I Must confess that this great Point seem'd the most difficult to me, of any that are Controverted between the two Churches: and for these Reasons; First, because I did not rightly apprehend the Catholic Explication of the Natural Body of Christ in the Sacrament. Secondly, Because (from this mis­understanding of mine) I believed that the Body of Christ being in two places, at the same time, imply'd a contradiction, which I suppos'd the Omnipotency of God could not support. And lastly, because I thought the Fathers had been express against this Doctrine.

I apply'd my self to the reading of Controver­sies; and discoursing with some Learned Men, on both sides; and found first from the Catholics, That altho they Profess and Believe the Natural Bo­dy of Christ to be truly and substantially in the Sa­crament; yet they tell us, That it is not there after [Page 42] [...] [Page 43] [...] [Page 44]a Natural manner, as it was upon the Earth, or upon the Cross, but after a Spiritual, Supernatural, and Ʋn­bloody manner. Secondly, That it is indeed a Con­tradiction to say a Body is here, and not here at the same time: but to say that the Glorified Body of Christ, may be by accident, and by the power of God, in many places, or ubi's at the same time, is so far from a Contradiction, that it gives it not a more sovereign Existence, than what we allow to Angels, or to the Soul in a Mans Body, which altho it be a Substance, is yet really, substantially and at the same 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 Lastly, for the Fathers, I found in them, not only most plain, demonstrable, and Invincible Authorities asserting the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament after a substantial manner; but al­so, that those very Citations produc'd by Prote­stants to destroy this Doctrine of the Real Pre­sence, were most of them (if not all) so fully an­swer'd, or so agreable to the Catholic Faith, that if any of them remain'd still obscure, there want­ed not twenty plain places to Interpret them by; But more of these hereafter.

Here I consider'd the Protestant Arguments a­gainst this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, and found them generally dissatisfactory, and insuffici­ent; chiefly upon this account, that they brought continually the same Objections, which tho they had been answer'd a hundred times over by Catholics (both Ancient and Modern) yet I found no Reply to­these Answers, or at least, such as handled those which were most material; so that I perceiv'd they [Page 45]danc't always in a Ring, without advancing a step towards a substantial and convincing Demonstra­tion. At last I was recommended to a late Dis­course against Transubstantiation, which treating parti­cularly of that Subject; and being wrote (as I was inform'd) by an Eminent Protestant Divine, I re­solv'd to pitch upon that, and from thence take my Measures, how far I ought to receive this great Catholic Doctrine. I read it over and over with great attention, and before I speak particularly of any thing contained in it; I think it Just to give this Character of it in general, viz. that it seems to be writ without Modesty, Charity, Sincerity, or Good Manners. Without Modesty, In that a private Per­son, upon presumption of his own Parts, and Learn­ing, shall dare to ridicule so great a Mystery of the Christian Religion (I speak of the Real Pre­sence of Christ in the Sacrament, according to the Doctrine of Catholics, and Lutherans, excluding at present the Mode (as they term it) or Manner, Transubstantiation) and this Doctrine own'd, and profest not two Hundred years since, generally through the Christian World, and at present, by at least eight parts, in ten; and amongst these some persons extreamly above him in Place and Authority; and thousands (for ought we know) equal, if not above him, in Learning, Piety, and Reason; Thus I say to ridicule, and burlesque so great a Doctrine of the Christian Faith, is much more dangerous, and scandalous to the Christian Religion, than that stupid, absur'd and monstrous Do­ctrine (as he calls it) against which he writes. For my part, I profess, if so many Men of Sense and Reason, and these improv'd to the heigth [Page 46]by Study and Learning, may not only be deceiv'd in so great a Point of Religion; but mistaken e­ven to folly, madness, non-sense, and Contradiction; I know not what will become of Christianity it self; for if these can so grosly Err, in Matters which are as equally Evident (upon all accounts) to their Sense and Reason, as to the Sense and Rea­son of any other; I am sure a Man is much less secure in trusting to this single Discourser, or any be­longing to him; and so farewel to Both.

But Secondly, It is without Charity, for since he hath made (as he thinks) the Catholic Doctrine so demonstrably false and absur'd; all Catholics who believe it, (tho never so Learned, Honest and Pious) must be either Knaves or Fools.

Thirdly, Without Sincerity, because all his ma­terial Objections (and many more) have been Print­ed formerly above Seventy years since: And Lately, within these Seventeen years, by Catholics them­selves; with their Substantial Answers to them. Now to have dealt sincerely, he ought to have re­plied to these Answers, which would have set us forward, and drawn us to some Point; and not have run round, as in a Magical Circle, without ever en­deavouring to break through the infatuation of De­luded Reason.

And next, to have dealt Sincerely, he ought not to have produc't a scrap of a Sentence from a Fa­ther, and left out those immediate preceeding, or succeeding Words which explicated the whole Sense. For Instance, His first is from Justin Martyr, whom he produces saying, these Words: Our Blood and Flesh are nourished, by the Conversion of that Food which we receive in the Eucharist, p. 11. But the whole Sentence [Page 47]runs thus; For we do not receive this as common Bread, or common Drink, but as by the Word of God. Jesus Christ our Redeemer, being made Man, had both Flesh and Blood for the sake of our Salvation; just so are we taught, that That Food over which Thanks are given by Prayers, in his own Words, and whereby our Blood, and Flesh are by a change nourished, Is the Flesh and Blood of the Incarnate Jesus: For the A­postles in the Commentaries written by them, call'd the Gospels, have recorded that Jesus so commanded them. This I think altogether, makes little for our Dis­courser; especially if he had been sincere enough to have told us, how the Fathers generally, as St. Irenaeus, Cyril, Chrysost. Greg. Nyss. and others expound the nourishment of the Body, and as shall be shewn hereafter. So also he quotes Theodoret, saying, The mystical Symbols after Consecration, do not pass out of their own Nature, for they remain in their former Substance, Figure, and Appearance: And may be seen, and handled p. 19. Theoderet goes on: The mystical Signs are understood to be that which they are made, and they are believed and ador'd as being those very things, which they are believed. Now if they may be adored, I suppose they mean somewhat more than Signs and Figures; or else the Adoration of holy Images is more Ancient, than Protestants have hitherto allowed: And had our Discourser been Sincere, he might have told us, how the Catholics interpret all this, to be most consistent with their Faith, and confuted them if he could.

But Fourthly, His Discourse is writ without Good Manners, for (setting aside his disrespect to a Religious Duty.) methinks when he knew so many Princes, Kings, Emperors, Bishops, Metropolitans, [Page 48]Patriarchs, and most Learned Men of all Sorts, re­ceived this Doctrine of the Real Presence, and Transubstantiation; he ought to have forborn such words as Impudence. p. 2. Nonsense p. 24. Monster of Transubstantiation p. 25. Monstrous insupportably absur'd stupidity of this Doctrine p. 33. Absur'd and Senseless Doctrine, Legerdemain and Jugling Tricks of Falshood and Imposture, Hocus Pocus, a cheat and foolish Doctrine p. 34. But here the Discourser is very angry; and indeed Fathers, I should even from hence shrewdly suspect that our Discourser is no true Son of the Church of England, for they are ge­nerally more moderate and civil; but we shall have further occasion to speak of this hereafter: In the mean time I thought fit to take thus much no­tice of these things; that we might consider whe­ther such a Writer (notwithstanding all his Magi­sterial dashes) be probably endued with that Chri­stian humble Temper, which we might expect from a Doctor of Christs Church, pretending also (with­out other Miracles than his wonderful Reason) to reform almost the whole Christian World; but let us see whether his good Reasons will make us amends by giving us some better Satisfaction.

Several Impertinences, and Quibbles appear in many parts of his Discourse; as for Instance: He proves in p. 4. That a Sacrament may be instituted by figurative Expressions, because a Sacrament is a Figare it self of some Invisible Grace, &c. Now I had always thought, that a Man might deliver a Sign or Figure, exhibiting some Invisible kindness in the most plain and literal Terms, that possibly could be invented; for Example, I am perswaded the Discourser might have exhibited or deliver'd, his [Page 47]Pamphlet; or Picture (which are Figures of his Mind, or Person) as a Token of his love to his Friend in a most plain litteral Speech; without the necessi­ty of a figurative Sentence, except for the sake of his Quibble: For my part, I think the delive­ry of a Figure, or any thing else, is best in plain words. But then the Pains he takes, and Wit that is spent, first to obtrude upon Catholics the false Be­lief of a Miracle (according to his acceptation of a Miracle) and then to laugh at his own Jest; toge­ther with the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle, as to make God. Pag. 31. is really such Stuff, as certainly he never design'd for any other use, than to rub the itching Ears of the most illiterate among the Vulgar. I confess, Fathers, it workt no good effect upon me, nor ne­ver will (I should think) upon any sober Chri­stian; for every body sure understands his Fallacy concerning the power (of the Priest, and his Mi­racles. But instead of that, had he replied to some solid Discourse of Catholics, concerning the Do­ctrine of the Sacrament it self, I know not how far the Authority, which my Reason had fixt in the Church of Rome, would have supported me against his Arguments.

Having thus separated the loose Accidents of his Discourse from the more substantial part; I will now examine that as far as is necessary according to the best assistance of my impertial Reason and Understanding; and shall follow him according to his own Method.

He supposes five Grounds or Reasons, for the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation, or the Real Presence (according to a literal Sense) which he pretends [Page 48]to confute: The first is from the Authority of Scrip­ture, and (among other things as little to the purpose) he tells us p. 7. That he doth not believe any sensible Man, who had never heard of Transubstantiation being ground­ed upon these words, This is my Body, would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel e­ver have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words; but would have understood his meaning to have been,—This Bread signifies my Bo­dy, &c. And do this for a memorial of me: Where you may observe, worthy Fathers, that he excludes also the Real Presence in a litteral sense (as shall be shewn hereafter). He goes on: But sure it would never have entred into any Mans mind, to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hand, and gave away himself from himself with his own hands. Now altho I dare not pretend to inter­pret all Scripture (a lawful sufficient Interpreter being the thing I look for) yet, since he hath put the Case, I presume to say thus much: That if a sensible Turk, or Pagan, who had never heard of the great Mysteries of Christianity, should seri­ously read the New Testament; possibly he would not have understood these words, This is my Body, in a literal sense; neither do I think he would ever have establisht the Doctrine of the Hypostati­cal Union; The Consubstantiality of the Son; The Trinity; Predestination and Free-will; with many other Mysteries of Christian Religion (espe­cially if he were govern'd only by his humane Reason, as our Discourser seems to be) and yet all this while he might have had a great esteem of the moral part, and have believed Christ a Per­son divinely inspired: For my part, I fear I should [Page 49]never have overcome these Difficulties upon my own strength; and yet I believe the Trinity as firm­ly, as I believe there is a God. Whether the Dis­courser doth so or not, I cannot say: But suppo­sing a Man already well grounded in the Christi­an Religion, and having heard that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, had been believed, in a lite­ral sense, by the greatest part of most Learned, and Pious Christians through all Ages; And, that the Scriptures containing this Doctrine, were writ seve­ral years after the death of our Saviour, in which time the Sacrament had been celebrated by them; and by consequence, if the Apostles had not un­derstood this Mystery according to a literal Sense, they had time, and reason plainly to have expounded it otherwise, and have given us warning of this dif­ficulty (as was done to the Carnal Caphernaites) and not all three punctually agreed in the same Ex­pressions, without any caution of a dangerous Figure in them: In such Case, I say, the Doctrine of the Real Presence, to such a Person (having laid aside all prejudices) is as clear in Scripture, as most of those other great Mysteries are; and that for these Reasons.

First, because I cannot imagine why our Blessed Saviour should ever have made use of these Terms, This is my Body, besides many other such like Ex­pressions, except he really intended a literal Inter­pretation; for what necessary relation hath a Bo­dy, and Blood, to the Sacrament of the Lords Sup­per, more than to the Sacrament of Baptism? Why a Consecration in that Sacrament, yet none either in Baptism or others? Might not Christ (with re­verence be it spoken) have said much more plain­ly, and yet sufficiently to the same purpose; Take [Page 50]this Bread, and Cup of Blessing in remembrance of that Passion of mine which is now at hand, and as of­ten as ye take it worthily, it shall conveigh to your Souls, invisible Grace, and many other Benefits? Would not this have fully answered the End of Zuinglius, and our Discourser's Doctrine, concerning this Sacrament? But why doth the God of Mercy and Truth com­mand us to eat his Body, and drink his Blood as­suring us, that, except we eat his Flesh we have no life in us, if he did not really intend we should do so? But, except he be really and substantially pre­sent in the Sacrament, we can neither eat his Body, nor drink his Blood; for to take the Figure for the Substance, is idle in any Command, which po­sitively orders the Substance, if the Substance pos­sibly can be had; and in this Case, it is impious, because he that commanded the Substance, is able to give it us; and if he did not design to give it us, we have reason to believe he would not have commanded it in such express terms: Especial­ly, since there was no necessity, no, nor con­veniency of using those words according to our Discourser's Interpretation: For if by his Body, he meant the Figure only of his Body, what good doth that Figure do us? Or how doth it satisfie the Command, or why should Bread be the Figure of his Body? Since Figures of this Figure, that is to say, the Paschal Lamb, and Manna descending from Heaven, were much more noble, and proper Repre­senting, than the thing Represented; and yet neither was Manna nor the Lamb called his Body, as the Bread is, in the Sacrament? The Expression there­fore of Justin Martyr, saying, This Passover is our Saviour, and our Refuge p. 7. Is nothing at all to [Page 51]the purpose, nor could the Paschal Lamb be taken really and truly for God their Saviour, or their expect­ed Messian; because there was no such thing men­tion'd, or [...]ted in the Institution of the Passover. On the contrary, it was instituted in the plainest Manner, and most intelligible, and so free from all figurative Expressions, that there are no less than 12 Verses in explaining every Circumstance of the Action. They shall take to them every Man a Lamb, &c. Exod. c. 12. And can we believe, that the Pass­over, which was indeed a Figure of the Sacra­ment, should be exprest, and understood, in an un­questionable literal Sense; and that the Sacrament, which was the Substance of the Figure, should be in­stituted in such a prodigious wonderful Figure (ac­cording to our Discourser's acceptation) as to in­volve the greatest part of the Christian World, not only in most pernicious Mistakes, but also in the most detestable Sin of Idolatry? Sure, the imagination of it must be totally inconsistent with the Veracity, Mercy, Goodness, and the main design of our bles­sed Saviour. To institute a Figure literally, and the Substance figuratively, is a strange Method, and not easily suppos'd in the God of Truth; and Wis­dom. Nay, more, our Saviour, who establisht a Law, and a Church to interpret it, who suffer'd the Indignities of humane Life, and Death of the Cross on purpose to save Sinners: He, to whom the past, and future was always present, and who knew what would happen to his Spouse the Church, after his Death, had left so great a stumbling block to the World (had he intended only a figurative Interpreta­tion) that his Cruelty (which is most impious to ima­gine) would have exceeded his Mercy; especially if [Page 52]it be true (as I believe it is, and hope shall be able to prove) that the whole Christian World for a thousand years together after his Ascension, univer­sally concurr'd in the firm Belief of a literal Sense, and practis'd accordingly. Good God! So many reputed Saints, so many Martyrs, and so many ho­ly Men dying in the guilt, and many of them in defence of gross Idolatry? This to me (to use the expression of our Discourser) is more than ten Thousand Demonstrations.

He tells us indeed, that some Learned Catholic Authors have declar'd their Opinions, that the Do­ctrine which holds the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration, is neither re­pugnant to Reason nor Scripture. p. 5. And what then? They do not exclude the Doctrine of the Real presence in a literal sense, nor do I know that they did ever doubt of Transubstantiation: But most of them have written particularly in defence of it; and Durandus wrote a Book consisting of nine parts against Berengarius, who oppos'd it. Now, tho this might be the private Opinion of these Men, yet there are (it may be) thousands as Learned as them­selves, of another Opinion; and all this without either prejudicing, or helping the Doctrine it self.

Our Discourser cannot think any Man so sense­less to believe, that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands, and gave away himself from him­self, with his own hands; and yet we find a very sensible Father, and one much esteemed by all par­ties (I mean S. Augustin) made no such difficulty to believe all this: For in his Comment upon these words, Et ferebatur in manibus suis; and he was [Page 53]carried in his own hands, he speaks thus of Christ. And can this be possible in Man? Was ever any Man carried in his own hands, &c. How this can be literally understood of David we cannot discover; Comm. in Ps. 33. but in Christ we found it verified, for Christ was carried in his own hands, when giving his own very Body he said, This is my Body. But if Christ carried only the Figure of his Body, it was not only possible for David, but for any Man else to have done the same. Methinks our Discourser should have replied to this obvious An­swer, when he made his Objection: And thus much for the Authority of Scripture.

Next he tells us, that this Doctrine is not ground­ed upon the perpetual Belief of the Christian Church; and for this, he produces many Authorities of the Fathers, which may be reduc't to these Heads; either where they tell us, That the Elements are a Sign and Figure of Christs Body; or that they re­main in their former Substance; or that they go into the Draught, and our flesh encreased by them; or that they are not to be taken according to the Letter; for all which he brings some Citations. Now altho' the Fathers have been their own best Interpreters, shewing plainly in other places, how these are to be understood, agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine; yet, that it may appear more Evident, I shall in­stance in some other plain expressions, and leave the Ballance to the Judgment of the Reader.

First then, wheresoever it is said, that the Ele­ments are Signs or Figures, there no more is said than what the Catholics believe and profess; nay, more, that it is a part of the Definition of a Sacra­ment to be a Sign, That is to say, that the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Sacrament, offer'd [Page 54]in a spiritual manner, is a Figure, or Sign of the bloody Sacrifice, offer'd once for all upon the Cross, after a natural manner; answerable to the words of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. Ye shall shew the Lords death until he come. About the words we agree; concern­ing the interpretation our Discourser may dispute as long as he pleases.

Next, That the Elements remain in their form and substance: This passage of Theodoret hath been in part answer'd before, where he tells us, That they are to be ador'd—And from thence we may con­clude, that he means the nature of the Accidents; for those words [...] & [...], which this Greek Father useth, contain every kind of Essence and Nature, as well of Accidents, as of Substances: And so again he expounds himself, saying, that we may see and touch (the said Colour and Form) which have reference on­ly to those Accidents; and in this sense, the Elements may admit of Co-adoration with the Body of our Saviour; as when himself was Cloth'd upon Earth; otherwise not. And Theodoret is blam'd by the Cen­turists, Cent. 5. c. 10. Because he affirms, That the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, after the In­vocation of the Priest, are chang'd, and made other things than they were before: They mean not Signs I hope, for more than that they believed them­selves.

But let us hear St. Augustin, As with a faithful heart and Mouth we receive the Mediator of God and Man, Christ Jesus, who gives us his Flesh to be eaten, and his Blood to be drunk, altho' it seems to be a thing more full of horror to eat Mans flesh, than to kill it, and to drink Mans blood, than to shed it. L. 2, Contr. adv. Leg. & Proph. But sure it is not more horrible [Page 55]to eat Mans flesh in figure, than to kill a man in good earnest, &c. Let us hear him again, We have heard (says he) our Master, who always speaks truth, re­commending to us our Ransom, his Blood; for he spoke of his Body and Blood; which Body he call'd Meat, and his Blood Drink. But there are some who do not believe; they said. This is a hard saying, who can hear it? 'Tis hard, but to the obstinate, that is, incredible, but to the Incredulous. L. de verb. Apost. Serm. 2. But is the Figure so hard a saying? I think not.

Next St. Ambrose, a co-temporary, and particular Friend of St. Augustin, It may be you will say, De his qui Myst. Init. c. 9. why do you tell me that I receive the Body of Christ, when as I see quite another thing? We have this therefore yet to prove: How many Examples therefore do we produce to shew, that it is not what Nature fram'd, but what the Benediction hath Consecrated, and that the force of Be­nediction is greater than of Nature, because by Bene­diction Nature her self is chang'd. Moses held a Rod in his hand, he cast it from him, and it became a Ser­pent: Where he tells of all those real Transmutati­ons and Miracles made by Moses. After which he goes on, We see therefore that the power of Grace is far beyond that of Nature, and yet we have only men­tion'd hitherto the effects of Grace in the blessing of Prophets; now if the blessing of men were of so great efficacy, as to change the Nature of things, what shall we say of the Divine Consecration, where the very words of Christ our Saviour are operative? Then he speaks of the Creation of the World out of nothing, and goes on, If therefore Christ by his word, was able to make something of nothing, shall he not be thought able to change those things which are, into other things [Page 56]which they were not? But what need of Arguments? Let us propose his own Example, and assert the truth of this Mystery, by that of his Incarnation. When our Lord Jesus was born of Mary, was it a Natural genera­tion, &c. 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 Christ; when as above all Nature Christ was born of a Virgin? The true Flesh of Christ, which was crucified, which was buried. And are all these real Transmutations, and Miraculous, Supernatural Examples produc't, only to prove a figurative Change, conferring some invisible Blessing? Can our Discourser under­stand it so, and no otherwise? Indeed I think he had best retreat to the first three Hundred years after Christ (as some others of your late Writers have done) contrary to what I had ever been taught among you; who generally extended the Purity of the Roman Doctrine as far as the first Five Hundred years, and accordingly, in my Discourses with Ca­tholics, I always asserted, that we did receive the Roman Doctrine, until about that time: but the Truth would glare too much in our Discoursers Eyes, if he should walk in the light of those two latter Centuries, when the Church began to be freed from her Persecutions, and holy Fathers had greater liber­ty of Preaching, and Teaching the true Christian Faith, in its Extent. But we shall follow him as high as he pleases.

We produce next St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who liv'd in the Age before St. Ambrose and St. Augustine, his words are these: Do not then consider it as bare Bread, or bare Wine, for it is the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the word of our Saviour himself: For tho' [Page 57]sense should suggest this to thee, yet let thy Faith so confirm this, as that thou judge not the matter from the Tast: And again, Hoe Sciens, &c. This knowing, and accounting it as most certain, that this Bread which we see is not Bread, tho' our Tast do tell us that it is Bread; but it is the Body of Christ; and the Wine which we behold, tho' it seem Wine to our sense of Tast, yet it is not Wine, but the Blood of Christ: Catech. 4. This was spoke after a Catechistical man­ner, in which, high Metaphors and Figures are not generally very frequent; he was besides, esteem'd by all as a learned Person, and of this Book, none e­ver doubted.

We come now to the third Age, in which S. Cy­prian, treating of our Lords Supper, says, The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples, is changed, not in outward appearance, but in Substance, and by the Omni­potency of the Word, It is made Flesh. And as in the person of Christ the Humanity did appear, and the Di­vinity lay hid; so in the visible Sacrament, the Divine Essence hath ineffably infused it self. Serm. de coena Dom. This is so clear a passage, that some of the Sacramentaries, for want of a better Answer, pre­tend it was not writ by St. Cyprian, altho' at the same time they are forc't to confess that it is of great Antiquity, and had a Learned Author: But some­thing must be said, and Confidence goes a great way.

I have already spoken of Justin Martyr in the se­cond Age; and come now to the first Age, even in the days of the Apostles; let us hear then the holy Martyr S. Epist. ad Smyrnaeos. Ignatius the Disciple of S. John, who speaking of the Heretics of his time, says thus, They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations, because they do not believe the Eucharist to be [Page 58]the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffer'd for our Sins, and which the Father in his Mercy raised a­gain from the dead. A strange concurrence through all Ages of most extraordinary Tropes and Figures. I name not St. Andrew, because the Authority is su­spected: Nor is it necessary to multiply Testimonies of the Fathers (which we might have done) because they are in truth but like dead Weights on both sides, until we shall have put life into them by such reasonable Interpretations, as (reconciling them first to themselves) may make them plainly speak forth the Catholic Doctrine, which I refer to the Conclusion.

But what do Protestants think of all these Fa­thers? Why truly they blame them All, and tell us, that they were mistaken. Dr. Humphrey says, Gregory and Austin brought Transubstantiation into the English Church, (Jesuit. part 2. p. 627) The Centurists charge S. Chrysostome, S. Ambrose, and Eusebius, For not wri­ting well of Transubstantiation Peter Martyr, for the same reason blames S. Cyril, Ʋrsinus, S. Cyprian. The Learned Melancton writes thus upon this Sub­ject (L. 3. Ep. Zuing, & Oecol. f. 132.) There is no care (says he) that hath more troubled my mind, than this of the Eucharist: And not only my self have weighed what might be said on either side; but I have also sought out the Judgment of old Writers touching the same: And when I have laid all together, I find no good reason, that may satisfie a Conscience, departing from the propriety of Christs words, This is my Body. Many other Testimonies of Learned Protestants, I omit at present for Brevity sake. In the mean time, I suppose all these may be sufficient to bal­lance the Substance of Theodoret, even when you have [Page 59]made the most of it, that in reason you ought; or else my Reason and Sense are much more deceived in this Case, than in that of the Sacrament.

But come we to the Third Point, That the Elements go into the draught, and our flesh encreased by them. Hear what St. Chrysostome says, Do you see Bread? Do you see Wine? Do these go into the draught like other common meat? Far be it from thee to imagine it. Hom. do Euchar. in Encoen. When our Discourser hath re­concil'd his passage of Origen, with this of S. Chry­sostome; let him then read any Catholic Author, and he will tell him how he shall understand the Au­thority which he hath here produc't; of which more hereafter.

Now for the encrease of the flesh, I find this Expli­cation in St. Greg. Nyssen. Orat. Catech. c. 36. and 37. Even as a little Leaven doth make the whole Mass like it self; so that Body which is made Immortal by God, entring into our Body, doth transfer, and change it into its self. And after, That Body is joyned with the Bodies of the faithful, that by the Coujunction with the same Im­mortal Body, Man may be made partaker of Immortality. So S. Cyril of Alexandria, As a spark of fire light­ing upon Hay or Straw, doth presently inflame it all; so the Word of God joyned to our corruptible Nature by means of the Eucharist, doth make it all to rise Im­mortal, and glorious. The same may be seen in Iraen. l. 8. contr. Haer c. 34. And many others, who understand the encrease of the Flesh, to be a raising of the Flesh towards a state of Immortality, and dis­posing it towards a happy Resurrection; accord­ing to that of S. John c. 6. He that eateth my Flesh, and drinketh my Blood, hath life Everlasting, and I will raise him up at the last day. But if these Interepreta­tions [Page 60]should not happen to please you, I shall then recommend you to a late Catholic Author, and leave you to himself, or his Excellent Treatise, The De­fence for the Adoration of the Body and Blood of our Lord, p. 14. For further satisfaction, his words are these, 'This External Sign, or Symbol, they (the Catholics) affirm to be all That of the Bread and Wine that is perceived by any Sense. And tho' after Consecration, the Substance of the Bread and Wine is denied to remain, yet is Substance here taken in such a sense, as that neither the hardness, nor softness, nor the frangibility, nor the savour, nor the odour, nor the nutritive vertue of the Bread, nor nothing visible, nor tangible, or otherwise percepti­ble by any sense, are involved in it. All which at last we shall endeavour to explain.

The last Head is, That the words of Consecration are not to be taken in a literal Sense: To prove this our Discourser brings several killing Testimonies, as he calls them; but I know not whom they hurt, ex­cept the Caphernaites; for all Catholics own both the Authorities, and the Doctrine contained in them, as absolutely necessary to the true and Orthodox un­derstanding their Doctrine of the Holy Sacrament. That is to say, That the Body of Christ in the Eu­charist, is not there after a Natural and Corporeal manner, as it was upon the Cross, that is, speci­fically, and according to the outward Form, and local Existence; but spiritually, supernaturally, and without Circumscription, that is, external Com­mensuration of, or Co-extension with Place. And if Pascasius meant otherwise of the Sacrament, than what is here exprest, then Rabanus Maurus did well to oppose him with all his might, as another Anonymus [Page 61]did (if not the same Rabanus) in a Tract extant in Codice Gemblacens. Cosnobij cum Heregeri Opusculo. But that this good Arch-Bishop did so understand him, is plain for these two Reasons. First, because he hath always been acknowledged an Orthodox Bishop among all Catholics; and next, because his own words have, with good reason, confirm'd Ca­tholics in this their Opinion of him; and they are these, ‘Who, says he, would ever believe that Bread could be turn'd into Flesh, or Wine into Blood, except our Saviour himself had said it, who Crea­ted Bread and Wine, and made all things out of Nothing, but it is easier to make one thing out of another, than all things out of Nothing.’ L. 7. de Sacris ordin. ad Theatmanum c. 10.

Now after all these Authorities from the Fathers, and a Hundred more which might be produc't, to shew that they believ'd the Real Presence, together with the agreable concurrent sense of them all, run­ning through their whole Works, besides their con­stant practice of Adoration, and Belief of an un­bloody Sacrifice; and many Learned Protestants confessing, that they did so believe: After all this, I suppose I need not enquire of our Discourser, when this Doctrine of the Real Presence came into the World, for I am convinc't that it was in the very days of the Apostles themselves; or, to use the words of Sebastianus Francus, and Hospinian (two E­minent Protestants) jam tum primo illo tempore, & viventibus adhuc Apostolis, &c.

But because our Discourser hath made use of the name of the good Arch-Bishop of Mentz to counte­nance and support his false Chronology, it is Just that I take off this scandalous imputation from Rabanus [Page 62]Maurus. Now, altho his own words before recited, are more than sufficient to clear this Excellent Per­son; yet at present I shall only make use of our Discourser's own computation to destroy the proba­bility of his unreasonable Supposition, which he calls a plain Testimony.

He tells us, P. 21. That in the Second Council of Nice, Anno Dom. 787. The Sacrament was declar'd to be properly the Body and Blood of Christ, and that thence this Opinion got footing among the Greeks: And that in the year 818. Pascasius first broacht this Doctrine in the Latin Church, insinuating, that until that time, this Doctrine was not receiv'd among the Latins; and, that thereupon, Rabanus Maurus in the year 847 wrote against this Pascasius for in­troducing this new Error. Thus far the Story is very well laid; but here are these hard difficulties to be digested before we can give it that credit which he expects: First, it is certain, that Peter Arch-Presbyter of the Roman Church, and Peter the Monk, were present in the said Council in behalf of Pope Adrian. That the said Pope wrote Letters to the Emperour Constantius, and also to Tarasius Patriarch of Constantinople, which were received by the said Council: And lastly, that the Popes Supre­macy was confirmed in this very Council in these words, Quod Ecclesia Romana sit Caput omnium Eccle­siarum, Act 2.

Now from this Council to Rabanus Maurus, there was an Interval of 60 years; from the Council to Pascasius, of one and Thirty years; and can we be­lieve, that this Doctrine of the Real Presence, which was declared in this Council, in the presence of the Popes Legats, and confirm'd by the Pope [Page 63]himself, should be one and Thirty years a getting over from Nice into the Latin Church? Or that so Learned a Man as Rabanus (and so esteem'd by our Discourser) should be ignorant sixty years af­ter this Council was held, That this Doctrine had been there declared? And so grosly mistake Pasca­sius for the first broacher of it? Truly for my part, altho' Rabanus had not explain'd himself concern­ing his Faith, according to those expressions before related, yet would I not easily have believ'd that he could have been so ignorant of the Transaction of this Council, or would have accus'd Pascasius of in­troducing so gross an Error into the Latin Church, when he knew that he writ no otherwise, than as had been Thirty years before, determin'd in a Gene­ral Council: It is plain therefore that Rabanus quar­rell'd with some Expressions of Pascasius, as import­ing the Erroneous sense before mention'd.

Our Discourser, being confident that he hath found out the date of Transubstantiation, falls a lit­tle foul upon Mr. Arnauld, because he cannot be­lieve that such a Doctrine should have been im­pos'd upon the Christian World, and yet so univer­sally receiv'd, except there had been some extraor­dinary, if not an universal Opposition; and indeed our Discourser (of all mankind) ought to have be­liev'd so too; for if every man should have had as ill an Opinion of it, as himself, its establishment had been impossible. But that he might find a fit parallel for Mr. Arnauld, he takes a long Jour­ney to Vienna, the rather (I suppose) that he might pay his respects to the King of France, and his Army as he return'd home again; for he tells us, That by the like Demonstration (as Mr. Arnauld's) one [Page 64]might prove that the Turk did not invade Christendom, because if he had, the most Christian King, who had the greatest Army in Christendom, in a readiness, would certainly have employed it against him.

Now our Discourser, without crossing the Seas, might have given as proper an instance, even from his own Doors; for who could easily imagine that the Real, Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body in the holy Sacrament, should have been be­liev'd and profest by the Church of England, in the days of King James the First; and yet, that in the Reign of King James the Second, the figurative Doctrine, in exclusion of the Real Presence, should be so firmly, and peaceably establisht among us, as that not so much as one single Church of Eng­land Man (at least that I have heard of) tho highly dignified by honourable and profitable Employ­ments, in, and by the said Church of England, should write one word in Vindication of their an­cient Church: Nor one small Pamphlet, to oppose the Innovation of these usurping Sacramentories? But these things, worthy Fathers, concern you more than me; and lest you should quite forget that there ever had been any such Doctrine profest by your Church of England, I shall humbly take the li­berty, by and by, to refresh your memories.

Much more might be said, to shew, from what loose Conjectures, our Discourser would prove the Innovation of the Doctrine of the Real Presence; and that it entred not into the Latin Church before the Eighth Century. But since I design nothing of Answer, more than to satisfie you (worthy Fathers) and my self, that I have not rushly rejected the Authority of so Learned a Person, as our Discour­ser [Page 65]seems to be, without good reason and due consi­deration, this which is already said, is (I suppose) sufficient for that purpose.

I come now to (what he calls) the Third pretend­ed Ground of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, that is, The infallible Authority of the present Church to make, and declare new Articles of Faith. First, there is a great difference between making an Arti­cle of Faith, and declaring and Article of Faith. I know no power upon Earth that can do the first; but certainly the second is within the Jurisdiction of the lawful Church Governours, or otherwise, Ge­neral Councils would be very insignificant Assem­blies. Now if Transubstantiation should prove to be no more than the true Faith concerning the bles­sed Sacrament, declar'd, or explain'd; then our Dis­courser hath no reason to quarrel with Church Au­thority, or fear any Inconveniences should hap­pen from the Exercise of such a Power.

First, I have sufficiently shewn (at least in my Opinion) that the Doctrine of the Real Presence, that is, of the Natural Body of Christ substantially, truly, and literally existing in the Sacrament (tho' not after a Corporal, and Natural manner,) to have been the constant Doctrine of the Catholic Church, from the Apostles to the great Council of Lateran; when, in the presence of the Ambassadors of the Greek, and Roman Emperours; as also of the Kings of Jerusalem, England, France, Spain, and Cyprus, this word Tran­substantiation was agreed upon by neer Thirteen Hundred Fathers, to be a proper Explicative Term of the Apostolical Doctrine; and belief of the Real Presence, or change of the Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; of this enough [Page 66]hath been said. But because our Discourser is pleas'd to call the Doctrine of the Real Presence barbarous, and impious, p. 35. I have thought fit to add to the rest, the Testimonies of Bishop Andrews, and the Learned Casaubon in the name of King James the First, and the Church of England, and some o­thers of the most Learned Fathers and Professors of the true English Church.

I will begin with Bishop Andrews, Resp. ad Apol. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. ‘The Cardinal (says he) cannot be ignorant, except wilfully, that Christ said, This is my Body; but not after this manner, This is my Body. We agree in the object, and differ only in the man­ner, Concerning the Hoc est, or this is. We firmly believe that it is: Concerning the after this manner (i.e. by the Bread Transubstantiated into the Bo­dy) of the manner how it is done, as by, or in, or with, or under, or through, there is not a word concerning it. We believe the true Presence, no less than your selves, but we dare not confident­ly define any thing concerning the manner of this Presence, nor are we over curious to enquire into it, &c.’ Again ib. c. 8. p. 194. Speaking of the Con­junction of Christs Body with the Symbols, he says, ‘There is that Conjunction between the visible Sa­crament, and the Invisible Thing of the Sacrament, as between the Divinity and Humanity of Christ; where, except you would savour of Eutychianism, the Humanity is not transubstantiated into the Di­vinity:’ And a little further, ‘The King hath esta­blisht it, that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, and to be truly there ador'd: And, we, with Ambrose adore the Flesh of Christ in the Mysteries.’ Some possibly may be ingenious enough to interpret all [Page 67]this to signifie a meer figurative Presence, as they have done many clear passages of the Fathers, but they must interpret for themselves, not for me.

But let us hear what Is. Casaubon writes to Car­dinal Perron by the Kings Command, concerning the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist, who saying, that the Contest was not about the Truth but only the Manner of the thing, returns this re­ply, p. 50. ‘His Majesty wonders, since your Emi­nence confesseth that you do not so solicitously require, that Transubstantiation should be believed, as that we should not doubt concerning the Truth of the Real Presence: That the Church of Eng­land should not long since have satisfied you in that particular, which hath so often profest to be­lieve it, in her public Writings.’ And then for Explication of the Doctrine of the Church of Eng­land, recites the fore-mention'd words of Bishop Andrews, Quod Cardinalem non latet. Come we next to Mr. Hooker. Eccl. Polit. l. 5. Sect. 67. p. 357. ‘Wherefore should the World continue still distra­cted, and rent with so manifold contentions, when there remaineth now no Controversie, saving only about the subject where Christ is? Nor doth any thing rest doubtful in this; but whether, when the Sacrament is administred, Christ be whole within Man only, or else his Body and Blood be also externally seated in the very Consecrated Ele­ments themselves.’ Again, p. 360. ‘All three Opi­nions do thus far accordin one: That these holy Mysteries received in due manner, do instrumen­tally both make us partakers of the Grace of that Body and Blood, which were given for the Life of the World; and besides also impart unto us, even [Page 68]in a true and real, tho' Mystical Manner, the very Person of our Lord himself, whole, perfect and entire.’

Next we offer the Testimony of Bishop Ridley quoted by Arch-Bishop Laud, set down in Fox, p. 1598. ‘You (says he, the Transubstantialists) and I agree in this, That in the Sacrament is the very true, and Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, even that which was born of the Virgin Mary, which ascend­ed into Heaven, which sits on the right hand of God the Father, &c. only we differ in Modo, in the way and manner of being there—’

Dr. Taylor, who hath written one of the last on this Subject, is very clear and particular concern­ing this Real Presence, Sect. 1. N. 11. p. 18. ‘It is enquired (says he) whether, when we say we be­lieve Christs Body to be really in the Sacrament, we mean, that Body, that Flesh, that was born of the Virgin Mary, that was Crucified, Dead, and Buried? I answer, I know none else that he had, or hath; there is but one Body of Christ, Natu­ral and Glorified: But he that faith that Body is Glorified which was Crucified, says it is the same Body, but not after the same manner; and so it is in the Sacrament, we eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ that was broken and poured forth, for there is no other Body, no other Blood of Christ: But tho' it is the same we eat, and drink, yet it is in another manner. And therefore when any of the Protestant Divines, or any of the Fa­thers deny, that Body which was born of the Vir­gin Mary, that was Crucified, to be eaten in the Sa­crament; As Bertram, as St. Heirom, as Clemens Alexand. expresly affirm; The meaning is easie, [Page 69]They intend that it is not eaten in a natural sense, &c. That Body which was Crucified, is not that Body that is eaten in the Sacrament, is true, if the inten­tion of the Proposition be to speak of the eating it, in the same manner of being: But that Body which was Crucified, the same Body we do eat (is also true) if the intention be to speak of the same thing, in several Manners of being, and Operating.’ Some also, may turn all this into a meer figurative sense, excluding the Corpus Domini, or Real Presence of Christs Natural Body in the Sacrament; and it may be they may think that this Doctor himself (from some other of his expressions) may have given them just reason so to do. I shall then only observe these two things; First, that concerning this Real Presence, a Catholic could not have written more justly, nor more plainly than the Doctor hath done in what hath been above recited: And Secondly, That if after all this, the Doctor should mean no more than a Spiritual efficacy or virtue, excluding the Corpus Domini, or Substantial Presence of Christs Natural Body, (tho' indeed after a Spiritual manner, as we confess;) then doth the Doctors Opinion seem as contradictory to it self, and as incomprehensible to me, as the great Mystery of Transubstantiation it self, or as if he had written in Characters totally un­intelligible.

But let us now hear Bishop Forbes de Eucharist. L. 2. c. 2. Sect. 9. ‘The sober Protestants doubt not but that Christ is to be ador'd in the Sacrament; for in the taking of the Eucharist, Christ is to be ador'd with Divine Worship, because his Living and Glo­rious Body is present, by an unexpressible Miracle, to the Worthy Receiver; and this Adoration, is not [Page 70]due or performed, to the Bread, or Wine, or the taking, or eating; but to the very Body of Christ immediately exhibited to us in the taking of the Eu­charist. And again. L. 3. c. 1. Sect. 10. The ho­ly Fathers often tell us,’ ‘That the very Body of Christ is Offer'd, and Sacrificed in the Eucharist, as appears by almost innumerable passages; but not that all the properties of a Sacrifice are properly, and really observ'd; but it is done by a Commemo­ration, and Representation of that, which being once offer'd in that only Sacrifice of the Cross, Christ our High Priest, did thereby consummate all other Sacrifices; and by pious Supplications, by which the Ministers of the Church (for the sake of the perpetual Oblation of that one Sacrifice, assi­sting in Heaven at the right hand of the Father, and present after an unexpressible manner on the holy Table) most humbly pray God the Father, that he would please to grant, that the Vertue and Grace of this perpetual Victim may become profitable and efficacious to his Church, for helping all the necessities, both of the body and Soul.’

The Archbishop of Spalato says much the same thing in his Rep. Eccles. L. 7. c. 11. Only he will not admit the Body of Christ to be corporally in the Bread, or under the Bread; but to be taken with the Bread; Sumitur cum Pane, Christi Corpus reale, illi communioni realiter praesens.

Mr. Thorndyke in his Epilogue to the Tragedy, L. 3. c. 3. Says thus, ‘That which I have already said, is e­nough to Evidence the Mystical, and Spiritual Pre­sence of the Flesh, and Blood of Christ in the Ele­ments, as the Sacrament of the Same, before any Man can suppose that Spiritual Presence of them to his [Page 71]Soul, which the eating and drinking Christs Flesh and Blood spiritually by living Faith importeth.’ And ibid. c. 2. where it follows, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords Body; ‘Unless a man discern the Lords Body where it is not, of necessi­ty it must there be, where it is discerned to be.’ And l. 3. c. 5. ‘Having maintained that the Ele­ments are really changed, from ordinary Bread and Wine, into the Body and Blood of Christ mysti­cally present as in a Sacrament, and that in vertue of the Consecration, not by the Faith of him that re­ceives; I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this Truth; namely, that the Elements so consecrated, are truly the Sa­crifice of Christ upon the Cross, in as much as the Body and Blood of Christ are contained in them, &c.’ And then, p. 46. he further collecteth thus: ‘And the Sacrifice of the Cross being necessarily propitiatory, and impetratory both, it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in as much as it is the same Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, is also both propitiatory and impetratory.’ You may consult Archbishop Laud, Bishop Montague, Bishop Bilson, and many other Learned Protestants, too long to be here recited for further satisfaction in this Matter.

Now, worthy Fathers, what would you advise me to do in this Case? would you have me follow the Judgments of these Learned and Pious Men, who wrote, not only their private Opinions, but, some of them, in the Name of the King, and whole Church of England? Or would you have me believe our Dis­courser, and some others of our late Sacramentary [Page 72]Pamphleters? If the first, then Transubstantiation will not appear so absurd, ridiculous, senseless and foolish a Doctrine as he hath styled it, which I hope to prove hereafter. If the second, then to use the Argument and Words of our Discourser, p. 30. Christanity would become a most uncertain and endless thing; for if we may thus change our Faith in such high and fundamental Doctrines as these are, I know not what security we have that we shall not in time change our Faith in other necessaries, and at length lose it all.

But to pin up the Basket (as we say) I shall con­clude with the Testimonies of Calvin and Beza, men to whom the Church of England is obliged for a great part of her Reformation. Calvin upon 1 Cor. 11.24. (Take, eat, this is my Body) says thus, Nor doth Christ only offer to us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection, but that Body it self in which he suffered and rose again. And again, Instit. l. 4. c. 17. Being made partakers of his Substance, we perceive also the vertue of it in the Communication of all good things. I know no other Substance he had spiritual or corporal, but that which was born of the Blessed Virgin. And of the Lutherans he says: If they so explain their meaning, that whilst the Bread is delivered there is annext to it the exhibition of his Body, because the Truth is insepa­rable from its Sign, I should not much oppose them.

And to strengthen this Assertion of Calvin, I shall add the Confession of Beza, and others of the same Sect, related by Hospinian Hist. Sacram. parte altera, p. 251. We confess that in the Cup of our Lord, not only all the Benefits of Christ, but the very substance of the Son of man; I say, that very Flesh, and that ve­ry Blood which he poured out for us, not only signifi­catively, [Page 73]symbolically, typically, or figuratively, as a remembrance of one absent; but truly and certainly represented, exhibited, and offer'd, not as naked Sym­bols, but as having (from God himself promising and offering) the very thing it self, truly and certainly joyned to them. Now the manner by which the thing it self, (i.e. the very Body, and the very Blood of our Lord) is joyned with the Symbols, we say it is Symbolical, or Sacramental; But we call it a Sacramental manner, not that it is only Figurative, but that it truly and cer­tainly represents under the Species of visible Things, that which God exhibits, and offers with the Symbols, that is (as I said before) the very Body and Blood of Christ. And then he tells us, That he differs with others concerning the manner of the Presence only, but for the very Thing and Presence it self he retains and defends it.

And now, Reverend Fathers, I must acquaint you, that whilst I was transcribing this very last Para­graph, I was inform'd, that there was an Answer, lately publisht, to Two Discourses printed at Oxford, which contained in them the Testimonies of these Learned Protestants before mentioned. I stopt my Pen, bought the Book, and read it over with great care. I shall not at present speak any thing more of it in particular, than what relates to this very Subject; but in general give me leave to tell you, that me thoughts this Answerer might very well have spar'd his Apology at last, p. 125. for not having insisted more largely upon some points, since I have not seen Twenty two Sheets written with so much magi­sterial Confidence, and (in my judgment) with so lit­tle Substance, even among all the Pamphlets that have come out on both sides, from the Death of the [Page 74]late King to this present day; but I leave the fur­ther examination to the Conclusion of this Dis­course.

First, we thank him for his plainness in delivering his opinion concerning the Real Presence (which is the subject Matter in Debate) and by which he tells us, is meant no more than invisible Power and Grace, in exclusion of the Real Presence of Christs Natural Body, even after a spiritual manner: Whether the Church of England will thank him for it, I know not: I am sure I was otherwise instructed, and be­lieved otherwise, whilst in your Communion.

But let us hear what he says to these Testimonies. He endeavours to elude their most plain indubitable sense, and grammatical construction, (even according to the common Reason and Understanding of all Mankind) these several ways.

First, he tell us that Becanus says, the Calvinists deny the Body and Blood of Christ, to be truly, really and substantially present in the Eucharist. Not (I hope) according to that sense, which our Answerer would make Calvin, and others give of those, and such like expressions. But sure our Answerer might have collected among his other Protestant Relics, an account of a rigider sort of Calvinists, who re­form'd even upon Calvin himself, and yet retain'd the name of Calvinists. But what doth Calvin himself say (as this Answerer recites out of Hospinian) Why, that Christ is our Food, because by the incomprehensible Vertue of the holy Spirit he inspires his Life into us, that he may communicate it to us, no less than the Vi­tal Juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree, &c. No less than so? then sure it is as substantial a Communication of Christ's Natural [Page 75]Body after a spiritual manner, as the Oxford Dis­courser in that place pretends to; for if Calvin and this Answerer do not believe that the Vital Juice of a Tree is a Substance, (tho' whilst a Juice, more spi­ritual) and that the very Substance of the Tree, is substantially nourished and increased thereby; I fear they will both prove as bad Philosophers as Divines.

But before I proceed any further, I must inform, or mind our Answerer, that tho' Catholics believe Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament, yet they deny it to be there bodily, i.e. Modo Corporeo; and tho' his Flesh be there, yet not Fleshly; nor yet doth his Natural Body leave the highest Heavens: These premised (because we shall have occasion to make these distinctions) I come to next to Beza.

His words (as recited by the Answerer) are these: We do not say, that in the Eucharist there is only a Commemoration of the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ; nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the Fruits of his Death and Passion; but we joyn the Ground with the Fruits, affirming with St. Paul, that the Bread which by God's appointment we break, is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us; the Cup which we drink, the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us; and that, in the very same Substance, which he received in the Womb of the Virgin, and which he carried up with him into the Heavens. And afterwards: For this honor we al­low to God, that tho' the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven, and not elsewhere, and we on Earth, and not elsewhere; yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood, after a spiritual manner (i.e. modo spiri­tuali) [Page 76] and by the means of Faith. P. 50. I am afraid (Fa­thers) this Answerer plays booty with you; for if this be a confutation of what was before alledged from Beza, I profess I shall never quarrel with him about it, nor desire any other hand than Beza's (even in this very passage) to express my Belief of the Real Presence of Christ's Natural Body in the Sacrament. What a strange Answerer is this? sure he thinks, be­cause Catholics submit their Sense and Reason in some things to Divine Revelation, and the Autho­rity of the Church, therefore they have not Reason enough to judge in other Cases, that three and one make four, as well as two and two.

Next, he brings in Cranmer and Ridley (when he was among his Geneva Brethren, I suppose) and he might as well have nam'd himself, and his Eminent Discourser, against Transubstantiation: And what if these two first were of the same opinion concerning the Real Presence with these two last? It only proves, that one at London contradicted himself at Geneva; and the other, Men ten times more learned than him­self. Our Answerer (that he may take breath) be­fore he comes to our English Divines above-named (for I perceive he finds that he is like to have a tough piece of work on't) charges the Oxford Au­thor with disingenuity, chiefly in favour of Doctor Burnets History of the Reformation. Alas, I am apt to believe (tho' I know neither the Discourser nor this Answerer, not so much as by Name, but only by their Works) I am apt (I say) to believe, that this Discourser is much better acquainted with Church History, than the Doctor, and applies it with much more Sincerity and Truth, than he hath done. I confess (were I worthy to advise) I should counsel [Page 77]this Answerer to flesh himself first upon some Au­thors of a lower Classis, for I doubt he is here over­match'd, and hath got (as we say) a Bear by the Tooth: What the Learned Historian means by the Wisdom of that time, P. 58. in leaving a liberty for different specu­lations, as to the manner of the Presence; I cannot understand; except that they did in that time gene­rally believe the Real Presence (as hath been before exprest) but would not certainly determine the man­ner, that is (as Bishop Andrews hath said before) whether it was per, or in, or cum, or sub, or trans; but if there be no such Real Presence in any manner, I know not what this Liberty of Speculations signifies, as to the manner, when the thing is not really after any manner; and if not (as our Answerer seems all along to affirm) this then might indeed be great Wisdom, or humane Policy, not too rudely to choke the ten­der Ears of their late establisht Reformation: But how it can consist with true Piety, and a Church pretending to reform Errors, we shall best find by this consideration.

If Men had liberty to believe that Christ was real­ly present after any manner, it follows necessarily, that Christ was adorable there, where he was so present. But if the Church, in its Wisdom, did certainly know, that Christ was not really present after any Manner; then the Church, in its Wisdom, gave Men liberty to be Idolaters; for our Answerer hath been pleas'd to deliver us his Opinion, from Do­ctor Taylor, p. 69. who there says, That to give Divine worship to a Non Ens, must needs be Idolatry. For Idolum nihil est in mundo, saith St. Paul, and Christ as present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament is a Non Ens, for it is not true, there is no such thing; he is there [Page 78]by his Diviner Power and Blessing, &c. but for any other presence, it is Idolum. And that the practice of the Learneder part of the Church of England, nay, of the whole Church of England it self (if we will believe the Articles of Henry the Eighth, in the beginning of the Reformation, or King James in the strength of the Reformation) was accordingly Idolatrous; I am most abundantly satisfied; until some stronger Pen than our Answerers, shall fully confute, what is already extant to that purpose. In the mean time (leaving the Matter of Fact to the Doctors Conscience) we will follow our An­swerer.

He is come now to Bishop Jewel, who tells us, p. 60. That Christs Body and Blood, indeed, and verily is given unto us; that we verily eat it, that we verily drink it, &c. yet we say not either that the substance of Bread and Wine is done away, (that is, Transubstantia­tion, which is not our Dispute) or that Christ's Body is let down from Heaven, or made really or fleshly present in the Sacrament: If by really he means fleshly, I subscribe to all this (as to the Real Presence.) He goes on: That spiritually (i. e. modo spirituali), and with the mouth of our Faith, we eat the Body of Christ, and drink his Blood, even as verily as his Body was ve­rily broken, and his Blood verily shed upon the Cross. If the Bishop was not an Eutychian, then certain­ly his Body was verily, that is, substantially and truly broken upon the Cross. Thus far then, we punctually agree: But the Bishop explains himself: The Bread (he tells us) is an earthly thing, and there­fore a Figure, as Baptism in Water is also a Figure. 'Tis confest: Now lest we should think that by this Figure the Bishop intended to exclude the sub­stance; [Page 79]he adds immediately, But the Body of Christ, that thereby is represented, and is there offer'd to our Faith (most true) is the thing (i. e. the Body of Christ) it self, and not the Figure. As much of this as the An­swerer pleases, we have reason to be thankful to him for it.

But he now comes to Answer for the venerable Mr. Hooker. You have heard what hath been offer'd from the Discourser. The Answerer tells us from Mr. Hooker p. 61. That the parts of the Sacrament are the Body and Blood of Christ, because they are causes in­strumental, upon the receipt whereof the participation of his Body and Blood ensueth: And that the Real Presence of Christs most blessed Body and Blood, is not therefore to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament: All this is most consistent with the Protestant Notion of the Real Presence here contended for.

Next Bishop Andrews comes upon the Stage; and first the Answerer tells us (as from himself only) that this Bishop insinuates, P. 62. That the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, was much the same as in Baptism; the very Allusion which the Holy Fathers were wont to make, to express his Presence by, in this holy Sacrament. That the Bishop and the Holy Fathers might mean, that Christ is present in the Sacrament, as in Baptism, Catholics do not deny; for they also constantly affirm the same thing, as much as either: But if our Answerer pretends to perswade us, that either the Bishop, or Fathers, or Catholics, mean him on­ly so present, as to exclude the presence also of his natural Body in the Sacrament; that remains to be prov'd, which hath not been done by himself, nor any Man yet, that I have met with; let him [Page 80]therefore learn to understand the Catholic Faith, before he writes such magisterial Impertinences a­gainst it: But let us hear the Bishop himself; who, telling us, That the Sacrament of Christs Body is not meant of his glorified Body, but of his Body when it was Offer'd, Rent, and Slain, and Sacrificed for us; he goes on, We are (says he) in this action, not only carried up to Christ (sursum corda); but we are also carried back to Christ, as he was at the very instant, and in the very act of his offering. So, and no otherwise doth this Text teach: So, and no otherwise do we repre­sent him. By the Incomprehensible power of his Eter­nal Spirit, not he alone, but he, as at the very act of his Offering is made present to us, and we incorporate into his death and invested in the benefits of it. Our Answerer (to do him Justice) is modest enough in this place to say, he thinks the Real Presence cannot be otherwise meant than, either figuratively in the Elements, or Spiritually, in the Souls of those who worthily receive him: But I think, that had this Learned Bishop believed the manner (as they call it) of the Real Presence, Transubstantiation, No man could have written more Orthodoxly of it, than this Bishop here hath done. P. 64. The Answerer in­cludes the Opinions of Casaubon and the Archbishop of Spalato, in the sense of this passage of Bishop Andrews; but why not in that produc'd by the Dis­courser? However if it will gratifie him, I willingly so accept them. He makes Archbishop Laud to sing much after the same Tune: He says little to Bi­shop Hall, Montague, and Bilson, because he hath not their works by him; but how he will excuse their pacific design as he calls it, we shall consider by and by. Bi­shop Forbe's Charitable undertaking, has made him too [Page 81]favourable to many corruptions of the Church of Rome, p. 65.

And now he tells us but of two of all the Di­vines left to prove this new Fancy, which the Dis­courser would set up for the Doctrine of the Church of England; one, is Doctor Taylor, whom he makes say a great deal more, than I am willing to Tran­scribe, for I am very weary of the Employment; and besides, all signifies no more (at most) than to prove Doctor Taylor contradicts himself; or is o­therwise (as I hinted before) the most unintelligi­ble Writer that ever put Pen to Paper: The truth to me seems to be this; the Doctor in some places meant very plainly that which he as plainly wrote; in others that he was over cautious (considering the times, and circumstances in which he liv'd) to write more plainly that which he truly meant. However, upon the Ballance of the whole, I take him to have been much rather a Defender, than an Opposer of the Real Presence we speak of. And now we are got to Mr. Thorndyke, where I cannot but smile at the confidence of our Answerer, who is not asham'd to say (notwithstanding his own pre­tended confutation is a strong confirmation of that Real Presence asserted by the Discourser;) that he fears his Cause will be desperate except Mr. P. 69. Thorn­dyke can support it. Well, what says Mr. Thorn­dyke? The Answerer tells us, first of a certain An­swer to one T. G. in which he seems to say, That if the Church (I suppose he means the English Church) did ever pray the Flesh and Blood might be sub­stituted instead of the Elements, under the Accidents of them (which is plain Transubstantiation) then he is con­tented to call this the Sacramental Presence of them in the [Page 82]Eucharist: What is this to the purpose? He then tells us, P. 70. that Mr. Thorndyke had a particular Notion in this Matter, and a long Story, in which he seems to deny Transubstantiation: We do not affirm it of him. And at last a great way off in p. 90. he puts Bishop Forbes and the Archbishop of Spalato into a Sack together, and makes them as errand Knaves in a reconciling way, as his Protestant Minister, whom just before he mentions; but with this difference, the Prote­stant Minister, only dissembled his own Opinion, that is, conceal'd it; but these two great Men have strenuously defended the Real Presence; and, not by consequence, but positively, an Adoration due; when as our Answerer would perswade us that they did not believe the Real Presence; but did believe the Adoration of it to be Idolatry. That a paci­fic design, and a charitable undertaking might en­gage some Men to relax somewhat of Ceremonies, or Discipline, I neither wonder at, nor censure; but that there should be any justifiable cause to oblige Men wit­tingly and willingly to profess and teach Idolatry, is, I confess, beyond my understanding. I shrewdly suspect that our Answerer, from his rare Historical Relicts, may have imbib'd some of Monsieur De Marolle's Prin­ciples, and from thence think damnable Hypocrisie in Religion, no great Sin; otherwise I cannot imagine how, with Charity, he can suppose it in these two great Men, who (I am perswaded) were they alive, would spit in his Face for so scandalous an Imputati­on, unworthy either of a Christian, or a Gentleman.

His last stroke, P. 90. is at the Learned Mr. Thorndyke, whom he leaves to shift for himself, with this Brand upon him, as deep as he can make it, That his Notion of the Real Presence, was widely different [Page 83]both from theirs, and ours, (and by consequence from the Truth); but give me leave to tell you Sir, had you been worthy to have carried Mr. Thorndykes Papers after him (at least as far as I may judge by these twenty two Sheets) you would have writ much less, and yet much more to the purpose.

Thus, Reverend Fathers, I have given you a Tast of this fresh Author, I fear it hath not proved a boccone Saporito; but it was necessary in Vindication of my Testimonies, and by Consequence, of that Learned Oxford Discourser, upon whose Authority I produc't them. Begging your pardon then for this Digression, I return to my first Discourser.

If it be true, that the Doctrine of the Real Pre­sence, in a literal Sense, was believed from the Pri­mitive Times to this great Council of Lateran; let us consider whether this Council exceeded its just Authority, or introduc't any Erroneous Doctrine into the Christian Church: For the clearer under­standing of this Matter, we are to note, that one Be­rengarius about the year 1060. (besides other Er­rors) maintain'd, that the Eucharist was not truly and Substantially the Body and Blood of Christ, but only a Figure and Shadow of them; and that the Bread and Wine upon the Altar, were not Sub­stantially converted into the real Flesh and Blood of Christ, by the Mystery of holy Prayer, and the words of our Redeemer. Upon this; several Lear­ned Men employed their Pens against this new and strange false Doctrine, as Adelmannus Bishop of Brixia, formerly Schoolfellow of Berengarius; Hugo Lingonensis, Epis. Durandus, before-mention'd; Lant­francus, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, who, among other things, hath these words, This Faith [Page 84](speaking of the Real Presence according to the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation) the Church (which being spread over the whole World, is call'd Catholic) now holds, and hath held from the Primitive Times. But you (saith be to Berengarius) believe that the Bread and Wine of our Lords Table, remain unchanged, as to their Sub­stance after Consecration, &c. If this be true, which you believe and maintain concerning the Body of Christ; then that is false which is believed and taught of it by the Church over the whole World; for as many as own the name of Christians, and are really such, do profess, that, in the Sacrament they receive, the true Flesh of Christ, and his true Blood; the same, which he took of the Virgin. Most wonderfully strange, that so absurd a Doctrine should have spread so universally in so short a time as our Discourser is pleas'd to allow it. Guitmundus, Rupertus, Algerus, and other Learned Men writ a­gainst him to the same effect: And moreover, this his Doctrine was condemn'd as false, and himself as an Innovator, in no less than Eight Councils and Synods before that of Lateran; which miserable Sy­nods (as the Answerer proudly calls them) may be supposed to have had as much Learning, and Ho­nesty, and I am sure, much more Authority, than Twenty two such Sheets as his, tho' stampt with an Imprimatur before them.

Now let us observe; This Monstrous, Absurd, Bar­barous, and Impious Doctrine of Transubstantiation (as our Discourser calls it) in somewhat more than two Hundred years, was so throughly establisht all over the Christian World; that these Learned Au­thors, and the Fathers of these Eight Councils, as­sembled in several Kingdoms, were so totally igno­rant, that their own Doctrine had its date from the [Page 85]Council of Nice, or that the Opinion of Berenga­rius had been ever before publickly profest, that they make no scruple of alledging, the Antiquity, Ʋniver­sality, and Constant Practice of their own Doctrine, as a most convincing and unanswerable Argument a­gainst his; Interroga Graecos, Armenios, (says Lant­franc) seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque homines, uno ore hanc fidem (i. e. Transubst.) se testabuntur habere.

I profess, that if after this my most serious, and im­partial Enquiry concerning the Belief of the Ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church touching the Real Presence, it should possibly be true, that they all, or generally, agreed with our Discourser, and his figu­rative Interpretation, excluding the Substance; I would lay aside all my Books, and conclude, once for all, That even the Doctrine of Transubstantia­tion it self, is more easie and rational, than the true sense of the Fathers concerning it, intelligible, or at­tainable. And tho I will not say with the Booksellers Wife at Paris, That if the Primitive Fathers be­liev'd Transubstantiation, She would no longer be­lieve Christianity; yet I may say, if they did believe it, and were mistaken, a Christians Faith, any fur­ther than it may be productive of good Works, is the most indifferent thing in the World.

Our Discourser tells us of one John Scotus, and Ratramnus, and I know not who, writing I know not what, against this Doctrine of the Real Presence, at least according to his Interpretation (tho I know many Catholics understand some of them in a very Orthodox sense): But to me it seems as impertinent to bring two or three private persons, advancing their private Opinions, against the Concurrent Testi­monies of all Authors, prior, present, and others [Page 86](since they wrote) posterior to them; besides the Definitions and Decrees of General Councils; as it would be among us, to produce the Authorities of John Milton, and Junius Brutus, to prove that it was lawful among the Jews for the People, by their own Supream Power, to murder their Kings; and that in all Governments, the People have the same Sove­reign Authority, to judge, and punish, even by Death, their lawful hereditary Kings, and Gover­nours, if they shall so think fit.

Now, having the History of the Bible, as well as they, together with the express Command of God, and constant Testimony and Practice of Learned Men through all Ages, and publick Laws, with Acts of Parliament to the contrary; these Men may write till their Hands, and Hearts ake (to use out Dis­courser's expression) before they shall perswade me to renounce the strongest Evidence imaginable, in favour of their private Sentiments. Whether our Discourser be of my mind, or not, I cannot tell; but if he be, I see no greater reason to believe John Scotus than John Milton.

Come we now to the Church Authority, which so much offends him. Our indulgent Mother (accord­ing to her favourable Discipline) permitted the Do­ctrine of Transubstantiation (as she had done for many years, that of the Consubstantiality) to pass upward of Twelve Hundred years, without any other judi­cial determination of the Modus (as they call it) than such as had been Originally planted in the hearts and minds of the Faithful, and cultivated in every Age, by Pious and Learned Men, in their Sermons, Catechisms, and other Discourses, as occasion hap­ned. But Berengarius (a Man fond of his own No­tions, [Page 87]and valuing himself much upon his own Reason) resolved to set up for a new Light of the Church; and (among other Errors) taught the figurative acceptation of the Words of Consecra­tion, as hath been before related.

Upon this, he was admonisht by several Pious and Learned Catholics, to retract betimes so new and pernicious a Heresie. But the Arguments of sense, procuring him a party among the Vulgar, he prosecuted his design with great vigor, until, at last, he was taken notice of by the Supream Church-Governors; and in a Council at Rome, An. Dom. 1050. his Doctrine was condemn'd, and himself excommunicated: At length, having several times ab­jur'd this his Heresie, and as often return'd to his Vomit, he burnt the Book of Scotus, from whence he confest to have suckt part of his Poyson; renounc'd (for the last time) with all Sincerity, his former Opinions; and spending the residue of his days in Piety and Devotion, died in the Unity of the Ro­man Catholic Church, full of sorrow and repen­tance, Jan. 6. An. Dom. 1088. as may be seen in Membranis Taureacens. in Chronic. Clarii Floriacens. Monach. S. Petri vivi. in Will. of Malmesbury, l. 3. de gestis Reg. Angl. In Baldrico Burgaliensi Abbate, and in the Manuscript B. Martini Turonensis.

Notwithstanding all this, the Seeds of Heresie thus sown, were not easily rooted out: And be­sides, some Catholics themselves (taking occasion from this Heresie) had writ-concerning this great Mystery, according as they best apprenended it; But sometimes the obscurity of their Expressions, the double sense which they admitted, and not clearly shewing what they themselves believed (Mis­fortunes [Page 88]which happen to most men, who write con­cerning such high Mysteries without Authority) the Governours of the Church thought fit (as the best means to obviate these Inconveniences) to call a General Council under Pope Innocent the Third, which was the greatest that ever had been since the Apostles; and therein, it was determined by near 1300 Fathers, that (according to the Doctrine of the most Ancient and Holy Fathers, Tradition of the Church, and former Councils) the Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine, after Consecration, into the Substance of the Natural Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, the Accidents of Bread and Wine only remaining, should thenceforward be call'd Transubstantiation; which had been sufficiently before exprest and explain'd, by that wonderful Transmutation, and Transelementation asserted by the Fathers. This our Discourser believes (with Scotus) to have been the necessary consequence of the Council of Lateran, p. 21. and so do I too: Tho' in truth this explicative Term was (I think) more particularly establisht (as here exprest) in the Coun­cil of Trent.

Now, to me, the Church seems so far from be­ing worthy of blame, for decreeing what appears almost the necessary consequence of the real Pre­sence (I mean) Transubstantiation, that (as the Case and Circumstances then stood) the Church had been very negligent, if she had not so decreed. For it being always believ'd (which I think is al­so fully proved) That the Elements of Bread and Wine, after Consecration, were most wonderfully, and by the Omnipotence of God converted into the Body and Blood of Christ; It is clear then, [Page 89]that either the Accidents, or the Substance of Bread and Wine must be changed into the Substance of the Body of Christ; But the Accidents are not so changed, therefore the Substance.

Besides, the Substance of the Body of Christ is in the Blessed Sacrament, either with the Substance of Bread, or without the Substance of Bread. If the first, then Catholics, and our Discourser are in the wrong. If the last, then Luther, and our Dis­courser are in the wrong: So which way our Discourser should happen to be in the right, I can­not comprehend, except Zuinglius should have been more than Athanasius, and our Discourser (the Disciple of Zuinglius) greater than St. Andrew the Apostle of our Lord. Now besides that the choice is easie in this Case, even from the Authority of one side, greater than of the other; yet whosoever shall endeavour to reconcile the Real Presence, with the Doctrine of Consubstantiation, or Impa­nation, will find harder difficulties in these, than of that of Transubstantiation, so much condemn'd. The Authorities therefore which he brings from Duran­dus, Erasmus, Tonstal, and some others, to shew that before this Council of Lateran, Men were at liberty concerning the modus, or manner of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament, might have been some kind of Argument for a Lutheran; But how our Discourser becomes concerned in it, I see not; since quite through his Discourse, and more particu­larly in p. 35. he hath (with scorn) excluded Both.

Our Discourser hath yet one Argument relating to the time, when he supposeth this Doctrine of Transubstantiation to have come into the World, [Page 90]which is very remarkable. He tells us, That the Iconomachi (or opposers of Images) were very zea­lous against the Reverence due to them, in the Sy­nod of Constantinople, about the year 750, arguing, That our Lord having left us no other Image of him­self, but the Sacrament, in which the Substance of the Bread, is the Image of his Body, we ought to make no other Image of our Lord; But in the year 787. in the Second Council of Nice these scrupulous Greeks, in thirty seven years time, were grown so hardy in their Faith, and so extreamly fond of this new Do­ctrine, concerning the Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, that they swallow'd it imme­diately, and from that time were very solicitous and careful to admonish us, that the Eucharist is not the Figure or Image of the Body of our Lord, but his true Body, as appears from the seventh Synod; and he brings Bellarmin to vouch for him, p. 21, 22.

Here we see these nice Greeks, who were so very exact and curious in smaller Matters, were content­ed to make so great a passage in one Council, as, from the Figure of Christ in the Sacrament, to ad­mit of his Substance; nay, and were so pleased with it, that from thence, and that time they took care to admonish us concerning it. But the squeamish Latins (notwithstanding the Greeks had advanc'd so far in one single Council) were little less than three hundred years according to our Discoursers computation, licking this mishapen Monster of Transub­stantiation (such is the Elegancy of his Style) into that Form, in which it is now setled in the Church of Rome. Indeed he hath been over generous to the Latins, in allowing them so considerable a time to relish and digest only the Mode of a thing, when [Page 91]the easse Greeks at one sitting had dispatcht the thing it self, in which (according to our Discoursers Opinion) the great Barbarousness and Impiety con­sists. For (says he) The Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing is not in truth extenuated, but only the ap­pearance of it, by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine; for the thing, they acknowledge, is really done, and they believe, that they verily eat and drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ. In truth, the Latins are obliged to him in confessing them to have been so extream cautious about the lesser part; but how he will come off with the Greeks, for being so rash and inconsiderate about the greater and princi­pal part, must be his care, if he pleaseth.

I am perswaded, had Bellarmin said this, to have proved that the Greeks did then, and not till then, receive the Doctrine of the Real Presence; Our Dis­courser, could he make any advantage of it (with good Reason) would have cast it out, as the most improbable, and ridiculous conjecture, in the World: And yet here, because he thinks it may help to fa­vour his false account, he produceth it with as much gravity, as if he knew Catholics had less sense to see a blot, than himself, rashness to make one.

I come now to his fourth pretended Ground of this Doctrine, that is, The necessity of such a Change in the Sacrament, to the Comfort and Benefit of those who receive it, p. 30. To this, my Answer at present, is very short. If I be satisfied, that our Saviour com­manded the thing, I am convinc'd there was a good Reason for it, without over-curiously examining what, or why, in this Case, more than why he cured not those who touched the Hem of his Garment, with­out that Ceremony; or the blind; with out clay and [Page 92]spittle: And yet the Fathers, and many late Authors, will furnish those who are more inquisitive, with many very good Reasons, why this Change in the Sacrament, is more advantageous to the worthy Receiver, than the Figure would be, and I shall say somewhat of it my self, hereafter.

The last pretended Ground of this Doctrine, is (as he tells us) to magnifie the Power of the Priest, in being able to work so great a Miracle. Indeed, if the great Council of Lateran, did make this a Ground of introducing Transubstantiation, never did 1200 Learned Men take wronger Measures; For notwithstanding a due respect be generally paid by all good Catholics to Priests (as their Character requires) yet I will be judged by all such as have travell'd abroad, Whether a Presbyterian Parson in his Conventicle, or a London Minister in his Parish, or a Calvinist Predicator in Amsterdam, who make nothing of the Sacrament; Do not yet pretend (both Males and Females) to have as much respect paid them, as ere a Priest, of equal quality, in France, Italy or Spain, who nevertheless are the Instruments by which this unexpressible Change is made? But our Discourser labours hard here, to prove that this Change is no Miracle to Sense; But, had he advis'd with any Catholic, he might have spar'd his pains, for I will engage they would have confest it to him at the first word.

Our Discourser having hitherto (with great suc­cess) destroy'd the Doctrine of Transubstantiation; yet (to make sure work) he kills it again with four deadly Objections drawn from the infinite scan­dal of this Doctrine to the Christian Religion; As, 1. The Stupidity. 2. The Real Barbarousness of this [Page 93]Doctrine, supposing it be true. 3. The bloody Con­sequences. And, 4. The danger of Idolatry, if it be not true, p. 33.

To prove the Stupidity of this Doctrine, our Dis­courser produceth two Learned Heathens, Tully and Averroes, wondring that any Men should be so stu­pid, as to pretend to eat their God. Now, that there is Stupidity in the Case, is most certain; But, whether it be in the Doctrine; Or in Tully and Averroes; Or in our Discourser, who brings two Heathens Testimonies against a Mystery of the Chri­stian Religion, I leave to Judgment. I suppose he may have heard of such an Epistle, as the first of St. Paul to the Corinthians, I would recommend to him the first Chapter, and particularly, Vers. 18.19, 20. where it is written, For the preaching of the Cross is to them that perish, foolishness. Where is the wise, where is the scribe, where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? And vers. 27 God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise. Now whether Averroes, and our Discourser were the Wise Men, or the Foolish, here intended, I must leave again to Judgment.

But I have not yet done with Averroes, for his words cited by our Discourser, p. 34. are very ob­serveable. I have travel'd (says he) over the world, and have found divers Sects; but so sottish a Sect, or Law, I never found, as is the Sect of the Christians, be­cause with their own Teeth, they devour the God whom they worship. What ill luck it was, that this great Philosopher should not have met with the Dis­ciples of Rabanus Maurus, or some One other of our Discoursers Predecessors in Opinion, at least, in [Page 94]some Corner of the World, who might have con­vinc'd him of his mistake, and reconcil'd him a little better to the Christian Religion! But not to have found one Christian over the whole World (neer six Hundred years since, after Rabanus had writ against Pascasius) less sottish than the rest; will serve (at least) to prove a Sottishness also in this Case; but whether in those Christians, or, in our pre­sent Discourser (who hath brought so strong a Te­stimony, to prove the Universality of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, even of so learned a Man, who had travell'd all the World over) I must once more leave to Judgment.

But sure I am, from Averroes his own Works, and the knowledge which he had of that vast difference between Bodies in their Natural, Gross, and Earthly Composition; and the pure Substances of these Bo­dies separated from their foeces, or accidents, by cor­ruption, or putrefaction, distillations, digestions, and sublimations, until they become Essences, or pure Prin­ciples; I say, from his Experimental Philosophy of Common Bodies thus alter'd, and sublimated, he would have made no difficulty to have solv'd most of our Discoursers absurdities concerning this Doctrine of Transubstantiation; and yet there is no Compa­rison between these Common Bodies, tho never so purely defoecated, and exalted, which can bear any proportion with the glorified Body of our Saviour united with his Divinity: So that I am verily per­swaded, had Averroes been satisfied concerning the other Mysteries of Christian Religion, and rightly inform'd concerning the Doctrine of Transubstan­tiation, he would have been as good a Christian in that Point, as Pope Innocent 3d. or Pius 4th.

But our Discourser tells us; that the stupidity of this Doctrine breeds Atheists and Infidels: Even so the warmth of the Sun breeds Maggots, and many other Insucts, but the Matter must be first disposed to Corruption. Now altho the Sun be much hot­ter in France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy, than in Eng­land, or in Holland, yet I appeal to all Men who have any knowledge of those Kingdoms, whether there be not as many reputed Atheists in these two last Governments, where the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation is not so publickly, nor generally profest, as in any other part of the Christian World propor­tionably where it is? And what indeed have been the true parents of Atheism, and Infidelity, but the devilish pride of Sense and Reason, set up against the blessed Humility of Faith and Obedience? But our Dis­courser in this Page begins to be very seriously idle, and impertinent; out of some respect therefore to himself, we will pass it over, and come to p. 35. where he most grievously accuseth this Sacrament of Barbarousness, upon the Supposition of the truth of this Doctrine: But sure if this Doctrine be true, then it is impossible that it should be barbarous, ex­cept our Saviour himself, who commanded it, and is there voluntarily present in it, should have insti­tuted a barbarous Sacrament; which, whether our Discourser can believe, I know not; but sure I am, if the Doctrine be not true, it cannot be barbarous to eat him in imagination only, except our Discour­sers opinion be also barbarous. He tells us, 'tis very unworthily done to our friend, and barbarous to feast upon his Flesh and Blood. I am glad to find our Dis­courser capable of so much Tenderness: But he might have read of very many Provinces in the [Page 96] East, and West Indies, who count it their greatest glory, to eat their best deceased Friends, perswad­ing themselves, that thereby, they do (as it were) regenerate, or reanimate those to whom they were first obliged for their own lives, by transforming them thus into their own Nature, and Substance. With indignation therefore they reproach our manner of Burials as most inhumane. O pauvre Gens (saith my Author) comment laissez vous manger cette chair pre­cieuse aux Sales vers de la terre? Et que monument plus digne lui pouvez vous donner, que celuy de vos pro­pres entrailles? And upon this consideration it was, that the renowned Artemise drank the Ashes of her dear departed Husband. The Barbarousness there­fore objected by our Discourser (suppose this eating were according to his false Conceptions) proceeds from the narrowness of his own thoughts, who would judge, and measure the Civility and Reason of the whole World, according to the Customs (it may be) of his own little Province.

But, tho no Catholic thus pretended to eat the Body and Blood of Christ (for that they all know he is immortal, and uncapable of Death, or Suffering, or Corruption, or any other indignities) yet our Dis­courser will needs compare this eating in the holy Sacrament, to the violent hacking and slashing of our living Friends, and carnally devouring their raw Flesh, like the worst of Cannibals: What an odious and disproportionate Comparison hath he made, on purpose to deceive his Friends, and re­vile, and scandalize those, whom he supposes, his Enemies?

But before I quit this Page, I must pay my re­spects to one main Demonstration of his, which [Page 97](he says) is worth a thousand; and it is this; That the Heathens objected no such Custom to the Christians, therefore no such Doctrine believed. Now this piece of Malice might have past undisturb'd, with many others which I have not taken notice of, had he not had the confidence (I will not use his own expres­sion, Impudence) to have provok't an Answer by pro­ducing the half Testimony of Justin Martyr in p. 11. to countenance his own Error; where, that very Father, in that very place, is making an Apolo­gy to the Heathen Emperor Antoninus, and is so far from mincing the Matter, or explaining it by a figura­tive Sense, That he there tells the Emperor, We are taught that the Food (speaking of the Sacrament) being Consecrated by the Prayer of the Word. Is the Flesh and Blood of Christ Jesus himself Incarnate. Illius incarnati Jesu, & Carnem, & Sanguinem esse, e­docti sumus. Apol. 2. It is most prodigiously strange, and inexcusable in this holy Father, to have us'd this scandalous Metaphor to a Heathen Emperor (which they cautiously exprest to the Christian Catechumens) if he intended nothing more than a figurative Sense: For I will refer my self to any Man, whether it had not been more prudent, and (it may be) pious, to have softned and moderated the expression to a Heathen, tho the Father had truly believed the Real Presence, than thus to have expos'd himself, and laid an unne­cessary stumbling-block before the Emperor, if in­deed he did not believe it.

But our Discourser (not satisfied with this) tells us a Story p. 12. That the Heathen Greeks, having taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni, urg'd them by violence to tell them some Secrets of the Christi­ans; who confest, That they had heard from their Ma­sters, [Page 98]that the Divine Communion was the (Body and Blood of Christ; and, that they (i. e. the Catechu­meni) thinking that it was really Flesh and Blood de­clar'd as much to the Greeks. And yet our Discour­ser in p. 35. will not admit, that any such thing was ever objected by the Heathens to the Christians, al­tho' by violence the Christians themselves confest it. What a bold, conceited Discourser is this who whilst he manifestly confutes himself, thinks his Adversaries so impotent, as not only, not to have any defensive Arms of their own, but also not to dare to make use of his, when he so fairly offers them against his own false Arguments? His mis [...] application of the whole Story, from the Answer of Blandina (which he strangely mistakes) is very silly; For what Catholics ever thought that the Com­munion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, was a breach of their Fast? If any had, by mistake, some such thoughts (as Tertullian seems to insinuate) the breach of their Fast must be imputed to the receipt of the Symbols, or Acci­dents of Bread and Wine, which indeed may nou­rish; but not to the Body and Blood of Christ.

Now had not our Discourser thus demonstrably answered himself, and saved us thereby a further la­bour, I could have recommended him to S [...]. Greg. Nazian. St. Augustin, and several others of the Fa­thers, where he would have found these Objections made to the Christians, and their Answers to them, much after the manner of Justin Martyr. And no­thing is told us more plainly in the Histories of those times, than, that the Heathens, having a confused Notion of the great Mystery of the Sacrament, did commonly accuse the Christians of eating Mans [Page 99]Flesh, or young Children, or sometimes their God. Sure our Discourser intended to prevent us from using this Argument our selves, for this Objection of the Heathens hath ever been accounted a kind of De­monstration of the Antiquity of our Doctrine.

His third Objection is, from the bloody Conse­quences of this Doctrine: But he gives us no parti­cular instances, and he doth well to grow more wise [...] last; for he hath been very unlucky in them: Since therefore he is pleased only to affirm in gene­ral, I am contented to deny in general, and so we are upon even ground.

His last Objection is, from the danger of Idolatry, if this Doctrine be not true; and I add, the danger of our Discoursers most execrable Blasphemies if this Doctrine be true; let us therefore both consider se­riously of it, since the danger on both sides is very great: However we have the Authorities of many Learned Church of England Men (as may be seen at large in the Oxford Discourser) who have acquitted us of Idolatry. Whilst our Discourser stands almost single, in the scurrilous bitterness of his rude and un­manly expressions.

And here I thought our Discourser would have ended his dire wrath against Transubstantiation; but to be yet more secure (and with good Reason too) that it may never rise up in Judgment against him; he comes back again, and in p. 37. gives it four wounds more for the absurdity of its Doctrine; and these are performed by way of Four very consi­derable Questions; As First, p. 38. Whether this Doctrine doth not contradict his Senses? Secondly, Whether it can be proved by his Senses? Third­ly, Whether it be not against the certainty of his [Page 100] Senses? And Lastly, Whether it be not against the Evidence of his Senses? Now because to me these retail'd Questions seem to import much the same thing; I will take the liberty (for the sake of a spee­dier Conclusion) to give my Opinion concerning them in gross.

Before we consider the monstrous Absurdities of this Doctrine, set forth in these four great Questi­ons; it is reasonable that we seriously think with our selves, upon what account this Sensless Doctrine should happen to get such firm footing in the World, as to have spread (in a very short time as our Discourser supposes) over the face of the whole Christian Church: Nay more, That in all probability it might have been universally receiv'd, even at this day, had not the extraordinary Learning, Reason, Sense (and I know not what other qualifications) of John Scotus, Berengarius, Zuinglius, and our Discour­ser, opened the Eyes of poor blinded Christians, and shewn them, how their Senses were lead Captivity Captive by the Jugling tricks, Hocus Pocus, and Cheat of this Doctrine (for so he is pleas'd to call) Tran­substantiation p. 34.

I name not Luther among the great Reformers, as to this Point, for he agrees with Catholics, as to the Real Presence, tho' he differs in the Modus; and with his whole heart Anathematizes and Curses the Do­ctrine of our Discourser (under the name of Zuin­glius) and all his Adherents, Epist. contr. Art. Iovan. Thes. 27. Tom. 2. in these words, We cen­sure in earnest the Zuinglians and all the Sacramenta­ries, for Hereticks, and alienated from the Church of God. And again, Cursed be the Charity, and Concord of the Sacramentaries for ever, and ever, to all Eternity, Tom. Wittemb. fol. 381.

Now upon the best enquiry I could make concern­ing the Establishment of this Doctrine, I found but Four tolerable good Reasons how it came to get so great credit among Christians. The First is, because our Blessed Saviour (who is the Fountain of Wisdom and Truth) did institute this Sacrament in such plain words, as, This is my Body, That no Proposition upon Earth can be made to us in more express and posi­tive Terms. Secondly, Because the Apostles did be­lieve our Saviour spake in earnest, and really meant as he said (at least) if we will believe the aforenam'd Justin Martyr, who tells us, That the Apostles in the Commentaries written by them have recorded that Jesus so commanded. Thirdly, Because all the Ancient Fathers, who have written of the Holy Eucharist, have exprest themselves so fully concerning their firm Belief of the Real Presence in a literal Sense, That I defie Zuinglius and all his Works (allowing me some Sense, or preserving that little which I have) to understand them totally in a figurative Sense. And Lastly, Because General Councils (taking no­tice that some vain-glorious self-conceited Men, had impudently presum'd to interpret those words of our Saviour contrary to the sense of the Apostles, and Primitive Fathers, and practice of the whole Christian Church) had authoritatively decreed, That the Judgment of the blessed Apostles, and holy Fa­thers should be follow'd in this Matter, that is, That the Substance of Bread and Wine, after Consecrati­on, was converted into the Substance of the Body and Blood of Christ; and that the Heresie of these new Upstarts should be condemned, and themselves excommunicated.

Now these Reasons, methinks, might be sufficient [Page 102]to shew that a Doctrine thus instituted, and recom­mended to us, might very probably be generally re­ceived among Men, who own the Authority of the Institutor, and Fidelity of those, who, being Wit­nesses of the Action, have assured us of its meaning.

Nor can I perswade my self there is any Man so prejudiced and uncharitable upon Earth (except those whose Charity Luther curst) as to believe, That so many Learned Men, in such August and Sacred Assemblies, should solemnly, wittingly, and willingly impose upon the World so pernicious, and damnable a Doctrine, if they themselves knew, or could be­lieve that this Doctrine was false: Except some vast, and wonderful temporal Interest should pre­vail with these Fathers, and Doctors (whose reputa­tions have been high in the World) thus dangerous­ly to expose their own Souls, and the Souls of all who belonged to them, or depended upon them, for the obtaining this supposed worldly Satisfa­ction.

A learned Protestant, in his Answer to some Que­ries, seems to have a great respect for General Coun­cils, but tells us, p. 3. 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 suppose Interest in its lar­gest acceptation. But, in the name of God, what Interest is this, for which so much is thus despe­rately engaged? Why truly our Answerer says no­thing to it; But our Discourser, who hath left no Stone unturn'd, but flies at all, tells us at last, p. 30. That it is to magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle. I have already hinted how much these Fathers have been all along mistak­en, [Page 103]if this was their design. But Secondly, from the disproportion between the poorness of the reward, and inestimable price that is paid, even eternal Silva­tion, I might most convincingly argue the impossi­bility of the design, and fix it only in the mean and unworthy thoughts of our trifling Discourser. But that I may clear these holy Fathers, and Councils, beyond all further doubt or dispute; I do affirm this little design to have been so far from their thoughts, that they have constantly declar'd this wonderful transmutation to proceed, not from any power of the Priest, but by the sole Omnipotency of Almighty God. And because our Discourser seems to have some value for St. Augustin, I shall produce his Testimony as it is cited be Consecratione Dist. 2. c. 72. His words are these, In the Mystery of the Body of Christ performed within the holy Church, there is nothing more done by a good Priest, and nothing less by a wicked one; because what is wrought there is not by the Merit of him who Consecrates, but by the word of our Creator, and the power of the Holy Ghost; for if it were by the merit of the Priest, 'twould not at all belong to Christ, &c. If St. Augustin could have prophesied that a malicious Discourser Twelve Hun­dred years after his death should have propos'd such a foolish Cause, to have produc'd so absur'd a Doctrine (in the Language of our Discourser) I know not how he would have answer'd him more pertinently. I shall not trouble you therefore with the Authori­ties of Justin Martyr, Apol. 2. St. Ambr. l. de his qui mist. init. and several other Fathers, together with General Councils, particularly that of Florence, de Sacram. Euch. to the same purpose; but conclude, that the Apostles, Fathers, and Councils, having no [Page 104]design or prospect, of any valuable consideration, for so great a risque, as their Eternal Salvation; must have impos'd this Doctrine upon mankind, either through gross Ignorance, or meer wilful, and devi­lish premeditated Malice: But having no manner of reason to believe the first, and from my heart dete­sting so cursed a thought as the last, we will next consider, what inducements they might have had (from the consideration of Spiritual advantages, arising from thence to the Christian World) to have prest this Doctrine (believing it to be true) with the greater earnestness. And indeed the advantages are very many, and very great. As,

First, That the Eucharist is a pledge of our Salva­tion. Secondly, That we are, not only by Faith, but even Corporally united with Christ. Thirdly, That, in regard of this Union, the Eucharist is a Seal to us of our Resurrection. Fourthly, That through it, we are made partakers of the Divine Nature. Fifthly, That by being thus truly, and really unit­ed with Christ, we cannot be altogether divided from such influences as proceed from Christ. Sixth­ly, That our Faith is encreased proportionable to the difficulties which encompass this Doctrine. Se­venthly, That our Hope is raised hereby to a sublimer pitch; for by the participation of the Body of our Lord, and his Presence in the blessed Eucharist, we anticipate, as it were, the Joys of Heaven, even in our mortal Bodies; Homil. 24. whence St. Chrysostome tells us, that, Dum in hac vita sumus, ut terra nobis coelum sit, facit hoc mysterium. Eightly, That from the Consi­deration of our blessed Saviours Love, who being touched even in the Bowels of Tenderness towards us, left us at his departure, his Sacred Body to nou­rish [Page 105]our Souls and Bodies unto Life Everlasting; we also might return the purest Love and Affection to­ward him, and Charity toward one another, who are thus substantially united by the Communicati­on of this Spiritual Food according to that of S. Paul, 1 Cor. 10. For we being many are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread. And, Ninthly, That it is a Commemoration of our Lords Passion, a Confirmation of his Testament, and a propitiato­ry Sacrifice, not only for the living, but for the dead.

These, and many more weighty Considerations of this kind together with the Testimony of the Fathers, Authority of General Councils, and uni­versal practice of all Christians until these two last Centuries, will enable us I hope to encounter the sup­posed absurdities of our Discourser: We shall en­gage therefore this uncircumcised Philistine, (I mean) this Goliah Argument, with all its boasting train of sensless Questions. And

First, I know not how Philosophy can be much concern'd on either side; for what Philoso­pher will tell me, how the Divine Nature, identifi­ed in the Person of the Father, should be Communi­cated to the Son, without also communicating the Person? Or how the Unity, or Individuality of Na­ture, should be in a diversity of Persons, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance? How in the Mystery of the Incarnation God sepa­rateth from the Humanity of Christ, his manner of subsistence, inserting it in his Divinity? How the Son should be Consubstantial, and Co-eternal with the Father? How something may be made out of nothing, and that something reduc'd again to nothing? How Eternity, which is instans durationis [Page 106]non fluens, an instant of duration, may be demon­strated to subsist without respect to time past, or time to come? How God Almighty, who is one simple, and indivisible Being, should be at once sub­stantially present in all places, and things? A Myste­ry so inexplicable, that it forced St. Augustin to say, Miratur hoc Mens humana, & quia non capit, fortasse 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 same time in the whole Body, and in every part of it; Or how the Nee­dle, which is our Common Guide through the paths of the deep, should point always towards the North; or if sometimes it varies, whence should proceed its variation? When Philosophy hath ex­plain'd all these, with many more hitherto invincible Difficulties, I make no doubt, but She will then free also Transubstantiation from the Calumny of our Discoursers monstrous Absurdities.

In the mean time, that we may the better deal with them, we shall divide them into such as seem to appear so, First to Reason, and Secondly to Sense.

For the First, our Discourser seems to have been modest, since of a thousand insinuated; he is pleased to name but two, First, the gross contradiction of the same Body being in so many several places at once; And Secondly of our Saviours giving away himself with his own hands, and yet keeping himself to himself, p. 37. The latter hath received a particular Answer from S. Augustin in his Comment upon Psal. 33. as hath been already shewn, and I shall not presume to mend it. Nor, will this Fathers own quodammodo, in another place; or that of Bedes upon the same Psal. 33. help [Page 107]him in the least; for all Catholics willingly accept the word and most justly interpret it to be modo Spirituali, which manner they all profess and teach.

But for the First, which as much concerns the Real Presence (a Doctrine own'd by Bishop An­drews, and the Church of England, and at present by all Lutherans) as Transubstantiation believ'd by Catholics, I shall speak of That, and the rest of his Questions about Sense (which are common Obje­ctions in all Protestant Authors against this Subject) when I come to the Conclusion, to which I hasten.

Our Discourser hath one Argument more to coun­tenance the Novelty of Transubstantiation, which, being more particularly urg'd by himself than some others, I shall endeavour to give a reasonable An­swer to it, and so take my leave of him, until we meet again in the Conclusion, backt with the Obje­ctions of some other late Authors, which are com­mon to them all.

He tells us, p. 26. That the first-rise of this Do­ctrine 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 says) was the most likely of all others, it being by the consent of their own Histo­rians, the most dark and dismal time, that ever happened to the Christian Church both for Ignorance, and Supersti­tion and Vice. And then illustrates all this by the Parable of the Tares, which he conceives the Ene­my might have sown in so dark and long a night. The Conjecture is very plausible until it be well con­sider'd, and then (I am perswaded) his Argument will not only vanish, but be turn'd against himself (as many others have been) with no small advantage to our Cause.

I readily grant, that some part of the time assign­ed by him for the introducing of this Doctrine, was dismal enough, upon those three accounts mentioned by him: But I also affirm, That such a Doctrine could never have met men in Circumstan­ces more contrary and averse to its establishment, than to be thus overwhelmed with Ignorance, Su­perstition and Vice. And first for Ignorance, It is Evident to all Mankind (and therefore the more strongly Objected against us by our Discourser, and all Protestants) That Transubstantiation is a Do­ctrine which highly contradicts our Common Senses. Now as such, the abuses of it, must needs have been, First, most notoriously visible to the most Vulgar and illiterate, for they (seldom looking further into things than the Common appearances) would certainly have taken the first, and strongest Alarm, upon the Proposition only, of so new, and insupportably sense­less a Doctrine (as our Discourser calls it) if they had not from Age to Age, suckt it in with their first nourishment, and seen it so universally receiv'd, that they no more consider'd the consequences of it, than they did those of some other Mysteries of their Re­ligion, which they equally alike received as matter of Faith from the Authority and veracity of their Spiritual Guides, and Governours.

But when as Berengarius (about the Tenth Centu­ry) was bold enough to teach, and write against it, shewing the strong difficulties which he thought en­compast it; we then see a Party of the Vulgar com­ing in to him apace, whilst nevertheless, the Lear­ned, Disc. of the Holy Euch. p. 31. from many parts of the World, judiciously and strenuously oppos'd him. The same thing may be observed from the Waldenses, whose Ring-leader [Page 109] Waldo, a most illiterate Merchant of Lions (as all Historians confess) procured also a miserable Crew, who, from their poverty were ignominiously call'd, the poor Men of Lions; and their Posterity fixt themselves among the Barbarous and ignorant Mountancers, about, and upon the Alpes, who have remained obstinate Opposers of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation, even unto this present Age. The last Instance I shall give, is of the Wicklissists, Ibid. who following in a great measure the Doctrines of Berengarius, and some other Heresies, had got toge­ther two Hundred Thousand of the Rabble, who with Rebellious Arms in their Hands, had well nigh reduc'd the King himself to the last extremities: However his Heresies were condemn'd by the learned­er part of the Universities, as far as the Circum­stances of those distracted times would permit, and the interest which (upon some other account) Wick­liff himself had gotten in the Duke of Lancaster, and some other Persons of Quality. The same might be said of the Hussites, Ibid. and many more too long to mention, who became irreconcileable Ene­mies to this Doctrine. Whence it is most Evi­dent, even by undeniable matter of Fact, that the Establishment of Transubstantiation; could hope for no advantage from an ignorant Age; since the igno­rant have been the first, and greatest Opposers of it, and the most Learned Men, generally its Defen­ders.

Neither Secondly, can a vitious Generation possi­bly be favourers of this Doctrine: For, whether it be true, or false, yet whilst it is believed to be true, it is certainly the greatest promoter of Piety, and Devotion, of any Article (it may be) in the Christi­an [Page 110]Religion: For when we consider, That Christ was not only pleas'd once to die, but to become also a daily Sacrifice for us, and to offer his very Body to us, for the nourishment of our Souls and Bodies un­to Everlasting Life; How is it possible that Men should be less sensible of Gods great Goodness to­wards us, and our own unexpressible Love and Duty towards him, believing this Doctrine to be true, than not believing it at all? Vice therefore could have no hand, either in the contriving, or setling so pious, so venerable, and so comfortable a Do­ctrine.

Lastly, let us consider whether Superstition could probably have introduc'd this supposed damnable Error. I cannot deny that Superstition is it self an Error, yet totally inconsistent with what we call formal Vice; for it is rather an Erroneous excess in Devotion, and is the effect of an unreasonable fear; at least, if we will believe Mr. Hobs, who thus distin­guisheth it from Atheism. Superstitio (says he) à metu sine recta ratione: Atheismus à rationis opinione sine metu proficiscitur: So that altho it be an Error, yet it is such a one, as is accompanied with fear; whereas Vice proceeds from a want of that due fear, which we ought to have of Gods Justice, and the punishment due from thence to our Sins: And by consequence Superstition and Vice can never meet (according to our Discoursers acceptation of Vice) together in this place.

Thus I have endeavoured to shew, by the plain, natural consequences of Ignorance, Superstition and Vice, that they could not have given any encourage­ment to impose a Doctrine, which hath ever been the Subject of the most Learned Pens, in magnify­ing, [Page 111]or explaining its Mystery; and in its Practice, one of the greatest advancers of a vertuous, and a holy Life.

But having already frankly confest, that Ignorance and Vice reigned more powerfully during some part of those Centuries, than (it may be) in any others since, or before; let us now (complying with our Discoursers Historical account concerning the tem­per of those times) examine what real effect they might have had upon this great Article of Faith, Transubstantiation.

Let us then Suppose (what I hope is sufficiently proved) that this Doctrine had been implicitely be­liev'd from the Apostles days: It is then confest by our Discourser, that about the Eighth and Ninth Century, some Men began to write copiously for, and against it, and also down to the Eleventh and Twelfth. And here, whilst we truly lament, so must we justly apply the Vice, and Ignorance of those unhappy times, to the great scandals, and diffi­culties under which that Apostolic Doctrine lies, e­ven in our own Age.

The Vices of some, and affected Noveltie of o­thers, might probably have induced some well meaning Men to write concerning this great Myste­ry; but whilst nothing had been Authoritatively de­termin'd concerning (what they call) the Modus, or manner of Christs Real Presence in the Sacrament; some, by endeavouring to explain it, made the Text (by their private Notions) become ten times more obscure than before: Other good Men, build­ing still upon the first false Foundation (I mean Comment) and endeavouring to maintain a ground which was not firm at Bottom, The Council of [Page 112] Trent most judiciously, and (if I may say) divinely Decreed (what some call the Modus) Transubstan­tiation; and that in such admirable terms, and words, that I am convinc'd the Divine Wisdom in the thing determined, exceeded the Natural Know­ledge of the persons determining: But no sooner were the Canons established, and this Council dis­solv'd; but some Men (in Opposition to these He­resies which have disturb'd the Church ever since) fell to work again in explaining these holy Myste­ries; but nothing having been explicitely decreed in this Council, more than what had been always im­plicitely believ'd before; they generally kept to for­mer Notions, and instead of reconciling this Divine Truth to Sense, to Reason, and to the Word of God, have made it almost incompatible with all three; whilst nevertheless the Doctrine it self remains in­violably true, and against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail. Thus we see how Vice and Ig­norance may have accidentally introduc'd an erro­neous Explication, but could not possibly have ad­mitted the Doctrine it self (much less the Com­ment) had it been guilty of so much Novelty as it is accus'd of, by our Discourser.

Having thus finisht (with all plainness and sinceri­ty) my Remarks upon such particular Objections as he hath offer'd against this Doctrine of Transub­stantiation; I must now reassume the Consideration of our late Answerer, and some others, who have emptied their whole Quivers of sharpest (tho fruit­less) Arguments against an Article of Faith, se­curely placed by the Promises and Providence of the Almighty, far above the reach of humane Ma­lice, or Power.

First, our Answerer hath a particular Notion, and (very ingeniously) hath made a Parallel between many Circumstances in the Institution of the Jewish Passover, (or rather the Memorial of it) and that of the Sacrament of the Lords Supper: And indeed, could he have reconciled the plain literal Institution of the Passover, with his figurative expression in the Sacrament, he had gon somewhat farther towards the Point he aim'd at; But if we take them both in a literal sense (and so in reason the Parallel ought to run) Alas! his consequence is confound­ed, and all his Parallels come to little or nothing. But granting him the benefit of his Clerkship, and Reading, in its utmost Latitude, will this save him? truly I think not, for these Reasons. First, it hath been the received Opinion of all Parties, that the Jewish Passover, was a Type of the Chri­stian Sacrament, and my self was present when a Learned Bishop of Ro­chester. Bishop made a whole Sermon before the late King at White Hall upon this Supposition: If so, how comes it then to pass, that this Type or Figure should be no more than a Figure of a Figure? It was what the Fathers could not endure to hear. But, Secondly, according to our Authors Parallel, the Sacrament is no more (at most) than a Figure (of the Memorial, that is) of the Figure, of this Figure (that is) the Passover. But in truth it appears not clear to me, that the eating of unleavened Bread, had any particular relation to the Passover it self; but that they were the Memorials of two distinct, and different actions: The one, That God did Pass over, or spare the Children of Israel, when he slew the Children of the Egyptians: The other, That God brought them forth out of the Land of Egypt, which [Page 114]is thus fully exprest in Exod. 13. v. 8. and 9. And thou shalt shew thy Son in that day, saying, This is done because of that which the Lord did unto me when I came forth out of Egypt: And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the Lords Law may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the Lord brought thee out of Egypt. This our Author confesseth himself in his Introduction, p. 4. and it is again set forth in Exod. c. 12.

If this be so, (and with submission I am apt to be­lieve it is) what then becomes of our Answerers Pa­rallels? Since now they have no relation to the Passo­ver, or Paschal Lamb? Why, since they lie thus fair for us, we will presume to make use of them, to prove still further the undoubted Truth of the Ca­tholic Doctrine.

The Body of Christ then in the Sacrament, is the Substance signified by the Paschal Lamb, which was a Figure of it; by means of which holy Sacrifice, God is pleased to spare us, and pass over us, as he did the Children of Israel, and take us into his par­ticular Protection.

The Elements, Symbols, or Accidents, may be the Substances signified by the unleavened Bread, and (among other significations) are the Memorials of our deliverance from the bondage of Sin and Satan. Thus the Parallels run right upon all four, and when our Answerer shall have better consider'd of it, possibly he may not think so well of what he calls, almost a Demonstration, Introd. p. 6.

The next Remark from our Answerers Discourse, is this, That he hath brought several Learned Ca­tholics (professedly remaining such) not only, not [Page 115]to have believed, but also to have written against Transubstantiation. If this be really true (as I per­ceive he imagines it is) then surely (if their Judg­ments were no greater than their Honesty) their Testi­monies will not do him much honor; for, to profess a Doctrine of that Importance, and yet not to be­lieve it, must unavoidably convince the World, that they were false, interested, hypocritical Knaves; and in this Character 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 English Real Presence, Consubstan­tiation, Impanation, Zuingli [...]s [...], or any thing, ra­ther than Transubstantiation: And had he been ho­nest and sincere, he should have produc'd the Au­thorities of the same Fathers plainly asserting what he would make them deny; and have reconcll'd them to his Interpretation, if he could.

But Secondly, we have nothing but his word for the truth of his Protestant Relics, now if we should ridicule those as most probably he hath done some Popish Relics, which he might have met withal in his Travels, I know not how he will help himself; we shall have reason to question his own Sincerity, as immediately shall be shewn.

Thirdly, It is a great question, whether all these Eminent persons whom he hath named, did really deny the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self, or rather, some particular manner among the School. Men of explaining it; which is a considerable difference, and may render them totally excusa­ble.

And Lastly, it is Evident, That some of these persons did certainly believe the Doctrine it self, [Page 116]and moreover, have explain'd it most conforma­ble to the Canons of the Council of Trent: And First, Monsieur de Marca, the Learned Arch-bishop of Paris (taking our Answerers own Account in his Preface, p. 13.) hath given an admirable Expli­cation of it, and however Mr. de Baluze, or the Sorbon Doctors might misunderstand him, my O­pinion as there set down is much the same with Monsieur de Marca's; and in the Conclusion, I shall endeavour to make it consistent with Scripture, the Fathers, and General Councils, and most agree­able to Sense and Reason. The same I believe of Cardinal Perron, rather than make him such a Vil­lain as Drelincourt (a profest Enemy) hath repre­sented him to the Lantgrave of Hesse. Our An­swerer, for want of a right understanding, mi­stakes Monsieur de Meaux, and others, whose Re­putations he hath ignorantly (not to say malici­ously) endeavour'd to blast, which if it were much to my present purpose, I would further make ap­pear.

The last particular which I shall observe (for o­thers who shall think it worth their pains may en­large if they please) is his great disingenuity, and partiality in his Answer to the Learned Oxford Dis­courser, concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Holy Sacrament. The Discourser proposeth (and one would think with very good Reason) That Catholics (here our Answerer tells us, P. 99. he means Papists still, and this he childishly re­peats so often, that it is ten times more insuppor­table, than the Crambe bis cocta, or Cabbage twice boil'd which (the Poet says) was so nautious to the Masters). The Discourser, I say, proposeth, That Ca­tholics, [Page 117]grounding their adoration not upon Transubstan­tiation, but on a Real Presence with the Symbols, which in general is agreed on by the Lutherans, together with them, ought to be freed from Idolatry therein, as well as the Lutherans. What says the Answerer? That if by this assertion, he means only to make this dis­covery, That Christs Real Presence, together with the Substance of the Bread and Wine, is, in his Opinion as good a ground for Adoration, as if he mere there only with the Species of the Bread, the Substance being changed into his Body: I have no more to say it. Here then he grants it, for the one is as good as the o­ther. But if (he goes on) he would hereby make us believe, That 'tis all one whether Christ be adored, as supposed here by the Lutherans in this holy Eucha­rist, and as imagined there by the Papists; P. 100. I must then deny his Assertion: What ill luck is this — but why? Truly because the one offers more violence to the Senses, than the other. I could wish our Answerer would offer less violence to his own, and his Readers Senses; for what have Senses to do with an equal supposition of Christs Invisible Pre­sence, tho after a different manner? For Instance, Suppose one man should adore Christ under a Veil, believing, that, that which Supported the Veil, was the real Natural Body of Christ; the other, equally ador'd Christ under the some Veil, but upon the Supposition, that Christs Natural Body was under it, or with it, but together with some other Substance which totally Supported this Veil, would not any Man judge that the first is (at least) as excusable as the latter?

But Secondly, He tells us, That the Lutheran do undoubtedly right in the object, and in that he is not [Page 118]mistaken; But the Papist (altho' he terminates his Adoration upon the same Object, Christ, as suppos­ed really Present, and no otherwise would adore, yet) he is mistaken; so the one, only adores Christ as in a place where he is not, the other as in a thing in which he is not; and this makes the vast diffe­rence. A difference there is, I confess, for one a­dores nothing for Christ; the other, Christ believed in, or under something; but both upon the same Supposition, of Christs Invisible Presence, and this is the State of the Case in Short. The question is, Whether they be both equally excusable or guilty of Idolatry? Here the Answerer passeth Sentence clear­ly against the Papist; but had he writ less, and closer, he would not surely have so easily forgot what himself (from Bishop Taylor) was pleas'd to urge in p. 68. Where he lays it down for a Rule (and gives reasons for it) That to worship Christ where he is not, is to worship nothing, a Non Ens, which must needs be Idolatry. Well, but still it may be the Bishop, (says the Answerer) does not in­tend to exclude the Corpus Domini, but only the Cor­poral, or Natural manner of that Body: Let us there­fore hear how he goes on; P. 69. for Idolum nihil est in Mundo, saith St. Paul, and Christ as Present by his Humane Nature in the Sacrament (or with the Sa­crament) is a Non Ens: For it is not true; there is no such thing. What (says the Answerer) not as Christ there, no way as to his Humane Nature? No, he is (saith the Bishop) present there, by his Divine Power, and his Divine Blessing, &c. But for any other Presence, it is Idolum; It is nothing in the World. It seems then, to worship nothing for Christ, in the Bishops Judgment (produc'd [Page 119]by the Answerer) is Idolatry; The Question is on­ly concerning Idolatry, therefore sure both are equally culpable, or equally innocent of that Crime. What a deal of Stuff then hath our Answe­rer heapt up, to no other purpose, than to snew himself a partial Scribler? Let him not be offen­ded then, if I most justly apply to himself, what he produces in reference to another; P. 96. That for a Book which carried a great appearance of Reasoning, it hath the least in it of any I ever met with. But I leave the Learned Oxford Discourser, to manage his own Defence against this Answerer, if he shall think it worthy of a thought.

The last publick Enemy to Transubstantiation that I shall mention, is, The Defender of the Dub­lin Letter. I must confess he seems to be a Man of Learning and Judgment, tho equally unknown to me as the rest; but because his Defence de­pends chiefly upon the Authorities of Fathers, whose Sense (I humbly conceive) he mistakes, or misapplies; I shall endeavour to reconcile them, in the Conclusion, to other expressions of the Fa­thers, and all, to the Catholic Doctrine of Transub­stantiation.

Thus, Reverend Fathers, I have made such par­ticular Remarks upon these Authors against Tran­substantiation as I thought necessary toward the clearing our way to the right understanding of that great Mystery; and if I have said ought which might hitherto offend you, or them, I know not how to ask your Pardons; for as (being igno­rant of their Persons) I can have no malice to­wards them; so when I find Men writing magi­sterially, [Page 120]and pragmatically against Learned Men, and Christian Doctrines, when (as I believe) they are themselves in the wrong, I thought it a part of my Duty, to present the Glass, to them that by seeing how ill their Reflections appear, they might call to mind that admirable Rule of Justice and Equity, Quod tibi non vis fieri, alteri ne feceris.