and fpiritual-
Jy, as I have often (hewed, and by a Sacramental Signification, bUt
not by the Corporal Prefence of the Body of his Flefti.
We worftiip , I confefs, the fame true Lord and Saviour of p. 6').
the world, which the Wife men worftiipped in the Manger; how-
belt we do it in a Myftery, and in the Sacrament of the Lord's Sup-
per, and that in Spiritual Liberty, as faith &. Aug. Ub.^. de DoU.Chri-
jiiana., Not in carnal fervitude ; that is, we do not worftiip fcrvilely
the fignsfor the things ; for that ftiouldbe, as he alfo faith, a part of
afervile Infirmity ; but we behold with the eyes of Faith him pre-
feut after Grace, and fpiritually fet upon the Tabic ; and we wor-
fhip him who iitteth above, and is worftiipped of the Angels ; for
Chrift is always ailiftant to his Myfteries, as the faid Augujiuie faith.
And the Divine Majefty, as faith Cypr/jn,doth never abfent it felf from
the Divine Myfteries; but this Aififtance and Prefence of Chrift, as in
Baptifm, it is wholly Spiritual, and by Grace, and not by any Cor-
poral Subftance of the Flelh : Even lb it is here in the Lord's Sup-
per, being rightly, and according to the Word of God duly mi-
niftred.
Ridley. My Proteftation always faved, that by this^ mine p, . 2q,
Anfwer I do not condefcendto your Authority, in that you are Le- ' *
gate to the Pope; I anfwer thus,
In a fenfe, the rirft Article is true, and in a fenfe it is falfe ; for if
you take really for vere-, for fpiritually by Grace and Efficacy, then it
is true that the Natural Body and Blood of Chrift is in the Sacrament
vere & realiter^ indeed and really; but if you take thefe terms fo grofty,
that.
■'f.!
I'-i
f
lljl.
■I':
ft; <;•
%
ill'.
It'!
f
nil
1 :>i-
ri'li
: A
60 Bifbop Ridley'j Anfwer to the three TropofitioMS.
that you would conclude thereby a Natural Body,having Motion,to
be contained under the Forms of Bread and Wine, vm & realiter,
then really is not Chrilt's Body and Blood in the Sacrament, no
more than the Holy Ghoft is in the Element of Water in cur Baptifm.
Eecaufe this Anfwer was not underftood, the Notaries will; not
how to note iti wherefore the Bifhop of .Lz«co/« willed him to anfwer
either Affirmatively or Negatively, either to grant the Article, or to
deny it.
Rid. My Lord, you know that where any Equivocation ( which
is a word having two lignitications ) is, except diftindfion be given,
no diredt Anfwer can be made i for it is one of Ariftotles Fallacies,
containing two QuelHons under one, the which cannot be fatisHed
with one Anfwer. For both you and I agree herein, that in the Sa-
cramentis the very true and Natural Body and Blood of Chrift,even
that which was born of the Virgin Mary^ which afcended into Hea-
ven, which fitteth on the Right Hand of God the Father, which
[hall come from thence to judg the quick and the dead, ; only we
differ in modo^ in the way and manner of being 5 we confefs all one
thing to be in the Sacrament, and diffentin the manner of being there.
I being fully by God's Word thereunto perfwaded, confefs Chrift's
Natural Body to be in the Sacram.ent indeed by Spirit and Grace, be-
caufe that whofoever receiveth worthily that Bread and Wine, re-
ceiveth elTedfually Chrifl's Body, and drinketh his Blood; that is, he
is made effedlually Partaker of his Pailion i and you make a groffer
kind of being, encloting a Natural, a Lively, and a Moving Body,
under the ffiape or form of Bread and Wine. Now this difference
contldered, to the Queflion thus I anfwer. That in the Sacrament of
the Altar is the Natural Body and Blood of Chrift, vcre& realiter^
indeed and really, for fpiritually by Grace and Efficacy; for fo every
worthy Receiver receiveth the very true Body of Chrifl 5 but if
you mean really and indeed, fo that thereby you would include a
lively and a moveable Body under the forms of Bread and Wine,
then in that fenfe is not Chrift's Body in the Sacrament really and
indeed.
This Anfwer taken and penned of the Notaries, the Biffiop of Lin-
coin propoi'ed the fecond Queflion or Article. To whom heanfwer'd.
Rid. Always my Proteftation referved, I anfwer thus. That in the
Sacrament is a certain Change, in that that Bread, which was before
common Bread, is now made a lively prefehtation of Chrift's Body,
and not only a Figure, but effedually repreienteth his Body; that even
as the Mortal Body was nourifhed by that vilible Bread, fo is the In-
ternal
ExtraUs out of Bijhop Poynet j Dialla^kon. Ci
I ternal Soul fed with the Heavenly food of Chrift's Body, which the eye of
Faith feeth as the bodily eye feeth only Bread.Such a Sacramental mutation I
grant to be in the Bread and Wine, which truly is no fmall change, but
fuch a change as no mortal man can make, but only that Omnipottncy of
Chrifs Win-d.
Then the Bilhop of tincoln willed him to anfwer diredlly either Affirma-
lively or Negatively, without further Declaration of the Matter.
Then he Anfwered :
'Ridley. That notwithftanding the Sacramental Mutation of the which
he fpake, and all the Dodors confelTed, the true Subftance and Nature of
Bread and Wine remaineth i with the. which the Body is in like fort nou-
riflied, as the Soul is by Grace and Spirit with the Body of Chrift. Even
fo in Baptifm the Body is walhed with the vifible Water, and the Soul is
cleanfed from all hkb by the Invifible Holy Ghoft, and yet the Water cea-
feth not to be Water, but keepeth the nature of Water ftill. In like fort ia
the Sacrament of the Lords-Supper the Bread ceafeth not to be Bread.
Extradfs from Bifliop Poynets DiallaBicon P^tri honi ^ literati
DiallatSticon. de veritate, natura atq^ue fuh*
flantia corporis ^ fanguinis
Chrifli in Euchariflia. Ad cat'
cem Becce Opufculorumy Vol. 11.
Par. 1. p. 31. Genevce^ 1573./!
I Will fo divide the quefiion -y'that it ^^Aulam ita partiri placuit,ut fom-
may be briefly reduced to three heads. V.V matim ad tria capita revocetur.
Firj?, I rviU jheva that the true Body of Primb oftcndam veritatem corporis
Chrijl is given to the Faithful in tlx Sa- Chrifti in Euchariflia dari fidelibus j
crament^ and that the rvordsl^ituxe and nec has voces Naturam at que Sub-
Subftance, are not to be rejeded.^ but ftantiam fugiendas efle, fed Veteres
that the Ancients treating of this Sacra- de hoc Sacramento diftercntes ita lo-
ment did ufe the^. In the next place, I cutos fuiffe Deinde difcrimen efle
mil jhetv that there is a difference be- monftrabo inter corpus Domini pro-
tween the proper Body ofChrift, and that prium, & illud quod ineft in Sacra-
which is prefent in the Sacrament, and mento; veterefque Patres ita cenfu-
that the Ancient Fathers thought fo. Lafi- ifle. Poftrcmo cujufmodi fit hoc Cor-
ly, I mil Jhen>, what manner of Body pus, quod accipitur in Myfterio, &
this is, which is received in tlois Myflery, cureo nomine cenfeatur, indicabo,
1 and
Extracts from Bipjop Poynet'^ Dialla^icon.
and wJjy it if called by that Name, ac-
cording to the Dodrine of the fame Fa-
thers.
The Body of Chrift is fo called proper-
ly and improperly!, properly, that Body
fecundum eorundem
tiam, p. 33, 34.
Patrum fenten-
eaten, and each is called his Body, hut in
a different manner.
the Sacrament,
As for Kohat concerns our purpofe, the
very words of Cyprian fufficiently de-
monflratc, how the Letter is not to be fol-
lowed in thoje things, which relate to
this My^tcyy koTv Scujc is ^u^iixi procul arccndus eft c^niis Sen-"
to heremroed, and all things to be referred fus, & ad Scnfum fpjritualem omnia
to a fpiritual Senfe '■> that with this referenda 5 huic Pani Divinaj Virtu-
Bread is prefent, the Divine Virtue, the tis prsfentiam adefle, Vita? interna?
effeU
Corpus Chrifii dicitur proprie &
improprie ; proprie , Corpus illud
which was ta^n of the Virgin. Improperly, fumptum ex Virgine; improprie, ut
as the Sacrament and the Church. That Sacramentum & Ecclelia. Quod Ec-
the Church is not properly theBody ofChriji, clefia proprie Corpus ChrilH non fit,
cannot be doubted by any. It remains, nemini dubium eftj de Sacramento
that we now prove the fame of the Sacra- reftat, ut nunc idem Probemus , p.
ment. 3^*
It may eafily be ohferved from what Non difficile efi animadvertere ex
Chryfofiom writeth in this place, that his quaefcriblt hoclocoChryfofiomus,
that which Chriji called his Body when he aliter efle Corpus, quod Chriltus ip-
faid. Take, eat, this is my Body; and fe Corpus fuum appellavit, cum di-
which he received together with his Apo- ceret, Accipite, edite j hoc meum ell
Jiles, is in another manner his Body, than ^Corpus,quod ipie quoque fimul fume-
is his very proper Body, which was fed bat cum difcipulisj aliter ipium Cor.-
with that other, fhis did eat, that was pus proprium, quod illo altero vefce-
batur. Hoc comedebat, illud comefum
ell > dc utrumque Corpus, fed diver-
fa ratione, dicitur, p. 39.
He gave the Sacrament cf his Body, Sacramentum videlicet Corporis
and not the Body it felf vifibly conceived, (deditj & non ipfum vifibiliter, five
that is, his vifblc Body •, which is refer- viiibile Corpus, quod ad proprium
red to his proper Body. But this Body, Corpus refertur. Hoc autem Corpus
wherever it is, is vifble. ubicunque ell, vifibile eft, p. 40.
It is to be obferved. That the truth ef Obfervandum eft veritatem Domi-
the Lords Body may be fpok^n two ways, nici Corporis, dupliciter dici ac debe-
and ought to he underjlood two ways, re dupliciter accipi. Alia namque
For one verity of his Body is required in Veritas Corporis requiritur in Mylte-
the Sacrament, another fimply and out of rio, alia fimpliciter & abfque Myfte-
no, p. 41.
Quod ad noftrum inftitutum atti-
net, ipfa Cypriani verba fatis indi-
cant, quam non fequenda fit litera
in his quae de hoc Myfterio dicuntur,
Extra^s from Bijhop
effeU of Eternal Ufe-y that the Divine
EJfence is infufed-y that the Words are
Spirit and Life; that a fpiritual Precept
is delivered; that this Body, this Flejh
and Bloody this Subjiance of the Body
ought not to be underjiood efier a common
mannery nor according to the Di&ates of
human Keafon ; but is fo named, thought
and believed y becaufe of certain eminent
EffeUsy Virtues and Properties, which are
joyned to it, which are naturally found in
the Body and Blond of Chriji, to wit, that
it feed and (]uickpi our Souls, and prepare
our Bodies to KefurreSion and Immorta-
lity.
Here it is to be rememhred, that the
words are fpiritual, and fpiritually to he
underjiood; that it is indeed named Flejh
and Blood, but that this ought to be un-
derjiood of the Spirit and Life, that is,
of the lively Virtue of the Flejh of otcr
hard, fo that the Efficacy of Life is con-
ferred on the external Signs.
Wlaen Theophyladt faid, hhat the
Bread is not the Figure of our Lords Body,
he means that it is not only for a bare)
Figure of it.
See how ChxyHolkom faith, fhat we
are really, as 1 may fo fay , turned into
the Flejh of Chriji. Let who doth not
fee that this is a fpiritual, not a carnal
ConverftontSo theBreadis really turned and
tranfelementated into the Flejh of Chriji,
but by a fpiritual, not a carnal Conver-
Jton, inafrmich as as the Bread obtains the
Virtue of the Flejh.
How much better did Cyprian, Am-
brofe, Epiphanius, Emyfenus, and o-
thers fpcal\, who teach a like change to
be performed in the Eucharif, as is per-
farmed in Baptifm, by which the external
PoynetV Diallaflk^x. 63
effedtum, Divinam infundi effentiam
verba Spiritum 5c vitam eflejfpirituale
documentum tradi, hoc Corpus, huuc
fanguinem, 5c carnem banc fubftanti-
am Corporis, non communi more, nec
ut humana ratio didtat accipi oportere,
fed ita nominari, exifiimari, credi,
propter cximios quofdam Effedtus ,
Virtutes, 8c Proprietates conjundias,
qua^ Corpori 5c fanguini Chrifii na-
tura infant; nempe quod pafcat ani-
mas nortras, 5c viviHcet fimul, 8c
Corpora ad Refurredlionem 5c Im-
mortalitatem prseparet, p. 48.
Hie cogitandum eft verba fpiritua-
lia efte, & fpiritualiter intelligenda;
carnem quidem 5c fanguinem nomi-
nari, fed de Spiritu 8c Vita, id eft,
vivirica Dominica? carnis V irtute de-
bere intelligi, 8c proinde vim Vita;
fignis externis inditam elfe, Ibid.
Theophyladus quum dicitfpanem)
non efte Figuram (Corporis Domi-
nici_) fenfit non tantum Figuram efte,
p. 47.
Ecce Cliryfoftomus dicit, realiter
utita loquar, nos converti in carnem
Chrifti, fed fpiritualem illam non
carnalem Converfionem efte quis non
videt ? Ita reipsa convertitur 5c tranf-
elementatur Panis in carnem Chrifti,
fed fpirituali non carnali Converfio-
ne, quia Panis virtutem carnis affe-
quitiir, p. 48.
Quanto melius locuti funt Cypri-
anus, Ambrofius, Epiphanius, Emy-
fenus, 8c alii, qui iimilem Commu-
tationem in Euchariftia cum ea qua;
fit in Baptifmo confirmant qua fit ut
I 2 Signs
ip
\
^4 Extra^s out of Bijhop Poynet'j Dialla^icon.
Sigor remain the fame, and by Grace figna maneant eadem, 8c per gratf-
acquire a nexp fulfance in the fame man- am novam acquirant fubftantiam fi-
militer, p. 4P
ner.
The Expofnion and VoBrine o/Ber- Cujus ego viri (Bertrami) Expor
tram, concerning the Sacrament.) ought in fitioncm 8c de Sacramento viam di-
my Opinion to he diligently examined and fputandi duas ob caufas diligenter
expendendam 8c ampkdeiidam arbi-
tror, 52.
Qiiod ut magis appareat, 8c me-
moria reponatur, non inutile tore pu-
tavi, ex his quse fupra memoravi-
embraced for two Keafons.
That this may appear more manifefily.,
and be remembred the better , I thought
it not unfit to fubjoyn from what I have
already taught., a certain Comparifoir be- mus, quandam per collatio-
tween the two Bodies ofChrifi. nem fubjungere.
The proper Body of Chrifi hath Head., Corpus Chrifti proprium habet
Breafi) and dijlinU Members, the my^ii- caput, pc(^us, membra dinftind^a ,
cal Body hath not. The proper Body hath Corpus myfticum non habet. Corpus
Bones, Veins and Nervesthe myjiicd proprium habet Offa, Venas,Nervos,
Body hath not. mytHcum non habet^
That is organical; this is not.- Illud organicum eft; hoc non eft.
That is not a Figure 5 this is a Figure Illud Figura non eft 5 hoc eft Fi-
of the proper Body. That is human and cor- gura pfoprii Corporis. Illud natura
poreal by its Nature; this is Heavenly, fua humanum 8c corporeum eft 5 hcc
Divine, and Spiritual. Coelefte, Divinum, Spirituale.
The matter of that is not fubject to Cor- Ulius materia. Corruptioni non eft
ruption j the material part of this is Bread, obnoxia; hu jus pars materialis Panis
and is corrupted^ eft, 8c corrumpitur.
That is contained in one place •, tlois is Illud uno loco contineturi hoc,
prefent, wherefoever the Sacrament is cele- ubicunque Sacrament^im celebratur,
brated, but not, as in a place. adeft, at non ut in loco.
That is not. the Sacrament of another Illud non eft Sacramentum alterius
Body y this the Sacrament, of another. Corporis j hoc Sacramentum eft al-
terius.
That was taken of the Body of the Vir- Illud de Virginis Marias corpore
gin Mary,<2«i/ was once mated; this is not fumptum, femel creatum eft 5 hoc de
tah^n of the Virgin, hut is created daily Virgine non fumitur fed quotidie per
by the myfiical Benedidion potential^. Benedidtionem myilicam potential!-
ter creatur.
That is a natural Body, this fupernatu- Illud naturale Corpus eft; hoc fii-
rah Lajily, That is ftmply, properly and pernaturale. Denique illud fimpli-
abfolutely his Body i this in a certain re- citer, hoc fecundum quidi illud pro-
fpeCi only and. imftoperly, prie 8c abfolute, hoc improprie Coe-
pus eft, ^.52,53. Nor:
Estra^s out of Hi/hop
Nor is it enough here, if rve flee one
VP ay of carnally underjianding it, and fall
upon another. For he jvho literally un-
derjiands the eating of the Flejls of Chrift,
and as altho it vpere a proper Speech, he
is a carnal Capernaite; rvhetber he ima-
gine it to he properly done this way , or
that way. For it is probable that all the
Capernaites Jtnderjiood Chriji carnally ,
hut not all the fame way.
For it is not therefore to he accounted a
Spiritual fenfc, becaufe they fay the Flejh
of Chriji is there invifihly prefent. For if
they mean his proper Fle(h,we do not there-
fore not eat it carnally, becaufe we do not
fee it.
Now in this Sacrament the ancient Fa-
thers ohferved two things, for each of
which it might defervedly he called and
efieemed the Body of Chriji •, hut more
efpeciaVy when it comprehends both. For
the Bread is jujily called his Body, as well
becaufe it is the figure of his true Body,as
becaufe it hath the lively vertue of it con-
joyned to it, much more; hut moji tfpecir
ally, becaufe it comprehendeth both.
It is therefore to be admired, what they
mean, who will not fuffer it to be called a
figure, nor acktiowledg any figure in the
words of Injiitution, but eontumelioufiy
call thofe who own it. Figurative men,
whereas it is manifejl that all the Ancients
did fo call it.. And indeed if there be no
figure in it, it will be neither a fign nor
Sacrament. So that thofe who traduce the
maintainers of the other opinion as Sacra-
mentaries, do indeed tak^ away all Sacra-
ment from it.
fhere is yet another thing, which
the Ancient Fathers acknowledging to
Poynet J DiaBciflicon.
Neque hie fatis modum unura
carnaliter intelllgendi fugiaiiius,& in
aliuni impingamus. Nain qui Chri-
fti carnem edere fecundum literam
accipit, 6c quali locutio propria fit;
is Capernaita carnalis eft ; five id hoe
five illo mode proprie fieri putat.
Nam verilimile eft, Carpernaitas cm-
nes quidem carnaliter intellexilTe, fed
non omneseodem inodo, p. 53..
Non enim ideo-fpiritualis fenfus
exiftirnandus eft, quia dicunt carnem
Chrifti invifibiliter adcfle; nam fi de
propria carne intelligant, non ideo
carnaliter non edimus, quia non vir
demus, /». 54.
Jam in hoe Sacramento veteres Pa-
tresduas res animadverteruntj prop-
ter quas fingulas merito corpus Chri-
fti diceretur 8c haberetur, maxime
verb cum utramque comprehendat.
Nam 6c quia figura veri corporis pa-
nis eft,jure corpus appellatur 5 6c quia
virtutem cjufdem vitalem conjun-
dam habet, multo magis ; turn vero
maxime quod utrumque compledi-
tur. Ibid.
Qno magis mirandum eft,quid illis-
in men tern veniat, qui figutam non
patiantur appellari, nec figuram in
Goense verbis agnolcantfed eos qui
agnofcunt, per contuineliam figura-r-
tores appellant cum tamen raanife-
ftum fit Veteres omnes^ lie appellalTe.
Quod fi figura , non erit, nec Sig-
num, nec Sacramentum erit. Itaque
qui in illos fanquam cacramentarios.-
dicere parati func, ipfi oranino Sacra--
raenta tollunt.p. 55.
Alterum elfe diximus, quod vete^
res Patrea agnofcentes in hoc Sacra—
be.
66 Extracts from Bijhop
be in this Satrament , taught it to be
truly the Body of our Lord; Jnd that is
the efficacious and lively vertue of the Bo-
dy it felf^ which is joyned with the
Bread and Wine by Grace and Myjiical
Benedi£fion,and is called by divers namcs^
although it he the fame thing: by Augu-
ftine, the Intelligible^ Invif.ble and Sgiri-
tual Body: by Jerome the Divine and
Spiritttal Flfo : by Iren£US"d!« Heaven-
ly Tloing; by Ambrofe the Spiritual
Food and Body of the Divine Spirit: by
others fome other lik^ thing. And this
doth chiefly caufe this Sacrament to be
worthy of the appellation of his true Body
and Blood, fince it doth not only exter-
nally bear the Image and Figure of it^
but alfo carrieth along with it the inward
and hidden natural propriety of the fame
Body 5 fo that it cannot be elieemed an
empty Figure, or thefign of a thing whoF
ly abfentfut the very Body of our Lord:
Divine indeed and Spiritual, but prefent
by Grace, full of vertue, powerful in effi-
cacy. For this is very frequent, that the
names of things themfelves be afcribed to
their virtue and efficay.
The Fathers therfore in Treating of
the Sacraments, ufe the words Nature
and Subllance not PhilofophicaVy but
Theologically: that is, they fpeak^not as
natural Phildfophers, but as men difpu-
ting of Divine matters ', they give the
name cf 'Hature and Suhjiance to Grace,
Virtue and Efficacy : the nature of the
Sacrament fo requiring.
But this ("that the Spiritual virtue is
iiifcparable from the ElementsJ is to
be undcrfiood to be true, as long as the
Sign ferveth for that ufe, and is direHed
to that end, for which it was dejiined by
Poynet'^ Dialla£lkon.
mento vere Dominicum corpus effe
voluerunt. Eft autem virtus ipfms
corporis efficax 8c vivifica, quae per
gratiaiii 8c myfticam benedidionem
cum pane 8c vino conjungitur, oc va-
riis • nominibus appellatur,- ciim res
eadem fitjab Auguftino corpus Intel-
ligibile, inviiibile, fpirituale •, abHie-
ronymo caro divina 8c fpiritualis ; ab
Irenseo res coeleftis •, ab Ambrolio efca
fpiritualis, 8c corpus divini fpiritus ;
ab aliis aliud fimile quippiam. Et hoc
rrulto etiam magis etficit, ut hoc Sa-
cramentum dignilfimum lit veri cor-
poris 8c fanguinis noinenclatura:quum
non folum extrinfecus imaginem 8c
figuram ejus prae fe ferat verum;etiam
intus abditam 8c latentem naturalem
ejufdem corporis proprietatem , hoc
eft, vivihcam virtutem fecum trahat ■,
ut jam non inanis hgura, aut abfcntis
omnino rei lignum exiftimari poflit,
fed ipfum corpus Domini, divinum
quidem 8c fpirituale,fed praefens gra-
tia, plenum virtute, potens elHcaci-
tate. Saepe autem ht, ut nomina re-
rum ipfarum tribuantur earum vir-
tuti 8c eflicacitati. Ibid.
Cum agitur de Sacramentis, men-
tionem faciunt Patres Naturae & Sub-
ftantiae, non fed
hoc eft, non ut Philofophi naturales
loquunfur, fed homines de divinis
rebus dilferentes, gratiae, virtuti, 8c
eflicacitati naturae fubftantisque no-
men impertientes, nimirum Sacra-
menti natura id poftulante, 57.
Hoc autem (infeparabilitas viriutis
fpiritualis ah Elementis) itajn^elligen-
dum eft, quamdiu lignum ei fervit
ufui 8c hni accommodatur, cui juxta
verbum Dei deftinatum fuerit. Nam
the
Extra£is from Bifhoj.
the Word of God. For if we apply it to
other ufes^ and abufe it againfi the infti-
tution of Chrijf it cither is altogether not
a Sacrament^ or ceafeth to he a Sacra-
ment.
The dignity and dtte honour of the Sa-
craments is not injured^ but remaineth
rvhole and inviolate, while we confefs
both the truth of the Body, and the nature
and fuhjiance of it, to be received by the
Faithful, together with the Symbols :
which alfo the ancient Fathers teftife to
he done. And then this dijiinUion which
alfo thofe Fathers diligently ohferved, be-
ing received between that proper or affti-
med Body of the Lord, and this Symboli-
cal Body, or Sacrament of the Body , the
analogy of our Faith is not violated,
which no ways ought to be Jhak^n: fince
we attribute to each Body his peculiar pro-
pcrties. For we fay that the proper and
affumed Body is in a place, and circum-
fcribed with a fpace, by reafon of the mo-
dus of a true Body, as Auguftine faith,
6fc.
All men fee, that we alfo here affirm
the Subfance to be prefent, and ajfert our
Communion with Chriji naturally, and as
I may fay, fuhfiantially- But then thefe
words ought to be underjiood after the
manner not ofFhilofophers hut of Divines.
Neither jhottld we quarrel about the term
^Tranfubrtantiation, although barba-
rous and not in the leafi neceffary; Pro-
vided they meant thereby fuch a Tranf-
mutation of Subftances, as the Ancients
taught: that is, a Sacramental one: fuch
as is alfo performed in a man regenerated
by Bapiifm, who is made a new man, and
a new creature. Such as is alfo performed
when we are converted into the Flejh of
Poynet'j DiallaSikon. 67
fi ad alios ufus applicamus, & abuti-
mur contra Chrilti inftitutum : aut
Sacramentiim piorfus non ell, aut
Sacramentum effe deiinit, p. 64.
Sacramentorum dignitas & debi-
tus honos non l£ditur,fed integer 8c
inviolatus manet i dum & vcritatem
corporis & naturam ac fubflantiam
illius una cum fymbolis accipi fatea-
mur a lidelibus, quod & veteres Pa-
tres fieri teftantur. Deinde hac recep-
ta, quam iidem Patres diligenter ob--
fervarunt, diftindlione inter propri-
um five aflumptum illud corpus Do-
mini, & hoc fytnbolicum corpus five
Sacramentum corporis, non peccatur
in analogiam fidei noflrae, quas nullo
pacflo coiivellenda eft: quandoquidem
utrique corpori qua? fua funt attribu-
imus. Proprium enim & aftumptum
corpus in loco efle (x loci fpatio cir-
cumfcribi dicimus, propter veri cor-
poris modum ut ait Auguftinus, &c.
Ibid.
Vident fubftantlam quoque a nobis
(in hoc libro) prcefentem aftirmari, 8c
communionem noltram cum Chrifto
naturaliter, & ut ita dicara, fubftan-
tialiter praedicari: fed has voces, non ,
ut Philofophi, fed ut Theologi lo-
quuntur, intelligi oportere. Nec de
T ranfubftantiationis vocabulo,qu3m-
vis barbaro minimeque neceffario,liti- -
garemus,fi modo talcm fubftantiarum
tranfmutationeminterpretentur, qua-
lem Veteres agnofcebant, Sacramen-
talem«-videlicet, qualis etiam in ho-
mine fit per Baptifmum regenerato,
qui novus homo fadus eft, & nova
creatura ; qualis etiam fit, quum nos..
Ciorijiy
68 Extra^s cut of Bifhop
Chi'ij}-, which examples the ancient Fa-
thers ufed.
If any here requm a Miracle (forfame
Fathers call the Ettchariji a great Mir a-
cle) it is in truth no lefs wonderful^ that
Bread and JFine, which are earthly Crea-
■ tures^ and apt only to nourijh the Body.,
Jhould by virtue of the Myflical Benediiii-
on obtain that inward force, and fuch
powerful efficacy, as to cleanfe, nourijh,
fanCiife, and prepare to immortality both
our Souls and Bodies, and to make us the
Members of Chriji, and one Body with
him.
PoynetV Diallafiicon.
in Chrifti carnem convertimur: qui-
bus Patres antiqui utebantur exem-
plis, f <55. _ ,
Quod fi nonnulli miraculum requi- ^
runt (nam Patres aliquot Eucharifti-
am ingens miraculum qominantj non
minus profcifto mirandum eft panem
& vinum creaturas terrenas, & cor-
pori tantum pafcendo natas, eam vir-
tute benedid^ionis myfticae vim inli-
tam, adebque porentem efticacitatem
obtinere,.ut & animos & corpora
mundent, alant, fandiHcent, atque ad s
immortalitatem praeparent, ut nos
membra Chrifti 6c unum cum illo
corpus conriciant. Ibid.
p INI s. i
I
DIALLACTICON
^ VIRI BONI ET LITERATI,
/7 •
DE
Veritate, NatupvA, atque Substantia
CORPORIS ET SANGUINIS
E U C H A RI S T I A.
Tauloante haiU: confiriptam'Apologiam (^}c.'}oh,^\XQ\X\)prodieratT>\3\\2LQ:{-
con celeberriral .Viri joannis Vometi'E,^\\bo^\fVintonienftSj de VeritatCj
Natura atque §ubftanti4 Corporis ,& Sanguinis Chriflii in Euchariftia:
Quod non alio confiUo edidit, qudm ut fidem ^ doStrmam Ecclejla Anglicatia
illufiraret. D. Cofins Hiftor. Tranliibftant. cap. 2.
I M P RT M A T U R J/- r
' I
Ether cm Titulm^ Diallacticon Viri boni & literati^ &'c.
Ex .-Edib. lam- Qj^h ppeedham R R. in Chrifto P. ac D, D*
A Wilhelmo Archiep.Cantuar. a Sac. Dom*
L 0 N D I N I,
Irnpenfis B. Griffin 6c Sam, Keble. Proliant venales ad
Author Leftori.
✓
PAcetn aliorum queerer e pulchrum e(i, © hahet cert am
promifionem Dei: Beati pacifai, Sed vereor hoc
dnm cupide fe^or^ tie quod Us qui pugms dtrumt evenire
folet^ idem mihi quoque accidat. lUi dum aliorum fal'uti
confulunt, ipd reportant vulnera. Et ego dum id operam do
ut dijjidentes redeant in gratiam, ab i'^dem fortaffe nullam
tnibo gratiam. Id ft ft, iUius exemplo me levaho qui dixit.
Si hominihus placuijem, Chrififerims mn ejjem. Vale ac
flude Chriflo placers.
CO
De Veritate,
NATURA atq- SUBSTANTIA
CORPORIS
five Carnir, &> Sanguinis CHRISTI
i N
Eucharistia Diallacticon.
Dlfcordiam triftem 8c inaufpicatam de Coena
Domini, qu:E Chrifti ccclefias do£trinam pu-
riorem fequentes multis jam vexat annis, qua
non mode charitas fraterna fcinditur, fed cir
vitatesetiamac regiones in periculum vocan-
tur, nemo bonus eft qui non doleat, nemo zeloreiigionis
accenfus qui non fcpe defleat. Namcum tenebrisignoran-
tiae depuKis, ac linguarum donofeliciterecclefijereflituto,
nova lux quxdam orbi reddita eflet, tantafque radices E-
vangelium agere cocpiffet,ut fpes maximorum indfe frudu-
urn fefe offerret; ftatim inter primaries verbi duces erum-
pens acris 8c vehemens ifta diffenfio,pulcherrima ccepta mi-
fere perturbavit. Quibus enim armis ilii in veritate illu-
flranda, & hoftibus Evangelii profternendis fortiter ufi fu-
crant, ea poft banc litem exortam in fe mutud converte-
runt. Ita felix ille renafcentis Evangelii curfus non folum
retardatus eft, fed fa<ftionibus atque diftidiis eo res etiam
dedufta, ut nifi dextera potens ilia Dominircfiftat, iterum
labafcere ac ruere Veritas,iterum adChaos praeteritum redi-
re videatur. Etenim ft rem vere putare volumus,nulla tan-
turn Evangelio propagandovisobftitit, non idoliRomani
B fraudes
Dialla^icon
frnudesatque pra^Aigfe, non principum in gregem Chrifti
feritia, non feftafiorum turbulenti motus, quantum hxc
fola nocuitinconfulta contcntio,qucepiorum animis moefti-
tiam, hoftibus exultandi materiam, infirmisatque imperi-
tis fcandalum affert acruinam. Neque fanedubium eft
quia ut aliorum multorum, ita hujus quoque tanti mali o-
rigo a noflro fcelere profefta fit. Lucemenim oblaram ne-
giigentes, vel contemnentes potius. meiito indigni tanto
beneficio judicamur. Quod etiam in caufa eft, cur tametfi
multi dodtibonique viri intelligant, quantum Reip. Chri-
ftianseinterfit.quamprimum componi fimultatem banc &
aboleridifiidia; paUci tamen in hoc ftudium ferio incum-
bunt, Scfiqui tentare voIuerunt,quafil£EVo numine fufccp-
tares in diverfum abiiffe videatur. Equidem cum viderem
litigandi nullum fieri modum, nec ab homine quoquam
fpem efle melioris auric, rem precibus Deo committendam
efTe duxi, & auxilium opportunum expzdtandum ab illo
c am filentio. Interea tamen officii mei efTe exifiimavi, ne-
gotium tanti moment! non negligere, fed examinatis prie-
cipuis capitibus controverfia:, quid vcrum fit,quid (ecusin-
veftigare,tum ex autoritate facrx fcripruraa, non ambi-
guis Fatrum teftimoniis, certam aliquam fententiam fla-
tuere,qua poffim & ipfe mihi fatisfacere, & rationem illius,
fi opus fit, petenti reddere, ne perpetuo fludluet hue illuc
animus, adverfis veluti ventorum jadtatus p^'icliis. Dum
banc mihi operamfumo, & veftigiis antiquorum interpre-
turn attentus infiflo,videor mihi deprehendifTe, nifi me mea
fallit opinio, non efife controverfiam banc tam implicatam,
neque tam oblcuram, quam plerique arbitrantur, & homi-
num potius culpa quam reinaturatam acerbasextitiffedU
micationes, nec rationem conciiiandi apud homines verita-
tis magisqu^m rixandicupidosdifficilem fore. Quapro-
pter etfi mihi privatim hoc quicquid eft operx fum aggref-
fus ; tamen quoniam ex amicis nonnulli boni viri atque rc-
Eucharijiiiie. 3
ligiofi ita volebant, ad aliorum eciam aures atque oculos
pervenire non molefle tuli, ut illis quoquc, fi quid habet
•utile, prodefle pofTit. Caufam ita partiri placuit ut fumma-
tim ad tria capita revocetiir. Primum oftendam veritatem
corporis Chrifti in Eucharidia dari fidelibu?,nec has voces,
Naturam atque SubdantiamjfugiendasefferSed veteres de
hoc Sacramento diflerentes ita locutos fuiile. Deinde dif-
crimen eife monftrabo inter corpus Domini proprium, &
illud quod ineft in Sacramento, veterefque Patresita cen-
TuifTe. Poftremo cujufmodi fit hoc corpus quod accipitur in
myfterio,8c cur eo nomine ccnleatur, indicabo, fecundum
eorundem Patrum fententiam: quibus explicatis de tota
controverfia facile poteritjudicari. Jam fatis conftat-ex E-
vangeliftarum MattIiiei,MarciacLucJe relatione,quod Do-
minus noiler lefus Chriftus.cum ex hoc mundo abiturus 22.
eflet,ac relinquens terras ad Patrem afcenfurus.Sacramen-
,tum corporis & fanguinisfui difcipulis inCoena pr^fenti-
bus inflituit. Itaque panem acceptum cum benedixiflet,fre-
git, ac dedit illis,dicens, Hoc eft corpus meura. Ad eundem
modum & poculum, dicens. Hoc poculum novum Te-
ftamentum eft in meo fanguine, hoc facite in mei recor-
dationem. Paulus etiam in eandem (ententiam ad Corin- ♦
thios fcribit Epift. i. cap. 11. eadem fere verba recitans, j
Sccap. 10. Poculum, inquit, benediftionis cui benedici-I'o.
mus, nonne communicatio fanguinis Chrifti eft t Panis
quern frangimus, nonne communicatio Corporis Chri®
fti eft ? Ex his Evangeliftarum 8c Apoftoli verbis, ita
fenferunt veteres, Chriftum Dominum, qui eft ipfa ve-
ritas, veracitei- htec dixifte, 8c verCjquiE dixerat, pr^ftitifle,
ut de rei veritate nullus relinquatur amplius dubitandi lo-
cus. Adh«c4"3S Joannis cap. 6.1ocutus eft Dominus, Caro
mea vere eft cibus, 8c fanguis meus vere eft potus, &c. Pa-
nis quern egodabo, caro mea eft, 8c, Nili ederitis carnem
ftlii horainis, 8c biberitis ejus fanguinem, &c. Magno con-
B 2 fenfu
4 Dialla^icon
fen fu Patres,tarn Gi^eciquam Latini,ad Euchariftije Sacra*
mentum referunt. Q^d autem ita interpretati funt ea loca,
turn apud Joannem, turn apud reliquos Evangeliftas, ac
Paulum ad Corinthios, teftimonia qux fequuntur, ab ipfis
authoribus pctita, facile docebunt. Principio Juftinus Mar-
tyr in Apologia z. fic fcribitjAtque cibus hicapud nosEu-
tyT^Qiog.f chariftia nominatur.qua nemini alii participare licer,niri ei,
qui & vera efTe credit,quie nos dicimus,& expiatus efl lava-
cro.quod in remilfionem peccatorum regenerationemq, da-
tur,& ita vivit ut Chrillus tradidit. Neq; enim haec commu-
nem ufitatumq; panem ufitatumq; potionem capimus, fed
qucmadmodum per Dei verbum homo faftus lefus Chriflus
confervator nofl;er,&carnem& fanguinem pro falute noftra
habuitr ficetiam cibum qui per preces fermonis quern abeo
accepimus, confecratuseft,&quo fanguis carnefque noftrife
commutatione fafta aluntur, lefu Chrifti ejus qui homo
faftus eft, 8ccarnem & fanguinem efle accepimus. Apo-
ftoli enim in commentariis fuisquac Evangelia dicuntur, ita
fibi Chriftum pr^cepifte tradiderunt, eum accepto pane
cum grarias egiflet, dixifte, Hoc facite in memoriam mei.
Hoc eft Corpus meum: Dixifte etiam accepto poculo cum
egiftet gratias,Hic eft fanguismeus. Hujus teftimonii cum
alia verba veritatem corporis afterunt ^ .turn verd quod d
fimilitudine fumpta de duabus in Chrifto naturis, duascti-
am in Euchariftia naturas oflendit, figni videlicet exterio-
ris 8c carnis &fanguinis lefu Chrifti. His apud Irenseum
iren.m lib. 4- j]|j^ fimiUa dicuntur ;Quomodo autem rurftis dicuntcar-
nem in corruptionem devenire 8i non percipere vitam
qu^ a corpore Domini ScXanguine alitur ? Ergo, aut fen.
tentiam mutent,aut abftineant offerendo quxprscdifta funt,
Noftra autem confonans eft fententia EuchariilisEjSf Eucha-
riftia rurfus confirmat fententiam noftram.Offerimusenim
quae funt ejusicongruenter communicationem 8c veritatem
praedicantes carnis 8c fpiritus. Quemadmodam enim qui
Euchari^i(^* ' 5
eft a terra paiiis,percipiens vocationem Dei, jam noncom-
munis panis eft, fed Euchariftia ex duabus rebus conftans*
terrena Sccoelefti :fic Sc corpora noftrapercipientia Eucha-
riftiam, jam non funt corruptibilia, fpem refurreftionis ha-
bentia. Idem lib. Et quoniam membra ejus fumus & per
creaturam nutriraur, creaturam autem ipife nobis pra^ftar,
foiem fuum oriri faciens, & pluens quemadmodum vult:
eum caiicem, qui eft creatura, fuum corpus confirmavit, ex
quo noftra auget corpora. Quando ergo & mixtus calix
& faftus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Euchariftia
fanguinis & corporis Chrifti, ex quibus augetur & confi-
ftit carnis noftrac fubftantia : Quomodo carhem ncgat
capacem efle donationis Dei quie eft vita acterna, qu:Elan-
guinc & corpore Chrifti nutritur ? Haze verba Iren£ei alio-
qui nonobfcura manifeftiora tamen fient, fi ex Auguftino
qucedam adjungamus. Is inIibroSententiarumProfperi,&:
habetur de confecratione diftin. x. ita fcribit j Hoc Aug.ut.de m-
quod dicimus,quod modis omnibus approbate contendimus,
facrificium Ecclefice duobus modisconfici, duobus conftare,
vifibili Sacramentorum fpecie , & invifibiJi Domini no-
ftri lefu Chrifti carne 8c fanguine , & Sacramento 8c re
Sacramenti, id eft, corpore Chrifti. Sicut Chrifti perfona
conftat ex Deo & homine, cum ipfe Chriftus verus fit
Deus,8c verus fit homo, quia omnis res illarurft rerum na-
turam & veritateminfecontinet,ex quibusconficitur. Con-
ficitur autem facrificium Ecclefice duobus, Sacramento 8c
reSacramenti, id eft, corpore Chrifti. Eft igiturSacramen-
tum 8c res Sacramenti corpus Chrifti. Repetit Augufti^
nus collationem illam inter perfonam Chrifti & Euchari-
ftiam, & in hac veritatem 8c naturam corporis contineri, j, ,
perfpicuedicit. Idem de confecratione dift. x. Utrum in
figura ,an fub veritate hoc myfticum calicis Sacramentum
fiat ? Veritas ait, Caro mea vere eft cibus & fanguis meus
vei e eft potus. AJioqui quomodo magnum erit, panis quern
ego
6 Vidla^ian
ego dabo,caro mea eft pro mundi vita,niri vera fit caro.^ Sed
quiaChriftum fas vorari dentibus noneft, voluit Dominus
hunc panem & vinum in myfterio, vere carnem fuam &
languinem fuum conlecratione Spiritus fan6fi potentialiter
creari, 6c quotidie pro mundi vita my ftice injmolari. Ut
ficut de virgine per Spiritum fandtum vera caro fine coitu
creatur, ita per eundem ex fubftantia panis & vini myftice
idem corpus confecratur. Corpus Chrifti & Veritas & figu-
ra eft: Veritas dum Corpus Chrifti, & fanguis virtute Spi-
ritus fandfi, in virtute ipfius, ex panis&vini lubftantia effi-
citur .• figura verb eft id, quod exterius fentitur. Idem titu-
ikm ibidem. eodem,Qiu manducant & bibunt Chriftum, vitam man-
ducant Sc bibunr. Ilium manducare eft refici, ilium bibere
eft vivere ; quod in Sacramento vifibiliter fumitur, in ip-
fa veritate fpiritualiter manducatur & bibitur. Idem in li-
Idem ibidem, bro fententiarum Profperi titulo eodem, Nos autem in fpe-
cie panis & vini quam videmus res invifibiies, id eft,carnem
8c fanguinem, honoramus, nec fimiliter comprehendimus
hasduasfpecies, quemadmodumante confecrationem com-
preliendebamus,curafideliter fateamur, ante confecratio-
nem panem efte & vinum , quod natura formavit; Poft
confecrationem verb carnem Chrifti 8c fanguinem, quod
ideminPfaLi^. bencdiftio confccravit. Idem in Pfal. 54. Donee fccculum
finiatur fuifum Dominus eft : fed tamen etiam hie nobif-
cum eft Veritas Domini. Corpus enim in quo refurrexit,
in uno loco elTe oportet, Veritas autem ejus ubique dif-
Zr™epiftola ad Irenseum, Chriftus panis eft,
de quo qui manducat, vivitin ieternum; de quo ipfemet
dicit, Et panis quern ego dabo, caro mea eft pro mundivi-
ta, & determinat quomodoftt panis, non folum fecundum
Verbumquo vivunt omnia; fed fecundum carnem aflum-
ptam pronKindi vita. .Humana enim caro quse eratpecca-
to mortua,carni munda: unita,incorporata, unum cum ilia
effeda, vivit de Spiriiu ejus, ficut unum corpus de fuo
fpiritu.
Euchariflide. 7
fpiritu. Q^ii vero non eft de corpore Chrifli, non vi\ it de
Spiritu Chrifli Hacfenus Auguftinus in hoc Sacramento
fatisaperte veritatem & naturana corporis lafleruir. Hila- Warns de
riusdeTrinitatelib. 8,Eos nunc qui inter Patrem & Filium
voluntatis ingerunt unitatem interrogo,utrumne per natu-
rtc veritatem hodie Chriflus in nobis fit, an per con cor-
diam voluntatis. Si enim vere verbum caro fadtum eft,
& nos vere verbum carnem cibo Dominico fumimus.quo-
modo non naturaliter manere in nobis exiftimandus eft,
qui & naturam carnis noftr^e jam infeparabilem fibi hom.o
natus aflumpfit,& naturam carnis fuasad naturam ceterni-
tatis fub Sacramento nobis communicandte carnis admi-
fcuit i Et paulo poft, Q^ifquis ergo naturaliter Patrem in
Chrifto negabit, neget prius non naturaliter vel fe in
Chriftovei Chriftumlibiineffe, quia in Chrifto Pater,
Chriftus in nobis,unum in his, efle nosfaciunt. Si vere igi-
tur carnem corporis noftriChriftus aflumpfit, & vere ho-
mo illequi ex Maria natus fuit, Chriftus eft, nofque vere
fubmyfterio carnem corporis fui rumimus,& per hoc unum
erimus,quia Pater in illo eft:,&ille in nobis,quomodo volun-
tatis umtasafteritur.quumnaturalis per Sacramentum pro-
prietas perfeStce Sacramentum fit unitatis ? Mox etiam,
De naturali enim in nobis Chrifti veritate quae dicimus,ni-
ft ab eo difcimus, ftulte atque impie dicimus Ipfe enim ait,
Caro mea vere eft efca, & fangms mens vere eft potus.Qui
edit carnem meamScbibit fanguinem meum, in me manet
& ego in eo. De veritate carnis S< fanguinis non rclidus
eft ambigendi locus. Nunc enim & ipfius Domini profef-
fione & fide nuftra vere caro eft, & vere fanguis, 8c hxc
accepta atque haufta id efticiunt, ut & nos in Chrifto, 8c
Chriftus in nobis fit, Anne hoc Veritas non eft ? Contingat
plane his verum non efle, qui Chriftum lefum verum efle
Deum negant. Et paulo poft, Ac fic perfeda per mediato-
rem unitas doceretur, cum nobis in fe manentibus ipfe ma- /
neret
8 DiallaSlicon
neret in Patre, 8c in Patre manens, maneret in nobis, 8c i-
ta ad unitatem Patris proficeremus, cum qui in eo natu-
raliter fecundum nativitatem ineft, nos quoque in eo natu-
raliter ineffemuSjipfo in nobis naturaliter permanente.Qucd
autem in nobis naturalis hsecunitas fit, ipfe ita teftatuseft.
Qui edit carnem meam 8c bibit fanguinem meum , in me
manet 8c ego in eo. Et ftatim addit, Hsec verb vitx noftr;E
caufa eft, quod in nobis carnalibus manentem per carnem
Chriftum habemus, viflruris nobis per eumea conditione
qua vivit iile per Patrem. Si ergo nos naturaliter fecundum
carnem pereum vivimus,id eft, naturam carnis fuxadep-
ti, quomodo non naturaliter fecundum Spiritum in fe Pa-
trem habeat, cum vivat ipfe per Patrem ? Et ccncludit:
Hxc autem idcirco a nobis commemorata funt,quia volun-
tatis tantum inter Patrem & Filium unitatem hieretici
mentientes, unitatis noftrae ad Dominum utebantur exem-
plo,tanquam nobis ad Filium, 8c per Filium ad Patrem ob-
fequio tantbm ac voluntate religionis unitis, nulla per Sa-
cramentum carnis ac fanguinis naturalis communionis pro-
prietas indulgeretur, cum & per honorem nobis datum Dei
Filii, 8c permanentem in nobis carnaliter Filium,& inco
nobis corporaliter & infeparabiliter unitis, myftcrium ver.t
ac naturalis unitatis fit prtedicandum. Clare docet Hilarius
veram ac naturalem in Sacramento carnis Chrifli commu-
cyriiius lib.io. nionem. Nec Cyrillus obfcurius idem teftatur lib. lo. cap.
caf. ij. I ^. quum ait, Non tamen negamus refta nos fide, charita-
teque fincera Chrifto fpiritualiter conjungi: fed nullam no-
bis conjundionis rationem fecundum carnem cum illo effe,
id profedb pernegamus. Et ftatim; An fortaflis putat igno-
tam nobis myfticse benediftionis virtutem efie.^ qu^ cum in
nobis fiat,nonne corporaliter-quoque facit communicatione
carnis Chrifti, Chriftum in nobis habitare ? Cur enim mem-
bra fideliura, membra Chrifti funt ? Nefcitis; inquit, quia
membra veftra membra funt Chrifti.^ Membra igitur Chri-
fti
Eucharift}(t» 9
?ll raeretrlcis faciammembra ? Salvator etiam, Qm mandu-
cat carnem meam,ait,8c bibit fanguinem meum, in me m^-
net & ego in eo 3 undeconfiderandum eft non habitudine
folumquxper chariratem intelligitur , Chriftum in nobis
efte, verum etiam & participatione naturali. Nam quern-
admodum fi quis igne liquetaftam ceram alii cerx fimiliter
liquefactx ita mifcuerit, ut unum quid ex utrifque fadruin
videatur; fi ccommunione corporis & fanguinis Chriftijipfc
in nobis eft & nos in ipfo.Non poterat enim aliter corrupti-
bilishxc natura corporis ad incorruptibilitatem & vitam
traduci, nifinaturalis vitx corpuseiconjungeretur. Idem in
Joannemlib. 4. cap. 14. Oportuit enim certe ut non fblum idem in Joan.
anima perSpiritum (anitumin beatam vitam afcenderet,
verum etiam ut rude & terreftrc hoc corpus cognate
fibi guftu, tadtu & cibo ad immortalitatem rcduceretur.
Idem in Joannem lib. 11. cap xj. Corporaliter Filius per Ucminjoan.
benediftionem myfticam nobis ut homo unitur, fpirituali. H'cap.27.
ter autem ut Deus. Et pauio pdft, Filium enim Dei natura
Patri unitum corporaliter fubftantialiterque, ut diftum eft»
accipientes, clarificamur glorificamurque fupremx fadli
naturx participes. Idem lib.eodem, cap. x6. Ut igitur inter 26.
AOS & Deum iingulos unirer,quamvis corpore fimul & ani-
ma diftemus, modum tamen adinvenit confilio Patris &
fapientix fax congruentem. Sue enim corpore credentes
per communionem myfticam benedicens, & fecum & inter
nos, unum nos corpus efticit. Quis enim eos qui unius Chri-
fti corporis unione in uno Chrifto uniti ftint, ab hac natura-
li unione aliehos putabit i Nam fi omnes unum panem man-
ducamus i unum omnes corpus efficimur. Et poft pauca,
Q^od autem c(M*pofaIis hxc unio ad Chriftum participatio-
ne carnis ejus acquititur, ipfe rurfusPaulus de myfterio
pietatis difterens teftatur. Quod aliis, inquit, generationi-.
bus non eft agnitum filiis horainum, ficut nunc revelatum
eftfandlis Apoftolis ejus & Prophetis in Spiritu,eflegentcs
C cohx-
I o, 'DiallaWicon
coh2eredes&concorpores& comparticipes promifTionis in
Chrifto. Idemad Caloryrium, Neenim horrcrcmus car-
nem & fanguinem appcfita facrts altaribus, condeicendens
Deus noflris fragilitatibus, infiuit oblatis vim vita:, conver-
tens ea in veritatem propri:^ carnis , ut corpus vita: quafi
quoddam femen vivificarivum inveniatur in nobis. Unde
cypriannsde Hoc facitc ill mcani coramemorationems Hjec Cy-
CxnADmini. rillus.^Cyprianus dc Cccna Domini, Panis ide non e/Hgie
fed natura mutatiis cmnipotentia verbi faflus eft caro,
quern Dominusdifcipulisporrigebat. Et ibidem,Qjj ufquc
hodie hoc veraciftimum 5c fandiftimum corpus fuum creat
8c fandificat & benedicit, 8c pie fumentibus dividit.
Hieronymusin Matth.deconfccr.dift.z.AftUmpfit panem,.
qui confortator eft hominis, 8c ad verum Palchai trandt
Sacramentum, ut quomodo in prsefigurationem ejus-
Melchifedec panem & vinum offerens fecerat, ipfe in veri.
chryfqft.in iMJt. tate fui corpoi'is 5c ftnguiiiis repr^efentarct. Chryfoftomus
Mom. 45. Joannem Horn. 4.5. Ut autem non folumpcr diledio-
ncni,fcd reipfainillamcarnem convertamur, per cibum id
efficit quern nobis largituseft. Qjum enim fuum in nos a-
morem inducere vtllet, per corpus fuum fe nobis commif-
cuit, 8c in unum nobifcuni redegit, ut corpus cum cap'.te
Idem Horn 61 uniretur. IdemHomil. 61. Utitaque non tantum percha-
ritatemhoc fiamus, verum Sc ipfa re in iivm commifceamur
carnem,hoc per efcam eflicitur. quam largitus eft nobis.
Habet 8calia multa Chryfoftomus in eandem fcntentiam,
saafj' Hisconveniunt quse.fcribit Ambrofius lib.de Sacramentis
cap. i.Sicut eft verus Dei Filius Dominus nofter Jefus
Chriftus,non queraadmodum homines per gratiam , fed
qnafi Filius ex fabftantia Patris, ita vera eft Chrifti caro,
ficut ipfe dixit, quam accipimas, 8c verus fanguis ejus potus.
Et paulb poft, Deinde ubi nonjtulerunt fermonem Chrifti
difcipuliejus,fed audicntes quod carnem fuam daret man-
ducare, 8c fanguinem fuum daret bibendum, recedebanr..
Solus.
Euchari(li(i^» 11
Solus tamen Petrus dixit, Verba vitserEtern2chabes,8cego
a te quo recedam ? Ne igitur plures hoc dicerent, veluti
quidam eflet horror cruoris, fed nianeret gratia redemptio-
nis, ideo in fimilitudinem quidem accipis Sacramentum,
fed verce naturce gratiam virtutemque confequeris, Idem ^
lib. 4. cap. 4. Vides ergo quomodo operatorius fit ferm.o
Chridi. Si ergo tanta vis eft infermone Chrifti Domini Je-
fu, utinciperer efts quod nonerat: quanto magisoperato-
riuseft, ut fint quce erant, &; in aliud commutentur ? Ec fie
quod erat panisante confecrationem, jam corpus Chrifti
eft poft confecrationem,quia fermo Chrifti creatnram mu-
tat, & fic ex pane fit corpus Chrifti, 6c vinum cum aqua in
calice mixtum, fit fanguis confecratione Verbi cceleftis. Sed
forte dices, Speciem fanguinis non video, fed habet fimili-
tudinem, Sicut enim mortis fimilitudinem fumpfifti, ita e-
tiam fanguinis fimilitudinem bibis, ut nullus horror- cruo-
ris fit, Sc pretium tamen redemptionis operetur. Item, An-
te verba Chrifti calix eft vini 8c aquje plenus,ubi verbaChri-
ftioperata fuerint, ibi fanguis eflicitur qui plebem redemit.
Ergo vide quam potens eft fermo Chrifti univerfa conver-
tere.DeindeipfeChriftusteftificatur,qu6d corpus fuum 8c
fanguinem fuum accipiamus, de cujus fide 8c teftificatione
dubitare non debemus. Item, Forte dicis, aliud video^, quo-
modo tu mihi afteris quod Chrifti corpus accipiam ?& hoc
adhuc nobis fupereft,ut probemus hoc non efle quod natu-
ra formavit, fed quod benediftio confecravit, majoremque
efte vim benedidionis quam naturte, quia benediftione
etiam natura ipfa mutatur. Item, Quod fi tantum valuit hu-
mana benedidtio ut naturam converteri;t, quid dicimusde
ipfa confecratione divina, ubi ipfa verba Domini Salvato-
ris operantur ? Nam Sacramentum iftud quod accipis,Chri-
fti fermone conficitur. Quod fi tantum valuit fermo He-
liiE utignem de coelo depeneret,non valebit Chrifti fermo,
ut fpecics elementorum mutet ? Eufebius itidem Emyfle-
C z nus
12 Dkltamccn
fems'dt Ambroflo , qucE fuit de Euchariftia turn
dift. 2. * recepta, fententiam his verbis teftatur, & habctur de con-
fecratione dill. z. Unde coeleflis confirmat authoritas,quia
caromea vere eft cibus,& fanguis mens verb eft potus.
Recedatergoomneinfidelitatisambiguum,quoniam quiau--
thor eft muneris, ipfeeft.etiam teftis veritatis : Nam in-
vifibilisfacerdosvifibile^ creaturas in fubftantiam corporis
8c fanguinisfuiverborecreta poteftate convertit, ira dicens,
Accipite, comedire, hoc eft corpus meum. Et fanfUficatio-
nerepetita, Accipite & bibete.ait, hie eft fanguis meus. Er-
go ficut ad nutumpraecipbntisDomini repente& exnihilo
iubftheruntexceiraccelorum,profunda fluduum, vafta ter-
rarum: itapari poteftate in fpiritualibusSacramentis, ubi
prascipit virtus, ierviteffedus. Quanta igitur 8cquam ce-
lebranda beneficia vis Divine benedidionis operetur, quo-
modo tibi novum Sc impoftibile efte non debeat, quod in
Chrifti fubftantiam terrena Scraortalia convertuntur, te-
ipfum qui inChriftoesregeneratus interrcga. Idem in ora-
tione de corpore Domini, Nedubitet quilquam primarias
creaturas nutu potentis, prcefentia majeftatis in Doroinici
corporis tranftre pofle naturam. Leo epifcopus & fynodus
rw(6rj[>» Rom. Romana , ut ibidem relatum eft; In quibus ignorantias
econjeu ij .2. hadcnus defiditc corpore jacuerunt, ut
nec auditu difcerent, nee ledione cognofcercnt, quod in
Ecclefia omnium ore tam ccnfonum eft, ut nec ab infan-
tium linguis Veritas corporis & fanguinis Chrifti inter com -
munionis Sacramenta taceatur, quia in ilia myftica diftri-
butione fpiritualisalimonia; hoc impartitur,, hoc fumitur,
ut accipientes virtutem coeleftis cibi, in carnem ipfius qui
Greg. ffom. caro noftra fadus eft trauleamus. Gregorius homilia Paf*
Pafch. ibtd. c^ali, 8c refertur ibidem, Quotidie enim ipfe comeditur
8c bibitur in veritate, fed integer Sc unus & immaculatus
manet. Et ideo magnum 8c pavgudum eft myfterium, quia
St. Z. videtur pc ahud intclligitur. Euthymius in Matthceuni
cap..
Eucharijli^x. i ^
cap, 64. Itaque ficut vetus Teftamentum hoflias& fangui-
nem habebat, ita & novum corpus videlicet & fanguinern
Domini. Non dixit autem, hrsc funt fgna. corporis mci,
fed hsEc funt corpus meum & fanguis meus. Oportet ergo
non ad naturam eorum qux proponuntur afpicere, fed ad
virtutem eorum. Quemadmodum enim fupernaturaliter
afTumptam carnem deificavit, fi ita loqui liceat, ita & hxc
ineffabilitcr tranfmutat in ipfum vivificum corpus fuum, &
mipfum pretiofum fanguinem fuum, 8c in gratiamipfo-
rum. Theophilaftus in Matth. cap. t6. Dicens hoceftcor-^fSVa^.
pus meum, oftendit quod ipfum corpus Domini eft panis,
qui fanctificatur in altari, & non refpondens figura. Non
enim dixit, hoc eft figura, fed hoc eft corpus meum. Ineffa-
bili operatione panis transformatur in corpus Chrifti, e-
tiam ft nobis videatur panis, quoniam infirmi fumus, 8c ab-
horremus crudas carnes comedere, maxime hominis car-
nem. Ideo panis quidem apparet, fed caro eft. Idem in Marc,
cap. 14. Quumt^nedixiflk, hoc eft, gratias egiflet, fregit m Mtrc.
panem, id quod etiam nos facimus, preces adjungendo, hoc
eft corpus meum, hoc inquam, quod fumitis. Non enim fi-
gura tantum& exemplarquoddam Dominici corporis pa-
nis eft, fed in ipfum convertitur corpus Chrifti. Damafcen. oamafc^ Defide
etiam lib. 4. cap. 14. eadem fere fcribit, Orthodoxcc fidei orth* c. 14^
• non eft figura panis 8c vinum corporis 8c fanguinis Chrifti,
abftt enim hoc credere, fed eft ipfum corpus Domini deifi-
catum, ipfo dicente, hoc eft meum, non corporis mei figu-
ra, fed corpus,hic eft fanguis meus,non figura fanguinis mei.
Poflunt 8c alia multa loca in medium afferri ex Patribus
fumpta, qucE cum fupra recitatis conveniunt,ex quibus om-
nibus facile poffumus videre, qua? fuerit eorum omnium
quantum attinet ad banc partem divifionis noftrce fenten-
ria, nimirura euchariftiam non folum figuram efte Domini-
ci corporis,fed etiam veritatem ejufdem,naturam atque fub-
ftantiam in le comprehendere, nam Iiis vocibus 8c earum
con-
Pars II.
DiallaHiccn
corijiigatLS,vere,naturaliter<Sf fubftantialiter fepe ufoscos
efle, nemini dubium effe poteft qui eorum fcripta Icgere
velir. Et quanquam fides noftranonhominibus, fed vcrbo
Dei nititur, tamen quum illi fententiam fiiam authoritate
Scripturae muniant, utile eft admodumpiis animis & ve-
ritatiscupidisconfiderare, quo pado tot eximii pietate ac
dodrina viri Scrlpturse verba intellexerint, magnoque con-
fenfu ad pofteros interpretat'ones fuas tranfmiferint, neqtie
tcmeritatis cuipim efFugiet, qui tantam audebit authori-
tatem contemncre. Jam lecundam partem aggrediamur. An
difcrimen aliquot efle putarunt veteres inter illud corpus
Domini quod in Sacramento diftribuitur, & id quod de
Virgine matre fumptum, in cmlos afcendit, inde fuo tern-
pore venturum ad judicium, Hoc eft, fitne in Euchariftia
corpus Chriftijuxta propriam fignificationem humanicor-
pDris,an diverlamaliquama propriocorpore : quum pro-
prium corpus dico, proprie didum intelligo,quod femel mc-
nuiffefulficiet. Deindeutrum voces ilia:, Veritas, Natura,
Subftantia,communi more in hoc negotio debeant intel-
ligi, an p£culiari,& Sacramentismagis accommodata ratio-
ne. Breviter utrum homonymia vocum iftarumaliquafub-
fit,an non.Neque enim obfervandum eft folura quibus ver-
bis olim Patres loquuti funt, fed quid etiam fibi volebant
ita loquentes. Neque id noftris aut aliorum commentis,
levibufve conjeduris,fed certis eorundem Patrum teftimo-
niis docendum eft. Ut facilior autem adhancrem fiat adi-
tus, tenendum eft corpus Chrifti non uno tantum modo
dici in Scripturis, fed variis modis. Prtmo, ut corpus illud
afluraptum, natum ex Virgine, quod etiam refurrexit in
ccelum afcendit, de quo illud didum eft. Me verb non fem-
per habebitis:&: illud, Relinquo mundum , &vadoad Pa<
trem.*& il lud,Pal pate & videte,quiafpiritus carnem & ofla
non habet, ficut me videtis habere. Altero, ut Ecclefia dici-
tur corpus Chriftijuxta illud ,Voseftis corpus Chrifti.-8c il-
Euchariji'ldi. 15
fudjEt eum dedit caput fuper omnia ipfiEccIeficc.qucc tflcor-
pus illius.Terti6,utSacramentum corporisChriftidiciturcor-
pusChriflijde quoChriftusipfe dixit.Hocefl; corpus meum;
& Pau!us,Panisqucm frangimus,r.Gnnecommunicatiocor-
porisChrifti e{l?5c,non dijudicans corpusDominijquse de Sa-
cramcnto corporis intelliguntur.Q^o fit ut corpusChrifli di-
caturproprie Sciinproprie : propne, corpus illud fumptum
ex Virgine : improphe, ut Sacramentum 8c Ecclefia. (^od
Ecclefia proprie corpus Cliriili nonfitjoeminidubiumeft;
de Sacramento reftat nuncut idem probemus. Illud in pri-
mis animadvertendum occurrit quotiesapud veteres agitur
de hoc Sacramento, verba Domini noflriquce Joan, cap 6.
referuntur, Caro mea vere eft cibus, Sc fanguis meus vere-
eft potus; Panis quern ego dabo, caro mea eft: & N ifi ede-
ritiscarnem Filii hominis,&c. ad hoc Sacramentum omnes
applicant, quod ex ipforum ditftis fupra cuatis 6c his qu« fe-
quentur perfpicuum fiet. Nec audiendi funt qui tanta nube
teftium refragante, negant illud caput Joan, hue referen-
dum efte. Qain potius illorum probanda videtur oratio, qui
ut hunc Evangeliftam humanitatem Chrifti parcius quam
cocteros, Divinitatem pleniiis explicate cenfent, ita quae ab
aliis Evangeliftis de Sacramenti hujusinftitutione ac ritu
traduntur cxterno,eaquidem Joannem non commemorafle,
fed eorum verara 8c germanam intelligentiam ab ipfo nobis
patefa(ftam, 8c apertius traditam efte indicant. Conftatau-
temCapernaitarumanimos,quumdixiftet Dominus, Caro
mea vere eft cibus: &, Nift ederitis carnem Filii hominis,
Scc.valde offenfos atque perturbatos fuifTe, 8c proindede-
ferenteseum abiifle: intellexerant enimcrafse nimium 8c
populariter: duodecim autem Apoftolos qui remanferant
admonitos, 8c ad fenfum altiorem auguftioremque fubve-
ftos audiifle, Verba qute ego loquuntus fum,fpiritus 8c vi-
ta funt. Hinc fadtumeft utveieres omnes commune judi-
cium & vulgarem intelledtum in verbis illis, Hoc eft
cor-
Dialla^iccn
corpas meum, & qux loquutus eft Domlnus de comedend^
carne faa, fugiant, & modum intelligendi diviniorem &
r-u^ra- w Sacramentis ut ipfiaflerunt magis congruentem fequen-
e.26.hom. 8j. Chryioliomusin Mattnxum cap. xo. Horn, 03. verba
Cceax explicans, Accipite 8c comedite,hoc eft corpus meum,
&c. fic incerrogat, Quomodo turbati non fuerunt cum
hocaudiiTent ? & refpondet, quia multa jam & magna de
hoc ante dilTeruit. C^apropter nec illud quod jam crebro
perceperant cbnfirmavir, 8c non multd poft addir, Ipfe
quoque Libit ex eo, ne auditis verbis illis dicerent, Q^id
igitur fanguinem bibimus 8c carnem comedimus} ac ideo
perturbarentur. Nam & quando prius de his verba fecit,
multifolummodo propter verba fcandalum pafli funt. Ne
igitur tunc id quoque accideret, primus ipfe hoc fecit, ut
tranquillo animo ad communicationem myfteriorura in-
duceret. Docemur hie i Chryfoftomo non fuifte perturba-
tos Apoftolos cum audirent Dominum dicentem, Accipite,
edite, hoc meum eft corpus , propterea quod jam ante
edocbi fuerant,quomodoquod dicebatur intelligi oportuit,
videlicet quum aliis fcandalum perpeflis; ut eft apud Joan.
& dicentibus, Durus eft hie fermo, manfilJent ipfi ac
didiciftent, Spiritus eft qui vivificat : caro non prodeft
quicquam: verba qu.^ ego loquutus fum vobis/piritus 8c vi-
ta funt, id eft, ut idem Ghry foft. ibidem exponit, fpirituali-
ter intelligendafunt, quod ipfum fado fuo confirmavitDo-
minus, quum ipfe eundem cum illis panem ederet 8c vi-
num biberetjnequid humileaut vulgare cogitarent,fed pla-
cidis animisad myfteriorum communicationem induceren-
tur. Non difficile eft animadvertere ex liisqute ftribit hoc
locoChryfoftomusalitereflc corpus,quod Chriftus ipfe cor-
pus fuum appellavit quutn diceret, Accipite , edite, hoc
meum eft corpus, quod ipfe quoque fimul fumebat cum
difcipulis, aliter ipfum corpus proprium quod illo altero
vcfcebatur. Hoc comedebat, illud comefum eft, 8c utrun..
que
Eucharifiid^* 7
^\ie corpus, feddlverfarationedicitur. Ad eundem modum .
Hieroiiymusin epiftolamad Ephefioscap. i. Dupliciter,in- d
quit, fanguis Chridi & caro intelligitur, vel fpirituaLs ilia
atquedivina dequa ipfe dixit, Caro raea vereed cibus, &
la*nguis meus vereed potus: & ,Nid manducaveritis carnem
meami,& fanguinem meum biberitis, non habcbitis vitam
aetCrnam, vel caro & fanguis quae crucifixa ed,& quimili-
tis effufus ed; lancea. Duo funt quae docet hie Hiercnymus:
Verba ilia Joanniscap. 6. ad Sacramentum perrinere,quern-
admodum Chryfodomus, & carnem crucifixamabeaqu^
in Sacramento ed, quam fpiritualem Sc divinam nomioat,
difFerrc. Idem in Leviticum,8c habetur De confecr. did. ideminLevit.
Dehacquidem hodia qu:c in Chridi commemorationem ocmftcr. Jifi-
mirabiliter fit, edere licet: de ilia vei 6 quam Chridus in ara
crucisobtulit/ecundum fe nuliiederelicet. Clara efl&aper-
ta didindtio. Augudinus libro Scnten. Profperi. Caro ejus Auguji. ibi-'
ed quam forma panis opertam, in Sacramento accipimus,
& fanguis ejus quem fub vini fpecie & fapore potamuSjCaro
videlicet carnis, & fanguis ed Sacramentum fanguinis, car-
ne & fanguine utroque invifibili, fpirituali, intelligibili^
fignaturvifibile Domini nodrilefu Chridi corpus & pal-
pabile, plenum gratia omnium virtutum , & divina ma-
jedate. Quis non videt quam aperte difcernat Augudinus
inter proprium Chridi corpus, quod vifibiIe,quod palpabile •
nominat, & earn carnem quam in Sacramento accipimus,
quam invifibilem, fpiritualem, intelligibilem efTe afferit &
fignum alterius corporis ? Idem in epidoJa ad Iren. Non
hoc corpus quod videtis, manducaturi edis, Sc bibituri '
ilium fanguinem quem effufuri funt qui me crucifigent,
ipfura quidem & non ipfum,ipfum invifibiliter 8c non ipfum
vidbiliter. Difcrimen ponit quum ait, Non hoc corpus .* 8c
rurfum, ipfum 8c non ipfum : rationem difcriminis, ipfum
invifibiliter, quod ante corpus invifibile dixerat, Sacramen-
turn videlicet corporis &non ipfum vidbiliter, fivevifibi-
D le
J 8 Dlalla^icon
le corpus, quod ad proprium corpus refertur. Hoc autem
Idem mi. corpus ubicunqueeft.vifibile eft. Idem in lib. fent. Profperi,
Semel immolatus eft in femetipfo Chriftus, 8c ramen quo-
tidie imraolatur in Sacramento, quod ita inteliigendum eft,
quia in manifeftatione fui corporis, in diftin£tione fuorum
membrorum omnium,verusDeus& verus homofemel tan-
tumincrucepepsnditjofferens Patri feipfum , hoftiam vi-
vam. Corpus quod in Sacramento eft, nec manifeftatio-
nem corporis, nec membrorum diftinftionem habct, pro-
prium autem corpus fua membrorum'diftinftione nunquam
liemin F/. 53. caret. Idem in Plalmo 3 3. Et ferebatur in manibusJuis. Hoc
veto fratres, quomodo poflet fieri in homine, quis intelii-
gat ? Quis enim portetur in manibus fuis ? Manibus alio-
rum poteft portarihomojraanibusfuis nemo portatur.Quo-
modo intelligatur in ipfo David,fecundum literam non in-
veniemus, in Chrifto autem inveniemus, ferebatur enim
Chriftus in manibus fuis, quando commendans ipfum cor-
pus fuum, ait, Hoc eft corpus meum. Ferebatur enim illud
corpus in manibus fuis. Et poftea feipfum magis explicans,
inquit,Et ferebatur in manibus fuis. Quomodo ferebatur in
manibus fuis? Qjia quum commcndaret ipfum corpus fuum
8c fanguinem fuum, accepit in manus fuas quod norunt fi-
deles, 8c ipfe fe portabat quodam modo quum dicerct,Hoc
, eft corpus meum, Dicens,ferebatur illud corpus in manibus
fuis, 8c accepit in manus fuas quod norunt fideles, 8c ipfe
fe portabat quodam modo, declarat nonde eodem corpore
fimpliciter inteliigendum effe, fedaliudeffe quod ferebat,
proprium videlicet corpus, aliud quod ferebatur, nempe
Sacramentum corporis. Idem in Pfal. 98. Durum illis vi-
furn eft quodait,Nifi quis manducaverit carnem meam,non
habebit vitam acternam. Acceperunt illud ftulte, carnali-
tex illud cogitarunt, 8c putaverunt quod praecifurus efifet
Dominus, particulas quafdam de corpore fuo, 8c daturus il-
lis, &jdixerunt, Durus ei|l hicfermo..lpfi erant duri, non fer-
mo«
t
I
F.uchari(}i(t* 19
m'\ Etenim fi duri non eflenr, fed mites cHcnt, dicercnt
fibi, Ncn fine caufa dicithoc, nifi quia eftibi aliquod SV
cramentum latens, manerent am eo lenesnonduri.&dif-
cerentab illo^qucdillisdifccdentibus, qui remanferunc di-
dicerunt.Nam quum remanfilTentcum iliodifcipuli ducde-
cim iilis recedentibus, fuggefTerunt iDi tanquam dolentes
iilorum mortem, quod fcandalizati funt in verboejus & re-
cellerunt. Ille autem infiruxit eos, & ait illis, Spiritus eft
qui vivificat, caro autem nihil prodeft. Verba qurn loquu-
tus fum vobisjfpiritus eft Scvita.Spiritualiier inteiligite quod
icquutus fum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis manducaturi
eftis, nec bibituri ilium fanguincm, quern fufuri funt qui
me crucifigent. Sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi.
Spiritualiter intelle£l:um vivificabit vos. Etfi necefiTe eft il-
lud vifibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invifibiliter intelli-
gi,quum ait,Non hoc corpus quod videtis,&c.8< Sacramen-
turn aliquod vobis commendavi, diftinguit evidenter inter
hasc duo corpora, quorum alterum propria corpus eft, alte-
rum Sacramentum corporis. Idem De dodrinaChriftiana, uem'.Dedoa.
lib. 3. Nifi manducaveritis carnem Filii honiinis & biberi- chrijiiami. 3.;
ris ejus fanguinem , non habebitis vifam in vobis: facinus
vel flagitium videturjubere,figura eft ergo prmcipienspaf-
fioni Domini efie communicandum, & maviter atque uti-
liter recondendum in memoria, quod pro nobis caro ejus
crucifixa & vulnerata fit. Si literam fequuti, ut verba pro-
prie fonant intelligamus, facinus, inquit, videtur jubere,id-
circo figuratam dicit loquutionem efie, nec de proprio cor-
pore comedendo, fed de Sacramento corporis, quod modo
fpirituali corpus Chriftieft, oportetdntelligere. Idem ad Bo- jdem ad somf.
nifacium Epift. Nempe ita loquimur,ut Pafcha appro- ^p. 23.
pinquante dicamus, craftinam vel perendinai® Domini paP>
fionem, qaam ille ante tam'multos annos paflusfit,nec om-
nino nifi lemel ilia paftio fada fit. Nempe ipfo die Domini-
CO dicimus, hodie Dominus refurrexit, quum ex quo refur-
D z rexit.
20 VUllaWicon
rexit, tot anni tranfierunt. Cur nemo tarn ineptus efl:, ut
nos ita loquentes arguat effe mentitos, nifi quia iftos dies
fecunduui illorum quibus hoec gefta funt fimilitudinem nun-
/ cupamus ? ut dicatur ipfe dies qui non efl ipfe, fed revo-
lutione tcmporis fimilis ejus, dicatur illo die fieri, pro-
pter Sacramenti cclebrationem, quod non illo die, fed jam
dim fadum efl. Nonne feme! immolatus efl Chriflus
in leipfo ? 8c tamen in Sacramento non folum per omnes.
PafchcE folennitates, fed omnidie populis immolatur. Nec
utique mentitur, qui interrogatus, eum refponderit immo-
lari: fi enim Sacramenra quandam fimilitudinem earum
rerum quarum Sacramenta funt^non haberent^ omnino Sa-
cramenta non eflent. Ex hac autemfimilitudine,plerun-
que etiam ipfarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicutergofe-
cundum quendam modum Sacramentura corporis Chrifli>,
corpus Chrifli efl.Sacramentum fanguinis Chrlfli, fanguis.
Chrifli efl, ita Sacramentum fidei fides efl. Videmus
& hoc loco fejungi proprium corpus quod femel oblatum
eft, a Sacramento quod indies immolatur,8c quodam modo
corpus efl. Idem Auguflinus ut habetur de confecr. difl. z.
^^Becorf. figura anfub verltate hoc myfiicum calicis Sa-
cramentum fiat? Veritas ait, Caromea vere efl cibus, 8c
fanguis meus vere efl potus, alicquin quomodo magnum
erit, Panis quem ego dabo, caro mea efl pro mundi vita, nifi
vera fit caro ^ Sed quia Chriflum fas. vorari dentibus non.
efl, voluit Dominus hunc panem 8c vinum inmyflerio ye-
re carnem fuam & fanguinem fuum confecratione Spiritus
fandi potentialiter creari, 8c quotidie pro mundl vita my-
flice immolari. Ut ficut de Virgine per Spiritum fanflum
vera caro fine coitu creatur, ita per eundem ex fubflanti'a
panis 8c vinimyflice, idem, corpus Chrifli confecratur. Cor-
pus Chrifli8c Veritas 8c figura efl, veritasdura corpus Chri-
lli, & fanguis virtute Spiritus fan£li, in virtute ipfius ex pa-
nis 6c vini fubflantia efiicitur : figura verb eft id, quod ex-
terius.
Euchariftid^. 21
tcrius fenti'ur. Difcernit hie etiam Auguftinus veram car-
nem de Virgine fumptam, a veritate carnisqu^e ex panis &
vinifubliantia efficitur:hanc enim in myfterio vere carnem
fuam quotidie creari dicit atque immolari, quod de ipfo
corpore Chrifli proprio fas non eft dicere. Idem author li-
bro eodem, Donee feculum finiatur, fiirfura Dominus eft .•
fed tamen hie nobifcum eft Veritas Domini. Corpus c-
nim in quo refurrexit in uno loco efteoportet, Veritas au-
tem ejusubique diffufa eft. Annon clarb docet aliud efle
corpus in quo re(urrexit,quod uno loco contineri necefle fit,
aliud verita tem illam corporis, qux tarn late diffunditur,
quam Sacramentum rite adminiftratur. Atque hie obfer-
vandum eft veritatem Dominici corporis dupliciter dici ac
debere dupliciter accipi. Alia namque Veritas corporis requi-
ritur in myfterio, alia fimpliciter 6c abfque myfterio. Hue
fjciunt & ilia verba Auguftini in eo loco, De confecr.dift.
a.Utrum fubfigura,8cc.utquia nos jamfimilitudinemmor-
tis ejus in Baptifmo acciptmus, fimilitudinem quoque car-
nis& fanguinis fumamus,ita ut & Veritas non defit in Sacra- '
mento, & ridiculum nullum fiat k Paganis, quod cruorem
occifi hominisbibamus. Similitudinem carnis 8c fanguinis
cum veritate conjundtam aflerit in Sacramento 5 ita tamen
ut fanguinem hominis occifi, proprie fi intelligas nonbiba-
mus,quo fieretut Ethnicis ridendi'videremur. Idem jt/emibidem
eodem, Hoceft quod ,& c.Sicut ergo coeleftis panis,qui Chri-
fti caroeft, fuo modo vocatur corpus Chrifti,quura revera
fit Sacramentum corporis Chrifti, illius videlicet, quod vi-
fibile, quod palpabile, mortale, in cruce pofitum eft, voca-
turquc ipfa immolatio carnis quse facerdotis manibus fit,
Chrifti pjfiio,mors,cruciftxio, non rei veritate, fed fignifi-
canre my fteriorfic Sacramentum fidei,quod Baptifmus intel-
ligitur fides eft. Iterum perfpicue docet, aliud efie corpus
Chrifti vifibile, palpabile, aliud id quod fuo modo Vocatur
corpus Chrifti,quum re vera fit Sacramentum corporis,illius
vide-
2 2 "DiallaUicm
Gio^a ibid, vlclellcet vlfibilisatqiie palpabilis Unde Gloffa fupcr ecdera
loco fic hcibet, Ccelcllis, id eft,coe!efte Sacramenrum,quod
vere repraefentct Chrifti carnem , clicitur corpus Chrifti,
fed impropric,unde dicitur fuo mcdo, fed non rei veritate.
Ibidem. fed fignificante myfterio. Et pau!6 ame ibidem eademGlolTa
dicit, Ccelefte Sacramentum, quod eft in altari, imprc-
prie dicitur corpus Chrifti, ficut Baptifmus improprie dici.
tur fides. Hue fpe£lant quce fcribit idem author ad Darda-
Augufl.adD;ird. n^ni in hunc modum, Fideliter tene Chrifiianam confef-
fionem,quoniam refurrexita mortuis, afcendit in ccelum,
fedet ad dextram Patris,nec aliunde quam inde venturus eft
ad vivos mortuofque judicandos, Et fic venturus eft ilia
Angelica voce teftante,quemadmodum ire vifus eft incoe-
Ium,ideft,in e.idem carnis forma atquefubftantla, cui pro-
fefto immortalitatem dedit, naturam non abftulit, (ecun-
dum hanc formam non eft putandus ubique diffulus. Ca-
vendumeft enim ne ita Divinitatem aftruamushominisjUt
Idem ibidem, veritatem 'corporis auferamus. Deinde in fine ejufdem
epiftol^E, Chriftum autem Dominum noftrum unigenitum
Dei Filium, cequalem Patfi, eura denique hominis Filium,
quo major eft Pater, 8c ubique totum prcefentem efle non
dubites tanquara Deum, 5c in locoaliquocoeli propter ve-
ri corporis modum. Quam dixerat alibi veritatem corporis
Chrifti ubique diftufam effe quum loquitur de Sacramcn-
to corporis, hie ubi agitur de vero corpore propria intel-
lefto negat fecundum illam rationem corporis ubique diffii.
fam elTe : fed ita tolli prorfus veritatem corporis. Non pu-
gnat fecum Auguftinus, fed fatis evidenter oftendit duplici
modo corpus 8c veritatem corporis accipiendam efte. Vi-
deor fortaflis ex Auguftino nimis multa citafle,fed unicum
adhuc locum prcetereundum non puto, quern in Evange-
Idem in Joan. Uum Joao. Troift. JO. Icriptum reliquit, Pauperes femper
Traif. so. habebitis vobifcum, me autem non femper habebitis. Acci*
plant 8c hoc boni, 8c non fint foliciti, loquebatur enim de
[prae-
Eucharifli<e. 2 3
pra^fentla corporisfui. Nam fecundum majeOatem fuam,
fecundum providentiaiTi,fecundum ineffabilem & invifi-
bilem gratiacn impletur qaod ab eo didtum ell, Ecce ego
vobifcuin fum omnibus diebus ufque ad conrummationem
faeculi. Secundum carnem verb, quam Verbum afllimpfit,
fecundum id quod de Virgine natus eft, fecundum id quod
a Judxisprachenfuseft,quod ligno con{ixus,quod decruce
depofitus, quod linteis involutus^ quod in fepulchro condi-
tus, quod in refurredtione manifcftatus, non femper liabe-
bins vobifcum. Qjare } quonlam converfatus eft fecundum
corporis praefentiam quadragenta diebus cum difcipulis
fuis, Sc eis deducenfibus, vidcndo non fequendo, afcen-
dit in caelum , ^ non eft hie, Ibi eft enim : Sedet addex-
tram Patrls, 8c biceft,non enim receftitpraefentiamajefta-
tis.Aliter fecundum pracfentiam majeftatis femper habemus
Chriftum : fecundum preefentiam carnis redtd didum eft;
difcipulis, Me autem non femper habebitis. Habuitcmmil-
lumEcclefia fecundum prmfendam carnis paucis diebus,mo-
do fide tenet,ocuiisnonvidet.Hadenus. Ubide corpore
Chrifti proprie didto loquitur Auguftinus, negat fimpli-
citerhJcadefic,8crecufat talem pr^efentiam corporis; quum
verb loquitur de Sacramento, vere quidem adefte corpus
afterit, 8c veram prccfentiam corporis, non autem proprie,
fed quemadmodum ipfe nos admonet, fecundum majefta-
tern, fecundum ineffabilem 8c invifibilem gratiam,quade
re mox plcnius dicemus. Satis igitur conftat, aliter intelli-
gendum Chrifti corpus in Sacramento, aliter quod in aliquo
loco cceli efle neceflarium eft, propter vericorporis,ut ipfe
ait, modum. Nunc pergamus ad alios. Gregorius Nazian- ^
zenus in oratione de Pafchate fic loquitur, Cjeterum Pafchte de^Faf^
fiamus pirticipes, figuraliter tamen adhac, etfi Pafcha
hoc veteri fit manifeftius. Siquidem Pafcha legale, auden-
ter dico, figura figurae erat obfcurior, at paulb pbft illo per-
feftius & manifeftius fruemur, quum Filius verbum ipfum
biberit
24 ViallaEll'.con
biberit nobifcumin regno Patris novum,revelans ac docens
qu$ nunc modice demonftravit. Hie NazianzenusEucharl-
fliam Pafcha manifefliusappsllavit legali Pafchatc, adhuc
tamen figuram,nempe illius quo manifeftius & perfeilius
fruemur in regno Patris. Hoc igitur Pafcha quod peragi-
tur in myflerio, differt ab eo quod jeternum manet quo fa-
^^^^'^bimur in fa:culo futuro. Grcgorius alter in homilia
Parchali,Ha.'c falutaris vidimaillam nobis mortem unige-
niti per myfterium reparat, qui licet refurgensa mortuis
jam non moritur, mors illi ultra non dominabitur, tamen
in feipfo immortaliter & incorruptibiliter vivens, iterum in
hoc myflerio moritur ejus quoque ubique corpus fumi -
tur, ejus caro in populi falutem patitur, eju^ fanguis non jam
in manus infidelium, fed in fidelium ore profunditur. Hinc
ergo penfemus quale fit hoc Sacramentum, quod proab-
folutione noflra pafTionem unigeniti Filii femper imite-
tur. Quis enim fidelium habere dubium pofletin ipfa im-
molationis hora ad facerdotis vocem coelos aperiri, in illo
lefu Chrifti myflerio angelorum choros adeffe } Diflinguit
ifle Gregorius hanc vidimam ab ilia, hanc mortem, banc
pafTionem, hoc corpus, qucC hie fiunt in myflerio, nobis ilia
jam olim perada reparant & imitantur. Nam fi literam
fequaris, neque corpus ubique diffunditur, nequecaro pati-
tur, nec amplius moritur, licet hxc in myflerio fieri dican-
Euf. Emyffen.ds E^dem fuit fententia Eufebii EmyfTeni, cujus verba
conftcr. dift, 2. recenfentur, De confecratione diflindl. x. quae fequuntur.
Quia corpus affumptum ablaturus erat ab oculis 8c illaturus
fideribus, neceflarium erat, ut die Coence Sacramentum
nobis corporis 8c fanguinis confecrarctur, ut coleretur jugi-
ter per myflerium quod femel ofTerebatur in precium, ut
quia quotidiana 8c indefefla currebat pro omnium falu-
te redemptio, perpetua effet redemptionis oblatio, & pe-
rennis vidima ilia vivcret in memoria, & Temper prtefens
eflet in gratia, vera, unica 8c perfeda hoflia, fide acfliman-
Eucharifti<^' 2 5
da, non fpecie neque exteriori cenfenda vifu, fed ia-
teriore afre<£tu. Unde cceleftis confirmat authoritas ,
quia caro inea vere eft cibus, & fanguis meus.yere eft
potus. Recedat ergo omne infidelitatis ambiguum,
quoniam qui author eft muneris, idem teftis eft verita-
tis: Nam invifibilis facerdos, vifibiles crcaturas in fub-
ftantiam corporis & fanguinis fui verbo, fecreta pote-
ftate convertit, dicens, Accipite& comedite. Hoc eft
corpus meum ; & fanilificatione repetita, Accipite &
bibite, ait , Hie eft fanguis mens. Ergo ficut ad nu-
tum prxcipientis Domini, repente & ex nihilo fub-
ftiterunt excelfa coelorum, profunda fluftuum, vafta
terrarum , ita pari poteftate in fpiritualibus Sacramen-
tis, ubi prcEcipit virtus, fervit e&dus. Verbis apertis
inftruit nos Eufebius, corpus illud proprium quod af-
fumptum appellat , non efle in Sacramento, fed ab-
latum efle a terris , & illatum fideribus atque id-
circo Sacramentum corporis inftitutum efle, in quo
fubftantia quidem corporis continetur , fed in myfte-
rio & per gratiam, non ea fubftantia quam ante di-
xcrat ablatam, qua; fi adeflet Sacramento non eflec
opus J fed fpiritualis & Sacramentis accommoda, un-
de 6c Sacramenta fpiritualia nominat,Sc ne pinguio-
rem aliquam quam oportet fubftantiam cogitemus,
continud regeneration is exemplum fubjicit, inquiens.
Quanta itaque & quam celebranda beneficia vis Di-
vince benedidionis operetur , quomodo tibi novum &
impoflibile efle non debeat, quod in Chrifti fubftan •
tiam terrena 8c mortalia convertantur, teipfum qui
in Chrifto es regeneratus, interroga. Dudum alienus'^a
vita, peregrinus a mifcricordia, 8c a falutis via intrinfe-
cus mortuus exulabas ; Subito initiatus Chrifti legi-
bus 8c falutaribus myfteriis innovatus, in corpus Ec-
define non videndo fed credendo tranfdiifti, 8c de Alio
E per-
2^ T>lallaUicon
perditionisj adopttvus Dei filius fieri occulta puritate merui-
iTi in menfura vifibili permanens , major fa£lus es teipfo
invifibiliter, finequantitatis augmento, quum idem atque
idem ipfeefles, multo alter fidei proceffionibus extitifti, in
exteriori nihil addltum eft, & totum in interiori muta-
tum eft,acfic homo Chrifti filius effeiftus, Chriftufque ho-
minis in mente formatus eft. vSicut ergo fine fenfu corpo-
rali, prseteritautilitate depofita,fubit6 novam indutus esdi-
gnitatem, & ficut hoc quod Deus Icefa in te curavit, infcfta
diluit,maculatadeterfit, non oculis, fed fenfibus tuis funt
credita. Sic quum reverendum altare cibis fpiritualibus fa-
tiandus afcendis, facrum Dei tui corpus & fanguinem fide
rerpice,honora, mirare, mente continge, cordismanu fufci-
pe, & maxime totum hauftu interioris hominis aifume,
Oftendit Eufebius hac fimilitudine., qualis in Sacramento
fit commutatio, quomodo res terrenx convertantur in fub.
ftantiam Chrifti, 8c cujufmodi fit ilia fubftantia. Similis
utique commutatio ei qua nosin Baptifmo commutamur,
& talis fubftantia, qualem nos in lavacro regenerationis
induimus, quum filii.Dei nafcimur, nova creatura, novi
hominesefficimur, quum in corpus Ecclefise tranfimus, ubi
nihil in exteriori noftri parte, fed totum in interiori muta-
tum eft; ideoque cibum fpiritualem nominat, quem fide
refpicimus, mente contingimus, cordis manu fufcipimus, 8c
interioris hominis hauftu fumimus. His confentiunt qu^e
Amhn^. in n- fc^ibit Ambrofius in epiftolam ad Hebr^eos, 8c referuntur
ad Hebr. De De confecratioue , diftindione fecunda, In Chrifto femel
confecr. dijl. J. ^ fioftia ad falutem fempiternam potens. Quid er-
go nos, nonne per fingulos dies ofFerimus ? fed ad recor-
dationem mortis ejus, & una eft hoftia non multce, quia
femel oblatus eft Chriftus, hoc autem facrificium exem-
plum eft illius. Diferte dicit Ambrofius; quod vera ilia ho-
ftia femel oblata fit: hcec autem hoftia per fingulos dies of-
fertur, & indicat quomodo una fit hoftia & non una,quum
ait
Euchari^ide' 2 7
ait hanc ilUus exemplum efle. Ideminlibro De myftcriis, d#
In illo Sacramento Cbriftus efl:, quia corpus eft Chrifti. myjt.
Non ergo corporalis efca fed fpiritualis: unde & Apoftolus
de typo ejus ait, Quia patres noilri eandemefcam fpiritua-
lem manducaverunc, corpus enini Dei, corpus fpirituale, ■
corpus Chrifti corpus divini fpiritus eft. Non poftunt htec
dici de vero & proprio Chrifti corpore, quod videlicet ,,
fpiritus fit. Spiritus enim carnem & ofla non habet, illud !|i
c.utem corpus habet, ipfo Domino coram difcipulis fuis 1 j
atteftante, Palpate, inquit, & videte quod fpiritus carnem ' i
& ofla non habet, ficut me videtis habere. Q^amobremres^cr.
De Sacramentis libro quarto, idem author ita loquitur,Vi. /. 4. !
des ergo quam operatorius fit fermo Chrifti. Si ergo tanta
vis eft in fermone Dominilefu, ut incipecent efle qux non
erant, quanto magis operatorius eft, ut fint qutc erant, &
in aliud commutentur ? Ccelum non erat, mare non erat,
terra non erat. Sedaudidicentem, Ipfe dixit & facta funt, ^
ipfe mandavit &; creata funt. Ergo tibi ut refpondeam, non
erat corpus Chrifti ante confecrationera, fed poft confc- 4 .,
crationem,dico tibi, quod jam corpus eft Chrifti, ipfe dixit,
Scfaftum eftjiple mandavit, creatum eft.Tu ipfe eras,red
eras vetus creatura, poft quam confecratus es, nova creatura
efle coepifti. Vis fcire qudm nova creatura ? Omnis, inquit,
in Chrifto nova creatura. Argumentatur Ambrofius a ma-
jori vcrbo Dei res novae creantur, mirum igitur non eft, fi
res jam exiftentes & manentes in aliud verbo aommu-
tentur, quod in Sacramentis fit: prioris exempk funt,
caelum, mare, terra; pofterioris homo, qui nondum re- '
natus, vetus creatura eft, poft regenerationem virtute Ver-
bi, licet idem fit qui fuerit, nempe homo, tamen inter,
nam accipit commutationem, & ex vetere fit nova crea-
tura. Similem huic in Euchariftia mutationem alfirmat,
quum & panis maneat & novam fubftantiam, hoc eft, no-
vam dignitatem acquirat. Id ipfum adhucpleniusexplicat,
E1 libro
28
Idem De facr.
lib. 6.
Idem De off.
lib.^. c. 48.
X)Ulla^icon
libro 6. ita fcribcns, Fortedicas, QLiomodo vera caro ; Quia
fimilitudinem video, non videofanguinis veritatem, pri-
mo omnium dixi tibide fermnne Chrifti, quod operatur
ut poffic mutare & convertcre genera inlfituta nature.
Deinde ubi non tulerunt fermonem Chrifti difcipuli ejus,
fed audientes quod carnem fuam daret manducare , &
fanguinem fuum daret bibendum, recedebant, folus tamen
Petrus dixit, Verba vitte ^terna^habesj & ego a te quo re-
cedam ? NeigiturpIureshocdicerent,fed maneretgratia
redemptionis, ideo in fimilitudinem quidem accipis Sacra-
mentum, fed veras naturce gratiam virtutemque confeque-
ris, Poflremo addit ceu coronidem. Et tu qui accipis pa-
nem, Divinte ejus fubftantise in ilio participasalimento. Hu-
jus authoritatetanti viridifcimus, ipiritualem non corpo-
ralem efcam efle quam in Sacramento fumimus, neque
carnem illam fecunduna propriam carnisrationem accipien-
dam efle, quod Capernaitte fecerunt, 8c cum fcandalo re-
ceflerunt , fed una cum flgno externo , nos vertc nature
gratiam 8c virtutem confequi, 8c accipientcs panem, Divi-
nm fubftantite participes efle. Etliic videmus Ambrofium
idem cum Emyfleno fentire,8c longe aliter intelligere turn
earn qucc in Sacramentis fit commutationem, turn ipfain
vocera fubflantim, quam vel in proprio fermone accipitur,
vel philofophi phyfice loquuntur. Eodem pertinet quod
De officiis libro quarto, cap.48.fcripfit. Hie umbra, hxc ima-
gOjillic Veritas, umbra in Lege, imago in Evangelio, Veritas
in ccellftibus, Antea agnus oflerebatur, ofFerebatur vitulus,
nunc Chrifius -• ofFertur, fed ofFertur quafi homo,
quafi recipiens paflionem, fed offert fe ipfe quafl facerdos,
liic in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem quafi advo-
catus pro nobis intervenit. Difcernit alteram oblationem
ab altera, & quamvis utraque fuo modo vere fiat, hmc ta-
men quie celebratur in Ecclefia fit in imagine, Veritas au-
tem ipfa manet, ut advocatus pro nobis apud Patrem. Lo-
cus
Euchariftide. 2^
cus autem hie Ambrofii vhdetiir alludere ad ilium Orlge- .
nis in pralmunl 38. ubi traftat illud Pauli, Umbram enim
habenslex bonorum futurorum, non ipfam imaginem re-
rum, &c. Sic autem, fcribit. Si quis vero tranfire potuerit
ab hac umbra, veniat ad imaginem rerum, & videat ad-
ventum Chrifti in carnefaftum, videat eum Pontificem,of-
ferentemquidemSc nuncPatri hoflias, Scpohmodum obla-
turum, & intelligat haac omnia imagines eile ipiritua-
lium rerum, S< corporalibus officiis cceleftia dclignariJma-
go ergo dicitur quod recipitur ad praifens, &. intueri potefl:
humana natura. Si potes mente & animo penetrare cce-
los, & fequi lefum , qui penetravit coslos, & affihit nunc
vultui Dei pro nobis , ibi invenies ilia bona , quorum urn-
brarh habuit Lex , 8c imaginem Chrifti ollendit in carne,
quae pra^parata funt beatis, quce nee oculus vidit, nec au-
ris audivit, nec in cor hominis afcenderunt, quae quum vi-
deris intelliges, quia qui in ipfis arribulat, & in iliorum de-
fiderio 5c cupiditate perdurat, ifte non in imagine, fed in
ipfa jam ambulat veritate,, Dodis 8c exercitatis fcribit Ori-
genes, ideoque non cuivis obvius. Illud tamen manifehe
. tradit, Hoftias quae hie ofleruntur, imagines elle ilJius veri-
■tatis^ qus penetravit cceIos,8c vultui Deiaffiftens intercedit
pro nobis, acprdinde aliud imagines effe, aliud veritatem
ipfam. Et quamvis imagines iftiE fuam quoque veritatem
habeant, tamen banc ab ilia propria veritate differre, quam
tum reipfa confequemur quum lequuti Chriftum, ccelos
penetrabimus ubi iile aflifht,qua hicetiam quodam modo
fruimur, dum animis in coelum fublatis , arcana ilia bona
- pia meditatione contemplamur. Idem in Matthaeum ca-
pite decimoquinto , Nec materia panis, fed fuper ilium di-
^tus fermo ed;, qui prodeft non indigne. Domino come-
denti ilium. Etli^cquidem de typico lymbolicoque cor-
pore. Multa porrdSc de ipfo Verbodici poflunt^ quod fa-
^lum ell caro. Hie Origenes veram cariiemj id eft, veram
huma-
>1^
3^ DiallaWicon
huma:namnaturam,quam Chriftus Vcrbum afTumpfit, a-
liam e(Te declarat,aliud ty picum &rymbolicum ejus corpus,
quibus verbis Sacramentum nominat. Eodem fpeftant qux
Mf.iiTs!* fcribit contra Celfum libro 8. Noa verb conditori re-
rum morem gerentes, pro ejus collatis in nos beneficiis,
ubi & gratias diximus, oblatis panibus velcimur, qui utique
ex oratione & precibus fanftius quoddam corpus con-
flantur. Hxc verba fandius quoddam corpus, non convc-
niunt proprio Chrifti corpori, conveniunt autem Eucha-
riftix,qu£E quodam modo corpus ejus eft. Idem in Leviti-
homilia feptima , rem eandem apertius explicat,
inquiens, Sed vos fi filii eftis Ecclefise, ft Evangelicis
imbuti myfteriis, ft Verbum caro faftum habitat in vo.
bis, agnofcite quae dicimus, quia Domini funt, ne forte
qui ignorat ignoretur. Agnofcite quia figure funt>qu«in
divinis voluminibus fcripta funt,& ideo tanquam fpirituales
& non tanquam carnales exa'minate, & intelligite qure di-
cuntur. Si enim quaft carnales ifta fufcipitis, laedunt vos 5c
non alunt. Eft enim & in Evangeiiislitera quae occidit, non
foliim in vetere Teftamento occidens litera deprehenditur.
Eft 8c in novo Teftamento litera qux occidat eum, qui
non fpiritualiter quse dicuntur adverterit. Si enim fecun-
dum literam fequaris hoc ipfum quod didhim eft,Nift man-
ducaveritis carnem meam 8c biberitis fanguinem meum,
occidit htec litera. Quum hscc verba pallim authores ad
Sacramentum referunt, 8c Origines adeo literam fugien-
dam pra^cipit, ut occidere dicat, quis non videt aliter in-
tclligendam Chrifti carnem in Sacramento, aliter juxta
Epiphan-inAn- literam, 8c in fermone proprio ? Epiphanius in Anchorato
chorato. ejufdcm fententicE eft, quum ait, Videmus enim quod acce-
pit Servator in manus fuas, ut Evangelium habet, quod
ro/«. furrexit in coena 8c accepit htec, 8c ubi gratias egiffet, dixit,
hoc meum eft hoc, 8c videmus quod non jequale eft, nec
ftmile,non imagini quas carni ineft, non inviftbili Deitati,
non
Euchariftice. 31
non lineamentis membrorum.Hoc enlm eA; rotundseform^e,
& fenfusexpers quantum ad potentiam, & voluit per gra-
tiam dicere , hoc meum eft hoc, & nemo non fidem ha-
bet fermoni. Qui enlm non credit ipfum verumefle ficut
dixit, is excidit a gratia & falute. Quod autem audivimus
id credimus, quod eft ipfius Dominum, vere noftrum no-
viraus,totum fenfum, totum fenfu pra:ditum,totumDeum,
totum moventem, totum operantem, totum lucem, totum
incomprehenfibilem, fed qui cum gratia hoc nobis largitus
eft. Probare nititur Epiphanius hoc loco, hominem ad ima-
ginem Dei conditum , vere quidem imaginem Dei habe-
re, non fecundum propriam Divinitatis naturam , fed fe-
cundum gratiam, & utitur fimilitudine ab Euchariftia
fumpta, quam juxta propriam naturam corporis negat efte
corpus Chrifti, quum nec formam veri corporis habeat, &
fenfu motuque careat, 8c tamen per gratiam vere credatur
ejus corpus efte, Cyprianus'etiam in lermone De Ccena Do
mini, in eandem lententiam pie fane 8c copiofe difterit,
unde pauca haec delibafle fatis efte duximus. Nam neque
Patrum quilquam Sacramenti dignitatem magis evexit, 8c
fenfum omncm carnalem excludens, verum tanti myfterii
intelleftum explicat. Inconfumptibilem, inquit.cibum ma-
gifter apponit difcipulis, nec jam ad elaborata impenfis &
arte convivia populi invitabantur , fed immortalitatis ali-
monia datur a communibus cibis differens, corporalis fub-
ftantiae retinens fpeciem, fed virtutis Divinoe invifibili ef-
ficientia,probansadefle prcefentiam. Item, Orta fuerat ali-
quando ficut in Evangelio Joannis legitur, de novitate ver-
bi hujusqurEftio,& addodrinam myfterii hujus,obftupue-
rant auditores, quum diceret Dominus, Nift manducave-
ritis carnem Filii hominis, 8c biberitis ejus fanguinem,
non habebitis vitam in vobis. Quod quidam quia nondum
credebant, nec poterant intelligere, abierunt retro, quia
horrendum eis8c nefarium videbatur, vefcicarne humana,
exifti-
32
DiallaSllcon
exillimantes hoc eo mode dici, ut carnem ejus vel elixam,
vel aflam, feftamque membratim edere docerentur,
quum illius perfoncE caro, fi in frafta partiretur, non cm-
ni humane generi pofTet fufficercj qua femel confumpta vih
deretur interiide re'iigio, cui nequaquam ulterius vidi-
ma fupsredet. Sed in cogitationibus hujufmodi, caro 8c
languis non prodeft quicquam, quia ficut ipfe magifler
expofuit, verba hxc fpiritiis 8c vita funt, nec carnalis
ienfus ad intelleftum tantas profunditatis penetrat, nifi
fides accedat. Panis eft efca, fanguis vita, carofubftantia,
corpus Ecclefia , corpus propter membrorum in unum
convenientiam , panis propter nutrimenti congruentiam,
fanguis propter vivificationis efficientiam, caro propter
aflumptas humanitatis proprietatem. Item,Panis ifte com-
munis in carnem & fanguinem mutatus , procurat vitam
£c incrementum corporibus, ideoque ex confuetorerum
effectu, fidei noftrae adjuta infirmitas, fenfibili argu-
mento edoftraeft, vifibilibusSacram-sntis inefle vitas ^ter-
m-E efFe(ft:um,8c non tarn corporali, quam fplritualitran-
fitione Chrifto nos uniri; Item, Panis ifte, quern
Dominus diftipulb porrigebat, non effigie, fed natura
mutatus, omnipotentia Verbi faiftus eft caro, 8c ftcut in
perfona Chrifti humanitas videbatur, & latebat Divmi-
tas , ita Sacramento vifibili ineffabiliter Divina le infu®
dit eflentia. Item, Dixerat fane hujus traditionis magi-
fter, quod nifi manducaremus, 8c biberemus ejus fan-
guinem, non haberemus vitam in nobis. Spirituali nos in-
ftruens documento, & aperiens ad rem adeo abditam
intellectum, ut fciremus [quod manfto noftra in ipTo fit
manducatio , 8c potus quafi quasdam incorporatio , fub-
jedris obfequiis, voluntatibus junftis, afteftibus unitis.
Item , Inter Dominica menfte convivas animalis homo
non admitittur, quicquid caro 8c fanguis diclat, ab hoc
c'cetu excluditur, nihil fapit, nihil prodeft, quicquid
humani
Eucharijiia^* 33
humanifenfusmolltur fubtilitas. Hccc Sc alia miilta in ean-
demrententiamCyprianLis. Quodad noftruin inftitutum
[ attinef, ipfa Cypriani verba fatis indicant, quam non fc-
^ quenda fit litera in his qucede hoc my{leriodicuntur,quam
procul arcendus eft carnis fenfus, & ad fenfum fpiritualem • ^
omnia referenda: huic paniDivina: virtutisprsfentiam ad-
efie, vitcc rcternic efie6tum , Divinam infundi eilentiam,
I verba fpiritum 5e vitam efle, fpirituale documentum tradi,
hoc corpus, hunc fanguinem & carnem , hanc fubftantiam
corporis, non communi more, nec ut humana ratio didtat
accipioportere, fed ita nominarhexiftimari, credi, propter
eximiosquofdameffedtus, virtutes, 8e proprietates conjun-
dtas, qujE corpori 8c fanguini Chrifti natura infunt, nempc
quod pafcat animas noftras, 8c vivificet fimul, 8c corpora
ad refurredtionem 8c immortalitatem prxparet. Idem fen-
fit 8c Cyriilus^qui quum in muitis iocis veritatem 8c na^
turam corporis Chrifti in Sacramento affirmet, tamen fpi-
i ritualem & divinam rem eflb, non hominum more intelli-
' gendam ccnfet. Nam primum eandem vefcendi rationeni
verbis Dominicte Ccena: traditam refert, quam Dorainus
[ ipfe fignificabat quum diceret, Nift manducaveritis carnem
Filii hominis, 8cc. Sic enim fcribit libro 4. in Joannem,
capite 14. ubi nonnulla loquutusde his qui dixiflent,Quo-
modo poteft hie dare carnem fuam edendam, haec adjecit,
Oportebat igitur fidei primum radices in animojacerc, de-
inde ilia quserere quse homini quscrenda funt. lili vero an-
tequam crederent, importune qucerebant. Hac igitur de
I caufa, Dominus quomodo id fieri poffit non enodavit.fed fi- '
! de id quserendum hortatur. Sic credentibus difclpulis frag-
menta panis dedit, dicens, Accipite 8c manducate, hoc eft
corpus meum. Calicem etiam fimiliter circumtulit, di-
' cens, Bibitc ex hoc omnes,hiceft caiixfanguinis mei, qui
I pro muitis effundetur in remiftionem peccatorum. Per-
L fpicis quia fine fide qucerentibus myfterii modum nequa-
L F quam
?4
Idem in c. 21.
Idem, inc. 22
Idem, c, 24.
Idem ad Cill0'
I'lfiivn.
Dtalla^icon
quam expTana^vit, credentibus autem non quoerentibus ex-
pofuit. Item in caput vicefimum primum,,in base verba,
Durusefthic lermo, ficait, Mentis quoque acumine pri-
vati, fcientiam abhorrere folent, qux magno fludio, mul-
taque opera effet conquirenda Seddpiritualisquidem vir,ut
in deliciisindoclrina Domini verfatus jugiter canit, Qiiam
dulcia Faucibus meis doquia tua , fuper mel ori meo? Ani.
malis vero Judaeus,rpirituale hoc myflerium, fatuitatisple-
num arbitratur.quumque Domini verbis ad fubiimioremin-
tellig^ntiam rerumconcitetur,tamen ad infitam fild demen-
tiamomnino delabitur. Item in caput vicerirriumfecundufn
^ exponens hacc verba. Hoc vos fcandalizat, 8cc. fcribit in
huncmodum, Eximperitia multi qui Chridum fcqueban-
tur, verba ipfius non caplentes perturbabantur. Nam
quum audiflent. Amen ,amen dico vobis, nil! comederi-
tiscarnem Filii homiriiSiSc bibcriris ejus Fanguinem,non ha-
bel l is vitam in vobis^ad immanes ferarum mores vocarife
a Chrifto arbitrabantur, incitarique ut vellent crudas ho-
minis carnes manducare, & fanguinem bibere , qucc vei
auditu horribilia (imt. Nundum enim myllerii hujus
Fcrraam, & difpenfationem putcherriraam cognoverant.
Item cap. x4. Verba ergo qucc vobis loquutus fum, fpi-
ritus.ideldDpiritualia, de fpiriru & vita, idefl;, de vivi-
fica St natural! vita funt. Ejufdem verba citantur adCaloly-
rium qufe foquuntur. Neenim honeremus carn-em & fan-
giiinem, nppofitafacrisaltaribus, condefcendens Deiisno--
ftris fragilitaribus, influitobiatis vim vitsE,convertens'ea in
veritatem propridC carnis,ut corpus vit^e quafi qaoddai^ fe-
men vivificativum inveniatur in nobis. His atque aliis
apud Cyriilum locis fubvehimur a litera ad Fpiritum, ab a-
nimaiishominisFehfuadTiiblimiobem'*rpii"italis rhyderii iri-
rdligefttiam. Non diic cogitandurri eft nosVrudas homl-
nis carnes comcdere,vel Fariguincm bibere fed verba fpi-
rilualia eFTe , & fpiritualiter intelligcnda, carncm quidem
Euchari^iit*
& fanguineni nominari,fed de fpiritu 8c vita, id ell:,vivifi-
ca Dominicce carnis virtute debere inteiligi, 8c proinde vim
vitoE fignis externis inditam efle dixit,iSc cprpus vita: fignifi-
canter appeliavit.Idem iriJoanneihlibro'ii.capitex6.aii-
quanto clirius explicat, quomodo & cum Chrifto & no- ''
bifcum invicem corporalitcr conjungiraur, i Jque per Sacra-
menti pirticipationcm, licet corpora fiinul & anima la-
parari fimus, Conndcrandum elc (inquit) fiad unitatani
conienfus & voluntatis, naturalcm etiam in venire poiiu-
mils, perquam nos inter nos&omnesDeocol!igemur,ror-
taflis enim etiam corporali unione conjungimur, licetadto
diflep.irati rimusutunufquifquefeorfum, & fubfiftat Sccir-
cumlcribatur.Nam (i Petrus ScPauhis unum unitate inChri-
fto fint, Petrus tamen Paulus non ell. Deinde paucis interje-*
^bis fic infert,Origo igitur 8c via,qaa Spiritu fan£to panici-
pamus, 8c Deo uniti lumus, Chrifti myflerium ell. Qmnes.
enim inillolanftificamur. Ut igitur inter nos & Deum fin.
gulos uniret,quamvis corpore limul 8c anima di{lemus,mo-
Hum tamen adinvenit, confilio Patris 8c Tapientiac fuse ton-
gruentem. Suo enim corpore credentes per communionem
myfticam benedicens, 8c fecum 8c inter nos lulum nos cor-
pus effieit. Palam eft Cyrillura non de eodem corporis ge-
nere'loquutum, quumdicit,Quajnvis-corpore fimul .Sc a-
nima^'difbent , tamen corpore Ghr'ifti per communionem
myfticamj credentes unum corpus twin Chrifto 8c inter fe
fieri. Nam ut illo fpiritualicorpore. conjunifti fideles, unum
furit corpus,!icet ipforum propria corpora feparata maneant,
ita etiam eodem- fpirituali corpore cum Chrifto conjundbi
unum cum illo corpus efficimur, etiamfi proprium illius
corpus longe abfit a noftriscorporibus.:. Addamus unura
prjEterea locumcx hoc patredefumptum. Isautemeftin lib;
ad Euoptium, Anath. 11. ubrde Neftorio fic loquitur. An-
I 1 'J * E,HOpt% AftdtOm
non iy^^u-np<ty\<tv J hoc eft, humanie carnis devorationcm
hoc myflerium pronunciat, 8c irreligiose.fidehuin raentes
F z in
.X
in fenfus adulterlnos detrudit^ ac humanis cogltationibus
aggreditur, qux IblajpuraBc In exquifita fide accipiuntur
Obiicit iioc loco Gyrillus.Neftnrio, quod uterrorem fuum
rucatur., crafiius de^Euchariftia loquutus fit, quafi carnes
humanasin ea propriecomedant fideles, quam Gricca vo-
ce nominat drbfco-^cpxyUp, Ted cogitationes ifiiufmodi vocat
hoc eft, interprcte Budxo, adulterines, non ger-
manos, non finceros, quandoquidem nullis id genus huma-
nis aut vulgaribus cogitationibus hie locus fir. Non alitcr
Theophyladus exiftimafie putandus eft, qui quamvis vi-
deri poffit craftiorcm alicubi fententiam fequutus , ut in
Matth.cap. i6.cujus verba fuprarecitavimus, quibus vide-
tur negare quod panis Euchariftue figura fit corporis Do-
minici, fed ipfum re vera corpus, tamen quum dicit non efle
figurarn,(enritnon rantum figuram efie, ut alibi in Marcuna
& Joan, legitur. Nam omnibus alioqui veteribus recla-
mafifet, quod credibile non eft, qui paflim hoc Sacramen-
turn,figuram,imaginem,fignum & exemplar appcllant,tum
quod re ver^corpus efie dixit, non humano aut.communi
more voluit accipi,quemadmodum ex fequcntibus mani-
s'* ^"^hum crit. Nam fcribens in Joan. cap. 6. fuper hare verba,
Decertabant ergo Judari inter fe dicentes, Quomodo hie
poteft nobis dare carnem fuam ad edendum fie ait, Opor-.
tet igitur nos quuriiaudiverimiis,Nifi ederitisrarfiemFilii,
non habebicis vitahi,infiumptionibus divinorura myfterio-
rum indubitatam retinere fidem & non quserere quo-paflo.
Nam animalishomo,hoc eft, qui fequitur cogitationes hu-
fnanas Sc- animales , five naturales, non eft capax eorum
quae'funt fu^'rer naturam, & fpiritualium. Atque ita 6c
fpiritualem efiim carnis Dominicm non intelligit, cujus qui
non funt participes, nonerunt participes acterna^ vitae. Et
■ mox h«c verba, Qai edit meam carnem, &c. fic exponit,
., Hoc loco difcimus Sacramentum communionis,. Nam qui
edit 6f bibit carnem 8c fanguinem Domini, in ipfo manet
fn a 1 Domino
Euchariftide.
D3mIno,8i Domitius in ipfo. Contempsratio enim fie nova,
& Cuper rationcm, ita ut Deus fit in nobis, & nos in Deo.
Docet hie author fidem adhibendam efTe in ni) flcriis, ncc
efTe qujerendum quomodo. Simul autem humanas &aai- '
males, feu naturales cogitationes fummovet & fenfum tan-
turn fpiritualem exigit, & fublimioremedendi rationeni
commendat. Additenun non multo pod, fuper h^ec verba,
Durus eft hie fermo, quis potefl eum audire.? &c. Vide an-
tern infipientiam illorum. Nam debebant interrogare,& di-
fcere caquee ignorabant. At illi refiliebant, & nihil fpiritua-
liter exponebant, fed omnia ut videbantur. Nam quia car-
nem audierant,putabantqu6d eos cogeret eft,
carnis 8c fanguinis fieri devoratores, quia autem nos (piritua-
liter intelligimus,neque carnium voratoresfumus, & fanfli'
ficamur per talem cibum. Mox etiam explicans illud, Spiri-,
tus eft qui vivificat, ita fcribit, Qj^oniam , ut ftpe diximus,
carnaliter exponentes ea qua! dicebantur a Chrifto, offende-
bantur,dicit, Qjum fpiritualiter inteHiguntur,qua!a me di-
cuntur,hocdemum utilitatemafferre, Caro autem, hoc eft
carnaliter ilk exponere nihil prodeft.fed offendiculi occafio
fit.Sicigiturilliquicarnaliteraudiebant, quse a Ghrifto di-
cebantur, offendcbantur. Subdit igitur, Verba qua: ego lo-
<juorfpiritus funt, hoceft,fpiritualia funt, & vita, nihil car-
nale habentia, 8c vitam afferentia azternam, hisadjunga-
mus qua! fcribit in Mar. c. 14. Non enim figura tantum&
exemplar quoddam Dominici corporis, paniseft , fed in
ipfum convertitur corpus Chrifti. Dominus enim dicit;
Panis quern ego dabo , caro mea eft , Sc iter urn , Nifi
ederitis carnemFilii Iiominis. Et quomodo (inquit) caro
non videtur ? O homo propter noftram inftrmitatem
ifthuc fit. Quia enim panis quidem 8c vinum ex his funt,
quibus afTuevimus , ea non abhorremus : fanguinem
vero propofitum , 8c carnem videntes, non ferremus fed
abhorreremus. Idcirco raifericors Deus noftra! infir-
" mitati
^iallaWicon
mirati condefcendens, fpeciem quidem panis 8c vini
fervatjin virtutem autem'carnis & fanguinis tranfelementat
Ex his omnibus certiffimum eft Theophyladlum veterum
Patrum veftigiafequutum efle , carnales imaginationes in
hoc Sacramento rejicere, ad fublimes autem & fpiritua-
les nos revocare, non efle figuram tantum Dominici
corporis, fed potius vere corpus illius efle , tamen
^eyf communicantes non efle, hoc eft, carnibus non velci,
dc caufam, addit, quia non carna!iter,fed fpiritualitcr intel-
ligimus^ncmpe quod ferventur panis & vini fpecies.in vir-
tutem autem Dominica! carnis 5c fanguinis abeant, Sc ut illc
loquitur , tranfelemententur, quo vocabulo non eft quod
idminjoan. Papifticamaliquam, Ut vocant tranfubftantiationem nobis
cap.6. fingamus. Nam Icribcns in Joan.c. 6. eodemutiturverbo,
fic inquiensjlgitur quemadmodum ego (inquit) vivo pro-
pter Patrem, hoc eft, ftcut natus fum ex Patrc, qui vita eft,
ita & quimanducat me,vivit propter me,dum quodam-
modo miftetur mihi, 8c tranfelementatur in me, qui vivifi-
care poflum. Hac tranfelementandi voce nihil aliud flgnifi-
care voluit, quam illamcommutationem Sacramentis con-
gruentem, cujus meminit Ambrofms Emyflenus, &alii,ut
fupra memoravimus. Aiiter enimin Chriftum tranfelemen-
tari non poffumus. Neque mirum eft fic loquutum elfe
Theophyladum, quum Scipfe Chryf in Joan c. 6.hom.45'.
his utatur verbis, Ut autem non folum per diledionem, fed
re ipfa in illam carnem convertamur, per cibum id efficit
quem nobis largitus eft. Ecce Chryfoftomus dicit realiter,
ut ita loquar, nos converti in carnem Chrifti, fed fpiritua-
lem illam non carnalem con verfionem efle, quis noh videt >
Ita reipfa convertitur, Sc tranfelementatur panis in carnem
Chrifti, fed fplrituali non carnali converftone, quia panis
virtutem carnis aflequitur. Atque haecadeo qua! de Theo-
phyladro didta funt,etfi non ita vetus author eft, quia tamen
ab iis qui carnalem in Euchariftia fenfum fequuntur, in pri-
Eucharifiicz.
m's allegatur, quamvis ipfeadmodum pcrfpicue fefe expli-
cat, 8c a Divinis Uteris,& antiquorum fcriptis aliena non do-
ceatjVolui veram tarn dofti viri fententiam oftendere, non
ilUus ut recentiorls hominis authoritacem convellere. Su-
pereft Damafcenus, quo tanquam prvTcipao propugnatore
lituntur adverrarii, qui fi non carpt.m ejus fententias , ut
qu^que fuis aUedtibus applaudunt arriperent, fed orationis
illius conrinuatanfi ferietn confidcrent, caufam ipforum
non magis adjuvat quam evertit. Qjanquam ut ingenue
ledtorem admoneam, & quod fentio dicani,lubricus admos
dum, 8c incertus eft hie author in hocmyfterio explicando*
necullus inter veteres, aufiai dicere, fcriptores reperietur,
qui tamobfcure 8c perplexede hac re difputavit.Mihifane
videtur, quum fummam orthodoxx fidei decreviftet fori-
here, de hoc Sacramento tacere noluifte, nee fatis expedi-
te potuifte dicere, quod ex verbis ipfiusxquusledtor facile
judicabit. Scribit autem De fide orthod. libro 4. cap. 14. de Damafi. Defide.
Chrifto in hunc modum, Oportuit autem non foliim pri
mitias noftr^e naturrc in participationem venire melioris,
fed omnes quctquot velent homines, & fecunda nativitate
nafci, Sc nutriri cibo novo, 8c huic nativitati accommodato,
atque ita prmvenire menfuram perfedionis, 8c pauld poft,
Etquoniam ipfe fpiritualis eft Adam, oportuit 8c nativita-
tern fpiritualem efte , fimiliter 5c cibum. Qmmverodu-
plicem naturam 8c compofitam habemus, par eft ut du-
plex fit nativitas, 8c efca fimiliter compofita. Nativitas-.
igitur per aquarh nobis Sc fpiritum data eft, per fandum, ,
itiquam I3aptirma,cibus autem ipfe Dominus nofter lefus ^
Chriftus qui de coelo defcendit. Deinde verbis Cmnm
Domini in medium addudis, & quam efticax fit verbum
rationibus illatis adjungit. Q^emadmodum omnia qua:-
curique fecit Deus, Spiritu landooperante fecit, fic &
nunc eadem Spiritusfandi vis, qu:e fupra naturam funt eft
ficit.quar non nifi foia fides poteft comprehendere; d pau-
lOi
39
ViallaBicon
16 poll:, Panis autem & vinum affumuntur: Novit enim
D eus humanam infirmitatem. Nam plerunque ea quibus
non alTuevit, averlatur cum indignatione. Demifit ita-
que ftfe ut iblet,ac per confueta naturx, eaqua: naturam fu-
perant facit. Atqueut inBaptirmo,quiamosefthominibus
aqua lavari & ungi oleo , conjunxit cum oleo 8c aqua gra-
tiam Spiritus fandi , fecitque ut fit lavacrum regeneratio-
nis .• eodem modo, quia folent homines panem edere, vi-
num & aquam bibere, conjunxit cumillis fuam Divinita-
tem, cSt ea fecit corpus 8c fanguinem (uum, ut perconfuetas
res, ac naturx confentaneas, ad ea quae naturam excedunt
feramur. Hadenus videtur cum reliquis confentire. Nam
qualis efl: fecunda nativitas, talem ait cibum efle, nativita-
tem fpiritualemnominatjfimiliter & cibum, nativitatem
banc duplicem efle, per aquam 8c Spiricum fandum fieri,
cibum etiam dupiicem efle,quo modo autem duplex fit non
ftatim adjunxit,quod in nativitatefecerat, fedcibus,inquit,
eft ipfe panis vitce, qui de ccelo defcendit, poll: pauca ta-
men quo modo id fiat oftendit, inquiens, Ut aqua cum Spi-
ritus fandi gratia conjungitur, 8c fit lavacrum regeneratio-
nis, ita divinitas cum pane conjungitur, 8c fit corpus & fan-
guis Domini: banc autem operationemaflerit Spiritus fan-
diefle, panem quidem 6c virium afTumi, propter buma-
nam infirmitatem, 8c per confueta naturae, quat naturam ex-
cedunt fieri, quae fola fides poteft capere. Nihil horum pu-
gnant cum aborum Patrum fententia. Cceterum qu^e fe-
quuntur aliter babent. Vere corpus eft, inquit, cumdivini-
tate unitum, illudcorpus ex fanda virgine.Hoc ante ilium
nemo dixerat, 8< ft de proprio corpore intelligit, autboritas
Patrum quupfumanteceffcrant reclamat; qui corpus illud
ablatum a terris, illatum fyderibus, 8c hie non efle diferte
affirmant, qui etiam corpus illud ab hoc Sacramento cor-
poris, aperto difcrimine feparant, nifi forte fie interprete-
inur, ut illud Auguftinbipfum corpus 6c non ipfum, ipfum
, per
Eucharijiie^' 4^.
per gratiam & virtutem,nonautem ipfum juxta propriam
rationem corporis, quod hie author quum hsec fcriberet, vo-
liiiilevideri poteft. Nam ilico fequitur , Non quod ipfum
corpus afTumptum ex coelo defcenderit, fed quod ipfe panis
& vinum tranfmutatur in corpus & fanguinem Domini,qui-
bus verbis ipfe tellatur aliter intelligendum hoc corpus
quod in Sacramento fumitur , aliter illud aflumpturn
corpus quod negat e ccelo defcendere. Nam fi in cceIo
manet, nee hucdefcendit, panis autem fit illud affumptum
corpus, certejpanis erit in ccelo, neque panis neque corpus
hie fumetur afidelibus,quod nemo fanusaffirmavit. Quod fi
corpus affumptum fuoloco,ut fides noftra poftular, relin-
quamus , ipfum tamen per gratiam & virtutemin Sacra-
raento priefensefle dicamus, ut reliqui Patres pronunciantj
& proinde panem hunc propter naturalem corporis proprie#
tatem conjunifara, dici credique corpus Chrifti, non pro-
prie ut illud affumptum corpus, fed modo fpirituali, ut Sa-
cramentum illiuscorporis,resnon impiicita,fed expedita eft,
neque opus erit labyrinthos fidei noftrae adverfantes ma-
chinari, aut inanes ex arena funiculos neftere, autfimilitu-
dinesafuperioribus patribus ufurpatasfugere, & alias craf-
fas atque a myfteriis alienas comminifci, quod facit hoc lo-
co Damafcenus. Q^emadraodum enim (^inquit) naturaliter
panis edendo, vinum & aqua bibendo, in corpus & fan-
guinem comedentis ac bibentis mutantur, 8c fiunt aliud
corpus prscter id quod prius habebant, fic 8c panis propo-
fitionis, 8c vinum 8c aqua, per invocationem & adventum
Spiritus fan(9:i, fupra naturae legem in corpus 8c fanguinem
Chrifti commutantur, 8c nonfunt duo,fed unum &idem.
Qmd aliud hoc fimile quam viam fternit ad trasKofnytav &
ivQiuirofctym , hoc eft,ad carnes humanas comedendas,quod
Cyrillus, Theophylaftus 8c alii Patres abominantur ?
C^anto melius loquuti funt-Cyprianus, Ambrofius,Epipha-
nius, Emyffenus, 8c alii qui fimilem coramutationem in
G Eu-
ViallaElicon
Euchari{lia,cum ea qua: fit in Baptifmo confirmant, qua fit
ut figna maneanteadem,& per gratiam,novam acquirant
fubftantiain fimiliter, ut idem homo nondum renatus ad
veterem Adamum pertinet, poft regenerationem novus ho-
mo,nova creatura efiicitur, non carnali, qui Sa-ramentis
non convenitjfedfpirituali modo. Sed Damafcenus ipfefui
oblitus, qui prius fpiritualem hunc cibum , ut in Baptifmo
generationem fpiritualem affirmaverat, nunc carnalem
efife docet, fi quidem hie panis ita in Chrifti corpus abeat,
ut panis communis in corpora comedentium, (^o fit ut
in alium etiam errorem cadat. Negat enim hunc panem
& vinum figuram efie. Non eft, inquit, figura corporis &
fanguinis Chrifti panis ifte & vinum, abfit, fed ipfum cor--
pus Domini deificatum.Neque mirum eft ilium hoc negare,
fi ut panis communis mutatur in corpus vefce.ntis, fic hunc
panem mutari cenfeat, Sed veteres omnes paftim recla-
mant. Quin & ipfe fibi mihimeconftat. Nam poft verba ilia
ex Joan. cap. 6. citata, Nifiederitis carnem Filii, 8cc, 8c Ca-
ro mea vere. See. ftatim aliam de carbone fimilitudinem af-
fert, a fuperiore longediverfam. Carbo (inquit^ fimplex li-
gnumnoneft, fed igni unitum,fic panis communionis non
panis fimplex eft, fed unitusdivinitati. Qua m diver fa ratio
hujus 8c illius fimilitudinis ? Ante dixerat panem propofi-
tionis mutari in corpus Chrifti ultra naturam,ut panis com-
munis naturaliter mutatur in corpus vercentis,id autem non
fit manente pane, hie ait panem communionis non efie
panem fimplicemj fed panem divinitati conjundum, ma-
net ergo panis, cui conjun6tus ? divinitati, Ubi igitur eft;
craflaillatranfmutatio? Rurfum paulo poft, Hsec eft pura
ilia & fanguinis expers viftima, quam Deus per Prophetaih
abortu folisad occafum fibi offerri juflit. Si de alfumpto
corpore loquitur & fanguine,quomodo fanguinis expers eft.'
fi de fpirituali corpore & fanguine,vera narrat. Item hocfin-
quit) corpus non confumitur, non corrumpitur, non ejici-
tur
Eucharillid^* 43
tur in feceflum. Si de fpirituali <5c potiore facramenti fub-
flantiafentit, fatemurjfm de figno externo, Origlnes longe
Damafcenododlior, juxta id quod habet materiale, inven-
trem Cinqult) vaditj & in fece^m emittitur. Pergit adhuc
DamafcenusiSc ait,Hicpanis eft primitiiP futuri panis , qui
eft ; epioufios autem fignificat vel panem futurum,
hoc eft, venturi feculi,vel eum qui ad confecrationem no-
ftr:2 fubftantios fumitur. Sive igitur hoc, five illo modo,
Chrifti corpus accommodate dicitur.NaAn fpiritus vivificans
eft caro Domini, quia ex Spiritu vivificante concepta eft.
Quod enim natitm eft ex Spiritu fpiritus eft, hoc autem
dico non auferens corporis naturam, fed vivificationem &:
divinitatem ejus oftendere volens. Quam verfatilis eft
haec oratio? modo unus&idem panis unum & idem cor-
pus eft, modo primitice venturi panis, aliquando caro, ali-
quando fpiritus. Tandem fub finem ait. Quod finonnulli
panem &: vinum exemplaria corporis Chrifti & fanguinis
appellarunt, ut divinus ille Bafilius, poft fanftificationem
non ita nominabant,led antequam fanftificaretur ipfa obia-
tio. Atquiin ea quae fertur Bafilii litrurgia, contra fit planif*
fime,ac reliqui Patres idem f^pe faciunt,&: ipfe Damafce-
nushac coronide orationem claudit, Exemplaria autem fu-
turorum dicuntur, non quod vere non fint corpus & fanguis
Chrifti, led quoniam nunc per ea participes divinitatis
Chrifti efficimur, tum vero per intelledum foJa vifione.
Quid hoc homine facias, qui paulo ante negabat*Exempla-
ria vocari poft fanclificationem, nunc ipfe poft fanftifica-
tionem aperte Exemplaria nominat ? Qu^^nam eft h£Ec in-
conftantia ? hoc non eft de myfteriis docere, fed tum hoc,
tum illud dicendo, ctecis omnia tenebris involvere. Equi-
dem exiftimo Damafcenum quid certi de hacre ftatueret
non habuiffe,fed quselegerat apud veteres fcriptafapienter,
ea tumultuarie confufeque congeflifle;cumque fe ipfe expe-
dire non polfitjfluftuafteatque, utGrseci loquuntur, nniu-
G 2
44 VMa^iccn
Nam quod carnalem,quam vocant tranfubftantiatio-
nem fibi perluaferat, verifirnile non eft, cum opinionem iU
lam ipfa Grxcorum Ecclefia nec in hunc ufquc diem
admilerit. Neque ver6 mirum videri debet, fi in hoc myfte-
rio minus viderit, aut parum fincere fenferit, ft vera fint
quae deillo in ejus vitaferuntur, quod Monachus fa6l"us,cor-
besin foro ridicule vendiderit, quod inepta miracula con-
finxerit,qu6d ruperftitiofus imaginum cultor extiterit, &
cultus ejufmodi defenfor acerrimus. Plusapud nos veterum-
authoritas valere debet, quorum judicium dodrina piera-
tequenon fifta commendatum, multo plushabet ponde-
ris^quiad cognorcendum hoc tantummyfterium , carnis
fenfum excludunt, Sc ad fpiritualem intelligendi modum
revocant. Qaamobrem prudenter 8c dofte Bertramusille
non longo intervallo Damafcenum fequutus, videtur
hancapud veteres Patres diftinftionem, facris etiamliteris
confentientem obfervafle, & opere non longo , dilucide
tamen 8c vere quid de hac controverfta cenfendum fit tra-
didifte, cujus aliquot locos inftituto noftro congrucntes, non
alienum fuerit attexere. Nam nec ita recens author eft,
quippe cum vixerit ante annos feptingentos, Scnon mi-
nus vita quam dodrina clarus extitit. Is hanc propofttio-
nem multis argumentis probat, differre inter le carnem
Chriftifumptamex virgine, 8c eamquse in Sacramento fu-
mitur. Scribit autem in hunc modum. exponenshaec verba
Ambrofti f Verautique caro Chrifti qua: crucifixa eft, quae
fepulta eft, vere ergo carnis illius Sacramentum eft: Ipfe
clamat DominusIefus,Hoceft; corpus meum.Q|^am diligen-
Bmrarms de ^ inquit Bcrtramus ) quam prudenter fadta diftin&io?
corp. fang. De camc Chrifti quse crucifixa eft, queC fepulta eft, id eft,fe-
Chrifti. cundum quam Chriftus 8c crucifixus eft & fepultus, ait,
vera utique caro Chrifti. At de ilia qua: fumitur in Sacra-
mento,dicit,vere ergo carnis illius Sacramentum eft,diftin-
guensSacramentum carnis a veritate carnis, quatenus in
veritate
Euchariftide.
veritate carnis, quamfumpferat de virgine, diceret eum &
crucifixiim & fepultum, (^od ergo nunc agitur in Eccle-
fia myfterium vere illius carnis in quacracifixus ell:, dice-
ret elle Sacramentum; patenter fideles inllituens, qu6d il-
la caro fecundum quam 8c crucifixus eft Chriflus & fepul-
tus, non fit myfterium, led Veritas naturse; Hsec vero caro
quae nunc fimilitudinem illius in myfterio continet, non fit
fpecie caro, fed Sacramento. Si quidem in fpecie panis, in
Sacramento verum Chrifli corpus, ficut ipfe clamat Do-
minus lefus, Hoc eft corpus meum^ cujus ut mentem me-
liiis aflequamur, obfervandum eft, ut ante quoque monui.
mus, quod utdupliciter ipfura Chrifti corpus intelligit, ita
duplicem etiam ejus veritatem pronunciat, alteram videli-
cet veritatem proprie, quam vocat veritatem in fpecie,
8c veritatem naturae, quam tribuit carni crucifixae Sc fe-
pultae, alteram veritatem fpiritualem, quam appeliat corpus
verum in Sacramento. Idem illud ^mbrofii recitans, Non
ergo corporalis efca, fed fpiritualis eft, ait. Non igitur fen-
fum carnis adhibeas. Nihil enim fecundum eum hie decer-
nitur.Eft quidem corpus Chrifti,fed non corporale,fed fpi-
rituale. Eft fanguis Chrifti, fed non corporalis, fed fpiri-
Eualis Nihil igitur corporaliter,fed fpiritualiterfentiendum.
Corpus Chrifti eft, fed non corporaliter,6c fanguis Chrifti
eftjfed non corporaliter. Notandum, cum dicit non corpora-
liter, fignificat, non propde corporaliter. Nam per fpiritua-
lem etiam in Sacramento manducationem corporaliter cum
Chrilto conjungimur, ut Cyrillus teftatur 8c Hilarius, fed
my dice non proprie. Idemde eodem Ambrofio paulo pbft
ait, LuculentifTime fanguinis 8c corporis Chrifti myfte-
rium, quemadmodum debemus intelligere, docuit. Cum
enim dixiffet Patres noftros efcam fpiritualem manducaffe,
8c potum fpiritualem bibifle, ciim tamen manna illud
quod eomederent, & aquam quam biberunt corporea fuif-
fe, nemo eft qui dubitet, adjungit de myfterio quod in
Ecclefia
\)iallaUicon
Ecclefia nunc agitur, definiens fecundum quid corpus fit
Chrifti. Corpus enim Dei, inquiens, corpus eft fpirituale,
Deus utique Chriftus, & corpus quod fumpfit de Maria vir-
gine, quod paflum, quod fepultum eft, quod refurrexit,
corpus utique verum fuit, idem quod vifibile, quod palpa-
bile manebat. At verb corpus quod myfterium Dei dicitur,
non eft corporale fed fpirituale, quod ft fpirituale,jam non
viftbiie neque palpabiie. Hinc beatus Ambroftusfubjungit,
Corpus, inquiens,Chrifti, corpus eft divinifpiritus. Divinus
autem fpiritus nihil corporeum , nihil corruptibile, nihil
palpabiie quod fit, exiftit. At hoc corpus quod in Ecclefta
celebratur, fecundum viftbilem fpeciem,& corruptibile eft
& palpabiie. Mox etiam ex verbis Ambrofti concludit in
hunc modum, Hujus doftifl'. viri authoritate perdocemur,
quod multa differentia feparantur corpus in quo paftus
eft Chriftus, & fanguis quem pendens in cruce de late-
re fuo profudit, & hoc corpus quod in myfterio paffionis
Chriftiquotidie a fidelibuscelebratur, & ille quoque fan-
guis quifidelium ore fumitur^myfterium fit illius fanguinis,
quo totus rederaptus eft mundus. Id etiam authore Hie-
ronymo confirmat, cumque locum ilium citaffet .-Duplici-
ter fanguis Chrifti & caro intelligitur: vel fpiritualis illa,&c,
fic infert, Non parva Doftor ifte differentia corporis 8c fan-
guinis Chrifti fecit diftindionem. Namque dum carnem
vel fanguinem quse quotidie fumuntur a fidelibus, fpi-
ritualiadicit efte,at verb caro quae crucifixa eft, 8c fanguis
qui militis effufus eft lancea , non fpiritualia effe dicuntur
neque divina, patenter inftnuat, qudd tantum inter fe dif-
ferunt, quantum differunt fpiritualia 8c corporalia, vifibilia
8c invifibilia, divina atque humana, 8c qubd quae a fediffe-
runt, non idem funt. Differunt autem caro fpiritualis qu^e
fidelium ore fumitur, & fanguis fpiritualis, qui quotidie
credentibus potandus exhibetur, a carne quce crucifixa eft,
& fanguine qui militis effufus eft lancea , ficut authoritas
priE-
Euchariftidt.
pr^e^enris viri teftificatur. Non idem igitur funtllla namqtie
cam, qujs crucifixa eft,de Virginis carne- fafta eft, o/Iibus
& nervis compadta, & humanorum membrorum linea-
mentis diftinfta, rationalis animse fpiritu vivificata , in
propriam vitam, & congruentes motus. At vero caro fpiri-
tualis,qus populum credentem fpiritualiter pafcit, fecun-
dum fpeciem quam gerlt exterius frumenti grants, manu ar-
tificis confiftit, nullis nervis olTiLurque compada, nulla
membrorum varietatediflinda, nulla rationali fubftantia
vegetata, nullos proprios potens motus exercere. Qaicquid
enim vita: pr^ebet fubftantiam, fpiritualis eft potenti^e , &
inviftbilis eft efticienti^, divinazque virtutis. Iterum ex ver.
bis Auguftini concludit hoc pafto, Hujus authoritate do-
ctoris, verba Domini tradantis, de Sacramento fui corporis
6c fanguinis nanifefte docemur, quod ilia verba Domini fpi-
ritualiter, 8c non carnal iter intelligenda funt, ficutipfe ait.
Verba qua ego loquor vobis, fpiritus 6c vita funt, verba u-
tiquede ftia carne manducanda, & de fuo fanguinebiben-
do. Inde enimloquebatur, unde difcipuli fuerant fcandalt-
2ati. Ergo ut non fcandalizarentur , revocat eos divinus
Magifter de carne ad fpiritum, de corporea vifione ad intel-
bgentiam invifibilem. Videmus ergo, efca ilia corporis Do-
mini, & potus ille fanguinis ejus, fecundumquid vere cor-
pus ejus, & vere fanguis ejusexiftunt, videlicet fecundum
quod fpiritus 8c vita lunt; Subjungit etiam poft rem con-
firmatam: Videmus itaque multa differentia feparari, my-
flerium corporis & fanguinis Chrifti, quod nunc a fideli-
bus fumitur in Ecclefia, 6c illud quod natum eft de Maria
virgine, quod piffum,quod fepultum, quod refurrexit,quod
coelos aicendit, quod ad dextram Patris fedet. Hoc namque
quod agiturin via, fpiritualiter eft accipiendum, quia fides
quod non videt credit, 6c fp ritualiter pafcit anim.ara , 6c
lietificat cor, & vitam prasbet seternam, 8c incorruptionem^
dum non attenditur quod corpus pafcit, quoddente premir
tur.
DiallaSlicon
tur.quod per partes comminuttur.fedquodin fidefpiritua-.
liter accipitur. At verb corpus illud in quo paflus eft,
& refurrexit Chriftus, proprium ejus corpus exiftit, de vir-
ginis Maria: corpore fumptum, palpabile feu vifibile etiam
poft refurreftionem, ficut ipfe difcipulisait, Videte manus
•meas & pedes meos,quia ego ipfe fum, palpate & videte ,
quiafpiritus carnem & ofla non habet, ficut me videtis ha-
here, Multa fcribit Bertramus in banc fententiam, fed
hsec delibaflb fit fatis. Cujus ego viri expofitionem, & de
Sacramento viam difputandi, duas obcaufas dillgenter ex-
pendendacn & ampledendam arbitror. Primum quod non
folum illorum Patrum, quos ille paucos enumerat, verum
etiam aliorum multorum,ne dicam omnium, vetuftiorum
authoritate nicitur atque teftimonio. Alterum eft quod
cum hominisexiftimatio tantifuerit, ut abllluftriff Prin-
cipead fcribendum provocaretur,8c fcriptum illius in luce
& omnium confpeftu verfaretur, laudatusamultis, a ne-
mine reprehenfus aut mal^ doftrin^e macula notatus eft.
Quo fit ut ante novos tranfubftantiatores iftosobortos, pin-
gues & animales homines, htecBertramide Sacramento
dotftrina, judicio doftiflimi cujufque comprobata fit. Quan-
quamvoxipfa tranfubftantiationis, nova quidem 8e non
neceflaria, locum tamen aliquem , ut tranfelementatio
fortaffis habere potuillet, fi non aliam quam veteres in-
tellexerunt, hoc eft, quam facramentalem fubhantiarum
commutationeminduxiflent,qu2e priore manente fubftan-
tia peragitur, fed novitate vocis non contenti, monftri fimi-
lem interpretationem affinxerunt. Nam ipfum proprium
corpus Chrifti in Sacramento flatuunt, veris corporis
humani dotibus exuunt,cum nec ipfe Aquinas diftinftio-
nem fupra memoratam ignorafte videaturScribit enim
3. parte Sum. q. 76. art. 5.111 huncmodum , Chriftus totus
eft fub quaiibet parte fpecierum panis & vini, noa folum
cum frangitur hoftia, fed etiam cum integra manet, nec eft
di-
Eucharijiid^i 4P
diflantia partium ab Invicem, ut oculi ab oculo, aut ocuH ab
aure, aut capitis apedibus, ficut eft in aliis corporibus or-
ganicis Talis cnim diftantfa eft in ipfo corpore Chrifti,
vere,fed non prout eft in hocvSacramento. Aliud affirmat
efle verum corpus Chrifti, quod organicum eft,& membro-
rum difcrimen habet,quod etiam in Sacramento riegat
efle: Aliud quod in Sacramento eft, & membrorum varie-
rate careat rid quod ft defpirituali, ut veteres loquebantur,
intellexit corpore, rede judicabat, fin maflam aliquam car-
nis informem ftgnificare voluit, abfurdum eft, 8c contra
veterum omnium fententiam. Quin 8c Lombardus author Lmbardiu.
fententiarum.,de vera Chrifti & propria carnelib. 3. fent.
dift. fie aitjCaro Chrifti aflTumpta, nec cccleftis eft, nee
aerea^nec alterius cujufcunque natur2e,quam ejus cujus eft
omnium homkium caro. Gum igitur communis ratio fit
Sc natura carnis Chrifti cum carnc reliquorum hominum,
ut ait Lombardus, talis autem caro, utaflerit Aquinas, in
Sacramentum non cadit, conficitur ipforum teftimonio,
hasc duo carnis genera multum difcrepare. Quod ut magis
appareatj 8c memoria reponatur , non inutile fore putavi,
ex his qu^e fupra memoravimus, j'uliteifftv quandara per
coilationem fubjungere.
Corpus Chrifti proprium habet formam humani corpo-
ris naturalem. Corpus myfticum non habet.
Corpus proprium habet caput, pedus, membra diftin-
da, corpus myfticum non habet.
Corpus proprium habet ofla, venas, nerves, myfticum
non habet. «
Illud videri tanglque poteft, hoc nec videri nec tangi.
liiud veris corporis fenfibusprseditum eft, hoc fenfus ex-
pers, ut ait Epiphanius.
Illud,organicum eft, hoc non eft.
Illud figura non eft, hoc eft figura proprii corporis.
Illud in myfterio non eft, hoc eft in myfterio.j
H Illud
50 DiallaSlicon
Illud natura fua humanum & corporeum eft, hoc cos-
lefte, divinum, fpirituale.
lllius materia corruptioni non eft obnoxia, hujus pars
materialis panis eft, & corrumpitur.
Illud per fe nulli edere licet, hoc & licet & oportet.
Illud uno loco continetur, hocubicunqueSacramentum
celebratur, adeft, at non ut in loco.
Illud noneftSacramentumalterius corporis, hoc Sacra-
mentum eft alterius.
Illud dc virginis Mariac corpore fumptum, femel creatum
eft, hoc de virginenoniumitur,fedquotidie per benedi-
ftionem myfticam, potentialiter, Auguft. 8c Cypriani te-
ftimonio, creatur.
Illud naturale corpus eft, hoc fupernaturale.
Denique illud fimpliciter, hocfecundum quid, illud pro^
prie & abfolute, hoc impropri^ corpus eft.
Haftenus dedifcrimine diximus, quod veteres inter pro-
prium Chrifti corpus & ejufdem corporis Sacramentum,
pie ac diligenter obfervarunt in quibus etfi multa diita
lint, qua: non folum difcrimen effe, quod nobis hoc loco pro-
pofueramus, oftendunt, fed etiam cujufmodi fit illud cor-
pus in Sacramento fimul nos admonent, tamen quia par-
cius adhuc quam restantapoftulat, hoc a nobis explanatum
eft, vifum eft jam deinceps partem hanc plenius exequi,
videlicet quo modo Sacramentum hoc corpus Domini fit,
8c quamobrem ipfc Dominus nofter initio ut Evangeliftce
referunr, deinde Paulus Apoftolus, poftremo veteres cm-
nes ipforum authoritatem fequuti, fie appellari, 8c fic ef-
fe nobis tradiderunt, non quod modus ifte, qui fpiritualis
8c arcana res eft , humana ratione deprehendi pofiit, aut
nos curiofequa; vetita negataque funt inveftigare conemur,
fed ut commentis humanis exclufis, quaefcripturarum, 8c
antiquorum Patrum cum his confentientium authoritate
nobis tradita funt, fequamur, 8c. quern modum Dominus
Eucharifiiaei 5 ^
ipfe nobis cognltum cfle voluit, & Ecclefia ab ipfo Sc Apo-
ftolis edo£ta recepit, eum ne deferamus. Illud firmiter te*
nendum eft, quod ante probivimus, non folum verba Do-
miniqujE referuntur Joan. cap. 6 Nifi manducaveritis car-
nem,&c.&,Caro mea vere eft cibus , & quie ibidem fe-
quuntur, fed hmc etiam Ccenm Dominic5e verbaAccipite,
edite, hoc eft corpus meum,& hie eft fanguis meus.fpiritua-
liter non carnaliter inteiligenda efte, & eandem utrobique
manducationem intelligi, cum dico non carnaliter, dice
non fecuiidum literam neque ut verba proprie fonant,
hocenim eft'carnaliter intelligere, tefte Qiryfoftomo in chryffi.injoanV
Joan.fuper his verbis, Caro nonprodeft quicquam. Quid hom.46.
eft, inquit, carnaliter intelligere? fimpliciter ut res di-
cuntur, neque aliud quicquam intelligere. Non enim ita
judicanda lunt qurc videntur, fed myfteria omnia inte-
rioribus oculis confideranda funt,hoc eft,fpiritualiter. Hmc
regula Chry.foftomi ne nobis exeidat. Opponuntur autem
h^c duo 'carnaliter 6c fpiritualiter, quum alterum ve-
tatur, alterum prmcipitur, & contra. Q^od vero carna-
lis fenfus in hoc myfterio locum non habeat, non folum
Chryfoft. author eft, ut modo citavimus, & Cyprianus, cyprian,
quum ait, Nec carnalis fenfus ad intelleftum tantm pro-
funditatis penetrat, & Theophyla£tus ita Icribens, (^ia
autem nos fpiritualiter intelligimus, neque carnis devora-
tores fumus 8c fanftificamur per talem cibum: Sed ne.
longum faciam, unopene dixerim oreveteres omnes ver-
ba Ccenae Domini carnaliter intelligere prohibent, & fpiri-
tualemfenfum pr^cipiunt, quod exmultis teftimoniis in
hoc opere citatis, cuivis in promptu videre eft. Neque hie
fatiseft,fi modumunum carnaliterintelligendifugiamuSjSc
in alium impingamus. Nam qui Chrifti carnem edere
fecundum literam accipit, & quafi loquutio propria fit is
Capernaita'carnalis eft, five id hoc, five illo modo proprie
fieri putat. IdexhisAuguftini verbis in Pfalm. 98. liquet.
H 1 Durum
u
5 2 Vialla^icon
Durum illls vifumeft, quod ait, Nifi quismaiiducaverit,&c.
Acceperunt iliud ftulte, carnaliter illud cogitarunt, 8c puo
taveriint qu6d praccifuruseflet Dominus particulss de cor-
pore fuo, 8c daturus illis. Et paulo poft, Spiritualiter intelli•
gite qiiod loquutus fum. Non hoc corpus quod videtis man-
ducaturicftis. Sacramcntum aliquod vobis commendavi :
fpiritualiter intelleftum vivificabit vos. Hie Auguft- car-
nalemintelligentiam ftultiriam vocat, 8c (pirituakm ui ne-
ceflariamftatuit, 8c non ita tantiim carnaliter intelligl fenfit,
ft quis de particulis corporis Dominici prcccifis cogitet, li-
cec banc unam rationcmcarnalem commemoravit, veium
etiam de conftmiiibus omnibus. Nam vcrlfimile eft Ca-
pernaitasomnesquidem carnaliter mtcllexifle,red nonom.
Opmnus. eodemmodo. Aliusenima Cypriano refertur itafcri-
bente, Horrendum eis oc. nefarium vidcbacur vefci car-
nehumana,cxiftimanteshoceo mododici, ut carnem ejus
vel elixam vel allam , fcftam.qac mcmbratimcdere doce-
rentur. Alius etiam carnis fenfusels tribuitur a C} rdlo dicit
' cnim, Nam quum audiftcnt. Amen, Amen dico- vobLs Nifi
comederitis carnem, See. ad immancs ferarura mores vo-
cari (e i Chrifto arbitralxmtur, incitarique ut vellent crudas
hominis carnes manducare, 8c ranguinem bibere, qua; vcl
auditu horribilia funt. Qaamobrem ft Chrifti carnem pro-
prie dldam adefte credanius/ive cam'crudamintelligamus,
ftve adam aut elixam, ftveintegram five leftam in partes,ft-
veapertam,fu'etedl:am,renfus omnino carnaiis eft,Sc verba
carnaliter intelliguntur : Non enim ideo fpiritualis fenfus
exiflimandus eft , quia dicuiit carnem Chrifti inv^ftbiliter
adeffe. Nam ft de propria came intelligant, non ideo car-
nalitcr non edimus, quia non videmus: Qui cocci funt non
vident quae comedunt, 8c homines frequenter in jufculis Sc
forbitionibus, ova, carnefque comedunt,quas nec vident, ne-
que guftum etiam aliquando fentiunt. Sed nullus horum
omnium fenfus fpiritualis eft, aut fublimiorem intelligen-
tiam
Eucharijlide. 5 3
turn continet/cd fimpHciter ut verba fonant, ovis &' carne
vefcuntur, quodChr}Toflomusintelligere carnaliter appel-
lat. Cum itaque rcKcta verborum omni carnali fententia,
fpirituaiis adhibenda & retinenda rit,qualis ea nobis tradita
fit & commendata, pie debemus quicrerc, & reverenter in •
veftigare, quod 8e nos facere conabimur, ab eorundem Pa-
' tram veftigiis non recedentcs. Utdute partes funt quibus
conftat Sacramentum, fignum externum, & virtus interna,
ita fpiiitualis ille fenfusqui bic requiritur ex harum partium
utraquefumitur, Carnalis intelleclus literam fequitur. Ut
Nicodcmus cumaudiflbt, Nifi quis renatus fuericex aqua
& fpiritu, &c. interrogat,Q^omodo potefl homo renalci ?
poterit ne in ventrem matrisredire? fpiritualisa litera re-
cedit, & ita renarcimur in Baptifmo. Et lotio duplex eft
externa interna, carnaiis & fpirituaiis, altera juxta li-
teram Se aqua fit, altera ?ugit literam, & Spiriru perficitur.
Uti^que vc-te fieri dicitur , fed diverfa ratione , forma lo-
qucndi prior efi; propria.poll:eriorfigurata,figura autem ali-
quando fimilitudinem externam, aliquando virtutem intus
latcntem refpicit. Omnis caro gramen efi, figurate dicitur.
Nam arefccns herba, qucsdam imago eft citb pereuntisho-
minis. Cavete d fermento Pharifteoruin, abingenita vifer-
menti, faporem fuum pertotam mafiam diffundentis.cujus
admodum fimilis eft mala: doblrinse contagio. Jam in hoc
Sacramento veteres Patres duas res animadverterunt,
propter quasfingulas-merito corpus Chrifti diccretur, & ha-
beretur, maxime vero cum utfamque comprehendat. Nam
8c quia figura veri corporis panis eft,' jure corpus appella-
. tar, & quia virtutem ejufdem vitalem conjunftam habet
multo magis,tum vero maxime quod utrumque complefti-
tur. Quod autem alicujus rei figura, nomen ejufdem non
injuria fortiatur, 5c vere, res ipfa dicatur, Efaias oftendit
inquiens, Vere fmnumeft populus,& vere iniquitatesno-
ftras ipfe portavit. Per fimilitudinem populus fcenum dici-
tur^
Dialla^icon
tur , & fimilitudinera hominis peccatorisDominusin/cra*
ce pi ce fe tulit, quamvis ipfe peccati expers effet, ad quern
modum & vitis vera de Chrifto dicitur : Ego fum vitis ve-
ra, {k alia quse frequenter in Scripturisoccurrunt loca. Ve-
rax erat Joannes Baprifta cum diceret , Ecce >\gnus Dei;
verax ipfe Dominus deNathanaele dicens, Ecce vere Ifrae-
lita in quo dolus non eft. Illud ver^ non adcircumcifionem
externam,fed internam refertur. Nam 8c populus Dei colle-"
^tus ex gentibus verius nunc Ifrael apprllatur , quam ipfi
Judcei, juxta illud Pauli, Nos fumus Circumcifio qui Ipiritu
Deum colimus: 8c illud, Non is qui in manifefto JudiEus fir,
Jud^useftjfedquiin occulto Judceus fuerit, is Judtsus eft,
non ideotamen proprie Judasi fumus, fed per figuram dici-
mur; Scoratlones hse figuratje funtjOmnes propter externas
rerum fimilitudines. Q^are neque novum,neque mirum
videri debet,ft panis Domini Vere corpus efledicitur, cum
ftgura fit corporis. Hinc Auguftinus ad Bonifacium , Epi-
2I'. ftoiax3.Nempe ita f^epeloquimur,utPafcha appropinquan-
te dicamus, craftinam vel perendinam Domini paftionem,
cum iiie ante tam multos annos paflus fit, nee omnino
nift feme! ilia pafliofada fit. Nempe ipfo die Dominico di-
cimus, hodie Dominus refurrexit, cum ex quo refurrexit,
tot anni tranfierunt. Cur nemo tam ineptus eft, ut nos
ita ioquentcs arguat efle mentitos,nift quia iftos dies fecun-
dum illorum, qu.bushajc geftafunt fimilitudinem nuncu-
pavimus? ut dicatur ipfe dies qui non eft ipfe, fed revolutio-
ne temporis fimilis ejus, 8c dicatur ilio die fieri propter Sa-
cramenti celebrationem , quod non illo die, fed jam olim
fadumeft. Nonne femelimmolatuseftChriftus infeipfo.<?
& tamen in Sacramento non folum per omnes PafchcE (b-
lennitates , fed omni die populis immolatur. Nec utique
mentitur, qui interrogatus, eum refponderit immolari. Si
enim Sacramenta quandam fimilitudinem earum rerum,
quarum Sacramenta funt non habcrent,omnino Sacramen-
ta
Euchariflia, 5 5
ta non edent. Ex hac autem fimilitudine plerumque etiam
ipfarum rerum nomina accipiunt. Sicut ergo fecundum
quendam modum Sacramentum corporis Chrifti corpus
Chriftieft, Sacramentum fanguinis Chrifti, fanguis Chrifti
eft, ita Sacramentum fidei fides eft. Ex hoc loco Auguftini
& aliis multis, tum ipfms turn aliorum Patrum, videmus
figuras & rerum fimilitudines ipfarum rerum nominibus
fxpe nominari, 8c banc unam ede caufam , tametfi non
folam, quamobrem hoc Sacramentum corpus Clirifti vere
ede dicatur. Hue fpeftant quae padim apud veteres occur-
runt, aquibus hoc Sacramentum aliquando figura dicitur,
ut a Tertulliano contra Marcionem lib. 4. Hoc eft corpus f^td.
meum (inquit) id ed, figura corpuris mei; 8c a Nazianze-
no, qui vetus Pafcha figuram figurm dixit; 8c ab Augudi
no. Corpus, inquit, Chridi Veritas 8c figura eft .• aliquando
fignum, utab eodem Auguftino contra Adimantum cap.
I z. Non dubitavit dicere Dominus, Hoc eft corpus meum,
cum lignum daret corporis fui: & a Chryfoftomo in Math, chryfoji;
c. 26 hom. 84. Sienim mortuuslefus noneftjcujusfymbo-
lum ac lignum hoc facrificium eft. Deniqueabaliis typus
& fymbolum , ut ab Origene 8cChryfoft. ab aliis exem-
plum, exemplar & imago, ut ab Ambrofio, Bafilio 8c Orl.
gene. Quare non immeritd nomen etiam habet illius rei,
cujus figura, fymbolum 8c exemplar eft. Quo magis miran-
dum eft quid illis in mentem veniat, qui figuram non pa-
tiantur appellari, nec figuram in Coen.^ verbis agnofcunt,
fed eos qui agnofcunt, per contumeliara figuratores appel-
lant cum tamen manifeftum fit, veteres omnes fic appellaf-
fe, 8c per ilia Ccen^ Dominicce verba, Sacramentum corpo-
ris fui Dominum confecrade: manifeftum fit etiam illud,
juxta literam 8c proprium loquendi modum, aliud fignifica-
re corpus Chrifti, aliud Sacramentum corporis illius, Q^od
ft figura nonerit, nec fignum, nec Sacramentum erit. Ita
qui in alios tanquam facraraentarios dicereparatifunt, ipft
om-
DiallaEliccn
omnino Sacramenta tollunt. Quare nemlnifit atnbiguum,
quin & (igura fit hoc Sacramcntum, 8c idcirco nomen
etiamrei cujuseft figura confequutuin. AlteruQi efle di-
ximus, quod veteres Patres agnofcentes in hoc Sacramento,
vere Dominicum corpus efle voluerunt. Eft autem virtus
ipfius corporis efficax & vivifica, quae per gratiam 8c my
fticam benedidionem cum pane & vino conjungitur,& va-
riis nominibus appellatur, quum res eadem fit ab Aug. cor-
pus intelligibile, invifibile, fpirituale, ab Hier. caro divina Sc
fpiritualis, ab frenaeo res coeieftis, ab Ambrofio efca fpiri-
tualis 8c corpus divini fpiritusjab aliisaliud fimiilequippiam;
& hoc multo etiam magisefficit, ut hoc Sacramcntum dig-
niflimum fit veri corporis 8c fanguinis, nomenclatura,quum
non foliim extrinfecus figuram & imaginem ejus prse le fe-
rat,verumetiam intusabditam 8c latentem naturalem ejuf-
dem corporis proprietatem, hoc eft, vivificam virtutem fe-
cum trahat, ut jacn non inanis figura, aut abfentis omnino
rei fignumexiftimari poftit, fed ipfum corpus Domini, divi-
num quidem & fpirituale, fed prxfens gratia, plenum vir-
tute , potens efficacitate. Scepe autem fit ut nomina rerpm
ipfarumtribuanturearum virtuti6f efficacitath fermentum
in tota mafia dicimus efle , cum exigua fermenti portio
tam late diffundi nequeat, fed vis 8c acor fermenti. Ignem
nos calefacere,cum calorignisidfaciat, nobis ab igne Ion-
gius amotis. Itafolem adefle, illuminate, urere, fovere,ciim
virtus folis id faciat, nec fol ipfe extra fph^cram egredi pof-
fit. Sic 8< Rex in toto regno fuo efte dicitur propter im-
peril poteftatem.Necexemplis hujufmodi caret fcriptura,
fed frequenter occurrunt 5 nos uno fed illuftri contenti eri-
mus.Chriftus de Joanne dixit, Ipfe eft Helias, quoniam vir-
tuteHelite prjeditus fuit, Angelo ad Zachariam teftante ac
dicente, ipfe prxcedet ante ilium in fpiritu 8c virtute Helite.
Qi^emadmodumigitur Joanneserat HeliaSjquia fpiritum 8c
virtutem Helitc polfidcret, ita panis Domini, corpus Chrifti
^ft,
Eucharijiide' 5 7
efl, quiagratiam 8c virtutem ejus vitalem conjun£lam ha-
bet.Q^od autem hcec non commentitiaj aut huper nata fen-
tentia eft, fedabantiquisreceptaScapprobata fcriptoribus,
Claris ipforuin teftimoniis confirmabimus, partim repe-
titis quibufdam ante didtis, partim adjedis aliis. Aug. in Aug. in Join.
Joan, traft. zj. Si ergo videritis filium hominis ubi erat=^7'
prius ] Qjid eft hoc ^ hinc folvit quod illos moverat, hinc
aperuit unde fucrant (candalizati,hinc plane fi inteliigerent.
IlJi enim putabant eum erogaturum corpus fuum. Ille autem
dixit fe afcenfurum in coelpm utique integrum. Cum vide-
ritis filium hominis afcendentem ubi erat prius, certe vel
tunc videbitis quia non eomodo quo pucatiserogat corpus
fuum, certe vel tunc intelligetis quia gratia ejus non confu-'
mitur morfibus. Docet Auguftinus ex verbis Domini, ve-
rum 8c proprium ejus corpus afcendifle in coelum utique
integrum, fed gratiam ejufdem corporis nos per Sacramen-
tum accipere, qux nec morfu confumitur nec interit eden-
, do. Idem ex ferm. de verbis Domini, 8c refertur de confecr. idem ie confeo.
, diftindt. z. Norunt fideles quemadmodum manducent 2.
^ carnem Chrifti. Unufquifque accipit partem fuam : Unde
6c ipfa gratia partes vocantur .• per partes manducatur, 6c
manet integer totus, per partes manducatur in Sacramento
8c manet integer totus, in corde tuo. Idem in Joan. trad. idem in Join-.
Habes Chriftum 8c in prtefehti 8c in futuro. In pnefenti per
fidem, in prsefenti per lignum, in priefenti per baptifmatis
Sacramentum, in prsefenti per altaris cibum 6c potum, ha-
bes Chriftum in prxfentbCed habebis femper, quia cum hinc
^ exieris, ad ilium venies qui dixit Latroni, Hodie mecum
eris in paradifo, 8c ftatimpdft, Pauperes lemper habebitis
I vobifcLim, me autem non femper habebitis. Accipiant 6c
hoc boni, fed non fint foliciti, loquebatur enim de prcefentia
corporis fui- Nam fecundum Majeftatem fuam , fecundum
provid'sntiam, fecundum inefFabilem 8c invifibilem gra-
tiam,impkturquod ab eodidum eft, Ecceego vobifcum
I fum
5 8 DiallaUicon
fam omnibus diebus; ufque ad conrummatlonem ftEculLSe-
cundum carnem verb quam Verbum aflumpfit, fecundum
id quod de virgine natus eft, fecundum id qucd a Judseis
prehenfus eft, quod ligno confixus, quod de cruce depofi-
tus, quod linteis invQlutus,quod in fepulchro condituSjquod
in refurredione manifeftatus, non Temper habebitis vobif-
cum. Quare i quoniam converfatus eft fecundum corporis
pracfentiam quadraginta diebus cum difcipulis fuis, & eis
deducentibus videndo non fequendo, afcendit incoelum&
non eft hie, Ibi eft enim, fedet ad dextram Patris, H^ec Au-
guft. Quod ante dixerat Chriftum nobis adefle per fidem
& per Sacramenta, poftea dixit ilium nobis adefle per ma-
jeftatem, per ineffabilem & invifibilem gratiam,& fic ab
eo completum eile quod ipfe dixit,Ecceego vobifcumfura,
&c. fecundum propriam verb carnis praefentiam, hie non
efle, quam etiam naturam carnis propriam copiofe &
dilatavit : ut hujufmodi praefentiam prorfus exclu-
clat, & prjcfentiam in 6'acramentis per gratiam 8c virtu-
Idem in pf, 6^, tem ftapiliret. Hue pertinet quod idem author in Pfal. 65-.
fcribitjHomicidaeipfum fanguinem quem per infaniam fu-
Idem in 7oan. gtatiam biberunt. Idem in Evang. Joan. trad.
trail. 26." ' x6. Apoftolum audi. Nolo enim vos, inquit, ignorare, fra-
treS) quia Patres noftri omnes fub nube erant, 8c omnes
eandem efcam fpiritualem manducaverunt, fpiritualem u-
tique eandem, nam corporalem" alteram, quia illi manna,
nosaliud: fpiritualem verb quam nos. Et omnes eundem
potum fpiritalem biberunt; aUud illi, aliud nos, fed fpecie
vifibili,quod tamen hoc idem fignificaret virtute fpirituali.
Sacramentumappellat efcam fpiritualem,propter virtutem
fpiritualem conjundam , qua: virtus etiam inerat Sacra-
mentis veteris Teftamenti, quamvis noftra & ipforum ex-
terna flgna fint, diyerfa, virtus utrobique fpiritualis eadem
eft, ilia corporis tempore fuo nafcituri, h^tc jamdudum
nati, pafTi 8c refufcitati. Sicillis Manna fuit corpus Chrifti,
ut
Euchariftide, 5S?
ut nobis nunc Eucliariftia. Propter banc etiam virtutem
fpiritualem, idem Auguft. ut ante diximus, Corpus fpiri-
tuale, invifibile, intelligibile nominat, quo fignatur cor-
pus Domini vifibile atque palpabile. Hue illud etiam per-
tinet ejufdcm authoris, Corpus Chrifti & Veritas & figure
eft, Veritas dum corpus Chrifti & fanguis virtute Spiritus
Tanfti, in virtute ipfiusexpanis & vini fubftantia efficitur;
figura vero eft id quod exterius fentitur. Senfus horum
verborum eft, panis & vini fubftantiam eftici cor pus Chri,
fti propter virtutem ipfius corporis, eis a Spiritu fan£to fub-
miniftratam. Idem in Pfal. 77. Idem itaque in myfterio ci-
1 o Ml - A r \ r • r • • i liemin Fj, T],
bus & potus illorum qui nofter , led iigmhcatione idem,
non fpecie, quia idem ipfe Chriftus illis in petra figuratus,
nobis in carne manifeftatus eft, Sed non, inquit, in omni-
bus illis beneplacitum eft Deo. Cum dicit non in omnibus,
erant ergo ibi aliqui, in quibusbeneplacitum eft Deo. Et
quum eflent omnium communia Sacramenta,, non commii-
nis erat omnibus gratia, qute Sacraraentorum virtus eft.
Hie locus Auguftini ft expcndatur, multum valet adlnteJli-
gendum quomodo Chriftus in Sacramentis prsefens eft.
Conjungit enim haecduo, fignificationem& gratiam,quam
aflerit Sacramentorum virtutem efle. His confentiunt quje
fcribit Ambr. lib, 6, de Sacramentis. Deinde ubi non tule- Amlnf-deSaa
runt fermonem Ghrifti difcipuli ejus, fed audientes qu6d
carnem fuam daret manducare, & fanguinem fuum daret
bibendum, recedebant, Solus tamen Petrus dixit. Verba vi-
tsE seternse habes, 8c ego a te quo recedam ? Ne igitur plu-
res hoc dicerent, veluti quidam eflet horror cruoris, fed
maneret gratia redemptionis,ideo in fimilitudinem quidem
accipisSacramentum, fed verse naturae gratiam virtutem-
que conlequeris, Quomodo fit vera caro perfpicu^ docet
Ambrofius, Nam utrumque notavit, figuram cum ait, in
fimilitudinem accipis,& virtutem internam, quia videlicet
verse naturte gratiam, virtutemque fuppeditat. Quo loco
I z di-
(■
Via/la Si icon
diligenter animadverfo, reliqua quae apud eundera repe-
riuntur facile explicantur. Idem in lib. de his qui initiantur
.... . myOeriis In illo Sacramento Chriftus eft, quia corpus eft
init!mjpriis"' Chrifti.Non ergocorporalis efca , fed fpiritualis eft. Unde
8c Apoftolusde typo ejus ait, Quia Patres noftriefcam (pi-
ritualem manducaverunt 8c potum fpiritualem biberunt.
Corpusenim Dei, corpus eft fpirituale-CorpusChrifticor-.
pus eft divini fpiritus, his verbis Ambrofti admonemur,
quale fit hoc corpus, 8cquare ita nominatur, quippe cum
Virtutem veri corporis fpiritualem habcat. Nam hse voces
non corporalisefca', fed fpiritalis & corpus divini (piritus,
ad gratiam &virtutem apriflime referuntur veri corporis,
Eitfebiui Emtr- etiam Eufebius Emyftenus confirmat de confec. dift^
finHj. 3. Quia corpus aftumptum ablaturus eratab oculis, & ilia.
turus lyderibus, neceftarium erat ut die Ccenas Sacramerr#
turn nobis corporis & fanguinis confecraretur, ut colere-
lur jugiter per mylterium, quod femel offere'batur in pre-
ciuin, ut quia quotidiana 8c indcfefta currebat pro omnium
faluteredemptio, perpetua cftet redemption is oblatio, 8c
perennis vidbima ilia viveret in memoria, Sc femper p^'x-
fenselTetin gratia, vera,unica 8c perfedba hoftia, fide a;fti-
manda non fpecie, neque exterior i cenfenda vifu, fed in re-
riori afiedu. Manifeftum eft ex verbis Emyfteni, corpus
illud exvirgine fumptum, a nobis ablatum^ fyderibus il-
latum efte, 6c propterea Sacramentum ejufdem neceffario
fuifte inftitutum ; utquse vera, unica 8c perfeda hoftia fe-
mel offercbatur in cruce , perennis viveret in memoria , &
(emper pracfens eftet in gratia, quobeneficium redemptio-
njs.perpetU£e,perpetu6recolere nondefmaiTius,ncquecau-
fx quicquam efte,cur carnis ejus praefentiamrequiramus pro-
priam, quum praefentiam ejufdem per gratiam non minus
efiicacem fentiamus : quae fide aeftimanda fit, non fpecie,
non exteriori vifu , fed interiori affedu. Et quod ftatim ibi-
Ti'm ibidem, dem fcribit. Nam invifibilisfacerdos, vifibiles creaturas in
fubftan-
Eucharijlid^.
fubfkntiam corporis & fanguinis fui, 'verbo fecreta pote-
Hate convertit dicens, AccipitCs & comedite, hoc eft corpus
meum,8cc. ne pinguiorem aliquam fubftantiam cogitemus,
aut revocatam illam, quam ant^ dixerat ablatam efte,
continuo regenerationis exemplum fubjicit,inquiens.,Q^an-
taitaque & quam celebranda beneficia vis divince benedi-
drionis operetur,'quomodo tibi novum Sc impoflibile efle
non debeat, quod in Chrifti fubftantiam terrena & mor-
taliaconvertantur, teipfum qui in Chrifto es regeneratus
interroga. Dudumalienus a vita, peregrinus a mifericor-
dia, & a falutis via intrinfecus mortuus exulabas, fabito
initiatus Chrifti legibus, & falutaribus myfteriis innovatus,
in corpus Ecclefias non vidcndo, fed credendo tranrilifti,&
de filioperditioniSjadoptivus Deifiiius fieri occulta puritate
meruifti, in menfuravifibi'li permanens, major teipfo faftus
cs invifibiliter, fine quantitatis augmento, ciim idem atque
idemipfe effesjmulto alter fidei proceftionibus extitifti: in
exterior! nihil additum eft, & totum in interiori mu-
tatum, acfichomo Chrifti Filius effeftus, Chriftufque ho-
minis in mente formatus eft. Sicut ergo prxterita vilitate
depofita, fubito novamindutus es dignitatem ,6c ficut hoc
quod Deusin te Isefa curavit, infefta diluit, maculata de-
terfit^non oculisjfed fenfibustuis funt creditarfic cum re-
verendum altare cibis fpirituJLlibus fatiandus afcendis, fa-
crum Deitui corpus 8c fanguinem fide refpice, honora, mi-
rare,mente continge,cordis manu furcipe,6c maxime totum
' hauftu interiorishominis aflame. Oftendit Eufebiushac fi-
militudinejqualis in Sacramento fit comr^tatio,quo modo
res terrentCjfcilicet panis & vinum commutantur in fubftan-
tiamChrifti, Sccujufmodi fitillafubftantia : Similisutique
commutationi qua nos in Baptifmo commutamur, 8c talis
fubftantia qualem nos in lavacro regenerationis induimus,
cum in corpus Ecclefise tranfimus, ubi nihil in exteriori no-
ftri parte, fed totum in interiori mutatum eft , qui novus
homo
€2
DiallaSiicon
homo & nova creatura dicitur, Sz prolnde hanc fubftan-
tiam Emyflenus occultam puritatem & novam dignitatem
nominat. Confimiliter & panem Domini novam fubftan-
tiam, id eft, vim occultam & novam dignitatem adeptum,
clbum fpiritualem. vocat, quern fide refpicimus, mente
contingimus , cordis manu fufcipimus, & jnterioris homi-
nis hauftu fumimus.Si attente perpendatur quo modoEmyft
fenus, Ambrofius, & alii Patres uft ftnt naturte & fub-
ftantiiE vocabulis, facile poterit intelligi ,quam fruftratu-
multuentur,qui carnalem carnismanducationemftatuunt,
neque verba ad materiam fubjedam accommodant. Nam
quod in aliis difciplinis fieri videmus, ut verba mutent ftgni-
ficationes pro fubjefta difciplinte cujufque materia, ut ge-
nus, fpecies, figura 8c his alia fimilia, aliud Grammaticis,
aliud Dialefticis, aliud aliis fcriptoribusdenotant, idem in
Theologia quoque obfervare debemus. Cum agitur de Sa-.
cramentis, mentionera faciunt Patres natune Scfubftantiec,
non fvffiKaf, fed :^io\<,yuufy hoc eft, non ut Philofophi na-
turales loquuntur, fed homines dedivinis rebus diflerentes,
grati^e, virtuti 8c efficacitati, naturte fubftantia:que nomen
impertientes,nimirum Sacramenti natura id poftulante.Si-
chryfoji. loquendi forma utitur Chryfoftomus cum ait, Ut au-
temnonfolumper dileftrionem, fed reipfa in illam carnem
convertamur, per cibum id ef^citurquem nobis largitus eft.
Reipfa convertimur in carnem Chrifti, fed ea converfio
Efiphan. in fpiritualis uon carnalis eft. Et h2Ec obiter de verborum
Ancbo. fignificatione. Epjphanius in Anchorato, Videmus enim
quod, accepit Servator in manus fuas , veluti Evan-
gelium habet, quod furrexit in Cosna'8c accepit hoc,
& ubigratias egifiet, dixit, hoc meum eft hoc, 8c vi-
demusi quod non sequale eft, nec fimile, non imagini
quie carni ineft, non invifibili Deitati, non lineamen-
tis membrorum. Hoc enim eft rotundte formic, 8c fenfus
expers quantum ad potentiam. Et voluit per gratiam
dicere
Eucharist a'
t^icere, hoc meum eft hoc, 8c nemo non fidem habet
[ermoni. Qn enim non credit ipfum verum efte ficut dixit,
IS excidit a gratia 8c falute. Quod autem audivimus, id
credimus, quod eft ipfius. Dominum veto novimus, totum
fenfum, totum fenfu praeditum, totum Deum , totum mo-
ventem ,totum operantem, totum lucem, totnm incom-
prehenfibilem , fed qui cum gratia hoc nobis largitus eft;
Antemonuimus Epiphanium hoc loco probate conari,quod
homo ad pmaginem Dei conditus, vere quidem imaginem
Dei habeat, non fecundum propriam divinitatis naturamj
ftd fecundum gratiam,8c utitur fimilitudine ab Euchariftia
furnpta, quam juxta propriam rationem corporis, negat efte
corpus Chrifti, cum nec formam veri corporis habeat, ac
fenfu motuque careat,8c tamen per gratiam vere credatur
ejus corpus ede. Idemfenfit lib. contra h^erefes 3. tom. x.
ubide Sacramentis ita loquitur, (Chriftus) defcenditin
aquas, dans magis quam accipiens, exhibens magis quam
indigens, illuminans ipfaSjpotentes efficiens ipras,in figuram
eorum qutein ipfis perficienda erant: quo hi qui in ipfum
credunt in veritate, 8c fidem veritatis habent, difcerent,
quod vere homo faftus eftet, vere baptizatuseffet atque fic
per ipfius aflenfum, etiam ipfi venientes acciperent conde-
fcenfus ipfius virtutem, 8c illuminarentur ab illius illumina-
tione, ut hie impleatur Prophetm di(ftum,in tranfmutatione
virtutis, in exhibitionem falutis virtutis panis i Hierufalem
accepti, & fortitudinis aqute, ita ut hie fortis fada fit in
Chrifto virtus panis 8c fortitude aquss, ut ne panis nobis
fiat virtus, fed virtus ipfius panis. Et cibus quidem eft panis,
virtus autem in ipfo ad vivificationem eft, 8c non ut aqua
nos mundaret folum,fed utinfortitudine aquae, per fidem
& efficaciam, ac fpem , 8c myfteriorum perfeciionem, 8c
fandificationis nomenclaturam,fieret nobis adperfedionem
falutis. Hie locus priorem etiam clariorem reddit. Ibi pa-
nem Euchariftix per gratiam corpus effe dixit: hie virtu-
tern
^4 Viallaniccn
tern panl tribuit, ut in Baptifmo fortitudinem aqusc, fa-pe
vocem banc, virtutem inculcans, & banc virtutem & for-
titudinem fanftificare confirmans. Cibus, inquir, eft panis,
virtus autem in ipfoad vivificationem eft , & banc panis
virtutem fanftificandi 6c aqu^e fortitudinem , per gratiam ,
fieri declarat, non uno verbo nominans, fed penphrafi pie-
niore defcribens, dicendo, per fidem Ivac fieri ac fpem , & f
rayfteriorum perfedionem, 8c fandtificationis nomenciatu-
Idem in Anace-ram , ad perfedionem falutis. Eadem pene verba recitat '
^decxn^omik author in Anacepbaleofi. Eadem 8c Cypriani mens
' fuit. Immortalitatis C inquit) alimonia datur, a commu-
nibus cibisdiffcrens, corporalis fubftantije retinensfpeciem,
fed virtutis divinxinvifibili efficientia probans adefle prx-
fentiam. Audis divinx virtutis prxfentiam,audisinvifibiiem pf®'
efbcientiam, gratiam utique divinam. Item, Ex confueto invffl
rerum effeftu fidei noftrx adjuta infirmitas, fenfibiii argu- appel
mento edofta eft, vifibilibus Sacramentis inefle vitx xter- K pc
nxeffedtum. Item, Sicut in perfonaCbriftihumanitas vide- vivili
batur 8c latebatdivinitas, ita Sacramento vifibili ineffabiii- fa
ter divina feinfudit efientia.Item,verba bxc fpiritus 8c vita Siciii
funt, nee carnalis fenfusad intelledum tantx profunditatis
penetrat, nifi fides accedar, panis eft efca, fanguis vita, caro tfih
fubftantia, corpus Ecclefia, corpus propter'membrorum in
unum convenientiam, panis propter nutrimenti congruen-
tiam, fanguis propter vivificationis efficicntiam, caro prop-
teraftumptx bumanitatis proprietatem. Teflatur boclo-
CO Cyprianus hoc Sacramentum carnem & farguinem dici
propter vivificationis efficicntiam & bumanitatis quam
Cbriftus aftumpfit proprietatem, id eft, propriam virtutem,
fpiritum videlicet 6c vitam, 8c ftatim addit. Hoc Sacra-
mentum aliquando corpus fuum, aliquando carnem 8c fan-
guinem, aliquando panera Cbriftus appellat, portionem
vitcE xternx, cujus fecundum bxc vifibilia corporali com-
municavit naturx. .Et rurfum^ Sacramenta quidem, quan-
turn
Euchariflide* ^ 5
turn In fe efl:, fine propria ede virtute non pofTunt, nec ullo
mode divina fe majeftas abfentat myfteriis.'Hre voces, qui-
buspalTim utitur Cyprianus, virtus divina, vivificationis ef-
ficientia, vitre artcrnac effectus, portio vitre, divina effen-
tia, divina majeflas.quid aliud nobis delineanr, quamquod
Auguft. dixit, fecundum Majeftatem fuam, fecundum inef-
fabilem&InviribilemgratiamChriftum nobifcum effe uf-
que ad confummatlonem f2Ccu)i?Pra2rertim quum carnalem
fenfum excludat, 8c fplritualem requirat, ut alibi copiofius cyrilius ai
expiicavImus.Necaliter fenfit Cyrilius ad Calofyrium Ira
fcribens.Ne enim horreremuscarnem&fanguinem appo-
fita facris altaribus, condefcendens Deus noflris fragilitati-
T bus iniluit oblatis vim vitas,convertens ea In veritatem pro ■
priac carnis, ut corpus vitae quaff quoddam femen vivificum
inveniatur In nobis. Qiwm corporis veritatem Cyprianus
appeliat vivificatIonIseflicientiam,vitae astern^ efFe(^m,vi-
tx portlonem: eam Cyrilius vim vitae, corpus'vitae, femen
vivificum nomlnat, virtutem fplritualem ^ gratiam fignt- Idem in Joan.
ficans, ut Ipfc fe explicat In Joan.lib. 4.cap.i7. ficinquiens,
Sicut parumCut Paulus alt)termentl totacn maffam fermen-
tatjfic parvula benedidio totum homlnem in felplum at-
trahit 8c fua gratia replet, 8c hoc modo Chriftus In nobis
manct nos in Chrlfto. Hinc fit ut id eft, hu-
manac carnis efum rejiclat, Scfidelium mentesab adulter!-
nis fenfibus, & humanis cogitationibus abducat, 8c hoc my-
fterium, fola, pura , 8c inexquifita fide acclpi affirmet ad adEm^a:
Euoptium,utant^cItavimus, talem autem efum fpirltua-
lem effe, 8c per gratiam fieri neceffe eft. In hanc fententiam
Athanafius in lib. de peccato in fpiritum fanftum Ita fori- inSphftmfZ-
bit. Eapropter meminit afcenfus filll hominis in coelum, ut ifum.
illos a corporall cogitatione avelleret., & pofthacdifcant
carnem Chrifti di(ftam,cibum cCEleftem,& fuperne venien-
tem, Sc fplritualem alimonlam, quam Ipfe det. Nam qujc
loquutusfum vobis, Inquit, fpiritus 8c vita funt. Quod idem
K eft.
Idem ibidem.
^ ^ ViallaElkon
eft, ac fi dicat, Corpus quod quidem oftenditur , occidi<
tur, pro mundidabitur aliTnoniaiUtfpiritualiterin unoquo.
que diftribuatur, ac fiat omnibus confervatorium in refur-
redbionem vitae :sternie. Propterea dicit Athanafius men-
tionem fieri afcenfus filii hominis, ut a corporali, de prcefen-
tia fua,cogitatLone nos avocetjSc-pofthacdifcamus carncm
Chrifti vocari gratiam & virtutem fpiritualem, quam ci-
bum cceleftcm, fuperne venientem, fpiritualem alimoniam
nominat, 8c fpiritualiter diftribui affirmat, Hisconfonat
chryfoji, in Cliryfoft. in Matth. cap. x6. hom.8 3 .Non videbitis(inquit)
quanta infantes animi alacritate mammillas arripiunt? qua
prelTione papillis infigunt.iabra.? non minora cupiditate nos-
quoque ad hanc menlam, 6c ad hujus calicis fpiritualem ac-
cedamus papillam, imo vef-o majore defiderio, quafi ladan-
tes pueri, gratiam Spiritusfugamus , unus fit nobis dolor,
una mceftitia, fi hac alimonia fpirituali privemur. Idem in
eadem homilia dicit, infenfibile efie quod nobis traditur in
hoc Sacramento, fed per res fenfibiles, quemadmodum &
in Baptifmo. Verba fic habent, Quoniam ergoille dixit,hoc
eft corpus meum, nulla teneamur ambiguitate, fed creda-
mus, (Scoculisintelleftusid perfpiciamus. Nihil enim fenfi.
biletraditum nobis aChrifto,fed rebus fenfibilibus omnia
verequae tradidit infenfibilia funt. Sic 8c in Baptifmo,per a-
quam quie res fenfibilis eft, donum illud conceditur, quod
autemin ea conficitur, regeneratio fcilicetacrenovatio,in-
telligibile quiddameft. Nam fi tu incorporeus eftes, nude
ipfi dona incorporea tradidiftet tibi, quoniam vero corpori
conjjn£ta eft anima tua, in fenfibilibus intelligenda tibi tra-
duntur. O quot modo dicunt, Vellem formam 5c fpeciem
ejus, vellem & veftimenta ipfa, vellem calceamenta videre;
Ipfumi igitur vides, ipfum tangis, ipfum comedis, veftimen*
ta ejus defideras videre, ipfe vero feipfum tibi tradidit, non
ut videas folum, verum etiam ut tangas, 6c in te habeas.
Prjecipit hie Chryfoftomus, ut credamus Chrifto dicenti,
' Hoc
Euchariftid^\
Hoc eft corpus meum, fed ut oculis inte]le£l:us id perfpi-
ciamus, neque enim fenfibile, autcorporeum aliquid in Sa-
cramenris donari, fed perea quce fenfibilia funt, ipfa dona
intelligibilia,8c incorporea nobis tradi, idque non in Ba-
ptifmofolum, verum etiam in Coena Domini :Q^6d fl
Cliriftus in Coena feipfum nobis exhibet, & nihil tamen
corporeumtraditur, nam dona dicit efle incorporea, palam
eft Chryfoft. cum reliquis Patribus fentire, Chriftum per
gratiam& corporis fui virtutem in Sacramentorum ufu
prcefentem efle. Q^amvishic author alicubipiisutatur hy-
j-jerbolis, de hoc Sacramento difTerens, quod etiam hie fe-
cit, cum non foliim videndum , fed etiam tangendum
Chriftum proponi affirmat, tamen ex hocloco &aliisqui-
bufdam,qutE germana fuerit ejusde hac re fententia, non
iniquus ledor facile deprendet. Hocipfum Theodoritus in rheoimm^
primo dialogo manifefte docet hoc modo: Ortho. Ipfe fal- i*
vator nofter commutavit nomina, & corpori quidem fym-
boli nomen dedit, fymbolo vero corporis nomen. Soda!,
vera dicis: vellemautem caufam difcere mutationis nomi-
num. Orth. Caufa manilefta eft his qui divinis myfteriis
imbuti funt. Voluit enimut hiquidivina myfteria parti-
cipant, adrerumquse videntur naturam ne attendant, fed
pernorainum mutationem credant iili quseex gratia fada
eft tranfmutationi. Nam qui corpus fuum naturale cibum
8c panem ante vocaflet, & rurfum feipfum vitem appellaf-
fet, idem ea, qu^ videntur fymboia, corporis 8c fanguinis
fui titulis honoravit, non mutans naturam , fed gratiam
adjiciens naturse. Nihil apertius dici poteft, quam hie expli-
cat Theodoritus, quo modo panis fit corpus Chrifti, quod
videlicet natura panis maneat, 8c tamen per gratiam cor-
pus efhcitur, quoniam gratia naturre panis adjungitur Idem
dial. 2. Neque enim poft fandificationemmyftkafymbo-
la a propria fua natura recedunt, manent enim in
priori fua fubftantia , & figura , 8c fpecie, & videri
poffunt ?ac tangi, quemadmodum 8c antea. Intelli-
K z gun-
m
<58
Vialla^liccn
Euthyfft. in
f
guntur autem quae facta funt, & creduntur & ado-
rantur, tanquam ea fmcquse creduntur. Dixerat ante, na-
turam fymbolorum manere, fed per gratiam mutationem
fadfamelTe naturam non fuifle mutatam, fed gratiam ad-
jund-am. Hicdiferte dicit fubftantiam figuram 8cformam
fymbolorum eandemeffe pollfandificationem, intelledui
tamen, & fidei nodra: alia fieri, nimirum per gratiam, ut
prius docuit,eandem cum Chryfoft. canens cantil€nam,ni-
hil fenfibile aut corporeuin hie donari, fed intelligenda 8c
incorporca effe, qu2e per gratiam & cum virtute donantur.
Hue pertinent Euthymii verba in Matth. cap. 64. Itaque
Matth.caf. 64. Tcftamentum hofiias Sc fanguinem liabebat,
ita 8c novum, corpus videlicet 8c fanguinem Domini. Non
dixit autem,Htec funt figna corporis mei,fed,HcEc funt cor-
pus meum 5c fanguis meus. Oportet ergo non ad naturam
eorum quae proponunturafpicere, fed advirtutem eorum.
Quemadmodum enimfupernaturaliter affumptam carnem
deificavit, fi ita loquiliceat, ita 8c haec ineffabiliter tranf-
mutat, in ipfumvivificum corpus fuum, 8c ipfum precio-
fum fanguinem fuum, & in gratiam ipforum. Quod airna-
turam eorum quae proponuntur non elTe fpedandam, do-
cct naturam panis manere, quod addit, fed virtutem ipfo-
rum, oflendit virtute corpus Chriflielie, non aliquo car-
nali modo. Denique & in gratiam ipforum, per interpre-
tationem adjunxit, ut carnalescogitationesexcluderec Leo
8c Synod us Romana de confecr. did. 2. ab his non diffident,
ficenim habent, Quia in ilia mydicadidributione fpiritua-
lis alimoniie, hoc impertitur, hoc fumitUF,ut accipientes vir-
tutemcceledis cibi, in carnem ipfius, qui caro nodrafactiis
ed tranfeamus. Habes eadem pene verba, quibus Emyde-
nus 5c Chryfod. ut ante citavimus, ufi funt, didributio-
nem fpiritualis alimonia:, virtutem cceledis cibi fumptam,
atque ita nosin carnem illius tranfire, quod quid aliud ed,
quam no^ per gratiam 8c virtutem cum carne ipfius con-
jungi? Nam qui poflumus aliter in camera illius mutari ?
Hue
Lea Syn.
Ram- de confec.
diji.2.
Euchdrifiide. 6gi
Hue faclt& Hilarii diftum, ibidem inter alia relatum. Non
enim eft quantitas vifibilis in hoc ceftimanda myfterio, fed
virtus Sacramenti fpirituaUs. Quin ScTheophyiaftus, qui
velut semulus quidam, & interpres habetur Chryfoftomi,
hocipfum affirmat planiftime, quemadmodum fupra pic-
nius expofuimus, ex quibus pauca qucedam hie referara,
reliqua ledtor illinc ipfe petas. Nam & carnales cogkationcs
omnino tollit, & fpiritualiter intelligenda verba myfterii
hujusaflerit,utqu2e nihil carnale habeant, fed vitam affe-
rantaeternam, & rationemac modum intelligendi com-
monftrat, in Marc. cap. 14. ita fcribens, Et quomodo (in- rJe#//. in
quit) caro non videtur > O homo , propter inficmitatem
noftram ifthuc fit. Quia enim panis quidem, & vinum ex
hisfunt, quibus afTuevimus, ea non abhorremus, fanguinem
veto propofitum & carnem videntes, non feremus, led ab-
horreremus. Idcirco mifericors Deus noftr^e infirmitati eon-
defcendens, fpeciem quidem panis & vini fervat, in virtu-
temautemcarnis& fanguinistranfelementat.ldeminjoan. Jattn.
cap.d.ftiper hxc verba,Dutuseft hie ferrao.quis poteft eum (ap.6.
audire, &e. Vide infipientiam iliorum. Nam debebant in-
terrogare,&difcereeaqu2e ignorabant.At ilii refiliebant^Sc:
nihil fpiritualiter exponebant,fedomniaut videbantur.Nam
quia carnem audierant, putabant quod eos ccgeret carnis
& fanguinis fieri devoratores,quia autem nos fpiritualiter
intelligimus, nequeearnium voratores fumus, & fanitifica-
mur per talemcibum. Certaeft Theophylafti fententia,
fideles in Sacramento traiKofayvf, hoc eft carnivoros, ut ita
dicam, non efle, ut litera fonar, fed fijiritualem fenfum re-
quiri, hoc eft, fervata panis & vini fpecie virtutem carnis
& fanguinis a fidelibus accipi. Ut ex ipfius verbis & hk 8c
anterelatismanifeftum eft. Quocirca Bertramus antiquo- BertrmH^.
rum fententiam fequutus ita fcripfit, Nam fecundum crea-
turarum fubftantiam, quod fuerant ante confecrationem,
hoc & pofteaconfiftunt. Panis 8c vinum prius extitere, in
qua
ViallaWicon
qua etiam fpeclejam confecrata permanere videnfur. Efl;
ergo interiuscommutatum,Spiritus fanfti potenti virtute,
quod fides afpicit, animam pafcit, seterniE vitac rubftantiam
fubminiftrat. Item, Nunc autem, quia fides totum quicquid
iliud totum eft afpicit, & oculus carnis nihil apprehendit,
intelliget quod non fpecie, fed in virtute corpus & fanguis
Chrifti exiftantquas cernuntur. Idem Bertramus quum ci-
taffet illud Ifidori, ob id <9acramenta dicuntur, quia
fubtegumentocorporalium rerum , virtus divina lecretius
falutem operatur: unde 8c d fccretis virtutibus vel facris,'
Sacramenta dicuntur, 8c Grsece (Aurnejov dicitur, quodfecre-
tam 8c reconditam habeat difpenfationem , poft de fuo fic
infert. Quid iftinc perdocemur, nifi quod corpus 8c fanguis
Domini, propterea myfteria dicuntur , quod fecretam 8c
reconditam habeant difpenfationem, id eft, aliud fint,
quod exterius innuant, 8c aliud quod interims invifibiliter
operentur. Hinc etiam & Sacramenta vocitantur, quia te-
. gumento corporalium rerum, virtus divina fecretius falu-
tem accipientium fideliter difpenfat. Ex his omnibus qua:
funt hadtenuis difta monftratura eft,quod corpus & fanguis
Chrifti, qua: fidelium ore in Ecclefia percipiuntur, figura:
fint fecundum fpeciem vifibilem : at verb fecundum invi-
fibiiem fubftantiam, id eft, divini potentiamVerbi, corpus
8c fanguis vere Chrifti exiftunt. Unde fecundum vifibilem
creaturam corpus pafcunt, juxta verb potioris virtu tem
fubftantite mentes fidelium & pafcunt 8c fanctificant. Hcec
Bertramus.Hadtcnus quae fuerit vetcrum orthodoxorum de
Ccena Domini fententia recenfuimus tam Gra:corum quam
Latinorum, ufque ad Bertrami tempera, qui anno poft
Chriftura natum oftingentefimo quadragefimo, doftrina
vitaque ckrus extitit, nec a quoquam vel hrerefeos infimu-
latus, vel reprdienfus eft quafi malb fcripferit, fed commu-
nidodorum & batldrum judicio-celebratus eft.Q^are Joan-
'Abbas rrithem. ille Trkhemius in catalogum Ecclefiatticorum,
&
Eucharifict* 7 [
8c illuftrium fcriptorum ilium referre non dubitavit, 8c
hoc fequente fuo prtcdicare teflimonio. Bertramus presby-
ter & monachus indivinisScripturisvalde peritus, & in li-
teris faccularium difciplinarum egregi^ doftus, ingenio Tub-
tills &clarus eloqaio, nee minus vita quam doftrina in-
fignls, fcripfit multa prxclara opafcula, ex quibus ad meam
notitlam pauca pervenerunt. Ad Carolum regem,fratrem
Lotharillmperatoris fcripfit commendabile opus, De prx-
deftinatione librum unum, De corpore acfanguine Domini
librum unum. Hxc eo commemoravi lubentius quo mor-
dacem qua non nemo ufus efl: lingUeB petulantiam coar-
guam, qui in libro de hac controverfia nuper edito, quum
nihil haberet quod Bertramo refponderet, fatiselTe putabat
hunc talem virum contemnere, 8c hceretici nonfen Inure-
re. Bertramusinqultfivequls alius fuerlt author ejus ope-
ris, quod fub illius nomine fcrtur, callidus fuit&impu-
dens hxreticus. Os durum 8c chamo comprimendum.
QmnSc Bernardus qui port Bertramum trecentefimo cir-
citer anno vixerit, carnalem in verbis Ccense Dominlcx fsrmjn die c<e<
intelligentiam rejicit, & fpirltualem tantum agnolcit, cujus
verba ex fermone in die Ccenx Domini defumpta fubjeci,
Sacramentum dicitur facrum rignum,riveracrum fecretum.
Multa fiquldem fiunt propter fe tantum, alia verb propter
alia defignanda, & ipfadicuntur figna& funt. Ut enim de
ufualibus fumamus exemplum, datur annulus abfolute,
propter annulum, 8c nulla eft fignificatio : datur ad inve-
ftiendumdehxreditate aliqua, & lignum eft , ita ut jam
dlcere pofiit, qui acciplt, Annulus non valet quicquam,fed
hxreditaseft quam quaerebam. In hunc itaque modum,ap-
propinquans palTioni Dominus, de gratia fua inveftire cu-
ravit fuos," ut invifibilis gratia figno aliquo vifibill prxfta-
retur. Ad haec inftituta funt omnia Sacramenta, ad hxc Eu-
chariftix participatio. Idem de fanfto Martlno, Videlicet i<temDe s.
ufque hodie eadem caro nobis, fed fpiritualiter utiquenon
car-
7^ Jylalla^icon
carnaliter exhibetur. Neque enim eft quod caufehnlir, fia«
ftro huic negatam tempori, five earn qu^ ad Patres vete-
ris Teftamenti fafta eft apparitionem, five earn qux Apo-
ftolis exhibita eft praefentiam carnis ejus. Siquidem fideli-
ter confiderantibus neutrum deefie liquebit. Adeft enim
nobis etiam nunc carnis ipfius verafubftantia, baud dubium
fane quin in Sacramento adfunt revelationes, fed in fpiri-
tu & virtute; ut tempori gratiae quod nunc eft, nihil in
ulla gratia deefle probetur. Denique nec oculus vidit, nec
auris audivit, nec in cor hominis afcendit, qu^e pracparavit
Deus diiigentibus fe. Nobis tamen revelavit per Spiritum
fuum. Nec mireris quod carnales eis manifeftationes exhi-
buit, qui carnalem ejus prseftolabantur adventum. Nobis
enim tamo efficacior gratia, 8c revelatio dignior neceflaria
eft,quanto nimirum excdlentiora conftatefle quje expe-
£tamus. Quid fenferit Bernardusde praefentia carnis in Cce-
na Domini, ex his quje adduximus, obfcurum efle non po«
teft. Primum veteres imitatus, duas partes Sacramenti con*
flituit, fignum externum 8c rem internam,quam gratiam
invifibilem definit effe. Deinde camera nobis exhiberi, fed
fpiritualiter non carnaliter, poftremo veram fubftantiam
carnis adefie, fed ut tempori gratice convenit, in gratia, fpi-
ritu & virtute. De illo veto altero fermone, de Coena Do-
mini,quia inter opera Bernardi genuina non recenfetur,
etfi cum hisqusejam diximus non pugnet, fi mcdo author
illius ipfe fibi conftare putandus eft tamen quum alienum
opus & fubdititium habetur, in controverfia de re tanta
locum habere non debet. In hac igitur operis hujustertia
parte, volui oftendere, 8c fecifie me puto, quo modo Chri-
ftusDominus nofter prcefens efle credendus eft in CceniE
facrseadminiftratione, juxta communem & confentientem
veterum patrum interpretationem. Primum docui de Chrh
fti carne edenda, fpiritualem ab illis intelligentiam requi-
ri, 8c carnalem omnem cogitationem ablegari. Deinde
non
Eucharifiide* 7 3
non efle fpiritualem intelligcndi modum, fi quis Ilteram
(cquatur,& propriam verborum fignificationem.qualem
commentifunt qui tranfubnantiationem induxerunt, aut
craiTam cum pane carnis prsfentiam ftatuunt, fed om-
nes hujufmcdi cogitationcs, camales & humanas, noii
fpirituales e/Te, Denique quid iidem illi Patres definie-
runt, fpiritualiter intelligere, nimiruirwChrifti corpus in
Euchariftia, ut bgno quodam facro, per gratiam Sc virtu-
tern efHcacem fidelibus exhiberi. Sed hie fcrupuius oboin-
tur , Si gratiam &virtutemveri corporis cum pane 5c vino
conjungi credamus, nimium dementis tribuere videbimur,
8c geminum inde malum proveniet. Nam ita fiet ut Sa-
cramenti adoratio fequatur & idololatruvpericulum:Scmali
quum Sacramentuin (umunt, fimul etiamipfi corpusede-
rent, 8c gratise illius participes efldit. Id autem fieri non
poteft. Q^i manducac me, inquit Cliriftus, vivet ipfe
propter me , & qui edit hunc panem vivet in ceternum,
quod dc malis non potercintelligi Quod attinet ad Sacra-
menti adorationem, refpondeo veteres Euchariftiam fum-
pfifie cum rcverentia 8c Iionore magno, tutos tamen ab
idololatria fuiflb, quod nobis etiam antiqua difcipli-
na revocata , & Catechifmi forma reftituta contingeret. p. ^
Nam quod veteres adorabant quum acciperent, Auguftinus pgf" ''
aperte teflatur in Pfalmo 98*. quum ait, Ipfam carnem vobis
manducandam ad falutem dedit, nemo autem illatn carnem
manducat nifi prius adoraverit, 8c non folum non pecca-
raus adorando, fed" pcccamus non adorando. Idem in fen-
tenths Profp. Nos autem in fpecie panis 8c vini, quam vide-
inus, res invifibiles, id eft, carnem fanguinem honoramus.
Item EufebiusEmyffenus, Quum reverendum aitarecibis Eufeb. Emjffeiu
fpiritualibus fatiandus afcendis, facrum Dei tui corpus &
fanguinem fide refpice, honora, mirare. Et Chryfoftomus ^hr Ci cor '
I. Corinth, 10. hom. 24. Etenim quod fummohonore di- \o?hom. 2^.'"
gnum eft, id tibi in terra oftendam. Nam quemadmodum
L in
74 DiallaHhon
in regUs.non parietes,non tedium aureum,fed regium corpus
in throno fedens, omnium prceflantiflTimum eft, ita quoque
in ccelis regium corpus, quod nunc in terra tibi videndum
proponitur. Neque Angelos, neque Archangelos,non ccelos
ccelorum, fed ipfum liorum omnium tibi Dominum often-
Ambrof i. Cor. Ambrofius I. Cor. 11. Euchariftia medicinaeftfpiritua-
II. ' ' lis,qu2Ecutn reverentiadeguftata , purificat fibi devotum.
Et mox, Devoto animo, & cum timore accedendum ad ia-
cram communionem docet, ut fciat mens reirerentiam fe
debereei, ad cujus corpus fumendumaccedit. Theodoritus
2. etiam dial. x. Neque enim poft fanclificationem, myftica
(ymbola ilia propria natura fua egrediuntur, manent enim
in priore fua fubftantia , & figura , & fpecie, adeo-
que & videntur & pilpantur , quemadmodum 8c antea-.
Intelliguntur autem qua; fad! a funt, 8c creduntur 8c
adorantur, tanquam ea exiftentia quae creduntur. Ex
hisScaliis locis facile intelligitur quo honore, qua re-
verentia vetercs ad facram communionem acceflerunt.
Neque id mirum eft, quum veritatem . naturam, &
virtutem veri corporis Domini noftri fe in illo pane
fumere credebant, & ab idololatria procul aberant, in-
ftituti & diligenter edodti, non fignum externum , led
AviHft.Dsdo/f. internam virtutem adorare, quod Auguftinus his verbis
chrifiimiiib. oftendit De dodlrina Chriftiana, lib. 3. cap. 9. Sub figno
enim fervit qui operatur aut veneratur aliquam rem ft-
gnificantem, nefciens quid fignificet, qui veto aut ope-
ratur aut veneratur utile ftgnum divinitiis inftitutum,
cujus vim ftgnificationemque intelligit, non hoc vene-
ratur quod videtur 8c tranfit, fed illud potius quo ta-
lia cundla referenda funt. Et mox , Hoc vera tempo-
re pofteaquam refurredbione Domini noftri Jefu Chrifti
manifeftiflimum judicium noftrce • libertatis illuxit, nec
eorum ftgnorum qux jam intelligimus opcratione gravt
oneratVi lumus, fed quiedam pauca pro multis, eadem-
que
3. c. 9.
Euchar'ifl'ide. 7 5
que fa£tu facllllma, & obfcrvatione caftifiifra, ipfe
Dominus & Apoftolica tradidit difciplina. ficuti eft Ba-
ptifmi facramentum, & celebratio corporis 8c farguinis
Dominbquas unufquifque quum accipit,qi 6 referantur im-
butus agnofcit , ut ca non carnali fervitute, fed fpiri-
tudii podus libertate veneretur. Hie videmus quali do-
ftrina fuerunt olim imbuti Chriftiani, priufquam ad Sa-
cramentorum ufum accederent, & quo pado quum ho-
norem five adorationem adhibuerint tam in Bapdfmo
quam in Cosna celebranda, tamen id fine pericuio fie-
bat, aut fcandalo. Pericuio, ut hie liquet, quum non
ad id quod videtur 8c caducum eft, fed ad virtutem
8c fignificationem refpicerent; fcandalo , quod olim re-
ligio fuerit coram infidelibus, aut myfteriorum ignaris
non dicam Sacramenta fumere, fed omnino de tam ar-
canis rebus, apud illos verba facere. Cujus rei multa
funt teftimonia, fed hoc uno Theodoriti ex dial. z. dial,
contenti erimus in prcefentia. Nam orthodoxus interro-
gatus quomodo vocaret ante confecrationem quod of-
fertur a facerdote, refpondet, Non eft libere loquen-
dum: nam verifimile eft quofdam adefte, qui Chrifti fa-
oris non funt initiati. Eran. Refponde fummifia voce. Ex
hoc loco manifeftum eft quam caute fobrieque de my-
fteriis olim loquuti funt. Illud autem oper:^ pretium
eft obfervare, veteres quum de Sacramentis loqueban-
tur,variis vocibus ufos efle,honorandi,venerandi,adorandi,
quibus tamen, aut alium quendam honorem & reveren-
tiam facris rebus convenientem fignificare voluerunt,
quam illam adorationem quae prsecipitur a Deo , quum
ait,Dominum Deum tuum adorabis, 8c ilium folum
coles. Ut duplex adoratio effe definiatur : altera, qua
Deum ipfum profcquimur, altera, qua pra:fcripta figna,
8c myfteria divina, juxta illud, Adorate fcabellum pe-
dum ejus, quod plerique de area fcederis intelligunt,
L i alii
mi
n K-
■P"'
Sf
II
SJ K ■ ii
■'H;:. -
-i:i
i;;. ■. :;.:'';.l
' -*,'- ■■■ I'l!
1'.
if
-i.fi- :r
, !! .^l-
• I;/ ;; '.
iifif, f I
r^'l. :
■i.rifif
7^ Viitlla^iccft
alii de ^humanitate Chrifti interpretantur .* aut fi eandem
utrobique adorationem eflecenfent, poterimus dicere ado-
randam carnem Chrifti, quamvis creatura fit, propter
conjunftam divinitatem , adorandam arcam fccderis,pro.
pter divinse majedatis prsefentiam, quam Deus ipfe pel-
licitus eft affuturam. Ad quem modum etiam Euchari-
ftiam poftutnus adorare, propter ineffabilem Sc inviftbi-
lem , ut ait Auguftinus, Chrifti gratiam conjunaam,
non venerantes id quod videtur & tranfit , fed id quod
creditor Sc inteiligitur. Illud etiam animadverfione di-
gnum, non adhibitam dim adorationem i'lam ab ctio-
fis fpeftatoribus, fed ab iis qui myfteria fumerent, Sc
eorum grati^e participes fierent. Nam qui adorat & fu-
mit , ei corpus Chrifti eft , non ei qui adorat nec acci-
pit. In hunc enim finem inftitutus eft iile cibus, ut ado-
rantes comcdamus, non ut aliis comedentibus adoremus.
H^c de adorationc di£td fint. Quod autem negatur ma-
los ederc pofte corpus Chrifti , quod necellario fieret, fi
virtus Sc gratia fpiritualis cum pane conjundia fit, re?
fpondcri poteft, diftindlione utendumefle. Nam ft fpe-
dtemus ipfam Sacramenti naturam^ divina virtus abefte
a figno non p'oteft, qua Sacramentum eft Sc huic ufui
fervit; fin mores Sc ingenium accipientis, illi vita Sc gra-
tia non eft, quod aiioqui natura fua utrumque eft, quia
malorum nequitia tantse bonitatis non eftcapax, necfru-
<ftum in ipfa ferre ftnit: imo contra, mors illis & con-
dcmnatio eft. Quemadmodum enim ciborum genera
multa fuapte natura falubria funt, atfiin corpora male
afFedfa ingerantur, malum augent, fxpe mortem accele-
rant, non natura fua, fed accipientis vitio : itafit Sc in
Sacramento, cuiTemper adeft virtus propria, doneefuo
munere defungatur , etiamft quum fumit indignus, nec
tantam bonitatem capere, nec frudtum ullum fendre pof
De Ccena Domini id ipfam confirmat. Sacra-
menta
Euchariftide. "]?
menta quidcm , ihquit, quantum in fe eft, fine propria
eflci virtute non poffunt, nec ullo mode divina fc abfen-
tatmajeftas myfteriis. Sed quamvis ab indignis fefumivel
contingi Sacramenta p3rmittant, non poflunt tamen Spi-
ritus elTe participes, quorum infidelitas vel indignitas,
tantK fanftitudini contradicat. Ideoquealiis funt h^ec mu-
nera, odor vitcE in vitam, aliis odor mortis in mortem,
quia omnino juftum eft, ut tanto priventur beneficio
gratitecontemptores, nec in indignis tant^e gratire puri-
tas fibi faciat manfionem. Auguftinus contra literas Pc- > «
... . ... o ,, . _ . . Augufl. C0ntr4
tihani, lib, z. cap 47. Memento ergo Sacramentis Dei ni- ineras Pet.u
hi! obefte mores malorum hominum, quo ilia vel omni- 47"
no non fint, vel minus fandta fint, fed ipfts malis homi-
nibus, ut hasc habeant ad teftimonium damnationis, non
ad adjutorium fanitatis. Idem iibro y.De Baptifmo con-
tra Donatiftas, c. 8. Sicut enim Judas cui buccellam tradi- /. 5.
dit Dominus,non malum accipiendo, fed male accipiendo,
locum in fe diabolo prmbuit: fic indigne quifque fumens
Dominicum facramentum, non efficit ut quia ipfe malus
eft, malum fit, aut quia non ad falutem accipit, nihil acce-
perit. Corpus enim Domini & fanguis Domini nihilo mi-
nus erat etiam illis,quibus dicebat Apoftolus, Qm man-
ducat indign^, judicium fibi manducat 8c bibit. Idem
contra Crefcen.lib. i. cap. Z5'. Quamvis ipfe Dominus di-
cat, Nifi quis manducaverit carnem meam, 8c biberit fan-
guinem meum , non habebit in fe vitam, nonne idem
Apoftolus docet, etiam hoc perniciofum male utentibus
•fieri? Ait enim , Quicunque manducaverit panem, &
biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis & fan-
guinis Domini. Ecce quemadmodum obfunt divina &
fanfta male utentibus, cur non hoc modo& Baptifmus?
Ex his & aliis multis locis patet quod Euchariftia, quan-
tum ad Sacramenti naturam artinet, verc corpus 8c fan-
guis eft Chrifti, vcre divina&.fanda resell, etiamquum
ab
7 ^ ViallaWicon
ab indlgnis fumitur; quum tamen illi minime partlcipes
fiant gratiae illius .& fan<5bimonias, fed mortem inde hau-
riant 8c condemnationem. Neque enim in illis tanta bo-
nitas manet, aut in illos ut maneat, fed ut condem-
net, ingreditur,neque magis illis prcdeft conta£l:us Do-
minici corporis, quam Judseis Chriftum crucifigentibus
profuit illius facrofanclum, & fua femper gratia prxdi-
turn corpus attigifle.Q^are maneit Sacramenta^quamdiu
Sacramenta fint, fuam retinere virtutem, nec ab ea
poffe feparari. 6'uis enim femper conllantpartibus, ter-
rena 8c coelefti, vifibili 8cinvifibili, interna 8c externa,
five boni fumant, five mali, five digni, five indigni. Quin
& iiiafignorum commutatio, & elementorum in fubilan.
tiam interiorem tranfitio,qux palTim apud fcriptores vete-
resoccurrit, nullo pa£to poteft confiftere ; fi virtutem fe«
paremus a figno, 8c alterum feorfim ab altero velimus
accipi. Hocautem ita intelligendum eft,quamdiu fignum
ei fervit ufui, 8c fini accommodatur , cui juxta verbum
Dei deftinatum fuerit. Nam fi ad alios ufus applicamus,
8c abutimur contra Chrifti inftitutum , aut Sacramentum
prorfus non eft , aut Sacramentum efle definit. Itaque
non leviter peccant, qui pahis 8cvinifyrabola,,non quo
Chriftus inftituit dicigunt, fed ad pompam averbo Dei
alienam confecrant, 8c tamen fimplici plebi pro Sacra-
mentis obtrudunt. Q^amvis enim rite 8c ad ufus legiti-
mos comparata fint, tamen quum ceflat ufus ille 6c fun-
£fio proprii muneris , non amplius Sacramentorum, vel
nomen vel virtutem obtinent: cujus r,ei fidem facit Eccle-
fice vetufta confuetudo. Nam perafta communione, quce
de Sacramentis fuperfuerant , communem cmnam come-
dentes, pariter in templo.confumebant, ut Hieronymus in
///mn.ini.'rtrf primam ad Corinth, cap, i i..teftatur, Partim qure re-
Cor. c. I I. manferunt incohfumpta , ftatiiin igni tradebantur, ut do-
cet Hefychius in. Levii:..lib. 2.1. cap. 8, quorum neutrum
fieri
%
Ruchari(li(t' 7 p
fieri fas erat, nifi Sacramenta efle defiifient. Quo fit ut
nec ifle fcrupulus de indigne fumentibus, multum habet
momenti ad banc quam expofuimus fententiam labefa-
ctandam , fedea nihilo minus falva manet & illajfa, me-
ritoque a veritatis & concordicE cupidisampledtenda. Pri-
mum quia Sacramentorum dignita?, &debitushones non
Jseditur, fed integer & inviolatus manet, dum & veri-
tatem corporis naturam ac fubftantiam illius ,una cum
fymbolis accipi fateamur a fidelibus, quod 8c veteres
Patres fieri teftantur. Deinde hac recepta quam iidem
Patres diligenter obfervarunt difiinftione, inter pro-
priumfive aflumptum illud corpus Domini, Sc hocfym-
bolicum corpus, five Sacramentum corporis , non pecca-
turin analogiamfideinoftrce qujenuUo pa£to conveiien-
da eft, quandoquidem utrique corpori quslua'funt at-
tribuimus. Proprium enim & aftumptum corpus in lo-
CO efle, 8c loci fpatio circumfcribi dicimus, ptopt'er
veri corporis modum , ut ait Auguftinus, Ut vera na--'
turre humanss ratio poftulat, 8c orthbdoxi contra Mar-
cionem , Eutycliem 8c alios Imetjcos fortiter affirmant,
quod qui negan^ , & illud cofpthS^ubique'^e ftatbunt,
veram naturam fo'rporis, eadem'bpera deiiegant, 8c iii'
errores illorum & iiserefes irtcidunt. Et tamen-nihil ve-
tat veritatem fymbolici corporis , quia fpiritualis Sc di-
vina res eft, tam late difTundi atque prsefentem efle, quam
late patfet Sacramenti celebratio,- juxta eorundem ortho-
doxorum fententiam. Prceterea doftrinam banc nulla comi.
tantur abfurda, qualia multatum craflarh illam tranfub-
ftantiationemj turn carnalem cum pane copulationem con-
fequntur .* quod videlicet mures, beftioe,' perdlti homines,
preciofum illud aflurtiptunrcorpus Domini rodunt, man-
diint & deglutlunb, qUuifi^deillo corpore, tefte Hierony-
mo, nulli quamlibbtpib horhfni^fas fit edere. Adde qudd
non perplexa, nelPdiffieiliseft, fed aperta, 8c quantum my-
fteriorum
DiallaEiiccn
{leriorum natura patitur perfpicua, 8c quum hjec alioqui
concroverfia, multis intricata, labyrinthoque fimilis efle
videatur, hcec explicatio facilis eft, nihil occurrit obfcu-
rum, nulla Scripturx verba, nulla Patrum teftimonia
repugnant, fed omnia conveniunt 8c amice concinunt.
Adhiec vetus eft hscc traftandi ratio, conftanter ab anti.
quis tradita, non nuper nata, aut hoc primum tern-
pore excogitata, ut ipfa res indicat, edque mag's ad
pacem Ecciefiaa, & ad tranqu;llitatem concilianJam facie,
quum non opinionem aliquam novam, ex noflro capite
genitam, fed priftinam orthodoxorum fenientiam efte
revocatam omnes intelligant. Prsefertim quum ejufmodi
fit, ut nuUam partem jure poftit ofFendere, fed omnes
ad placabilitatem hortetur & invitet. Sunt qui jcgr^ fe-
rant Euchariftiam lignum aut figuram appeliari, quafi
nudum fignum fit, aut inanis figura: hie audiunt non
tantum fignum , fed rem ipfam, non folum figuram , fed
etiam veritatem. Eonon content!, Patres urgent; natu-
ram corporis in Sacramento exigunt. Audiunt hie quo-
que nature prsefentiamdoceri, & naturalem participatio.
nem fieri. Inftant adhuc, 8c fubftantiam corporis fateri
jubent. Vident fubftantiam quoque a nobis prsfentem
affirmari , 8c communionem noftram cum Chrifto natu-
raliter, & ut ita dicam, fubftantialiter prxdicari, led
has voces, non ut philofophi, fed ut theologi ioquun-
tur^ intelUgi oportere. Nec de Tranfubftantiationis vo-
cabulo, quamvis barbaro minimeque necefiario litigate-
mus , ft modo talem fubftantiarum tranfmutationem in-
terpretentur, qualem veteres agnofcebant, facramenta-
lem videlicet, qualis etiam in homine fit per Baptifmum
regenerate , qui novus homo .fadus eft, 8c nova crea-
tura, qualis etiam fit quum nos in carnem Chrifti con-
vertimur, quibus Patres antiqui utebantur exemplis.
Voces ipfas non tantopere fugimus , quanquam earum
quo-
Eucharipd^*
quoque ratio habenda efl, fed fignificationcm earn quam ■
Patresipfi decent, atque adeo flagitant, nos quoque re-
qulrimus : 8c folam ffagKopxy/ctv^ id eft, carnisvorationem,
quam nullo pado probant, fed ut ftultam Sc impiam
condemnant, rejicimus utalienam aScripturis, alienam
a Patrum interpretatione, denique cum vera fide ex dia-
metro pugnantem , ac fpiritualem fenfum in hac carne
edenda neceflarium efte judicamus , ipfum Chriftura
authorem fequuti, & confenfum probatifiimorum , qui
habentur, interpretum. Mira fane res eft quam in aliis
controverflis Ariftotelici fumus, & diftin£iiones argutas
fspe magis quam neceflTarias arripimus; in hac difputatio-
ne de Sacramentis, nullam differentiam admittimus,nul-
lam homonymiam recipimus , quumillam & rcinatura
flagitet, 8c veterum authoritas nobis quafi digico com-
monftret, quum de divinis myfteriis, nec facra Scriptu-
ra, nec fanfti Patres loquantur phyfica ratione, fed fubli-
mi divinoque modb, ficut homines decet ^iohiyvf ac
fpiritualibus fpiritualia comparantes. Rurfum
fiquis eft qui nimium hie dementis tributum exiftimet,
non ita eft, fed fua fymbolis externis reverentia defertur
propter ufum facrum, virtus autem interna quas vi divini
verbi accedit, fola eft quam refpicit mens fidelium , quce
corpus Sc animum fanftificat utentis. Quod fi nonnul-
li miraculum requirunt, (nam Patres aliquot Eucha'-
riftiam ingens miraculum nominant ) non minus pro-
fefto mirandum eft panem 8c vinum creaturas terre-
nas, 8c corpori tantum pafcendo natas, earn virtute
benediftionis myfticcE vim infitam , adeoque po-
tentem efficacitatem pofiTidere , ut 8c animos 8c corpora
mundent, alant, fandificent, atque ad immortalitatem
prseparent, ut nos membra Chrifti 8c unum cum illo
corpus conficiant. Imo plus ponderis habet hoc miracu-
lum, plus dignitatis,,majorem utilitatem, ac magis my-
M fteri-
VlallaHicon
lleriorum rationi congruentem, qudm ulla potefl cralTa
tranfubftantiatio, aiic animalis & humana compkfti
ffA^Koipa,yia,. Qaarc contentionis & dircordicefernina jamfub-
lata lunt, nec caufcequicquam fuperefl quo minus Eccle-
{ix Chriflbprarfertim quce profitentur Evangelii fludium,
pacatis animis & junclis affeftibus in nnum coeant, qux
nunc acerbis inter fe diffident odiis. Hcec liabui, fratres,
qucE de hac fpinofa, ut multis videtur , controverfia, colli-
genda cenfui, initio certe non hoc confiiio ut in lucem
emitterem, fed ut certum haberem quo in re tarn con-
troverfa niti poffim , & fententis meiErationemredderc.
Nunc verb quum frudum aliquem hujus operce qualifcun-
que videar mihi cepihe, non molefte fero fi ad alios quo-
que poffit aliquid utilitatis afferre. ipfe certe mihi fum
Gonfcius, me nihil aliud hoc fcripto qucefilTe, quam ut 6t
mihi & aliis pie modefteque prodeflem. Precor Deum ac
Patrem Domini noflri lefu Chrifti, ut ab animis paftorum,
dodorum, & Ecclefise miniftrorum maximas Ecclefia: pe-
ftes (p/AorHWtff id ell, contendcndi ac domi- ^
nandi libidinem omnem amoveat, & edrum mentcs ad
pacem & fraternam in Chrillo concordiam componat,
neque hoc infigne charitatis vinculum, ab ipfo Domi-
no Ecclefiac fuce traditum & commendatum, ad ccnten-
tiones 8c fadliones alendas trahentes abutantur, utque
principum ac magihratuum corda Spiritu fuo fic afflare
dignetur, ut quid maxime poteftatem fibi cceditam de-
ceat, & gloriam Dei promoveat, ante omnia refpiciant,
non quid ex hac rerum perturbatione, fifco fuo poffit ac-
crefcere, cum civium fuorum crudeli vexatione 8c re-
rum publicarum communi calamitate.
FINIS.